Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
Smurf1976 said:
I won't deny that Tas is absolutely a special situation with energy, we already have 89% renewable energy in the grid (long term average) and for decades had 100%, but nonetheless this is proof of a workable concept if other locations substituted pumped storage for the natural flow hydro used in Tas. And there's plenty of pumped storage sites in NSW especially.
Click to expand...

Oh so the solution is to use hydro for lights and fridges and to burn the forests for heat.

Come and tell me that hydro is viable when Tasmanians stop using woodheaters.

Launceston in winter is an absolute joke ( and it is a shame as it is one of my favourite cities in Australia)

I wonder what the proportion of energy from hydro is if you factor in heating as well.
 
Soft Dough said:
Oh so the solution is to use hydro for lights and fridges and to burn the forests for heat.

Come and tell me that hydro is viable when Tasmanians stop using woodheaters.

Launceston in winter is an absolute joke ( and it is a shame as it is one of my favourite cities in Australia)

I wonder what the proportion of energy from hydro is if you factor in heating as well.
Click to expand...
I was having a bit of a go at mainstream environmentalism there since that's precisely where the "burn wood not hydro" argument comes from. That was a point very heavily pushed during the great dams debate of the early 80's and went as far as one prominent environmentalist going into business manufacturing wood heaters.

They urged Tasmania to "put more pressure on the forests" (ie put less pressure on the rivers) on the basis that large amounts of wood rot on the forest floor, effectively going to waste. 2.4 million tonnes a year was the commonly quoted figure and by the 1990's about 0.6 million tonnes was being used in domestic wood heaters.

The actual wording at the time didn't specifically advocate wood exclusively, but it urged Tasmanians not to use electric heating. Given that the surging price of heating oil and a planned switch to electric heating was what lead to the controversial dam plan in the first place, by default environmentalists were promoting wood since that was the only viable alternative and this point was widely acknowledged at the time.

Now, my point is NOT to re-start a debate that was settled 26 years ago. My point is that there is almost always a down side to supposed solutions to environmental problems and I'd like to see that acknowledged. I just want people to understand that it's not a clear cut case of do this and save the Earth. Whatever you do, there will be another environmental downside somewhere and that point is largely being missed in the CO2 debate.

So why then do I use energy in Tas to make the point? Well it did start the world's first Green party and it is in itself a very good example of the types of decisions we face if CO2 emissions are to be drastically cut. You can't have renewables if you don't want the landscape dotted with wind turbines, geothermal plants and their infrastructure, transmission lines, dams and so on. We can cut CO2 certainly, but there are impacts elsewhere on the environment from doing it.

So I'd argue that we want to get it right and that slashing emissions "just in case" is flawed logic given the consequences of doing so both economic and environmental. It's not a one-way street here...

For the record, I'm actually qutie keen on bushwalking so I certainly do understand the conservation side of the argument. And this might make a few people fall of their chairs, but at one point I was actually on the conservationists' side and that's how I became interested in the whole energy and environmental debate in the first place. (Yep, you heard it, Smurf was at one point pretty much a Green!).

But the more I learnt and understood, the less I could accept that burning wood, coal etc was really a good idea no matter what impact hydro, wind or whatever might have on the landscape. That's a personal opinon there of course but it's one from someone who's seen all of these energy sources in action.

I've seen a lot of bush and I've seen rather a lot of dams and power stations too (and that includes coal, oil, wind and gas-fired plants as well as hydro). Placed in the hot seat and forced to make a decision, I'd rather leave nature alone but I'd build a dam, wind farm or geothermal plant in preference to fossil fuels or burning wood in the suburbs that's for sure.

Anyway, here's the answer to the question about energy in Tas. I'm using total energy consumption here for all uses including transport. I'm basing it on long term average rainfall and wind speed at 2008 energy consumption rates and assuming zero net transfer (annually) across Basslink. For gas-fired generation, I've assumed use of the gas turbines and combined cycle unit at Bell Bay and not the steam turbines which were recently mothballed.

Oil = 36 PJ (predominantly transport fuels)
Hydro = 35 PJ
Coal = 12 PJ (almost all used in heavy industry)
Gas = 11.5 PJ (of which 4.5 PJ used to generate electricity)
Wood = 8 PJ (domestic heating and some industrial boiler fuel use)
Wind = 1.5 PJ
Other (landfill gas, industrial waste, solar etc) = 0.2 PJ

So in % terms that's 35% oil, 34% hydro, 12% coal, 11% gas, 8% wood, 2% others (mostly wind). Those figures don't add to 100% due to rounding.

