Brisbane Airport welcomes Jet Zero council

[ersa]

Brisbane Airport said it welcomes the Australian government’s budget announcement of a ‘Jet Zero’-style council to guide the development of a policy framework to encourage emissions reduction in Australia’s aviation industry.

“Getting the policy right from the start is essential to the development of a domestic sustainable aviation fuel market,” said Raechel Paris, Executive General Manager of Sustainability at Brisbane Airport Corporation. “Next year the world will celebrate 120 years since the Wright Brothers became the first to harness powered flight. What a tribute to their legacy if 2023 also marked a turning point in reducing the impact of global aviation on the planet.”

Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) has accelerated its targets to reach net zero scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2025. Scope 1 and 2 relate to emissions generated from BAC’s direct activity. However, BAC understands that Scope 3 accounts for the vast majority of emissions. Scope 3 includes activity by third parties, including businesses operating at Brisbane Airport, and of course, aviation.

“Increasing the use of SAF as an alternative to fossil fuels is essential for the de-carbonisation of the aviation industry sector and its long-term sustainability. And Brisbane Airport wants to be a leader in the SAF industry,” Paris said.

Brisbane Airport has signed onto the World Economic Forum’s Clean Skies for Tomorrow initiative, which seeks to accelerate the supply and use of sustainable aviation fuel to 10 percent by 2030. BNE is also the only Australian Airport to become a signatory for the Mission Possible Partnership (MPP) Aviation Transition Strategy. The aviation sector through this MPP is activating an alliance of global partners to supercharge the decarbonisation of the industry.


Anyone who signs up to anything related to the World economic forum is nuts

[Ascend Charlie]

The first emission to be stopped is hot air horsefeathers like this.

[SOPS]

More “ Climate Crisis” woke crap. It has to stop.

[Fonz121]

More “ Climate Crisis” woke crap. It has to stop.

Agreed - the climate crisis does need to be stopped.

[Icarus2001]

Agreed - the climate crisis does need to be stopped. There is no crisis. The planet will happily enjoy a two degree rise in AVERAGE temperature and more CO2 will lead to a greening planet. A small rise in sea level will make sod all difference and the evidence shows the pacific island atolls are GROWING.

Now if we want to reduce emissions. Immediately remove the 250 knots below 10,000 requirement and cancel all holding. Ensure ALL airports install high speed taxi exits for all runways by the end of 2023 and finally remove all movement constraints at Sydney airport.

Fixed it for you.

[chookcooker]

How does getting rid of 250 kts/ 10,000 reduce emissions?

[Australopithecus]

You guys…for our convenience could you put /s at the end of your posts to indicate sarcasm

[Flying Binghi]

Agreed - the climate crisis does need to be stopped.

What ‘climate crisis’ is that ? The one in some green nutters mind… or the one Al Gore helped to sell to the likes of Goldman Sachs were he sold them on the trillions of dollars financial institutions will make from all the carbon trading scams and the compliance ‘industry’ management..:hmm:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs

.
.
​​​​​…
.
.
​​​​​…

[neville_nobody]

Well a good start will be to build more runways and airports everywhere to eliminate unnecessary holding. Get rid of 10NM ILS's. You should be joining at 5NM. Imagine the carbon savings with a 5NM reduction on every flight!!

Noise abatement and curfews are cancelled everywhere. This is a climate emergency!

Then we can shake up CASA and Airservices and sort out all the rules and restrictions that hinder the flow of traffic. Not to mention the stupid STARs & SIDs in this country.

Then they can look at the annual carbon output from traffic holding in Australia. Not to mention the delta burn on the fuel you have to carry to hold......

Then the wasted fuel taxiing around for a gate that isn't available.............

[TimmyTee]

Oh fk, you’ve awaken the crackpot nutter and his red text quotes..

[ersa]

Oh fk, you’ve awaken the crackpot nutter and his red text quotes..


Go back in the safe space ....

[Deano969]

So burning bio fuel produces less carbon emissions ?
Obviously not, so why is this better for the environment ?
Suck out of the ground or grow on a farm and take food away from those that have none......

[airdualbleedfault]

It's so cute how the climate alarmists think that humans can control the climate of a planet, I'm all for reducing emissions but please get over yourselves, the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years and nothing we do will change solar flares, earth and moons orbits etc. As one scientist said "if you think global warming is bad, hope and pray you don't have to go through an ice age"

[Fonz121]

What ‘climate crisis’ is that ? The one in some green nutters mind… or the one Al Gore helped to sell to the likes of Goldman Sachs were he sold them on the trillions of dollars financial institutions will make from all the carbon trading scams and the compliance ‘industry’ management..:hmm:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs

.
.
​​​​​…
.
.
​​​​​…

I’m not going to debate the finer points of a topic that’s not my area of expertise. I’ll leave that to the people who have spent their lives committed to the research and science behind it. I’m going to take a wild guess that you don’t fall into that category. I’m getting more of a University of YouTube vibe.

Imagine being told by a plumber that the science behind aerodynamics is wrong, because you know, it’s all a conspiracy by the woke media.

Jesus some of you are dense.

[40years]

A bit like being told by a palaeontologist in 2007 that rainfall would become close to zero?

[Beer Baron]

So burning bio fuel produces less carbon emissions ?
Obviously not, so why is this better for the environment ?
Suck out of the ground or grow on a farm and take food away from those that have none......
Really?!? You can’t figure it out?

Grow a crop that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere and it reduces atmospheric CO2. Burn it in a jet engine and you release the carbon but you then absorb it again by growing more of the crop. In theory a perfect system would be net zero.

Otherwise you release carbon from a source (oil) that absorbed carbon 10 million years ago. So you are only adding CO2 to the atmosphere today.

[SOPS]

A bit like being told by a palaeontologist in 2007 that rainfall would become close to zero?

I remember him giving the impression that if may never rain in Australia again!

[Blip]

It's so cute how the climate alarmists think that humans can control the climate of a planet, I'm all for reducing emissions but please get over yourselves, the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years and nothing we do will change solar flares, earth and moons orbits etc. As one scientist said "if you think global warming is bad, hope and pray you don't have to go through an ice age"

Control the climate? Who’s claiming to be doing that? Adversely affecting? Yes. Controlling? No

This wonderful cartoon puts the current rate of temperature change in perspective. You’ll be pleased to know adbf, the earths orbit and ice age get a mention.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

[TimmyTee]

You’d have thought pilots would understand why rate of change is the issue here

[tail wheel]

Brisbane Airport has signed onto the World Economic Forum’s Clean Skies for Tomorrow initiative

Which will inevitably result in a "Green" surcharge on passenger air fares into and out of Brisbane.

[PaulH1]

The Earth has been going through ice ages and interglacial warming periods for 4.5 billion years. There is no reason to suspect that this has suddenly stopped.
12.000 years ago the Arctic was free of ice and human interference cannot be blamed for this!
The human effect of 'Global Warming' probably has some effect but the governmental scientists have never tried to explain how much - other than saying it is all our fault.
This is probably because they receive a generous remuneration from respective governments, so why should they ever say anything that would take away their moment of glory and pay package.
For governments it is a very welcome cash cow by way of green levies so why should they admit anything that could reduce these.
Our Sun which is 93 million miles away has controlled the climate of out Earth since it was formed and its sheer power has held us in a tight orbit around it.
When someone can prove that the Sun is not the controlling influence of our climate, I might sit up and listen, but until then any net zero initiatives are virtue signalling and just reasons to raise taxes.

