Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Sean K]

It's amazing how hysteria finds its way into this thread. I truly feel deeply sorry for how disturbed the catastophists minds are. It's very sad.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'd be interested to know if there is any contractual obligation on AGL to replace the generation it took out, or if it's just a "we may do it if we feel like it" arrangement.

In short, no.

Within the National Electricity Market, Tasmania is an exception in that it does have some obligations in place to ensure adequate supply to consumers (including business) but that's a state requirement outside the NEM rules.

Obviously that's in relation to having adequate capacity as such. It can't prevent some unforeseen mishap causing problems in the short term but it does prevent a long term structural shortfall.

For the rest, AGL or indeed anyone else is under no obligation to supply any particular volume or indeed anything at all.

For WA and NT, which aren't part of the NEM, the state / territory government would cop it big time in practice if the lights went out so realistically they'll do whatever it takes much like Tas.

 

[Sean K]

In short, no.

Within the National Electricity Market, Tasmania is an exception in that it does have some obligations in place to ensure adequate supply to consumers (including business) but that's a state requirement outside the NEM rules.

Obviously that's in relation to having adequate capacity as such. It can't prevent some unforeseen mishap causing problems in the short term but it does prevent a long term structural shortfall.

For the rest, AGL or indeed anyone else is under no obligation to supply any particular volume or indeed anything at all.

For WA and NT, which aren't part of the NEM, the state / territory government would cop it big time in practice if the lights went out so realistically they'll do whatever it takes much like Tas.

What's your opinion on The Bradfield Scheme? Couldn't that be a battery to the nation?

Bradfield Scheme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[basilio]

It's amazing how hysteria finds its way into this thread. I truly feel deeply sorry for how disturbed the catastophists minds are. It's very sad.

Really ? Just reporting on a heat wave that is happening at the moment is "hysteria" ? Clearly Sean your hysteria level is quite low.
How about a serious piece of analysis from the top climate change scientists across the globe. I think you need to see something truly worth getting hysterical about.

What do they think the future holds on our current trajectory ?

Economy​

‘Collapse of Civilisation is the Most Likely Outcome’: Top Climate Scientists​

By Asher Moses, originally published by Voice of Action



June 8, 2020

Australia’s top climate scientist says “we are already deep into the trajectory towards collapse” of civilisation, which may now be inevitable because 9 of the 15 known global climate tipping points that regulate the state of the planet have been activated.
Australian National University emeritus professor Will Steffen (pictured) told Voice of Action that there was already a chance we have triggered a “global tipping cascade” that would take us to a less habitable “Hothouse Earth” climate, regardless of whether we reduced emissions.

Steffen says it would take 30 years at best (more likely 40-60 years) to transition to net zero emissions, but when it comes to tipping points such as Arctic sea ice we could have already run out of time.

Evidence shows we will also lose control of the tipping points for the Amazon rainforest, the West Antarctic ice sheet, and the Greenland ice sheet in much less time than it’s going to take us to get to net zero emissions, Steffen says.

“Given the momentum in both the Earth and human systems, and the growing difference between the ‘reaction time’ needed to steer humanity towards a more sustainable future, and the ‘intervention time’ left to avert a range of catastrophes in both the physical climate system (e.g., melting of Arctic sea ice) and the biosphere (e.g., loss of the Great Barrier Reef), we are already deep into the trajectory towards collapse,” said Steffen.
“That is, the intervention time we have left has, in many cases, shrunk to levels that are shorter than the time it would take to transition to a more sustainable system.
“The fact that many of the features of the Earth System that are being damaged or lost constitute ‘tipping points’ that could well link to form a ‘tipping cascade’ raises the ultimate question: Have we already lost control of the system? Is collapse now inevitable?”

This is not a unique view – leading Stanford University biologists, who were first to reveal that we are already experiencing the sixth mass extinction on Earth, released new research this week showing species extinctions are accelerating in an unprecedented manner, which may be a tipping point for the collapse of human civilisation.

Also in the past week research emerged showing the world’s major food baskets will experience more extreme droughts than previously forecast, with southern Australia among the worst hit globally.

Steffen used the metaphor of the Titanic in one of his recent talks to describe how we may cross tipping points faster than the time it would take us to react to get our impact on the climate under control.

“If the Titanic realises that it’s in trouble and it has about 5km that it needs to slow and steer the ship, but it’s only 3km away from the iceberg, it’s already doomed,” he said.

‘This is an existential threat to civilization’​

Steffen, along with some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists, laid out our predicament in the starkest possible terms in a piece for the journal Nature at the end of last year.

They found that 9 of the 15 known Earth tipping elements that regulate the state of the planet had been activated, and there was now scientific support for declaring a state of planetary emergency. These tipping points can trigger abrupt carbon release back into the atmosphere, such as the release of carbon dioxide and methane caused by the irreversible thawing of the Arctic permafrost.

