octave

Turbs my post is in the vein of many other posts including your own but If my post is more offesive or off topic than any other then I am happy for a modertor to delete it. I always try to keep my posts respectful and to the point. If the majority of posters feel my post are over the top please let me know an will cease posting I have no wish to offend.

Just on ozone depletion, it did not go away by itself we took action and restricted the chemicals that were causing the damage.. Google it. I am extremely concered about climate change but strongly against shaming. I still fly a plane but do what i can. I am not a catastrophist but the one certain thing is that we will move past the fossil fuel era one way or another. Why not have determined but but orderly transition. The stone age did not end because they ran out rocks they moved on because smart progressive people were determined to move ahead. Certainly there were missteps along the way, this is the way societies or individuals flourish and progress. Consider the change that has occured over just the last 30 years and extrapolate 30 years into the future. Will we still be burning black rocks to power our society? Is this the pinnacle of technological development? I think not. The early car was probably much more expensve and less reliable than the horse but smart people could see the potential and governments built highways. I have recenttly gone into semiretirement and as a bit a hobby I have started investing on the stock market. Some advice I was given was to invest in companies that reflected my vision for society. I believe this is good advice. My suggestion is if you believe coal is the only way then invest your money in it. If you are pro nuclear then do something in order to further it (I am not totally antinuke. If you think electric vehicles are silly then invest in a car company that does not or will not go EV (although good luck finding one) I guess what I am saying is perhaps indstead whinning do something positive towards the world you want to see wether that be progressive or back to thd 50s. End of rant (maybe)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-delivered-a-22-million-profit-in-2018-2018/amp/ I would assume that as these batteries are being built all around the world from China to the US to Europe there must be some benefit https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/south-australias-big-battery- slashes-40m-from-grid-control-costs-in-first-year-20181205-h18ql1

https://www.afr.com/politics/scott-morrison-mocks-sas-big-battery-as-like-the-big-banana-20170727-gxjqbz

A quick search on the subject of grid sized battery system shows a long list of similar sized batteries around the world already in use or in development including the new 800gw redox flow battery in China.

It is amazing how the FUDs (this is what we call them now) seem to believe that they live at the pinnacle of human technological development. Ignoring the change in technology throughout their lifespan thus far they suddenly believe that the only sound investment is in today's technology or perhaps even yesterdays.

So I am investing in these high tech renewables, I guess I will lose my money, although not so far. It is a little sad when the old folks suddenly think that although during their lifetime have gone from television being amazing to having a computer in there pocket with a processing power that they could not even conceived of. This is not unusual , I cant quite remember but someone famous around about 1900 said everything has already been invented. This is just a failure of intellect and imagination. Turbs I would love it if you would watch the video I link to earlier in this thread about the adoption curve of disruptive technologies I would be happy to hear your criticisms but only if you have watched it, I am not interested in what you "reckon" I bought shares in Tesla recently, just before Q3, I bought them at $437 Au a share. they are now at $517 a share, iI think you will agree a tidy little profit. I do expect them to go higher. I guess you think the shares will fall when they all start bursting into flames. The thing is I do my research.

You seem to be asserting that the measurements from one gauge indicative of global sea rise and yet the radar altimetry measurements from NASAs Jasan satellites show a clear rise https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/data/products/ocean-indicators-products/mean-sea-level/products-images.html If you believe the the Willytwn measurements are relevant by themselves then why not Darwin's measurements by themselves they show a steady increase. Do you believe the radar altimetry is inaccurate and why do you believe that. Does it contradict measurements from other satellite? if so which ones? I am not sure what conclusion you are drawing from this so perhaps you could explain it.

The proportion of energy generated in the UK 2018 33% Australia 2017 15% New Zealand 79% all these countries have fairly similar economies. I am happy to admit that we cant change quickly it is the smart and adaptable countries that have historically thrived and this will continue in the future.

It is interesting that for years I have had my super (wife too) in ethical investments. During the crash of 2008ish we did alright. A principal I have now is that whenever i interact with a denier instead of getting P1ssed off I take an actioin . So far this year " whats up australia" forum has caused me to organise panels to be fitted to my house (early Jan) changed my banking from westpac which invest in the fossil fuel sector to Bank Australia which has no share holders, it is owned by the customers and does not invest in the old industries. I have also changed my power supplier to Powershop which sources its power from renewable generators. I hope that people will keep provoking me into investing in areas which will make me my eventual grandchildren be proud of me rather to critical of me. In terms of renewable energy, deniers could you just do a little research before you post so you don't look foolish.

In the talk he shows magazine articles from the late 90s where analyst lampooned the I phone claiming it would never catch on and yet we know how foolish those predictions were.

If anyone is truly interested in the mechanism of CO2 in the atmosphere , I found this video extremely useful For those who just "reckon it must be bollocks" why not watch it if only to give your argument more credibility?

