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
Apparently, despite my oft stated position, it is neither nasty, ad hominem, or an outright lie to call me a denier.
 
wayneL said:
Apparently, despite my oft stated position, it is neither nasty, ad hominem, or an outright lie to call me a denier.
Click to expand...

My understanding is wayneL, that you do not accept that man made co2 emmissions are causing abnormal and detrimental climate change.
 

Agreed with that.

There's a huge amount of energy resources worldwide - conventional fossil fuels, unconventional fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro, biomass, other renewables, geothermal.

The trouble is the economics of developing them. Both the overall cost of production, and getting sufficient capital to build them in the first place.

The big problem I think, is that most just don't "get" the scale of the capital requirements. Even in the context of Australia, we're talking about $1 billion being a rounding error, loose change or however else you wish to express it. $1 billion is peanuts, it doesn't actually build that much really.

It's fairly well known and accepted in the power industry that we could not today build the Snowy. Nor could we build the Tas hydro system or even the Victorian brown coal stations. Even if the political will was there, the money isn't. Replicating the Tasmanian system alone would cost about $18 billion today - it just wouldn't happen in practice.

I've thought for quite some time that despite the problems we have with energy supply, most energy resources will never be used due to economics. To that end it's perhaps worth noting that the only reason we can afford our current level of coal use is because the power stations are already built - it's highly doubtful that we could afford to replace them today and maintain current pricing and thus consumption levels.

Hence those 50 year old turbines at Hazelwood will be kept running as long as it's practical to do so. We can afford the financial cost of operating a 50 year old plant that's already paid for long ago, but we can't likely afford the cost of building and operating a replacement.
 
explod said:
My understanding is wayneL, that you do not accept that man made co2 emmissions are causing abnormal and detrimental climate change.
Click to expand...

I accept empirical data, rather than models. I follow the science, not the politics. I am discerning about purported science, not gullible. That my interpretation of the science is different to some, yet in agreeance with others, does not entitly you call me a denier, you are grossly out of order.
 

I don't know about you but if someone asked me to make an assessment of the science relating to some issue in astrophysics or something I'd be quite incapable of doing so..... I do find it curious that a lot of laypeople seem to think they can demolish articles that have been published in peer reviewed journals about climate change.
 

Truth = Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

Consensus ≠ Truth

Theory ≠ Truth

Hypothesis ≠ Truth

Modelling ≠ Truth



Articles that have been published in peer reviewed journals about climate change = articles that have been published in peer reviewed journals about climate change
 

Of course peer reviewed journal articles can make erroneous conclusions. But I'd trust them more than some guy with google and a tafe certificate to be right about their field of science. Is it just journal articles on climate change that you disagree with (I notice you haven't nominated any particular articles)? Do you write to (for example) the top medical journals to point out methodlogical problems with articles about cancer research?
 
banco said:
(I notice you haven't nominated any particular articles)? Do you write to (for example) the top medical journals to point out methodlogical problems with articles about cancer research?
Click to expand...

I don't have cancer.

I grow trees, like Johnny Appleseed.
When I owned property I grew lawn.

I am an aerobic animal!!
I do my bit to ensure O2 and CO2 are balanced in my sphere of influence.

I maintain a very small carbon footprint.

What more do you expect?
 
banco,

I leave the scientific critique to the scientists. The trick is not to exclude those who are at odds with your beliefs.

I used to be a warmer, then a skeptic and now arrived at being a lukewarmer... somewhere in the middle, with a touch of agnosticism (in the true sense of the word, ie waiting for more evidence to emerge). I think Roger Pielke Snr is one who I most closely align my current thoughts.

That I particularly rail against the extreme alarmism of the likes of basilio and plod and those whom they are beholden to, does not make me a denier and it is a foul, lower than a snake's belly fallacy to accuse me of such.

As ever, I reserve the right to change my mind either way as the evidence presents itself.
 

Indeed Wayne. Eloquent as ever.

Of course your not a denier. You never could be could you ? Because, after all, you say you are not a denier and your word creates reality doesn't it ?

Of course the real problem with your "non denial position" and the rest of your illustrious crew is i its complete refusal to consider even the possibility that the rest of the scientific community might be right with the research and evidence regarding the cause and consequences of human produced climate change. I mean even if there was only a 10% chance they were right any sensible person would not want to risk the consequences of the world warming an extra 2-5 degreesC would they ?

But lets not just indulge in semantics here. Why not actually review some of the most recent published work on CC ?



http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nt/2014/apr/18/global-warming-carbon-not-cfcs

This is the way real science works isn't it Wayne? A scientist comes up with a hypothesis for a situation, examines the evidence, puts together a paper and manages to get it published in an actual science journal .

Then other scientists have a long hard look at the paper and see if it stands up to scrutiny. Sadly (but ever so predictably) this paper didn't appreciate the scrutiny and has curled up and died. You can read the rest of the article to see just where Oing Bin Lus paper failed.

But it's worth highlighting the final comment because it sums up the position on non-deniers, non-believers, scientific agnostics, luke warmers, cold warmers and whatever other labels you care to use.


All yours Wayne.
 
