Climate Change and YSSY crosswinds?
If CO2 is absorbing the re-radiated heat from the earth in hot sunlight, the simple solution is to only produce CO2 at night. Stop breathing if the sun is out.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe one of the 95% of the worlds scientists can explain how you can ‘renew energy’ with just a solar panel, or windmill.
It’s a bit like ‘happily married’, and ‘military intelligence’. You can have one, or the other, but together it makes no sense.
It’s a bit like ‘happily married’, and ‘military intelligence’. You can have one, or the other, but together it makes no sense.
OK I'll rise to the bait
"renewable energy" is shorthand for energy derived from sources which are not depleted in our lifetimes - eg solar, wind, tidal - you use it today and it's still there tomorrow
Non Renewable energy is a gallon of gasoline or a ton of coal - you use it , it's gone. You can wait 2-3 million years for it to be replaced naturally or you can just continue to dpelte the resource - once it's all used up you abandon the oil well or the coal mine and try and find another.
"renewable energy" is shorthand for energy derived from sources which are not depleted in our lifetimes - eg solar, wind, tidal - you use it today and it's still there tomorrow
Non Renewable energy is a gallon of gasoline or a ton of coal - you use it , it's gone. You can wait 2-3 million years for it to be replaced naturally or you can just continue to dpelte the resource - once it's all used up you abandon the oil well or the coal mine and try and find another.
or destroying areas to mine Lithium - but both sides of the argument just go to extremes - there are few who seem capable of looking at the middle ground.
Personally I think burning gas in places like Australia for power is a bad thing - but then spending a fortune in govt money subsidies to support wind power can be just as stupid
Personally I think burning gas in places like Australia for power is a bad thing - but then spending a fortune in govt money subsidies to support wind power can be just as stupid
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr Judith Curry has impeccable credentials, and regardless of what you state, she is still publishing.
The fact that other scientists may critique( or indeed support) her work is normal, that’s how science should work.
Your debunking link is an anonymously written rationalwiki article that references another internet blog for support, an article written by some one called “Climate Denier Roundup”.... and you think this debunks a paper written by a credentialed scientist in a peer reviewed journal?
This is a good example of an ad hominem fallacy. You attack the person rather than address the argument she is making.
Dr Judith Curry has impeccable credentials, and regardless of what you state, she is still publishing.
The fact that other scientists may critique( or indeed support) her work is normal, that’s how science should work.
Your debunking link is an anonymously written rationalwiki article that references another internet blog for support, an article written by some one called “Climate Denier Roundup”.... and you think this debunks a paper written by a credentialed scientist in a peer reviewed journal?
Dr Judith Curry has impeccable credentials, and regardless of what you state, she is still publishing.
The fact that other scientists may critique( or indeed support) her work is normal, that’s how science should work.
Your debunking link is an anonymously written rationalwiki article that references another internet blog for support, an article written by some one called “Climate Denier Roundup”.... and you think this debunks a paper written by a credentialed scientist in a peer reviewed journal?
Im sure she’s undertaken plenty of peer reviewed study, but it’s her conclusions on the issue of climate change that have been debunked by 97% of other climate scientists. She has openly admitted she will not write peer reviewed articles anymore because she was sick of being “attacked” (in reality having her work critiqued and being told she was wrong) by almost every other climate scientist.
Judith Curry - Source Watch
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 49
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
Regardless of it all BNE is about to get 35 knot westerlies yet again tomorrow, now in December? I don’t care what you think Ive lived in SEQ 40+ years and to get this run of hot dry westerlies running to December is pretty much unprecedented, and it’s been worse in SYD. Traditionally the westerlies finish in September and come back in May, bar a few odd days. Something is really f****ed with the weather atm.
Ok am prepared to put my cards on the table and declare that I veer towards being a doubter of man made cc. To qualify that I do believe that man's activity has an effect on the environment and to a certain extent the weather. But I suspect that a large group of so called experts and hangers on are choosing to cry wolf and exaggerate and take the worse case possibility in order to get their deeply held opinion over.
My sceptisism comes partly from the evidence of science based experts who, en masse, debunk something that I know to be true because it goes against recent scientific and politically opinion. (you have to understand that the researchers are paid by somebody and politicians, by their job description, actually know nothing and have to take advice from the paid researchers)
He who pays the piper
I would like expert consensus to give me some imperial evidence of exactly what we can expect to happen if we don't change our ways. And I mean not 'expect to get worse' or 'will increase' but an increase in tsunami by for example at least 200% or that a certain glacier will have receded by over 200 miles if we don't definatevly reduce our production of co2 by a set date. After all their models are now so accurate that it ought to be possible to do that.