In terms of household use, it's important to avoid double counting here due to the differences in appliance efficiency. For example, 1000 MJ or wood will produce about 600 MJ of heat into the room. But 1000 MJ of electricity used in a heat pump will put about 3000 MJ of heat into the same room. Lots of examples like that and it's very easy to double count.

So I'll put it this way instead, focussing on end use of the energy rather than the input volumes.

Heating is typically 50% of household energy use. 25% for hot water, 5% for cooking and 20% for everything else. Those are fairly widely accepted "typical" figures for an average house in Tas.

2008 figures are that about 58% of homes used electric as their main source of heating (up from 30% in the early 1990's and 12% in the late 1970's). 35% use wood, 4% LPG, 2% oil and 1% natural gas. So electric is dominant now whereas wood dominated in the 80's and 90's and oil dominated in the 70's.

For hot water it's about 89% continuous electric storage, 8% off-peak electric, 2% gas and the remaining 1% is solar, wood etc. The only real change there over the years is the growing use of gas, though it's still a pretty small figure.

For cooking electric ovens are almost at 100% and electric cooktops somewhere around 92 - 95%. The remainder is predominantly LPG with the odd wood oven here and there and a few using natural gas for cooking. 20 years ago that would have been close to 100% electric for cooktops.

Now, from all these figures something ought to be pretty clear. If we had a non-fossil, cheap and plentiful supply of electricity then we could use that to provide all non-transport energy which is two thirds of total energy. All we have to do is use electricity for everything as long as there's enough electricity from renewable sources to do it.

Same principle applies nationally and ultimately that's where I think we're headed - an all-electric economy apart from road vehicles and aviation. Of course, that only works if we first build non-fossil sources of electricity to power it all... :2twocents
 
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25826886-11949,00.html

After Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said yesterday the government wanted to invest in renewable energy development, Mr Ferguson writes in The Australian today that the green lobby has to accept that the technology does not exist for clean renewable energy generation supplying baseload power.

"Technologies capable of producing clean, affordable, reliable baseload power from the sun, the wind, the ocean -- or from low-emissions coal -- may still be several years away," Mr Ferguson writes.

"Over the next few decades, uranium and LNG are set to play a significant role in the global response to climate change. Put simply, blanket opposition to these industries is a political stance, not a practical one."

Mr Ferguson expresses frustration that people claiming to be "true environmentalists" are criticising the government for promoting uranium exports and the development of LNG fields off the northwestern coast of Western Australia.
Click to expand...



"Im yet to meet anyone who opposes the use of cheap, reliable renewable energy," Mr Ferguson writes. "However, the factors limiting the uptake of renewables remain technical, not political.

"We must have a rational, science-based pathway to overcome those hurdles. Faith alone will not get us there."

While again insisting Australia has access to so many energy sources that it does not need to use nuclear power, Mr Ferguson writes that other nations re not so foartunate.I a

Australia has an obligation to export its uranium to help them develop and reduce their carbon emissions, he writes.
Click to expand...

"Martin Ferguson is a total, 100per cent, lackey of the mining industry," Senator Brown said.
Click to expand...
 
With all the "HOOHA" that has gone on for months between the ALARMIST and the SCEPTICS, there has not been one decent debate between the lot of them.

I quote from the Townsville daily Bulletin Sat 25 July:-

Professor Ian Plimer who wrote the book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science. He promoted his book in Townsville on Wednesday night during a talk titled "Human Induced Global Warming: A load of hot air.

A crowd of 100 attended the meeting, held at the Mecure Inn after James Cook University baulked at providing a venue.

The university told the North Queensland branch of the Austraklian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy that it must find a speaker to balance Prof. Plimer's controversial views.

"There was an an attempt to find someone to take me on, but no one had the courage to do it," he told the Townsville Bulletin before the meeting.

As a compromise, JCU had offered a venue on the condition that the talk not be publicised.

He said,he had rejected this, descibing it as censorship.

"It's demonising of dissent," he said.

Unquote.

I would like to know, why the people of Australia are not given the chance to speak and voice their oppinion on CLIMATE CHANGE via a referendum based on the true facts from both sides, and not just the hipe put out by the media which favours the ALARMIST.

P*ssed of completly.
 
Smurf1976 said:
So I'd argue that we want to get it right and that slashing emissions "just in case" is flawed logic given the consequences of doing so both economic and environmental. It's not a one-way street here...
Click to expand...

Well that is the problem isn't it.

