Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[sptrawler]

Put it all together and it's only a matter of time until it all goes wrong. The details are anyone's guess, that's the nature of power systems, but you can't keep gambling and not expect to lose at some point.

People just have no comprehension of how much they rely on electricity, as you say if it fails it will be spectacular and people will be awestruck.
When their fridge, t.v, toilet, traffic lights, petrol stations aren't working, they will be struck dumb. lol
All these State Governments, trying to get people to put in batteries, tells you they are aware of the problem.
I think the reliable supply will be gone, well before the renewable supply is up and running.

 

[SuperGlue]

I don't know about them reversing climate change, but from watching the video's they may know something about land degradation, which Australia has been doing for years.
Just fly over our farmlands and see the salt pans.

Allan believe that we can work with nature at very low cost to reverse this......
Watch his presentation at 18.50minutes.

 

[Ann]

It's just a figure of speech. I'm sure in his early struggle to convince the scientific world he is onto something right or him culling of 40,000 elephants, he would have been called one at some stage.

This is a problem when environmentalists think they have the answer to a problem by destroying things, elephants in this case, and then find it didn't help the situation. He clearly deeply regrets his killing of those creatures. At the time the land degredation continued. Currently we have the Environmentalists believing CO2 is the cause to climate change so lets destroy all the coal burning power stations. This will have an even worse outcome as our world becomes crippled and we become third world populations.

I've watched many of Allan's videos and he did mention in one of his videos that his 20 minute presentation on Ted talk has created worldwide attention than he could have done on his own over his lifetime.
I'm am definitely sure that Allan is onto something right mimicking nature.

Absolutely agree with you SuperGlue, I have watched all the available videos of Allan's on YouTube. The longer videos are more interesting as he expands on his theories. One day I want to get one of his books.

Are you running a chicken farm like Joel Salatin does?

Joel Salatin is far, far more than a chicken farmer on his Polyface Farm. He is a power for change in the agricultural and farming populations. You would need to watch some of his two hour videos to fully grasp the reach of this man. He runs bunched herds of cattle as outlined by Allan Savory. He rotates his grazing cattle and follows that with flocks of turkeys and chickens housed in chicken tractors to turn over the grazed soil. His son is developing grazing rabbits free from any hand feeding. He runs pigs which act as a compost turning machine and also has them turn over some of his woodlands. He also has a sustainable lumber business on his property.

Am I running a chicken farm? No, but I seriously contemplated it at one stage along with running free range meat and milk goats on a similar bunched herd, rotational basis.

 

[sptrawler]

Joel Salatin is far, far more than a chicken farmer on his Polyface Farm. He is a power for change in the agricultural and farming populations. You would need to watch some of his two hour videos to fully grasp the reach of this man. He runs bunched herds of cattle as outlined by Allan Savory. He rotates his grazing cattle and follows that with flocks of turkeys and chickens housed in chicken tractors to turn over the grazed soil. His son is developing grazing rabbits free from any hand feeding. He runs pigs which act as a compost turning machine and also has them turn over some of his woodlands. He also has a sustainable lumber business on his property.

Am I running a chicken farm? No, but I seriously contemplated it at one stage along with running free range meat and milk goats on a similar bunched herd, rotational basis.

I think you are spot on Ann.
My Grandfather in England had a small farm, he had chickens, pigs, grew potatoes and had an orchard, he also had green houses for tomatoes, the farm was 10 acres. He made enough to replace his car every two years. I think the bigger is better mentality is flawed, it becomes too big to manage.

 

[basilio]

Currently we have the Environmentalists believing CO2 is the cause to climate change so lets destroy all the coal burning power stations. This will have an even worse outcome as our world becomes crippled and we become third world populations.

No Ann. NOT ACCURATE at all.
Climate scientists are overwhelmingly certain that human created green house gases (CO2 is one of those) are creating a rapidly warming earth.

One of factors in the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is coal fired power stations so one of the solutions to the problem is replacing them as rapidly as possible with alternative non CO2 producing energy sources.
Solar, Wind, Hyro, Wave, Geo Thermal, Solar Thermal, Maybe even small scale nuclear. But no one is talking about arbitarily closing them down without immediately developing an alternative. I'm afraid your comment is just another one of the misleading "talking points" created by the same people who produced that shonky doco you quoted.

