The climate change debate continues.

[Old Koreelah]

And take the banning of Australian products, Fire extinguishers Still available over-seas. Red Lead pains, Nasty Anti-fouling, All can be bought once out of Australia...

And I bet there's a damned good reason for them being banned, Spacey. Ask around; Australia is seen as a world leader in product standards. One reason our foods, medicines and beverages are in great demand in other countries

 

...I'M right.NASA confirms my theory

 

A great big rock could solve our warm Earth problem.

 

And they (NASA ) wont say a word till it's over...

...One of the first acts of the Howard government was to withdraw funding from the only asteroid watch this side of the equator. He saved $5m, but left the world blind to any existential threat coming our way.

 

A few months later our planet was missed by rocks big enough to have wiped out modern civilization.

 

One passed between earth and the moon.

 

 

[Marty_d]

NASA confirms my theory

 

A great big rock could solve our warm Earth problem.

 

And they (NASA ) wont say a word till it's over.

To quote Billy Bob Thornton in "Armageddon"...

 

"NASA's budget allows us to monitor about 3% of the sky. And begging your pardon, sir, it's a big-assed sky."

 

(Now I'm not confusing movies with reality but the point remains that there's probably a lot they don't see until it passes us at 60,000km/h.)

 

And even if they did... what would be the point of telling anyone?

 

 

[nomadpete]

Well I, for one, would really appreciate NASA giving me a little advance notice of an incoming asteroid. There's a couple of bills I need to pay, and I've gotta get my postal vote in.

 

 

[facthunter]

We all share the same atmosphere. WE are, per person, the highest polluters in the world. and as such are answerable for that. Can't morally say there's not enough of us to make a difference, and we can set a good example and a positive input for the rest of the world. QLD is very well situated for solar inland and pumped hydro all along the coast. it's only the VESTED INTEREST existing players Like Clive who want to preserve existing monopolies. If you behave as an international outlaw, eventually you will be called to answer to do the right thing or suffer trade penalties. as a correction to your cost base ignoring the real cost of burning carbon.. Nev

 

 

[octave]

All energy (except geothermal tidal and nuclear) is solar energy. The sun drives the wind and bathes the planet in energy. Likewise, coal is solar energy in that the sun provides the energy for the ancient forest to grow which then after millions of years becomes coal.

 

The energy stored in fossil fuels is stored solar energy, in fact, you could say it is the energy we have in the bank and solar energy from the sun is more like daily income. Humans have benefited in their early history from drawing out energy from the energy bank (digging it up). This has allowed us to create our modern age. As with a business, it is probably necessary to start off with good savings to operate from but any business must transition from operating on savings to operating on income. Once operating on income those remaining savings are always there if needed in an emergency. If we move away from fossil fuels it is not a position from which we cannot return, in fact moving away from fossil fuels (at a sensible rate) is the option that provides the maximum number of options in the future.

 

In rational decision making, we have to weigh up probabilities against possible outcomes. If I am heading out for the day I can gather information on the weather, I may decide that there is a 50% chance of rain, my gut feeling is that I think the rain will pass so I will not take an umbrella. This is fine since the maximum consequences are that I may get wet, this is acceptable. If I go to my flying club and there are three mechanics gathered around the plane and one of them says "I don't like the look of those wing attachment bolts" I will take a precautionary decision since the outcome could be catastrophic. To say that we should do nothing until the problem is obvious (or the wing falls off) is to effectively say "lets do nothing")

 

What are the negative consequences of a vigorous program (perhaps like Apollo) of developing the next technologies? Is there any benefit from Australia hanging back whilst other countries develop the technology for us to buy at a later date?

 

I usually don't bother arguing with climate contrarians as the odds of changing their mind is small and not that it is a competition but if it were they are on the losing side. The scientific consensus is only growing stronger, not weaker. All the time renewable energy is getting cheaper, storage continues to become more economically viable. No business that I know of wants to build a new coal-fired power station. Fossil fuel companies do know this and do acknowledge the science of climate change, even if contrarians don't. Fossil fuel companies know that they must change the nature of their business

 

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/shell-new-energies-director-on-investing-in-clean-energy?

