Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

macca said:

If I intended to build a great big solar farm (or anything, for that matter) the Very First thing I would do is work out who I am going to sell to and how am I going to deliver.

If I only have one potential customer, namely the AEMO, then surely I need an undertaking In Writing that they would accept my product at the market rate before I begin searching for a site, let alone plan or commit to panels.

Extremely dumb management decisions just highlight Dumb managers.

A very old saying is "lack of forethought and planning (aka due diligence) on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part"

Click to expand...

No apparently it is the Governments fault, for not having a take or pay contract, then they keep building them and we keep paying for them even if we cant use them.
Labour planning, sign up for it then see how it pans out, its only money and it isn't even yours, so what's the problem.
It's jobs isn't it, who gives a $hit about the business plan, pass me another napkin.

Kids have gone back to school and some of the classrooms haven't got air-conditioning.

How dare they.

I'll keep out of any personal arguments but I'll say something that I've said to quite a few people (offline):

Emissions are roughly one third electricity, one third other energy use, one third everything else. Roughly.

Most debate focuses on electricity. When you hear someone talking about phasing out coal or using renewables, they're talking about how to generate electricity. There's dramatically less discussion about the other two thirds of emissions, including the one third which comes from non-electricity uses of energy.

Looking ahead, the long lifecycle of all this is of importance. It's a point often lost on those who work for top tier companies, earn an above average income and who live in realatively wealthy areas but crux of it is that there's a huge amount of capital employed in both the supply and use of energy and all that isn't going to be scrapped overnight.

A car lasts 20 years on average and the average car on the roads is a decade old. Yep, your 8 year "old" car is newer than average - a point worth repeating as many times as it takes someone to accept that point. If you're car's less than 10 years old then it's newer than average. Source = government statistics.

Buses are kept in public transport fleets in Australia for ~25 years, then they're sold off to Third World countries and are likely to do another ~25 years there. Yep, there's plenty of 1970's buses still roaming the streets overseas and plenty from the second half of the 1990's still around in Australia. Source = I called a few operators a few years ago and asked them how long they keep buses for and the most common answer was 25 years.

For trucks, the average heavy rigid truck in Australia is a bit over 15 years old and for articulated trucks the average age is about 12 years. So we're looking at 30 - 25 year lifespans realistically and that's average, there's still plenty of 1980's trucks around.

Household equipment varies. For things which use a large amount of energy and where there's a choice of source, eg electricity or gas, the turnover is relatively slow. About 50% of gas instant water heaters are dead at 20 years but the upper limit's about double that, it really depends on the water quality. For electric systems it's a wider range, 7 years at the low end and at the upper well I've confirmed that one from 1948 is still in use and I've found another from 1951 both in daily use.

For space heaters and air-conditioners again it's a slow turnover and it's not unusual that the answer there is "several decades". Sure there are those who'll replace a 10 year old system but there's plenty of 1980's stuff still in regular use and it wouldn't be hard to find something from the 70's.

Kitchens much the same. It's probably different in the wealthy suburbs but for the rest, there's nothing unusual about having a kitchen that dates from 1990 complete with 30 year old oven and cooktop. Nothing at all unusual about that.

Industry it's even longer. 30 years is nothing, that's about the absolute minimum lifespan of anything major and it's not unknown to see double that.

Now I'm going somewhere with all thus stuff about ages yes. In short we need to be focusing not just on the electricity aspect of emissions but on the other aspects as well, particularly the non-electricity energy side of it, due to the time any transition will take.

If we do electricity first and ignore the rest, then realistically it's going to be an extremely slow transition since that second stage, the non-electricity energy, is going to be a long and drawn out process. This stuff isn't like fashion or mobile phones, we're not going to see half the car fleet turned over in 5 years and so on.

So my point is that it's not one then the other. If there's a real aim to transition away from fossil fuels then we need to get going on the task. Not just changing how we generate electricity but also making sure we put the right equipment in new houses and so on. Even doing that, starting today, it's still going to take quite some time.

Before anyone says "focus on one thing at a time" my response there is really quite simple. The people building houses or managing bus fleets generally aren't also building or running power stations. There's simply no conflict in an "all at once" approach, since the plumber installing a water heater doesn't need to worry about how the power's generated, they only need to worry about the water heater, and those managing the power supply don't need to worry about managing a bus fleet, they just need to know that load's going to increase overnight. Etc.

I say all that knowing full well that the energy supply is in a rather precarious state. For example yesterday, that is the 30th of January, peak load across Vic + SA combined was 12,640 MW including estimated output from rooftop solar systems. At the time of the peak there was a miserable 390 MW spare, 210 MW of which is the SA government's backup diesel-fired gas turbines and the other 150 MW was a bit here and a bit there across every power station in the two states. And yes, that was with transmission from both NSW and Tas running at maximum into Victoria.

