The climate change debate continues.

[octave]

Think about why.

Yes it is worth delving into the detail

 

FactCheck: does South Australia have the 'highest energy prices' in the nation and 'the least reliable grid'?

 

The assertion the main driver of higher electricity prices is purely due to renewables is a bit of a stretch. I have read the report from the ACCC on electricity prices.

 

https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Retail%20Electricity%20Pricing%20Inquiry%E2%80%94Final%20Report%20June%202018_Exec%20summary.pdf

 

[ATTACH]50230._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

I am not saying it has no effect but it is one of many factors.

 

[Litespeed]

I really doubt they would care about ensuring the public get the water.

 

The atomic plant will take complete priority. Naturally they will claim it is to ensure safe operation, true. But you can bet that any water available will cost gold.

 

You only have to look at the Murray- Darling system. Nothing matters not the life of the river, not the ecosystem s around it, not humans or even farmers.

 

Unless you are big cotton with LNP mates.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

... the Darwin bombers came from Rabaul...

Bruce I believe the first raids on Darwin were launched mainly from the carriers that had recently attacked Pearl Harbour. There were also bases in West Timor. I agree with the rest of your post.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Ryan Maue is a research meteorologist. He has developed and maintained a popular weather maps and climate data service based on the world’s best numerical weather prediction systems. During his graduate studies at Florida State University, he researched extratropical and tropical cyclones, utilizing mesoscale models and large reanalysis datasets, and published multiple peer-reviewed articles. After his PhD in 2010, Maue was awarded a National Research Council postdoctoral associateship at the Naval Research Lab in Monterey, California where he focused on global weather prediction and verification.[ATTACH]50233._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[Bruce]

Why does a nuclear plant need so much water? I reckon you could recirculate the water through cooling ponds. And in Sweden, I think they use sea-water for cooling.

 

Maybe the cooling water is another furfy designed to stop us having a go at what should be cheap electricity. Alas I agree that profiteers would step in and make the electricity as expensive as they could get away with.

 

Bring on a decent cheap battery so we can all live off the grid.

 

 

[facthunter]

Brine is too corrosive. Reduces life of the components. Convert your extra (surplus) solar and wind to hydrogen.. It will come. Nev

 

 

[octave]

Brine is too corrosive. Reduces life of the components. Convert your extra (surplus) solar and wind to hydrogen.. It will come. Nev

This is being done in the Orkney Isle at the moment. They often generate more than 100% of their needs from renewables the excess is used to generate hydrogen. It may be too slow things are changing. I am hoping we are approaching a tipping point with new technologies.

 

 

[Bruce]

Wonderful stuff in Orkney, but how much is it subsidized? I reckon a bit of subsidy is ok, but if the amount is too much then Orkney is just an experimental station.

 

For years, I thought that producing hydrogen was great in theory but had such a low efficiency that it was poor in practice. Then you guys on this forum told me differently. Gosh I hope the world has enough time to do this kind of hydrogen economy before the few survivors are back to living like aborigines used to.

 

 

[Bruce]

And you are right Old K about the first attack on Darwin coming from carriers.

 

I'm amazed at how little we kids were told in the 1950's about any of this history... I grew up thinking that there was only one air raid on Australia, now I know it was many.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

And you are right Old K about the first attack on Darwin coming from carriers.I'm amazed at how little we kids were told in the 1950's about any of this history... I grew up thinking that there was only one air raid on Australia, now I know it was many.

There were about sixty air raids. The full story of the first one (19-2-42) was suppressed, most probably because of the poor behaviour of so many Aussies, particularly military officers.

 

 

[octave]

Wonderful stuff in Orkney, but how much is it subsidized?

There is a lot of economic support coming in for various projects. Orkney is a bit of a testbed. Although I am enthusiastic about renewables we can't just shut down every fossil fuel power plant overnight. I think it is entirely reasonable for businesses and government to test new ideas. Not many new technologies appear that are ready to go, cheaper and better from day one. early cars were expensive and probably less efficient than horses but the potential was recognized, governments built roads and highways. I suspect that many would have considered Wright brothers first flights as little more than a gimmick, however, at some stage smart people realized these craft could be used to carry mail (somewhat unreliably at first) and supported the idea.

 

Breakthroughs in technology happen because people see the potential and are willing to back a fledgeling technology. A lot of renewable technologies are reaching maturity and it is interesting to see as governments wind back subsidies these large scale renewable projects continue to be built.

