The climate change debate continues.

[Bruce]

When I was wiring remote aboriginal outstations for computers in their classrooms, I looked very carefully at providing solar and wind plus storage batteries to replace the diesel stations with their fly-in attendants.

 

Bugger the figures just didn't add up to make this viable, but that was 17 years ago and things will have changed. 

 

One thing which has changed is that aborigines are being moved into Alice Springs because the cost of providing services like electricity to outstations is too high.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Here's a link for you.

 

It's an easy read.

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/

 

From a trustworthy source (unless you think that the Smithsonian has been bribed by the Greenies).

 

 

[octave]

Bugger the figures just didn't add up to make this viable, but that was 17 years ago and things will have changed. 

 

 

 

As an illustration of how prices have fallen, I designed and installed a 12 volt system for my remote off grid house.  In 1990 I purchased 60 watt panels for $595 each, that was a lot of money back then. I note now that a 60 watt panel, if you could be bothered with such a low output panel will cost you $156 and $511 will buy you at 360 watt panel. I cant remember the battery price but I suspect there has been a large price drop also.

 

 

[spacesailor]

The price is always $3,500, from all those installer's.

 

Looking a bit like collusion, no undercutting to get a bit of extra work.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Death of a Glacier:  In a publicity stunt in August, green groups mourned the passing of a glacier in Iceland. Breitbart reports that David Gunnlaugsson, Iceland’s prime minister from 2013 to 2016, thought differently about the passing:“’Our climate changes, but humans adapt. Instead of scaremongering, we should approach this situation on a scientific and rational basis,’ Gunnlaugsson writes in the latest issue of the Spectator.

 

"When the glaciers were expanding, laying waste to what had previously been green meadows and farmlands, the people who lost their homes would hardly have been grief-stricken by the thought that one day that trend might be reversed,’ he proposes, noting that when Iceland was first discovered it was completely covered in forests.”“’We Icelanders have witnessed severe changes to our natural environment,’ he says. ‘Iceland is a country of remarkable natural alteration, and we’ve had to adapt to that fact. We realise that humans need to respect natural forces, but history has also shown us the power of human ingenuity and our ability to survive."

 

 

[Marty_d]

"Breitbart"?  Really?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

So we label sources and discount them? It is either a true report or not, easy to check.

 

 

[octave]

Like all other extreme events, this proves nothing about climate change but is consistent with what we expect from a solar minimum.

 

 Some would argue that the solar minimum could actually be masking the severity of climate change.   

 

Despite the a solar minimum the average global temperature has increased (or do you believe it hasn't.) 

 

 

[octave]

So we label sources and discount them? It is either a true report or not, easy to check.

 

 

 

You discount NASA dont you?

 

CO2  412 PPM and increasing

 

Global Temperature 1.9F since 1880

 

Arctic Ice minimum 12.8% per decade reduction

 

Ice sheets 413 Gigatonnes per year reduction

 

Sea Level 3.3 mm increase per year.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/

 

 

[Marty_d]

A quote from Wikipedia about Breitbart...

 

"Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and some of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and many traditional conservatives alike.[11] The site has published a number of lies, conspiracy theories,[12][13] and intentionally misleading stories.[14][15]

 

Breitbart News aligned with the alt-right under the management of former executive chairman Steve Bannon,[16] who declared the website "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016.[17] In 2016, Breitbart News became a virtual rallying spot for supporters of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.[11] The company's management, together with former staff member Milo Yiannopoulos, solicited ideas for stories from, and worked to advance and market ideas of, neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups and individuals.[18][19] After the election, more than 2,000 organizations removed Breitbart News from ad buys following Internet activism campaigns denouncing the site's controversial positions."

 

Yep, sure looks like they would be a fair and unbiased source of information.

 

 

[octave]

A quote from Wikipedia about Breitbart...

 

"Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and some of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and many traditional conservatives alike.[11] The site has published a number of lies, conspiracy theories,[12][13] and intentionally misleading stories.[14][15]

 

Breitbart News aligned with the alt-right under the management of former executive chairman Steve Bannon,[16] who declared the website "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016.[17] In 2016, Breitbart News became a virtual rallying spot for supporters of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.[11] The company's management, together with former staff member Milo Yiannopoulos, solicited ideas for stories from, and worked to advance and market ideas of, neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups and individuals.[18][19] After the election, more than 2,000 organizations removed Breitbart News from ad buys following Internet activism campaigns denouncing the site's controversial positions."

 

Yep, sure looks like they would be a fair and unbiased source of information.

 

 

 

The hallmark of good science is to quote from reliable sources and to look for corroboration between different data sources. If I wanted to know if, lets say, vaccines caused autism I would not sight articles from political magazines.

 

The sources I rely upon are the usual scientific sources not the odd contrarian, Breitbart, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones etc. or the odd geoscientist who earns  their living from the mining  or fossil fuel industries.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Never mind the facts, attack the source.

 

 

[facthunter]

The facts are Brietbart, Heartland institute and Koch bros, are what they are and everyone knows their agenda. Quoting THEM as a source of reliable information is clutching at straws. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

This thread has been quiet for days! Time to inject some new Australian data.

 

 

 

 

[octave]

22 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

 

This thread has been quiet for days! Time to inject some new Australian data.

 

 

 

Do believe the Bom is concealing temperature data?  Commiting fraud? 

