This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Jump to new

Nice work kahuna. In theory (ha ha ha HA) Craig Kelly would be embarrassed Perhaps even acknowledge and apologize..

It would be interesting to see which lying climate denial site he used as a reference. I suggest there are probably two possibilities. He was fed this line and swallowed it or carefully did the research, made the calculations and presented it as his own work.

No way Jose..
 

The "financially rewarding " element comes down to the treatment of externalities . In the business world the only figures that matter are the profits or losses accruing to the organization. From a wider perspective if the outcomes of a business activity have more serious outcomes beyond the profit and loss statement than government/society can choose to regulate - if they have the community support and political will.

Obvious examples ? Using dangerous chemicals that affect people- lead in paints, lead in petrol, promoting opioids like lollies, cigarettes.

The creation of billions of tons of greenhouse gases that is changing our climate falls into this category.
 
SirRumpole said:
Things will be done around the world if it's financially rewarding for countries to do so, which means renewables will need to be cheaper than fossil fuel energy. This will occur more and more as fossil fuels run out
Click to expand...

From Angus Taylor’s office.....
 
The problem with all this can be summed up not by the content of newspaper articles but simply by taking a close look at the URL of the online version.

It’s not universal but take a look at any article about climate change, water, energy, fires and so on and it’s filed under “/politics/“ which says it all. Even the more left leaning media have come to see this as a political issue rather than a “/environment/“ or “/science/“ one and yes they do place other articles in those categories.

The great problem there is that science and politics are substantially opposite processes.

Science: Collect data by observation and experiment using a rigorous process to ensure accuracy. Measurements are verified, experiments are repeated with consistent results and so on. Form conclusions based on the data.

Politics: Usually starts with the conclusion and then seeks data which supports it. Anything will do no matter how flimsy and any data not supporting the preferred conclusion is buried, ridiculed or simply ignored even if it’s 100% provable as being accurate.

So long as it remains a political issue rather than a scientific one, the only chance of success rests upon the emergence of someone who grasps the science but is fundamentally a good manager of politicians. Someone who can steer their preferred conclusion to match the actual conclusion of science.

There’s the odd such person around but not many. I’m not such a person and I’ve only ever met one who I’d place on any sort of pedestal in that regard - it’s a damn tough gig to be governing a government and getting the right things done.
 
Smurf1976 said:
So long as it remains a political issue rather than a scientific one
Click to expand...

Smerf I took the time to read some of your posts.

Without fail ... you call for non political stuff.
Your indecision on climate issues in early 2011 is unchanged 9 year latter.

The anti climate change denial is closely and directly linked with the liberal party.
Howard would not and refused to sign Kyoto .... he lost his own seat.

Current PM speaks to Howard every day. In fact quoted him yesterday ...

Abbot is if anything even worse on this, "climate science being called Junk".

A treasurer took a lump of coal into parliament to annoy greens and others who were calling for change.
This Treasurer ... was called Morrison.

He I think for now is the PM

His views ... his stance is unchanged and clearly so in 2019/20.

I suspect he has a lump of coal in his pocket as he visits fire ravaged places.

Chances of anything ... even meaningful ... is not possible.

Removing politics when say the head of the Australian climate denial site is actually a person who ran for a liberal seat .... is factual.

the source of the current debate ... clouding of issues ... is this said site which Sky news and Fox and Murdoch papers print total BS ... via climate people who have dubious records and the last was a person on the dole who has been on the dole for 20 years. This woman is raving about aboriginal fire methods and missed the massive flooding of 1974.

I also add the Liberal power broker Kroger is an ex director of the Australian climate denial institute.

Even if we wanted to have a rational discussion, it is not possible. Not even remotely possible to have even a discussion based upon science.

That is if you believe in science. Having read many of your posts, you seem to think the models were wrong. OR inaccurate ... or there remains some question about their predictions which if you go to 1980 ... verses now they are less than 1% out.

Ahh I give up ... either sit on the fence and debate, for 9 years now ... or study the scientific reports, the history and reactions and either be ... one side or another.

