Old Koreelah Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Turbs you might need to edit your last post, because your text appears as if it were my post.
turboplanner Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Turbs you might need to edit your last post, because your text appears as if it were my post. Sorry, too late to edit. The only part of OK's quote was "CO2"
Litespeed Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Amazing how some will use anything to shoot the messenger. Their blindness to reality is amazing at times. Or He doth protest too much. Maybe some need to get a job with a crane company. The ability to cherry pick and hoist straw men is amazing.
kgwilson Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Nothing wrong with CO2. It puts bubbles in my beer, puts out fires and stores itself as carbon in wood. The only trouble is we are now producing too much of it. We are producing 45% more now than in 1750, from 280 ppm to 415ppm in 2019 in the atmosphere. This despite more than half the uptake coming from natural sinks like forests and the sea. Great it'll make the trees grow well. Well we've gotten rid of 75% of the trees so that may be a small issue. Oh but 1/3rd of it is absorbed by the Ocean. No worries then. Hang on more CO2 in the Ocean raises acidity. Bit of a problem for the shellfish & coral with calcium carbonate houses. Then of course the more CO2 that is absorbed into the Ocean it eventually encounters a resistance to further absorption so guess what, we are left with it all hanging around in the atmosphere.
pmccarthy Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Turbs, congratulations on doing the work to establish this information. You were prompted by the claims about bushfires arising from global warming. It doesn’t take much research of the data, or much thinking about the physical environment, or the history of major fires, to realise that the claims are a complete nonsense. But you will be attacked by the warmists for questioning their religious beliefs. Good luck.
jetjr Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 the CO2 will be released if Australia sells coal or not, China and India etc will use coal from somewhere, potentially low grade sources and be even worse Australia is so small that if we ceased ALL emissions and exports there would still be no effect. yes several climate scientists have indicated it is unlikely that Australia lowering CO2 emissions would have any reducing impact on world levels. Some still say we should be seen as a global leader in sustainability. By far most of the world population is more interested and getting to try electricity for the first time or learning to read. Not important who admits what, our govt can do NOTHING to change the course of global climate change Spend the same amount working on developing technology and ways to handle variable climate to maintain our way of life and reducing our impact on the planet. Plastic pollution in the oceans will get us long before changing climate will 1
turboplanner Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Sorry, forgot to attach the actual Tide Gauge readings from Williamstown. There will be a chart related to your capital city tide guage (s) plus quite a lot for regional ports. The water level at this gauge certainly isn't climbing at the same rate as the concocted "Global Average" calculated figures. These figures are probably available back to the 1800s but you can't get much flatter than this.
octave Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Sorry, forgot to attach the actual Tide Gauge readings from Williamstown. There will be a chart related to your capital city tide guage (s) plus quite a lot for regional ports. The water level at this gauge certainly isn't climbing at the same rate as the concocted "Global Average" calculated figures. These figures are probably available back to the 1800s but you can't get much flatter than this. [ATTACH]42180[/ATTACH] One graph is not indicative either way. The sea level does not rise or fall evenly throughout he world, the sea is not flat. For this reason posting one graph is problematic. Most people are surprised to learn that, just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean is not flat, and that the surface of the sea changes at different rates around the globe. For instance, the absolute water level height is higher along the West Coast of the United States than the East Coast. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/globalsl.html 1
Thruster88 Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Most people are surprised to learn that, just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean is not flat https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/globalsl.html Anyone who has been at sea in a small boat wishing they were dead would know that. ???? 2
turboplanner Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 One graph is not indicative either way. The sea level does not rise or fall evenly throughout he world, the sea is not flat. For this reason posting one graph is problematic. Most people are surprised to learn that, just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean is not flat, and that the surface of the sea changes at different rates around the globe. For instance, the absolute water level height is higher along the West Coast of the United States than the East Coast. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/globalsl.html Which is what I was alluding to earlier. “Scientists” have been quoting a global mean temperature to predict temperature increases of fractions of degrees. How could you calculate the mean of all the seas when you don’t have every measurement?