 

New ideas can often be challenging. As an example, I have yet to meet someone who has had a drive of an EV and did not like it but mention EVs to many people and they come out with the usual tired old myths.

 

If suddenly anthropomorphic climate change was debunked I don't think we would suddenly tear down wind farms or solar power stations. Digging up coal or oil in one part of the world and transporting around the world to another country (also using fossil fuels) can not be the ultimate solution to our energy needs. There is no shortage of energy, the challenge is to turn that energy into electricity.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"can't just shut down every fossil fuel power plant overnight. I think it is entirely reasonable for businesses and government to test new ideas. Not many new technologies appear that are ready to go, "

 

The last "ice-age was the result of an asteroid impact.

 

IF

 

The next one is as big, the NEW solar panel & wind farms will be useless, in the NEW ice-age,

 

Coal transport will come to a stand still,

 

Then

 

Only the nuclear plants will keep running, ( long time before running out of fuel )

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

Ryan Maue is a research meteorologist. He has developed and maintained a popular weather maps and climate data service based on the world’s best numerical weather prediction systems. During his graduate studies at Florida State University, he researched extratropical and tropical cyclones, utilizing mesoscale models and large reanalysis datasets, and published multiple peer-reviewed articles. After his PhD in 2010, Maue was awarded a National Research Council postdoctoral associateship at the Naval Research Lab in Monterey, California where he focused on global weather prediction and verification.[ATTACH=full]4267[/ATTACH]

Ryan Maue is a research meteorologist. He has developed and maintained a popular weather maps and climate data service based on the world’s best numerical weather prediction systems. During his graduate studies at Florida State University, he researched extratropical and tropical cyclones, utilizing mesoscale models and large reanalysis datasets, and published multiple peer-reviewed articles. After his PhD in 2010, Maue was awarded a National Research Council postdoctoral associateship at the Naval Research Lab in Monterey, California where he focused on global weather prediction and verification.[ATTACH=full]4267[/ATTACH]

 

It is important to actually know what the science says rather than more exaggerated notions of the popular press. I am guessing that you have posted this to suggest that it disproves the whole theory.

 

I usually try to avoid posting graphs etc disconnected from its source and the information that goes with it. I accept the accuracy of this graph (as far as I can tell) but I could also post this graph which is about a specific region (The North Atlantic)

 

[ATTACH]50234._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

However, to present this graph on it's own would be cherry-picking. Let's look at what the science has to say as opposed to what people think the science says So what does the IPCC say?

 

.

 

Have Hurricanes Increased in Number?

 

While there may seem to be a growing number of hurricanes snatching headlines each year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not see a general global trend toward increasing hurricane frequency over the past century. The exception is the North Atlantic, which the United Nations body notes has seen an increase in the frequency and intensity of its hurricanes—though as some researchers note, the uptick may be due in part to improvements in monitoring. Looking forward, the IPCC projects that while there might be a slight decrease in hurricane frequency through 2100, the storms that do make landfall are more likely to be intense—category 4 or 5—with more rain and wind.

 

From the Centre for climate and energy solutions:

 

"Although scientists are uncertain whether climate change will lead to an increase in the number of hurricanes, warmer ocean temperatures and higher sea levels are expected to intensify their impacts.

 

 

 

Recent analyses conclude that the strongest hurricanes occurring in some regions including the North Atlantic have increased in intensity over the past two to three decades. For the continental United States in the Atlantic Basin, models project a 45-87 percent increase in the frequency of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes despite a possible decrease in the frequency of storms."

 

The point is one can trawl around the net to find things that support our preconceived position. All I can do as a rational human is read a lot. I don't have the means to perform my own science so therefore all I can do is go to is to look at a piece of evidence and then to see if this evidence is supported by other reputable individuals or organisations. If I find that the data gathered by and interpreted by NASA seems to broadly agree with the data and interpretation by ESA, JAXA, CSIRO British academy of science (the full list is too long to type).

 

It is important to be self-critical when it comes to our beliefs and opinions. As someone who enjoys flying a fossil fuel-powered plane and who likes to travel by air, it would suit my purposes to be in denial about the damage caused by what I do. I guess I am progressive in that I am enthusiastic about technological progress so I do have to be careful not to let my enthusiasm for new technology not feed into my beliefs about energy production and the need for progress. What about you? I understand that you are involved in minerals consultancy, do you think plays any part in your opinion?