Why do I believe that we are experiencing Anthropogenic global warming? Although I have had a lifelong interest in science I am not a scientist and I understand the limits of what I can conclude though my own thinking. The notion that CO2 and other gasses allow light from the sun through to the earth and once that light heats the earth it is radiated back as infrared which is less able to pass though CO2 and is thereby re radiated back to earth. This is uncontestable and is well understood by physics. But I guess the question is what effect this has as the amount of CO2 increases. This is not something I am skilled enough to be able to calculate, therefore I rely upon people who do have those skills. This is not an unusual situation in modern life. I visit a GP because I know I personally don't have the training and knowledge to diagnose and treat myself. Of course experts can be wrong so when my GP prescribes something I do a little research myself. I try to ascertain if the treatment follows the best practice as it is known at the time. I might visit another doctor and get a second opinion. This I believe is the rational way. Perhaps in the future best practice could change due to advances in research , then the diagnosis and the treatment may change. So how does this apply to climate change? My first port of call might be NASA or CSIRO or the British academy of Science or JAXA or ESA. These people have the hardware to provide the data and I suspect the expertise to interpret it. First I might look at what NASA says. Now of course they could be wrong so then I might look at the Japanese and European space agencies and see what there data is and how they interpret it. I don't have to stop there I can see what CSIRO concludes. I am then left with a degree of certainty that although is not 100% it is at least rigorous. Some of the deniers will no doubt mutter vague accusations that findings are skewed in order to ensure funding dollars. A friend of mine who is an atmospheric physicist snorts at that suggestion, he claims his pay would be higher if he took up an offer from a fossil fuel company rather than a university salary. Perhaps I might still harbour some doubts. I wonder what the fossil fuel companies themselves are saying. We know, and Shell does not disagree as much of the early research was undertaken by oil companies. http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988-shell-report-greenhouse/ Although these companies have the used delaying tactics we are all familiar from the tobacco industry, they non the less do not dismiss the CO2 problem. Likewise look at the speech made by the CEO of BHP https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/fully-committed-bhp-to-maintain-climate-push-vows-new-ceo-20191114-p53anh.html or perhaps Woodside petroleum https://www.woodside.com.au/news-and-media/stories/story/climate-change-challenge I could go on posting links but you get the point. At this time the denier fraternity is looking a bit lonely. Now having had this conversation many times I can foresee the objections, so lets just take short cut. Conspiracy to bring down the capitalist system? - why does NASA, JAXA ESA want to bring down the system? are they hippies or something? If NASA are so easily bought then why not approach Trump and say double our funding and you will get the science you pay for? Australia's CO2 production is irrelevant so why bother. I believe if you add up all the countries in the world with a similar C02 it adds up the quite a large proportion (I can find the link if anyone doubts this) Also I being self employed I could avoid paying some of my tax obligation, my justification could be that my measly portion doesn't make much difference either way, so why should I. This does not work as most peoples tax contribution is a drop in the ocean, perhaps they could all avoid it. Apart from all this we are in a time of great technological change, we do need to keep up with the rest of the world, we do not want to be the poor primative people who still throw black rocks on the fire to keep warm. Now I am actually an optimist and not a communist who merely wants to bring down the capitalist system. I believe that science and engineering will provide some answers to mitigate to a degree future problems. I do not have much faith in governments, they are too short sighted. Part of my optimism is based on what private enterprise is doing. The coming transport and power revolution is largely from private enterprise. I think we need to a knowledge the problem and to seriously begin the transition to the post fossil fuel era as other countries are doing. If climate scientists are wrong the coal and oil will still there, my nderstabing is that it does not "go off" I am always happy to debate facts using evidence but I have little patience for what people reckon. The data is everything

There is plenty information about relative costs of various methods of power generation. It is of course complicated. As an example many of the coal fired power stations are many years old and their capital cost has long ago been paid for. New generation of any type has large up front costs. If we were to continue along the coal road there would still be significant coast for building new plants and upgrading old plants. These costs must be factored into any cost comparisons and they must continue to earn revenue for the next perhaps 60 years, betting that new technologies will disrupt their business model. believe we are on the brink of massive changes in the way we generate our power and transport ourselves. So much so that one of my pastimes is investing in disruptive technologies. This is quite an interesting talk although it would take an investment in your time to watch and perhaps your interest is not that deep but I will post a link anyway.

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.

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

I think this is what is being referred to.

I have no particular interest in Qantas but I am curious as to why you say the shares are not performing? https://www.afr.com/companies/transport/qantas-soars-to-all-time-high-20191111-p539gh

I did a lot of my early flying at Moruya Airport (CTAF) which had several REX Saab 340b in and out daily. I suspect this would not be unusual at many regional airports.

I think not so much the approach but the poor weather. The issue would be why persevere rather than go around. I suspect that the since this occured in 1959 things have changed a lot in terms of safety. Still a cracking good yarn.

Is Qantas handling this in manner that is different to other airlines? Are the US airlines grounding entire fleets or just particuclar aircraft? I dont particularly have an informed opionion but will be flying in one next month.

I was especially amused by the log book entry of the copilot of the Sutherland "touch and go" The vulcan could have ended tragically as could t of the aerobatics team. I use the term show must go on ironically.

By Air New Zealand (or Jetstar when I m feeling hard up)

Good point should have added NZ

For sure. Although as the locals say "you can't beat Welly on a good day" On some of my trips over there I have hired a a cessna (with instructor of course) and had some great flights but only on a "good day" They do have some challenging conditions over there.