9 of 15 known Earth tipping points have been activated

“If damaging tipping cascades can occur and a global tipping point cannot be ruled out, then this is an existential threat to civilization,” they wrote.
“No amount of economic cost–benefit analysis is going to help us. We need to change our approach to the climate problem.
“The evidence from tipping points alone suggests that we are in a state of planetary emergency: both the risk and urgency of the situation are acute.”

Steffen is also the lead author of the heavily cited 2018 paper, Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene, where he found that “even if the Paris Accord target of a 1.5°C to 2°C rise in temperature is met, we cannot exclude the risk that a cascade of feedbacks could push the Earth System irreversibly onto a ‘Hothouse Earth’ pathway.”

Steffen is a global authority on the subject of tipping points, which are prone to sudden shifts if they get pushed hard enough by a changing climate, and could take the trajectory of the system out of human control. Further warming would become self-sustaining due to system feedbacks and their mutual interaction.

‘Collapse of Civilisation is the Most Likely Outcome’: Top Climate Scientists

Collapse of civilisation may now be inevitable because 9 of the 15 known global climate tipping points that regulate the planet have been activated.

www.resilience.org

 

[basilio]

Sean I suggest that if you read the previous article in totality you could find a dozen things to scream hysteria about.
Of course in your world none of this will ever possibly happen because .... it won't will it ?

We are Unsinkable

 

[Smurf1976]

This is worth watching in my view if you've got the time (1 hour presentation followed by audience questions).

If you haven't the time though I'll give you a very brief summary by saying both sides of the argument would likely agree with some of it. He's saying:

1. Climate change is real and extremely serious.

2. But the approach we're taking is very much on the wrong track. Putting "elites" in charge with their meetings at Davos and so on is worse than useless. Points out that the "1%'ers" don't live in the real world like the rest of us.

 

[Smurf1976]

What's your opinion on The Bradfield Scheme? Couldn't that be a battery to the nation?

Bradfield Scheme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fundamentally it's a water diversion scheme, for irrigation primarily, that generates a bit of electricity as a by-product but water diversion's what it's primarily about.

An alternative plan doesn't seek to divert water but does seek to generate maximum electricity from it. In brief it takes the existing Koombooloomba dam and the existing Koombooloomba and Kareeya hydropower stations, adds a new large dam and associated water conveyance infrastructure and adds a new much larger power station underground.

In brief terms the existing is 95 MW generation with 6 months' water storage.

New would be 1000 MW generation with 17 months' storage of natural inflows, plus the ability to re-pump its own discharge and natural (undammed) river flow below the power station stored in a pond.

An alternative, larger, development is also possible with more pumping from the river. That one hasn't ever been properly designed to my knowledge but it's theoretically possible.

The investigation and basic engineering work was done years ago but ultimately rejected on environmental grounds in favour of another coal-fired plant which was built instead.

I'll avoid commenting beyond saying it's that sort of absolutist thinking which leaves many shaking their heads. Climate change is supposedly an emergency but oh no, we can't incur any other impacts in order to prevent it. Hmm..... Should I ever find myself on a sinking ship, I won't be arguing about the lack of comfort and amenity on the life boats so long as they do the job.

 

[Sean K]

OMFG, "Collapse of civilisation". This thread gets nuttier and nuttier. Get a grip.

 

[Sean K]

I'll avoid commenting beyond saying it's that sort of absolutist thinking which leaves many shaking their heads. Climate change is supposedly an emergency but oh no, we can't incur any other impacts in order to prevent it. Hmm..... Should I ever find myself on a sinking ship, I won't be arguing about the lack of comfort and amenity on the life boats so long as they do the job.

I won't. Bob Brown opposes wind mills off the coast of Tassie because they don't look good. The Greens and Labor oppose nuclear because it's expensive. Extinction Rebellion stop traffic over the Harbour Bridge, but don't protest in front of the Chinese Embassy. Al Gore says the oceans are going to boil but flies to Davos in a private jet and has the carbon footprint of a Global South country. Zali Steggall is still driving around in an ICE SUV. And I'm sure Basilio is still connected to the national grid which is 75% FF driven. But, civilization is going to collapse. We know it makes sense.

 

[basilio]

I won't. Bob Brown opposes wind mills off the coast of Tassie because they don't look good. The Greens and Labor oppose nuclear because it's expensive. Extinction Rebellion stop traffic over the Harbour Bridge, but don't protest in front of the Chinese Embassy. Al Gore says the oceans are going to boil but flies to Davos in a private jet and has the carbon footprint of a Global South country. Zali Steggall is still driving around in an ICE SUV. And I'm sure Basilio is still connected to the national grid which is 75% FF driven. But, civilization is going to collapse. We know it makes sense.