 

PM I am quite curious as to when you started to doubt the theory or have you always doubted it?

 

[octave]

"can't just shut down every fossil fuel power plant overnight. I think it is entirely reasonable for businesses and government to test new ideas. Not many new technologies appear that are ready to go, "The last "ice-age was the result of an asteroid impact.

 

IF

 

The next one is as big, the NEW solar panel & wind farms will be useless, in the NEW ice-age,

 

Coal transport will come to a stand still,

 

Then

 

Only the nuclear plants will keep running, ( long time before running out of fuel )

 

spacesailor

If coal transport will come to a standstill then why would uranium ore transport not also come to a standstill? Sure they only need to be refuelled every year or so but they don't run forever and need significant management.

 

By the way, we also wouldn't be able to grow food so it probably would game over anyway

 

 

[pmccarthy]

It is important to actually know what the science says rather than more exaggerated notions of the popular press. I am guessing that you have posted this to suggest that it disproves the whole theory.

I usually try to avoid posting graphs etc disconnected from its source and the information that goes with it. I accept the accuracy of this graph (as far as I can tell) but I could also post this graph which is about a specific region (The North Atlantic)

 

[ATTACH=full]4268[/ATTACH]

 

However, to present this graph on it's own would be cherry-picking. Let's look at what the science has to say as opposed to what people think the science says So what does the IPCC say?

 

.

 

Have Hurricanes Increased in Number?

 

While there may seem to be a growing number of hurricanes snatching headlines each year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not see a general global trend toward increasing hurricane frequency over the past century. The exception is the North Atlantic, which the United Nations body notes has seen an increase in the frequency and intensity of its hurricanes—though as some researchers note, the uptick may be due in part to improvements in monitoring. Looking forward, the IPCC projects that while there might be a slight decrease in hurricane frequency through 2100, the storms that do make landfall are more likely to be intense—category 4 or 5—with more rain and wind.

 

From the Centre for climate and energy solutions:

 

"Although scientists are uncertain whether climate change will lead to an increase in the number of hurricanes, warmer ocean temperatures and higher sea levels are expected to intensify their impacts.

 

Recent analyses conclude that the strongest hurricanes occurring in some regions including the North Atlantic have increased in intensity over the past two to three decades. For the continental United States in the Atlantic Basin, models project a 45-87 percent increase in the frequency of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes despite a possible decrease in the frequency of storms."

 

The point is one can trawl around the net to find things that support our preconceived position. All I can do as a rational human is read a lot. I don't have the means to perform my own science so therefore all I can do is go to is to look at a piece of evidence and then to see if this evidence is supported by other reputable individuals or organisations. If I find that the data gathered by and interpreted by NASA seems to broadly agree with the data and interpretation by ESA, JAXA, CSIRO British academy of science (the full list is too long to type).

 

It is important to be self-critical when it comes to our beliefs and opinions. As someone who enjoys flying a fossil fuel-powered plane and who likes to travel by air, it would suit my purposes to be in denial about the damage caused by what I do. I guess I am progressive in that I am enthusiastic about technological progress so I do have to be careful not to let my enthusiasm for new technology not feed into my beliefs about energy production and the need for progress. What about you? I understand that you are involved in minerals consultancy, do you think plays any part in your opinion?

 

PM I am quite curious as to when you started to doubt the theory or have you always doubted it?

I guess I have always doubted it. I studied geology under Ian Plimer! I am a geoscientist and engineer who spent my whole career in the mining industry, a lot of time looking at the economics of minerals. I am certainly not pro-coal and look forward to the day when we have truly sustainable energy. But we should not destroy our economy in Australia for little or no benefit when you look at the global situation and what other countries are doing. And setting an example, if that is the aim, does not benefit Australians. So I am skeptical of claims about warming and I find a large number of geologists agree. The warming trend, ocean rising and so on are all part of natural variation if you consider periods longer than a generation or two. Every day I read nonsensical alarmist stories in the press.

 

For example, last Saturday the Age ran a story about beach erosion at Mount Martha. They published a map showing 60-70 m lateral beach loss since 1957, and attributed it to rising seas and global warming. I happen to know a bit about that situation, and it is typical beach erosion as seen anywhere, like Surfers Paradise. To get 6-70 m lateral you would need 300-400mm of rise! And these stories appear all the time.

