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 > Good planets are hard to come by > Comments

Good planets are hard to come by : Comments

By Andrew Glikson, published 3/11/2009

Lost all too often in the climate debate is an appreciation of the delicate balance of life on our planet.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Andrew,a good article and I agree with your 3 point recommendations to ameliorate the affects of global warming. We need to do all this and more.

One very important part of the "more" for Australia is a rapid build of advanced nuclear power stations,especially generation 4 reactors to get coal out of the picture as quickly as possible.We must have clean,non-polluting base load electricity if we are to have any hope of a relatively orderly power down to a sustainable economic and social system.

I find it disturbing that intelligent and knowledgeable people in positions of influence such as yourself refuse to consider nuclear power as a very important part of our response to our self inflicted problems.In many cases this is an ideological blind spot possibly coupled with the well know human herd instinct.

Surely we have enough problems with the political and business oligarchy in Australia who are so wilfully blind to the dangers of our situation? We need people like you to provide leadership and that does not mean ignoring solutions.
Posted by Manorina, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 7:37:32 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 said Andrew.

Manorina, according to you, any "intelligent and knowledgable" person who doesn't agree with your enthusiasm for nuclear power is "refusing" to consider it, is "ideological", has a "blind spot", is following a "herd instinct", and is "ingoring solutions". Quite a list in such a short post.

You also repeat the simplistic line that nuclear is required for "base load". The reliability of wind plus solar plus others is known, reasonable and can be rationally accounted for. See Mark Diesendorf's book Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy. (And it would be helpful if nuclear enthusiasts actually engaged with Mark's rational arguments, instead of just abusing him as often seems to happen.)

On the other hand, there are rational reasons to question nuclear power: it is unnecessary, dirty, dangerous, expensive, late and insufficient - see my post at
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/nuclear-power-uddeli-unjustified/
Your fourth generation, which does not yet exist, can't address all of these concerns.

The "unnecessary" part of the objection is because with dramatic improvements in energy efficiency, which are quick and not expensive, we won't need nuclear. See my posts
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/cut-emissions-and-boost-economy/
and
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/energy-efficiency/

Furthermore, if we learn energy efficiency we can also learn resource efficiency more generally, thus addressing multiple other crises generated by our assaults on planet Earth - degradation and loss of soils, forests, biodiversity, shortage of fresh water, over fishing, pollution from pole to pole, including hormone mimics that affect our children, and so on. If our civilisation is to survive we must address these crises too, which are really part of one big crisis. Nuclear does nothing to adress the larger crisis, and only aggravates it.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 9:53:39 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
I get it - you're desperate to keep the status quo, or some semblance of climate nirvana, well, for you maybe.

Me, I'm happy to let the climate change, and deal with the effects by adapting, as Animalia has always done.

Your constant denial of natural processes and demands that mankind somehow control the climate is astounding and possibly the most arrogant and pompous attitude ever uttered against the natural environment.

In 100 years I'm certain your hysteria will be used as psychological examples of primitive panic and doom cults.

The governments of the world will do nothing, as ever. All that tax money, do you really think they will share it around to better the planet, of course not. What sort of utopia do you think we live in where people are so generous.

Nice sentiment, but that's all it is.
Posted by rpg, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 9:54:29 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
'good planets are hard to come by' I suppose if you believe the one in trillions chance of this planet being here by chance you might have a point. When you use pseudo science to reach conclusions you will always get it wrong and keep changing your answers just like the alarmist have done in the last couple of months. This planet will be destroyed by fire and then we will know what gw is and it has nothing to do with climate change. It has everything to do with man's arrogance and depravity. The Creator of this planet who has aligned everything just perfectly is and will always be in control. Fear God instead of the silly little religion made up by God deniers and then you will be totally secure.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 10:17:47 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
That balance isn't so delicate, our climate has enjoyed a roller coaster ride and life has thrived through the course of it. Today you will find life in Antartica and life in the Sahara, life kilometres below the ocean in the deepest trenches. Everything else in the middle is so dominated by life that you can't see the natural earth it sits atop of. Changing conditions result in new equalibriums, not cessation of life. Nature docos often contradict themselves by telling us how fragile life is but then also pointing out the utter robustness of life, anything to inspire a 'wow' from the viewer. The climatic swings we've being see of late need to be considered in the perspective of the longer term climate, in which they really aren't that significant.
Posted by HarryC, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 12:24:40 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
While the aims are laudable I don't believe the suggested means will achieve the desired outcome. I'll categorise those means as carbon sinks, efficiency and 'non-polluting' energy. With carbon sinks such as biochar and forest conservation it is tempting to overstate both their permanence and their net benefit. I suggest as a rule they should be done for other reasons with any net carbon retirement as a bonus. I doubt whether there are energy savings of more than a few percent via efficiency gains. After centuries the human race has found that it likes driving cars, eating steak and turning on air conditioners. They don't have painless alternatives. Take them away by draconian means and there will be considerable resentment.

