Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Smurf1976]

We usually use gas for heating and cooking but after last summer here in Hobart we put in a 7.5 kw ac downstairs and a 5 kw ac upstairs . They will running on full bore in the next few days for sure , hope the grid can handle it .

It's always possible that a distribution fault could occur, but the grid as such in Tas is pretty secure at the present time. As long as something unexpected doesn't happen then it should all work just fine.

 

[wayneL]

With the festive cheers flowing it would be a great time for you to join us wayneL. Do you go out walking Champ? Apart from the exercise it is wonderful watching nature (what is left of it of course) and discussing it with others who one meets taking it all in too.

If you mean greenies, I've always been a greenie as I have explained on numerous occasions.

If you mean The Greens, I would consider it with two conditions

1/ The climate armageddonists were removed from the party, they stopped promulgating discredited junk science and they relied on empirical data, focussing on true green issues in a positive way.

2/ The communists and economic extreme left were removed from the party.

But I guess that would mean there would be no one left.

 

[basilio]

Actually Wayne who you really, really need to see drop kicked into ocean are all those scientists who refuse to accept that nothing significant is happening to our climate and that, Sacre Bleau, humanity had anything to do with it. The Greenies don't make up the science - they just read it, understand it and want to live a bit longer.

The latest papers on global climate science research has been released. This is not one paper focusing on one particular aspect of climate change.

'Whole world' at risk from simultaneous droughts, famines, epidemics: scientists
Research published by US National Academy of Sciences warns climate change impacts could be worse than thought


An international scientific research project known as the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP), run by 30 teams from 12 countries, has attempted to understand the severity and scale of global impacts of climate change. The project compares model projections on water scarcity, crop yields, disease, floods among other issues to see how they could interact.

The series of papers published by the Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) shows that policymakers might be underestimating the social and economic consequences of climate change due to insufficient attention on how different climate risks are interconnected.

Chronic water shortage, agricultural collapse and the future of North America and Europe are put in question. And this comes from 30 scientific teams in a 12 countries. ,

There was an excellent point made to explain why these papers were brought together to give policy makers a clearer picture of where we are going.

Potsdam director Prof Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who co-authored several papers in the PNAS special feature, said:

"There is an elephant in the room: current and future climate change impacts. But strangely, many people seem to be blind to it.

Many decision makers prefer to turn a blind eye to global warming consequences, while many scientists tend to focus on very specific aspects of climate change. So we resemble the fabled blind men, who unknowingly touch different parts of the same elephant: grasping the animal's trunk, one of the men is convinced he has a snake in his hand, whilst one other mistakes the tail for a rope.

To recognize the animal, they must talk to each other to properly identify the individual parts and to bring them together. This is exactly what this international project does."

Are they all wrong Wayne ? Or doesn't it matter any more ?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...t-climate-change-risk-drought-famine-epidemic

 

[Knobby22]

Reading that I think he was having a joke also. I wouldn't want to be the man holding the snake.

 

[trainspotter]

Are they all wrong Wayne ? Or doesn't it matter any more ?

Sorry basilio ... I could not resist ... so I read the article in question.

Abrupt climate changes and impacts already under way are of immediate concern, the report says. These include the disappearance of late-summer Arctic sea ice and increases in extinction rates of marine and terrestrial species.

Other scenarios, such as the destabilization of the west Antarctic ice sheet, have potentially major consequences, but the probability of these changes occurring within the next century is not well-understood, highlighting the need for more research.

In some cases, scientific understanding has progressed enough to determine whether certain high-impact climate changes are likely to happen within the next century. The report notes that a shutdown in the Atlantic Ocean circulation patterns or a rapid release of methane from high-latitude permafrost or undersea ice are now known to be unlikely this century, although these potential abrupt changes are still worrisome over longer time horizons.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=18373

sce·nar·i·o [si-nair-ee-oh, -nahr-] noun, plural sce·nar·i·os.