 

Whilst people are arguing about whether or not the science is settled or not others or doing things.

 

New Perth housing estate to be run entirely from renewable energy

 

 

[kgwilson]

And global population at almost 8 billion. While the rate has slowed, wars and pandemics have had no effect so the demand for dwindling resources may outstrip supply. It does though have some hope in that with all the extra people there is a bigger pool of educated people to make the decisions. All well and good but none of them are politicians.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"Humans have benefited in their early history from drawing out energy from the energy bank (digging it up)."

 

The early "Industrial Revolution " Was by charcoal, & we burnt down a Massive European forest. After the Coal arrived NO one thought to replant Any trees.

 

High pollution Or less oxygen in the air.

 

If the manufacturers of our banned products, are still making the Same bludi products for export, we're wasting our time.

 

Always the consumer at fault, (& held to account) Never the big man lining their pockets !.

 

"Adani coal mine" : someone wants to get RICH, & to hell with the local yocals.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Marty_d]

"Adani coal mine" : someone wants to get RICH, & to hell with the local yocals.

 

spacesailor

The trouble is, the local yokels seem to want the damn thing. For some reason they think coal mining jobs are a long term prospect.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Not much chance of the locals getting employment.

 

Much cheaper to bring their own people in as "Specialist".

 

spacesailor

 

 

[willedoo]

For some reason they think coal mining jobs are a long term prospect.

Not for their lungs it isn't.

 

 

[Bruce]

For some years now, I have been looking for a climate change denier to take me up on the following bet:

 

For every day COLDER than the long term average, I give $20 to him. For every day HOTTER than the long term average, he gives me $19. Yes, I am willing to take the risk of a hit, so sure am I that change is indeed occurring. We just need to agree on the place and the measuring setup.

 

So, if there is no change, he will get $182.5 per year, since half the days will be colder and half hotter.

 

Alas there turn out to be no deniers prepared to put their money up. They tend to say things like " the climate always changes for mysterious reasons ".

 

 

[Methusala]

The very frightening concept is the one that Nev has mentioned. That is the idea of "tipping points". You will never hear the climate disaster sceptics talk about this or hear it mentioned in the right wing media. This is because they either don't understand or, more likely, don't want to confuse simple minds. Tipping points are theoretical points along the spectrum where, for example, the permafrost binding the Arctic Tundra, melts and releases almost unlimited amounts of methane. This gas is around 100x as potent as CO2 for retaining heat within the earthly atmosphere. Such an event would accelerate the warming of the atmosphere so quickly that most life presently inhabiting the planet would become untenable thus settling the argument once and for all. This idea has the capacity to account for long stretches of insomnia.

 

 

[octave]

For some years now, I have been looking for a climate change denier to take me up on the following bet:For every day COLDER than the long term average, I give $20 to him. For every day HOTTER than the long term average, he gives me $19. Yes, I am willing to take the risk of a hit, so sure am I that change is indeed occurring. We just need to agree on the place and the measuring setup.

 

So, if there is no change, he will get $182.5 per year, since half the days will be colder and half hotter.

 

Alas there turn out to be no deniers prepared to put their money up. They tend to say things like " the climate always changes for mysterious reasons ".

 

I am sometimes amused when deniers within the same argument will suggest there is no ice loss and no average temperature increase and no ocean acidification but will then suggest other reasons for warming, perhaps a natural cycle etc. Sometimes they will move to a position of it is warming but that is good. I usually like to pin down what they do believe is happening before moving on.

 

To sum their position can appear to me to be it's not warming but if it is then it is natural and good, They will also alternate between all of these positions. I suspect the goal is to create uncertainty much like the cigarette industry done and continues to do.

 

Deniers are usually more comfortable debating this topic as a political problem. The science should not be political, what we do about it, of course, has political and economic aspects.

 

The question I put to doubters is at what point in the theory do they find it hard to accept.

