The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Beware! The crisis is coming! > Comments

Beware! The crisis is coming! : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 17/8/2015

Just for fun I used my ‘favourite search engine’ and got the following results for the numbers of hits coming from the phrase ‘crisis in Australian …’

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Does it matter if global warming is true or not ?

We must leave oil before oil leaves us.
In a longer time period we must leave coal before coal leaves us.

We must build a new energy regime, simply because of the decline in
the reserves of oil at the highest prices that the economy can pay,
together with the decline in coal quality, world wide, that the economy
can afford.
Australia is in a good position on coal and it is needed to build
whatever is the replacement. So why are we flogging off the lot ?

Australia now imports 98% of our petrol & diesel.
ANY INTERUPTION to our supplies will mean that in two weeks there
will be fights in the supermarkets over the last tins of food.

Exaggeration ? Its exactly what happened in the UK due to a strike.
Are you aware that there is no Emergency Plan for such an emergency ?

Sure the commonwealth has legislation for taking control of fuel but
there is no displan for local control of any kind.

Now that is what I call a crisis !
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 17 August 2015 8:58:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Beware! The crisis is coming!"
It sure is.
But it ain't the weather.

"‘Dire’ comes from Latin dirus meaning fierce, horrible, frightful. Can you summon up such a problem currently facing our society?"

Currently, no.
After one or two generation of kids growing up in the meaningless mess of Multopia, yes.

An advertisement I see ad nauseum online sarcastically celebrates their inability to find a typical Australian family.

When that really *is* true, you'll have your crisis.
The smirking and back-slapping will end.
Fiercely, horribly, frightfully.
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 17 August 2015 9:01:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Dear Don still flogging this horse. Please continue your war on mainstream science you'll get the be a staff writer for some right wing think thanks if you keep trying. Hell you might even get ask to write a column for the world news daily bunch, or conservapeadia.

But what you certainly will not be doing, is contributing to the study of the climate, no we will have to rely on actual scientist for that.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 17 August 2015 9:19:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is certaily a crisis of rational thought in Australia, with alarmists ignoring the lack of warming. Then their is the furore over the Royal Commissioner and calls for him to stand down from an idiot who aims to Attorney General in a Labor government, but who doesn't know that no mere politician or government can interfere with a Royal Commissioner or his Commisson, nor that he (the idiot) would be charged with contempt if he repeated his ravings outside of parliament.

Then there is the hysteria of homosexual "marriage" drowing out all other real problems, and the fact that one third of members of a suppose conservative government are further left that the Greens. Throw in the fact that polls show that a man up before a Royal Commission to answer questions of his involvement in union jiggerry pokey is wanted as PM by 64% of by knuckle-heads for PM, and we don't have A crisis, we have crises, one after the other.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 17 August 2015 9:36:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
certainly the leftist media and its followers display blatant stupidity. Whether it be promoting perversion, gw fantasy or encouraging drownings, the leftist dogma fills the headlines. The smaller the readership fairfax gets the louder they scream their irrational stupidity. One would of thought university was about thinking and learning. Now it produces mindless rhetoric hidden in masses of websites and group non think.
Posted by runner, Monday, 17 August 2015 9:52:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have to agree with Cobber, and have the headline rewritten as, Don't miss the boat, the opportunities are coming!

Don is an expert, with an alphabet soup after his name to prove it!

The most appropriate "scientific" definition of an expert remains, an X is an unknown quantity; and a spurt is merely a great big drip under considerable pressure?

Don, the great big solar furnace in the sky that supposedly is responsible for all our climate change, has been in a waning (cooling) phase since the mid seventies? (NASA)

And the possible reason, (you think) for the reported (formerly permanently frozen) permafrost melt and lack of summer ice along most of Alaska's foreshores.

Or the myriad new summer lakes up there bubbling literally millions of tons of(lighter than air) methane to the surface!

You really expect anyone, except a moron, is going to believe a cooling sun can do any of that?

Or because you can't see it from here, isn't actually happening, and just part of a great big conspiracy to separate a fool (government) and his (our) money?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 17 August 2015 11:51:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cobber:

Which scientist will you listen to? And why that one, or those ones? Shouldn't you be reading about 'climate change' from all points of view, and making your own mind up — or beginning to ask questions yourself? That's what most sceptics do, and I am one such.