1. an outline of the plot of a dramatic work, giving particulars as to the scenes, characters, situations, etc.
2. the outline or the manuscript of a motion picture or television program, giving the action in the order in which it takes place, the description of scenes and characters, etc.
3. an imagined or projected sequence of events, especially any of several detailed plans or possibilities: One scenario calls for doubling profits by increasing our advertising, the other by reducing costs.

*sniff sniff* smells like they want more funding to me !

They are scenarios IF these events happens ..... NOT that they ARE happening.

Wintertime Antarctic sea ice is increasing at a small rate and with substantial natural year-to-year variability. Specifically, the months of May, June, July, September and October show trends of increasing sea ice extent that are just slightly above the mean year-to-year variability. In more technical terms, the trends are statistically significant at the 95% level, although small.

Even if wintertime Antarctic sea ice were to increase or decrease significantly in the future, it would not have a huge impact on the climate system. This is because during the Antarctic winter energy from the sun is at its weakest point; its ability or inability to reflect the sun’s energy back into space has little affect on regulating the planet’s temperature.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#wintertimeantarctic

 

[burglar]

... Are they all wrong Wayne ? Or doesn't it matter any more ? ...

Ever since I was born, there have been doomsday merchants.
When they are wrong they shut-up.
When they are right they soak up the adulation.

I was right in 1967!!

(So what!!)?

 

[wayneL]

Basilio, all I have to say to you is that your mendacious straw man argumentative fallacies are becoming increasingly tedious. Bugger off and cyber stalk someone else.

 

[trainspotter]

This is more of a worry for me than some scientists hypothesizing about what MIGHT happen in hundreds of years time. They can't even get the weather right next week let alone in the 2200's !!

Pollution of our oceans.

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natura...lution/facts-and-figures-on-marine-pollution/

Land-based sources (such as agricultural run-off, discharge of nutrients and pesticides and untreated sewage including plastics) account for approximately 80% of marine pollution, globally.

Agricultural practices, coastal tourism, port and harbour developments, damming of rivers, urban development and construction, mining, fisheries, aquaculture, and manufacturing, among others, are all sources of marine pollution threatening coastal and marine habitats.

Excessive nutrients from sewage outfalls and agricultural runoff have contributed to the number of low oxygen (hypoxic) areas known as dead zones, where most marine life cannot survive, resulting in the collapse of some ecosystems.

There are now close to 500 dead zones covering more than 245,000 km ² globally, equivalent to the surface of the United Kingdom.

Over 220 million tons of plastic are produced each year.

Plastics can contribute to reduce our carbon footprint. They provide improved insulation, lighter packaging, are found in phones, computers, medical devices, etc. but appropriate disposal is often not addressed.

Seven of the EU Member States plus Norway and Switzerland recover more than 80% of their used plastics. These countries adopt an integrated waste and resource management strategy to address each waste stream with the best options. However, waste and disposal remain an issue in most of the world.

The United Nations Environment Programme estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic.

Once discarded, plastics are weathered and eroded into very small fragments known as micro-plastics. These together with plastic pellets are already found in most beaches around the world.
Plastic debris causes the deaths of more than a million seabirds every year, as well as more than 100,000 marine mammals.

Plastic materials and other litter can become concentrated in certain areas called gyres as a result of marine pollution gathered by oceanic currents. There are now 5 gyres in our ocean.

The North Pacific Gyre, known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, occupies a relatively stationary area that is twice the size of Texas. Waste material from across the North Pacific Ocean, including coastal waters off North America and Japan, are drawn together. Google this for a reality check !!

The Blueprint for ocean and coastal sustainability includes proposals to green the nutrient economy and reduce ocean hypoxia.

 

[wayneL]

Absolutely bang on there TS. Meanwhile the weather catastrophists divert attention away from such issues.

 

[basilio]

Very selective reading boys. It's amazing how little you can see with your hands over your eyes.

"Scenario" is not a make world world Trainspotter in this context or any context where we are trying to work out the consequences of particular actions. Postulate a car crash and you can come up with any number of "scenarios" of results. You may not be certain of how bad it will be but if the speed is fast enough and the vehicles big enough you know it will be ugly.

