Climate Change and YSSY crosswinds?

[601]

Quote:There are solutions out there to climate change, but the measures don’t sit well with a lot of people. We’ll collectively have to decide whether we pay the cost of them now or pay for the cost of not dealing with what science is telling us will almost certainly happen later.

Well what are they?

We are still waiting??

[dr dre]

Originally Posted by HabuHunter

You just admitted that those 700 letter signers are a credible scientific source.

Nope, most of those letter signers weren’t scientists let alone climate scientists.

Will you link me to the study that proves man made CO2 is causing a climate emergency?

Have a read, I’ve done so multiple times during this thread.
What standard of proof do you require above NASA, the CSIRO and almost every other governmental and non-governmental scientific organisation on earth?

[George Glass]

Hey dr dre , You’re still going ! You’ve got to be breaking some sort of record for the most posts banging on with identical content !
Here’s a tip on how to break the log jam;
“Why do millennials think they have agency over events they can never realistically ever influence - Discuss “

[dr dre]

George G,

I’ve witnessed interactions between full fledged climate scientists with decades of experience who have tried to convince ordinary members of the general public that CC is at least happening, and despite presenting solid research there’s a small minority who vehemently refuse to listen to them, basically calling them liars to their faces. Some people (around 10% from surveys) will never accept it.

[Asturias56]

Originally Posted by The name is Porter

Well, how can he?? For a start he's telling the truth. That sort of **** doesn't go down well in a political candidate.

But it does suggest why what he was suggesting ain't going to happen.................. everyone other than Greta wants to fly on business and on holiday but they don't want an airport in their backyard or aircraft overhead

[Asturias56]

Dre makes an interesting point - why are some people so vehement about this? It applies to both sides but logic would suggest it's better to be safe than sorry..

[George Glass]

I’m vehement about only one point. That the solutions are technical , scientific and economic , not moral. The sooner the CC zealots grasp that fact , and stop pinning their hopes on teenagers floating across the Atlantic , the sooner we can all move on.

[HabuHunter]

Dr Dre said: “Nope, most of those letter signers weren’t scientists let alone climate scientists.”

We agreed that scientists from different disciplines are able to have a meaningful input to this debate. Now you are quibbling over what exactly is a “scientist”?

I just had a quick glance at the letter signers. The vast majority have relevant degrees or expertise in some kind of science. There are Professors and Doctors, others who simply state their qualifications such as “geologist” or “engineer”.
I think they are probably more qualified to comment than anyone posting on this forum.


I asked: “Will you link me to the study that proves man made CO2 is causing a climate emergency?”
Dr Dre said: “Have a read, I’ve done so multiple times during this thread.”

You have not. I’m asking for a link to the actual peer reviewed study that proves Man made climate change is causing a climate emergency....not a comment on a website.

[The name is Porter]

but they don't want an airport in their backyard or aircraft overhead

A fair while ago I was a trainee in an ATC Tower, the phone rang, one of the controllers on break answered it, I only heard one side of the conversation, it went like this:

ATC: @#$% Tower, how can I help?

ATC: mmm, right............ok, mmm...........right

ATC: When did you buy your house? Right, 1991.

ATC: You do know the aerodrome was built in the 1940's?

ATC: Well that's your effing problem isn't it. If you don't like aircraft noise you shouldn't have bought the effing house.

That's how all noise whinges should be dealt with.

[The name is Porter]

Some people (around 10% from surveys) will never accept it.

Well, the political decisions should be easy.

[HabuHunter]

Here’s a short but very interesting article quoting scientists who once worked for the IPCC:

https://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08...shback-report/

[601]

I’m vehement about only one point. That the solutions are technical , scientific and economic , not moral. The sooner the CC zealots grasp that fact , and stop pinning their hopes on teenagers floating across the Atlantic , the sooner we can all move on.

What I cannot understand is the head in the sand attitude of the renewable lobby about the requirement for LARGE scale storage. I am not talking about millions of piddling little lithium cells joined in series and parallel but mega pumped hydro storage.

Is that because the renewable lobby will have to deal with the building of large scale dams and the associated infrastructure which would go against their environmental credentials because of damage that may happen as a result?

I am all for PV and wind but it has to be brought on line in conjunction with storage. Renewables, by their inbuilt intermittency, cannot work without storage.

[le Pingouin]

Or maybe it's because the people who would be in charge of commissioning such large scale national projects, the Federal Government, are dyed in the wool denialists who cling to fossil fuels and will avoid being seen to support renewables at any cost?

[Asturias56]

"mega pumped hydro storage" is valuable but restricted as to sites - many of the best ones are along way from the users so you incur transmission losses - and it's not much use in say the Netherlands or Denmark.

None of the back-up or storage system comes without an economic and environmental price

[De_flieger]

Originally Posted by George Glass

I’m vehement about only one point. That the solutions are technical , scientific and economic , not moral.

I agree with that completely, but without the will to put those technical, scientific and economic solutions into place, they'll never happen. Because they're expensive, and often have payoffs much longer than our electoral cycle, and there's a revolving door between politicians and coal lobbyists who have a vested interest in spreading doubt and maintaining the status quo.

