Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[Smurf1976]

Scepticism is fine when the outcome doesn't really matter, in this case though it could be fatal.

Trouble is, practically everything humans do could turn out badly. If we take the approach of assuming the worst outcome with everything then we'll never do anything.

Personally, my own bias is logically toward action to reduce emissions and that is my personal view also. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't take action, just pointing out that we are dealing with uncertainty. There's two separate issues there. One is what's going to happen, the other is what should we do about it? We have to make a decision on the latter without having firm proof of the former.

To take action is not unreasonable given the consequences if the worst does happen. It's the same logic which gives reason to be extremely cautious about (for example) genetically engineered food crops and nuclear power. Regardless of the probability, the consequences of a worst case disaster are truly catastrophic. Just like climate change, once the genie is out of the bottle we're screwed.

Taking action and certainty about the issue are different things however. We do not have certainty about the issue one way or the other and likely won't for quite some time yet. It is thus rational to be skeptical about that, unless someone can provide firm, absolute proof to show exactly the relationship between CO2 and climate which thus far seems to be elusive. That does not mean we should ignore it, it just means we aren't sure about what we're really dealing with.

 

[overhang]

The sensible position on anything which hasn't actually happened yet is to be skeptical but open to evidence in either direction unless we're talking about a pattern which has previously occurred with 100% reliability (eg it gets light every morning and dark at night - that could be considered as 100% certain).

That concept goes for everything really. If it's in the future then it is not certain. Just because you're sitting on a plane on the ground in Sydney and expecting to fly to Adelaide doesn't mean the plane will actually take off, fly and land in Adelaide. It could stay on the ground for whatever reason. It could take off then land again in Sydney. It could take off and land somewhere completely different, say Canberra. A rational person would thus take the skeptical view - the plane will probably fly to Adelaide and land there but it's not absolutely certain.

In your analogy should we not have ground staff waiting at the airport seeing as though we're not 100% certain the plane will land so there is no point preparing for it since we can't know for certainty that the plane will land in Adelaide?

No I don't believe in rash policy like the carbon tax to deal with the possibility of the issue however I do believe a gradual shift to renewable energy is sensible policy to move us toward an energy grid that isn't reliant on unsustainable fossil fuels which is why I supported the CEFC and do support some form of a RET.

 

[luutzu]

Trouble is, practically everything humans do could turn out badly. If we take the approach of assuming the worst outcome with everything then we'll never do anything.

Personally, my own bias is logically toward action to reduce emissions and that is my personal view also. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't take action, just pointing out that we are dealing with uncertainty. There's two separate issues there. One is what's going to happen, the other is what should we do about it? We have to make a decision on the latter without having firm proof of the former.

To take action is not unreasonable given the consequences if the worst does happen. It's the same logic which gives reason to be extremely cautious about (for example) genetically engineered food crops and nuclear power. Regardless of the probability, the consequences of a worst case disaster are truly catastrophic. Just like climate change, once the genie is out of the bottle we're screwed.

Taking action and certainty about the issue are different things however. We do not have certainty about the issue one way or the other and likely won't for quite some time yet. It is thus rational to be skeptical about that, unless someone can provide firm, absolute proof to show exactly the relationship between CO2 and climate which thus far seems to be elusive. That does not mean we should ignore it, it just means we aren't sure about what we're really dealing with.

I thought the science is already in. But being science, it cannot "prove" a future event so it simply postulate a theory, with all the evidence and modellings, and conclude that there is a correlation and it will be disastrous etc.

I mean, the dinosaurs are all dead 150 million years ago and we still couldn't "prove" what kill it.

 

[wayneL]

Pfft

There are climate skeptics, climate change minimisers and deniers.
Try to get your heads around it.

Knobby, anyone who contests the worst case scenario, or suggests factors in climate change other than, or in addition to co2 is labelled a denier.

Don't play ducks and drakes, you know this.

