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 > Does Australia need a 'climate policy' at all? > Comments

Does Australia need a 'climate policy' at all? : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 22/7/2014

The evidence continues to mount that carbon dioxide is not, after all, the control knob of the planet's temperature.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All
Australia (and the world) needs a sustainability policy.

To that end, it is highly pertinent that we develop alternative energy sources, with the strongest possible focus on renewables.

Even if CO2 is not the great ogre of climate change, we still need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and develop a sustainable energy regime.

Obama is taking the right approach. Abbott certainly isn’t.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 8:22:21 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 WORRYING THING IS DON..that palmer did a deal with aLL GORE
to install a file..labled climate policy/that leaves it in..the hands of a beurocracy..to chose when the blank cheque called zero..cost..gets filled in..withthe hidden costs

i see obamas ordering of THE clean air act..to police co2 as if polution[poisen?]..that is the new sceme/get an authorising legislation;then let a beurocrat..do what beurocrats do[write nest egg legislation funding for their mates/scemes and scams]

ie we done the paper work
by blank cheque[better than any bank cheque
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 8:40:12 AM
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
Ludwig,

There is no such thing as sustainable energy systems, as all energy systems require materials and resources.

Most of the so-called sustainable solar power systems only last about 15 years, and then they have to be renewed, which then requires more materials and resources.

Added to that is the growing shortage of rare earth metals such as dysprosium used in magnets for electric motors. Either such metals run out or become very expensive to extract out of the ground.

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/19/rare-earth-metals-will-we-have-enough/

So what we need is to wean ourselves from the idea that energy systems can be sustainable.

The only long term prospect for Australia if we continue with plans to greatly increase the population, is to continue to pollute the skies with CO2, sulphur, fly ash etc, or have brown outs.
Posted by Incomuicardo, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 9:44:51 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 another day on OLO with Don talking about a subject he knows little about...

Don leave the science to complent people working within their field, if you must report please provide links to relevant climate reseach in mainstream science journals.

Whatsup doesn't count nor do articles in the Australian.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 9:45:39 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
Don has discounted the UN and its agencies by simply declaring that they are irrelevant.

Several paragraphs later, he claims that, because there is no united action between nation-states, that there can be none and consequently that Australia should go it alone on a path of denialism.

Don, who is undoubtedly a very smart and man, certainly makes some dumb and uninformed statements when it comes to climate change.

Ho-hum. Should stick to one's knitting.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 10:17:34 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 the hound
Its always a good idea to actually read the material you are criticising. Don didn't mention science at all and its just not relevant to the discussion. Even if Australia was trying to limit emissions, the problem is that its an international matter.. other countries have to control theirs and, despite all the screaming, their is no real indication that they are going to.. the usual retort to that fact is that Australia should show leadership in this area. But as he points out, we generate zero media interest elsewhere. So much for that argument.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 10:23:47 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
<< Ludwig, There is no such thing as sustainable energy systems… >>

In the strictest sense this may be true, Incommuicardo.

But indigenous cultures the world over haven’t done too badly in approximating sustainable systems for thousands of years. And we should be doing our damnedest to head in that direction.

<< So what we need is to wean ourselves from the idea that energy systems can be sustainable. >>

We need to embrace the philosophy of sustainability and do our best to head towards it.

We need to wean ourselves off of our addiction to finite fossil fuels.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 11:02:38 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
Ludwig

Yes, there may be some hope with thorium.

“By 2050, thorium should meet 30% of India’s electricity demand.”

http://www.itheo.org/articles/world%E2%80%99s-first-thorium-reactor-designed

But more available electricity will mean more consumption of materials such as dysprosium.

So it is not just a policy on climate, there should also be a policy regards overall consumption.

On a brighter note, our government seems very keen to wean Australians away from thinking that growth and consumption is the reason why we exist.