So as long as people say "no, we shouldn't do anything because I have a petition of people that say there isn't a problem", there'll be some people, some politicians who dont want to outlay that definite cost to make those solutions. I'd probably call myself something of an environmentalist, despite the vast quantities of jet fuel involved in my industry, and fully support things like pumped hydro and utility scale storage - they've got a financial and environmental cost, but anyone who's flown over the Galilee Basin or Hunter Valley lately can see that so does coal. Scott Morrison even brought a lump of bought and paid for coal into Parliament to try and demonstrate how great it was, to show you where his loyalties lie. The fossil fuel industries donated well over a million dollars to the three main political parties in 2017-2018, that'll dry up pretty quickly if they start talking seriously about reducing the fossil fuel industry or support renewables in their place.

[PaulH1]

I don't know what all the fuss is about really. It is only going to be another 3.5 billion years before the Sun moves to the next phase of it's natural cycle and becomes a Red Giant. It will be 250 times it's current size and will eat up the inner planets. The Earth may survive but the seas will boil off and life will be extinguished. No amount of wind farms or carbon offsetting will make the slightest difference! We need spaceships!!

[De_flieger]

Originally Posted by Daddy Fantastic

The climate models used today have been proven to be wildly inaccurate. That is a FACT not a claim. The fact that the main champions and poster children for man made climate emergency are The Left wing people like Hollywood, Greta Thunberg and the left liberal media including FAKE NEWS CNN says a hell of a lot.

We on the right require FACTS....not a tug on the heart strings.

Please, by all means, show me where those models have been proven to be wildly inaccurate? Because here's a very recent article "Even 50 years ago, climate models were way more accurate than deniers claim" that discusses a large number of those models, and how over the years and decades since they were run, their predictions were compared with what was later actually observed. Scientists working in the field have gone back and looked at the historical predictions and where they diverged from the observations, and where they agreed, and the overall conclusions were that the majority of the models produced results that in later years matched up with what was observed.

If you want facts, me too. Here's a few that are of interest. The four hottest years on record to date have been 2016, 2015, 2017 and 2018 in that order. 2019 is about to push out one of them, to be either the second or third hottest year on record, according to the World Meteorological Organisation , that goes on to point out a few other things like the fact that since the 1980s, each decade has been warmer than the one before. Those figures are backed up by, and in agreement with publications by NASA, the UK Meteorological Office and NOAA. If you don't believe them for whatever reason, the Chinese Met Administration have released their "Green Book" talking about the observed climate changes and their impacts, and even the Russians have released their annual climate report - it's in Russian but scrolling through it you can find a bunch of charts that show upwards observed temperature trends. Even Vladimir Putin has said that Russia is warming faster than the rest of the world, and stated "Increasing production and the consumption of energy in traditional ways inevitably means new risks and further climate change". I know some people believe that there is some kind of conspiracy between researchers to manipulate the temperature record to create some false warming signal for some reason, but it'd have to be a pretty amazing conspiracy to reach across the researchers at the lowest levels of the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, as far south as Antarctica, to NASA, the UK, across to the politically opposed China and then Russia, all the way as high as Vladimir Putin himself....at some point surely Occam's Razor has to come into play?

This observed warming is in the context of a reducing solar energy input over the last few years, as the sun goes through it's cycles, and an increasing level of atmospheric CO2. It's interesting to look at a lot of the documents put forward by those who consider themselves skeptics and see that they have data points that have stopped around 2010-2014, as the observed warming becomes more apparent and the temperature record diverges from the observed solar input trends. Those are facts, what you or I, politicians or anyone else chooses to do because of them are a perfectly valid debate. Personally I go for a circular runway to avoid the crosswinds, maybe with a conveyor belt?

[flynerd]

We should not use wind driven turbines to generate electricity.
Any electricity generated from wind farms is a direct contributor to Global temperatures.

When we generate electricity from wind, we are stealing some of the kinetic energy from the air movement. Thus it moves slower as a result. Wind has a cooling effect on the Earth's surface by increasing the rate of evaporation. Slow the wind, reduce evaporation, and reduce the cooling effects.

Then consider the electricity and its use. All electrical energy generated from wind will eventually present as heat. This heat will directly contribute to temperature rise.

By converting wind to electricity we are not using a renewable resource. We are directly increasing global temperatures.

One thing we all need to do is to use less electricity.

[C441]

Meanwhile the Sydney crosswinds have died down……..

However there's now the small issue of smoke and climate change…..

Fill ya boots!

[Willie Nelson]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

"mega pumped hydro storage" is valuable but restricted as to sites - many of the best ones are along way from the users so you incur transmission losses - and it's not much use in say the Netherlands or Denmark.

None of the back-up or storage system comes without an economic and environmental price

Not disagreeing at all, I am aware of the constraints that you mention but Twiggy Forrest seems to have a view that long distance power generation is economically viable:

https://reneweconomy.com.au/cannon-b...project-57623/

I am assuming that the underlying premise is that despite the transmission losses we have essentially unlimited space and cheap land value and ample sun in the places where it might be generated. If it turns out to be a worthwhile venture it probably says something about the viability of a smart grid connection for some of Australia's distant rural outposts in addition to urban areas. Smart grid connection will never be able to eliminate base load power requirements but it will go a long way toward balancing network demand.