As for 'non-polluting' energy sources I think the evidence is clear by now that they can make little dent on fossil fuel burning. A mix of PV, CSP, geothermal, wind, wave power and so on has been given a red hot go in places like Spain and Germany. The result is very high energy prices yet still being unable to mothball coal, gas or nuclear plants. I believe the answer is more nuclear, Gen III+ for now and Gen IV when it is ready. The longer we persevere with the squeaky clean energy fantasy the more CO2 we emit.
Posted by Taswegian, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 1:09:56 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
This piece makes a number of unverified assumptions and seeks to obfuscate through omission empirical-based peer-reviewed papers that counter what are simply model-based computed outputs being treated as "new" data. Limited space precludes a thorough deconstruction of this polemic. I will concentrate on one erroneous assumption: "Because CO2 is cumulative, with atmospheric residence time on the scale of centuries to millennia . . "

There is virtually no molecular difference between natural and anthropogenic CO2 in terms of heating behaviour and estimated lifetime in the atmosphere before reabsorption by oceans, photosynthetic organisms or plant life, meaning that firstly, anthropogenic CO2 is readily absorbed into the carbon cycle and secondly, both natural and anthropogenic CO2 behaviours in relation to global warming are identical.

Segalstad suggests the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is around 4%. Segalstad comment is based on a compilation by Sundquist that lists the results of 36 separate studies, based on a number of different measurement methods, that give an atmospheric CO2 residence or turnover time ranging between two and 25 years.

Approximately 135 giga-tonnes (about 18%) of the atmospheric CO2 pool are exchanged each year. This large and fast natural CO2 cycling flux is far more than the approximately 6 giga-tonnes of carbon in the anthropogenic fossil fuel CO2 now contributed annually to the atmosphere. On these figures, anthropogenic CO2 accounts for just 4.45% of the annual atmospheric turnover. It is only this 4.45% that various governments and the Copenhagen conference allegedly seek to influence with the various emission trading schemes being proposed, the remaining 95.55% being naturally-derived CO2.

The atmospheric lifetime of CO2, when measured directly or by inference, is vastly different to that quoted in the IPCC assessment reports. The IPCC assumes an atmospheric CO2 lifetime of 50 to 200 years. Their carbon cycle modelling is based on the assumption that the natural exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean is already in equilibrium, and that most of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is therefore anthropogenic. Continued
Posted by Raredog, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 2:07:37 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
This assumption is incorrect. The IPCC's assertion of a CO2 residence time of up to 200 years is not valid as it dismisses Henry's Law. The CO2 atmosphere-ocean equilibrium is governed by Henry’s Law that states: at a constant temperature the amount of a given gas dissolved in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid. In other words, the partial pressure of CO2 in the air will be proportional to the concentration of CO2 dissolved in the water. With increasing temperature gas solubility decreases thereby raising the partial pressure of the gas in the liquid allowing more gas to escape, in order to maintain equilibrium. Note that processes operating under Henry's Law are driven by changes in temperature, not CO2.

Under Henry’s Law the atmosphere-ocean equilibrium is maintained even with the addition of anthropogenic CO2 sources. Conversely, there is a temperature-dependent corresponding outgassing from the oceans to the atmosphere, again maintaining equilibrium. In other words, anthropogenic CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere, it is absorbed into the carbon cycle within relatively short time frames.

I suspect that Dr Glikson (admittedly promulgated by the IPCC reports) has confused the residence time of a parcel of CO2 molecules, be it derived naturally or anthropogenically, with the time taken for a mass of additional anthropogenically-derived CO2 returning to an equilibrium based on a pre-determined and pre-existing atmospheric condition, in this case, around the time of the start of the Industrial Revolution.