Is this a bit "strange" ? In what universe does allegations of how various people are behaving in different manners relate to the physic of global warming and the consequences that are likely to follow?

I noticed that you had a laugh at my "truly hysterical" story of where CC is taking us but have chosen not to discuss the reasoning and evidence behind it. Ce la Vie

 

[basilio]

I'll avoid commenting beyond saying it's that sort of absolutist thinking which leaves many shaking their heads. Climate change is supposedly an emergency but oh no, we can't incur any other impacts in order to prevent it. Hmm..... Should I ever find myself on a sinking ship, I won't be arguing about the lack of comfort and amenity on the life boats so long as they do the job.

Quite right Smurf. We are way past the point of "comfortable" responses to CC. In fact we are not going to prevent huge disruption. At the best we might muddle through. And I agree that the 1% at the top do live differently and will look for "solutions" that focus on their situation rather than the bigger picture.. I will check it out.

Of course taking your life boat analogy reminds one of the Titanic and the problems faced by passengers and crew in
1) Actually using the boats they had.
2) Persuading people to take the life boats when it became clear all was lost.

I came across this excellent documentary recently which explored new evidence on the preparations made by the Titanic for its maiden voyage as well as the lead up to the crashing into the iceberg. Very much a metaphor for where we are today in responding to CC.

SBS On Demand

www.sbs.com.au

 

[Sean K]

3 years old but still relevant.

 

[noirua]

PUBLISHED: 20:40, 19 September 2013 | UPDATED: 07:47, 20 September 2013

World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years

A leaked UN report on climate change has revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warning over the past 15 years.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Sean K]

PUBLISHED: 20:40, 19 September 2013 | UPDATED: 07:47, 20 September 2013

World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years

A leaked UN report on climate change has revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warning over the past 15 years.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The same thing has occurred on much larger scale geological time frames. One of the facts the alarmists can't explain. Ian Plimer has been calling out this anomaly for some time. Long term geological records do not support the hypothesis that CO2 is the climate control knob.

 

[basilio]

The same thing has occurred on much larger scale geological time frames. One of the facts the alarmists can't explain. Ian Plimer has been calling out this anomaly for some time. Long term geological records do not support the hypothesis that CO2 is the climate control knob.

Ah you'll believe anything Sean if it means you don't have to face the facts.

The 2013 story was just another beat up of climate change denialists attempting to say that nothing had happened for 15 years. Just cherry picking a minimum time frame . Of course the last 10 years of rapidly increasing temperature has totally blown that furphy out of the water.

And quoting Ian Plimer ? Give us a break. His work was one long fantasy tale.

 

[Sean K]

Ah you'll believe anything Sean if it means you don't have to face the facts.

The 2013 story was just another beat up of climate change denialists attempting to say that nothing had happened for 15 years. Just cherry picking a minimum time frame . Of course the last 10 years of rapidly increasing temperature has totally blown that furphy out of the water.

And quoting Ian Plimer ? Give us a break. His work was one long fantasy tale.

So,

1. You agree nothing happened to World temp for 15 years while CO2 went up.
2. You choose to not believe a scientist's opinion based on facts, amongst a bunch of others in this thread.

Who is cherry picking?

BTW, you are in the wrong thread.

 

[Sean K]

 

[Smurf1976]

Quite right Smurf. We are way past the point of "comfortable" responses to CC. In fact we are not going to prevent huge disruption. At the best we might muddle through.

I'm no climate scientist but common sense tells me that altering the composition of the Earth's atmosphere ought to result in some sort of impact and that temperature is a very likely one.

My own experiments, whilst I acknowledge their serious limitations despite my best efforts, did produce temperature changes once I started messing with the atmosphere of my "planet". That said, there are definite limitations - the real planet isn't encased in glass and the real sun isn't a 1500 Watt incandescent bulb.

But still, I do recommend not filling the Earth's atmosphere with sulphur hexafluoride. And before anyone asks - I did ensure the voltage to the bulb was constant yes.

What I do know something about though is energy supply and for that I'll point out that right now in SA, electricity generation from wind exceeds 100% of consumption. Which sounds fine until I point out that 24 hours ago wind supplied just 27% of consumption, and 48 hours ago it was a mere 2%. Therein lies the problem - variable renewable energy, that is wind and solar, certainly works but it doesn't do so constantly.

That's not to say 100% of SA energy is from wind at the moment, oh no it isn't. We're a very long way short of that - 62% of SA homes have fossil fuel, in practice gas, water heaters for a start then there's all manner of other things that aren't electric.

Now back to electricity, without going into fine technical detail quite a few people have looked into how we'd go about maximising the use of wind and solar and avoiding completely the use of coal going forward in Australia. AEMO, CSIRO and quite a few academics, universities, private individuals, electricity companies and so on have had a go. All of them come up with much the same - they propose that we can do most of the job with wind, solar and relatively shallow storage and we'll fill the gap during extended periods of low wind and solar yield with existing hydro and other.

