The climate change debate continues.

[spacesailor]

The DeadSea is a holiday resort, just because you float in that high salt sea.

 

Lake Eyre is almost  a no go.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

We better know the difference between weather and climate or we don't get far. Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

Climate is the long-term average of weather, typically averaged over a period of 30 years. The climate of a location is affected by its latitude, terrain, and altitude, as well as nearby water bodies and their currents.  In a broader sense, climate is the state of the components of the climate system, which includes the ocean and ice on Earth.

 

Weather is the state of the atmosphere, describing for example the degree to which it is hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or stormy, clear or cloudy.  Weather refers to day-to-day temperature and precipitation activity.

 

So, lately the weather has been crappy, but the climate has been fairly constant. 

 

 

[octave]

So, lately the weather has been crappy, but the climate has been fairly constant. 

 

As an individual it is not possible to determine whether the average global temperature has risen or fallen., it is not a thing we can sense.  The only way we can determine if the average global temperature has changed is by performing huge numbers of measurements from all around the world and then doing the maths.  This is what NASA and Bom say the global temperature has increased

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/.

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/

 

I would need to lot of contradictory evidence to decide that these assertions were made up or poorly interpreted. 

 

As an individual all I can do is look at the evidence provided by those who have the means to measure and interpret and then try to look for other interpretations that either support or contradict.  

 

I view it the same as visiting the doctor.  I may feel a particular medication may or may not work but the most rational answer is in the data. I could just go with my gut feeling but I prefer something more solid.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I like that kind of science, where something is observed and they admit they don’t know what is causing it. Seems like a good area for further study.

 

 

[Yenn]

We have heard a lot about the science and so far what has been predicted has occurred in some cases. Science is all about proof of your predictions.

 

What I want to know is what is predicted with any real chance of happening. So far we have had dire warnings of every sort of catastrophy but they have not come true.

 

One early prediction was that we would get more cyclones. That has actually been completely the reverse of what is happening. We also had more powerful cyclones predicted, again it has not happened.

 

Coral degradation was supposed to kill all the reef and we have seen reports of half the reef dieing, which turned out to be part of the Northern third of the reef.

 

I am ready to believe that mankind has some effect on climate, but I am not ready to accept all the tales of woe that "climate scientists" and do gooders come up with.

 

 

[Bruce]

All these things will be summarized in the cost of food. All my life, food has been so cheap that it has almost been free.

 

Now if the "no climate change " people are right, then the price of food will continue to fall. On the other hand, if the warming people are right, the cost of food will rise.

 

I reckon the warmists are  winning in this last decade. And a good thing too, the price of food has been far too cheap, says me with my farmers hat on.

 

The next ten years will be the telling thing. If the price of food drops, it means that climate change is not making much of a difference after all.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Warming should make food cheaper, the CO2 makes plants grow and warmer weather means longer growing season. We shall see!

 

 

[facthunter]

That's simplistic and maybe a furphy. Higher temps are causing crop failures Grapes etc. Thye have failed inthe centre and Qld . Nitrogen in the ground will promote plant growth too but if it grows too fast the new growth is carrotty and often high vegetative growth stems etc structure means less% fruit produced and just more pruning. Any faster growth needs more water. You can "push" these things but often quality is reduced as a consequence and virus stress shows up in some grapes when they are forced .Ie grape vine yellows in Chardonnay. There's an optimum output /acre for quality to be maintained and balanced soil trace and other elements need to be maintained like zinc. for plant health. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

My wife will not eat grapes because they are high in sugar. But she enjoys a glass of wine. I say illogical.

 

 

[facthunter]

 Grapes are a clever fruit, they have their own wild yeast on the skin and will ferment without any assistance.  A proper cultured in house yeast will produce a better result and more consistently. Good wineries have their own yeasts. The sugar is the bit that ferments and forms the alcohol and there's enough if the grapes are  allowed to fully ripen before harvesting to get to 11% alc. so she is right (aren't they always) Most of the sugar is gone. Alcohol is also fat producing but nothing's perfect. Fortified wines have added alcohol and sugar (not as good).  Wines have been around for a long time.  Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

You are an expert on grapes I reckon Nev. Personally, I just like to drink the stuff. I didn't know about a commercial failure for viticulture  in the centre, could you tell us some more please? I can tell you that there was a failure with dates...  there was too much rain!