There are about 30 questions one has to accept ... study and then decide upon. Even the simplest ones seem for some to be ... clouded. With so much rubbish via Gina Rhinehart backed site to rival the Koch brothers various sites makes factual ... clinical observation without going to source not easy.

Barnaby Joyce who wants a coal power station yet again today waded into the debate and claimed that burn-backs were somehow hindered, or caused these events. Since I wasted time explaining these type 2 fire storm or tornado bush-fires the fuel load has very little to do with their rapid spread. I did by the way give links to the science ... not that this seemed to matter.

Either declare your indifference ... indecision after 9 years or make a clear decision.

Don't become an extremist ... at the very fringes but my extensive reading on this site is that we have a mixture of Internet trolls, climate deniers on all 30 aspects of climate science .... and then at each end are ... say 5% who deny everything and then 5% the world ends tomorrow.

Worse is someone in the denial side, as the idiot with coal in his pocket pretending nothing has occurred and PRETENDING to make soothing noises whilst having no intention whatever of any action other than total inaction. TOTAL and COMPLETE ..
 
kahuna1 said:
Smerf I took the time to read some of your posts.

Without fail ... you call for non political stuff.
Your indecision on climate issues in early 2011 is unchanged 9 year latter.
Click to expand...

You are mistaking indecision and science.

I take a scientific approach to this issue and indeed pretty much everything. Consider the available evidence, form a conclusion based up on it, but always remain open to new information should it emerge.

At a personal level well I've understood this problem my entire adult life and have with few exceptions sought to minimise my contribution to it. No change you'll find me driving a gas guzzler, indeed I'd be rather embarrassed to do so. Much the same approach with everything else too.

That does not mean I won't question the issue and my understanding of it. Given we're talking about the future and it's all based upon assumptions of emissions and modelling of their effects, it's entirely reasonable to pose the question as to what's happening in reality at any given time. It's not like, say, the issue that smoking causes cancer for which millions of experiments have been conducted, that is everyone who's been a long term smoker, and the health impacts are clearly observable. We haven't actually cooked a planet before so it's not unreasonable to keep a check to see if it's going as expected or not.

Needless to say, as the actual effects have become more apparent and in line with expected outcomes I've become more convinced that those models are correct or at least good enough. That doesn't change the fact that I thought it was a problem long ago, it just means I'm now more convinced that the models are correct.

Keeping an open mind is always wise though with anything. On a big picture level in the energy field, well if you'd asked pretty much anyone back in 1980 about 2020 then they'd have got it profoundly wrong. They'd all have scoffed at the idea of natural gas being a significant source of electricity anywhere other than the USSR or Middle East for example. It was practically zero in the UK at the time and in the USA policy, which had been enacted as law, required it to be completely phased out to literally zero by 1990. Fast forward to 2020 and reality is the opposite of previous expectations in so many ways.

Go back just 10 years and even the solar industry itself saw rooftop systems as nothing more than a symbolic gesture. Even those selling the systems didn't generally comprehend that the uptick in sales marked the start of a major boom and wasn't merely a blip.

And so on. Having an open mind to new information is never a bad thing since the reality is that most predictions of most things do turn out to be at least partly wrong. Exceptions of course but in general that's the case.

To the extent that I do have any doubts about the climate issue it comes down to the absolutism displayed by many who in truth don't really know what they're on about. They'll protest about brown coal for example but ask them to explain why, exactly, it's such a problem and you won't get a proper answer which suggests that whatever's motivating them to protest isn't a real understanding of the issue.
 
Last edited:

Really the early 80s was when Woodside kicked off the North West shelf gas project
 
Humid said:
Really the early 80s was when Woodside kicked off the North West shelf gas project
Click to expand...
In Australia yes but even that was contentious with a lot of "should they be allowed to export?" questions being raised at the time.

Meanwhile in the USA the law, the actual law at that time, banned the use of gas in new power stations from 1984 and in all existing facilities by 1990. That was a hard and fast phase out.

Western Europe was all broadly similar. Keep gas for essential uses and get it, and oil, completely out of power generation was the thinking. That was the primary trigger for France building so many nukes - they relied heavily on oil prior to that.