And I would still be interested in your response to the 8 particular lies/misrepresentations picked up in the Great Global Warming Swindle. It's all very well to promote robust scientific debate. But using shonky graphs, misleading and out of date comments and misrepresenting scientists isn't cool Ann.

______________________________________________________
PS Quite impressed with the Joel Salatin agriculture model. Good find.

 

[wayneL]

LMAO

Shonky graphs indeed.

Anyway, I have a client who is working on an interesting "battery" storage solution... Kind of a cross between solar and nucleat technology.

There are other projects working on the storage conundrum too. That's the missing link if we want to replace coal and fossil fuels.

(and I have no problem with that as a goal to work towards)

 

[basilio]

LMAO

Shonky graphs indeed.

Anyway, I have a client who is working on an interesting "battery" storage solution... Kind of a cross between solar and nucleat technology.

There are other projects working on the storage conundrum too. That's the missing link if we want to replace coal and fossil fuels.

(and I have no problem with that as a goal to work towards)

Yeah there are many excellent, clean, cost effective alternatives to coal. And certainly intermediate storage options have to be part of the solution.

By the way those graphs I cited in The Great Swindle are as a shonky as $3 notes Wayne. But you do realise that...don't you ?

 

[Ann]

No Ann. NOT ACCURATE at all.
Climate scientists are overwhelmingly certain that human created green house gases (CO2 is one of those) are creating a rapidly warming earth.

One of factors in the excess CO2 in the atmosphere is coal fired power stations so one of the solutions to the problem is replacing them as rapidly as possible with alternative non CO2 producing energy sources.
Solar, Wind, Hyro, Wave, Geo Thermal, Solar Thermal, Maybe even small scale nuclear. But no one is talking about arbitarily closing them down without immediately developing an alternative. I'm afraid your comment is just another one of the misleading "talking points" created by the same people who produced that shonky doco you quoted.

And I would still be interested in your response to the 8 particular lies/misrepresentations picked up in the Great Global Warming Swindle. It's all very well to promote robust scientific debate. But using shonky graphs, misleading and out of date comments and misrepresenting scientists isn't cool Ann.

______________________________________________________
PS Quite impressed with the Joel Salatin agriculture model. Good find.

basilio, please do not use caps in your sentence when you address me. I am not fond of being screamed at either in reality or online, it is discourteous.

I have known of Joel Salatin for many years. I have been a very strong advocate for the environment and have identified with them since first listening to Suzuki back in the 1970s.

It is pointless addressing the "lies/misrepresentations" as you so inflammatorily describe them from the video. The video was presented in 2007 with the scientific data available up to that time. Time and science moves on and evolves. Well genuine science evolves as new theories and data emerge, unless you are these so called GW political appointees calling themselves 'climate scientists' who are stuck with their now very ageing, very well funded computer modelled theory of GW. I will address who some of these 'climate scientists' are in another post.

The irony of all this is the environmentalists of varying descriptions have been protesting against Nuclear Power since the 50s and were very strong in the seventies when the group of people emerged under the heading of Environmentalists. The environment is what we cared about and to live what we preached (I try). This current so called re-newable energy just won't be able to cope with the demand. There is no doubt in my mind the NP people are just sitting there smiling a Mona Lisa smile, waiting to take over. Give us a few blackouts, deaths, job loses through higher demand for power in a few colder winters and the climate changers will just quietly fade away into a non-issue. Although some of them may want to go down with the ship and continue to scream that these profoundly cold conditions are a result of global warming!

 

[basilio]

Ann I capped my "Not Accurate" comment after some thought. In my mind it was least inflammatory way of responding to your suggestion that environmentalists wanted to destroy all coal fired power stations (immediately ?) and send us into the dark ages. As I said, it seems to be one of the grossly exaggerated "talking points" used by CC deniers to misinfirm people.

With regard to the lies /misrepresentations on The Great Swindle. The issues I pointed out were recognised within days of the doco being broadcast. They were already understood. That is why some of the most dishonest statements were withdrawn or adjusted. The point about these lies is their reflection on the people who made the doco and the sources they used to try and say GW " wasn't happening, or wasn't serious and in any case it's The Sun".