[Sunfish]

……And in other news researchers discover greenhouse gas reductions are a pointless waste of time and money.


https://news.uchicago.edu/story/wildfires-are-erasing-californias-climate-gains-research-shows

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

It's ok. God has net-zero accreditation for bush fires.

[Angle of Attack]

Hey dudes, I’ve got a better solution ground all aircraft but keep paying me a salary, peace out!

[PiperCameron]

Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) has accelerated its targets to reach net zero scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2025. Scope 1 and 2 relate to emissions generated from BAC’s direct activity. However, BAC understands that Scope 3 accounts for the vast majority of emissions. Scope 3 includes activity by third parties, including businesses operating at Brisbane Airport, and of course, aviation.

“Increasing the use of SAF as an alternative to fossil fuels is essential for the de-carbonisation of the aviation industry sector and its long-term sustainability. And Brisbane Airport wants to be a leader in the SAF industry,” Paris said.

Back on topic, it's really nice that "Brisbane Airport wants to be a leader in the SAF industry" but the only teeny, tiny problem I see is that BAC have approximately zero control over the supply of jet fuel at Brisbane Airport (SAF or otherwise) and know full well they can do absolutely nothing about it for the forseeable future either. Hence the "let's do nothing serious until Scope 3" waffle... at which point they could, maybe, pressure certain large oil companies to do something not in their commercial interest - but we all know how that usually works out. :rolleyes:

Nothing to see here, move along!

[10JQKA]

https://news.defence.gov.au/media/media-releases/raaf-and-airservices-australia-re-design-military-training-area-airspace


Wonder what the Jet-zero council has to say about the NSW Military Flying area changes ?

Basically means every passenger jet flying in/out of SY NW bound and every QLD to VIC/SA/WA to QLD passenger jet will not get their preferred route or level for hours on end and for 26/52 weeks a yr.

[Flying Binghi]

I’m not going to debate the finer points of a topic that’s not my area of expertise. I’ll leave that to the people who have spent their lives committed to the research and science behind it. I’m going to take a wild guess that you don’t fall into that category. I’m getting more of a University of YouTube vibe.

Imagine being told by a plumber that the science behind aerodynamics is wrong, because you know, it’s all a conspiracy by the woke media.

Jesus some of you are dense.

“…Jesus some of you are dense…”

Jesus eh. The name of god in vain. Straight to hell for ye Fonz121..;) …and an excellent segway to:



Lets have a look-see at how an uneducated novice could question someone with a highly educated ‘expertise’ of a subject.


Fonz121, there are millions of scholars who have spent their life studying and interpreting Islam. Me, i’m an atheist who has done very little study of any religion.

Fonz121, by your reasoning as I am not an expert on religions I can not ‘deny’ the scholarly reasoning behind religion or reject all ‘man made’ religions outright as I have done because I am not ‘educated’ on the subject.

For an example, why would I question Islam: When Islam dictates that a female is worth half a man I am unable to see how that would pass the most basic test of common sense. And yet, it seems to uneducated me to be one of the central ‘themes’ of that religion - apparently the ‘proof’ is to be found in the scholarly texts.


Back to climate. One of the central themes of the ‘proof’ of man changing climate is how current events are unusually hotter/colder/wetter/dryer/more flammable than the past. That’s something any atheist can check…:cool:

.
.
​​​​​…
.
.
​​​​​…
.
.

[PiperCameron]

https://news.defence.gov.au/media/media-releases/raaf-and-airservices-australia-re-design-military-training-area-airspace

Wonder what the Jet-zero council has to say about the NSW Military Flying area changes ?

Basically means every passenger jet flying in/out of SY NW bound and every QLD to VIC/SA/WA to QLD passenger jet will not get their preferred route or level for hours on end and for 26/52 weeks a yr.

The sensible thing would be to shift F-35 training to East Sale instead (since mere mortals aren't allowed anywhere nearby anyway), but it's probably a case of Defence trumps everything and everyone else and the rest of us (including the airlines fuel bills and Jet-zero) have to put up with it.

[10JQKA]

1/11th of the world's airspace of which 90% is more or less unused and they have to play war games in the triangle and disrupt 90% of aviation users.

[Deano969]

Really?!? You can’t figure it out?

Grow a crop that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere and it reduces atmospheric CO2. Burn it in a jet engine and you release the carbon but you then absorb it again by growing more of the crop. In theory a perfect system would be net zero.

Otherwise you release carbon from a source (oil) that absorbed carbon 10 million years ago. So you are only adding CO2 to the atmosphere today.

A lot more to it than that mate
Producing and suppling fertilizer has a large carbon footprint
So to does all the farm equipment
Road transport to a refinery
The carbon absorbing land they had to clear to grow the crop wipes out a lot of the carbon absorbing bonus
Then you have very thirsty crops such as sugar cane and corn

So bio fuel isn't a silver bullet, far from it...

[PiperCameron]

So bio fuel isn't a silver bullet, far from it...

It may not be a bullet, but ahh there's a lot of 'silver' in it! Silver money, that is.. Government grants, tax-payer funded!! Highly profitable this bio-fuel industry is. :suspect:

[tossbag]

A bit like being told by a palaeontologist in 2007 that rainfall would become close to zero?

That fool has been fairly quiet since his ridiculous, false, science guided comment. So have all the other science guided fools, wait, no, sorry. The science guided fools are still spouting their bull****. How long has earth been rotating with life onboard? How long have climate records been kept?

Gotta love the science eh? eh? Kept you safe during the 2.5 year mild flu season. (Heavy sarcasm).

Jesus some of you are dense.

Live in Victoria?
Rely on government to make all of your decisions?
Quintuple vaxxed?
You'd drink the poison in Jonestown?

[Beer Baron]

A lot more to it than that mate
Producing and suppling fertilizer has a large carbon footprint
So to does all the farm equipment
Road transport to a refinery
The carbon absorbing land they had to clear to grow the crop wipes out a lot of the carbon absorbing bonus

Fossil fuel production has significant emissions too beyond burning the final product:

- Fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction are primarily methane which has a 25x greater greenhouse effect than CO2.
- Plenty of heavy equipment used in oil production. (Offshore rigs and a fleet of helicopters to supply them)
- Trucking bio-fuel from an Australian facility to an Australian airport can’t be much worse than digging it up in the Middle East and shipping it halfway around the planet to Singapore and then to Oz.

And traditional production has ZERO offset.

[Flying Binghi]

Fossil fuel production has significant emissions too beyond burning the final product:

- Fugitive emissions from oil and gas extraction are primarily methane which has a 25x greater greenhouse effect than CO2.
- Plenty of heavy equipment used in oil production. (Offshore rigs and a fleet of helicopters to supply them)
- Trucking bio-fuel from an Australian facility to an Australian airport can’t be much worse than digging it up in the Middle East and shipping it halfway around the planet to Singapore and then to Oz.

And traditional production has ZERO offset.

“…methane which has a 25x greater greenhouse effect than CO2…”

Hmmm… do tell Beer Baron. That 25x greater effect figure you claim. Is that the claimed greenhouse effect of methane in an atmosphere that also includes water vapour and CO2. Or is it comparing an atmosphere that only contains C02 to an atmosphere that only contains methane ?