spacesailor Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 POOR FIREIES !. Bureaucracy Gone Mad. A 'ludicrous' new rule requiring volunteer firefighters to receive a work-with-children check could see thousands of them banned from battling blazes. Queensland volunteers will be required to lodge a Blue Card application before December 1. or they will not be able to continue helping battle fires. A new tilt at the world warming : Earths crust moves https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/earths-odd-rotation-may-solve-an-ancient-climate-mystery/ar-BBWRCwU?ocid=spartandhp ANYONE NOTICED THE SUN IS DIRECTLY OVERHEAD, (NSW) Not up Queensland's Rockhampton ?. spacesailor
octave Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Which is what I was alluding to earlier. “Scientists” have been quoting a global mean temperature to predict temperature increases of fractions of degrees. How could you calculate the mean of all the seas when you don’t have every measurement? I don't really feel this is the place to have this discussion as I don't believe the majority here wish to discuss it, perhaps the other place would be more approproate so we can get right down in the data without annoying people. Satellite measurements mainly but also calculated from thermal expansion due to temperature increases, steric sea level etc. (although I suppose you don't accept that the sea temperature has increased) Are you suggesting that the number of gauges from around the world is not enough to draw any conclusions? How many would be the right number, how many would have to show an increase verses decrease to provide a meaningful conclusion? Here is the mean sea level at Darwin harbour. On their own neither of these graphs is meaningful but taken to together will the thousands of other measurements and then compared to satellite measurements.
Old Koreelah Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 the CO2 will be released if Australia sells coal or not, China and India etc will use coal from somewhere, potentially low grade sources and be even worse... A standard argument used by the coal lobby. In fact the rapidly falling cost of renewable energy in Asia is now making their coal look expensive, even before we factor in its environmental damage. The reality is that Australia's cheap coal has undercut many other exporters. Australia is so small that if we ceased ALL emissions and exports there would still be no effect. yes several climate scientists have indicated it is unlikely that Australia lowering CO2 emissions would have any reducing impact on world levels... The cringing we're too small to make a difference cop-out again. Australia used to make a difference when we were a far smaller country, impressing the world in electoral reform, worker rights and innovation. Australia is now a far more significant part of the global economy, but we seem to have lost our balls. Some still say we should be seen as a global leader in sustainability. By far most of the world population is more interested and getting to try electricity for the first time or learning to read. Not important who admits what, our govt can do NOTHING to change the course of global climate change.. This is the guff being peddled by vested interests in the fossil fuel lobby. Much like the nonsense we heard from the tobacco industry not so long back. At that time, thank dog, Australia had a government with guts and some decency. This country led the world in fighting the scourge of cigarette dependency. We made a difference. Where has our vision gone? 2 1
Methusala Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Well you can ignore them because they have their own agendas; my question is about CO2 and I'm curious to see what your position is on CO2. Refer to my post #80 and don't backtrack. We are able to follow this conversation without obvious memory lapses.
kgwilson Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Well here we are, 140 posts and the deniers still deny despite overwhelming evidence that mankind is stuffing up the planet. Cherry picking evidence of local or individual situations proves their case. I rest mine. 3
turboplanner Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Refer to my post #80 and don't backtrack. We are able to follow this conversation without obvious memory lapses. I'm not sure you were following because I was asking OK a personal question.
turboplanner Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 We've seen that sea level rise can be quite different in different parts of the world and different parts of Australia based on accurate tidal gauge readings and that Global Mean sea level is a derived level based on the Climate Scientists input parameters, so not necessarily related to a particular geographic place. One of the reasons I posted historic climate discussions is to show that CO2 was not being discussed in early global warming meetings (not that there is anything wrong with that) We've seen that Australia has not yet regulated for levels of CO2 output for cars, and that there are difficulties because the quality of fuel determines the output. The first measurements of atmospheric CO2 in the world were by Dave Keating at Caltech in the 1950s, and he started ongoing measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii in 1958. This graph by the US National Oceanic & Atmosphere Administration (NOAA) shows the distribution of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. It shows seasonal fluctuations and the difference between northern and southern hemispheres. This could become very important for long term fire fighting decisions. To see where Australia fits into this, approximate latitudes are: Tip of Cape York: 11 degrees South Brisbane: 27 Perth: 31 Sydney: 34 Adelaide: 35 Melbourne: 38 Hobart: 43