Such is the extent of the climate McCarthyism that honest brokers such as Pielke Jnr have withdrawn from public comment and debate on the topic (himself a warmist but relying on actual data, eschewing Gorist propaganda).


http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/this-post-will-serve-as-running-update.html?m=1

 

[Smurf1976]

In your analogy should we not have ground staff waiting at the airport seeing as though we're not 100% certain the plane will land so there is no point preparing for it since we can't know for certainty that the plane will land in Adelaide?

We have ground staff and other facilities at Adelaide and other airports because we expect planes to land there in the normal course of business.

We do not, however, have ground staff and other facilities beside a straight stretch of road on flat land in the middle of nowhere even though there is a remote chance that a plane might make an emergency landing on it. Planes have landed on roads before but there's an awful lot of roads and a very low occurrence of planes landing on them, hence we don't worry about it. If a plane does land there then we deal with it when it happens.

I do believe a gradual shift to renewable energy is sensible policy to move us toward an energy grid that isn't reliant on unsustainable fossil fuels which is why I supported the CEFC and do support some form of a RET.

I am absolutely in favour of a move to renewables for the simple reason that, even without the CO2 issue, there are a lot of other problems with fossil fuels. CO2 aside, coal makes a mess in oh so many ways whilst oil and gas are pretty clearly linked to wars and other forms of suffering globally. Meanwhile, they have important uses (particularly oil and gas) other than generating electricity which makes their use in power stations seem rather wasteful at best.

That said, there is a very real economic cost of making the transition at least in the short term based on how current economic thinking works. As such, the precautionary principle is not free, there is a very real cost involved to do it and we'd be wise to make rational, informed decisions. Do we need to cut 80% by 2020? Or will cutting 50% by 2050 be OK? There's a massive difference in the implications there so it's wise to base such decisions on science rather than always assuming the worst case. If we took the worst case scenario with everything then we'd have the entire coal, oil, gas and nuclear industries closed for good by the weekend but pretty obviously there are massive consequences of doing that, hence things which catch fire or glow in the dark will be with us for some time yet.

My personal view is that we should simply not build any new fossil fuel power generation except in circumstances where there is either no practical alternative and/or it serves solely as backup to intermittent renewables. In due course the old plants will close, another one's gone today (closure of Northern and Playford B by 2018 announced (though Playford B is already mothballed) - that ends all coal-fired generation in SA) and renewables take over in an orderly manner.

 

[Smurf1976]

I thought the science is already in.

The science is "in" with things like asbestos being deadly or that it's possible to communicate using light transmitted long distances over glass (optical fibre). No question there, there's more than enough evidence about asbestos and we can prove that sending data over optically works.

But so far as the climate is concerned, there are many natural influences over climate and nobody would seriously suggest that we fully understand them all. As such, it's not possible to separate man-made effects from natural ones with certainty. We can come up with theories, but we're not at the point of being able to say with 100% certainty that they are right. Probably perhaps, but not absolute certainty.

That said, we do know that CO2 traps heat, that point is beyond doubt as such. What's uncertain is how the many effects of increasing CO2 on an entire planet actually play out in reality. We may well get less or more warming than we expect and many other unexpected things may happen as a result. As such, the science isn't really "settled" as to what would actually happen at any given CO2 concentration. Theories certainly, but there's no absolute certainty and that leads to debates like the one in this thread.

 

[luutzu]

The science is "in" with things like asbestos being deadly or that it's possible to communicate using light transmitted long distances over glass (optical fibre). No question there, there's more than enough evidence about asbestos and we can prove that sending data over optically works.

But so far as the climate is concerned, there are many natural influences over climate and nobody would seriously suggest that we fully understand them all. As such, it's not possible to separate man-made effects from natural ones with certainty. We can come up with theories, but we're not at the point of being able to say with 100% certainty that they are right. Probably perhaps, but not absolute certainty.