Ann it was you who introduced the doco as a great example of true sceptical science. I wonder if you have reconsidered your views after considering the misrepresentions made in the doco ?

Science moving ahead ? Absolutely since 2007 world temperatures have increased by about .3C . That is HUGE in terms of its effect on cities, eco systems, Greenland/Antartica. I wonder climate change denial sources have to say about these events?

Do you want colder winters (in the Northern Hemispehere) Ann ? Well CC could certainly bring that about - while still cooking the rest of the globe. But that is one of the potential consequences of abrupt climate change.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

Climate change is slowing Atlantic currents that help keep Europe warm
https://theconversation.com/climate...tic-currents-that-help-keep-europe-warm-94930
April 12, 2018 11.13pm AEST


Climate Change: Global Temperature
Author:
Rebecca Lindsey and LuAnn Dahlman
August 1, 2018
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

 

[Ann]

Ann I capped my "Not Accurate" comment after some thought. In my mind it was least inflammatory way of responding to your suggestion that environmentalists wanted to destroy all coal fired power stations (immediately ?) and send us into the dark ages. As I said, it seems to be one of the grossly exaggerated "talking points" used by CC deniers to misinfirm people.

basilio, Coal fired power emits CO2. CO2 is being blamed for the "catastrophic" "global warming". Tell me why GW Environmentalists would not want coal fired power plants phased out as soon as possible?

With regard to the lies /misrepresentations on The Great Swindle. The issues I pointed out were recognised within days of the doco being broadcast. They were already understood. That is why some of the most dishonest statements were withdrawn or adjusted. The point about these lies is their reflection on the people who made the doco and the sources they used to try and say GW " wasn't happening, or wasn't serious and in any case it's The Sun".

So if the sun is not responsible for heating the earth where else do we get our heat from? Let's hypothetically say the sun shot off into space never to be seen again, how long would earth remain warm and alive?

Ann it was you who introduced the doco as a great example of true sceptical science. I wonder if you have reconsidered your views after considering the misrepresentions made in the doco ?

basilio, I do not accept that there were misreprentations. That implies intent to decieve, I will leave that up to the GW political parties in environmental clothing to do the deceiving, strong arm tactics and battering with explosive and dramatic behaviour is your department.

Science moving ahead ? Absolutely since 2007 world temperatures have increased by about .3C . That is HUGE in terms of its effect on cities, eco systems, Greenland/Antartica. I wonder climate change denial sources have to say about these events?

Do you want colder winters (in the Northern Hemispehere) Ann ? Well CC could certainly bring that about - while still cooking the rest of the globe. But that is one of the potential consequences of abrupt climate change.

Actually, you know basilio, I think you accidentally explained the whole question of climate change with that previous graph you linked to accidentally without taking the time to see what you were actually linking to, a graph of planetary orbits. It is lock step with low temperatures from the forties rising to the high temperature of 1999, then a quick dip and then a rapid rise back forming a double top and then a falling away until the temperature may rise to equal levels in 2059. Well done basilio, you have just sorted what causes climate change on earth......planet orbitalization.
...and for those who missed this great graph....

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

Climate change is slowing Atlantic currents that help keep Europe warm
https://theconversation.com/climate...tic-currents-that-help-keep-europe-warm-94930
April 12, 2018 11.13pm AEST


Climate Change: Global Temperature
Author:
Rebecca Lindsey and LuAnn Dahlman
August 1, 2018
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

I have read the above, the skeptical science thread at the top is authored by an anonymous guest contributor which I will totally ignore for the anonymous junk it is. However below that in the same thread is a very eye catching piece of propaganda from Sarah Finnie Robinson, more on Ms Robinson later.

basilio, I see you posted on the Science thread yesterday. I feel it would have been better placed here, however I guess down the track if anyone found it you could say.....ah yes I already posted that! Just not where it really should be......
Quote from Science thread from yesterday posted by basilio

Scientists acknowledge key errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming

A major study claimed the oceans were warming much faster than previously thought. But researchers now say they can’t necessarily make that claim.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...st-oceans-are-warming/?utm_term=.8c0aeadc8bb8

It is post #540 from yesterday if the copied link doesn't work. I tried to cut and paste the link to the Washington Post but it is a locked link and only those with a subscription can copy the link. I guess you must have a subscription to the Washington Post basilio. It sort of feels a bit deceptive to put up a link here today about rising ocean water temperatures when you had already put a link elsewhere saying the opposite was true yesterday.