Australia signed too by the way. We committed to not building new oil-fired steam raising plant, either government owned or in private enterprise, unless no practical alternative existed. That's where we also committed to holding fuel stocks and so on too.

As with most things, there was one fatal flaw. When Exxon management testified to the US Congress on the issue they'd failed to grasp that the failure to find gas, and hence Exxon's view that the future of it was extremely limited, was simply because nobody had intentionally looked for the stuff. At that point, late 1970's, pretty much all gas had been found accidentally whilst drilling for oil or even water. Once the industry went and consciously started looking for gas, unsurprisingly they found it but pretty much all the "big" oil companies missed that point at the time, it was the small ones that went and did it meanwhile Mobil burned $ billions trying to cook oil out of rocks and Shell went around buying up coal deposits (and accidentally gave one away many years later but that's another story).
 
Smerf ... was just curious.

Since well I totally and scientifically disagreed with virtually every aspect of what you said recently ... and well to be honest, despite your post above, I am not sure anything you said occurs. Examine, verify ... possibly change views.

This from you posts in 2011 ... some random but very incorrect stuff ...



Really ? Has your view changed ?


Smurf1976 said:
Wind turbines kill the birds, including engangered wedge tailed eagles and the like.
Click to expand...

Really ? Whilst wind turbines are not kind to birds, did you know say cats, those furry awful things kill 1,000 times more birds ? Or mobile towers and antenna kill 10 times as many birds ?

Has your view changed ?

Smurf1976 said:
My own opinion is that the climate is changing based on my own observations and those collected more formally. I am not convinced that CO2 is the cause, but I have an open mind to the possibility.
Click to expand...

Really ? It was clear in our discussion this was the case. The science is actually very simple.

Has your view changed ? 2011 v 2019


Has your view changed ? ... various studies ? Okey dokey ... I accept say a person walking is better but a single person in a car is not more polluting ?

Has your view changed ? 2011 v 2019

Smurf1976 said:
I take a scientific approach to this issue and indeed pretty much everything.
Click to expand...

I am asking. Just asking ... any examination of the above and the myriad of your opinions and shared ones on the topic seem to come from almost word for word from the Koch Brothers site or the Australian version of it.

The windmill one is a favorite of Trump along with some other beauties.

I am confused, yes ... I know. Just trying to grasp where, for example, this understanding of even simple endothermic reactions and CO2 in an atmosphere traps heat even if tested a billion times it does it every time. Estimating the impact also, easily estimated as the CO2 level changes. Yet on all levels computer models to CO2 to virtually every aspect you say one thing, but clearly mean or believe the other.

Just an observation.

Your arguments or post seem mild or tame and not extremest, whilst appearing to believe or favor one side, you actually believe even the worst scientifically idiotic theories.

Hence my original question and extreme frustration at some of the stuff you seem to honestly believe.
Its not hard to read, research and either accept or dismiss as being correct something as presented. I say this because I am astounded after 9 years the same appears to be your views.

Maybe I am wrong, I would welcome it but recent discussions seem if anything the theories you had in 2011, non scientific ones, have gone from bad to worse.

Then again, I am not sure if that's the case. Its certainly very clear a lot have not changed and become more non scientific or factual v trash dogma and conspiracy theory.
 

Well they didn’t build it for domestic consumption
 
kahuna1 said:
Really ? Has your view changed ?
Click to expand...

It is still the reality that fixing the issue brings about other environmental problems as a tradeoff.

Those "polluting" VW's are just one of many cases in point. In short they traded more toxics for less CO2 and the "fix" to that cheat involves more CO2 as the tradeoff.

Same could be said for heavy trucks. We could cut the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of the entire fleet really easily so long as we don't mind more smog. There's a direct tradeoff there - the modern engines achieve lower emissions of conventional (non-CO2) pollutants at the expense of more fuel and more CO2. Same with any modern diesel, fuel efficiency and CO2 are compromised in order to get a "cleaner" exhaust in other aspects.