That said, we do know that CO2 traps heat, that point is beyond doubt as such. What's uncertain is how the many effects of increasing CO2 on an entire planet actually play out in reality. We may well get less or more warming than we expect and many other unexpected things may happen as a result. As such, the science isn't really "settled" as to what would actually happen at any given CO2 concentration. Theories certainly, but there's no absolute certainty and that leads to debates like the one in this thread.

No certainty but there are very strong correlations - at the least. And sure correlation does not mean causation but I've seen charts and what not showing rising temperature and other effects since industrialization.

CO2 traps heat, resulting in the Greenhouse Effect. That melts the glaciers, the Antarctic, warmer temperature here while colder there... and if certain part of the Arctic or Greenland melt it will release the CO2 that's been trapped over centuries and millenniums...

Add to all that the solar storms and flare, the orbit the Earth is at from the Sun; rising population and greater industrialisation and higher demand for energy...

So yes, there's a lot of factors at play and it's difficult to say with certainty the timing and magnitude of the result - but to say we're not yet certain of the cause is bit much. Not saying you said that, but that while the science may not be conclusive at this point, it's pretty convincing that global warming is real and human activities play a big part in it.

As Sirrumpole said before.. when we're dealing with matters that take decades to turn around or to switch, where the result meant death and destruction to millions if not most life on Earth... probably best to err on the side of caution.

 

[trainspotter]

As Sirrumpole said before.. when we're dealing with matters that take decades to turn around or to switch, where the result meant death and destruction to millions if not most life on Earth... probably best to err on the side of caution.

meant death and destruction to millions if not most life on Earth

WOW ... is this real? Millions of years of Darwinism and this is the pinnacle?

Haters gonna Hate but life on this spinning rock aint so bad around the solar system. It is a GLOBAL phenomenon ... US here on ASF will not FIX IT. China and India and the USA need to hug a tree NOW

Started looking at how much plastic and paper mulch I throw out to the refuse .... REPURPOSE is the new black. Adaptation of the old school word RECYCLE.

Keep it real guys ... PULEEEEZE !

 

[luutzu]

WOW ... is this real? Millions of years of Darwinism and this is the pinnacle?

Haters gonna Hate but life on this spinning rock aint so bad around the solar system. It is a GLOBAL phenomenon ... US here on ASF will not FIX IT. China and India and the USA need to hug a tree NOW

Started looking at how much plastic and paper mulch I throw out to the refuse .... REPURPOSE is the new black. Adaptation of the old school word RECYCLE.

Keep it real guys ... PULEEEEZE !

We'd probably need to do more than just recycle or hug a tree.

It's not like we could just build a new power plant, or turn off our cars or go green the next day or year. It'll take years to get any plant safely on line, take decades to bring enough alternative power plant and transportation and infrastuctures etc. to meaningfully reduce the impact... and telling the poorer nations to stop wanting a car each or to not live like the West ain't going to work either.

If we wait for clear and present evidence, do you seriously we'd have enough resources to cope, repair, assist those affected and also bring online the alternatives?

Read that in the US last year, there's some 1500 train derailment, 1/3 was due to track issues. Its roads and bridges, its power grid etc. are old and a massive number of them are unsafe and need repair. Now, let say extreme weather like snowstorms, heatwave, hurricane were to occur much more frequently across many US states... Extreme weather will damage or really worn out infrastructure, people will die and a lot will get sick...

A rich country like the US will have a hard time meeting those needs, a lot of resources will be spent to just bring things back to normal working order, a lot of loss time and productivity etc. etc.

So if the perfect storm hit, and if science could then point to the "proof"... we'd just then all switch over and hug a tree and it'd be alright?

-----

Don't want to be alarmist but it is alarming.

We're living through an age where enormous number of species goes extinct - the last time extinction happen on this scale was the extinction of the dinosaurs - literally, no exaggeration. But we're cool with it for some reason.