:)

[Icarus2001]

Here are the leaders…

https://www.bne.com.au/corporate/about/about-bac/board-directors

[ersa]

My word, that is a HUGE board.

Directors fees must be through the roof

QUOTE=Icarus2001;11321243]Here are the leaders…

https://www.bne.com.au/corporate/about/about-bac/board-directors[/QUOTE]

No user fees are through the roof . They are well and truly making up for lost revenue during Covid.

[Beer Baron]

Hmmm… do tell Beer Baron. That 25x greater effect figure you claim. Is that the claimed greenhouse effect of methane in an atmosphere that also includes water vapour and CO2. Or is it comparing an atmosphere that only contains C02 to an atmosphere that only contains methane ?

It’s not my claim, here are what scientists (not pilots) at MIT have to say:
Let’s say a factory releases a ton of methane and a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere today. The methane immediately begins to trap a lot of heat—at least 100 times as much as the CO2. But the methane starts to break down and leave the atmosphere relatively quickly. As more time goes by, and as more of that original ton of methane disappears, the steady warming effect of the CO2 slowly closes the gap. Over 20 years, the methane would trap about 80 times as much heat as the CO2. Over 100 years, that original ton of methane would trap about 25 times as much heat as the ton of CO2.

As to your question, it would appear they are comparing adding methane or CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere as opposed to a hypothetical atmosphere of 100% CO2 or CH4. You can ask MIT for their methodology.
MIT reference (https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-compare-methane-carbon-dioxide-over-100-year-timeframe-are-we-underrating)

[Flying Binghi]

It’s not my claim, here are what scientists (not pilots) at MIT have to say:
Let’s say a factory releases a ton of methane and a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere today. The methane immediately begins to trap a lot of heat—at least 100 times as much as the CO2. But the methane starts to break down and leave the atmosphere relatively quickly. As more time goes by, and as more of that original ton of methane disappears, the steady warming effect of the CO2 slowly closes the gap. Over 20 years, the methane would trap about 80 times as much heat as the CO2. Over 100 years, that original ton of methane would trap about 25 times as much heat as the ton of CO2.

As to your question, it would appear they are comparing adding methane or CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere as opposed to a hypothetical atmosphere of 100% CO2 or CH4. You can ask MIT for their methodology.
MIT reference (https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-compare-methane-carbon-dioxide-over-100-year-timeframe-are-we-underrating)

Ask MIT…Hmmm…… in the second paragraph we get the claim of: “…Methane is a colorless, odorless gas that’s produced both by nature … and in industry … It is widely regarded as the second most important greenhouse gas, after carbon dioxide…”

Here’s me thinking water vapour were the most important greenhouse gas..:hmm:

Beer Baron, when you did your met study to get your pilots licence were there much mention of C02 or methane building them big storms? Perhaps there were a mention of methane suddenly condensing into fog, or… yer gets the idea..;)

Beer Baron, when yer out in a cloudless desert day and the temperatures running 52c and a 0% water vapour humidity, I guess yer could blame that C02 and methane for the heat. But then the sun goes down and yer freeze… Why don’t it stay hot ? I thought that methane and C02 were supposed to warm the atmosphere for many years..:hmm:

…or, you could be in Darwin Australia in the middle of the monsoon sweating away on a hot 32C day with 95% water vapour humidity and think at least you will be cool at night when the sun goes down - But it ain’t. Maybe C02 and methane only work at night in Darwin…




.

[Beer Baron]

It is very hard to know what you are driving at here Binghi. At no point did I posit that Methane was the most important greenhouse gas, I stated that it is more potent than CO2 (how much so depends on the timeframe). I don’t see you disputing that.

As to your odd obsession with water vapour, here is what NASA says on the subject:
Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, but because the warming ocean increases the amount of it in our atmosphere, it is not a direct cause of climate change.
So perhaps you are confused about what causes weather systems and what causes Climate Change. Increased water vapour being a consequence of climate change not a driver of it. Again, if you disagree with these positions, take it up with NASA. As you are clearly smarter than an MIT professor then I am sure you will be an excellent resource for the folks at NASA.
NASA. The causes of Climate Change (https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/)

[Flying Binghi]

It is very hard to know what you are driving at here Binghi. At no point did I posit that Methane was the most important greenhouse gas, I stated that it is more potent than CO2 (how much so depends on the timeframe). I don’t see you disputing that.

As to your odd obsession with water vapour, here is what NASA says on the subject:

So perhaps you are confused about what causes weather systems and what causes Climate Change. Increased water vapour being a consequence of climate change not a driver of it. Again, if you disagree with these positions, take it up with NASA. As you are clearly smarter than an MIT professor then I am sure you will be an excellent resource for the folks at NASA.
NASA. The causes of Climate Change (https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/)


Hmmm… Beer Baron, I referenced your link. I quoted from and covered the expert “methodology” of your MIT link..:hmm: That’s the link written by: “…Andrew Moseman, MIT Climate Portal Writing Team and guest expert Jessika Trancik, associate professor at the MIT Institute for Data, Systems, and Society…”

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-compare-methane-carbon-dioxide-over-100-year-timeframe-are-we-underrating


Beer Baron, you want to try using the common sense approach to just what is a ‘driver’ of climate. Real world ‘climate’ is not a flat earth climate computer model them MIT numpties fondle with wishful thinking.

Try doing a reductio-ad-adsurdum thought experiment: Remove all water vapour from the atmosphere and what are we left with ? …clouds ? …Fog ? …Rain ? …Cyclones ? …warm humid nights ?
Tell me again about this ‘driver’ of climate…:hmm:

As the, in his time, most referenced climate scientist said: “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.” Reid Bryson. Bryson were referencing the effect of water vapour.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Bryson

Reid Bryson were one of those hands on weather experts. During WW2 he used to jump into the back of B25’s and fly off into enemy territory so he could do better forecasting. He were one of the wx forecasters of the cyclone that caused the largest disaster in US navy history.


:cool:

[Beer Baron]

Binghi, interesting person to reference this Bryson. From your own link he is said to have held the following positions on climate change:

The climate is actually cooling because of human impacts on the environment.
When the evidence proved that he was wrong and the climate was actually warming, Bryson testified to Congress that global warming from fossil-fuel combustion was politically unstoppable.
He then reversed himself (again) and said the warming was not caused by humans after all.

So a guy who can’t decide if global temperatures are going up or down, nor whether it is effected by humans or not, seems an odd choice for a climate change authority.

You still struggle to see the difference between climatic conditions and Climate Change. Just because it is sunny in the morning and cloudy in the afternoon, that is not what people refer to when discussing Climate Change.

Given you consider MIT professors to be ‘numpties’ and your personal thought experiments trump NASA analysis then I’m clearly not going to convince you you’re wrong. I won’t waste any more time on this foolish debate.

[NicolaJayne]

More “ Climate Crisis” woke crap. It has to stop.
indeed the cclimate crisis needs to be stopped

[Flying Binghi]

Binghi, interesting person to reference this Bryson. From your own link he is said to have held the following positions on climate change:

The climate is actually cooling because of human impacts on the environment.
When the evidence proved that he was wrong and the climate was actually warming, Bryson testified to Congress that global warming from fossil-fuel combustion was politically unstoppable.
He then reversed himself (again) and said the warming was not caused by humans after all.