We are doing this stuff when the science is inconclusive, yet you have prominent people brainwashed into believing man made climate change wven though there is no science to prove it.
 
Fielding on Global Warming earlier in the year ... (for interest, considering he's such a "sceptic" these days :2twocents

Divorce adds to the impact of global warming - Steve Fielding
From: The Daily Telegraph February 25, 2009 12:00AM

DIVORCE adds to the impact of global warming as couples switch to wasteful single lifestyles, according to an Australian politician.

Family First senator Steve Fielding told a Senate hearing yesterday that divorce led to a "resource-inefficient lifestyle" and it would be better for the planet if couples stayed married.

When couples separate, they need more rooms, more electricity and more water, which increases their carbon footprint.

"We understand that there is a social problem (with divorce), but now we're seeing there is also environmental impact as well on the footprint," Senator Fielding said.

The senator, who came from a family of 16 children, has been married for more than 20 years and focuses on family issues in his political life... etc
Click to expand...

it would be better for the planet if couples stayed married.
Maybe , maybe not - depends if they're gonna stay together - maybe relying on some rhythm method - and have 16 kids I guess :2twocents
 
Seems the pot calling the kettle black really. Repercussions?
 

Attachments

  • Lukas12Febresize.jpg
    Lukas12Febresize.jpg
    85.5 KB · Views: 351
Constant wind, at the beginning of August. That's certainly early - normally September / October around the time of the equinox. Hopefully it comes and goes quickly and we don't have to put up with it for the next 2 months!

Climate change or just a normal variation in the weather? Can't prove it either way on just one example.:2twocents
 
2020hindsight said:
just go to the pub and thrash it out m8
and remember
one swallow does not a pissup make :2twocents

PS still - counterargument - it is still consistent with predictions of climate change.
Click to expand...
The argument is not about climate change. Most realise that climate changes.

The argument is whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, and to what extent. If anthropogenic to x%, what are the factors. There is a more cogent argument that land use is an important factor, far more important that co2 and other greenhouse gases. (see http://climatesci.org )

As further argument, there is climate behaviour around the world consistent with a cooling phase.

Either way, Roger Pielke Snr has pretty much irrefutably shown that the IPCC bunch have mislead policy makers over climate change science. Read all the science.

As I have consistently said, co2 is the wrong focus.
 
wayneL said:
The argument is not about climate change. Most realise that climate changes.

The argument is whether climate change is anthropogenic or not, and to what extent. If anthropogenic to x%, what are the factors. There is a more cogent argument that land use is an important factor, far more important that co2 and other greenhouse gases. (see http://climatesci.org )

As further argument, there is climate behaviour around the world consistent with a cooling phase.

Either way, Roger Pielke Snr has pretty much irrefutably shown that the IPCC bunch have mislead policy makers over climate change science. Read all the science.

As I have consistently said, co2 is the wrong focus.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear.....

Cheers
 
Ian Plimer to publicly defend climate change views.

Really interesting to see that there will be a debate between George Monbiot and Ian Plimer on the question of anthropogenic climate change.

Key point however is that Monbiot has persuaded Ian Plimer to make specific written responses to a number of questions raised in his book. Nice curly ones to that go the basis of the innumerable misrepresenations Ian makes . Best example is

8. You cite a paper by Charles F Keller as the source of your claim that:

"satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming." (p382)

This is what the paper says:

"The big news [is] the collapse of the climate critics' last real bastion, namely that satellites and radiosondes show no significant warming in the past quarter century. Figuratively speaking, this was the center pole that held up the critics' entire "tent." Their argument was that, if there had been little warming in the past 25 years or so, then what warming was observed would have been within the range of natural variations with solar forcing as the major player. Further, the models would have been shown to be unreliable since they were predicting warming that was not happening. But now both satellite and in-situ radiosonde observations have been shown to corroborate both the surface observations of warming and the model predictions."

a. How did you manage to reverse the findings of this paper?

b. Was it a mistake or was it deliberate misrepresentation?
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see how Ian explains this question not mention the other 10.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism
 
Ian Plimer to publicly defend climate change views.

Really interesting to see that there will be a debate between George Monbiot and Ian Plimer on the question of anthropogenic climate change.

