Climate change another name for Weather

[rederob]

You can put up all the youtubes you like mate, but warmeners are godbothering and will not look at the evidence against.

gg

Actually it's more the opposite case.

 

[2020hindsight]

Seems there is still plenty to discuss.

I'm sure there is ..

("Temp rise between 1 and 6 deg per century - we'll use 1 for this clock's purpose")

And I'm sure that you'd agree Spooly that even the most optmistic of optimistic models would only predict 1degC per century rise in temp . This clock is totally unrealistic in that regard. IPCC say IF we have concerted action NOW in a cooperative manner, we could possibly limit the temp rise to 2degC by 2100.

Meanwhile of course, land is being cleared, animal habitat decreasing etc - and all these matters would be turned around if the world signed up to Kyoto - and was pressured into doing something other than make excuses that something else was more important, therefore do nought etc.

Yeh, plenty, is it going to warm or is it going to cool.

gg, you should have been in that debate - you could have been the only one arguing that CO2 is not causing warming.

 

[wayneL]

FYI - Dates are American format.

 

[Smurf1976]

Meanwhile of course, land is being cleared, animal habitat decreasing etc - and all these matters would be turned around if the world signed up to Kyoto

1. Biofuels production and the required massive land clearing is already threatening extinctions. Scaling it up won't help there.

2. Widespread use of nuclear must surely increase the risk of serious accidents and consequent non-CO2 environmental damage.

3. Hydro dams flooding the wilderness, the very issue that started what is now known as the Greens. A number of new hydro-electric projects are now under active consideration in Australia solely as a response to the CO2 issue and in particular to carbon trading, caps or taxes. It'll be interesting to see how that debate goes - politically it's going to be hard to argue against unless your position is that CO2 isn't too important which puts the Greens etc in a rather difficult policy position.

4. Wind, tidal etc also has significant non-CO2 impacts on the local environment. Those turbines have their benefits but I doubt that too many large birds would agree with having more of them.

 

[2020hindsight]

2. Widespread use of nuclear must surely increase the risk of serious accidents and consequent non-CO2 environmental damage

I can't accept that there isn't already widespread use of nuclear.

Heck there are 128 centuries of combined operating experience out there in the big wide world (France gets 70% odd of its power from its 59 nuclear plants etc) - and none in Australia.

As of 1 Nov 07, USA had 104 reactors plus one under construction,
Russia had 31 plus 8 under construction
China had 11 plus 8 under construction
India had 17 plus 6
Canada had 18
Japan 55
Korea 20
Iran 1 under construction, etc etc

even Mexico has 2 ! - so we are technically not up to it where the Mexicans are

"As of 1 November 2008 in 31 countries 439 nuclear power plant units with an installed electric net capacity of about 372 GW are in operation and 38 plants with an installed capacity of 32.6 GW are in 14 countries under construction.

As of end 2007 the total electricity production since 1951 amounts to 59,450 billion kWh. The cumulative operating experience amounted to 12,750 years by the end of 2007."

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm

 

[2020hindsight]

I'll be honest and express my opinion that I think CCS will prove to be a waste of time.

More power to do it - possibility of leakage - monumental dimensions to the problem etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

I'll stick something on the poetry thread
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=369959

(where I can claim poetic licence if I've made a mathematical mistake lol).

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Why not solar power? Why not wind power? Why not ocean power? Why not the unemployed strapped to bicycles charging up batteries for buildings etc?

 

[2020hindsight]

(France gets 70% odd of its power from its 59 nuclear plants etc) - and none in Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

France has a long relationship with nuclear power, starting with Henri Becquerel's discovery of natural radioactivity in the 1890s and continued by famous French nuclear scientists like Pierre and Marie Curie

Historically, nuclear power was supported by the Gaullists, the Socialist Party and the Communist Party. A 2001 Ipsos poll found that 70% of the French population had a "good opinion" of nuclear energy in France and 63% want their country to remain a nuclear leader.[10] According to reporter Jon Palfreman, the construction of the Civaux Nuclear Power Plant was welcomed by the local community in 1997:

In France, unlike in America, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular. Everybody I spoke to in Civaux loves the fact their region was chosen. The nuclear plant has brought jobs and prosperity to the area. Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear.[11]

A variety of reasons are cited for the popular support; a sense of national independence and reduced reliance on foreign oil, reduction of greenhouse gases, and a cultural interest in large technical projects (like the TGV and Concorde).[11][12]

 

[Wysiwyg]

even Mexico has 2 ! - so we are technically not up to it where the Mexicans are

Hello 2020, You think the present Labor government will be the one to bring in a nuclear power plant first?

They have Peter Garrett as Minister for Environment, Heritage and Arts so it would seem unlikely as I do remember rocking to the anti-nuke Midnight Oil in my youth.Don`t know how much clout he has or whether he goes with the flow these days.

It won`t happen tomorrow but it will happen.