Rrhosty:

Yes, there may be opportunities ahead too.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Monday, 17 August 2015 3:57:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, I for one listen to the scientists that publish in scientific journals.

I am very sceptical of the ones that vanity publish books and political polemics.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 17 August 2015 4:02:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy, all the prominent sceptical scientists, like Carter, Happer, Lindzen, Plimer, have published in scientific peer-reviewed journals. Do you read their work too? Does it worry you that our governments have not funded research on 'climate change' that looks at natural variability?
Posted by Don Aitkin, Monday, 17 August 2015 4:13:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don, you still haven't addressed the reason for the phenomenal unprecedented permafrost melt; and the consequent new summer lakes in Alaska!

Phenomenal, given the great solar furnace in the sky is in a waning phase and has been since the mid seventies. ( NASA)

And given your lists of denialists.
I believe as a "climate scientist", Plimmer makes a great geologist!

What's your alternative scientific rationale? A mass event of shared body heat, due to recent population explosions?

Or substrata volcanic activity and hot rocks finally getting their heat to reach the surface; or down to tectonic plate activity creating new levels of heat due to friction?

In which case there's a fraction too much friction!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 17 August 2015 4:33:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhrosty,

Perhaps you could give me the links to the unprecedented permafrost melting. What I've read suggests that it is a possibility, if warming passes a certain point, not a reality. Arctic ice-cover seems to have recovered and, as you probably know, Antarctic sea ice is at a very high level.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Monday, 17 August 2015 5:02:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhrosty
Have to agree with Don - what unprecedented permafrost melting? I was also under the impression that it was one of those possibilities when warming past a certain point.. no-one was claiming it was actually happening..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 17 August 2015 5:43:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah Don, I read their work, and others.

It's mostly crap and the only stuff that they whinge about is just modelling.

They also produce prodigious amounts of opinion.

I fact if I search the Web of Knowledge database, using terms author: Plimer, topic: climate change, I only find one entry and it;s an opinion piece: 'Climate change, a geologist's view'. LOL

Robert Carter at least has 3 entries on climate change (one a conference paper), none of them on modern climate change except for the conference paper (that's about policy).

Happer has one entry: 'Petitioning for a revised statement on climate change' a letter to Nature in 2009

Lindzen of course fares much better in the publication department,with about 19 entries but it seems mostly modelling.

All their stuff put together would amount to a very tiny fraction of the climate change literature, if I search for 'climate change' (no author field), I get 490,333 entries!

I think your description of these guys as "prominent" is being exceptionally generous Don. Most of their work on climate change seems to be either book publishing or opinion pieces or blogs, or comments about models.

If they had any other publishing record, it wasn't on climate change.

If you base most of your position on these guys, I think the politest description I could muster would be 'biased'.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 17 August 2015 6:39:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

I base my position on what I read, the questions I ask of it and the answers I get. I read a great deal in this field. About 85 per cent of it takes for granted that the orthodox AGW position is correct, about 10 per cent tries to reinforce it, and only 5 per cent is 'value free'. Much of that comes from sceptics.

In the policy field (you'll have to go to my website to see a piece I wrote the other day) I am on much surer ground. There much of what is written takes for granted that there is an AGW problem, and is focussed on how best to deal with it (Garnaut, Stern and the like). Only a few, and I am one, asks the other question: what if there is not much or nothing, to worry about? Or uses the precautionary principle against itself — why are we asking people to pay so much when there seems little likelihood that the threat is a real one?

I follow argument, evidence and data rather than people.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Monday, 17 August 2015 7:36:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are a policy wonk, as is your right.

To formulate policy, those questions do have to be asked. However, they should not rule your position.

I don't comment on policy, that's for the social 'sciences' boffins to work out.
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 17 August 2015 8:50:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quote Don
"I follow argument, evidence and data rather than people."