Tony Abbot and Joe Hockey have often spoken about the need to limit growth and consumption, and have Australians thinking about other things instead.
Posted by Incomuicardo, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 11:21:41 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, if Co2 is not causing climate change? What is?
What has caused ocean temperatures to rise, in some places by a recorded 2C!
And what has caused average recorded wind speeds to increase, other than increased global convection?
And if Global convection and ocean temperatures have risen, what has caused that, and is there anything we can do, except say adapt, if it is due to say, Solar thermal warming, which is irreversible!
Even so, if the carbon free alternatives, are cheaper and perform far better at growing a very robust economy, what "thick head" is going to say, no we don't want that or energy prices just a quarter of what we are now paying!
We want to keep paying even higher economy destroying prices!
And who needs a carbon tax, energy prices are through the roof already, and contributing to a massive economic slowdown, the world over!
And indeed, virtual armed conflict, to secure future supply surety!
Albeit, not us, given we enjoy paying through the nose for fully imported fuel, and at economy killing prices.
Climate sckimate? Who cares?
Let's just decarbonize our economy, because that will make all of us, [except the fossil fuel industry, and a few weeping foreigners,]
very much more prosperous, and put a Bunsen burner under a truly tepid economy!
A much better performing decarbonized economy, and a much rosier future for we Australians!
What raving dunderhead, could possibly want that!?
Thorium, biogas, and an algae based oil industry, that will be still growing long after the last oil well has gone dry!
Who could possibly want that, or the 44 cents per litre and less, we might have to pay, for a vastly more secure and superior fuel supply?
I mean, people who advocate these economy growing changes/advantages, have to be sick in the head?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 11:44:54 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
Has anyone noticed any climate change 'sceptics' on OLO who actually have qualifications in climatology? Not many, not any, perhaps.
Posted by mac, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 1:17:32 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
Curmudgeon I did read it, you just missed the point... Don wouldn't ask the question if he didn't except global warming.
If he excepted that climate science might know more about how climate works then he does.
I can understand the rube who listen to 2gb might think a certain way but you would have to look at other motivation other than dumb ignorance to explain Don's view point.

BTW I don't care much for what the so called great Australian say in his papers and infomercials(fox news), reality is realiy
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 1:59:53 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 I give thanks that someone who can get published, & has some authority can both think & speak so clearly. I have yet to read an article by you that has got far from common sense based on understanding.

I really have to wonder how you survived in the rarified atmosphere of academia. You must have had great difficulty keeping yourself under control at the rank stupidity & rampant self interest you must have seen daily.

Out here in the real world your thoughts hit a cord. You are expressing what most real people feel & believe, but have trouble expressing, or being heard when they do. I wonder how many of our politicians are smart enough to see the wisdom in your post? lets hope more than a few.

Luddy old mate, I fear you are going off the rails. In what you suggest about energy is buried the fact that billions would have to die, for your vision of an indigenous culture future to work.

Here in Oz, such a culture could not support more than a million or so. What you suggest we do with the other 22 1/2 million.

The only answer is the status quo, with a gradual shift to nuclear. Wind wave & sunbeams are just so much hot air.

How you can defer to Obama is a mystery for an intelligent person. He is without the most corrupt man ever to hold the US presidency, with all his greenery merely a cover to transfer billions of public money to his campaign funders. This was done via their investment in alternative energy business they have owned, & gutted before going bankrupt. I can't believe you mean that
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 4:09:03 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
I agree with Ludwig:

The idea about the necessity for shifting away from our dependence on fossil fuels existed long before the carbon hoax.

This has nothing to do with cooling or warming, but with the fact that the energy from life-forms that were deposited in the ground over 1-2 billion years is now consumed at a rate of about 1000 years per hour. This cannot go on, and is totally unfair towards those intelligent species that may rise on this planet perhaps a few millions of years after homo-sapiens are gone.

The temporary solution is nuclear, but with current population levels, even that will be used up in about 1000 years. We ultimately need to reduce human numbers, ideally to some 6-digit number.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 4:25:17 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
Incomunicardo, a sustainable economy will have to do a lot of recycling.
Re rare earths, well they are not needed for electric motors as DC
motors have field windings and alternators have excitors on the same shaft.
The rare earths are needed for a few purposes where strong magnets are needed
but we can get on fine without them.

Rhrosty, I saw an article on EV World that would interest you.
A company has designed an electric with fuel cell technology with
900 mile range, fueled it said with salt water.
Did not explain more than that.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 4:45:47 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
Now Yuyutsu, how do you think the hydrocarbons on that moon of Jupiter, or is it Saturn, [look it up for your self] got there. What life forms do you think deposited that lot.