Now the devil here is in the detail....

"Other" is code for gas and/or diesel. That's what it means in practice and that's the first thing to note.

The other is the only reason for needing this "other" in the first place is that, without exception, all make the same assumption that no new large scale hydro projects will be built. That is, they worked out the total deep firming required, deducted from that the existing hydro, then filled the gap with "other" which is gas and diesel. Or in other words, the only reason to be burning gas and diesel at all is the assumption of no new hydro being built.

Now I won't deny that hydro projects come with an environmental impact and that there are places where a proper, unbiased, assessment would likely conclude that building a dam would be a terribly bad idea.

That isn't every single undeveloped hydro site in the entire country however. Now if we dropped the hardline "No Dams" politics, and that term does in fact originate from a hardline position to oppose all dams not just the one it's most associated with, that's the actual origin of the term and signifies a demand not for an alternative dam as had previously been proposed but for no dam at all, then we'd be in a position to replace some or all of the ongoing reliance on gas with hydro.

Similar could be said for those who complain about transmission lines or wind farms spoiling the scenery or who come up with excuses to not put solar panels on houses because it might spoil the look of the roof. Because yeah, most people spend hours each day looking at their roof.....

When faced with an emergency, nobody acting rationally complains about doing whatever needs to be done to address it. Nobody complains that the fire brigade trampled their garden whilst extinguishing a fire. Nobody complains that the Police Officer yelled at them to get out of the way of immediate danger. Nobody complains that the paramedics ripped their shirt in the course of saving their life. Etc.

If climate change is as serious as claimed then I'll argue we need to not be wiping out species or drastic things like that in order to fix it but as for the scenery, that just isn't a priority. Be as sympathetic as possible yes, don't destroy it for the sake of destruction, but if it needs to have a line run through it, turbines placed on top of the hills and the valley put underwater then so be it. That's by far the lesser of the available evils unless climate change is an actual hoax.

Same can be said for nuclear. In the Australian context I can prove to anyone that we don't need it but at the global level that isn't so, there are places where realistically it's the best available option. It's a somewhat problematic technology yes but if climate change is as serious as claimed then nuclear, done well, is a lesser evil. Don't build reactors on the coast where they'll be flooded, don't let the Russians conduct experiments with them, and find somewhere safe to put the waste. That beats cooking the planet with CO2 assuming that actually is a problem.

How serious it is, well I'm not a climate scientist but when I see supposed environmentalists opposing nuclear, opposing hydro on principle regardless of the detail and claiming that wind farms are bad then that does raise a lot of questions.

 

[basilio]

You agree nothing happened to World temp for 15 years while CO2 went up.

THAT IS NOT TRUE. Clearly the climate change deniers are not interested in what actually happened but in fact the globe was warming through that period. The article below explains what happened.

A global warming pause that didn’t happen hampered climate science​

The supposed blip in warming fueled climate skeptics and distracted researchers​

There’s no doubt that global temperatures are on the rise – a heat-up that is contributing to melting ice (icebergs in Ilulissat Icefjord in Greenland are shown), rising sea levels and extreme weather.

Mario Tama/Getty Images

By Alexandra Witze


It was one of the biggest climate change questions of the early 2000s: Had the planet’s rising fever stalled, even as humans pumped more heat-trapping gases into Earth’s atmosphere?

By the turn of the century, the scientific understanding of climate change was on firm footing. Decades of research showed that carbon dioxide was accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere, thanks to human activities like burning fossil fuels and cutting down carbon-storing forests, and that global temperatures were rising as a result. Yet weather records seemed to show that global warming slowed between around 1998 and 2012. How could that be?

After careful study, scientists found the apparent pause to be a hiccup in the data. Earth had, in fact, continued to warm. This hiccup, though, prompted an outsize response from climate skeptics and scientists. It serves as a case study for how public perception shapes what science gets done, for better or worse.

A global warming pause that didn’t happen hampered climate science

Trying to explain why global warming appeared to slow down in the early 2000s distracted scientists and shook their confidence.

www.sciencenews.org

Ian Plimer and his theories on why CO2 follows rather than leads global warming ? Sorry he is totally out on a limb there. If one wants to highlight the effects of various global warming tipping points then certainly the initial warming cause by extra CO2 will create additional warming.

For example warming up the Arctic tundra will release billions of tons of methane currently trapped in the perma frost. A warming planet that kills off large areas of forest will reduce CO2 retention and release more CO2 from decaying forests. But on all the evidence to date extra CO2 and other GG in the atmospehere will in itself increase temperatures.

 

[wayneL]

zzz...zzz...zzz...zzz

Wake me up when the massaging of data is over.