Resisting Climate Hysteria

[trainspotter]

The issue of pressure on water supplies as a result of increased energy demand is becoming clearer. This is particularly the case with coal fired power stations (or solar thermal) . Clearlty far less of an issue with Solar PV or wind power.

Just another reason to reconsider the use of fossil fuels for supplyimg baseload power.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-d...global-thirst-energy-threatens-water-supplies

Desalination plants will solve the water crisis just like in Israel.

HADERA, Israel ”” Israel has gone through one of the driest winters in its history, but despite the lean rainy season, the government has suspended a longstanding campaign to conserve water.

The familiar public messages during recent years of drought, often showing images of parched earth, have disappeared from television despite weeks of balmy weather with record low rainfalls in some areas.

The level of the Sea of Galilee, the country’s natural water reservoir, is no longer closely tracked in news reports or the subject of anxious national discussion.

The reason: Israel has in recent years achieved a quiet water revolution through desalination.

With four plants currently in operation, all built since 2005, and a fifth slated to go into service this year, Israel is meeting much of its water needs by purifying seawater from the Mediterranean. Some 80 percent of domestic water use in Israeli cities comes from desalinated water, according to Israeli officials.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/03/20/4903352/israel-no-longer-worried-about.html#storylink=cpy

Also means if Greenland and the North and South Poles melt and that the ocean levels rise means more water to be had to be desalinated thusly decreasing the ocean levels ... win bloody win for everyone I reckon

Warmer climate, plenty of water, ocean levels steady ... where's the downside?

 

[CanOz]

Now if you can desal with renewable power that would be sweet....desal is still expensive...

 

[Smurf1976]

Desalination plants will solve the water crisis just like in Israel.

I think the point that is often not well understood is that we can have pretty much any material we like, provided that we have the energy to extract and refine it.

Energy is ultimately the primary limit so far as human activity is concerned. For example, without energy Australia's iron ore is absolutely worthless and so too is most of our agricultural land. No energy = no ability to refine metals and no ability to transport anything further than we can do it with muscle power.

Try living just one day in your own life without the use of oil, gas or electricity or things produced by them and see how you go. "Completely stuffed" is the answer most will very quickly come up with under this scenario.

As a society, we really need to come to grips with this one and devise a workable plan as to where we're going. It's an issue that goes far beyond questions of climate change or the impact of wind and hydro developments that have been debated at various times over the years.

A few points:

1. Oil fuels practically all of our transport apart from a few electric trains. But even in Melbourne with its' substantial train and tram system, oil is still by far the dominant transport fuel. And in most of the country it's the only transport fuel we use at all.

But Australian oil production has peaked, and globally traded oil is also now shrinking. We are competing for an increasing slice of a shrinking pie. If this continues then there's likely to be trouble ahead at some point.

2. Gas fuels most industrial heat etc applications as well as much domestic and commercial heat. It also fuels a significant amount of electricity generation and is the only real alternative we have available for transport in most situations.

But we're now committing to export virtually all gas not already signed up for domestic use, thus leaving nothing for the future.

3. Electricity is actually the least of our worries. Sure, coal is the dominant source but at least we've still got a lot of coal in the ground. Electricity is also the only form of commercial energy that we can easily produce from renewables - wind, solar, hydro, geothermal - they all produce electricity, not transport fuels, as their output.

Solar is the only real exception there, it can provide direct heat, but its' only really useful in lower grade applications. Eg you can heat water quite easily with the sun, but good luck trying to run a solar powered steel works or even a paper mill would be problematic.

20 years from now, what are we going to be using as a transport fuel? That's the real, difficult question we need to be asking ourselves. CO2 coming out of the stacks at Loy Yang (huge power station in Vic) may well be a problem, but it sure isn't the only energy related issue we've got.

If the (mostly imported) diesel stops then Australia stops - that's a massive risk. No diesel = no trucks, no tractors and very few freight trains = we're in deep **** real quick.

 

[basilio]

Desalination plants will solve the water crisis just like in Israel.

Also means if Greenland and the North and South Poles melt and that the ocean levels rise means more water to be had to be desalinated thusly decreasing the ocean levels ... win bloody win for everyone I reckon

Warmer climate, plenty of water, ocean levels steady ... where's the downside?

TS is this for real ??? Really ? Truly ?

Do you want to tell us just how high sea levels will rise if even a part of Greenland/South Pole/North Pole melt? And like, where that water will end up ?

You arn't a fool TS are you ?

 

[robusta]

Some of the warming is induced by the burning of fossil fuels.
Most of it is produced by the Sun.

Leastways, that's the way I understand it.

Yep that's the way I understand it as well. So the next obvious question is what can we control?

 

[burglar]

... No diesel = no trucks, no tractors and very few freight trains = we're in deep **** real quick.

Some of us understand this!