Tomorrow, 31st January, there's a ~1050 MW gap between in state supply versus forecast load for Vic + NSW combined. It's not impossible to bridge that gap between Qld, Tas and SA but there's not too may rabbits left to pull out of the hat here, the magician doesn't have too many tricks left in the box really. Especially not when old and tired equipment keeps falling over (yep, there's been a significant failure..... ).

Keep doing that, keep relying on stuff that's at the end of its life and being patched up and run at reduced pressures and so on, and ultimately we'll end up in the dark at some point. So there's a need to invest in all this with or without the CO2 issue, there's no "do nothing" option here not matter what anyone's view on the climate might be.

The biggest transformation of Australia's economy and security that involves technology that requires over arching investment from government and private capital is happening and there is no plan or policy.

How can this be?

How can anyone believe the spin from the current government when they have to resort to dodgy accounting to meet the Paris agreement which they signed up for, nothing orderly about that.

Hang on look over there it Labors or the Greens fault.

Over 40 degrees in Hobart yesterday and that's the second time this Summer.

So 4 such incidents since European settlement to my understanding, 2 of them in the past month and 3 of them in the past 7 years. The other one was in 1976.

OK, that's just a random data point but there's an awful lot of these sort of things happening right around the globe. Eg Adelaide has had it's highest maximum and highest minimum both since the beginning of last year. Lots more examples like that and once there's enough of something it becomes rather hard to dismiss even if each individual occurrence could indeed be random.

rederob said:

"Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?"

Click to expand...

To answer that question - in practice "yes".

From a technical perspective it could have been avoided, that might still be possible, but overall what I see going on in the world today leads me to think that it's not going to happen.

Technical solutions exist but political / economic ideology stands in the way in practice. We're quite literally still stuck in the 1970's there.

That said, the Europeans do seem to have some ideas which might just break the deadlock politically albeit by force.

"Thwaites Glacier, roughly the size of Florida, is melting at an increasingly fast rate. Its melt already accounts for about 4% of global sea rise, Georgia Tech reported. The amount of ice flowing out of Thwaites and the adjacent glaciers into the sea has doubled in the past 30 years, making it one of the fastest-changing areas of Antarctica.

Moreover, Thwaites is crucial to Antarctica because it slows the ice behind it from freely flowing into the ocean. The glacier's ice shelf, or its permanent floating ice sheets, act like dirt in a clogged drain, impeding the glacier from flowing full force into the ocean, Stef Lhermitte, an assistant professor in the Department of Geoscience and Remote Sensing at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, previously told Live Science."

https://www.livescience.com/underwa...E9V5j5UqUsmmqyeKo6e8SPEM1ctyS_XXuw5lpQtHEUUUf

Great update Explod.
It could be a worry but, as we all know, these scientists are in fact just part of an elaborate world wide fraud trying to create a undue concern about nothing.
Did you see what the real people are saying ?

Truthseeker007 31 January 2020 09:03
Rodkeh said:

It is only a surprise to these frauds calling themselves scientists. There is no threat and this Doomsday Glacier is just a feeble attempt at fear mongering. There is no Doomsday anything and there is no climate crisis anywhere on this planet, at this time.

If anything it is a manufactured crisis and yes a lot of fear mongering and fear pr0n. If you follow the money a lot of the money comes from George Soros and Billy Gates on the climate change scandal. And I don't know about you but you can just see the evil in those two guys eyes. They sure aren't doing it to help the world.
https://www.livescience.com/underwa...E9V5j5UqUsmmqyeKo6e8SPEM1ctyS_XXuw5lpQtHEUUUf

basilio said:

Great update Explod.
It could be a worry but, as we all know, these scientists are in fact just part of an elaborate world wide fraud trying to create a undue concern about nothing.
Did you see what the real people are saying ?

Truthseeker007 31 January 2020 09:03
Rodkeh said:

It is only a surprise to these frauds calling themselves scientists. There is no threat and this Doomsday Glacier is just a feeble attempt at fear mongering. There is no Doomsday anything and there is no climate crisis anywhere on this planet, at this time.

If anything it is a manufactured crisis and yes a lot of fear mongering and fear pr0n. If you follow the money a lot of the money comes from George Soros and Billy Gates on the climate change scandal. And I don't know about you but you can just see the evil in those two guys eyes. They sure aren't doing it to help the world.
https://www.livescience.com/underwater-robot-visits-antarctica-glacier.html?utm_source=Selligent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9160&utm_content=LVS_newsletter+&utm_term=3565759&m_i=U87yrcbMPfMV3niiKplLYERMJBUXzkszzhV40XLPNlIW2nD0FoMO2zazs_O+OE9V5j5UqUsmmqyeKo6e8SPEM1ctyS_XXuw5lpQtHEUUUf

Click to expand...

argumentum ad passiones, bazz

Whatever happened to isostatic readjustment?