Same with a lot of this. If it wasn't for CO2 then the environmental case against nuclear power is pretty convincing. Throw CO2 into the mix however and whilst Australia doesn't need to go nuclear, reality is we're stuck with it at the global level for the medium term at least. I'm not at all keen, because we've got no proper means of dealing with it when it goes wrong, but it has a role to play that's reality.

Same with a lot of this stuff. If you exclude the CO2 issue well then rather a lot of technologies which improve CO2 would otherwise be seen as a waste of resources and so on. Most do have the aspect that they use more metals etc or are less durable in order to consume less energy. They'd be environmental negatives if it wasn't for the CO2 aspect.

Really ? Whilst wind turbines are not kind to birds, did you now say cats, those furry awful things kill 1,000 times more birds ? Or mobile towers and antenna kill 10 times as many birds ?

Has your view changed ?
Click to expand...

If a cat manages to kill a great big wedge tailed eagle or something like that well that's one rather impressive cat.

Mobile towers aren't comparable since they're not really being built as an alternative to some other technology. If we want mobile phones then we're having towers in practice.

My view hasn't changed though for the simple reason that I was in favour of wind energy then and am still in favour of it now. Not because it's good as such, it isn't good it does have impacts, but because those impacts seem to be less bad than the credible alternatives.

Therein lies my point - yes I'm happy to point out that wind turbines are bad for birds and so on. That doesn't automatically mean I'm opposed to them - there's nothing wrong with understanding an acknowledging both sides of an argument.

Really ? It was clear in our discussion this was the case. The science is actually very simple.

Has your view changed ? 2011 v 2019
Click to expand...

I stated my view that the climate is changing and that I was unconvinced that CO2 is the cause although it might be.

In 2020 well the climate is changing, seems fairly clear, and those who know more about the detail than me say that CO2 is a key (but not the only) cause of that. I have no reason to doubt that claim so yes my view has changed to the extent that what I considered might be the case I now consider probably is the case. Note however that at no point did I say it wasn't the case - I had an open mind.

Has your view changed ? ... various studies ? Okey dokey ... I accept say a person walking is better but a single person in a car is not more polluting ?

Has your view changed ? 2011 v 2019
Click to expand...

Having had a look at proper data on that one some time ago, my view has not changed at all.

Many bus routes are, from a purely emissions perspective, a net burden to the environment at least in terms of fuel use and CO2. That is the number of passengers on the bus per km traveled compares unfavourably with single occupant passenger cars as a means of transport.

That is not all bus routes obviously but there are certainly some. The reason we have buses in particular is because not everyone can drive, there are practical issues with the use of cars in city areas, for reasons of social equity and so on. Some of those services do benefit the environment most certainly but plenty are a net cost - one or two people riding in a great big vehicle, or worse still dead running (zero passengers only the driver) isn't at all efficient and a lot of bus services do in practice run with very low passenger numbers on board at any given time.

That said, well I certainly don't advocate scrapping bus services but that's for reasons not relating to the environment.

For rail transport there's a somewhat different aspect in that the power source is usually electricity. Given that the future almost certainly involves electricity being very low in emissions, that's a benefit even if some services are inefficient as such.

Circumstances do change over time. For that reason I wouldn't be too harsh on environmental groups who promoted natural gas in the 1990's so long as they're not doing so today. And so on. Best practical technology then versus what's practical now is different. How to get certain state governments to catch up with that one is the question.


Reality is we haven't done a billion tests indeed we haven't even done one proper test on the actual planet.

We've never pushed the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere of the real planet up and down and observed the effects. Reason = impractical.

As such we are reliant upon laboratory experiments, calculations, models and so on but we can't just conduct a repeatable experiment on the real planet and prove what happens.

Now it would be somewhat arrogant if anyone thought there was no possibility that there are things going on which humans don't fully understand in all of this. You won't find a real scientist saying they know literally everything and there's good reason for that.

To take a recent example of that, the Indian Ocean Dipole. Not really understood at all not that long ago when the accepted wisdom was that other factors determined rainfall in Australia. Now we know that the IOD does too and there's no guarantee that 10, 20 or 50 years from now we don't find out that actually there's something else as well that we presently are unaware of. That's the nature of discovery - we keep finding things out. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the previous understanding, it simply adds other factors to it.

