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.
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.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.
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.
"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.
"Martin Ferguson is a total, 100per cent, lackey of the mining industry," Senator Brown 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...
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
In part because of warming and the retreat and thinning of Arctic sea ice in summer, this northern sea route is slowly becoming a reality
Last year, for the first time in the era of satellite monitoring, both Arctic passages were briefly open at the same time.
Can't prove it either way on just one example
The argument is not about climate change. Most realise that climate changes.just go to the pub and thrash it out m8
and remember
one swallow does not a pissup make
PS still - counterargument - it is still consistent with predictions of climate change.
Indeed it is...PS still - counterargument - it is still consistent with predictions of climate change.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 .) 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 ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...g/12/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
BTW - The French say ‘qui s’accuse, s’excuse’ which means ‘he who accuses, excuses himself’.
This is the modus operandi of Monbiotism.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?