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm a nationally accredited viticulturist and silly enough to have owned a fair sized vineyard at Lake Boga, mid to late 90's. Tom Lazar established vineyards in Qld and they named a nematode after him. Maybe the same problems affected the ones near Alice springs. The brother of Ronald Biggs was involved there. The ones near Alice were table grapes and were available at different times to what normally was the case. Seemed to look good for a while. Grapes don't like consecutive days over 42 degrees. The Hotter areas are being moved away from. Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

I've previously introduced the Pacific Oscillation Index, the Indian Ocean Index, the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation and the Southern Annular Mode as natural sources of climatic variation. These things oscillate between very good and very bad effect on temperature and rainfall. At the moment these things are in the "bad" section of their oscillations, so we can reasonably expect them to go to the "good" side. That will bring reduced air temperatures and more rainfall. 

 

Mention has been made of the drought of the early 1980's. I moved to Goulburn in mid-1981 and the water restrictions were severe. Someone has mentioned the soil banked up against paddock fences. I remember that, too. There were severe bushfires in the summer of '84/85. Then, in the winter of 1985, it was cold and snowy. 

 

With our knowledge of these medium and long term oscillations in oceanic water temperatures, especially the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation,  we can look back on the weather records we have and from those make reasonable predictions of when drought conditions are due. Instead of prattling on about CO2  concentrations and who or what is to blame, we should be planning to deal with the inevitable dry periods. It's London to a brick that there is a megadrought in our future. We either turn our attention to that, or we abandon our habitation of this continent.

 

 

[facthunter]

Spain and the south of France have had unprecedented fires. Even in Russia and if peat/tundra gets on fire it's a turning point. Ocean acidity is a direct result of the extra CO2. That affects all hard shelled creatures future, Plankton etc.  You can't just ignore it WE burn $#1tloads of Carbon daily and the oceans and atmosphere are not infinite. That's where it all ends up. We've even filled up the oceans with PLASTIC in large areas. There's a LOT of US now, and we muck up the world if we don't do things differently in the future. Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

If burning fossil fuels is such a terrible thing, why do those who condemn the practices not support the use of nuclear fuels for the production of the high levels of electrical energy that modern society requires? There is a place for renewable, and it would be great if they could be developed to produce a greater share, but we need an energy dense substance to deal with "peak load".

 

It seems to me that the anti-nuclear mob are living in the 1950's when civil use of nuclear power was in its development stage. Sure there are problems with radiation containment both during initial use and in disposal of waste. But don't we call ourselves the animal which can solve problems?  It strikes me as odd that if the raw material is radio-active while it is in the ground, why can't the waste be returned to the ground? Whatever happened to mixing the waste into concrete and filling old mine shafts with it?

 

These same people cry out for more recycling. How about we say NO to excessive packaging? I've just opened two small lots of welding rods that were packed in vacu-formed packaging with a cardboard back sheet. I seem to remember that welding rods used to come in cardboard cartons with no plastic. 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

... Instead of prattling on about CO2  concentrations and who or what is to blame, we should be planning to deal with the inevitable dry periods. It's London to a brick that there is a megadrought in our future. We either turn our attention to that, or we abandon out habitation of this continent.

 

Well said OME. I agree that the debate has too narrow a focus on CO2, but to galvanise the common man, the message has to be pretty simple.

 

As you say, climate change is normal and partly due to natural cycles, but humans are crazy if they think we can burn billions of tons of fossil fuels without having a major impact on our planet. 

 

What scares me is the massive stocks of methane that are being released as permafrost thaws across Siberia and North America. Scientists are a conservative lot and few are game to predict the massive scale of change I fear has already started.

 

The changes in weather systems we are already starting to see. Predictions of a vertical sea level rise of a few mm sounds trivial, but it should be expressed in terms of how many km horizontally that means to low-lying farmland., 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...There is a place for renewable, and it would be great if they could be developed to produce a greater share, but we need an energy dense substance to deal with "peak load".

 

OME this sounds exactly like the PR guff put out by the fossil fuel industry over the last few decades; renewables were always "the fuel of tomorrow". Well tomorrow has arrived. 

 

Have you noticed the subtle shift in their arguments? Now that renewables are ALREADY CHEAPER than the old, centralised sources, including nuclear, they are focussing on "base load" or "peak load" as something we still need their tired old technology to supply.

 

I agree that our power system has a long way to go before we can phase out coal burners, largely due to a decade of energy policy paralysis, a result of the fossil fuel lobby's hold over the Federal Government.

 

It seems to me that the anti-nuclear mob are living in the 1950's when civil use of nuclear power was in its development stage. Sure there are problems with radiation containment both during initial use and in disposal of waste...

 

I agree that much progress has been made with disposing of nuclear waste, but that totally depends on centuries of political and economic stability. What modern nation can guarantee that?

 

There are plenty of examples of disastrous radioactive dumps in poor countries, including across the old Soviet Union. 

