Climate Change Confusion

 
  michaelgm Chief Commissioner

Well people like Greta Thursburg have been promising me the end of humanity for pretty much my entire life and I'm always disappointed to find that they're just full of wind like the last doomsayer.

Trust me, 'catastrophic man-made climate change' is just a hoax designed to enrich the promoters like every other doomsday scam.
don_dunstan
Well said Don.
Barnaby Joyce, Malcom Roberts and Alan Jones would be proud.

Any statement that contains the phrase"trust me" is simply BS.

Sponsored advertisement

  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
Well people like Greta Thursburg have been promising me the end of humanity for pretty much my entire life and I'm always disappointed to find that they're just full of wind like the last doomsayer.

Trust me, 'catastrophic man-made climate change' is just a hoax designed to enrich the promoters like every other doomsday scam.
Well said Don.
Barnaby Joyce, Malcom Roberts and Alan Jones would be proud.

Any statement that contains the phrase"trust me" is simply BS.
michaelgm
Well yeah maybe that's a bit extreme. I still don't think we can go to a carbon-dioxide free future while China and India are allowed to pump out as much of the stuff as they like - our 'carbon footprint' is less than one percent of global emissions. Even our own CSIRO said if we stopped carbon emissions tomorrow that it wouldn't have any difference on the overall outcome. Germany tried to go carbon-free electricity grid and it didn't work - why would anyone else's efforts would be any different.

And beyond solar and wind nearly every other green-scheme fails: Look at things like wave generation, failed consistently to live up to the promise because they destroy themselves in the first storm. Snowy 2.0 is going to spend tens of billions for a really negligible difference in our overall carbon emissions the supposed advantage being some capacity to store irregular green energy - ScoMo should pull the plug on that obscene waste of money right now. The world occupied by fanatical anti-carbon dioxide people simply isn't achievable unless we did something like go nuclear and we aren't allowed to do that either.

Frankly the goal being pursued is impossible within existing parameters.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Snowy 2.0 is going to spend tens of billions for a really negligible difference in our overall carbon emissions the supposed advantage being some capacity to store irregular green energy - ScoMo should pull the plug on that obscene waste of money right now. The world occupied by fanatical anti-carbon dioxide people simply isn't achievable unless we did something like go nuclear and we aren't allowed to do that either.

Frankly the goal being pursued is impossible within existing parameters.
don_dunstan
I think he would if he could, but its too late. Despite all the comments about extending Liddell, the power station is pushing 50 years old and from a few reports that have been produced on the boilers they need to be shutdown for rebuild or shutdown.

Unfortunately I think MT set us up for SNOWY 2.0 whether it made financial sense or not. Technically its fine, it will do the job and keep the lights on and ironically help the remaining coal power stations to run even more efficiently / profitable.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
Unfortunately I think MT set us up for SNOWY 2.0 whether it made financial sense or not. Technically its fine, it will do the job and keep the lights on and ironically help the remaining coal power stations to run even more efficiently / profitable.
RTT_Rules
Its the flattest, driest continent on earth and we're pumping water up and down because we have these silly unreliable energy sources. Pumped hydro is extremely inefficient - ScoMo should have cancelled it as soon as he got into office. Goes to show how bipartisan this carbon dioxide madness is.
  DJPeters Deputy Commissioner

If you are going to stress out worrying about what might or could happen in the future after you have passed away then you should be worrying about the end of the Universe as we know it that we are in, the sun one day will run out of fuel to power it and then you will have huge climate change overnight almost. That is of course if the sun does not explode before hand and wipe out all the planets, the sun after all is just another star and they can and do explode out in space. So really causing your self stress and probably a premature death is not going to solve anything really it will just happen with or without you.

If it is not going to happen in your life time then as said why worry about it and even worrying about something you have no control of in your lifetime is not going to make the problem go away or get better, it will only affect your health etc, nothing more really. If the end of the world was coming tomorrow what could be done to stop it really, nothing at all to tell the whole truth.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Pressure on SCOMO mounting.