So a guy who can’t decide if global temperatures are going up or down, nor whether it is effected by humans or not, seems an odd choice for a climate change authority.

…



Seems there’s a bit more to the subject than you realised eh, Beer Baron…:hmm:

I’ve been ‘utilising’ Bryson as an example here in pprune for many years now. As I said, in his time the most referenced (cited) climate scientist.

When Bryson and other climate scientists were convinced of the coming ice age the world average temperature had been in decline for a number of years. Time magazine had it headlined at the time. Lucky for the world economy at the time Al Gore and his ilk were not yet around to make the global climate ‘issue’ into the highly profitable money making and career making industry it has now become.

Poor ol Bryson and his fellow climate scientists later changed their views when the world average temps started to climb back up. Must have been traumatic at the time for the worlds most cited climate scientist to have got it so wrong. At least it got him delving into the so-called climate drivers a bit more. In the end Bryson researched a bit more of the archeology of the climate and noted things such as the medieval warm period, thats the medieval warm period that is were warmer than today, and noted there were no increased CO2 ‘driver’ to explain the medieval warm period - in fact, there is still no ‘scientific’ explanation of the medieval warm period. Nor is there any science as such on the warm period that predates the period of cooling that Bryson and other climate scientists thought were a coming ice age.

So its no surprise that near the end of his life Bryson said:

“You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”



:)

[Flying Binghi]

Binghi,

…

You still struggle to see the difference between climatic conditions and Climate Change. Just because it is sunny in the morning and cloudy in the afternoon, that is not what people refer to when discussing Climate Change.

Given you consider MIT professors to be ‘numpties’ and your personal thought experiments trump NASA analysis then I’m clearly not going to convince you you’re wrong. I won’t waste any more time on this foolish debate.

The numpties I referred to were the climate modellers. MIT is a lot more than just climate research and I will reserve the numpty descriptor for a case by case commentary..;)


…I’m still wondering where is that proof of all that ‘global warming’. Beer Baron, surely some expert at MIT must have it…:hmm:


:)

[Icarus2001]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1848x1194/1561f80f_d7c7_4eed_95d1_d32d119b4123_92133e7475aba3e928efaea af3201f820fd28ca7.jpeg
Satellite based temperature data is useful as it is not influenced by heat sink effects or other spurious effects.

Hardly a shocking rise in a average troposphere temperatures since 1979.

[Flying Binghi]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1848x1194/1561f80f_d7c7_4eed_95d1_d32d119b4123_92133e7475aba3e928efaea af3201f820fd28ca7.jpeg
Satellite based temperature data is useful as it is not influenced by heat sink effects or other spurious effects.

Hardly a shocking rise in a average troposphere temperatures since 1979.


Thank you for that Icarus2001..:)

Them satellites showed up an interesting effect:

“…A funny thing happens when you line up satellite and surface temperatures over Australia. A lot of the time they are very close, but some years the surface records from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) are cooler by a full half a degree than the UAH satellite readings. Before anyone yells “adjustments”, this appears to be a real difference of instruments, but solving this mystery turns up a rather major flaw in climate models.

Bill Kininmonth wondered if those cooler-BOM years were also wetter years when more rain fell. So Tom Quirk got the rainfall data and discovered that rainfall in Australia has a large effect on the temperatures recorded by the sensors five feet off the ground. This is what Bill Johnston has shown at individual stations. Damp soil around the Stevenson screens takes more heat to evaporate and keeps maximums lower. In this new work Quirk has looked at the effect right across the country and the years when the satellite estimates diverge from the ground thermometers are indeed the wetter years. Furthermore, it can take up to six months to dry out the ground after a major wet period and for the cooling effect to end…”

Article continues at: https://joannenova.com.au/2018/03/mystery-solved-rain-means-satellite-and-surface-temps-are-different-climate-models-didnt-predict-this/


Fascinating stuff that..:cool:

[JustinHeywood]

A bit like being told by a palaeontologist in 2007 that rainfall would become close to zero?

I doubt that he said that but anyway perhaps you should look up what a palaeontologist actually does, and why he might have a clue about changing climate, and in particular the RATE of change.

[Beer Baron]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1080x670/undefined_b90567cea0af126131189d133c51f171a5666692.pngGLOBAL LAND-OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEXData source: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies

[De_flieger]

Beer Baron, it's not really worth engaging with ol Binghi, if you look here Gish Gallop: When people try to win debates by using overwhelming nonsense (https://effectiviology.com/gish-gallop/)you can see his methods explained. In short it's just throwing out dozens of arguments regardless of how weak or unsupported they are, and hoping to wear you down because you'll get sick of rebutting things so it seems like a win for him, and it's far quicker for him to make a few more claims than it is for you to explain why they are wrong. Just because the world's scientific institutions all say something is happening based on vast numbers of independent data sources across multiple disciplines, it apparently doesn't matter because there are a mixture of (in much smaller numbers) genuine scientists who are either long-dead, not working in the field they're being quoted in, or whose work is being misrepresented by crackpots with blogs that disproves it all....

I mean, one of Binghi's arguments was that greenhouse gases are supposed to warm the atmosphere for years, but at night it gets cold, so....checkmate, I guess?

[Flying Binghi]

Beer Baron, it's not really worth engaging with ol Binghi, if you look here Gish Gallop: When people try to win debates by using overwhelming nonsense (https://effectiviology.com/gish-gallop/)you can see his methods explained. In short it's just throwing out dozens of arguments regardless of how weak or unsupported they are, and hoping to wear you down because you'll get sick of rebutting things so it seems like a win for him, and it's far quicker for him to make a few more claims than it is for you to explain why they are wrong. Just because the world's scientific institutions all say something is happening based on vast numbers of independent data sources across multiple disciplines, it apparently doesn't matter because there are a mixture of (in much smaller numbers) genuine scientists who are either long-dead, not working in the field they're being quoted in, or whose work is being misrepresented by crackpots with blogs that disproves it all....

I mean, one of Binghi's arguments was that greenhouse gases are supposed to warm the atmosphere for years, but at night it gets cold, so....checkmate, I guess?

Hmmm… seems I’m shooting down yer various call-signs De_flieger…:hmm:




:cool:

[Flying Binghi]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1080x670/undefined_b90567cea0af126131189d133c51f171a5666692.pngGLOBAL LAND-OCEAN TEMPERATURE INDEXData source: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies


A direct link to the source of that chart please Beer Baron…:)

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I doubt that he said that .....
What the paleontologist and one time Australian Climate Commisioner actually said was that rainfall would diminish to the point where
.. even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems...

[chuboy]

Beer Baron, it's not really worth engaging with ol Binghi,
A: If I am wrong, someone will correct me
B: Nobody is correcting me, therefore I must be right

At this stage of the game, everyone has made up their mind on whether they think climate change is a problem to be concerned about. I figure any discourse on the matter ceased to be productive around 6-7 years ago

[PiperCameron]

At this stage of the game, everyone has made up their mind on whether they think climate change is a problem to be concerned about. I figure any discourse on the matter ceased to be productive around 6-7 years ago

I imagine most Climate Scientists would disagree.. but then Climate Science is their job (one that didn't even exist a few years back) ...and they have to compete in a tough environment with all these other Scientists for a large enough taxpayer-funded Government Grant to pay the food bill for their starving families. I'm sure these poor souls spend every waking hour coming up with ever-increasing quantities of facts and figures to keep their jobs for as long as possible before they're either lucky enough to win a teaching job at University or get tossed on the scrap heap with everyone else.