I do so wish you would, unfortunately it is very clear that all you do is look for stuff to reinforce your view on climate change. The list of Authors you take note of are clear enough proof. Climate change science was clear enough 70 years ago, why is anybody even arguing about it in the 21st century?
Posted by warmair, Monday, 17 August 2015 10:17:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still wasting time and effort when it does not matter whether it is true or not !
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 17 August 2015 10:59:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Bazz,

You are obviously correct, yet this "global warming" nonsense is part of an extended agenda to allow the rogues of the united-nations to control the whole world.

Even had I believed that there is any truth in their warming stories, I would still say: "better let the world burn than have us live under the tyranny of such evil world-government". If that's the alternative, then bring on the crisis, bring on the catastrophe by nature rather than by man.

{"

David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, Lord, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.”

Before David got up the next morning, the word of the Lord had come to Gad the prophet, David’s seer:

“Go and tell David, ‘This is what the Lord says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you.’”

So Gad went to David and said to him, “Shall there come on you three years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me.

David said to Gad, “I am in deep distress. Let us fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into human hands.”

So the Lord sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died.

"}

[2 Samuel, 24:10-15]
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 18 August 2015 12:39:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I got curious about the think tank 'Australia 21' which I'd never heard of so I went and took a look.

I stumbled across a page 'Global Change' and started reading the .pdf entitled 'Beyond Denial Managing the Uncertainties of Global Change'
- Found in the link below.

https://www.australia21.org.au/research-archive/policy-on-illicit-drugs/global-change/#.VdH0Dpe3iPW

The article was mostly about climate change.

The first thing I noticed was that one of the main speakers in the artice 'Jorgen Randers' is a permanent member of the Club of Rome.
(Other Club of Rome members include Al Gore of carbon trading notoriety)
The article also mentioned Jorgen's book "2052"

So I went to Infowars to try to get a bit of a background refresh on the Club of Rome, and here's what I got.

http://www.infowars.com/group-that-admitted-manufacturing-global-warming-threat-still-pushes-same-hoax/

Very interesting article and worth reading.

Conspiracy stuff aside.
I agree with Rhorsty on the issue that the sun is in a cooling phase.

It was on this issue I mainly held the view that the whole issue of GW is a load of crap, but Rhorsty's insistence that permafrost was melting lead me to have a look at that too, and it seems he's right if the reports are true.

http://www.lakescientist.com/melting-permafrost-influences-arctic-lake-methane-emissions/
http://www.adn.com/article/20150618/study-alaskas-melting-mountain-glaciers-have-big-impact-sea-level-rise

So Rhorsty does have a good point if increased melting is occurring while the sun is cooling.
(what this alludes to I'm not sure)

But Don has an equally good point, about Antarctica cooling.

Maybe when the earth tilted slightly on its axis it changed something and its just another phase the planet goes through with the Arctic warming and the Antarctic cooling?? -Just My Thoughts-

The biggest question I have, (as an uninformed layman) is why do we have this big war on carbon when I read news reports that carbon is actually greening the planet??

http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

And Christopher Monckton says the current climate models are wrong.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 18 August 2015 1:31:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair Critic

The general opinion is that some surface warming has occurred over East Antarctica but there really is not enough data to answer the question definitively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica_cooling_controversy

The west Antarctic peninsular has however noticeably warmed and ice loss from the whole of the Antarctic has increased, due to increased sea temperatures. This brings up an interesting anomaly which Don refers to, and that is winter sea ice area reached a new record in 2013, however the increase is insignificant compared to the sea ice loss in the arctic.

Select Antarctic and click on years of interest:-

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

A Dramatic decrease in Antarctic land ice has occurred over recent years:-

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stable-antarctic-ice-is-suddenly-melting-fast/

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/Ice_sheet_highs_lows_and_loss
Posted by warmair, Tuesday, 18 August 2015 8:40:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Warmair if you really believe that garbage, do come & see me. I've got this bridge across Sydney harbour to sell
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 18 August 2015 10:48:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM; I have been reading about Germany's problem with excess generation
with wind & solar.
Why is it a problem ?
Why cannot they just not draw power from some of those sources ?
Just let them run idling away with a light load ?
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 19 August 2015 8:49:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen

I will be available next week to see you, we can go to the NSW government and get them to issue shares in the bridge, think of the huge commission we will get. Come to think of it, there's that place with the nice roof, next door we could get them to throw that in as well.
Posted by warmair, Wednesday, 19 August 2015 9:00:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part of their problem Bazz is their ratbag green governments contracted to pay for all that green power, whether they use it or not, at hugely inflated prices. They even have to pay when the things can't work due to too much wind.

