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

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Ermmmm you did not read the link from the IPCC?? They are claiming that ocean warming is only accounting for 0.7mm + or - a poofteenth inclusive of the 2 degree rise from El Nino and CC etc ad infinitum or are they wrong as well?

Once again I refuse to debate with someone who is deliberately misunderstanding what I am typing. The Israeli's pioneered the water irrigation for deserts to turn it into arable land for cropping. I am talking about massive solar desal into the desert to create an oasis. but MEH ... you keep on misunderstanding OK !

But we are changing the climate much much more rapidly than has ever happened on the geological time scale. What may have happened naturally over several thousands years in geological time, we are doing in a brief 150 years.

Well well well ... I would have thought when that massive rock ploughed into Earth a few million years ago that would have taken less than 150 years to change the atmosphere

But hey it is all about the hysteria and not about being objective

Earth has been cooling and warming for a looooooooong time now. Irrefutable data.



And finally some sense http://cliffmass.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/does-cold-wave-imply-anything-about.html
 

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#sthash.JIbB0AV6.dpuf

Well that came out of nowhere now didn't it !!
 

It really depends on the storage size relative to inflows. Two examples:

Great Lake (Tas) - storage volume of 3063.3 GL versus annual inflows of 698 GL (122 GL of which is itself pumped from another storage with 448.79 GL capacity). So if it were empty, and we get average inflows, then it would take 5 years to reach full supply level (FSL).

Great Lake was first dammed in 1916, that dam replaced with a much larger one immediately downstream in 1922 and replaced with a bigger one again in 1967, that dam itself being raised in 1982. In short, the Lake has never reached the current FSL (though it did reach the previous, lower, maximum levels on various occasions) and almost certainly never will.

For the other extreme, Lake Gairdner (Tas). Storage capacity of 6 GL versus annual inflows of 228 GL useful (that is, excluding flood flows which in practice go straight down the spillway given the small size of this storage).

Looking at those two examples, Lake Gairdner, the purpose of which is to supply water to Wilmot power station (with re-use of that water at Cethana, Devils Gate and Paloona power stations) is certainly useful in that it adds energy (main purpose) and a bit of peak capacity (secondary benefit) to the system.

The basic operating principle is use the small dams first, then release from the major storages when there's insufficient water in the smaller ones. In the Tasmanian context, that's done by adjusting the operation of power stations rather than actually moving the water as such - the system is interconnected electrically but not hydraulically between catchments (with some very minor exceptions).

Whilst that example applies to the generation of electricity, the exact same principles apply no matter what the water is used for. If you can capture it when it rains and store it then dams can certainly provide a reliable supply of water / electricity.

Getting a bit of the topic of climate change as such, but my point is that intermittent water or energy inflows aren't a problem if you've got enough storage so as to be able to disassociate inflows with production over the medium term. Works with water and could also work with things like solar and wind power if we can store enough of it, that being primarily an economic problem rather than an engineering one as such.

All that said, right now there's stuff all so far as inflows are concerned. Incredibly dry.
 

Thanks for the explanation.

This has me thinking about your other post now:


Apart from hydro.

After reading your posts it has only just dawned on me now that hydro schemes are just like a big battery.

Are there any of these schemes where wind power is used to run pumps that pump water back above the hydro turbines during high wind and allows water through to generate power the rest of the time? With a big enough wind scheme and pump and storage you would have power all the time even if you had only enough water inflow for losses. You could potentially run the pumps directly from wind rather than an electric pump. Say a direct wind over hydraulic pump.

Apologies if you have explained all this previously in this thread, as I am new here I haven't had time to read through the 333 pages yet but am considering going back and doing that now.
 
Apologies if you have explained all this previously in this thread, as I am new here I haven't had time to read through the 333 pages yet but am considering going back and doing that now.

You might want to check out "The future of energy generation and storage" thread also.
 

It certainly did Ollie!! I believe that that "Lords Creed" managed to encapsulate every piece of doggeral in the deniers handbook.

And in so few words! Very elegant indeed.

If you or anyone else takes that stuff on face value then you have to also believe that the entire science community are mistaken or deliberate liars. The oceanographers, the glaciologists, the meteorologists, the earth scientists, the lot.

One can go through that litany line by line and provide reams of physical evidence that refutes it. It has been done a hundred times. I also know that the people who produce this misinformation and the people who choose to accept it have made their minds up.
 
Another question TS.

Do you actually accept the graphs of Harris and Mann in their depiction of temperature changes in the past 5000 years ? Are you offering that as proof that Global Warming is just BS ?

_______________________________________________________________



http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?92074-Why-Do-Conservatives-Deny-Global-Warming


_______________________________________________________________________________

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Weather-Bible-Prophecy-Cliff-Harris-ebook/dp/B00VGS3LN8
 

In short, yes there are.