Finally folks, you just need to see this bit of massive, loud, bold, advertising agency style generated propaganda. Note the wording ...."97% of published climate papers agree. (They won't publish too many papers that don't agree with their projected theory.) Global warming is happening - and we are the cause". This was brought out by the Consensus Project.com. A group from Boston University institute for Sustainable Energy. Which no doubt owes its existance from subsidies to the university.

This poster is not the behaviour of scientists but of political interest groups.

The lady who posted this advertising billboard on the skeptics site is Sarah Finnie Robinson. An academic? No. She is a journalist. Certainly a part of the propaganda machine.

Sarah Finnie Robinson is an investor in large-scale climate solutions and founding partner of WeSpire, a Boston tech firm that powers sustainability programs at F500 corporations. She is active on the Climate Task Force for Boston Harbor Now. She serves as a judge for MIT’s Climate CoLab “Shifting Behaviors & Attitudes” track; advises the Metcalf Institute for Environmental Reporting at the University of Rhode Island; and supports Ceres and the Environmental Defense Fund. She is a Climate Reality Leader and mentor, and she advises Kripalu Center for Yoga & Health. Robinson also serves on the board of the Princeton78 Foundation, whose endowment fuels undergraduate service projects in the United States and around the world. She holds a B.A. from Princeton, an M.A. from the Bread Loaf School of English at Middlebury College, and she graduated with the inaugural class of Seth Godin’s altMBA in 2015.


Robinson began her career at The New Yorker and continued at The Atlantic and at iVillage, where she was the launch content director. She blogs on HuffPost, Medium, and mindbodygreen. Her current project is a curated digital showcase to identify and share standout communications to engage and accelerate broad public support for the global clean-energy transition now underway.

 

[Smurf1976]

I don’t think anyone would dispute that CO2 is an insulator, the science is well understood on that one.

What effect the actual change in atmospheric concentration being made will have is the unanswered question.

 

[Ann]

I don’t think anyone would dispute that CO2 is an insulator, the science is well understood on that one.

What effect the actual change in atmospheric concentration being made will have is the unanswered question.

In fact no that is not the case Smurf as it turns out.

Industry Experts: CO2 Worse Than Useless in Trapping Heat/Delaying Cooling
Published on April 7, 2016

Written by John O'Sullivan (HT: Alan Siddons)

Does carbon dioxide have the physical properties of heat trapping/delayed cooling as alleged by climate scientists? Well, according to experiments conducted by experts in the ‘hard’ sciences at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory CO2 just doesn’t do what climate science says it does.

https://principia-scientific.org/industry-experts-co2-worse-useless-trapping-heatdelaying-cooling-2/

 

[SirRumpole]

Inadequate fuel supplies being maintained at certain facilities is a problem.

Well we seem to have plenty of gas to sell overseas.

I don't see why a national gas reservation policy seems to be on the nose with both parties.

Gas stations seem ideal for baseload, easier to start or ramp up or down than coal.

Sure, gas won't last forever but as an intermediate step untill sufficient renewable energy is developed it should be the focus of new baseload generation for a while at least ?

 

[Ann]

Well we seem to have plenty of gas to sell overseas.

I don't see why a national gas reservation policy seems to be on the nose with both parties.

Gas stations seem ideal for baseload, easier to start or ramp up or down than coal.

Sure, gas won't last forever but as an intermediate step untill sufficient renewable energy is developed it should be the focus of new baseload generation for a while at least ?

This is a really good question to ask Sir Rumpy.

While I am here, I would like to correct something from my last post. The Consensus Project.com is not a group from Boston University institute for Sustainable Energy. It is actually a citizen science driven project conducted by volunteers at the Skeptical Science website. Skepticalscience.com was created and is run by John Cook, climate communication research fellow at the Global Change Institute, University of Queensland. Their website design was contributed pro bono by SJI Associates, a New York City based design and advertising firm passionate about climate issues. SJI also have as clients the United Nations.

 

[PZ99]

Well we seem to have plenty of gas to sell overseas.

I don't see why a national gas reservation policy seems to be on the nose with both parties.