Same with the climate. The simple fact that things are occurring now that weren't expected to occur until the middle of the century means that something isn't going quite as expected. That's unsurprising - nobody would sensibly claim that humans understand every fine detail of all this. Realistically we can get the broad stuff right but the precise aspects will be refined further over time.

My view overall with any of this is that I reject a religious-like approach of "believing" in things and seek to identify the truth and am well aware that one way of doing that is to fully understand the opposing argument.

I could likewise say that i'm an atheist but if new information were to emerge which shows that I'm wrong, that there is indeed a God, well then I'm willing to hear it certainly.

Same with anything. In the context of energy the reason I favour pumped hydro storage as the bulk method is simply down to cost versus volume of energy stored. Bring the cost of batteries down low enough and of course I'll be in favour of them heck there's a grid connected battery on the wall at home. It's not ideology, just down to what's practical at the time.
 
Last edited:
Smurf unfortunately big moves require policy and that comes from politics hence the mess with energy......no policy due to politics.
 
Thanks for the response.

Having taken the time, and effort to examine many of the climate issues, both the people who deny or dispute and those the other end, I found it actually impossible to ignore one side of the scientific approach.

Then again, on this thread for 100 pages between BAS who started it myself and few others, we exchanged ideas and I suppose disbelief as some of the absurd notions some believe.

Of course mixed in there were some trolls and baiting from a few and disbelief passed back.

I will say as a person who contributed a lot to the computer modelling of various financial markets and other things, a lot of the models they use are based upon work I did and helped with over the years. Its not that I must be right, its sadly clinically and factually possible to accurately predict most things.

With respect, virtually everything you have said, is junk. Saying CO2 has not been tested a million times is possible, but once you test something 1,000 times ... to expect a different result the next time is a definition of insanity. Einstein said that.

CO2 likely to hit 1,200 PPM within 100 years unless something like massive new cheap and free energy source is invented and at that level one of the many cascading effects well tested is that clouds stop forming.

Given our recent conversation about fire and a non acceptance or even understanding that humidity and heat and wind and temperature play a pivotal role in fire is an even a simple concept, yet for many its impossible to convey, let alone convince verses their own narrative.

Fascinating to hear after 9 years and Bas positing scientific based stuff has not altered your beliefs. Not religious just science. But then again science and clinical impartial data is not open to interpretation. In fact a fact is a fact ... suggesting there is some alternative science or it hasn't been proven when it would it appear no level of proof would suffice.

Strange I learnt not to say touch burning objects as a child, I suppose I may have taken one or two lessons. A few adult accidents and it just reinforced the issue. I did not need to learn it over and over.

For you, whilst your view is your willing to hear it, no level clearly will ever or ever has changed your disbelief of climate change core issues. For you, you rest in the 1% , not the 5% at the denial end of the extreme. You mouth words of accepting some parts and denying the science totally and as for a cure or reduction despite the denial always being money based and political, you ignore the economics of say a green power source costing less than carbon based and call it all too hard.

I accept its unlikely we will change and that even after likely 500 million being hit with dire droughts pre 2100 or 100,000 dropping dead from heat and humidity being too high and no air conditioning and heat stoke occurring with temperatures over 40C and humidity at 80% plus, the human bag of water cannot cope. Vast parts of the middle east and India have come very close and when this event occurs as it surely will in the next 40 years, it too likely will be ignored.

The fires we may of may not have had, well ... they are forgotten. Well not quite as 60 days more but not much will ever occur.

For some accepting this fate, denying science is not an option as its their future. A 16 year old will be around likely in 2080. I will depart prior to that date but not by much given my family.

Trying even to swing or debate your views is somewhat a waste of time and why are you on this thread ?

Why have you been on it for 9 years ? The question is not if climate change is real ? It is implied clearly ... Is climate change unstoppable ?

In this question you either DON'T believe in the science or you do and waffling whilst believing its not proven and 500 pages and 1000 links has not changed your views and beliefs one iota.

