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

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
wayneL said:
An interesting development at the American Physical Society:

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/03/finally-real-climate-science/
Click to expand...


Well that is going to be so fascinating...

Your skeptical scientists will have to be absolutely on their game if they are going to show evidence that somehow CC is just a myth (or whatever they want to say ). After all its easy to just make up stories ala Andrew Bolt but coming up with evidence that stands close scrutiny. Thats another story.

I also suspect that the 50,000 members of the American Physical Society will have something to say about any proposals.
 
basilio said:
SP I don't know where you find your facts or whether you simply make them up.
]
Click to expand...
I find most of my facts from operating a coal fired power station. Where do source yours?

basilio said:
Solar thermal Power stations will also use water for cooling. But they won't have the extra use associated with coal production.]
Click to expand...

As I said, over 90% of water loss in steam generalting plant is from evaporation in cooling towers.
If the power station is located on the coast they use sea water to perform the same function.

Water loss through steam process is minimal, as this has to be made up with demineralised water.

It doesn't matter whether the steam is produced by nuclear, oil, gas, coal or solar heat capture, the water loss and usage will be very similar.

"One of the biggest users of water at the moment are the coal fired power stations. Use squillions of litres for the cooling towers and other systems" Is a very missleading statement.IMO

The material handling side may incurr more water usage, but the process water usage is the same. Some boilers actually fire three fuels, coal, gas and fuel oil, the water usage doesn't change.

basilio said:
Trashing me for pointing that out is just crap. Stay civil.
r[/url]
Click to expand...

Appologies, I had a bad day.
 
Appologies, I had a bad day.
Click to expand...
SP

Thanks for that.

Yep you run a coal fired power station. So you certainly know your onions about water use in these systems.

When I said that "one of the biggest users of water at the moment are coal fired power stations" I was just quoting official figures on the subject. Thats why I left the references. And of course there is the extra water use associated with mining and washing coal and associated pollution. Keeping up water supplies to coal fired powers stations is a very big deal and even more problematic if/when water supplies become critical with CC.

I agree that other steam fired energy sources (including solar thermal) will have similar water requirements. In fact that is (obviously) one of the factors that needs to be taken into account when looking at alternative renewable energy sources. Can make Wind and Solar PV look better options.



http://energy.gov/fe/articles/finding-alternative-water-sources-power-plants-google-earth
 




There is extra water used in sootblowing and some ashing functions, however the cooling towers are by far the biggest water loss in thermal generation.

Coal is really on the nose at the moment and its use is being minimised. However currently there are very few options available for base load generation.

Therein lies the problem, the only "clean" fuel available is LNG, but it is such a waste to push it through a power station. A 200MW steam generator uses about 12kg/sec at full load.
Modern combined cycle use considerably less and are replacing older plants.

LNG can be used to operate any form of heat process (turbines, internal combustion engines, furnaces, household appliances etc) not many fuels have that ability.

We all hope to see the day when renewables are supplying our power requirements.
Untill that day we really need to think about maximising the efficient use of existing fuels.

There is no point in partially reducing greenhouse gases, only to be forced into having to use coal, when the LNG runs out.
 
We all hope to see the day when renewables are supplying our power requirements.
Untill that day we really need to think about maximising the efficient use of existing fuels.
Click to expand...
SP

I don't think anyone is saying we can stop coal fired power today or in the near future. They are massive investments that underpin our current energy system.

The point of this part of the discussion was that putting a price on carbon (in effect pricing the externalities of coal) sends an investment signal to business that non carbon based energy is going to become cost effective and encourages new investment to go in that direction.

The increase in energy costs also encourages industry and consumers to be more energy efficient. It makes investment in energy savings more attractive. Thats where maximising the efficient use of existing fuels come in. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation was established to directly support energy efficiency investment as well as developments in clean energy. For example they have just financed Carnegie Wave Energy to kick off their first commercial wave powered energy systems.