 

[Knobby22]

Reading Elizabeth Knight in the Age today, regarding the shutting down of the Alinta power station in SA.
She states that other power stations in danger of shutting down due to consumers using less power and reduced industry demand includes NSW Delta Electricity plant at Vale Point, Queensland's Intergen plant at Millmeran and CS Energy's Callide B and Stanwells' Tarong North Plant.

So you say, great we are shutting down coal plants- excellent for reducing greenhouse emmissions. The problem is that we are shutting down the wrong plants! Some of these are the most efficient black coal plants in the country.
We should be shutting down Hazlewood in Victoria which is old, inefficient and burns brown coal, one of the worst polluting plants in the whole world, not only of CO2 but also sulphur etc. Because we have got rid of carbon pricing it can survive while the others shut down. This is a direct consequence of getting rid of the carbon tax.

Surely, we can do better.

 

[Smurf1976]

The problem is that we are shutting down the wrong plants! Some of these are the most efficient black coal plants in the country. We should be shutting down Hazlewood in Victoria which is old, inefficient and burns brown coal, one of the worst polluting plants in the whole world, not only of CO2 but also sulphur etc.

Hazelwood isn't too bad in terms of sulphur emissions, the coal is only about 0.3% sulphur (from memory) and that's not too bad. Plenty of other coal is higher in sulphur than what's burned in the Latrobe Valley.

As for plant closures, the real issues are (1) location and (2) who owns what.

So far as location is concerned, closing Hazelwood and getting more power from Queensland doesn't work unless we build more transmission infrastructure. Qld already exports heavily into NSW most of the time and there isn't sufficient capacity Qld - NSW or NSW - Vic to offset the loss of a large power station in Vic no matter how much power Qld has available.

As for ownership, the issue there is different companies, and different states at the political level, are pursuing very different strategies. In broad terms Qld and NSW are pursuing higher prices at various levels of the industry (generation in Qld, networks in NSW) so as to have consumers subsidise the privatisation push.

Victoria is basically saying "leave it to the market".

Tasmania is pushing cheap power from renewables and the trend in prices is down in nominal terms so some significant falls in "real" terms. Part of that, and something that will have the usual economic types wondering where they went wrong, has been to put all generation back into a single entity (Hydro Tas) and to also put the networks all into one entity (Tas Networks) regardless of voltage. Economic types will bleat on about competition lowering prices but they forget the loss of efficiency inherent in that model. You push prices up first, then try to get them back down a bit by cutting returns on what is already a sunk investment - doesn't work in practice.

SA is basically pushing renewables as a strategic and economic move and not really worrying about what happens to the rest.

So shutting some capacity in Qld in order to push prices up fits with the strategy. Close efficient plant and run inefficient plant more - that actually does make money even though it's irrational from a broader perspective. The coal closures in NSW are more market driven, whilst the gas mothballing (well, it's not technically mothballed but the combined cycle unit has been idle for over a year now) is also market driven - the gas is worth more sold into interstate markets as gas than it's worth as electricity.

Building more renewables is also a market driven result, albeit one of a market which includes incentives such as the RET. SA will do more with wind and probably solar, Tas is having another look at more hydro and wind. Other states it's more about whatever someone comes up with, there's no real strategy as such other than "leave it to the market".

If the Northern (Port Augusta, coal), Torrens Island A (Adelaide urban area, gas) and Anglesea (Vic, coal) closures all go ahead then the market's going to become extremely volatile during heatwaves and there's a very real risk of a supply shortfall there too. Not good news if you're an energy user in those states and want stable prices and/or a reliable supply. Good news though if you're on the generation end and still in business - a few seriously hot days and here come the $$$.

Personally, I'm not convinced that all those closures will actually go ahead with Torrens Island A being the most likely to stay open (largely because it's an intermittent operation anyway and there's still the 'B' station running literally right next door which makes things easier).

 

[noco]

Global Warming !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!What Global Warming?