From my readings I would suggest that the increase in atmospheric CO2 possibly began as far back as 3000 years BCE as humans modified and destroyed the forests at the dawn of agriculture. That such destruction continues at a pace today is a serious cause of concern, as is the unregulated release of anthropogenic gases such as HFCs and NF3, and particulate pollution, problems we can solve now without the introduction of a global system of carbon trading that will mostly profit carbon traders and will do virtually nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.
Posted by Raredog, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 2:08:38 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
If every house in AU had one kw of solar panels on their property,
how much coal would that save. Right now i am generating 6.5 kwh's
/ day. With the govt by back i am getting free power.
Posted by Desmond, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 3:27:01 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
Geoff Davies,

I read through some of Mark Diesendorf's and found it strong in rhetoric, but very weak in actual research.

Mark is a qualified environmentalist, but he has no qualifications or experience what so ever in power generation or distribution. Neither has he bothered to engage with anyone in the industry who might have pointed to the massive flaws in his papers.

I also noted that his papers were "peer reviewed" by relatives or others with non power related qualifications.

More applicable papers would be those by the CSIRO whose various scenarios for 2050 all require large base load generation. The savings in CO2 required to meet the 50% (of 1990 levels) are reliant on new technologies yet to be developed such as:

1 High efficiency coal fired turbine engines,
2 Geothermal hot rocks
3 Carbon capture and storage,
4 Economical solar storage

and /or nuclear.

It is notable that the enthusiastic optimism that many people have for 2 and 4 is not shared by the CSIRO, and 2 and 4 look set to dramatically increase generation costs.

This is also echoed by the Mckinsey report.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 3:29:27 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
Soft and floppy mental pap born from insecurity and being bullied at school. Half the whacko environmentalist movement is nothing more than third rate minds crying out for mummy love, except they've replaced mummy with gaia.

Almost all of these nutters belong to crypto-whacko, 'we're all doomed', end of the earth cults, who worship nature - aka agrarian nazi love of soils and blood - yet who've already decided we're all going to fry in hell, so there.

They are anti-humanist, anti-democratic and completely devoid of any economic credentials. They are Facebook intellectuals or 'ineffectuals'. They would rather save a tree from burning than a baby from drowning.

In twenty years time they will write the history of these times and writ large will be the fraud these whackos, in league with the media, perpetuated on the Australian people
Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 3:32:52 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
Yes, good planets are hard to find. Isn't it a pity that bad scientists aren't just as hard to find.

There only has to be a hint, of the possibility, that something, just may, threaten their tax payer funding, & thousands roar into print. It's a bit frightening to see just how many of them we are paying for, for so little, that such a funding threat, brings out of the woodwork.

This bloke makes the fourth today.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 3:49:06 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
Disturbed by several posts here asserting that the bulk of the environmental science community at best incompetent, or at worst involved in a conspiracy to concoct climate change hysteria in order to perpetuate research grants.
Hope that's true, because seems to be little chance of human kind getting it together in time to avert the predicted effects.
Harry C has it right though - the balance isn't that delicate. Nature is tough and resilient, able to find new balances and equilibrate whatever the conditions, and will likely survive any man made disaster. So we can continue to self destruct, with deniers twisting science and concluding that black is indeed white - the planet will be just fine when we're gone.
Posted by lilsam, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 5:07:56 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
Lilsam has got it about right.
No matter how good the data and science models are they will be howled down by those who don’t like it and haven’t the wit to accept reality.
Life forms such as algae have been around for more than three billion years, and are unlikely to go away. Humans are pushing their luck after just a couple of hundred thousand, and will soon vanish after a short tenure like millions of earlier species. Homo sapiens? – more like Homo stupidus. The insurance industry would have no customers if the general population was as obtuse as the posters who are dead keen to push the boundaries regardless of whatever risk is involved. Once again the meek will inherit the earth – the algae that is. A pity that we are heading that way so quickly when speed is not necessasry.
Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 9:34:11 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
HarryC and others - life will persist, so will some humans most likely, but this global industrial civilisation, indeed all civilisations, have grown up in a very stable climate and the current one is unlikely to survive the first serious global warming blows. It nearly self-destructs anyway, without any outside help.

Shadow Minister, Mark is an expert on wind power. That's a kind of power generation.