 

I subscribe to New Scientist, which accepts anthropogenic climate change, and I read all the articles every week. But they are not convincing. I also seek out studies by geoscientists who are not funded by the climate change machine. There are many such studies. But if I point to them, or post them in places such as here, there is either no considered response or an attack using the pejorative term denier, which aims to link skepticism to holocaust denial. I hasten to add that some posters here, and Octave you are among them, try to foster genuine debate and I appreciate that.

 

The whole alarmist edifice is based on computer models which, by their very nature, are unverifiable. Like many other people who have worked with complex computer models i know that the outcome depends on the assumptions and you can tweak them to get any result you seek. I have a deep distrust of the IPCC as it is purely a political beast. If I was President of an island in Oceana I would be screaming about rising seas too, and demanding millions from Australia. Thats just politics.

 

 

[octave]

Interestingly although CO2 is generally increasing there are 19 countries whose emissions have fallen whilst their economies have continued to grow. Perhaps the direst warnings of the effects of climate change are as exaggerated as the direst warnings of what may happen if we decarbonise our economy. I don't think any of these countries economies have been ruined as far as I can see.

 

"Most countries are contributing to the increase in global fossil CO₂ emissions. However, 19 countries representing 20% of the global emissions, showed declining trends in emissions in the past decade (2008-17) while their economies continued to grow. These countries are - Aruba, Barbados, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, the UK, the US, and Uzbekistan."

 

Carbon emissions will reach 37 billion tonnes in 2018, a record high

 

 

[willedoo]

And you are right Old K about the first attack on Darwin coming from carriers.I'm amazed at how little we kids were told in the 1950's about any of this history... I grew up thinking that there was only one air raid on Australia, now I know it was many.

'Darwin Spitfires' by Anthony Cooper is a good book to read. Maybe not the whole story, but relates the history of the Spitfire squadrons doing the intercepts on the Japanese bombing raids.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"Nuclear power plants operated at full capacity more than 92% of the time in 2018—making it the most reliable energy source in America. That’s about 1.5 to 2 times more reliable as natural gas (58%) and coal (54%) plants, and roughly 2.5 to 3.5 times more reliable than wind (37%) and solar (26%) plants. And Nuclear power plants are designed to run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week because they require less maintenance and can operate for longer stretches before refueling (typically every 1.5 or 2 years). "

 

"Nuclear energy provided 55% of America’s carbon-free electricity in 2018, making it by far the largest domestic source of clean energy.

 

Nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases while generating electricity."

 

A couple of years in an Ice-age would at least give humanity time to adjust to a New life under the snow.

 

Just grabbed off "Dr Google".

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

A couple of years in an Ice-age would at least give humanity time to adjust to a New life under the snow.

Agriculture?

 

 

[spacesailor]

Chemical processed meat & three veg.

 

Mushrooms & Litchen

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

'Darwin Spitfires' by Anthony Cooper is a good book to read. Maybe not the whole story, but relates the history of the Spitfire squadrons doing the intercepts on the Japanese bombing raids.

I liked the part where a Spitfire pilot would shove everything into the top left hand corner when surprised. Rudder and stick. The Spit would roll and spin left in a way that could not be followed.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...The whole alarmist edifice is based on computer models which, by their very nature, are unverifiable...

I sure hope those computer models are never verified, because by then it will be too late.

 

Some of the evidence I've seen in recent years - particularly regarding melting permafrost and the release of massive quantities of methane- should make any sane person alarmed.

 

PM I appreciate your thoughtful, courteous posts on this topic, but the stakes are too high for us to get it wrong.

 

If you are right, what will Australia have lost? We will have phased out an industry that already had enough toxic effects and sped up the shift to clean renewables. Properly managed, this transition should boost our economy and reduce our dependence on foreign energy.

 

If the deniers are wrong and we do nothing...our whole civilization will be in greater peril than was Rome in 400 AD.

 

 

[robinsm]

Why has no one mentioned the clean coal argument. The burning of fossil fuels these days in power stations leaves only water vapoour coming out the chimney. Not CO2 etc as in the past, Burned coal gasses can be captured, processed and used etc.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Because "clean coal" is like a unicorn or an 18yo virgin in Bridgewater. It doesn't exist.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Bridgewater in Tassie, I assume. The inhabitants of Bridgewater on Loddon are much more respectable. And they have a nice bakery.