The date of 2330 has been mentioned, that's not long away so a lot of us should be able to witness the accuracy of the science.
My suspicion is that globally we will reduce the rate of increase of co2 a little and when the sky doesn't fall-in in just over a decade the mmcc industry will point to that as the reason.
Two further points that are certain
1 if you are serious about conserving the earth, then don't breed. Absolutely the worst thing you can do to the planet is procreate.
2 When man dies out, the earth will survive just fine until some outside force decides to destroy it.
My sceptisism comes partly from the evidence of science based experts who, en masse, debunk something that I know to be true because it goes against recent scientific and politically opinion. (you have to understand that the researchers are paid by somebody and politicians, by their job description, actually know nothing and have to take advice from the paid researchers)
He who pays the piper
I would like expert consensus to give me some imperial evidence of exactly what we can expect to happen if we don't change our ways. And I mean not 'expect to get worse' or 'will increase' but an increase in tsunami by for example at least 200% or that a certain glacier will have receded by over 200 miles if we don't definatevly reduce our production of co2 by a set date. After all their models are now so accurate that it ought to be possible to do that.
The date of 2330 has been mentioned, that's not long away so a lot of us should be able to witness the accuracy of the science.
My suspicion is that globally we will reduce the rate of increase of co2 a little and when the sky doesn't fall-in in just over a decade the mmcc industry will point to that as the reason.
Two further points that are certain
1 if you are serious about conserving the earth, then don't breed. Absolutely the worst thing you can do to the planet is procreate.
2 When man dies out, the earth will survive just fine until some outside force decides to destroy it.
Last edited by topradio; 1st Dec 2019 at 17:11.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: At home.
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No topradio, they are not ‘so called experts’, they are experts. And climate science, like many branches of science, does not work that way and no one can give you definitive numbers. They could provide the raw data, but, with respect, if you don’t have a PhD in Climate Science then any conclusions you make from it are meaningless, like many opinions on this thread. Why not just let the experts interpret the data and trust their conclusions? Or are you willing to let one of your passengers fly your aircraft because ‘I saw it on TV and it looks dead easy’?
Huh? That makes no sense. You doubt climate change because scientists debunk some random thing you know to be true? What do you mean?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my mind, most of the damage done, therefore promoting denialism, was by this clown:
I remember it well at the time. How could you trust anyone on climate change when un-qualified fools like this were in 'official' positions.
In 2007, Flannery declared “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”. As environmental engineering professor Stewart Franks observed five years later — by which time the Gillard Government had appointed Flannery chief commissioner of the Climate Change Commission — “Fast forward to 2012 and we see widespread drenching rains, flooded towns and cities, and dams full to the brim and overtopping.” As to why Flannery’s prediction was “so spectacularly wrong”, Franks remarked “He is perhaps best described as an amateur enthusiast.”
Chief commissioner Flannery subsequently released a report through his office in 2012 saying “climate change cannot be ruled out” as a factor in these downpours. Asked at that press conference about his credibility, he stated “I’ve been really consistent with what I’ve said, which is that we’ve got a water problem in this country.”
Chief commissioner Flannery subsequently released a report through his office in 2012 saying “climate change cannot be ruled out” as a factor in these downpours. Asked at that press conference about his credibility, he stated “I’ve been really consistent with what I’ve said, which is that we’ve got a water problem in this country.”
The quote from Flannery in the post above was taken right out of context:
Tim Flannery Did Not Say Australia’s Dams Would Never Fill Again
Catching up with this conversation so I apologise if someone has made this comment before, but here's my take on it:
1) Live simpler - it's not a Govt problem, it's down to individuals living simpler, a more agrarian 1910 style economy where we don't buy new cars every 2 years.
2) Every 16yo on the planet needs to be bought an unrecyclable plastic racing yacht.
1) Live simpler - it's not a Govt problem, it's down to individuals living simpler, a more agrarian 1910 style economy where we don't buy new cars every 2 years.
2) Every 16yo on the planet needs to be bought an unrecyclable plastic racing yacht.
But TF did propose a city in the middle of Australia called Geothermia. Its interesting that the CC hystericals will be just as vehement as the alleged CC deniers. All you did dr dre was offer yet another website with someone's commentary, so whats the difference. If TF didn't actually say it the then Premier of Vic, John Brumby certainly did,That's why he built the Wonthaggi desal plant at great cost. I think it started operating at the same time as the Victorian floods occurred but the taxpayers of Victoria were committed to paying for its output.