This article brought out more mindless abuse than I've seen anywhere. I guess the real science is hard to take.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Tuesday, 3 November 2009 10:12:06 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
Dear Lilsam,
You may be able to help me understand climate change advocates when working weather scientists say prediction skills deteriate with time however forcasts are updated daily to provide estimates for 28 days, so how come the science is settled and offer predictions for the next centuary, as Working scientists can only estimate predictions for 28 days ahead.
Posted by Richie 10, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 3:41:30 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
Geoff,

In all the papers by Mark that I have read, he has not provided any of the raw data or the assumptions that he has used to reach his conclusions.

Some of the statements he makes are only superficially correct, for example:

“In practice, even base-load power stations break down from time to time and, as a result, can be out of action for weeks.”

Base load power stations typically have multiple units (normally about 6) that are taken down for routine maintenance on a rotational basis within the plant, and with co ordination with other plants. If this is taken into account, the availability of 5 of the 6 units as per design is close to 99%. If one looks at multiple stations, the required base load is practically close to 100%.

As far as wind is concerned, generation is extremely non linear. So for example 100% generation or peak generation is at 36km, but at 18km the generation is close to zero.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Wind_power_coeff.jpg

“To replace the electricity generated by a 1000 megawatt (MW) coal-fired power station, with average power output of about 850 MW, a group of wind farms with capacity of about 2600 MW, .. is required….. this system can be made as reliable as a conventional base-load power station by adding a small amount of peak-load plant (say, gas turbines).”

Although there will be wind at most distributed sites, the data from the CSIRO on wind indicates that there is a strong correlation across NSW and even Victoria and Queensland such that generation can be expected to frequently drop to as low as 10% of installed capacity.

This would mean that even for a distributed installation base, the required stand by supply would need to be at least 590 MW.

Simple statistics gives an average generation of this stand by of at least 100MW, which considering the cost of this swing load means that the operation cost of the stand by for the wind farms exceeds the existing base load.

So while theoretically possible, it would be orders of magnitude more expensive than nuclear power.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 10:59:22 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
Richie 10,
Prediction is by definition an inexact science, and yes, accuracy of forcasting diminishes with time between the forecast and the event.
What we are seeing now, though, is that almost every time the information is reliabley refreshed, the predicted outcome is reinforced.
Data upon data leads scientists of note to conclude that global warming is happening and accelerating right now. The timing of the tipping point does have a large degree of error, and much will depend on what we do in the meantime, but there is little doubt that the process is under way.
Look at it this way - if 9 out of 10 meteorologists were to tell you that it is likely to rain tomorrow, would you leave your umbrella at home because you can't see any clouds in the sky now?
Posted by lilsam, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 10:59:26 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
lilsam and Ritchie10,

There's a more basic aspect here. Chaotic systems (like the weather) fluctuate erratically in the short term and their detailed behaviour is hard to predict. Nevertheless the fluctuations tend to be around a mean that is stable or changes only slowly. That is why climate (long-term trend) is more predictable in principle even while weather (daily and weekly fluctuations) remains unpredictable more than a week or so ahead.

This may be surprising but it is well-established by studies of many kinds of complex or chaotic systems, not just weather and climate.

Lilsam, I appreciate that you actually asked a question rather than doing what so many do in the blog-comment-osphere, which is in effect "I don't understand it so it must be WRONG!"
Posted by Geoff Davies, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 11:41:35 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
Good article: Facts are so annoying to some!
For those who wonder how predictions for the next 10 years can be at all trusted, ask yourselves this:
If I asked you if it would be hotter or colder in 6 months time in the middle of winter...would you have trouble with this "prediction"? Just as seasons can override daily variability, so "climate" can override "weather". Similar things for predicting individuals (hard) as against crowds (easy).
As the faux-sceptics like to bag the modellers (but not reveal their own infallible source of wisdom) I think it is important to understand that they are *not* air-headed twats with no common sense! Rather a lot of thought has gone down and only an egotist would assume they are as short-sighted and naive as some faux-sceptics seem to believe.
Note also that temperature is not the main measure of heat in system, just the one that a high school science brain will understand. Many other indicators have and are being studied, and they are *all* in agreement...
Melting ice, sea level rise, climate zone migration, desertification, species migration/obliteration and acidification...to name a few
Manorina: Nuclear power needs to be costed honestly first. Without black military funding it is likely to be *way* too expensive. Current tech is looking very promising, but Solar, Geo, Wind, wave and tidal are worthwhile now at reasonable cost.
rpg. This is not some natural event we are talking: it is a man-made extreme event. Some of us do not feel OK with trashing our environment for all future humans and other animals. Some of us believe that ethical behaviour is Good. (I notice the Right is still just "me me me! as usual.)
Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 11:56:28 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
Ozandy,
Spot on.