Thats what scenario setting is about with this research.

As far as the problems in the oceans goes. Absolutely agree it is serious. And if you wanted to get really concerned you would also considers the effects of acidification caused by rapidly rising levels of CO2 being absorbed.

Interested ?

________________________________________________________________________________

Wayne if you find it unrealistic to be civil in this forum please leave now.
Otherwise I'll have to find a mod to have a quiet wordwith you.

 

[wayneL]

Basilio, this may be shattering news for you, but it is very difficult for us to be besties when, despite my repeated affirmation of my views on this matter, you continuously and disgracefully misrepresent them.

In fact, there is no lack of civility in me pointing this out and requesting you to cease and desist such harassment and misrepresentation.

Do what you feel you must, but stop the bald faced lies about my views.

I stand by my post.

 

[basilio]

Really Wayne ??

Is that why we only see half the story ?

Be nice or get off the thread.

 

[wayneL]

I do not recall you being appointed arbiter of participation rights to this thread basilio.

May I remind you the topic is "resisting climate hysteria", ergo I am completely on topic, whereas you, being a promoter of of a position not supported by empirical data, viz promoting climate hysteria, are off topic.

Additionally, despite your hypocritical whining, you are not averse to a bit of nastiness in the form of attempted character assassination, and mendacious misrepresentation, so I repeat once more, I stand by my post.

 

[trainspotter]

Very selective reading boys. It's amazing how little you can see with your hands over your eyes.

As far as the problems in the oceans goes. Absolutely agree it is serious. And if you wanted to get really concerned you would also considers the effects of acidification caused by rapidly rising levels of CO2 being absorbed.

Interested ?

Bang goes THAT theory:

CO2 is the basic nutrient for plants and other photosynthetic organisms. Plants form the base of every food chain. Thus, the greater the density of CO2 in a given environment, the greater will be the production of food for plants and of the animals that feed on them.

In recent times it has become fashionable to relate CO2 to global warming, but water in its liquid or gaseous phase absorbs, stores and emits heat 4 times (400%) more efficiently than CO2. If, therefore, by this property water is not considered a pollutant, CO2 then cannot be considered a pollutant either.

Carbon Dioxide cannot intoxicate because it is a non-poisonous non-toxic substance.

http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_CO2.html

Whoooopssss ........ an inconvenient truth?

Other scenarios, such as the destabilization of the west Antarctic ice sheet, have potentially major consequences, but the probability of these changes occurring within the next century is not well-understood, highlighting the need for more research.

It is a scenario ...... IF the West Antarctic ice sheets destabilizes ... other scenarios include temperatures rising by greater than 5 degrees !!!!!!!

When in fact ..... this has happened:-

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and shown in this series of maps, the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8 °Celsius (1.4 °Fahrenheit) since 1880

 

[basilio]

Ocean Acidifiction.

Trainspotter please check any one of a score of web sites on this problem. Start with National Geographic and keep going.

The reference you offered on the life giving properties of CO2 is accurate as far as it goes. It's just completely irrelevant to the issue of excess CO2 acidifying the ocean and causing serious grief.

It also completely ignores the direct effects of CO2 in trapping heat and causing the green house effect (which in moderation keeps us warm)

As far as the scenarios discussed in the papers I referenced. Of course you can dismiss the possibility that the Antarctic ice cap will melt. But in fact that is at the further range of possibilities. There are plenty of other scenarios that are far more likely to happen if we continue on our present path.

Trainspotter you point out that temperatures have risen by .8c C since 1880. If you looked more closely you would have noticed that the biggest chunk of this rise (.6 c) happened in the last 40 years.

If somehow, a magic wand perhaps, we stopped all CO2 emissions immediately we would still face an increase in global temperatures of a further .7C
That is the increase already assured with the current CO2 levels. It just takes a few years for the Greenhouse heating effects to take full effect. A world that is 1.5C warmer is radically different to what the current ecosystems have adapted to. That is why scientists see some grim consequences for agriculture in the near future.