I'll post a more detailed explanation in the "Future of energy generation and storage" thread in order to keep this thread on the climate change topic as such.
 


Are you trying to discredit Harris by insinuating he is a religious fruitcake? You own a computer right as you keep on banging on in here how the world is at a tipping point and we are all going to perish due to CC. Try GOOGLE and DYOR for a change.


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



And where have I ever written that Global Warming / Climate Change is pure BS ?? I have agreed with you on multitudinous occasions over the years that the Earth temperature is getting warmer and cataclysmic events (weather) seems to be getting more frequent (more than usual) as well as citing many links and paragraphs where MAN is trying to do something to reduce C02 output.

I have elucidated to you that no matter how shrill your argument is that if you step back and take a closer look at what is really going on it would be better to mitigate the risk then to run around like Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling (read Greenland & Antactica & Arctic are going to completely melt and ice flow is going to raise the oceans by 10 metres) and we are all going to drown unless we immediately go back to the dark ages.

 
I wonder how our species will change in response to higher temps and higher carbon dioxide/GHG levels?
 
We may grow more hair to the consistency of Pink Batts.


You might be right. In my early schooling we were taught that sapiens survived and evolved because of the drier hotter climates, but also highly adaptable to different climates ... the two legged cockroach.


Looking at the following pic I reckon I've met everyone of them in my world wide travels. I hope they survive the next 100 years, before the heat, thirst, hunger, pestilence, war and Koran gets them:

 
In short, yes there are.

I'll post a more detailed explanation in the "Future of energy generation and storage" thread in order to keep this thread on the climate change topic as such.

You know a lot of these Smurf.

What are your thoughts on refilling the aquifers? with those reverse dams Andrew Forrest was talking about?
 
Some interesting facts on wind and solar power........it is not all it is cracked up to be.....costly and inefficient.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...578977109?sv=be083cec1d923804ad747317119bf2ff

When considering climate change, most people think wind turbines and solar panels are a big part of the solution. But, during the next 25 years, the contribution of solar and wind power to resolving the problem will be trivial — and the cost will be enormous.

The International Energy Agency estimates that about 0.4 per cent of global energy now comes from solar and wind.

Even in 2040, with all governments implementing all of their green promises, solar and wind will make up just 2.2 per cent of global energy.

This is partly because wind and solar help to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions only from electricity generation, which accounts for 42 per cent of the total, but not from the energy used in industry, transport, buildings and agriculture.

But the main reason wind and solar power cannot be a major solution to climate change stems from an almost insurmountable obstacle: we need power when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.

This has major implications for claims about costs.

For example, wind power, we are told repeatedly, will soon be cheaper than fossil fuels — or even, as a recent global news story claims, it is already cheaper than fossil fuels in Germany and Britain.

This is mostly a mirage; large-scale wind power will not work any time soon without subsidies.
 

Tisme you have startled me with your eloquence. Adaptable, survived and evolved all in the one sentence pretty much sums up what man is all about. We need to adapt to the climate change that we are experiencing to survive and evolve our strategies to combat rising sea levels (1.8mm per annum according to the IPCC).

The Netherlands with 16.5 million people and 1/8th of their country 1 metre below seal level must be sh1tting bricks right about now. But they have a fantastic attitude to living with water ...


http://www.the-netherlands.org/key-...ion/water-management-apa-conference-2012.html

The dude up the back in that picture ... he looks familiar
 
The dude up the back in that picture ... he looks familiar

Maybe you came to my house for a bbq sometime ago? I'm rather proud of the mantelpiece family photo; the kids are so cute and the wife is a beauty, yeah?
 

Too much wine with that nice sunset again?

Evolution takes millions of years. The pace of sea level rise scientists are predicting is within a century or two at best... you can't adapt to that kind of changes naturally in time to survive... the few that do will be the rich people in rich countries, of which there might be 1 out of 7 or 9 billion at best.

Not many countries could afford to build dikes and live below sea level like the Netherlands. They'd build high walls and watchtowers loaded with bullets and rifles though.
 

Once again failure to comprehend the written word luutzu. I wrote ...

We need to adapt to the climate change that we are experiencing to survive and evolve our strategies to combat rising sea levels

Not talking about evolution of the species but more along the lines of looking at the strategies in place to mitigate the risk ... just like the Netherlands. Read the article in FULL, it is very interesting as to how their psyche is rationalised for the inevitable.

There are a lot of low lying areas around the world that the salt water could be funnelled into rather than just let the tide keep rising old chum

Like the Netherlands they look at this as an opportunity for business and for civil works, construction, jobs and also for the greater good of the country. What are we doing?? Wringing our hands is all.
 
Maybe you came to my house for a bbq sometime ago? I'm rather proud of the mantelpiece family photo; the kids are so cute and the wife is a beauty, yeah?

We must be brothers in law as I am pretty sure I married your wife's sister after taking a closer look at that photo.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...