While we are on the topic of what may happen if in fact 97% of the scientific community is close to the money on the possibility that the earth will get a lot warmer let's consider another one of the myriad consequences.


http://www.theguardian.com/environm...mbria-nuclear-dump-mistake-environment-agency
 
Basilio

zzz...zzzz...zzzz


same ol' same ol'
 
basilio said:
I mean even if there was only a 10% chance they were right any sensible person would not want to risk the consequences of the world warming an extra 2-5 degreesC would they ?
Click to expand...
Cost is the big factor here.

Cheap energy from fossil fuels versus a much more costly energy supply from renewables (which ultimately means lower GDP - it's not simply about household bills going up, households are a sideline in most countries so far as energy is concerned).

To use an analogy, I can book a flight Hobart - Melbourne with 4 airlines - Qantas, Virgin, Jetstar or Tiger.

Qantas - the most expensive option but also the most reliable.

Virgin - almost as reliable as Qantas and these days only slightly cheaper.

Jetstar - significantly less reliable but also significantly cheaper.

Tiger - a lot less reliable and by far the cheapest.

Suffice to say that it seems that a large portion of travellers are willing to take the significant risk of delays (and suffice to say that when airlines have problems, Tas is never their highest priority) and choose to fly with the cheaper airlines. This is to the point that Qantas as such is ending most (all?) services on this route as the market just isn't big enough to support two "premium" airlines when most customers are focused heavily on price.

So there's an example of a situation where people are willing to take a risk of things going wrong simply in order to save money.

It is much the same with climate change. If we take the risk as being 10% then many people will choose to accept that rather than address the problem.

It's also not that easy to actually do it beyond a certain point. Eg if we look at France, a country that has pursued nuclear energy more enthusiastically than anyone else, the end result isn't what most assume. Sure, they have about 75% nuclear electricity (and a further 15% from renewables, mostly hydro) but electricity isn't the whole energy story. Overall, nuclear supplies 41% of total energy in France, next comes oil with 31%, gas 16%, coal 4% and the other 8% is renewable (mostly hydro).

So even with an ambitious nuclear program for the past 40 years and a bit of hydro too, France is still 51% reliant on fossil fuels for its' total energy supply (which includes non-electricity uses). And with 90% non-fossil electricity already, there isn't a lot of scope for "easy" measures to further cut fossil fuel use. Even if they went to 100% nuclear and renewable electricity, people in Paris will still be filling their cars with petrol or diesel, industry still needs fuel, trucks still run on diesel. You still need coal to make steel (not sure if France produces steel or not, but you get the point). Etc.

Or what about Sweden, another country that underwent a major transition away from fossil fuels (particularly oil, same with France) after the 1970's oil price shocks. Electricity in Sweden is even more non-fossil than in France (55% renewable (mostly hydro), 39% nuclear, 3% gas, 1% coal, 1% oil) they still rely on a lot of fossil fuels overall. Renewables (largely wood and hydro) supply 35% of total energy, nuclear 29%, oil 28%, coal 5%, gas 3%. So overall Sweden still relies on fossil fuels for 36% of total energy, despite having 94% non-fossil electricity.

Of what about the UK which famously closed most of its' coal mines amidst difficult cirumstances during the 1980's and 90's? Most of the mines are gone today, but coal still supplies 28% of UK electricity and 15% of total energy. Just because they largely stopped mining it didn't mean they stopped using it altogether - they replaced some of the lost production with imports and the rest mostly with gas. Here are the rest of the UK figures. Electricity is 46% gas, 28% coal, 16% from their heavily subsidised nuclear plants, 8% renewables (mostly "new" reneables - wind etc), 1% oil. So the UK still has 75% fossil fuel electricity, a figure that's barely changed despite the mine closures and the building of new renewables. Overall, UK energy comes from gas 40%, oil 35%, coal 15%, nuclear 8%, renewables 3%. So the UK is still 90% fossil fuel powered despite the mine closures, the collapse of North Sea oil production and declining gas production.

Or closer to home there's Tasmania, the most hydro obsessed "dam the lot" place on earth through much of the 20th Century. It's 20 years since a new big dam was built and today it's 82% hydro for electricity, 10% gas, 9% wind (figures don't add to 100% due to rounding). So overall it's 90% renewable for electricity - comparable to France or Sweden. But once you look at total energy it's the same story, we're still heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Overall it's oil (38%), hydro (30%), wood (11%), gas (11%), coal (6%), wind (4%). So that's 55% fossil fuels overall which is comparable to France's 51% with underlying economic factors (industry etc) explaining the difference between the two. The zinc works may well be running on renewable electricity as are the other smelters, my house may be heated with wood or electricity, but transport still relies almost totally on oil, industry still needs coal to fire the boilers, kilns and make alloys, gas is still gas. Etc.

So there's quite a few places that have done their best build nuclear, build hydro or close coal mines. But they are still substantially reliant on fossil fuels overall. Sweden has done pretty well on one hand whilst on the other, the UK hasn't really achieved anything apart from a switch from domestic production to imports. Overall, getting beyond about 50% non-fossil energy seems to be a real barrier, and even that is only achievable with (in practice) large scale hydro or nuclear. Not that nuclear is renewable or in any way "green" as such, but it's not technically a fossil fuel so I've considered it accordingly.