Some more opinions that Al Gore , Tim Flannery and the Green UN will not agree......They are still persisting with their misinformed rhetoric....What a scam.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...despite_the_cost_and_the_evidence_because_th/

 

[Knobby22]

Hazelwood isn't too bad in terms of sulphur emissions, the coal is only about 0.3% sulphur (from memory) and that's not too bad. Plenty of other coal is higher in sulphur than what's burned in the Latrobe Valley.

As for plant closures, the real issues are (1) location and (2) who owns what.

So far as location is concerned, closing Hazelwood and getting more power from Queensland doesn't work unless we build more transmission infrastructure. Qld already exports heavily into NSW most of the time and there isn't sufficient capacity Qld - NSW or NSW - Vic to offset the loss of a large power station in Vic no matter how much power Qld has available.

As for ownership, the issue there is different companies, and different states at the political level, are pursuing very different strategies. In broad terms Qld and NSW are pursuing higher prices at various levels of the industry (generation in Qld, networks in NSW) so as to have consumers subsidise the privatisation push.

Victoria is basically saying "leave it to the market".

Tasmania is pushing cheap power from renewables and the trend in prices is down in nominal terms so some significant falls in "real" terms. Part of that, and something that will have the usual economic types wondering where they went wrong, has been to put all generation back into a single entity (Hydro Tas) and to also put the networks all into one entity (Tas Networks) regardless of voltage. Economic types will bleat on about competition lowering prices but they forget the loss of efficiency inherent in that model. You push prices up first, then try to get them back down a bit by cutting returns on what is already a sunk investment - doesn't work in practice.

SA is basically pushing renewables as a strategic and economic move and not really worrying about what happens to the rest.

So shutting some capacity in Qld in order to push prices up fits with the strategy. Close efficient plant and run inefficient plant more - that actually does make money even though it's irrational from a broader perspective. The coal closures in NSW are more market driven, whilst the gas mothballing (well, it's not technically mothballed but the combined cycle unit has been idle for over a year now) is also market driven - the gas is worth more sold into interstate markets as gas than it's worth as electricity.

Building more renewables is also a market driven result, albeit one of a market which includes incentives such as the RET. SA will do more with wind and probably solar, Tas is having another look at more hydro and wind. Other states it's more about whatever someone comes up with, there's no real strategy as such other than "leave it to the market".

If the Northern (Port Augusta, coal), Torrens Island A (Adelaide urban area, gas) and Anglesea (Vic, coal) closures all go ahead then the market's going to become extremely volatile during heatwaves and there's a very real risk of a supply shortfall there too. Not good news if you're an energy user in those states and want stable prices and/or a reliable supply. Good news though if you're on the generation end and still in business - a few seriously hot days and here come the $$$.

Personally, I'm not convinced that all those closures will actually go ahead with Torrens Island A being the most likely to stay open (largely because it's an intermittent operation anyway and there's still the 'B' station running literally right next door which makes things easier).

Thanks Smurf

There are still the later built Loy Yang power stations in the Latrobe valley.
If we are basing it on cost only ignoring emissions then Hazelwood stays.

From Wikapedia

The Hazelwood Power Station is a brown coal-fuelled base-load thermal power station located in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria, Australia. Built between 1964 and 1971, the 1,600-megawatt (2,100,000 hp) capacity power station supplies up to 25% of Victoria's base load electricity and more than 5% of Australia's total energy demand.[1] Hazelwood produces 2.8% of Australia's CO2 emissions and 0.057% of world emissions. The station was listed as the least carbon efficient power station in the OECD in a 2005 report by WWF Australia making it one of the most polluting power stations in the world.[2]

I believe just closing down this one power station would pretty much allow Australia to meet its International commitments and greatly reduce the carbon dioxide production. Of course they are pretty low and we would most likely meet them in any case.