Key point however is that Monbiot has persuaded Ian Plimer to make specific written responses to a number of questions raised in his book. Nice curly ones to that go the basis of the innumerable misrepresenations Ian makes . Best example is

Quote:
8. You cite a paper by Charles F Keller as the source of your claim that:

"satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming." (p382)

This is what the paper says:

"The big news [is] the collapse of the climate critics' last real bastion, namely that satellites and radiosondes show no significant warming in the past quarter century. Figuratively speaking, this was the center pole that held up the critics' entire "tent." Their argument was that, if there had been little warming in the past 25 years or so, then what warming was observed would have been within the range of natural variations with solar forcing as the major player. Further, the models would have been shown to be unreliable since they were predicting warming that was not happening. But now both satellite and in-situ radiosonde observations have been shown to corroborate both the surface observations of warming and the model predictions."

a. How did you manage to reverse the findings of this paper?

b. Was it a mistake or was it deliberate misrepresentation?
It will be interesting to see how Ian explains this question not mention the other 10.
Click to expand...

Well we have been waiting with bated breath for Ian Plimer to explain just how he gets to his breathtaking conclusions.... But in vain. (What a surprise .:rolleyes:) What he does instead is post these unbelievably obscure questions for Monbiot to answer complete with calculations and references.

Of course Monbiot is not a Climate Scientist as he points out so Plimer is asking the wrong person. On other hand....

My questions, by contrast, are addressed to the right person. They concern only what Ian Plimer purports to know. He made precise and specific claims in his book. Many of them are either unsourced or blatantly misrepresent his sources. I have not set him an exam in atmospheric physics; I have simply asked him to cite his sources and explain his statements.

If his claims are correct, my questions will be easy and quick for him to answer. If his claims are wrong, my questions will be difficult, if not impossible. The longer he procrastinates, the more he blusters and horses about, the worse his position looks.

Any reputable scientist, when challenged to give his sources, will do so immediately, without argument or evasion. But his latest email looks suspiciously like an attempt at distraction. He appears to be applying the doctrine that the best form of defence is attack.

So come on Professor Plimer, stop avoiding the issue, show some backbone, and answer my questions.
Click to expand...

Is there just a chance that Heavan and Earth is sheer BS dressed up with 2000 plus irrelevant and misquoted footnotes ?:eek:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...g/12/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
 
basilio said:
Well we have been waiting with bated breath for Ian Plimer to explain just how he gets to his breathtaking conclusions.... But in vain. (What a surprise .:rolleyes:) What he does instead is post these unbelievably obscure questions for Monbiot to answer complete with calculations and references.

Of course Monbiot is not a Climate Scientist as he points out so Plimer is asking the wrong person. On other hand....



Is there just a chance that Heavan and Earth is sheer BS dressed up with 2000 plus irrelevant and misquoted footnotes ?:eek:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...g/12/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
Click to expand...

Basilio,

It is interesting (and laughable) that the Monbiotites ares taking the high moral ground here. I have no doubt Plimer is using some dodgy interpretations.

But what's new?

That's the AGWers stock in trade.

Let's focus on honest brokers such as Roger Pielke Snr who are ignored in this whole ridiculously binomial debate.

Monbiot is just as bad, if not worse, than Plimer. As far as debates go however, Monbiot has an amazing advantage in having the platform of the rabidly left wing Guardian, the unofficial journal of the Fabian Society.

Monbiot has the temerity to assume that all his assertions are correct and uses The Grauniad and its acolyte readership of left wing ideologues in a war of public relations, rather than a battle of fact.

I don't mind that Plimer is defensive, given the media power of Monbiot. The minions have already made up their mind and are being childishly ad hominem. But that's the usual tactic.

Those interested in the science will sit back and watch this develop into a proper debate. As it stands, it is nothing more than a typical Guardian/Fabian hatchet job.

Meanwhile, Pielke continues to speak the most sense.
 
BTW - The French say ‘qui s’accuse, s’excuse’ which means ‘he who accuses, excuses himself’.

This is the modus operandi of Monbiotism.
 
wayneL said:
BTW - The French say ‘qui s’accuse, s’excuse’ which means ‘he who accuses, excuses himself’.

This is the modus operandi of Monbiotism.
Click to expand...

lol

A bon mot x 3.

As opposed to a

mon biot / 3

Hung , drawn, quartered.

The Warmeners are getting quite desperate and the poor tell me they are getting restless about all this Taxing of Weather.

gg
 
As I have stated ad nauseum, the focus of the Moonbats and Climate Nazis (to indulge in the puerile AGWer tactic credibility attack via ad homeinem) of on CO2 is all wrong.

Here is one small example:

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage
By Chris Demorro
Staff Writer

The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.
Before we delve into the seedy underworld of hybrids, you must first understand how a hybrid works. For this, we will use the most popular hybrid on the market, the Toyota Prius.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top