 

 

[octave]

It is often stated by deniers here that the climate models have been poor at making predictions. However

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-models-got-it-right-on-global-warming/

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

 

https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/12/04/early-climate-modelers-got-global-warming-right-new-report-finds/

 

I could post links from reputable sites all night but it would be pointless.  I suspect your interests are in promoting your industry. 

 

 

[octave]

 PM do you believe as Tony Heller/Steve Goddard's assertion that hottest temperatures have decreased since the middle of the 19th century?  PM is it getting cooler?  Do you agree with this guy that the likelihood of hot weather has declined sharply over the last 130 years? 

 

This guy claims the Bom his suppressing temperature readings before 1910, do you agree that Bom is commiting fraud here at at the very least lying?  My understanding is that before 1910 measurements were not very reliable, but not to worry Tony or Steve whatever name he is going by at the moment sites newspaper articles before 1910 where people say it is very hot. In any case  the science is more sophisticated than maximum temperatures, it is also about higher minimums and the extension of the hot weather and fire season.

 

For some critiques of Mr Heller's work you might like to try  Potholer54 aka Peter Hadfield veteran science journalist 

 

Another critique of Hellers shoddy work

 

 

Heller could site references so his assertions can be checked but he doesn't, Hadfield does.  

 

 

[Bruce]

Temperature is quite a difficult thing to measure. For the air temperature, you need to exclude any radiant energy and this is difficult. The standard is the Stevenson screen over watered and mown grass, well away from obstructions. I can imagine that there were lots of bad readings in the old days.

 

There is a true story about US rainfall records. Their most reliable observer suddenly started posting crazy figures... it turned out that this observer took his rain-gauge with him to Florida on a holiday. He didn't trust anybody else with his responsible job.

 

The point of that story is how the education of the observer is very important, and this would have been poor in the olden days too.

 

 

[willedoo]

Bruce, you must have seen some hot times in that central country over the years. Worst I've seen was one day in the north of S.A. where it just touched 60; it was a battle to stay alive. Second worst was a contract in the Great Sandy one January where it hit the mid fifties for a month straight. We had to wait until 8pm every night for the water to cool enough to shower.

 

The last few times I was around Alice Springs, I was amazed at the coverage of Buffel grass compared to when I was there in the 80's. I often wonder if that cools things a bit. There's definitely less sandstorms and soil erosion with the Buffel even if the greens don't like it. I remember seeing blankets of it from the border up to Alice and all the way out to Kintore.

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't know if climate change is real or not, but locally we are experiencing fairly high temperatures.

 

In the past it was unknown for a house to be lost to a bushfire. A few years ago the first was a house on Mt Archer in Rockhampton, right beside the National Park and above it.Then we had the evacuation of Gracemere and several other areas lost homes to fires.

 

Last year there were big fires at Deepwater, several homes lost. The fire supposedly stated in National Park.

 

Today I hear that a load of fire experts have been made redundant from the Qld Government, but they are some of them are volounteering. They used to work for national Parks.

 

From the sudden growth of big fires, causing losses of homes and buildings I reckon there must be a reason. The question is can we blame climate change or is it bad management. For the Qld government to be sacking fire experts at this time makes me wonder if they have realised that their experts are not much good, or maybe their total control of who burns when is just rubbish policy.

 

When the national Parks took over State forests in Qld, they had locals giving advice to them and I was on one of those commitees. There was one government member who had a doctorate and she was a self proclaimed expert on fire management, she volounteered to write their fire management plan. Didn't seem to understand that when a fire went through there was no fuel left for it to burn again.

 

 

[willedoo]

From the sudden growth of big fires, causing losses of homes and buildings I reckon there must be a reason. The question is can we blame climate change or is it bad management.

 

It seems to be both according to a lot of fire experts. So maybe not really an either or question. A lot are saying the changing climate has narrowed the safe window of opportunity for burning off, then followed by higher than normal summer temperatures.

 

 

[Yenn]

I have a small amount of fuel on my property, due to letting my neighbours horses graze most of it off and also to fire breaks cut and  the empty dams having nothing to burn in them, but I would still like to burn of a few hundred square meters around one side of the house before I go away for Christmas. Absolutely no chance, because there is a total fire ban.

 

 

[Bruce]

Yenn, have you talked to the local CFS guys?

 

I have seen them present at  burning-off events, probably not on total fire-ban days but certainly in the summer.

 

My understanding is that you should be able to get a permit. I would like to know more about all this myself.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Read it again.

 

Thedow of SAFE burning off, has got smaller each year.

 

Here, in Tas, we used to do hazard reduction burns in spring and autumn. Safe burns have almost disappeared in spring. Now burns are pretty much limited to safe moments in autumn. I presently have numerous piles (house sized) of timber that now must wait until next year to burn.

 

This impacts on what options I have to protect my home. Extrapolate that to all the others who are trying to protect their homes.

 

Each year I probably burn  about five tonnes of timber just to protect my home. I can't blame it on forestry practices .

 

 

[Bruce]

Those 5 tonnes should have been turned into charcoal and you should have got about $200 a tonne. If the whole world stopped mining coal and paid landowners to grow timber for charcoal, we could suck a lot of carbon out of the air. 

 

Alas, there is no big money in this for the top end of town and so it won't happen.