 

[trainspotter]

TS is this for real ??? Really ? Truly ?

Do you want to tell us just how high sea levels will rise if even a part of Greenland/South Pole/North Pole melt? And like, where that water will end up ?

You arn't a fool TS are you ?

Yes basilio it is real. Israel is using desalination to turn saltwater to freshwater. As Greenland/South Pole/North Pole melt it is unlikely that they will ALL melt at the same time so therefore as they are melting the desalination plants would pump the water out of the ocean at approx the same time. The desalination plants would use less electricity to turn saltwater to freshwater as the oceans would now be a lot less salty !! Just a theory of mine.

You started it with posting up IPCC as a credible source !!

Struggling to keep a discredited global warming crisis afloat, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chair Raj Pachauri this week denied the well-documented plateau in temperatures during the past 15-plus years. Pachauri’s denialism contradicted his own admission earlier this year that there has been a 17-year plateau in global temperatures.


The IPCC is in full damage-control mode after it leaked advance copies of an upcoming Summary for Policymakers to what it assumed would be friendly journalists. The journalists, however, quickly realized the IPCC Summary for Policymakers contained several embarrassing walk-backs from alarmist statements in prior IPCC reports.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/

In other words, global warming is a lot more complicated than we’ve been led to believe – and possibly a lot less catastrophic. There is growing evidence that the climate simply isn’t as sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions as we thought it was.As for those much-hyped climate models – they’re worthless, at least in the short term. They couldn’t predict what’s just happened. A recent study by Francis Zwiers and other scientists at the University of Victoria, published in this month’s Nature Climate Change, examined more than a hundred climate-model simulations and found that almost all of them had “significantly” overestimated global warming over the past 20 years.When it comes to the intricacies of climate change, the science is notoriously unsettled.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09...olf-vastly-overstating-what-the-science-says/

 

[basilio]

Yes basilio it is real. Israel is using desalination to turn saltwater to freshwater. As Greenland/South Pole/North Pole melt it is unlikely that they will ALL melt at the same time so therefore as they are melting the desalination plants would pump the water out of the ocean at approx the same time. The desalination plants would use less electricity to turn saltwater to freshwater as the oceans would now be a lot less salty !! Just a theory of mine. T.S

This theory is not going to fly TS. Why ?
1) Unfortunately if/when Global Warming continues it's path all the ice is up for grabs. Obviously it won't all melt at once but be assured that whether it be glaciers, Greenland, Arctic ice or Antarctic ice the ice melt will be considerable. They won't be waiting in turn...

2) The oceans are at their current level as a result of the current amount of water tied up with ice around the world. The amount of water on Earth stays the same . So when we have glaciation sea levels fall as water is held in expanding ice packs. And conversely sea levels rise when the ice melts

3) Yes you can turn sea water into fresh water and pump it on land. But ultimately that water ends up as part of the water cycle and goes back into the ocean (unless it freezes..) We have a closed system

4) Sea water becoming less saline as ice melts ? Hmm. Yes possibly - when the whole ice pack melts and sea levels are 80 metres higher. Interested in finding out ?

Second thoughts ?

Cheers

 

[trainspotter]

This theory is not going to fly TS. Why ?
1) Unfortunately if/when Global Warming continues it's path all the ice is up for grabs. Obviously it won't all melt at once but be assured that whether it be glaciers, Greenland, Arctic ice or Antarctic ice the ice melt will be considerable. They won't be waiting in turn...

2) The oceans are at their current level as a result of the current amount of water tied up with ice around the world. The amount of water on Earth stays the same . So when we have glaciation sea levels fall as water is held in expanding ice packs. And conversely sea levels rise when the ice melts

3) Yes you can turn sea water into fresh water and pump it on land. But ultimately that water ends up as part of the water cycle and goes back into the ocean (unless it freezes..) We have a closed system

4) Sea water becoming less saline as ice melts ? Hmm. Yes possibly - when the whole ice pack melts and sea levels are 80 metres higher. Interested in finding out ?

Second thoughts ?

Cheers

1) Well they are melting and freezing at different rates now? What is the difference in the projected future from a scientific point of view? Got any links to prove this statement of yours?

2) 97% of Earths water is in the oceans with only 2% in the Cryosphere. The remaining fraction at any given time in the atmosphere, in lakes and streams, and in the soil plays unique and important roles. The flow of water on the surface is a major determinant of the configuration of the physical environment. Soil moisture is essential to most terrestrial plant life. The stocks and flows of surface and ground water are major links in the transport and cycling of chemical nutrients (such as nitrogen, phosphorous, and carbon) and important determinants of what kinds and intensities of human activity can be supported in what locations.