Obviously you don't believe it. Still believe a bus carrying even half full 30 people is consuming more or emitting more CO2 than likely 20 cars with 1.5 people in each.

Simple stuff ... all of it.

I did note your comments having not even googled about cats or what kills more than wind turbines. Then again, your views unlikely to every change.

Douglas Johnson of the U.S. Geological Survey and Joelle Gehring of the Federal Communications Commission did one massive study that .... well you should kill all cats on sight.

there are actually 20 plus studies saying all the same thing.

one of the better ones
https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v37y2009i6p2241-2248.html

for what its worth which is ... well nothing.
Your belief and gibberish about something, that suits your view or opinion is astounding on every aspect of everything even after 9 years.

Thanks for being a contributor to my second PHD.

Fascinating.
 
Kahuna I think you are being unduly rough on Smurf. I could say it much stronger but lets leave it at that for now.

I don't want to go through everything that is said but IMV I believe you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting his views. In any case in my view our collective objective is not to necessarily persuade everyone of the scientific certainty that we are all "going to hell in a hand basket" but attempt to create enough support for the rapid decarbonisation of our society to try and improve our future outcomes.

For instance one of the big elements of knocking out fossil fuels from transport use is electrification of buses, trucks, and almost all vehicles.

In my view Smurfs input across the range of energy issues in this forum is exceptional and adds a dimension to our discussions that is probably not seen in almost any other forum.

__________________________________________

Part of my life history was being involved with community groups that wanted to make group decisions on consensus. That didn't work out well in terms of achieving overall goals.
 
Well, I guess the questions are

1. is the climate warming ? (see all the graphs that show it is)

2. if it's not CO2 causing warming, then what is ? (the sun getting hotter, volcanoes etc. please provide evidence if you believe one of these or other explanations).
 
basilio said:
In my view Smurfs input across the range of energy issues in this forum is exceptional and adds a dimension to our discussions that is probably not seen in almost any other forum.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Opinions vary. We differ in this one and you have been very tolerant to the point of ignoring just a tiny fraction of what I pointed out.'

I find it fascinating and worthy of study, that a view remains non scientifically based, in fact ignoring any and all science over the course of 9 years.

I am merely a geek in many ways and sadly know my limits which are many and huge. Apologies for any offense. I just am unable to process .... well ... errors on this scale. My issue and putting such views to one side after investigating.

Keep up the good fight Bas and keep going Smerf maybe Sadijii and Anne can come back for round two ?
 
Fact is we haven't tested it even once on the real planet earth or a replica. Not that I'm suggesting we ought to, but fact is all we've done is lab experiments, models, simulations and so on but it has never been tried for real. As anyone who's been involved with large scale physical things will be all too aware, what happens in practice doesn't always match the theory when it comes to the detail.

There will be all manner of things we don't understand about the detail of what happens. That's the inherent nature of complex natural systems - rarely do humans have a full understanding of the detail of how everything interacts.

For just one example of that, can you or indeed anyone provide an accurate explanation for the step changes in runoff which have been observed in south-west WA and in Tasmania since the mid-1970's? Those weren't gradual changes, they were abrupt "steps" from which there was not even a partial recovery especially in WA where the trend is more substantial.

An accurate explanation for the step changes? Not some "it's climate change" general statement but a proper explanation which identifies exactly the reason(s) why? Sure it's rainfall and temperature and that is an obvious manifestation of a changing climate but the sudden step aspect of it remains unanswered beyond a broad assumption that there must be unknown influences at work.

There are no doubt many other such examples. Observations which aren't understood and are not explained by current models. That's unsurprising - nobody would seriously think humans had worked out every fine detail of something as complex as this.

As for my personal views, well it's really quite simple. I have no firm allegiance to any side of politics. Ideologically I'd be slightly biased toward Labor in principle but that doesn't mean I've never put them toward the bottom of the ballot paper since I'm by no means "rusted on" and it depends on what policies they have at the time.