Gas stations seem ideal for baseload, easier to start or ramp up or down than coal.

Sure, gas won't last forever but as an intermediate step untill sufficient renewable energy is developed it should be the focus of new baseload generation for a while at least ?

We shouldn't have to burn anything IMO. Solar and hydro will give us baseload power once they've solved the technicals of transmitting it reliably. Just comes down to funding. And that comes from exporting coal and gas rather than burning it. Co2 aside... the economics of coal has a use-by date based on a dwindling need or want. Flog it off before that date eventuates

 

[Ann]

I am really sorry folks to keep pushing up this very tiresome subject up but I am running hot here with so much more to come!

Let's start off by looking at this dodgy, misleading, outrageous figure of 97% published climate change papers agree. This is a scandalous outrageous lie with manipulated data.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

In other words folks we find of the 11944 climate extracts looked at, 32.6% endorsed AGW (manmade global warming) among that 32.6%, 97.1% endorsed the consensus. (Only to be expected)

So that is a bit over 30% not 97.1% of papers in agreement with AGW. What a disgusting, shameful manipulation of figures. A bit later I will tell you who some of these so-called 'climate scientists' were who wrote these papers and who were so convinced humans caused GW.

 

[SirRumpole]

We shouldn't have to burn anything IMO. Solar and hydro will give us baseload power once they've solved the technicals of transmitting it reliably.

Sure, but how long will it take to solve the technical problems ?

Links have been quoted in the "Future of electricity generation and storage" thread about the problems of intermittency and its effect on grid stability.

I would be quite happy if we got 100% from renewables but I don't see that happening for decades and backup is needed in the meantime.

 

[PZ99]

Sure, but how long will it take to solve the technical problems ?

Links have been quoted in the "Future of electricity generation and storage" thread about the problems of intermittency and its effect on grid stability.

I would be quite happy if we got 100% from renewables but I don't see that happening for decades and backup is needed in the meantime.

It could've been done by now had it not been for the unwieldy flip floppery of 2¾ Govts.

We could do it one decade. If we have another GFC we could probably do it in half that time.
It's a case of money buys happiness - which then brings back the point of ramping up export.

Pumped Hydro adds the benefit of load smoothing for grid stability. It's done elsewhere.

 

[wayneL]

By the way those graphs I cited in The Great Swindle are as a shonky as $3 notes Wayne. But you do realise that...don't you ?

I hadn't seen the movie, so can't comment, but all graphs, excpt the ones I agree with, are shonky

 

[Smurf1976]

In fact no that is not the case Smurf as it turns out.

From the paper linked:

Crucially, Reilly, Arasteh and Rubin ensured they tested for the coupled effects of conduction and radiation (not convection because climate science isn’t concerned with convection).

How do they propose conduction is relevant to the theory of man-made climate change? Conduction of heat from Earth to what, exactly?

carbon dioxide only serves as a coolant in industry applications

The principles of refrigeration are well understood and can be applied using many gases. CO2 is used due to the actual temperatures and pressures involved being suitable with the added benefits of being non-toxic to humans, non-flammable, plentiful and cheap. None of those attributes are involved in the theory of CO2-induced climate change however so what is the point of mentioning them?

the wider the gap in the double-glazed panes the more the CO2 gas filler showed U-value energy loss

They have stated that convection is not relevant because climate science isn't concerned with convection.

They have then observed that CO2 is ineffective at trapping heat in a situation where convection would be expected to occur, an issue well known to the manufacturers of double glazed windows for quite some time.

What is the point of having conditions conducive to convection, and noting that CO2 is ineffective as an insulator under these circumstances, when it has previously been noted that convection is not relevant to the climate change theory?

Sanyo developed that country’s first commercially-viable CO2 refrigerant which they say (ironically) could “greatly contribute to the prevention of global warming.”

Since the use of CO2 as a refrigerant increases efficiency compared to alternatives and thus in most places will reduce the emission of CO2 to atmosphere from fuel combustion what is the ironic aspect to the claim? It does what they say it will do - less CO2 is emitted to atmosphere.

Overall I won't claim any scientific expertise on the climate change subject but I can certainly spot the inclusion of irrelevant data and information in their report. As with anything, once a few lies are spotted it casts serious doubt over the rest.