  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
The fires have nothing to do with climate change.
More to do with the States refusal to back burn or clear undergrowth.
  Dangersdan707 Chief Commissioner

Location: On a Thing with Internet
The fires have nothing to do with climate change.
More to do with the States refusal to back burn or clear undergrowth.
Donald
Let me guess..
Its the Greenies Fault?
  allan Chief Commissioner

It is more than significant that the extreme drought and the extreme fires are not localised to Australia: the phemomenon is international.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
The fires have nothing to do with climate change.
More to do with the States refusal to back burn or clear undergrowth.
Donald
Dangerstan thinks it's funny but you are exactly right, refusal to allow spring controlled burning makes these fires more intense; improper management of the resource.

The biggest recorded and most destructive bushfires were in the 1850's when not enough was understood about the phenomenon - it's not a new thing, its as old as this continent is.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
The fires have nothing to do with climate change.
More to do with the States refusal to back burn or clear undergrowth.
Donald
Well no, the following was written by Carol Sparks the Mayor of the Glen Innes  Severn Shire Council

"Already there are armchair experts ready with free advice about meeting with disaster. Let it be made perfectly clear that all the area that burned has already been a fire ground for two months. There were hazard reduction and backburns under state authority last month and last year. The properties were all well-prepared and extensively defended. People who have lived with fire risk for decades knew exactly what to do, and they did it. The full expertise and advice of fire controllers has been heeded at every turn.
I’ll put my 20-year Rural Fire Service medal up against your free advice any day of the week"
  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
The evil CO2 actually reduces fire by replacing O2 in the fire triangle, so all those complaining about 'carbon pollution' should be grateful for the nasty CO2 for reducing the fire intensity, not blaming it.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
The fires have nothing to do with climate change.
More to do with the States refusal to back burn or clear undergrowth.
Well no, the following was written by Carol Sparks the Mayor of the Glen Innes  Severn Shire Council

"Already there are armchair experts ready with free advice about meeting with disaster. Let it be made perfectly clear that all the area that burned has already been a fire ground for two months. There were hazard reduction and backburns under state authority last month and last year. The properties were all well-prepared and extensively defended. People who have lived with fire risk for decades knew exactly what to do, and they did it. The full expertise and advice of fire controllers has been heeded at every turn.
I’ll put my 20-year Rural Fire Service medal up against your free advice any day of the week"
wobert
Sorry but I don't believe she is qualified to say anthropomorphic climate change has caused that bushfire; bushfires are a natural occurrence here and overseas. And California has terrible bushfires over there are caused in part by an introduced pest - the good old Aussie gum tree.

Saying intense localised bushfires are un-natural on this continent is rubbish, sorry but frankly it is.
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
The evil CO2 actually reduces fire by replacing O2 in the fire triangle, so all those complaining about 'carbon pollution' should be grateful for the nasty CO2 for reducing the fire intensity, not blaming it.
Donald
CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million. At this concentration the net effect of displacing O2 for fire intensity is zero.
  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
That is what the realists keep telling the climate scarers.
  arctic Deputy Commissioner

Location: Zurich
That is what the realists keep telling the climate scarers.
Donald
The effect of CO2 concentration on climate change is an entirely different question....than the one posed about effect on fire intensity.
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
That is what the realists keep telling the climate scarers.
The effect of CO2 concentration on climate change is an entirely different question....than the one posed about effect on fire intensity.
arctic
Well you need to tell Richard DiNatalie and his parliamentary team that, it'll be news to them.
  allan Chief Commissioner

That is what the realists keep telling the climate scarers.
The effect of CO2 concentration on climate change is an entirely different question....than the one posed about effect on fire intensity.
Well you need to tell Richard DiNatalie and his parliamentary team that, it'll be news to them.
don_dunstan
The title says it all... Confusion! And you are mightily confused. So confused that you will do us all a service if you disable your keyboard, NOW!

If you are unable to read the (very explicit) science you have no right to post on the subject. Your posts expose your abject failure to understand the written word.