There but the grace of God go I...

[De_flieger]

I imagine most Climate Scientists would disagree.. but then Climate Science is their job (one that didn't even exist a few years back) ...and they have to compete in a tough environment with all these other Scientists for a large enough taxpayer-funded Government Grant to pay the food bill for their starving families. I'm sure these poor souls spend every waking hour coming up with ever-increasing quantities of facts and figures to keep their jobs for as long as possible before they're either lucky enough to win a teaching job at University or get tossed on the scrap heap with everyone else.

There but the grace of God go I...
Not sure where you're getting this idea from, but climate science as is currently recognised has been a field of study since at least the 1800s, so well before the first pilots were around to start arguing on message boards.

[chuboy]

I imagine most Climate Scientists would disagree.. but then Climate Science is their job

You tend to see much the same thing on professional pilot forums when pilots render their opinion on matters concerning the longevity of their industry ;)

The scientific method, at least, attempts to replace opinion with interpretation of measurable data.

[Mud Skipper]

Back to topic,

Bring back/bring on RNP AR approaches with 500’ final leg turns and stop the 185 kts at BETSO 4000 etc. That, combined with abolishing level descent segments at 9000 and 3000 ft, would save tonnes of fuel and many sleepless nights for residents.
Thrust up approaching 1000’ on final is still mighty conservative!

The morons who designed theses approaches and ATC unions who insists on these lazy approaches are burning more CO2 than any SAF will save. Seeing pilots dragging their aircraft in from 20nm with flaps and thrust, pull my eyes out ffs.

40 years in the industry and I’m dismayed we are flying like a bunch of carbon burning zombies.

[Flying Binghi]

A: If I am wrong, someone will correct me
B: Nobody is correcting me, therefore I must be right

At this stage of the game, everyone has made up their mind on whether they think climate change is a problem to be concerned about. I figure any discourse on the matter ceased to be productive around 6-7 years ago

Hmmm… 6-7 years ago would be about the last time I shot down call-sign chuboy. Then some other call-sign took up discussion...:)

[Flying Binghi]

Whilst were waiting for Beer Baron to get back with that link lets have a look-see at some ‘adjustments’ made to the climate temperature record:

“…temperatures from the cold 1970’s period were repeatedly “adjusted” years after the event, and progressively got warmer. The most mysterious period is from 1958 to 1978

…Raobcore measurements are balloon measures. They started in 1958, twenty years before satellites. But when satellites began, the two different methods tie together very neatly–telling us that both of them are accurate, reliable tools.

So what do the raobcores tell us about the period before satellites started recording temperatures? They make it clear that temperatures fell quickly from 1960-1970.

If 1958 temperatures were similar to the 1990’s, it rewrites the entire claim of all the unprecedented warming of late…”


https://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-mystery-deepens-where-did-that-decline-go/#comment-37556


Note:
*The above comments were reference mid tropics readings.
*Weather balloon measurements can be fairly accurate depending on which country do them.
*Satellites have issues, especially over snow.

[PiperCameron]

So what do the raobcores tell us about the period before satellites started recording temperatures? They make it clear that temperatures fell quickly from 1960-1970.

I do remember news back in the late 70's that warned of an on-coming period of Global Cooling/Ice Age, reinforced over years by disaster films like "The Day After Tomorrow", based on the 1999 book "The Coming Global Superstorm". Perhaps influences like that are still in the minds of many??

[Icarus2001]

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2022/10/29/its-kind-horrific-bom-cuts-compromise-forecasts#mtr

http://www.bom.gov.au/faq/pdf/Balloon-basedWeatherObservations_FactSheet_SEPT18.pdf

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1330x1416/76869e74_242c_404f_84ac_bd7cfe9cead0_fd9283f491304f433451808 baf682d15c687c34d.jpeg


All parts of the jigsaw.

[Flying Binghi]

I do remember news back in the late 70's that warned of an on-coming period of Global Cooling/Ice Age, reinforced over years by disaster films like "The Day After Tomorrow", based on the 1999 book "The Coming Global Superstorm". Perhaps influences like that are still in the minds of many??

Dunno, I guess there are a thousand and one different ‘influences’ on why someone thinks the way they do on the climate issue. There is a lot of personal time required to just brief yourself on the basics of the mater. Most people have little time in their day to dedicate to doing research and rely upon the apparent ‘experts’ to give an executive summary on the mater.

[TimmyTee]

I'll save everyone else the time, "Flying Binghi has done the reading"
The tin foil cookers love that term!

[Flying Binghi]

I'll save everyone else the time, "Flying Binghi has done the reading"
The tin foil cookers love that term!

I spot a Bot…;)

[JustinHeywood]

Most people have little time in their day to dedicate to doing research and rely upon the apparent ‘experts’ to give an executive summary on the mater.

You can’t really Google your way to being an ‘expert’ in a scientific field, especially to a level where you can challenge the scientific consensus.

Almost everyone does Google research with intent, usually to confirm their own intuition.

Surely the professional pilots on this forum would be familiar with the amateurs who think they’re experts because they’ve seen every episode of Air Crash Investigation and spend every evening on their flight sim.
You don’t know what you don’t know.

[Flying Binghi]

You can’t really Google your way to being an ‘expert’ in a scientific field, especially to a level where you can challenge the scientific consensus.

Almost everyone does Google research with intent, usually to confirm their own intuition.

Surely the professional pilots on this forum would be familiar with the amateurs who think they’re experts because they’ve seen every episode of Air Crash Investigation and spend every evening on their flight sim.
You don’t know what you don’t know.

The apparent ‘experts’ I were referring to are the same ones that claim to be part of that so-called scientific consensus.

Who needs to watch a TV show to be aware of an issue. If a wing keeps falling off brand X aircraft I don’t need to be an ‘expert’ to say that brand X aircraft is either unsafe and poorly designed, or corruptly designed.

It’s not hard to find flaws in the global warming nonsense, even for non-experts - there’s just to many in flight failures of the climate ‘science’ to hide the fact that the wing keeps falling off..:hmm:





;)

[PiperCameron]

Hear, hear! :D

You can’t really Google your way to being an ‘expert’ in a scientific field, especially to a level where you can challenge the scientific consensus.

Expert: 'Ex' = Has been; 'Spert' = a drip under pressure.

Anyway.. with Education now Victoria's largest export, you'd be surprised how many graduates (engineering and science at least) now coming out of University consider Google to be an omniscient font of correctness and will happily argue their case with anyone who has learnt by experience that they're wrong.

I reckon this Greta Thunberg will be an interesting one to watch. She was all high and mighty as an obnoxious child back in 2019, but watching recent interviews as she's got older (and hopefully wiser), her message is slowing changing to be not quite so black-and-white... Funny that.

[Flying Binghi]

I imagine most Climate Scientists would disagree.. but then Climate Science is their job (one that didn't even exist a few years back) ...and they have to compete in a tough environment with all these other Scientists for a large enough taxpayer-funded Government Grant to pay the food bill for their starving families. I'm sure these poor souls spend every waking hour coming up with ever-increasing quantities of facts and figures to keep their jobs for as long as possible before they're either lucky enough to win a teaching job at University or get tossed on the scrap heap with everyone else.