I am constantly bemused how these faux sceptics bang on about 'show me the hard science process to levels of unknowable precision'. This is because it might have negative impact on a highly interpretive soft discipline (economics) that is based on a common-sense fantasy 'the magic pudding principle' i.e. endless growth in a finite world.

But saddest of all the topic of AGW is conducted on such a simplistic superficial level for such a complex web of issues is mind numbing.

We all(well most of us) agree that the incredibly complex and infinitely connected web of life exists. Yet they some how think/feel it doesn't happen when it comes to something as complex as weather(millions of possible contributors). e.g. it focuses on the fallibility of modelling yet ignore the ever increasing pile of hard scientific facts.
They could be likened to a person viewing the Great pyramid of Giza and declaring that they refuse to acknowledge its existence because they don't believe its process of construction.

How many of these armchair scientists have relevant qualifications or knowledge to be able to understand the complexity, the science or in fact the topic save the equally unreliable popular press. Yet they refuse to educate themselves and decry those who do or are qualified.

Clearly as in the pyramid not every element is observable or observed.

Finally, the argument about resilience. All aspects of climate operate within tolerance which are in turn effected by different aspects. It is impossible to measure all of them at once.
Think of it as giant bucket being filled by 7 billion different sources the capacity of each one is unknown. Relying on the unused capacity would be unwise at the extreme.
However the reality of the water being nearly full in the bucket (at the limits of it resilience) is pitifully obvious.

Given this analogy current technology clearly sees EXCESS C02 as a major contributive factors but not the only one. At this stage who knows if the other factors will come back and bight us. Logic dictates we engage a new paradigm.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 2:25:38 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
Gee, the anti-populationist, chaos theory, great pyramid, we're all rooned people, are still at it.

How dare you use terms such as Logic and Facts. You haven't earned the right. You are anti-logic, anti-maths, anti-people. Your time has come and gone.

The problem isn't global warming, the problem is global bulls..t that's being spun by arrogant gnomes who've just finished reading the 1970s bio primer the 'Web of Life'.

Give us a break and follow your Heaven's Gate cult leader. Your spaceship is leaving now.
Posted by Cheryl, Wednesday, 4 November 2009 2:41:51 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
Nice argument Cheryl.
Got any more gems of wisdom?
Posted by Ozandy, Thursday, 5 November 2009 7:35:42 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
Sure have Ozandy.

The Federal Greens come over all touchy feely and Democrat when it comes to boat people.

Yet the loony tunes here who also call themselves greens, not only want a ZPG Australia, but want to send the boat people back. They're gung ho fortress Australia. They've got more in common with Alexander Downer than they know.

So the anti-pops, global tree huggers, 'we're all doomed' people have created a fantastic wedge issue to split the Federal Greens at the next election.

I want more boat people here. They're hard workers, unlike these academic bearded gnomes.
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 5 November 2009 10:59:25 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
ozandy - Oh dear, ignorant accusations that anyone who disagrees with the AGW POV is a trashing the environment, right wing, me me me type.

Is it possible to be politically "left" and be a sceptic? Or are the 2 POVs synonymous? (Are you allowed to be a skeptic if you are "left"?)

How do you know what I'm like, you have no idea how much I spend on recycling, how much effort goes into my sustainable vege garden, how I deal with waste and energy or what sort of car I drive, when I actually have one that is. Do I offset, do you?

Why not just call in the inquisition to deal with the unrepentant skeptics, or deniers if you prefer. Ah the intolerant religion of AGW, I love it when people reinforce the stereotype.

I don't see all AGW believers as stereotypically gullible, frothing at the mouth, self flagellating, delusional eco doom criers. You make it easy to forget that everyone should be treated as rational until they prove, as you have done, otherwise.

BTW - the climate warming is natural, there may or may not be some man made contribution - but to claim it is a "man-made extreme event" is hysterical nonsense and is typical of the mass self hatred and guilt we see about us in the lead up to the Copenhagen event.