Off you go, join the PM and talk with the fairies in the sky, your intellect may be up to that.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Unfortunately I think MT set us up for SNOWY 2.0 whether it made financial sense or not. Technically its fine, it will do the job and keep the lights on and ironically help the remaining coal power stations to run even more efficiently / profitable.
Its the flattest, driest continent on earth and we're pumping water up and down because we have these silly unreliable energy sources. Pumped hydro is extremely inefficient - ScoMo should have cancelled it as soon as he got into office. Goes to show how bipartisan this carbon dioxide madness is.
don_dunstan
I've stated before that SNOWY 2.0 is a financial hole in the bucket and I haven't changed.

However pumping water up hill (we don't pump it down), has been going on in the SNOWY and Wivenhoe, Qld for +40 years and in both cases it was successful as cheaper than high cost peaking coal plant which are probably not even a thing today. So in the right application is does work and technically and economically the best option in some cases. The issue that faces the grid today is that the peak is more "peaky" so ignoring RE, the problem wasn't getting any better, yes we have gas, but hardly cheaper either, around $100 MWh for peak gas.

On the dry bit, Dubai is building pumped hydro, it is being done on purely commercial grounds.
https://gulfnews.com/uae/government/dubai-hydroelectric-power-station-to-cost-dh14b-dewa-awards-contract-for-hatta-project-1.1566032158700

On the side, Sept 2019 was the first month solar contributed >10% to the total generation for the NEM. SA 21%, Qld 13%, NSW 9%, Vic 8.7%, Tas 2.7%. So I'd expect Dec-Jan to see +15% for NEM, SA + 25%, Qld +20%.
  Carnot Minister for Railways

Alrighty then.  I suppose it's one angle on "Stop Adani":
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
That is what the realists keep telling the climate scarers.
The effect of CO2 concentration on climate change is an entirely different question....than the one posed about effect on fire intensity.
Well you need to tell Richard DiNatalie and his parliamentary team that, it'll be news to them.
The title says it all... Confusion! And you are mightily confused. So confused that you will do us all a service if you disable your keyboard, NOW!

If you are unable to read the (very explicit) science you have no right to post on the subject. Your posts expose your abject failure to understand the written word.

Off you go, join the PM and talk with the fairies in the sky, your intellect may be up to that.
allan
What 'explicit science' - the kind of science that has ZERO predictive capacity in any kind of model? Science that includes eminent professors of climate change like Professor Mickey Mouse from the Institute for the Blind?

"You have no right to post on the subject" - thank-you Lord Allan, protector of what you think is the righteous truth. I think I hear someone in trouble with their syntax - up, up and away!
  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
Allan, in the words of someone with your attitude to the world - "How dare you".
There is no "explicit science", nothing has been proven.   It is at the most a theory - one that has many holes.
  wobert Chief Commissioner

Location: Half way between Propodolla and Kinimakatka
You've been reading the Boltster again Don,and he's not renowned for his peer reviewed articles on climate change.
  Carnot Minister for Railways

An interesting perspective from Rev Dr. John Dickson:

"Currently, there is about a 1 in 100,000 chance I will be murdered this year in Australia. I can live with that. But if a majority of criminologists told me that, going forward, there is a 10% chance I will be murdered, you can be sure I would become hugely vigilant. But why is this, given there’s still a 90% chance I‘ll be fine? The answer, of course, is: there is a catastrophic downside of ignoring the risk. While it may not be logical to act on the basis of low odds for small consequences, it is certainly logical to act on the basis of low odds for massive consequences.

Even if there’s only a 10% chance the majority of specialists are correct about the looming climate catastrophe, it is still compellingly logical to be vigilant about the environment, don’t you think?"
  don_dunstan The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Adelaide proud
Even if there’s only a 10% chance the majority of specialists are correct about the looming climate catastrophe, it is still compellingly logical to be vigilant about the environment, don’t you think?"
Carnot
NO.

That's like saying "let's spend more than our annual GDP on insuring against bear attack" when there's no bears in Australia.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: C2, Nightfire, RTT_Rules

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.