 

1 Fossil fuels contain large amounts of carbon

 

2 This carbon was absorbed from the atmosphere of millions of years

 

3 Carbon is released when this fuel is burnt.

 

4 Carbon allows visible light through but traps a large portion of infrared

 

5 Without any carbon in the atmosphere, the earth would be too cold to support life as we know it.

 

8 The composition of the atmosphere has a large effect on the temperature of Earth (or Venus)

 

7 The amount of carbon being released is large in terms of human history.

 

8 The increase in carbon is enough to change the temperature and this was first calculated and warned about in 1824 by Joseph Fourier

 

 

[Bruce]

There is an American professor who reckons Methusela's tipping point has already been passed. He says that 6 degrees of warming is already unavoidable and people will go extinct in ten years. He says it is too late to stop it and agrees that it is not fair on the kids.

 

The mechanism is permafrost methane release. He says that this has happened more than once before in geological time.

 

Gosh I hope he is wrong and I reckon NASA thinks he is wrong too. They put the methane release at a much lower contribution to heating.

 

 

[octave]

There is an American professor who reckons Methusela's tipping point has already been passed. He says that 6 degrees of warming is already unavoidable and people will go extinct in ten years. He says it is too late to stop it and agrees that it is not fair on the kids.The mechanism is permafrost methane release. He says that this has happened more than once before in geological time.

 

Gosh I hope he is wrong and I reckon NASA thinks he is wrong too. They put the methane release at a much lower contribution to heating.

As I have said before I am an optimist, I think that intelligent humans can solve or probably, in this case, mitigate the worst effects. That does not mean that there will be massive upheavals and there will be winners and losers. For me, it is more a matter of whether we want to be in the driver's seat and have some control or whether we want just continue along the easy path until it is no longer easy.

 

I just read an article that put the proposition that the issue is not how much climate change action will cost but how what is the price of doing nothing?

 

The bottom line is if we take the 2 extremes, that is certain climate catastrophe and we need to move away from fossil fuels or it is just a made up thing and we can continue on burning the remaining fossil fuels, The fact is going down one of those roads means we may switch to technologies that are INEVITABLE anyway before fossil fuels run out with the downside that we may pay a little more for our electricity and personal transport versus a world in which living will become more difficult.

 

The second option requires a greater level of certainty than the first option. I would be much more comfortable explaining to my grandchildren (should I ever have any) that I am sorry we cut down the annual rate of growth and that electricity prices were 10% higher than they could have been and that they had to drive a plug-in EV rather than a nice big V8. I feel this will make me look like someone who had their best interest at heart rather than "I want my electricity as cheap as can be and I want my V8, I want to use all those fossil fuels during my lifetime."

 

For those who think anthropomorphic climate change is made up I ask this question. What is it about our present response you find unacceptable and why?

 

If you were forced to drive an EV would your life be miserable?

 

Sorry a bit ranty but it is Shiraz afternoon.

 

Again I am an optimist. I think the younger generations will have the balls to do what is required.

 

.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"The mechanism is permafrost methane release"

 

Yippee

 

Free fuel !.

 

Just throw a PVC blanket over the ground & wait for your pump to fill a huge bag of FREE gas.

 

I'm another Optimist ( I think )

 

Take global warming when the Atlantic get too warm the warm current (that goes north below Greenland & Iceland then back to Blackpool) .

 

WON'T

 

Then northern Europe will have it's own ICE-AGE.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Bruce]

I hope you are right Octave. If every nation on the planet used its current military expenditure for a few years, there would be ample resources to remove the excess carbon from the atmosphere and just maybe do something about the methane. Dick Smith says that only under 30's should be given a vote on climate change actions, and I reckon this is a good idea.

 

And Space, if the gulf stream sinks, Europe will be in big strife for sure. If there is 6 degrees of global warming , any ice age will be short-lived.

 

 

[octave]

I am optimistic for several reasons. Humans do have the intelligence and ingenuity to solve very big problems once they make a decision to do so. During two world wars, it must have seemed like it would never end.

 

I am a follower of news on new technologies especially renewable technology and it is great to see just how many businesses are out there doing research. There are dozens of companies developing new cheaper lighter and more efficient battery storage. Ultimately most of these will lead to a dead end although learning how not to do something is also important. I suspect that at this point governments will not provide the solutions.