I do wonder what will be the effect afterwards as surely many of you will be disappointed with Copenhagen. I should get some shares in anger management treatment, I can see the market is going to open up, when you don't get what you want.
Posted by rpg, Thursday, 5 November 2009 11:25:39 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
Cheryl,

Do I understand you correctly that the web of life (a simplistic yet clear analogy of the interconnectedness of contributive factors)
making up the whole doesn't exist? Funny that but the principal is being taught in Biology, Oceanography, Physics, Chemistry, Brain science at University.

I suggest you actually read Chaos theory then re read my post not even close. It's a lot more than butterfly, tornado over simplification.

Almost every day there is an addition to the list of environmental issues...Pollution etc. Polar Ice melting faster than anticipated etc. Scientific evidence that the pollution levels in the sea/rivers are causing major problems, the impact on food and available water is accepted scientific fact.

Are you saying that we haven't fished out, over farmed built on much of our arable land around cities?

Do you really believe all we need to do is change the C02 levels and everything is fine? or ignore it and it'll all go away?

Are you saying that we have endless capacity to feed burgeoning populations indefinitely?

Are you saying that economics is a hard science?

Are you saying that current economics doesn't demand endless growth? or the world isn't finite?
I could have used a car as the analogy but some people know cars but how the pyramid was built is still largely conjecture. But it exists.

Where did I say we're doomed as in it's all over?

I Admit I get it wrong so in the interest of discussion enlighten me with your FACTS. Thus far your post proves my point a lot of heat and No light. I always state my opinions are subject to further information and therefore change.

RPG

I detest any absolute left/right labeling but there is a difference between a real sceptic and faux sceptic/denialist.
One is prepared to look and learn the other well they're full of abuse no counter evidence/facts.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 5 November 2009 1:02:40 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
examinator - faux skeptics and real skeptics - it's just another way to look down your nose at people who disagree with you, isn't it?

I expressed my opinion, I must have missed the criteria that any posts contrary to your opinion have to be backed up with suitable evidence.

What an ego you have, how do you get through doorways?
Posted by rpg, Friday, 6 November 2009 3:59:19 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
Manorina,

In spite of now being a signatory to the Kyoto protocol, the emissions from Aus are still steadily increasing, and there are plans to build further power stations.

Given the high level of inelasticity (small change in supply results in a high change in price) of energy demand, the renewable target proposed for 2020 will probably not even cover the projected increase in power demand, and the ETS cap and trade will attempt to limit the increase in generation.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that energy costs are set to rocket, and whilst home owners are likely to only see about a $260 p.a. increase in costs, the cost to industry and farming will see everyone pay more for pretty much everything.

Whilst it is theoretically possible to meet the emissions targets with renewable generation, unless there is are huge technological jumps in the next decade or so, the cost of this generation and distribution by 2050 will be vastly higher than what we have now.

Nuclear power would be a fraction of the cost, and is not reliant on technology leaps that may or may not occur.

The greens want to have their cake and eat it to the extent that they are not prepared to allow the government of the day to start strategising for possible nuclear plans. I suspect that the reason for this is that presently they can shout about all kinds of dooms day scenarios based on ancient technologies, and a modern strategy would rob them of this.

As the planning is likely to take a couple of years before a go ahead could be given, it is politically expedient but irresponsible not to give due consideration to all alternatives.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 6 November 2009 8:54:00 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
Examinator,

sure, with all of the polar caps melting and global warming and scorpions rising out of the earth, how come sea levels haven't risen on millimetre? Sea level over a 1000s of years certainly does, but how come it hasn't over the last 50 years? That would be proof of global warming. Zip.

I am proud to call myself a skeptic. It's an excellent practical and intellectual position. It stops me from becoming a firestick twirling airhead.
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 6 November 2009 10:04:44 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
Shadow Minister

Your pessimistic assessment of renewables, especially wind power, is evidently not shared by everyone. November's Scientific American has "A plan for a sustainable future: How to get all energy from wind, water and solar power by 2030". And they probably don't appreciate the huge and inexpensive savings to be gained from dramatic efficiency improvements. See my earlier links.

Regarding your earlier comments on wind, we ought to consider the mix of wind and solar together (and others if available) as the combination performs better. The prospect of energy storage is not as remote as you imply, though I grant it's not well developed.
(e.g. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/print.asp?article=9240). A much better prospect than CCS though, which is a fantasy - if our Govt would spend billions on storage instead of CCS we'd make more progress.