So long as the world continues to grow GDP we're going to use energy. And for the time being at least, most of that energy is going to come from fossil fuels. That's the harsh reality of it.

Data sources - for the EU the data is official European Commission data "EU Energy in Figures" - a Google search will find it. For Tasmania the data source is Smurf's general knowledge, ultimately based on Hydro Tasmania, Tas Gas and state government data sources.
 
This is more about established weather cycles than climate change, but thought I'd post it anyway.

Looks like we're in for another El Niño and possibly a positive IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole) as well. Both are associated with below average rainfall across much of Australia (particularly the South-East).

In short:

All models surveyed indicate an El Niño is likely in 2014, with 6 out of 7 suggesting it could form as early as July.

2 out of 5 suggest that a positive IOD is likely to develop early in Spring.

The BOM update is here (link to the latest version, regularly updated) - http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

As for the climate, ignoring any "evidence" that these cycles may or may not constitute, it will add to the output of coal-fired power generation to some extent. There's going to be a substantial slump in Australian hydro output soon even without a drought....
 
Warming could in theory resume (after a 17 year pause), but long term, a return to "icebox earth" is predictable.

So much for [the national broadcaster's] Emma Alberici's scientific consensus.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
 
Logique said:
Warming could in theory resume (after a 17 year pause), but long term, a return to "icebox earth" is predictable.

So much for [the national broadcaster's] Emma Alberici's scientific consensus.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Click to expand...

If you're referring to Newman's little talk

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/tony-abbotts-business-guru-insists-the-world-is-cooling-16063

Newman’s reference to the peak temperature year in the late 1990s ”” 1998, at the height of an El Niño was for a time the hottest year on record, but those records are now taken up by 2005 and 2010 ”” are a typical crutch of the climate denialists. The fact that 13 of the 14 hottest years have occurred since the late 1990s, and that this decadal growth chart shows a continuing rise, does not seem to faze the likes of Newman …
 

Attachments

  • annual temp.jpg
    43.7 KB · Views: 14
  • decadal chart.PNG
    191.1 KB · Views: 25
You didn't follow the link did you.

Your post is nonsense. Beginning to end. It is the climate alarmists who now desperately search for a crutch.

Clive Palmer and PUP are smarter than you.
 
Logique said:
You didn't follow the link did you.

Your post is nonsense. Beginning to end. It is the climate alarmists who now desperately search for a crutch.

Clive Palmer and PUP are smarter than you.
Click to expand...

Lets have a look at say the medieval warming period. Not a global phenomenon. Research suggest the tropical pacific was actually colder.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/175842/medieval-warm-period-MWP

Many studies show that the amount of warming occurring during the MWP varied by season and region. Some provide evidence of relatively warm temperatures (most pronounced during the summer months) in several regions, including the North Atlantic, northern Europe, China, and parts of North America, as well as the Andes, Tasmania, and New Zealand. Other studies maintain that the temperature conditions of certain regions, such as the Mediterranean, South America, and other locations in the Southern Hemisphere, were essentially no different from those of the present day.

As those sceptical of AGW say, regional changes are not proof.

Your link also refers to the little ice age. Once again it was regional in nature and not a global cooling. Population decline around the world is also thought to have been a major cause.

Then this little nugget - "Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases."

So land clearing for agriculture had no impact on the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere. Rice is a huge generator of methane, especially using the style of farming still prevalent in Asia. In South America large tracks of rainforest were burnt to support agriculture. Increasing populations of ruminant animals would also see a large increase in emissions. Sheep can produce up to 30 litres of methane and cows up to 200 a day. Methane is about 30 times more heat trapping than CO2.

Whether these changes in land use and animal husbandry would have been enough to impact the climate, I don't claim to know, but to blatantly ignore them is a pretty poor effort.

Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes

So how do we explain the continued rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, or the increasing acidification of the oceans? It's also not about the natural level, but the fact we're continually adding to the natural level of greenhouse gases.

---------

I don't claim to know how bad things will get if the current forecasts are even half true. I do know our current economic set up is extremely vulnerable. Our oil imports all go through 2 very easy to blockade areas. The burning of fossil fuels has detrimental effects on health. Every few years the forecasted years of use we have of our resources keeps dropping at an increasing rate.

At the very least we have to stop allowing the detrimental externalities of burning fossil fuels to be "free" to those using them. We tax cigarettes because they have serious health affects and we know they cause a massive increase in health costs from those that use them. So taxing them is partly to make people stop smoking due to the expense, and also to force them to pay for some of the increased medical expenses the public system will bear as well. Why should it be any different for the burning of coal or oil?

We used an emissions trading scheme very successfully to reduce SO2 emissions so that acid rain is no longer something that happens in most of the world.

I say use the market to help move us to a less fossil fuel economy, because at least this way we have some control of how it's done. The other option of continuing to dither and the eventual adjustment will be far more expensive and have a massive impact on the economy.
 
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...