I'll happily point out the flaws with any of them. That's not to say they are necessarily "wrong" as such, but clearly they have priorities which in general don't place this issue at the top of the list. Since it became mainstream public and political knowledge in Australia circa 1987-88, we've had both major parties in government for long enough that they could have done something had they so chosen. Meanwhile various minor parties and independents could have pushed the issue harder than they did and been more willing to compromise in order to get something done even if it's imperfect.

Just because I'm in favour of something after having considered the options doesn't mean I won't point out the flaws in it. I'll be quick to point out that large scale hydro has a role to play in the energy transition but I'll also point out that dams come at a significant price environmentally depending on where they're built. It's the best option we've got at present for bulk energy storage in terms of cost and efficiency but only a fool would deny that it has an impact. As with most of this, it comes down to one impact versus another and there's no option which doesn't have some environmental negative somehow.

Or I could say that the $5K heat pump water heater I installed a few months ago is certainly highly efficient technically but if you look at the materials used, well there's more copper, steel, aluminium and other metals in that than there are in a conventional water heater. Benefit = less energy in use and less CO2 but from an environmental perspective it's nonsense to say it didn't have an impact making it. It just has less impact than the alternatives given the CO2 aspect but it's not zero.

Solar much the same. Less impact yes but it certainly isn't zero to manufacture and transport solar panels, an inverter and all balance of system components. It might be better than the alternatives but it's not zero impact.

As for things like engines, well if you've got a way to avoid the trade-off in the context of high speed diesel engines operating under varying load, that is those found in road vehicles, then there's plenty who'd like to hear it. Reality is that optimising fuel consumption in order to minimise CO2 generally means failing every non-CO2 emissions test in the book. Run clean in terms of air toxics and you use more fuel and get more CO2 by doing so - unsurprising especially in situations where fuel is injected straight into the exhaust system, making a zero contribution to moving the vehicle, in order to achieve those low non-CO2 emissions results. We're burning fuel and emitting CO2 for the sole purpose of cleaning up the exhaust in other ways - that's a very direct trade-off between CO2 and other pollutants.

That's not unique to diesel engines. There's plenty of industrial situations where turning off the pollution controls would drop CO2 emissions at the expense of increasing some other pollutant. If there's one thing that basically all pollution control equipment has in common it's that having it increases energy use. That's the trade-off. Avoid dumping heat or heavy metals in the river or avoid sulfur or fluorine going into the air or even just particulates but it takes megawatts to do it. Etc.

So far as fires are concerned, well I don't claim to be an expert on those but it's rather fundamental that you need fuel in order to have fire. There's good reason why the real experts do indeed burn off - because under the appropriate circumstances it makes a difference. Now nobody's suggesting burning literally everything to stop fires, that's defeating the point somewhat, but there's a role for it hence why it's done and hence my view that the scale of it needs to be in accordance with what the science says and not based on politics. If they need more resources then so be it, that beats having raging infernos surely. Or if they're doing enough then no problem, keep doing it but point is look at the science not this denial stuff pretending that there's no link between fuel and fire. Depending on circumstances there's a sensible role for hazard reduction burns.
 
Last edited:
kahuna1 said:
Keep up the good fight Bas and keep going Smerf maybe Sadijii and Anne can come back for round two ?
Click to expand...
I will simply say that I have no idea whether you are misunderstanding what I've said, are just being silly, or something else. I don't take offence however.

At a personal level I see it as comparable to the individual who slammed the office door very firmly in my face some years ago. Almost literally, I was a barely half a metre in front of it at the time.

The following day I interviewed said person for a permanent position. They were successful and to my knowledge are still working there now.

The issue of them slamming doors and their ability to perform a purely technical job are unrelated. Had the job been a management one then slamming doors would perhaps have been more relevant. I'd be willing to bet though that most in that situation would have been somewhat less open minded regarding the incident given I was his boss.

In terms of the sort of thinking I'm encouraging about all this, well I'll give you an analogy based on a real situation.

The population of Sydney is approximately 5 million at present. According to Bob Carr (a former NSW Premier for anyone unaware), increasing it to 8 million is a desirable objective. I don't have a link but he's certainly said it, no doubt Google etc would find it.