And I'm afraid CSIRO's views are compromised these days, since they got politicised and captured by the fossil industry to do its dirty work for them.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Friday, 6 November 2009 10:07:04 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
Oh cool, we finally get to prove something to a skeptic.

Cheryl, look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise to see that sea level has risen about 10 centimeters (that's 100 millimeters) over the past 50 years. Around 2 mm/year, and the rate has been increasing lately.

Case proven. Global warming is real.

Couldn't find anything about scorpions though.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Friday, 6 November 2009 5:06:37 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
So what if the global situation is changing, isn't that nature.
Those of us that live above ground at the moment , can always dig holes to live in. If you already live that situation don't worry about it.
The people that are screaming now are the ones that live on the beach.
Nature will take it's cause no matter how many insults you hand out.
Instead of insults ' put up some proposals that will not send society back to the stone age.
If you can't do that invest in a pick and shovel and start digin;
Posted by Desmond, Friday, 6 November 2009 7:18:20 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
Geoff, check out todays Australian re rise of 1.7 mm in last 50 years.

Eschew wikepedia and facebook as sources.
Posted by Cheryl, Saturday, 7 November 2009 9:41:59 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
The Australian article also reports:

The consensus view of the scientific community remains that sea-levels are rising at an accelerated rate because of human activity that has warmed Earth.

The CSIRO's John Church, considered one of the world's leading authorities on sea-level rise, told The Weekend Australian yesterday he remained convinced waters along the eastern seaboard were rising in line with global averages. He noted that the BOM's gauge results for Port Kembla as published here did not include the effect of barometric pressure, which, if included, would lift the sea-level increase to 3.1mm, not much less than agreed global estimates.

The Australian continent was also rising slightly - about 0.3-0.4mm a year around Sydney - which had partially offset increases in sea levels, he said. And an analysis of records from a gauge at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour - not incorporated in the National Tidal Centre report - also revealed that, after 1950, periods of extreme sea-level rises occurred three times as frequently as in the first half of that century.

"There is a clear acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise," Dr Church said. "In the last 20 years, it's almost twice the global average for the 20th century."

Dr Church said the NSW coast was likely to experience sea-level rises greater than global estimates due to changes in the wind stress patterns in the Pacific Ocean, which will strengthen the East Australian Current. And if polar ice caps were indeed melting at a significant rate - which is not yet established - Australia could witness even bigger swells still.

Dr Church challenged Mr Kininmonth's assertion that only a thin surface layer of the ocean was warming, saying recent studies provided evidence of deep ocean warming although it couldn't be quantified as yet.

A spokesperson for the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water said NSW had selected the upper end of the IPCC modelling predictions because both emissions and measured global sea-level rise were now at or above the upper IPCC estimates.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/science-is-in-on-climate-change-sea-level-rise-17mm/story-e6frg6nf-1225795202916
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 7 November 2009 10:18:59 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
Geoff

Bob Carter and William Kininmonth are home grown apparatchiks of right-wing think-tanks - Lavoisier Group (Australia) and the Heartland Institute (USA) - spruiking and lobbying for a very powerful and forceful 'deny-n-delay' brigade. It is in their interests alone to maintain the status quo, business as usual. I'm sure you know this.

If Cheryl doesn't know or understand the tactics of the professional 'denialists', then it stems from ignorance and so must be given some slack.
If she does know the distortions and misrepresentations that these professional lobbyists and public speakers engage in, then she is arguing from an ideological perspective and her understanding of the science is very rudimentary.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 7 November 2009 10:39:19 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
Cheryl, read the article. That's 1.7 mm PER YEAR. That makes 85 mm in 50 years.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Saturday, 7 November 2009 1:37:25 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
"This is consistent with historical analysis showing that, throughout the 20th century, there was a modest rise in global sea levels of about 20cm, or 1.7mm per year on average."

That's the whole of the 20th century. 20 cms. Global warming, solar flares, man made or not. 20 cms. This is entirely natural and over the span of the age of the earth, expected.

The Ree's Gov predictions of the demise of coastal NSW has more with the demise of the NSW ALP than scientific fact.
Posted by Cheryl, Saturday, 7 November 2009 2:41:51 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
Geoff,

The article in SA was in my opinion overly optimistic in relying heavily on technologies that have yet to be commercially viable being deployed and economical. If this eventuates, then their scenario is valid, however, as many of these technologies have intrinsic barriers to success, I have serious doubts as follows:

Hot rocks requires huge volumes of fresh water to compensate for losses,
Wave generators generally are beaten to scrap by storms,
Solar power delivers power when demand is low.