As far as I can see every business model would accept the principle of using a price signal to direct investment in a certain direction. But this government has decided all of these models are wrong and intends to undo these policies. Just vandalism.

http://www.carnegiewave.com/files/asx-announcements/2014/140319_CEFC%20$20m%20deal%20ASX%20announcement.pdf
 

Your mendacity knows no bounds basilio, what a repulsive misrepresentation,as none of the scientists claim climate change is a myth.

You really should brush up on your integrity.
 
wayneL said:
Your mendacity knows no bounds basilio, what a repulsive misrepresentation,as none of the scientists claim climate change is a myth.

You really should brush up on your integrity.
Click to expand...


It is the cause being massaged ole Pal,

Is not your attempts to confuse an integrity issue.

And from a supposed referee no less.
 
explod said:
It is the cause being massaged ole Pal,

Is not your attempts to confuse an integrity issue.

And from a supposed referee no less.
Click to expand...

I am not a referee, please refrain from trying to silence my opinion with such nonsense.

But a good referee will indeed call out unfair play Mr Plod; Basilio continuously misrepresents (AKA lying) the views of non-alarmists.

Non of those scientists, nor myself, purport climate change, or indeed global warming to be a myth. The aim is to clarify not confuse, to highlight dispassionate empirical science, not hysterical advocacy.

Also please do not preach integrity from a position of having none. Misrepresentation is not a position of integrity plod, not one iota.
 
The Dutch authorities know that flooding will be less manageable into the future

So instead of trying harder (the basilio way), they are trying smarter!

One example is mitigating flood damage.
There would be minimal damage if houses could float!

floating_houses
 
Another example I posted earlier, was about the tropics growing 3 percent larger.
This would expose 3 percent more people to malaria.

A smart way would be to cure malaria.
A hard way would be to sequester billions of tonnes of CO2








Like Johnny Appleseed, I plant trees everywhere I go.
 
wayneL said:
Your mendacity knows no bounds basilio, what a repulsive misrepresentation,as none of the scientists claim climate change is a myth.

You really should brush up on your integrity.
Click to expand...

I believe that is why I bracketed or whatever they want to say . We wouldn't want to upset your sensitive feelings would we?

You can say what you like Wayne. The takeaway message I get from you is a total dismissal of the possibility that CC will pose a serious problem to our society.

You may accept that something is "happening" with our climate. But it seems quite clear from all that you have said that
1) You do not see any likelihood of further significant increase in temperature and therefore
2) You will not acknowledge the possibility that human caused CC could result in serious problems.

Simply if you did accept the possibility that there was at least a further 2 Degrees C. increase in global temperatures coming as a result of our emissions you would have to support actions to slow, stop or reverse the process. That increase alone will result in a rapid melting of the Greenland ice cap.

Of course you are welcome to clarify your position at any time.

What do your learned friends believe ? We'll find out won't we when they produce their research at the Amercian Physical Society.
 
basilio said:
As far as I can see every business model would accept the principle of using a price signal to direct investment in a certain direction. But this government has decided all of these models are wrong and intends to undo these policies.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the price signal is optional whereas it needs to be compulsory.

Someone can choose to pay the carbon price in Australia, or can put their operation somewhere else with no such price. In an industry where energy is a major cost, and those are the very industries which contribute most to emissions, relocation is a very workable way of avoiding the carbon cost.

So it needs to be applied at the same nominal rate in all countries, not just Australia, in order to work as intended. Therein lies the problem.....

As for the politics of it all, this one's going to be rather interesting I think. Labor and the Greens acting to keep the carbon tax. Where does that lead now?

One potential problem for the power industry is that if the tax is scrapped but on some date other than 1st July and an attempt is made, for political reasons, to backdate it.