 

 

[old man emu]

but to galvanise the common, the message has to be pretty simple

 

Making the message simple for the common horde is the first rule of propaganda. Focus on a simple message and you can create zealots of them. That is why the common horde has narrowed in on CO2  and has not gone looking at the rest of the climatic information recorded in Nature itself, and by Man in the geologically immediate time.

 

Are the sea level rises we see now simply the result of the tail end of glacial melt that started 12,000 years ago, or are they caused by our burning of fossil fuels? We don't positively know, simple because we don't have data recorded earlier than about 300 years ago. We don't know if climate change is natural or solely man-made.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...Are the sea level rises we see now simply the result of the tail end of glacial melt that started 12,000 years ago, or are they caused by our burning of fossil fuels? We don't positively know, simple because we don't have data recorded earlier than about 300 years ago. We don't know if climate change is natural or solely man-made

 

I agree, but if we wait to find out if we are to blame, it'll be too late to do anything about it.

 

Almost all glaciers are retreating and Greenland is melting many times faster that predicted. The sea will take the best lowland farmland faster than people can adapt. Climate refugees are already on the march.

 

 

[old man emu]

If everybody chips in to reduce  carbon dioxide emissions, there  will be a result. Climate activists in Australia are calling for Australia to do something. OK, then. Let's do something here as our part of the effort. We can't affect what the North Americans, Europeans or Asians do on their own dung heaps.

 

Deep geological disposal is widely agreed to be the best solution for final disposal of the most radioactive waste produced. We have an extremely stable land mass. Our coal producers have given us massive holes that need filling. The volumes of nuclear waste from power plants will in no way equal the volumes of coal that has been removed. So why not mine our own uranium; process our own ore; use our own processed nuclear fuel, and use geological disposal of the depleted fuel?

 

Oh, I forgot! there have been one or two leakage problems caused by failure to follow standard control procedure (Chernobyl) or by building nuclear power plants on geologically unstable site (Fukashima).

 

 

[old man emu]

they are focussing on "base load" or "peak load"

 

If every house and every factory roof in Sydney was fitted with solar panels, maybe the daytime level of power generation from "old technology" might be reduced to a trickle, but as soon as the Sun drops below the horizon, and we want to use our electrical equipment, what is going to take up the load? 

 

Living in a non-urban area for a long time makes one lose sight of the massive amounts of power a metropolitan area like Sydney uses. Last night it was cloudy over Sydney, but the urban light reflected by those clouds made it as bright as a 3/4 Moon. And as I drove home at 1:00 am from work, I saw large areas lit by street lights where 10 years ago, or less, there were only paddocks. In the CBD, multi-storey buildings have lights working on every floor, and no doubt air conditioning plants and a million computers, servers and routers.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

If every house and every factory roof in Sydney was fitted with solar panels...

 

Now you're talking! I've been saying this for decades, since before John Howard claimed we'd need to cover a vast area of good land with solar collectors. The reality is, if every new roof in  our cities was. covered in PVs, the city would be exporting electricity. 

 

...as soon as the Sun drops below the horizon, and we want to use our electrical equipment, what is going to take up the load? 

 

If our LNP had not been hijacked by the coal lobby, by now we'd have had a national energy storage system. Remember, it only took ten years to go from failed rockets to the Moon landing. Australia's Snowy Mt Scheme took a little longer, but it was kicked off by a (Labor) government with a bit of vision.

 

...Living in a non-urban area for a long time makes one lose sight of the massive amounts of power a metropolitan area like Sydney uses...

 

Agreed, but the opposite actually applies. One reason cites are growing is that it's far cheaper for governments to provide basic services (such as electricity) to large numbers of people in a small area than to scattered rural people. Given transmission losses, etc, I suspect we rural people use more per capita; we sure pay a higher rate.

 

 

[old man emu]

The Snowy Scheme civil engineering works would be completed sooner today simply because we now have larger, more efficient earthmoving and tunneling equipment. 

 

Maybe we need a Gunpowder Plot to rid ourselves of political prostitutes (apologies to sex workers). However, blow up one brothel and another soon opens on the rubble of the last. 

 

 

[facthunter]

 Nuclear (not the US Nucular) is just NOT Cheap and undeniably has a waste disposal and contamination issue  as well as a long build time. The cost figures are available. If you want one built you have to offer a guaranteed (underwritten) energy  purchase agreement . (or bribe people). The price is similar to diesel.

 

  REMOTE areas are never going (be able) to pay for the transmission costs Lines poles and transformers to boost the volts back up and losses and unreliability due weather fires etc . The NETWORK concept is questionable on reliability and cost Nev