Could you perhaps consider that our hydrocarbons arrived here just like our water, via comet? It is much more likely, just doesn't suit the current elite thinking, of preserving it all for them, & getting rid of the overpopulation of us peasants.

Some of you people are so naive. You'll believe almost anything that comes from an author with PhD after their name.

If you are going to worry about what happens in 1000 years mate, you've given yourself a problem. I can think of thousands of nasty scenario that could come to pass in such a period. Running out of Nuclear fuel is so far down the list of nasties it doesn't register.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 4:58:08 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 Don has done it again. Mostly he has kept away from the science in this piece, which is a good thing because Don has shown over and over again that he doesn't understand the science.

But Don couldn't quite help himself and dropped into "Sixth, the evidence continues to mount that carbon dioxide is not, after all, the control knob of the planet's temperature" Well Don, no the evidence is not continuing to mount in that direction. The scientific evidence, as published is continuing to mount in the opposite direction: CO2 concentrations have a significant effect on the Earth’s climate – stopping us from freezing solid for a start. It is only those vigorous voices that mistake weather for climate who are confusing themselves and everyone else.

What Don indulges in here is an appeal to popularity. ‘No-one else is seriously trying to reduce CO2 emissions, therefore they can’t be important’.

“In the developing world, people want cheap energy, and seem uninterested in the debate about carbon dioxide and its impact, if any, on the planet's average temperature.” When you are having trouble feeding and educating your family, it is hard to get concerned about problems that will arise in 40 years’ time.

But as we are all doomed anyway, perhaps we should just continue on as we are comfortable in the knowledge that we will have amassed the biggest number of toys before it all goes pear-shaped.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 5:09:45 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
In general this article is vaguely right in it's assessment of our relevance in the greater scheme of things, but's that's about the best I can say about it. His initial assumptions are erroneous from my point of view so any conclusions he reaches are irrelevant to me.
To me the only sane policy or action is to begin laying the groundwork for moving our populations and industry to higher ground, the ocean's coming calling, that's an inevitable fact.
Discussions about whether we caused or contributed to that are pointless, as are efforts to influence it in the future, as the author pointed out.
I fully expect that the pollies won't get around to that until the waters are lapping at their knees, so to speak. It'll quite possibly be as bad as any movie for the people who have to face it, and many will die.
Posted by G'dayBruce, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 5:12:18 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,

I don’t think recycling will be of much use.

Only about 25% of electronics are recycled, and it may be too expensive to recycle more.

The same with most other things.

We really need a policy regards consumption and growth, and not just a climate change policy.

I’m rather like Joe Hockey (or I now understand he just wants to be called Joe, because he feels like everyone else).

Since I had my gastric band surgery and lost 20 kilos, I have tightened my belt, and I have thought a lot about consumption.

If we grow the population while consuming at current rates, things begin to run out, and then they become much more expensive.

So that is why I applaud attempts by Tony Abbot and Joe Hockey to aim for a zero growth economy, and to limit population growth and consumption.
Posted by Incomuicardo, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 5:22:22 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
<< Luddy old mate, I fear you are going off the rails. >>

Hehehe. Yeah Hazza if I keep going on like this, I’ll be as bonkers as you in about … a million or so years! ( :>)

<< In what you suggest about energy is buried the fact that billions would have to die, for your vision of an indigenous culture future to work. >>

Surely you don’t think that I am advocating a return to an indigenous culture type of life style! If you are, please reread my last post.

Billions will die if we keep going the way we are – propping up population growth and high per-capita consumption with cheap fossil fuel energy, and then finding ourselves having to pay a whole lot more for this energy, if we can get it at all, and being locked in a bitter battle with other countries for this resource, and suffering escalating civil unrest at home.

Think about it. Think of just how vitally important it is that we wean ourselves off of our addiction to fossil fuels.

This doesn’t mean abandoning them, it means progressively reducing the proportion of our energy requirements that they provide.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 7:43:17 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
with the number of bombs being dropped in the Middle East its time to focus on real issues rather than that of a few egos and the pockets of the gw religous brigade.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 8:58:57 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
<< …our government seems very keen to wean Australians away from thinking that growth and consumption is the reason why we exist.