Dona Ferentes said:

Whatever happened to isostatic readjustment?

Click to expand...

Still happening. Some places are still rising after the release of the billions of tons of ice from the last Ice Age.
But ??? Certainly not enough to counter the effects of the rapidly melting ice caps currently happening

What do Australians think about global warming and climate action?
In theory all Governments should be responding to the clear sentiments of the population - except One Nation voters
What Australians really think about climate action
By Annika Blau

Story Lab

Updated 5 Feb 2020, 10:10am
Published 5 Feb 2020, 5:05am
With the country burning and otherwise “quiet Australians” crying for action, it’s worth asking: what do Australians really think about climate change?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02...te-change-action-morrison-government/11878510

Its worth looking at history of molecular theory to understand the positions taken by people today on climate change.

IFocus said:

Its worth looking at history of molecular theory to understand the positions taken by people today on climate change.

Click to expand...

That's a good point, especially as it pertains to the CO2 molecule.

Boris Johnson to ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars, in the U.K from 2035.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe...-he-still-doesn-t-get-it-20200205-p53xu9.html
From the article:
Britain has pledged to reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. But the government's advisory Committee on Climate Change has warned that domestic action to slash carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming is lagging far behind what is needed.

The UK's new 2035 target for ending gas and diesel sales is one of the world's most ambitious.

Several countries including France plan to stop by 2040. Norway - one of the most aggressive early adopters of electric cars - has a goal, but not a requirement, to eliminate gas and diesel cars, excluding hybrids, by 2025.
"We have to deal with our CO2 emissions, and that is why the UK is calling for us to get to net zero as soon as possible, to get every country to announce credible targets to get there - that's what we want from Glasgow" Johnson said.
"And that's why we have pledged here in the UK to deliver net zero by 2050."

Wow, that is the same time frame as us.

sptrawler said:

"And that's why we have pledged here in the UK to deliver net zero by 2050."

Wow, that is the same time frame as us.

Click to expand...

Where is that?

rederob said:

Where is that?

Click to expand...

As most emissions are actually produced by State based organisations and or policies under their control, the States will be responsible for making the commitment to replace their generation and building/transport policies and ensure the infrastructure required to support a carbon free future is incorporated in their plans.
Queensland:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/queensland-commits-zero-net-emissions-2050/

South Australia:
http://www.climateaction.org/news/south_australia_aiming_to_reach_zero_net_emissions_by_2050

New South Wales:
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/...tralian-pollution-climbs-20161102-gsg7v4.html

Victoria:
https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/b...ad-on-climate-with-zero-emissions-commitment/

Northern Territory:
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-solar-to-meet-new-2050-zero-emissions-target

ACT:
https://www.cmtedd.act.gov.au/open_...ll/2016/act-commits-to-zero-emissions-by-2050

Tasmania:
http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/releases/tasmania_achieves_zero_net_emissions_for_the_first_time

Western Australia:
https://der.wa.gov.au/images/docume...e Gas Emissions Policy for Major Projects.pdf

The States such as Tasmania and South Australia, are well on their way to becoming carbon zero.

sptrawler said:

The States such as Tasmania and South Australia, are well on their way to becoming carbon zero.

Click to expand...

So the federal government has no commitment for 2050, but most States - led by Labor initiatives - either have or are setting targets.
Just so you are aware, none are becoming "carbon zero" as they are instead using a 2005 emissions benchmark and hope to get back to that level in the next 30 years.
In relation to the UK, they are aiming to get back to their 1990 benchmark and not their 2005 benchmark. This chart shows the difference between global 1990 and later year CO2 levels:



Not to put too fine a point on it, but the 35% difference above between nations using the 1990 rather than the 2005 benchmark is significant (recognising individual nations will clearly vary from the average).

As long as the end goal is reached, it doesn't really matter IMO.

sptrawler said:

As long as the end goal is reached, it doesn't really matter IMO.

Click to expand...

Given Australia is not even close to being on track, it's a bit of a stretch to think that present policies will be much chop.
As usual, that's somewhat besides the point.
Present global emission levels have already placed the planet well ahead of what the IPCC had hoped for in terms of immediate climate response.
So whatever targets have been set, they are not going to be helpful for our generation or the next as we do not have any "better" years to look forward to.
When the warmest January every recorded was just last month, and it was not in an el nino year, then things a move to Tassie looks on the cards.