jetjr Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Honestly don't care much about our vision or how bigger balls you think that the world thinks about Australia. You are getting close to being offensive regarding who is sprouting what. Very few other countries governments, let alone their populations, even respect us. We are a tiny, very wealthy nation incredibly bound up in virtue signalling and writing moral cheques we can only just afford. Something like 95% of the worlds population actually doesn't know we exist and are concerned about next week, not some point in thousands of years IF our weather forecasters are correct. None of the previous forecasts and models have proven correct. They are trying to predict miniscule changes over hundreds of years from vague data sources. As indicated climatology on global scale is incredibly (impossibly) hard to measure, let alone draw predictions from We definitely should be looking to improve our global impact but so far everyone in first world countries will only adopt changes if it doesn't effect them. Talking about what should be done is easy but has the risk of being very expensive with no return The concept that renewables is reaching parity with fossil fuels is plain BS from those supporting it. It is if you ignore large parts of their production and disposal happening in countries where they don't care about emissions. Renewables are a great thing and should be supported but as for replacing coal power, it is a dream. 1 1
kgwilson Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Renewables are a great thing and should be supported but as for replacing coal power, it is a dream. It's not a dream, it is happening but it will take time. The UK recently ran for several weeks without any coal power, South Australia became a net exporter of renewable energy recently and one of the worlds largest pig iron producers in Germany recently ran a furnace on hydrogen with their goal to eliminate coal in the long term. 2
kgwilson Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Well I now have the definitive answer to why we have the existing drought and all the bushfires. According to Israel Folau in his latest rant it is God's punishment for legalising same sex marriage and abortion. So there you have it, a simple answer to a complex issue that will have all the god botherers nodding their heads. 3
turboplanner Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Well I now have the definitive answer to why we have the existing drought and all the bushfires. According to Israel Folau in his latest rant it is God's punishment for legalising same sex marriage and abortion. So there you have it, a simple answer to a complex issue that will have all the god botherers nodding their heads. I think poor Israel has his radio tuned to the wrong station. Sad case. 1
Litespeed Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Amazing how some will use anything to shoot the messenger. Their blindness to reality is amazing at times. Or He doth protest too much. You know they are jumping Sharks when they claim it is offensive to do the right thing.
Old Koreelah Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 Honestly don't care much about our vision or how bigger balls you think that the world thinks about Australia. You should, because if we continue down the current path, the rest of the world, on which we depend for our prosperity, will start imposing on us the sort of sanctions that Apartheid South Africa experienced. If you think that is far fetched, all the signs that we are alienating our traditional friends are there. You are getting close to being offensive regarding who is sprouting what. Sorry if that is how you see it. I value being able to respectfully discuss these weighty issues with thoughtful people like yourself. None of the previous forecasts and models have proven correct. That's a brave statement. In fact some scientists are saying that in some areas, ice melting is happening decades earlier than predicted. They are trying to predict miniscule changes over hundreds of years from vague data sources. As indicated climatology on global scale is incredibly (impossibly) hard to measure, let alone draw predictions from. Agreed; no wonder a few of their projections have proven inaccurate. Would you have us continue to expand the burning of coal until all evidence is irrefutable? Talking about what should be done is easy but has the risk of being very expensive with no return The renewable industry in Australia is booming and already employs huge numbers of Australians, while coal mining is shedding labour and automating. The concept that renewables is reaching parity with fossil fuels is plain BS from those supporting it. It is if you ignore large parts of their production and disposal happening in countries where they don't care about emissions. Renewables are a great thing and should be supported but as for replacing coal power, it is a dream. Time to reassess your sources of information. Lots of countries have already shaken off their dependence on burning coal. 2
jetjr Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 It's not a dream, it is happening but it will take time. The UK recently ran for several weeks without any coal power, South Australia became a net exporter of renewable energy recently and one of the worlds largest pig iron producers in Germany recently ran a furnace on hydrogen with their goal to eliminate coal in the long term. That's good stuff and should be commended Bet it wasn't cheaper than fossil fired or maybe provided by nuclear (which we are also too morally upstanding to use here) If it was at cost parity it wouldn't just be for a few weeks SA is generating lots of renewables but relies on others providing its power when it suits them and their power is one of the dearest in the world I thought.
facthunter Posted November 17, 2019 Posted November 17, 2019 It's only mainly countries like Here that this is a partisan issue just check up on who gets what financial support from WHERE. and you will know WHY they do as they do. BHP Billiton aren't exactly a mob of greenies nor the US Armed forces. or Exxon who kept their concerns secret years ago (or thought they could.). The prices often quoted are spot prices where a bit of gouging happens. COAL And Nuclear aren't even close on price and only hydro, storage and some gas is quick response. COAL has a high failure rate and a lot of it's down for repairs right now. INDECISION, lack of planning, and vested interests has stuffed the scene here. You can easily get comparable prices for establishing various forms of generation Solar and wind get cheaper and the others get more expensive and there's no hint of that trend changing..Nev 1
Recommended Posts