The best so far is wind power, which is at best intermittent, requiring massive distribution networks for peak power whilst delivering about 33% of capacity on average.

As for storage, this in itself has several weaknesses:

1- No extra power is generated by the expenditure on storage,
2- All storage has losses i.e. 50% for Hydro and compressed air, etc for batteries. (this means that 2MW of generation and 1MW of storage is required for 1MW of delayed power)
3 Batteries have a finite life: 100 cycles for Lead acid if taken to near full drainage, and thus have a cost per cycle of use.

Having spent many years looking at energy storage for voltage mitigation in complex system, including even Commissioning a 3MW super conductive battery from NASA, I have a fascination of the subject and am keen for it to succeed.

The single most promising storage is the hot salt solar, and I am avidly following it, but there is a dearth of details (for commercial reasons I bet)

Unfortunately, what I see so far is significantly far from delivering what we need. My call for nuclear is not for a love of nuclear, it is simply that I see a long delay before renewables can step up to the plate, and I strongly feel we need to do something about AGW before it is too late.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 7 November 2009 9:04:00 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
I don't have time to get involved in this debate, but I can't help putting something in on the sea level rise. There were two sea level rise stories yesterday and I did a blog post on them. http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003595.html.

It's rising much faster on the west coast. That was reported by the ABC. Both sides in this debate cherry pick. And everyone thinks measuring sea level height is a simple process, when it isn't. And before anyone jumps down my throat, I know I've simplified (but not over-simplified) in the blog post.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 8 November 2009 3:35:16 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
Yeah Cheryl, keep back pedaling. And perhaps next time don't fire off such simplistic statements. The story did say the global level has accelerated to 3.1 mm/year over the last decade or so, and that's a concern.

Graham Y, thanks for noting the alternative versions of the story. And you're right, estimating global sea level rise is not simple, there are local variations in many places that have to be accounted for. And you wouldn't generalise from Australian measurements to the world, which makes this discussion a bit pointless. I only joined it because Cheryl put out such a simple demand it was easy to meet it. Now of course she's allowing it's more complicated.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Sunday, 8 November 2009 6:51:05 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
What frustrates me most about the argumentation around contentious issues like climate change on OLO is when people refuse to acknowledge when they are in error. It seems to me there's little point in continuing to try and debate such people.

Yes, both 'sides' tend to cherrypick facts, but the debate can go nowhere if people who are shown to be factually incorrect refuse to acknowledge it.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 8 November 2009 7:58:51 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
Yes, but Geoff we know there are some things that are wrong. Such as Al Gore's claims about sea rise (or Robin Williams who claimed a sea rise in excess of all the water in the world). I'd like to see him/them being jumped on in the same way that others making the reverse claims are jumped on. That the traffic is only one way from the "consensus" speaks volumes for me about the debate.
Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 8 November 2009 11:15:25 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
Yes Graham, extremists on both sides should pull their collective heads in.

The vast majority of scientists involved in 'climate change' science think there is very likely a real problem and that the world should do something about it - adaptation AND mitigation. Ergo, living in a more sustainable way.

There will always be debate within the scientific community about the details, Graham. It's just ludicrous to think these nuances can be 'debated' in mainstream media and the blogosphere by arm-chair pseudo-scientists who do not understand the complexities that you correctly allude to.

I understand your disaffection with the IPCC, however, that does not make their processes, rigor or conclusions any less robust. Similarly for the numerous science academies, organisations and institutions around the world - they are not as stupid as some would have us believe.

Moreover Graham, if anyone can suggest a better way of correlating and disseminating the science of 'climate change' any better, let them come forward - they haven't. I have to say ideological think-tanks don't rank, but that is only my opinion.

The 'debate' (at least in the public domain) is not about the science - it's about political ideology, economics and socio-cultural upbringing. Indeed, it is these very issues that the UNFCCC are debating, they are not debating the science.

It is these 'issues' I have no answer for, except to say that given there is a significant risk (and we think there is) associated with AGW, then it is in humanity's interest to work together to lessen its impact.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 9 November 2009 8:35:25 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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