 

[basilio]

The case for Climate Mobilization

The unpalatable reality is that if we are actually going to address climate changes issues we have to move with unprecedented speed. The slow and steady options of adjustment over time are, according to every scientist in the field, incapable of achieving the necessary changes.

I came across a group in the US that is embarking on the cause of Climate Mobilization. In effect they are trying to create a mass movement that

1) Recognizes the need for widespread large scale changes to address CC
2) Demands the government take this action.

IMO it's a valid and well argued view. Put it this way. If the US hadn't fully mobilised it's economy to re tool for WW2 it simply wouldn't have won. Conversely the German economy did not fully mobilise until 1943.(see Url) (Surprised ? I was ) Anyway the website, the analysis and the actions are there to argue. Check it out.

http://www.theclimatemobilization.org/case
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9HHPq85FjLGcjJvbGdWVUZCZVk/view
https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=c...=ssl#q=when+did+Germany+fully+mobilise+in+WW2

 

[Logique]

Well it seems the warmists have a new fellow traveller - the Pope!

The world must transition away from coal, says the Pope. And by the way birth control is still forbidden.

It's a toxic mix for the third world, and should see them remain Third.

 

[nioka]

Thanks Smurf

There are still the later built Loy Yang power stations in the Latrobe valley.
If we are basing it on cost only ignoring emissions then Hazelwood stays.

From Wikapedia

The Hazelwood Power Station is a brown coal-fuelled base-load thermal power station located in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria, Australia. Built between 1964 and 1971, the 1,600-megawatt (2,100,000 hp) capacity power station supplies up to 25% of Victoria's base load electricity and more than 5% of Australia's total energy demand.[1] Hazelwood produces 2.8% of Australia's CO2 emissions and 0.057% of world emissions. The station was listed as the least carbon efficient power station in the OECD in a 2005 report by WWF Australia making it one of the most polluting power stations in the world.[2]

I believe just closing down this one power station would pretty much allow Australia to meet its International commitments and greatly reduce the carbon dioxide production. Of course they are pretty low and we would most likely meet them in any case.

One company, ESI, believes it has the answer to the brown coal problem. ESI trades as a penny dreadful stock while it claims to have patented a process that will dewater the coal and convert it to the black coal equivalent. Might be worth a gamble that they will benefit from the Popes declaration and Abbott's conversion to a global warming believer and a supporter of ESI.

 

[Knobby22]

One company, ESI, believes it has the answer to the brown coal problem. ESI trades as a penny dreadful stock while it claims to have patented a process that will dewater the coal and convert it to the black coal equivalent. Might be worth a gamble that they will benefit from the Popes declaration and Abbott's conversion to a global warming believer and a supporter of ESI.

It has really jumped the last two months!
Do you suspect some money heading their way from the Libs Nioka?

 

[Tisme]

Back in the day, John Howard signed up to Kyoto for whatever reason he had and part of the scheme was to show our green credentials. Lucky for him Peter Beattie saw fit to lock up huge tracts of forests in the north of Queensland at the same time and things were schweet for our international cred.

However that all came to an end when Noco's crowd took office and granted licences (mostly while in care taker mode at the end of 3 years of voter punishment) to bulldoze hundreds of thousands of hectares to replace the manmade wastelands of past land management.

I'm wondering how much improvement will need to be made to the efficiency of everything else to offset the carbon increase and wildlife loss that the stripping will and thus far caused. I'm also wondering how much social perspicacity will be lost to lazy politics.

 

[nioka]

It has really jumped the last two months!
Do you suspect some money heading their way from the Libs Nioka?

Abbott and his libs are more likely to help the big black coal miners than help a minnow. The technology is more likely to be adapted by those European soft coal producers. Adopting the technology in Victoria may extend the life of power generation there if that technology can be a factor in the economics of power generation using brown coal. This Liberal government will put economics ahead of environmental issues going on their current record.

 

[Tisme]

Girl gets on high horse:

http://bit.ly/2w8SdsR