The problem relates to impact on the dispatch process and thus prices. That is, how can a coal or gas power station know what prices to offer without knowing what their costs are? If the market price is $50 at the time and you're paying half that in carbon tax then it makes a huge difference. So potentially we would have generators operating on a carbon tax inclusive cost basis, then being credited back the tax paid after 1st July at some point. Trouble is, their actual operations would be significantly different in some cases with or without the tax. Do they gamble that they aren't going to have to pay the tax and operate accordingly? Or do they operate on the basis that the tax still applies? What if some do one thing and others do something different? It gets incredibly messy real quick.

So if it's still going to be repealed but there is uncertainty over the timing then the most workable approach is to not make any attempt to backdate it. That makes it a lot more workable for the industry (though makes things more complicated for the federal Treasury no doubt).
 
basilio said:
I believe that is why I bracketed or whatever they want to say . We wouldn't want to upset your sensitive feelings would we?
Click to expand...
Rubbish, it was an intended mendacious slur and you know it.

You can say what you like Wayne. The takeaway message I get from you is a total dismissal of the possibility that CC will pose a serious problem to our society.
Click to expand...

That is because (as is obvious) you have a total incapability to objectively evaluate anything, from science to the comments of people on fora. I see climate change has severely affected several societies since time immemoriam. It may affect ours, however I do not know (and neither does anyone else) if, when and HOW that may happen.


Also rubbish, Temperature may rise, fall, stabilize in any sequence according to a host of factors, have never denied any possibility


And this is where we diverge basilio, you and your alarmist cult take this scenario to be a deterministic fact. I and presumably the scientists mentioned prefer to objectively view the climate as a chaotic (in the physics sense) system with many more inputs other than a fixation on CO2 levels. The empirical evidence thus far (IMO) indicates that any change will be beyond our capabilities to control, but less than catastrophic and at odds with the alarmist view.

That is, and has been my position for quite some time now, so please desist from misrepresenting that if you want to gradually separate yourself from your currently deserved reputation as a misrepresentative liar.
 
Funny Wayne how you can continually misrepresent reality to suit your own purposes.

Sure Climate changes as a result of many factors. And clearly we know know far more about these than we ever have.

And one of the things our scientific community has recognised is that greenhouse gases trap heat and that is why we have a far warmer Earth than we otherwise would.

In that context the human produced increase in greenhouse gas emissions has been identified as the major cause of increases in global temperatures in the last 100 odd years. So continuing to increase GG gases at the current exponential is going to result in continued increase in temperature. (not to mention a range of others issues like ocean acidification )

Exactly how much ? Well how certain can we be? Thats why I expressed the situation as
the possibility that there was at least a further 2 Degrees C. increase in global temperatures coming as a result of our emissions
Click to expand...

Somehow you have managed to convince yourself that our CO2 emissions are just a small part of any climatic influence. Therefore there is no point in trying to reduce CO2 emissions because that won't have any significant effect of the climate.

And anyway whatever change happens it won't be that bad.

Great mate. Now lets see if your hot shot scientists can come up with a cogent series of arguments backed up with evidence to convince the American Physical society.

But meanwhile of course you and your deluded mates are just so absolutely certain that

1) we can do nothing and
2 ) that nothing really really serious will happen anyway

that you will not even acknowledge the possibility you are wrong and consider changes/options that should be undertaken.

Now thats determinism.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Hope for the best. Prepare for the worst.

(Thanks SP trawler)
 
FFS ... weather people / climate scientists / alarmists / whoever can't even predict whether or not it is going to rain / increase in temperature / snow / whatever with any accuracy in any given week. How the hell are we expected to believe or accept what MIGHT happen in 20 / 30 / 50 / insert digit here / years time?

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

Go and do some research in the grand scheme of things ...


 
Fascinating TS. According to the graph you posted there appears to be no temperature increase from 1979 to 2009.

A couple of questions

1) Do you believe this graph accurately represents changes of temperature on the earth since 1979 ?

2) Why do you accept this graph as an appropriate measuring stick ?

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
February 2025
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...