 

[basilio]

Wayne you can stand by your posts till the comes home. It doesn' t make them any more honest.

This thread is based on a lie. Your posts just support that misrepresentation.

But you are right. No mod is ever going to haul you up for nastiness or mendacious lying are they ?

 

[trainspotter]

Ocean Acidifiction.

Trainspotter please check any one of a score of web sites on this problem. Start with National Geographic and keep going.

The reference you offered on the life giving properties of CO2 is accurate as far as it goes. It's just completely irrelevant to the issue of excess CO2 acidifying the ocean and causing serious grief.

It also completely ignores the direct effects of CO2 in trapping heat and causing the green house effect (which in moderation keeps us warm)

As far as the scenarios discussed in the papers I referenced. Of course you can dismiss the possibility that the Antarctic ice cap will melt. But in fact that is at the further range of possibilities. There are plenty of other scenarios that are far more likely to happen if we continue on our present path.

Trainspotter you point out that temperatures have risen by .8c C since 1880. If you looked more closely you would have noticed that the biggest chunk of this rise (.6 c) happened in the last 40 years.

If somehow, a magic wand perhaps, we stopped all CO2 emissions immediately we would still face an increase in global temperatures of a further .7C
That is the increase already assured with the current CO2 levels. It just takes a few years for the Greenhouse heating effects to take full effect. A world that is 1.5C warmer is radically different to what the current ecosystems have adapted to. That is why scientists see some grim consequences for agriculture in the near future.

When National Geographic make broadbrush strokes statements like this it cracks me up:-

On the pH scale, which runs from 0 to 14, solutions with low numbers are considered acidic and those with higher numbers are basic. Seven is neutral. Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries.

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/

Just cause it comes out of NG does not mean it is right. Remember "Archaeoraptor" ? A fossil from China in an article published in National Geographic magazine. Whooopsies.

300 million years ago and they reckon they can tell that the pH level has averaged 8.2 ... REALLY??

I am assuming you are using Callendar's observations for the Co2 modelling? Or Keelings?

But what is this ?? The ocean warming and cooling is cyclic?

Trenberth and Fasullo, from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder Colorado, suggest that long term oscillations in the Pacific Ocean, known as Pacific Decadal Oscillations (or PDOs) drive alternate 20-plus year cycles of upper ocean warming and cooling which also involve heat being exchanged with the atmosphere. The implication of this is that when the Pacific is in a negative phase the upper ocean loses heat and so cools the atmosphere, and that when it is in a positive phase the upper ocean warms and so heats the atmosphere.

http://www.thegwpf.org/global-warming-pause-due-pacific-ocean-cycle-paper/

The evidence is inexorably mounting that the climate alarmists have been taking us all for a ride. It is only be a matter of time before their agenda is exposed as one of the biggest con tricks of all time. Thus they are already scrambling to breathe new life into the CO2 emissions scare. It will become obvious (by the passage of years if nothing else) that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not, after all, cause any significant climate change, thus it will be necessary to blame CO2 (and hence man) for some other catastrophic event. So, prepare yourself for the coming “ocean acidification” scam.

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2009/09/ocean-acidification-scam/

Note also the claim that pH has changed by 0.1 units over the last 200 years: it was not possible a hundred years ago, never mind 200 years ago, to measure pH to the accuracy necessary to support that assertion.

 

[wayneL]

Wayne you can stand by your posts till the comes home. It doesn' t make them any more honest.

This thread is based on a lie. Your posts just support that misrepresentation.

But you are right. No mod is ever going to haul you up for nastiness or mendacious lying are they ?

We'll just gave smile about the tautology and let that go through to the keeper, but you are suggesting the Pielkes, Curry, Motl, and the thousands of scientists from various disciplines, who take a more moderate line are all liers? Tell you what basilio, why don't you get on to motl' blog and call him a lier, because these are the caliber of scientists from whom i have formed my own view.

Not only that, you are casting aspersions on the ASF moderating team?