3) By pumping it on the land will create more arable and habitable areas for mankind to thrive. Less than 1 percent of available water is usable by humans and other members of the biosphere. Water is continually being shifted (recycled) from one of these reservoirs to another in the water cycle. The total amount of water in the different reservoirs remains nearly constant with time on a short time scale, but it can change for various reasons. These changes have profound effects on the biosphere. For example, it is known that the temperature of the Earth can fluctuate on time scales varying from years to centuries to thousands to millions of years. Therefore, both alpine and continental glaciers have decreased and increased in size as a result of regional and worldwide climatic change. A consequence of these fluctuations in the cryosphere is that the amount of water in each reservoir of the hydrologic cycle has changed over time.

4) 80 metres?? Put the crack pipe down. The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37 °C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affected.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

Second thoughts?

 

[Smurf1976]

We're completely stuffed, economically at least, if the sea level does significantly rise in a short time period (say, a century or so).

Take a look around Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and countless coastal towns. We've got an awful lot of buildings, roads, bridges and so on that would be effectively ruined by a significant rise in sea level. Then there's factories, airports, power stations, port infrastructure, oil terminals, gas processing plants and so on too. All up there's a lot of stuff and the economic cost alone would be massive if it were to happen during the useful working life of current assets (including cities themselves depending on how big the sea level rise is).

 

[Knobby22]

We're completely stuffed, economically at least, if the sea level does significantly rise in a short time period (say, a century or so).

Take a look around Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and countless coastal towns. We've got an awful lot of buildings, roads, bridges and so on that would be effectively ruined by a significant rise in sea level. Then there's factories, airports, power stations, port infrastructure, oil terminals, gas processing plants and so on too. All up there's a lot of stuff and the economic cost alone would be massive if it were to happen during the useful working life of current assets (including cities themselves depending on how big the sea level rise is).

I worked on the St Kilda foreshore project which was done about 5 years ago.
As part of the works they built a sea wall 1 metre higher than what existed to protect the heart of St Kilda.
I am sure we can protect Melbourne through this method though it will be expensive.
Not sure about Sydney though. In Hobart you can live on the hill :shrug:

(you'd think there would be a shrug emoticon, there are so many stupid ones like ninja)

 

[Samtheman]

"Global warming" is a political/economical propaganda term havnt bothered reading books on it because i dont really care, in one of the finance lectures i was watching online the guy mentioned carbon credits were conceived at.... enron lmao. Gore must of thought it was a profitable business idea too. This is a Phd astrophysicist whos book i have read (on astronomy not on global warming) he gives a good run down on global warming i was hooked within listening to him within a few minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4HAGBC2Pdw

 

[banco]

"Global warming" is a political/economical propaganda term havnt bothered reading books on it because i dont really care, in one of the finance lectures i was watching online the guy mentioned carbon credits were conceived at.... enron lmao. Gore must of thought it was a profitable business idea too. This is a Phd astrophysicist whos book i have read (on astronomy not on global warming) he gives a good run down on global warming i was hooked within listening to him within a few minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4HAGBC2Pdw

So you haven't read any books on it but are convinced it's BS? You sound very well informed.

 

[sptrawler]

We're completely stuffed, economically at least, if the sea level does significantly rise in a short time period (say, a century or so).

Take a look around Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth, Darwin and countless coastal towns. We've got an awful lot of buildings, roads, bridges and so on that would be effectively ruined by a significant rise in sea level. Then there's factories, airports, power stations, port infrastructure, oil terminals, gas processing plants and so on too. All up there's a lot of stuff and the economic cost alone would be massive if it were to happen during the useful working life of current assets (including cities themselves depending on how big the sea level rise is).

Yes it really cracks me up when you see the trailers to the U.S shows "ncis wherever, miami spice, or any other U.S seaboard port.
They are almost underwater already, and we should worry?

I'm sure if the oceans of the world lift 20cm, the backup levels further up the Rhine and Danube, will flood most of industrialised Europe.

The rest of the world has a much bigger problem than us, so why do we have to pin ourselves on a cross, when they don't see an issue.
Or on the other hand, are we beating up an issue, that no one else sees? Is it another little willy issue.

 

[Smurf1976]

I am sure we can protect Melbourne through this method though it will be expensive.
Not sure about Sydney though. In Hobart you can live on the hill

The problem is really one of existing infrastructure. Eg there's a lot in Sydney that's based on the current sea level. That alone would cost a fortune to deal with.

Or even something as simple as roads. Eg in Hobart we have a very major road in the CBD (Davey St) that is just above sea level during a high tide at present. OK, so we could fix one road, but depending on the scale of a rise then we're talking about lots of roads in lots of places all over the country.

20cm = probably not a big deal.

10 metres = huge problem in practice. Everything from sewage works to bridges will need a fortune spent to move, modify or protect them.

I won't claim to know how much of a sea level rise is likely, I'm just observing the practical consequences if it did happen.

 

[burglar]

A shrug emote for knobby22

... They are almost underwater already ...