You know, just the same sort od stupidity our Greens want to put in place for us, & will do if we elect another Labor government with green preferences.

At the same time, they have to draw power from the grid to keep them warm, & to "excite" their generating equipment, even when not working.

A total catastrophe when you realise their grid doesn't allow them to transmit the power wind does generate to where it can be used. They currently have to use the grids of neighbouring countries to do that transmission, & some of those neighbours, in fact all of them, are getting sick of Germany.

Fuzzy green thinking will do us in, long before any global warming, or cooling as now appears more likely.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 19 August 2015 1:12:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Warmair here's a challenge for you.

I know it is against your religion, but slip over to JoNova's blog, for a minute. She has just posted the combined output of all the Oz wind farms for a couple of weeks in August, & the whole of July. Even for the physics illiterate it should be obvious why wind can never be a serious replacement for proper power. That Mickey Mouse stuff would leave half your mates stranded in the lifts in their inner city apartments, on a regular basis.

It might be a shock to your system to actually read some facts rather than propaganda for a change, but go on, be a devil. You will probably survive the shock, & may even learn something. I doubt it, but you could actually start to understand something for your own good.

Of course you would then have to change your political party, but we all should grow up some time.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 19 August 2015 2:58:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem of climate change is already in the early stages of being solved.

Because new innovations and new ways of marketing solar panels on rooftops haS already begun. For example,not paying for the solar panels up front but paying for them gradually, much like a mobile phone, tablet, computer, plan. Paid every month as part of your electricity plan.

The barrier to taking up solar for the average Joe and small business has always been the very expensive upfront cost of the panels. Plus
there is a new battery form of solar panel which requires a lot less panels.

As solar becomes affordable and in reach of the budget for people all around the world which it will, the issue of climate change will be over. Full stop!

So, hippy-left wing -capitalist-western world -bashers. Climate change, solved, by the coming ,shutting down of the consumer base all over the world.
Better think up a new, bash the rich capitalists and Western societies disaster , to keep your politics of envy going.
Posted by CHERFUL, Friday, 21 August 2015 6:48:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CHERFUL
The problem of climate change is theoretically solvable, but we need to get a serious wriggle on, if we are to tackle the problem, before it becomes critical. It is relatively easy to generate all the electrical power from sources that do not emit CO2, but that only accounts for 1/3 of all CO2 emissions. The main options are solely from renewable sources or a combination renewable and nuclear, personally I am satisfied that the first option is the best for Australia as it will be cheaper.

The difficult problems arise when we try to reduce emissions from all the other sources particularly transport, industry, heating, agriculture and land clearing. Electricity can replace some of the fossil fuels for these items, but there is a very long way to go. The production of cement generates large quantities of CO2 and is not something we have any large scale practical alternative. Liquid fuels can be produced by biological methods and chemical methods, but is not currently available on the scale necessary to make a serious dent in our use of fossil fuels. The production of metals particularly Iron generates vast amounts of CO2 due to the use of coal, in theory the coal could be eliminated and electricity could be used. Land clearing was a major contributor in the past to CO2 emissions, and still makes a significant contribution in the developing world, agriculture also generates substantial amounts of methane, which is a more powerful green house gas than CO2. These problems for most part have theoretical solutions but we are a long way from implementing them.

Globally there are some 12 countries that generate nearly all of their electrical power from renewables, but the best that any country has achieved for generating all their energy from with no CO2 emissions is from memory Iceland at 85% and most European countries don't get much past 10% at best. Human CO2 generated emissions continue to rise, when in fact we need to be reducing them with the aim of getting them to zero by around 2070.
Posted by warmair, Saturday, 22 August 2015 9:46:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don, suggest an overseas trip and eyeballing the permafrost melt with your own eyes, as I did.