 

[2020hindsight]

1. You think the present Labor government will be the one to bring in a nuclear power plant first?
...
2. It won`t happen tomorrow but it will happen.

hi wys
1. no I don't mate As I've said before, in the end it was one topic where I agreed with the trend that Johnny Howard took (in his last days of flip flops )

2. yes, I agree - absolutely! Aussie nuclear plants probably completed in 50 years (just my guess / opinion obviously).

Speaking of those Howard flipflops leading up to the election ...

 

[2020hindsight]

Heck , Switzerland has 5 nuclear reactors - and it's half the size of Tasmania (41280 km^2, vs 90760 km^2)

http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/switzerland.php

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf

compare the current view with this "datum" at 8pm on 06Dec08 Sydney time

22,424,955,140 tonnes CO2 emissions (this year)
Concentration of CO2 .. 388.010629 ppm

New data about 24 hours later :-

22,500,721,784 tonnes CO2 emissions (this year)
Concentration of CO2 .. 388.01424421 ppm

Increase in CO2 emitted by man in the past 24 hours (and a bit) = 75,766.000 tonnes

and increase in CO2 concentration in the same time is about 0.001 %

 

[2020hindsight]

FYI - Dates are American format.

pretty much consistent with the graph don't you reckon -

but it's about the trend (obviously)

 

[2020hindsight]

Re : That map on post #225 -
only Australia and Antarctica - of all 7 continents - have yet to have nuclear power.

 

[wayneL]

but it's about the trend (obviously)

Yes. But the IPCC only like to pick those trends that fit their religion, ignoring and obfuscating all other trends that don't... like southern sea ice. Ever notice there is no date comparison images for the Antarctic?

Also climate fraudsters, like CNBC bobbleheads, like to extrapolate short term trends to infinity. This is why many neo classical economists, like climate "pseudo scientists", are laughing stocks and not to be taken seriously.

The trend is your friend... until it bends at the end.

I'll see you a and raise you a 3s

 

[2020hindsight]

Yes. But the IPCC only like to pick those trends that fit their religion, ignoring and ...

hang on a sec wayne
you publish two results from two consecutive years
and you pretend that the scientifically honest opinion is that the trend is getting cooler (OR DO YOU - WHO KNOWS ?)

and then you criticise IPCC

 

[wayneL]

hang on a sec wayne
you publish two results from two consecutive years
and you pretend that the scientifically honest opinion is that the trend is getting cooler (OR DO YOU - WHO KNOWS ?)

and then you criticise IPCC

We can only deal with facts. But when doing so, we must consider ALL facts, not just those that suit your religious belief such as the "Young Earth Creationesque" IPCC.

Much to the alarm of the alarmists, when ALL data is considered, there is evidence that the recent warming trend in some parts of the earth has halted and may be reversing, as is normal with the cyclical nature of Earth's climate.

A sure way to confuse oneself, is to believe the propaganda of a totally fraudulent organization such as the IPCC and Al Bore and be faced with:

1/ the reality in several years time that there is no or very little co2 warming.

2/ the disgracefully hypocritical behaviour of their High Priests, Al Bore and members of the IPCC committee.

3/ The monumental hypocrisy of their own actions.

4/ The humiliation of having supported lunatic hair brained and dangerous nutters like Tim Flannery.

5/ The depression of having prostrated themselves on the political CC alter and support of their liberty sapping ulterior agenda.

No excuse me before I go feeling sorry for you when you clearly are undeserving of sympathy.

 

[Sean K]

4/ The humiliation of having supported lunatic hair brained and dangerous nutters like Tim Flannery.

Wayne, I'm currently reading a Flannery book called The Weathermakers that is HIGHLY recommended by Intrepid Travel who are big supporters of GW dogmatists. Intrepid are leading the travel industry in carbon offsetting etc etc.

I've found some of his stuff has some foundation based on some seemingly facts but then at other times leaps to hard conclusions not based on anything other than his own preamble. Sometimes those conclusions are the most significant in a chapter. Troubling. However, overall, so far, seems to have some merit.

I'm a major skeptic of GW, probably because I find it my purpose to always take the opposing opinion of the masses. That's probably an ego thing, so I'm a bit lost trying to find the truth in regard to this issue.

So, opinion on Flannery?

Hair brained nutter?

Is his stuff really bunk in your opinion? Where does he lose it?

 

[jonojpsg]

pretty much consistent with the graph don't you reckon -

but it's about the trend (obviously)

It's definitely about the trend Wayne - which is most obviously a decreasing sea ice cover in the Arctic. **** mate, if last years "trend" had continued there wouldn't be any ice left next year!! As it is, it will still only be ten- twenty years before this happens in northern summers.

 

[explod]

Interesting discussion guys but comning in cold just some thoughts:

A mate of mine recently on the Dargo River fishing (Esat Victoria) There was a scientist from CSIRO testing the river. After some discussion he sated that not only is Australia the driest continent on the planet but that the last two hundred years have been the wettest in over half a million years.

I though like the idea of two bob each way. The subsidies to the oil industry if redirected would eventually provide cheaper clean alternatives. Probably provide more jobs while we get there. And now that we are all broke and will probably soon work for a pittance we will have no worries. See you on the chain gang.

Anyway just