Ohhh sptrawler,

That's what makes them ports !!:

 

[burglar]

So you haven't read any books on it but are convinced it's BS? You sound very well informed.

The way I read it:

He hasn't read any books on it because

he doesn't care

Whether it is BS or no, was not in his discussion.
Though it may have been in the provided link, which I haven't opened because

I don't care

Furthermore, the topic of the thread is clearly not about whether it is BS or no.
But rather about the alleged hysteria generated by vested interests.

 

[basilio]

Interesting discussion about the impact of rising sea levels. It wouldn't take much to cause very big problems would it ?

I suggest the penny of consequences is starting to drop with National governments around the world. Check out the following story.

'Events, dear boy, events' have put climate change back on the agenda

The decline of climate change on leaders' agendas has been reversed – not by new analysis, but two years of extreme weather


British prime minister, Harold Macmillan, was once asked what was the most difficult thing about his job. ‘Events, dear boy, events’ was his now famous reply.

Put more colloquially, and much less elegantly, stuff happens and politicians have to deal with it. Things that happen can transform the political landscape, for better or worse, in a flash as Margaret Thatcher discovered in 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. Her successful response to this event transformed a looming electoral defeat into victory.

Analysis is a far less insistent driver of politics. Governments can, and often do, ignore analysis, even to the point of disaster. Successive US governments were warned time and again by intelligence analysts that they were losing the war in Vietnam. But this was never enough to stop the war. One unmanned Sputnik briefly circulating the planet was, however, enough to release billions of dollars into the successful American effort to put a man on the moon.

Until the unfortunate climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009 the politics of climate change was primarily driven by analysis. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by governments in 1988. Its job is to advice the 120 participating governments on the science of climate change. In the subsequent 26 years it has published five assessment reports based on the published scientific literature on climate change.

Its summary for policy makers is agreed line-by-line by governments and has so far led to climate legislation in 66 countries. Each report has increased confidence in the science of climate change and alerted politicians to the magnitude and urgency of the issue. Copenhagen, however, revealed the depth of the political difficulty of taking their advice. Combined with the aftermath of the banking crisis, this led to a significant lowering of climate change on the agenda of global leaders.

This decline has now been reversed. Among the global leaders who have already put their mark on the issue in the run up to the climate summit in Paris in 2015 are President Obama, President Xi, Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande and Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. It is not new analysis that has led to the restoration of climate change to the leaders agenda. This has simply reinforced what we already know. It is events, in particular two successive years of extreme weather events all over the world, that are now drawing political leaders back to the issue.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/mar/26/events-climate-change-extreme-weather

 

[Knobby22]

View attachment 57368
A shrug emote for knobby22

:

Looks like he accidentally stood on something and doesn't want anyone to notice.

 

[basilio]

TS that was a pretty comprehensive response to my concerns about your theory on using desalination to (effectively speaking) transfer melting ice caps to land irrigation.

I still cannot conceive how any type of desalination process will be effective at permanently moving Greenlands ice cap onto land. The volumes are simply too big. That puts aside the enormous energy requirements to do the desal in the first place. As Smurf indicated they will pose their own problems.

On the other hand I could take a long term view and consider the following scenario.

Carnegie Wave Energy in WA is developing a wave based energy system which could in fact act as a desalination plant. Imagine a continual supply of fresh water piped into a currently near desert environment to feed millions of trees.

Over an extended period of time these trees prosper with the continual supply of water. As they mature into a forest they become, in effect a "river of green" across the landscape. It's legitimate to call a forest an "above ground river" because it does embody a huge amount of water. In that sense I could see a longer term sequestering of water on shore. (But I still don't think it will be anywhere near ice melt)

It's also fair to say that a forest as immense as suggested could recreate local climate with the transpiration of water from the trees.

I think projects of that type are well worth considering as a contribution to reducing CO2 levels and possibly ameliorating global warming.
___________________________________________________

I suggest the issues of sea level rise are far more challenging than you have acknowledged. Smurf identifies just how difficult it would be to cope with 1 metre sea rise let alone the many metres likely to occur if serious melting occurs.

Just to make that idea even more difficult exactly where do you rebuild if in 20-30 years time evidence of increasing ice melt and sea level rises becomes obvious? There is no argument about the amount of water that will be released over time from the melting of Greenland/Antarctica ect. Would it make any sense to relocate infrastructure to levels 1-2 metres higher than current positions with the knowledge that only 50 years down the track you would have to start all over again.?

How high would you go 5 metres ? 10 ? 30?

When would one decide to abandon a city ? Where would you start rebuilding? Given that this is happening in every part of the country as well as the world what is it doing to our industrial capacity ?

Maybe it would be cheaper to simply go all out to reduce Co2 emissions as distinct from having to relocate and rebuild 50% of our worlds infrastructure ?