Tony Abbot and Joe Hockey have often spoken about the need to limit growth and consumption, and have Australians thinking about other things instead. >>

Reeeally?!¿?!

I could have sworn they were doing precisely the opposite, Incomuicardo.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 9:20:28 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
Does Australia need a 'climate policy' at all?
Don Aitkin,
NO ! What we need here are competent & pragmatic thinkers to deal with all things environmental & the furure. Policies do nothing except feather academic & bureaucratic nests.
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 22 July 2014 10:00:39 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
Bazz:
Thanks mate, however, my preference is the ceramic fuel cell, which as you know, runs just as happily on methane as hydrogen.
And given we build some CNG refuel stations, based on a national gas grid, the range for a Gas powered ceramic cell electric vehicle, is virtually only limited by the refilling stations.
The energy coefficient of a ceramic fuel cell is around 80%, which at least twice as good as any other hybrid.
And that is because the fuel cell is solid state technology.
And given the conversion from fuel to energy is a chemical reaction, rather than combustion, even with methane,(CNG) as the fuel, the exhaust product is mostly water vapor!
What we need is a government, willing to invest in pilots, or proof of concept prototypes.
This would need some skilled artisans, and some commercial space, which could be used time and again, for similar purposes.
The prototype, could even be say something like a merc hybrid, with just the diesel engine replaced with a ceramic fuel cell and capacitors, and the diesel tank replaced by a CNG tank.
A cubic metre of gas, has the same calorific value as a litre of petrol, however, the energy coefficient, is better than double a diesel electric!
Therefore, a 90 cubic metre CNG tank, should provide a range of up to 2000 kilometres, on a single tankful?
And that necessarily larger sized tank, could also consume the space normally set aside for the gearbox and tail shaft, in a conventional vehicle?
Cheers, Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 12:31:40 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 the Hound has raised the question of science, so we should consider it. Substantial funds and resources were devoted to the science after the IPCC made the rash (and unfulfilled) promise to produce science which would show the “signature” of human contribution to climate change.
The net result is that the human contribution has been shown to be negligible, and not measurable, so that it does not have the significance necessary to be scientifically noticed.
The hound’s representation that there is science to back the AGW fraud is dishonest.
Agronomist is even more dishonest. When asked for science to support the fraud, and he is repeatedly asked, his final resort is to say that only a scientist can understand the science backing AGW.

Australia, being the first nation to get rid of the carbon tax, is a world leader. It would be appropriate now for us to follow up and hold a Royal Commission into the origin and backing of the AGW fraud, particularly the procurement of baseless statements from reputable institutions in support of the fraud, and whether this dishonest activity was criminal.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 3:31:40 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
"And given the conversion from fuel to energy is a chemical reaction, rather than combustion, even with methane,(CNG) as the fuel, the exhaust product is mostly water vapor!"

Combustion is a chemical reaction. The reaction products of combustion are the same as for the ceramic electrochemical cell. Carbon dioxide output is the same.

Toyota is putting out a hydrogen fuel cell car soon which will only release water as waste. Problem is the hydrogen comes from reaction of hydrocarbons with water, with CO2 as the other product, so nothing is environmentally gained. However if water electrolysis by photovoltaic electricity can be harnessed to produce the hydrogen (and oxygen as a by-product), then we'll have a game-breaker. Hydrogen distribution is the problem in a big country like Oz but in Japan it's not so bad. A 700 km range is expected per fill-up.

Electric and hydrogen cars are viable around cities, but the problem is between cities and between continents. Imagine no CO2 created by trucking shipping or aircraft. It's all possible with hydrogen, but will the energy companies let it happen? Nup, look at how our coal industry squealed over carbon-pricing and got Rupert and the servant he placed in government. Corporations have NO concern for anything other than bucks so the pressure has to come from us. Unfortunately all of us on not on the same page, with many unable/unwilling to see CO2 as any issue at all, running interference for the energy companies that harness them.

Toyota is very bold in its endeavour and I wish it well. Just a pity it's not being done here in Oz
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 6:15:07 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
Luciferase, in the UK they have started building the Electric Highway
which has charging points at all the service centres.
The chargers can be operated by a card or making a phone call.
They have 30 minute 80% chargers, which gives time for a cup of tea.

Certainly not as fast as just filling with petrol but people using
them report it to be satisfactory.