Then it is just forecasting and modelling and theory, very much like economics. Can someone tell me which university faculty economics is a part of?
This is the current state of the CC hysterics position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
And climate science, like many branches of science, does not work that way and no one can give you definitive numbers.
This is the current state of the CC hysterics position.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
All I did was offer another website with commentary? No, I offered a website that sourced it’s information from the IPCC Assessment report, which was written by almost 2000 scientists and then peer reviewed by another 2000 scientists from 80 countries to show you what you posted about TF’s comments were misleading and taken out of context. Or are they just part of a worldwide globalist UN led conspiracy? Should I put my faith in a tiny handful of “scientists” who either receive money from fossil fuel interests or produced conclusions so bad they were laughed out of the scientific community?
That's why he built the Wonthaggi desal plant at great cost. I think it started operating at the same time as the Victorian floods occurred but the taxpayers of Victoria were committed to paying for its output.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the biggest problems with the current media and/or climate scientists and/or their PR departments is the air of absoluteness of their facts, statements like "it's never been hotter", "most rapid increase in temperature ever" etc etc etc. I have been reading scientific journals and published papers (mainly High Energy Physics and Astrophysics) for about 30 years now and without a doubt a story post will come out with a declaration taken from a paper that X will definitely happen by Y. When reading the actual paper it will (usually in the abstract) still contain a "most likely" prediction. However, 5, 10 odd years down the track the prediction is usually out by a long way or never actually going to eventuate. Even now Einsteins "Theory" of Relativity (theory in quotes because many physicists are quite firm that it is a law) is now starting to unravel, mainly because of more accurate measurements, better equipment and less rigid thinking (it was almost heresy to even think that Einstein might be wrong).
On better measurements, one of the big problems climate researchers have is inconsistent measurements and data. Temperature records have gone from basic mercury or alcohol thermometers to digital equipment, some were in Stevenson boxes, some not, some measurements taken every hour, half hour or quarter hour, some now taken every 5 seconds. Sure the BOM and other meteorological institutions have homogenised the data based on their best assumptions but it is still an assumption, not a measurement. If I use an hourglass to time how long it takes my aircraft to travel 100nm and average over the results over time (to remove the effects of wind etc) and determine it takes an hour, then my aircraft averages 100knots. If i then time it using a digital stop watch and get an average time of 56 minutes, has my aircraft gotten faster by 6 knots?
As time goes and more data comes in from the same instruments over time it should gradually give a better picture, how hard is it to say "from our best estimates and assumptions, based on models built on what we currently know we postulate that this will happen in X years, but we must stress that this is only a hypothesis, we hope to get a better idea in future years, but in the mean time it might be a good idea to try and convince China and India to cut down on their emissions and for everybody else to do what they can within reason."
On better measurements, one of the big problems climate researchers have is inconsistent measurements and data. Temperature records have gone from basic mercury or alcohol thermometers to digital equipment, some were in Stevenson boxes, some not, some measurements taken every hour, half hour or quarter hour, some now taken every 5 seconds. Sure the BOM and other meteorological institutions have homogenised the data based on their best assumptions but it is still an assumption, not a measurement. If I use an hourglass to time how long it takes my aircraft to travel 100nm and average over the results over time (to remove the effects of wind etc) and determine it takes an hour, then my aircraft averages 100knots. If i then time it using a digital stop watch and get an average time of 56 minutes, has my aircraft gotten faster by 6 knots?
As time goes and more data comes in from the same instruments over time it should gradually give a better picture, how hard is it to say "from our best estimates and assumptions, based on models built on what we currently know we postulate that this will happen in X years, but we must stress that this is only a hypothesis, we hope to get a better idea in future years, but in the mean time it might be a good idea to try and convince China and India to cut down on their emissions and for everybody else to do what they can within reason."
What amount of evidence will finally have to be presented for climate deniers to change their minds? Every year that goes along new scientific evidence continues piling on more understanding about climate change yet deniers still stick their heads in the sand and refuse to believe it.
At some stage this panic as got to be moderated by reality
"renewable energy" is shorthand for energy derived from sources which are not depleted in our lifetimes - eg solar, wind, tidal - you use it today and it's still there tomorrow
As time goes and more data comes in from the same instruments over time it should gradually give a better picture, how hard is it to say "from our best estimates and assumptions, based on models built on what we currently know we postulate that this will happen in X years, but we must stress that this is only a hypothesis, we hope to get a better idea in future years, but in the mean time it might be a good idea to try and convince China and India to cut down on their emissions and for everybody else to do what they can within reason."