Links just provide opinion, some of which runs completely counter to local knowledge, which can traverse generations!

And fly over the hundreds of brand new summer lakes this unprecedented melt has created; or when frozen have a butcher's at the trapped melting methane then held back by the winter ice!

How do we know it's methane?

Just break a hole in the ice and light it up with a naked flame for proof positive.

Just make sure the flame is on a long wand, given the release can create a mini fuel air bomb, which can remove facial hair among other problems!

Incidentally, you'll be pleased to know that the climate change crisis has been ameliorated somewhat by a financial crisis in the production of coal.

Which currently needs around a $100,00 a ton exported, as a break even price for still undeveloped resources; and the current global market price is around $50.00 a ton?

And an example of how to lose mucho plenty money without really trying!

Now given our dependence on coal exports, that is a real and immediate crisis

Little wonder hard nosed bankers are withdrawing financial support for the largest still undeveloped reserves!

We don't need endangered species to close some of these projects down?

The market will ensure that's exactly what happens?

Not to worry, we can still make much more money exporting alternatives, like cheaper than coal thorium, as fully functional, built here reactor modules; able to be transported as container cargo; and trucked on site to be potentially producing very local power within days!

Now that is an energy export example that not only stands to make mucho plenty money, but given we rent these things to folk, who could not otherwise afford to heat and light their homes, for the life of the of the reactor, which we fuel!

Flogging coal is simply flogging a dead horse; time to cremate and bury it?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Sunday, 23 August 2015 11:10:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chereful said;
The problem of climate change is already in the early stages of being solved.

Well Warmair put you right there, it is a long way from even a start.
No progress at all has been made in how to overcome a still cold night.

There are mumbles about batteries, but if they are to supply power
from 3pm to 8pm (winter) in most Australian latitudes they need to
have a capacity 1 1/2 times the daytime consumption.
That means the average electrical generation output has to be at
least 3 times the capacity during the day to supply the load plus
charge the batteries for 3pm to 8am discharge.
Can you see where costs are going in this ?
Oh and I have not taken into account internal discharge rate of the
batteries.

More importantly the energy content of such a system with battery
backup, maintenance etc becomes impossible.

Such of grid systems do work but I do not think anyone would suggest
that they are better than mains supply.
Imagine if everyone was off grid, what an enormous maintenance job
that would be. How many houses, shops, factories, offices are there
in the world ?
Are there enough battery manufacturing materials to make them ?

This overnight problem is real if the coal mines are closed.
Do you have a solution ?
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 23 August 2015 11:11:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
from 3pm to 8pm (winter) in most Australian latitudes they need to
Arrrggghhh I should have said 3pm to 8am.

I was in the UK one winter and the school kids were going to school
in the dark after 8am, so it would be a big problem there.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 23 August 2015 12:12:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz
In Australia we can replace the existing electrical supply with renewables, using current technology and yes it will be more expensive than the current mix. In Australia the existing forms of renewables are hydro, wind and solar voltaic, to achieve 100% renewables we need to add Solar thermal (non-existent in Aus) with heat storage, tidal power, biomass and utilize the great artesian hot water sources (geothermal but not hot rocks). We need to upgrade and extend the electrical grid. While we have pumped hydro storage, we also need to add more storage capacity, some of the methods available world wide are:- compressed air, heat, chemical (as in synthetic fuel), Mechanical as in flywheels and electrical as in large scale batteries. Generally batteries are only a small part of the solution and at present would be mostly used by the off grid crowd.

The specific problem of heating Australian homes is entirely solvable simply by using a heat engine, which is no more than a fridge working in reverse, yes it requires some electricity, but it is a good deal less than generating heat directly from electricity, and most renewables do work at night the only exception being solar PV. Further to that a well designed house in Australia needs very little heating especially if it uses passive solar such as north facing windows and good insulation.

The problem gets really difficult when we try to deal with the problems I listed in my previous post above.
Posted by warmair, Sunday, 23 August 2015 5:17:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well we can see warmair has dodged my challenge.

His religion would never stand a dose of truth & facts, so he must avoid seeing them.