Dude, I have not misrepresented anyone, never misrepresented your views, never created the sort of appalling straw man arguments you are guilty of. I have always been completely honest... and you have the bad form to try to call me and those scientists liers?

Good God man, you really need to give yourself an uppercut! Your lack of honour knows no bounds.

Also, I am s gentleman and a scholar, not nasty at all. Ask anyone who knows me ;-)

 

[Smurf1976]

Here's an update on a previous post for power generation 3:30 PM (SA time) today which was the time of the peak demand in Vic. Demand in SA did go slightly higher a bit later on, but not enough to offset the falling load in Vic after the peak. On a hot day in both states, for practical purposes Vic and SA tend to become one region electrically in an operational sense.

Format is power station name (capacity, fuel) = output today (output at 2pm SA time last Friday as previously posted).

Angaston (50 MW, oil) = 44 MW (0)
Hallet (228 MW, gas) = 203 MW (0)
Dry Creek (156 MW, gas) = 6 MW (0)
Mintaro (90MW, gas) = 0 MW (0)
Playford B (240 MW, coal, mothballed) = 0 MW (0)
Port Lincoln (73.5 MW, oil) = 0 MW (0)
Quarantine (224 MW, gas) = 194 MW (0)
Snuggery (63 MW, oil) = 0 MW (0)

Ladbroke Grove (80 MW, gas) 73 MW (39 MW)
Northern Power Station (530 MW, coal) = 270 MW (246 MW)
Osborne (180 MW, gas) = 164 MW (184 MW)
Pelican Point (478 MW, gas) = 446 MW (231 MW)
Torrens Island (1280 MW, gas) = 940 MW (120 MW)

So overall you have:

Coal = 770 MW capacity of which 530 MW is operational and 240 MW is are mothballed. Actual output was 270 MW, all of which came from a single unit online at Northern Power Station.

Gas = 2716 MW capacity, actual output of 2026 MW. Of that, 610 MW was from combined cycle units, 940 MW from steam turbines and the remaining 476 MW from open cycle gas turbines.

Oil = 187 MW, actual output was 44 MW from diesel engines. None of the oil-fired gas turbines were in operation.

Total load in SA at this time was 2707 MW so just over double what it was on a mild afternoon 6 days earlier. 293 MW came from Vic (39 MW six days earlier) and a total of 2340 MW came from SA fossil fuel generation (820 MW six days earlier).

So as you can see, there's a huge variation in the need for fossil fuel generation in SA that's driven primarily by temperature. Wind isn't a reliable replacement and a nuclear plant(s) would be hugely problematic (and uneconomic) in such intermittent usage.

Solar is more useful in meeting peak demand in SA, although beyond a reasonable limit it would have the problem that it also operates when it's not actually needed (assuming we're talking about distributed generation rather than large solar power stations). A precise figure isn't available, but there's around 350 MW of small scale solar installed in SA and it was likely producing somewhere around 130 MW at the time of peak demand give or take a bit since this is an estimate.

Realistically, SA is going to be burning gas, and likely coal and a bit of oil, for quite some time to come. Even though wind and solar (wind being the more significant) are approaching the point where they meet close to 30% of overall demand in SA on average, they aren't a reliable source for meeting the peaks and it's not a simple matter of scaling up wind + solar three and a bit fold in order to replace fossil fuels. It's not that simple unfortunately.

Another thing I'll mention is price. It approached $12,500 per MWh in Vic and SA for a period this afternoon. That compares with a typical price in the $50 to $60 range. Suffice to say that a few high priced periods contribute a great deal to total revenue, and that prices are actually below the real cost for the vast majority of the time.

 

[basilio]

And indeed you are Wayne. A gentleman beyond all measure. A scholar of impeccable credentials and unsurpassed intellect towering above the mere mortals around you who just don't get it.

And this Forum you so proudly overview. Again a paragon of intellectual acuity and honest debate. Thriving on the close review of the worlds best scientific knowledge to help each other reach closer to the fundamental truths of the worlds climate systems.

It's true. It's actually, finally, indisputably true.

2 and 2 does equal 5