There but the grace of God go I...

Yep.

As the BoM weather balloon crew are finding out when yer balloons are showing numbers that discredit the global warming hysteria, well then, they get shut down. Can’t be showing evidence that them so-called climate ‘scientists’ have made a monumental clustafeck of things..:hmm:

.
.
​​​​​…
.
.
​​​​​…

[Captain Dart]

https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2022/11/a-picture-speaks-a-thousand-words-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do.html

[43Inches]

I reckon this Greta Thunberg will be an interesting one to watch. She was all high and mighty as an obnoxious child back in 2019, but watching recent interviews as she's got older (and hopefully wiser), her message is slowing changing to be not quite so black-and-white... Funny that.

I suggest you actually look up whats she's done since 2019, including the "Blah, Blah" speech in 2021 and as recently as 7 days ago rubbishing the COP27 as "greenwashing, attention seeking leaders". Still some very black and white comments about achieving fast actual change rather than slowly through the normal political process.

[Flying Binghi]

I suggest you actually look up whats she's done since 2019, including the "Blah, Blah" speech in 2021 and as recently as 7 days ago rubbishing the COP27 as "greenwashing, attention seeking leaders". Still some very black and white comments about achieving fast actual change rather than slowly through the normal political process.

Late last century I used to be a card carrying member of the Wilderness Society. Attended the monthly QLD headquarters meetings in the Brisbane union owned building.
As well, I did a permaculture sub-course. Did a TAFE course on wind power …even read up on the doings of Peter Pedals..:) Trouble is, when you start to research the background and reasoning of the green ‘industry’ you discover its all…… nonsense.

Perhaps poor ol Greta has been doing some actual research on the subject…. or not.



:hmm:

[Flying Binghi]

https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2022/11/a-picture-speaks-a-thousand-words-do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do.html

Attending a ‘global warming’ conference in a 4 engined aircraft. Classic..:D

[43Inches]

Well despite the crowing of the fossil fuel departments, the leasing of land, exploration, construction of mines/wells, mining equipment, transportation, corporate profiteering and subsidised economy fossil fuels industry runs off is FAR more expensive for the public user than installed solar or wind generation. When its all attached to the premises there's no charge for production, transmission and third party profits. For the individual, electric based power that you get from wind or solar is the cheapest you will get, whether its green based on what batteries you store with or what its made of is another thing. But cost wise you will save a lot of cash in the long run with a good setup. Coal/gas/oil prices are too reliant on foreign issues, without climate change in the argument, petrol is expensive because that's what it costs to produce at the moment with Russia removed from production. Inevitably coal and oil will become way too expensive to dig up to be worthwhile, we are probably already there now. Or are we going to get an argument that fossil fuels will somehow last forever.

You cant argue that a powered cruiser is cheaper than a sailing vessel to operate, it's just has more reliable mobility not reliant on weather. Remove the reliability factor by storing energy when its in excess and using batteries when production is low is where it is now.

Then there is the factor that an EV will not drive past you and fill your nostrils with combustion byproducts, so regardless of where the stuff is made or how it is disposed of a petroleum powered vehicle driving past will pump carcinogenic fumes in your face, the EV will not.

[Icarus2001]

Ah 43 inches our resident expert on everything.

For the individual, electric based power that you get from wind or solar is the cheapest you will get,No it is not. Can you quote a source or a dollar per MwH figure?
I looked in to solar at my place, no battery it would take eight years to break even on install costs and that assumes the feed in tariff does not fall again. With a battery it would be about 14 years to break even. Solar panel life is 15-20 years, inverter probably less.

Coal/gas/oil prices are too reliant on foreign issues, Australia has gas and coal a plenty. There is no reason foreign influence exists other than only WA had a domestic supply reserve. All states should have a domestic supply reserve. Once again various federal and state governments have failed to look after the interests of Australians.
For Chis Bowen to blame Putin for our high and rising power prices is criminal.

We are not ready to transition yet but our lefty green government does not care about the cost.

[43Inches]

No it is not. Can you quote a source or a dollar per MwH figure?
I looked in to solar at my place, no battery it would take eight years to break even on install costs and that assumes the feed in tariff does not fall again. With a battery it would be about 14 years to break even. Solar panel life is 15-20 years, inverter probably less.

The fact I have solar panels and they paid themselves off in 3 years.

Australia has gas and coal a plenty. There is no reason foreign influence exists other than only WA had a domestic supply reserve. All states should have a domestic supply reserve. Once again various federal and state governments have failed to look after the interests of Australians.

Just because you have coal and gas means nothing, it still has to be found, land purchased, machinery and plant procured, dug up, transported to the power plant, burnt in relatively expensive facilities, ash disposed of so it doesn't create an environmental disaster, sulphurs captured and disposed of to prevent large acid rain cloud formation in the lee of the stacks. Then there's cost of transmission and power loss to transmission because you don't want a coal plant anywhere near an actual city for obvious reasons.

The average actual life of a coal power plant is usually only 30 years, so having a solar panel on your roof that lasts 20-30 years is on par. Replacement of a coal plant is about $3 billion per 1000MWH. It costs around $1million per 1000 MWH just to start up a plant that's been shut down. Then the fuel runs at about 10000 tons of coal per station MWH per day. Because Victoria uses the worst coal on the planet stations like Loy Yang burn 60,000 tons of the stuff per day.

Then there's the health and environmental effects, areas of coal power generation have significantly higher respiratory disease than other areas, especially if using open cut mines. The cost for treatment of coal related disease in generating areas in Australia is estimated at around $2 billion per year.

I could go on and on about how expensive coal electric power is, its insanely expensive in an complete overview, but the plants appear cheap to the simple minded layman. But when you add the total economic cost of everything associated with them they are terrible.

PS We should have gone nuclear years ago. It integrates with renewables much easier as the output can be varied, where as coal costs a lot to power up and down stations, it increases wear and tear significant and adds a lot to maintenance. So yes renewables are making coal fired power more expensive as well.

[Icarus2001]

but the plants appear cheap to the simple minded layman.
Meaning everyone but yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal-fired_power_stations_in_Australia

Thirty year life? Riiiiiiighhttt Do some reading.

[43Inches]

Meaning everyone but yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal-fired_power_stations_in_Australia

Thirty year life? Riiiiiiighhttt Do some reading.

You did read the very first part that says 75% of coal plants are operating beyond design life. And more importantly understand that these plants cost exponential amounts to keep operating once they approach and exceed design life. There is a reason they have a design lifespan, its not that it breaks and explodes, it will just be prohibitively expensive to keep it running. Then you start to understand why our energy prices are climbing, operating obsolete equipmdnt saves on new unit cost, but increasing failures and maintenance quickly reach purchase costs of new plant over a few short years, when it should have been replaced.

I'm quite familiar with the Victorian power generation having been on site during construction at Loy Yang A and B, been around the dredgers under construction there in the 90s. Been inside bith Yallourn W and Hazelwood several times during their operational years. Knew a lot of the SEC workers and so on. They even have some nice dino fossils from the pits lying around the place.

[Flying Binghi]

And yet India and China are on a massive coal power station building spree.

Maybe that China that manufactures the most solar panels don’t understand that it would be just so much more cheaper to build solar power stations..:rolleyes:


The sooner Australia can get rid of the electrical power ‘profiteers’ the better..:)

[43Inches]

And yet India and China are on a massive coal power station building spree.