 

EVs I believe have reached a tipping point and are now inevitable. By the way, EVs will not be our saviour, they will be a huge help but not the whole answer. Renewable energy continues to become cheaper and more efficient. Investors are wary of investing in coal-fired power plants from a financial perspective. A coal-fired plant is a very long term investment and it is hard to see that it would not be obsolete before it has made a profit. Shell is moving into renewables because they can see the writing on the wall.

 

I think optimism is crucial if we are to beat this problem. A smoker has to believe that giving up even after many years is worth it and also that all of those failed attempts in the past do not mean it is not possible in the future.

 

I actually think that in most respects the society is in the best shape it has ever been in. I know this may seem controversial but statistically, in terms of health, longevity, human rights and even poverty things are better than they have ever been.

 

Optimism also means I get to live a happy life, I may be wrong but I would rather be happy than right.

 

 

[facthunter]

Optimism may be a more comforting condition than realism...Reality has to be faced if something effective is to be done. Nev

 

 

[octave]

Optimism may be a more comforting condition than realism...Reality has to be faced if something effective is to be done. Nev

Nev the problem is that people tend toward the negative as does the media. The statistics show that the world in most respects is improving. Health, longevity, poverty etc have all increased rapidly but most people instinctively believe these things are getting worse.

 

I do actually believe my view is based on realism. I don't think we can mitigate all of the negative effects of climate change, the way we live will change. I post plenty on this thread about climate change, if I thought it was hopeless I would not bother.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

[ATTACH]50053._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[octave]

[ATTACH=full]4064[/ATTACH]

Those numbers are disputed Deconstructing the case for coal however I neither have the time or interest any comprehensive fact checking so let's say that those figures are accurate and all of those power stations will be completed and no power stations will be scrapped then coal is indeed in its ascendancy and perhaps a lucrative investment and the whole climate change thing is a mere inconvenience to the growth of the coal industry. If so are argument is rather trivial. The coal supporters would seem to be winning.

 

Since you posted this without comment I can only guess what message you wish to convey. Perhaps it is that it doesn't matter what we do the ppm of carbon is going to rise.

 

I am interested in where you and I disagree, do you believe carbon in the atmosphere has any bearing on how much heat is trapped in the atmosphere? I guess I am not sure at what point you depart from the accepted theory.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Crikey PM, just when Octave was talking up our future. I doubt that too many of those planned coal-burners will be built, but I find it depressing that anyone could want them.

 

 

[octave]

Crikey PM, just when Octave was talking up our future. I doubt that too many of those planned coal-burners will be built, but I find it depressing that anyone could want them.

Agreed, the thing with a coal plant is it must have a long viable life. Whatever people think about renewables now they surely must admit that the price and efficiency of renewables have dropped just like technology does. To dig up coal in one country and truck it to the docks where it will be loaded into coal carrying ships sent halfway around the world (at considerable energy cost) to be trucked to a power plant where it will be burnt to make steam will soon seem ridiculous.

 

Regardless of climate change issues, we will cease burning things to produce energy. There is absolutely no shortage of energy in the world, I won't bore everyone with links to calculations regarding the solar energy that falls ob 1 square metre every hour. The technology to harness this energy has improved rapidly and will continue to. Yes, I know the sun doesn't shine at night but there are many successful solar thermal plants operating around the world. Energy storage is also improving. To say that we will never develop storage technology is a little short-sighted. computers, mobile phones, aviation. I can see no evidence to suggest that we have reached the peak of what renewables can generate and what can be stored.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

There are countries, as shown on the map, that are still planning lots of new coal fired power stations. They must think the return on investment is OK. They don't have the protesters that we have. Whatever Australia does with coal stations, whether we close one or two or build one or two, will not make a jot of difference to global CO2 when compared to what they are doing. So we should do what is best for Australia to maintain adequate base load. I don't know whether a new plant could be built here in the present political climate, but we may come to regret not doing so. And I know someone will snap back, we will regret climate change. But see my point, we in Australia cannot affect climate change, if the alarmists are right then it will happen anyway. If they are wrong then we will go through a painful period of brown outs and blackouts and industrial decline (jobs) for nothing. Of course we should be building nuclear plants, should have done it years ago, but that's another story.