Now without arguing for or against, I'll point out that there's three elements here:

*Increase population by ~60%

*Building more infrastructure especially roads, rail, water and energy

*Maintaining current lifestyle of an average Sydney resident

Now if someone wants to argue that they don't want more water infrastructure or roads etc built then we've basically got two choices. Either we don't do the population increase or we don't maintain lifestyle equal to the present one. In the absence of substantial technology improvement, if we're going to have more people and maintain current lifestyles then we use more resources.

Now I don't particularly mind which way it goes, I don't live in Sydney, but I'll call out anyone who spreads nonsense to the effect that we can add 60% to population, not expand infrastructure and there won't be any downsides to that. Oh yes there will - now tell the truth. More people = more of everything so don't complain about more desal plants, dams, roads, power lines or whatever unless you're arguing for fewer people or a substantial change in the way of life.

Which one? I'm not too fussed but I'll call out nonsense yes.

The problem we have in society is a general unwillingness to face these sort of situations without hiding parts of the story.
 
Last edited:
basilio said:
I don't want to go through everything that is said but IMV I believe you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting his views.
Click to expand...

I mean no harm or offence to anyone. I am however very much someone who challenges conventional wisdom, and encourages others to do likewise, and who's willing to consider every possible option. No harm to anyone is intended.

For example just because I'm somewhat anti-nuclear doesn't mean I didn't price one up as a private research exercise many years ago. For the record it was too costly but that's not the point. There's no harm in knowing the truth and no harm in having a look over the fence to see what's there.

As someone who's fundamentally a technical person it does frustrate me greatly however with the whole situation. Go back to the late 1980's and we didn't know all the details of how things would be done, that solar PV became so cheap wasn't in line with expectations from that era which expected pretty much anything else to beat it, but fundamentally we did know that we needed to move to an electric economy. We also knew that we could pursue efficiencies and we knew that within reasonable extent the building of an energy storage system wouldn't be a wasted exercise.

I'm no lawyer but I'd liken the situation to that of a lawyer sitting there in court, their mouth taped shut, listening as someone says all the wrong things and sends themselves to jail for a crime they didn't commit. Or I could liken it to a doctor who just can't get through to a patient to stop doing something that's almost certainly going to kill them unnecessarily.

There are solutions to all this and Australia used to be a world leader in all this stuff. There are countless world firsts in the Tasmanian power system alone. Likewise there were best in class systems built in Victoria in the past, one of them was actually cloned in the US incidentally, and there's plenty of impressive engineering in the Snowy scheme of course too.

In other areas we weren't the inventor but were a very early adopter. The second refrigerated LPG storage facility in the world was built by the Victorian government for example and after the 1970's oil crises WA received a degree of international attention for having managed to actually do it with shifting power generation away from oil (to coal and gas) whilst others were still drawing up the plans. WA also did some clever stuff firing multiple fuels in the same boiler at once and so on, there weren't many others in the world who got that working anywhere near as successfully.

That being so it does frustrate me greatly that as a nation we've effectively tied our hands behind our back on this. I'm anti-politics not because I hate politicians as such, and for the record I don't hate lawyers or unionists either I just think they're over-represented in parliament, but because clearly it's not working in all of this. Things are being done in spite of government not because of it and that's not a good situation so we need a better way.

For the record well I don't hate the Greens either. That said, I recognize what they are - a political party. They might be better on environmental matters than others but ultimately they're in the business of politics. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just that it is. The Greens are a political party as are Labor and Liberal.

There's no point getting depressed about it all though and to that end I do indeed have some lumps of coal. Now I just need to stumble across ScoMo somewhere and ask him to autograph one of them...... (well, not sure if I'll go that far but I've got some bits of coal ready just in case). Unlike the one waved around in parliament, my coal isn't glazed though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
622
Smurf1976
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
Fake News - Global Warming Consensus
40 41 42
Replies
831
Views
46K
SirRumpole
What does Lloyds think is happening?
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
springhill
M
Rothschild Australia, leaders in carbon trading market
Replies
2
Views
5K
So_Cynical
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...