Maybe that China that manufactures the most solar panels don’t understand that it would be just so much more cheaper to build solar power stations..:rolleyes:


The sooner Australia can get rid of the electrical power ‘profiteers’ the better..:)

China has aa very similar energy make up to Australia, except for its growing nuclear generation. Renewables make up a similar segment of about 30% of generation and increasing. The coal plants being built are mostly replacements for ageing units and some expansiom as the populations neef for electricity is rocketing as they modernise. However China does have massive plans for renewables as well.

[Flying Binghi]

China has aa very similar energy make up to Australia, except for its growing nuclear generation. Renewables make up a similar segment of about 30% of generation and increasing. The coal plants being built are mostly replacements for ageing units and some expansiom as the populations neef for electricity is rocketing as they modernise. However China does have massive plans for renewables as well.

Who told ya all that. CCP press release perhaps ?..:hmm:

Me, I’d look at what new coal mines are being opened around the world and where the increased coal shipments are going..:)


“Growing nuclear generation” Now thats some smart fellows there..:cool:

[43Inches]

Who told ya all that. CCP press release perhaps ?..:hmm:

Me, I’d look at what new coal mines are being opened around the world and where the increased coal shipments are going..:)


“Growing nuclear generation” Now thats some smart fellows there..:cool:

Actually was reading some local press regarding the CCPs plans for integrating renewables into the grid and dropping coal plant generating hours average across the grids. The plant operators are arleady complaining they are operating at financial loss and the reduced hours will be unsustainable. Their target for 2025 is 33% renewables. Coal is used because of its widespread availability in China and how fast you can bring it online, not really cost. Its still running at a loss there. Have to remember that current renewables in China could power Australia 100%.

Currently China has 700 GWH of solar/wind generation with another 1300 GWH to be online by 2025. The total Australian grid generation including coal and renewables is under 300 GWH. So less than half of Chinas wind and solar, and then they have massive hydro as well.

[Flying Binghi]

Actually was reading some local press regarding the CCPs plans for integrating renewables into the grid and dropping coal plant generating hours average across the grids. The plant operators are arleady complaining they are operating at financial loss and the reduced hours will be unsustainable. Their target for 2025 is 33% renewables. Coal is used because of its widespread availability in China and how fast you can bring it online, not really cost. Its still running at a loss there. Have to remember that current renewables in China could power Australia 100%.

Currently China has 700 GWH of solar/wind generation with another 1300 GWH to be online by 2025. The total Australian grid generation including coal and renewables is under 300 GWH. So less than half of Chinas wind and solar, and then they have massive hydro as well.

Hmmm… where’d yer get all that 43Inches ? …CCP press release perhaps..:hmm:

What about all that increased coal imports from North Korea ? seems them ‘trustworthy’ Chinese commys are doing a little bit of sanctions busting. Were that in the press release ?

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/korea/china_coal-07272022190512.html

What about the increased coal imports from Russia. Seems the Russians have an on-going rail construction programme to aid in the increased coal exports. Thousands of kilometres of new rail line laid to increase coal freight. And then there’s the increased shipping:

“…There are two large coal suppliers in the region – Kolmar and Elgacoal. Both companies intend to enhance production volumes as well as the existing port capacities. A terminal VaninoTransUgol (VTU), constructed by Kolmar’s subsidiary, assumes a gradual increase in coal handling capacity from current 12 mio t per year up to 24 mio t by 2022.
Albert Avdolyan’s A-Property also plans to construct a coal terminal in the port of Vanino with annual capacity of 30 mio t by 2024 and build a washing plant at Elga with a processing capacity of 32 mio t at the first stage (end of 2021) and 45 mio t at the second stage…”

https://thecoalhub.com/russian-government-approves-second-stage-of-bam-and-tsr-expansion.html


Lets have a look-see at the supposedly ‘official’ China coal imports. Make sure yer hits the past 25 years button on the graph:

https://tradingeconomics.com/china/imports-of-coal

…Down a little..;)


:hmm:

[43Inches]

Hmmm… where’d yer get all that 43Inches ? …CCP press release perhaps..https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/yeees.gif

Nope general business reports, stuff that deals with coal and international commodities.

Here's some basic math, thermal coal runs normally at about $200 USD a ton, the shanghai spot price is just under that presently on old stocks. Working on that a 1000MW generator consumes around 10,000 tons of coal per day to supply roughly 500,000 homes. That's $4 USD per day per household, or roughly, $120 USD per month if you like, that's before adding plant costs, transmission, and retail handling and profit margins. The moment war broke out in Ukraine the trade price rose to over $400 USD per ton, that doubles the houshold cost to around $8 USD per day/$240 USD per month. Assume adding plant/transmission and retail and that number almost doubles and you have our retail rates in Australia. Right now Indonesia has banned coal exports to reserve coal for its own power use, other countries are moving to the same pushing the price further up with Chinas winter demand. China also has large heating plants for cities that run on coal, the goal is to change to gas but that's going to take time, you also have coking coal and other industrial uses, so of course as China grows it needs more coal as a fast method of keeping up with growth.

Point is, it's not generally cheaper than renewables, its just faster to get up and running when you need reliable energy right now and don't have the time to build 50 nuclear plants or more hydro. The real big problem now is that the coal price is skyrocketing making coal plants very costly to the Chinese economy. Once the Ukraine war prices start to filter into actuality in China it's going to be very costly, at the moment they are still burning coal purchased years ago.

The UK tried to stay with coal well beyond it's use by date for transport, hence steam powered trains well into the 50s'. A combination of a huge coal industry and huge workforce of steam specific workers adept at making boilers and engines etc. The government didn't want to face the reality of how much it was costing until it was way beyond a joke. They held onto coal powered trains as they argued coal was available locally and they didn't want to import oil or reduce the coal mining industry. Like in WW2 the UK made ships still with reciprocating steam engines, why, because they still had a huge industry adept at it and they could manufacture the boilers and engines faster than diesel and other forms of power. They worked ok, but cost twice as much to run and had to be overhauled frequently. None of this use of coal was 'cheaper' it was just misguided politics that was trying to win votes by holding onto obsolete jobs, the end result costing the country far more than if they had just rapidly modernised with the rest of Europe.

[Flying Binghi]

Nope general business reports, stuff that deals with coal and international commodities.

Here's some basic math, thermal coal runs normally at about $200 USD a ton, the shanghai spot price is just under that presently on old stocks. Working on that a 1000MW generator consumes around 10,000 tons of coal per day to supply roughly 500,000 homes. That's $4 USD per day per household, or roughly, $120 USD per month if you like, that's before adding plant costs, transmission, and retail handling and profit margins. The moment war broke out in Ukraine the trade price rose to over $400 USD per ton, that doubles the houshold cost to around $8 USD per day/$240 USD per month. Assume adding plant/transmission and retail and that number almost doubles and you have our retail rates in Australia. Right now Indonesia has banned coal exports to reserve coal for its own power use, other countries are moving to the same pushing the price further up with Chinas winter demand. China also has large heating plants for cities that run on coal, the goal is to change to gas but that's going to take time, you also have coking coal and other industrial uses, so of course as China grows it needs more coal as a fast method of keeping up with growth.