Those 7 weeks of wind generating records totally prove that wind doesn't work, & can't work. The whole alternate power has been a huge con, designed to rip the heart out of the industrial economies & give billions to the hopeless third world
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 23 August 2015 6:04:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Warmair, whatever the alternative supply is it has to produce at least
three times the power needed during the day.
If however you need to store up a nights power during the day and if
that day happens to be an overcast still day and they do happen quite often.
Today for example !
Every sailor knows that wind drops at sunset.
Gawd imagine what it would be like in Bleak City !
You might have to cope with a week of overcast still days.
That will be the design specification, or large office buildings
will be unusable.
The generation level might have to be five to eight times the day total
demand.
If you live above the third floor and or you have reached an age where
long flights of stairs are impossible then move out.

If that is not acceptable, then find out who manufactures candles and
buy their shares.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 23 August 2015 6:25:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don writes;

“The evidence of warming has been most subdued in the last twenty years, compared to the twenty years before that.”

My goodness, really?

Sounds like this warming business is just grinding to a halt before our very thermometers.

Just one problem;

“The July average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.46°F (0.81°C) above the 20th century average. As July is climatologically the warmest month for the year, this was also the all-time highest monthly temperature in the 1880–2015 record, at 61.86°F (16.61°C), surpassing the previous record set in 1998 by 0.14°F (0.08°C).”

“Separately, the July globally-averaged land surface temperature was 1.73°F (0.96°C) above the 20thcentury average. This was the sixth highest for July in the 1880–2015 record.”

“The July globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.35°F (0.75°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest temperature for any month in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set in July 2014 by 0.13°F (0.07°C). The global value was driven by record warmth across large expanses of the Pacific and Indian Oceans.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

The boy stood on the burning deck.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Sunday, 23 August 2015 7:38:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair,

It has recently been discovered that a substantial saving in the amount of energy it takes to make cement can be made by grinding the clinker while it's still hot.

I suggest you don't say we ever need to get our emissions down to zero, as it is likely to result in people accusing you of wanting to take us back to the stone age. It's better to say that we need to cut our emissions down BELOW zero, as that makes it clear that it's not just a case of reducing our adverse impact; we can also have a positive impact. It gets people thinking about the difference between gross and net emissions (and that it's the latter that's important). And most importantly, after putting all that extra CO2 into the atmosphere before 2070, doing nothing and just leaving it to nature will be insufficient to counteract the warming; we'll need to deal with it more actively.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,

Substantial progress has been made on how to overcome a still cold night. Are you really unaware of soar thermal with molten salt storage?

And coal is not the only fossil fuel we have. Natural gas can be used far more efficiently than coal, and is generally much more responsive to changes in load.

We don't have to rely on coal at all, and are better off not doing so.
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 23 August 2015 8:11:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen
I don't normally respond to insults only to rational comment which you are quite capable of, and I have no problem visiting sites that disagree with my understanding of the world. As a matter of interest all that JoNova's comments on wind prove is that you can't use a single renewable source for all your electrical power it has to be a mix. The site that she links to is actually quite useful as it clearly shows you get a couple of days warning when wind power will become unavailable and even then it usually only lasts day or two before it comes online again.

http://energy.anero.id.au/wind-energy

Bazz
The wind during the day at ground level is slightly stronger because thermals mix in higher air from above which is moving at a higher speed, but windmills are placed at locations such as on hills which are generally unaffected by this phenomena, Also the towers are up to 300Ft high which again mitigates the problem. The wind most definitely does blow at night, hydro and biomass are totally unaffected by time of day, solar thermal can store energy for up to 15 hours which allows it to generate power at night, it is only domestic solar PV which is problematic if you wish to store large quantities energy. At my location it is now 9:30pm and the wind is blowing at 22 Kph and increasing, anything over 12Kph will generate wind power and max power is typically achieved at 35 Kph or above.

http://www.bom.gov.au/vic/observations/vicall.shtml
Posted by warmair, Sunday, 23 August 2015 10:14:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair
You do understand, don't you, that science doesn't supply value judgments, and cannot be based on logical fallacy including appeal to absent authority?

Don't you?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 11 September 2015 10:40:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy