Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Jump to new
wayneL said:
I'm so sorry you won't live to see your folly.
Click to expand...
Rubbish, a scientist I know personally said four years ago that we'll be stuffed in five years. I was sceptical then but can see it now.

I'm only 73 my Mother is still very with it at 96.

So where are you coming from Wayne, how about in clear grade two words telling us ??
 
explod said:
Rubbish, a scientist I know personally said four years ago that we'll be stuffed in five years. I was sceptical then but can see it now.

I'm only 73 my Mother is still very with it at 96.

So where are you coming from Wayne, how about in clear grade two words telling us ??
Click to expand...
I have always been clear. I apologise if my tendancy to sesquipedalianism violates your 2nd grade, 250 word vocabulary.
 
wayneL said:
Well, my actual views are well documented by me here.

So far I am not wrong, whereas the alarmists have been spectacularly so.

If I'm wrong I'll admit it
Click to expand...

2016 is the hottest year on record, followed by 2017 and 2019. See a pattern there ?
 
Reality is that we're never going to compete against low cost countries on price and trying to do so is simply a race to the bottom on all standards including environmental. Simple as that really, the rest is just detail. :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
Reality is that we're never going to compete against low cost countries on price and trying to do so is simply a race to the bottom on all standards including environmental. Simple as that really, the rest is just detail. :2twocents
Click to expand...

That seems to be the accepted message.
There is another perspective offered by Professor Ross Gaurnaut in his book Superpower.

Long story short he says that if Australia used its sun and wind renewable energy capacity to create "limitless" (a hell of a lot) cheap energy there would be a comparative advantage to us to process many minerals which are currently sent offshore.

I've read the book. Seen the lectures. The idea has legs. Whether it will run depends on political will. And then it has to be "successful" .
https://www.pv-magazine-australia.c...s-emergence-as-post-carbon-energy-superpower/
 
These bushfire's must be producing a fair bit of carbon. Smoke was thick as pea soup in various places round Sydney.
 
"The Rudd CPRS was all carrot and no stick. It failed to state the blindingly obvious: it is criminal for anyone to emit fossil carbon now that we know the consequence of our action. Any trading scheme that sells an industry a “right” to emit is complicit in that crime. On the other hand, a carbon tax that taxes all fossil carbon as soon as it leaves the ground, or crosses our borders, is taxing a bad, much better than taxing a good. Roger Clifton, Crikey comment
The press gallery is happy to support Labor’s claim about the Greens wrecking the CPRS because it fits one of its favoured narratives: that “extremists” on both sides have wrecked the chance of effective climate action, and that if only the “sensible centre” would be allowed to govern things would be OK. But when it comes to climate action, this is both wrong and irrelevant. Climate change is caused by basic physics. You either reduce carbon emissions or you cook the planet. The CPRS wouldn’t have reduced emissions — just given huge taxpayer-funded handouts to polluters. The press gallery’s centrist “fault on all sides, extremism is wrecking civility” hand-wringing will never change the basic maths, just guarantee we’re stuck in a permanent loop of climate failure. Keryn Robinson, Crikey comment"
 
The new climate reality. Unadjusted.

Smoke and bushfires are the new norm, so how do we beat the 'airpocalypse'?
While towns along the east coast battle the blazes threatening to devour their homes, Sydney is fighting a different enemy: the pall of smoke that's choking the city.

The air quality is already three times worse than at any moment in the past five years — and it's not showing signs of slowing down.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12...on-how-our-lives-will-need-to-change/11761098
 
basilio said:
When were you born?
Click to expand...

For a few contributors to the Global Warming threads you'd see by their arguments it's not unreasonable to assume 'Yesterday'..

The current climatic situation is weather. It's extremes though have been predicted by climatic forecasters warnings.
A couple of the 'maligned' climatic forecasters Flannery,Hanson amongst these are of noted absence in the ' Luke Warming Brigades' more recent contributions.

Crow is most difficult to swallow... not Least when the observed facts shove it down your neck.
Luckily there's(for the time bening) the Andrew Dolt hole and the intellectually void Murdoch compound to crawl into...with that as a choice I'd take the bunker solution of the Ziclon-B and a luger.
 
It's funny that the article quoted starts sounding scientific and then uses the words climate fanatics and I thought, could they be cherry picking? Surely not!

So I read the article where it came from and noted the following:

Stanford professor John Dabiri criticized the study, saying the simulations relied on a proxy for wind turbines that increases aerodynamic drag at the earth’s surface (see “John Dabiri: Innovators Under 35”).

“It is well known that this type of modeling assumption does a poor job of predicting the flow in real wind farms,” he said in an e-mail.

Dabiri, an expert on wind turbine designs, says a “more realistic” earlier simulation found “little temperature change near the surface.”

The American Wind Energy Association swiftly challenged the framing of the conclusions as well.

"Because the recent study only focuses on localized impacts over a short time period, it greatly overstates the surface temperature impact of renewable resources relative to fossil fuels," read a statement forwarded to MIT Technology Review, attributed to the trade group's former senior director of research, Michael Goggin. "If the paper instead looked across the global and long-lasting timescales that matter, renewable resources would fare hundreds of times if not infinitely better than fossil resources."


And from one of the Harvard authors:
- I'm sure this paper will be misinterpreted or misrepresented by some to argue against the rollout of wind power.
 
Last edited:
The greater point Knobby, in spite of the opinion of obvious vested interests, is that wind power is not a sustainable solution to replacement of fossil fuels.

Ps. I thought be warming angle a bit tenuous myself, but so much of everything is politicized camel dung. Take the recent rhetoric over bushfires... Mostly about firing up the idiots.
 
wayneL said:
The greater point Knobby, in spite of the opinion of obvious vested interests, is that wind power is not a sustainable solution to replacement of fossil fuels.

Ps. I thought be warming angle a bit tenuous myself, but so much of everything is politicized camel dung. Take the recent rhetoric over bushfires... Mostly about firing up the idiots.
Click to expand...

It's the combinations. No wind usually sunny. Tidal generation is now becoming economic also. The currents keep flowing.

Noted a photo awhile back (should have saved) showing a neat long line of sheep huddled together along the shade of a wind turbines pole.

And coal needs to be saved for future generations who will be smarter and the future belongs more to them than us hascoudabeens.
 

Similar threads

basilio
What does Lloyds think is happening?
2
Replies
22
Views
5K
springhill
springhill
2020hindsight
  • Poll
Which IPCC Scenario is your guess?
2
Replies
32
Views
10K
2020hindsight
2020hindsight
Top