Point is, it's not generally cheaper than renewables, its just faster to get up and running when you need reliable energy right now and don't have the time to build 50 nuclear plants or more hydro. The real big problem now is that the coal price is skyrocketing making coal plants very costly to the Chinese economy. Once the Ukraine war prices start to filter into actuality in China it's going to be very costly, at the moment they are still burning coal purchased years ago.

The UK tried to stay with coal well beyond it's use by date for transport, hence steam powered trains well into the 50s'. A combination of a huge coal industry and huge workforce of steam specific workers adept at making boilers and engines etc. The government didn't want to face the reality of how much it was costing until it was way beyond a joke. They held onto coal powered trains as they argued coal was available locally and they didn't want to import oil or reduce the coal mining industry. Like in WW2 the UK made ships still with reciprocating steam engines, why, because they still had a huge industry adept at it and they could manufacture the boilers and engines faster than diesel and other forms of power. They worked ok, but cost twice as much to run and had to be overhauled frequently. None of this use of coal was 'cheaper' it was just misguided politics that was trying to win votes by holding onto obsolete jobs, the end result costing the country far more than if they had just rapidly modernised with the rest of Europe.

Hmmm… prices of coal goes up and down, and yet, China plans many years ahead. China and Russia have been working from before the Ukraine war to improve the rail network for coal exports. Over 1300 Km of rail laid to date, and a lot more to come.

It weren’t that many years ago that China tried to buy up a lot of Australia’s coal mines. Obviously something to do with long term planning for building more wind and solar power..:hmm:

Poor old England. Unions and war stuffed it. Post war/s they had huge debts and no foreign exchange available to buy all them imports of new gadgets so they had to rely upon what they produced at home. Much like when yer blow the credit card limit..;) Interestingly, if they stuck to coal and nuclear they would be trillions of dollars ahead right now and with a reliable power system with power available for income earning export to them Euro-numpties stuck with un-reliable wind and solar power..:hmm:

[Flying Binghi]

Looks like them euro-numpties are starting to wake up… one by one..

“…For years they told us that the green transition would deliver cheap energy, and that if we just subsidized them enough, prices would keep falling. The promise of free energy on the horizon led whole nations (stupidly) to believe that closing coal plants was viable. But now that damage is done, suddenly the Vestas chief admits that telling people that wind can only get cheaper “was a mistake”…”


​​​​​https://joannenova.com.au/2022/11/now-they-tell-us-wind-power-giant-says-it-was-a-mistake-to-say-renewables-would-only-get-cheaper/

[kingRB]

Germany is de-industrializing with all the speed and efficiency Germans are famous for.

[Flying Binghi]

Germany is de-industrializing with all the speed and efficiency Germans are famous for.

Yep. Best way to destroy a country’s industry is to destroy its reliable power system.

A German politician is currently in China begging..:hmm:

[Icarus2001]

I think in a broader sense, with the relative prosperity and peace since the 1950s we have allowed ourselves, as societies, to go soft and forget what gave us this prosperity. We now have small but vocal groups getting us to argue over pronouns and what is a woman. We have lost sight of the cheap reliable power that underlies our society and our standard of living. Also whilst “western” armed forces struggle with diversity and inclusion, Russia annexed Crimea with no penalty, so then they invaded Ukraine, some penalties but Europe needs what they sell. China is eyeing off Taiwan and North Korea is testing missiles. We really need to refocus our attention.

[AerialPerspective]

“…Jesus some of you are dense…”

Jesus eh. The name of god in vain. Straight to hell for ye Fonz121..;) …and an excellent segway to:



Lets have a look-see at how an uneducated novice could question someone with a highly educated ‘expertise’ of a subject.


Fonz121, there are millions of scholars who have spent their life studying and interpreting Islam. Me, i’m an atheist who has done very little study of any religion.

Fonz121, by your reasoning as I am not an expert on religions I can not ‘deny’ the scholarly reasoning behind religion or reject all ‘man made’ religions outright as I have done because I am not ‘educated’ on the subject.

For an example, why would I question Islam: When Islam dictates that a female is worth half a man I am unable to see how that would pass the most basic test of common sense. And yet, it seems to uneducated me to be one of the central ‘themes’ of that religion - apparently the ‘proof’ is to be found in the scholarly texts.


Back to climate. One of the central themes of the ‘proof’ of man changing climate is how current events are unusually hotter/colder/wetter/dryer/more flammable than the past. That’s something any atheist can check…:cool:

.
.
​​​​​…
.
.
​​​​​…
.
.

Don't know why any criticism has to be limited to Islam. The Bible commands that people who plant two crops side-by-side be stoned (not in the good way) and wearing clothes of two different threads attracts the penalty of being set fire to (doesn't state whether the clothes remain on or not). My favourite one when I poke the Christian bear is "Stoning a girl to death at the door of her father's house if she fails to exhibit the tokens of a damsel" (i.e. not a virgin).

Christians jump up and down and say "But we don't follow the Old Testament". Then when someone mentions the words homosexual, gay or their other synonyms the same people that 'don't follow the OT because they're Christians' reach straight for Leviticus which of course is in the OT.

I don't care who's studied what religious texts for how long, they are meaningless nonsense. Those who claim to have studied them respond with "Well, it doesn't say to stone a woman, you need to know how to see the hidden meaning" - straight-out gaslighting and BS - someone who believes in invisible friends in the sky is telling me that I don't understand?

The difference with climate scientists in my view is that they actually use the scientific method, there is some sort of empirical research and study whether you agree with their data or conclusions or not. Studying religious texts by comparison is analogous to predicting the weather by turning around three times licking your finger and holding it up to the wind.

[Flying Binghi]

Don't know why any criticism has to be limited to Islam. The Bible commands that people who plant two crops side-by-side be stoned (not in the good way) and wearing clothes of two different threads attracts the penalty of being set fire to (doesn't state whether the clothes remain on or not). My favourite one when I poke the Christian bear is "Stoning a girl to death at the door of her father's house if she fails to exhibit the tokens of a damsel" (i.e. not a virgin).

Christians jump up and down and say "But we don't follow the Old Testament". Then when someone mentions the words homosexual, gay or their other synonyms the same people that 'don't follow the OT because they're Christians' reach straight for Leviticus which of course is in the OT.

I don't care who's studied what religious texts for how long, they are meaningless nonsense. Those who claim to have studied them respond with "Well, it doesn't say to stone a woman, you need to know how to see the hidden meaning" - straight-out gaslighting and BS - someone who believes in invisible friends in the sky is telling me that I don't understand?

The difference with climate scientists in my view is that they actually use the scientific method, there is some sort of empirical research and study whether you agree with their data or conclusions or not. Studying religious texts by comparison is analogous to predicting the weather by turning around three times licking your finger and holding it up to the wind.

I’m an atheist. I could have picked an example from any ‘religion’.. including the latest religion of climate hysteria..;)


Just because a ‘scientist’ uses a ‘scientific method’ do not mean they get a correct or useful conclusion or finding. Also, one do not need to be a university educated scientist to utilise a scientific method. Nor do you need to be a ‘scientist’ to debunk so-called scientific research.


:)

[Mangi Fokker]

OMG !!!!!!! We're all going to die.!!!!!

Oh, wait......

[Chronic Snoozer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOi2AgNfQCg

[Flying Binghi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOi2AgNfQCg


Great video..:D

But I see a problem. Can a current scientist tell me the answer to “What is a Woman” ?……




;)