On the European continent they are not as advanced, but they have started.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 23 July 2014 10:47:08 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
We have a Minister for Environment, which covers part of the issue of climate change, but we do not have a Ministry for Energy, and nor do we have a Minister Science. However as we do have Minister for Sport maybe when we find we don’t have a way to power our transport we can all peddle furiously.

That sticks me as pretty silly.
Posted by warmair, Thursday, 24 July 2014 1:17:35 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
30 minute fill-up times seem problematic. Powerpak change-over might be a part of the future, but battery weight would make that an issue. And what about the outback

Hydrogen storage in alloys will revolutionize hydrogen use. It is the only transportable fuel other than hydrocarbons (petrol diesel LPG). Safe "tankers" carrying H2 in alloy substrates will deliver to "hydrogen station" storage in alloys which empty into trucks/cars/machinery with alloy storage, ready for use in fuel cells.
How 'bout alloy "jerry-cans" too, for those embarrassing moments!

Producing H2 and electricity with nuclear energy seems a good pathway to me, with solar augmentation and eventual solar take-over if/when that technology advances and expands beyond its current limitations
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 24 July 2014 2:10:22 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
eg. http://hydrexia.com/applications/
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 24 July 2014 2:29:55 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
Can one of the expert scientists explain why Brisbane on Tuesday night had a cold front driven from the southeast an electrical and thunderstorm while experiencing an upper level high coming from the west in the middle of a winter with record low surface temps throughout the region.

I'd love to see that explained as a result of global warming.
.
Lol but I expect l'll be waiting a long time or totally ignored as there is no possible explanation if the climate is warming..
Posted by imajulianutter, Thursday, 24 July 2014 3:23:09 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
Geez, IMJN, you've just debunked the AGW hypothesis with one fell-post! I look forward to your forthcoming paper on the subject.

And dear ol' LL with, "Australia, being the first nation to get rid of the carbon tax, is a world leader." Leader?!! Australia needs a climate policy that is informed and genuine, and a government pro-active about it.

What a waste of money will be "direct action" if, in fact, a dollar is ever actually spent. More tax must be raised to find the money for it, which will go down like a lead balloon.
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 24 July 2014 3:53:38 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
imajulianutter, it is very easy to answer your question. On Tuesday night:

Brisbane experienced weather.

Just in case you missed it, here it is again:

Brisbane experienced weather.

Global warming tells us that the average temperature of the Earth has increased. It does not predict that Brisbane will not have any cold nights. Weather does not equal climate, no matter how much you want to conflate the two.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 24 July 2014 4:18:59 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
Luciferase, I do not think battery change over was a weight problem.
The system was adopted by Renault and seemed OK. It did need a large
capital expenditure however for the battery station.

Blade Industries when they were in Sydney and had to deliver a car to
Melbourne had a small trailer with extra batteries and a petrol generator.
Quite effective I was told. Quite small from memory, about 5ft x 3ft wide.

Hydrogen has one unsurmountable problem.
You cannot park them in underground car parks.
Bus depots where they have been used on an experimental basis have
had to have their roofs redesigned with special exhaust systems.

There is always a catch 22, but the cost of converting underground
car parks would stop that until the majority of cars used hydrogen.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 24 July 2014 5:00:03 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
Bazz, mate. Please don't wish trailers on us. One of the ladies in my family just might be able to park a car in a parallel parking space, but back a trailer, you've got to be kidding. Why do you think retailers have parking areas, with drive in, back out bays. Without them ladies just don't shop there.

Then it would be little trailer, impossible to see out the back of the car. Even I could not back my fathers VW Kombi camper van, with a tinny behind, until I lashed a broom upright to the outboard, so I could see where the thing was. It is very hard to reverse a trailer you can't see.

Surely we have enough trouble on the road, without turning trailer towing ladies lose on them.

Please let us just convert to gas, if petrol runs out, at least until I'm no longer driving.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 24 July 2014 5:31:27 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
Hasbeen, I think you are pulling my chain.
His business was converting new Diawa cars to electric.
When he sold one in Melbourne that was how he got the car there.
Don't know how he got the trailer back.
He did a very nice neat conversion job.
He moved the business to Melbourne as he sold more cars there.

Don't worry, petrol won't run out, your pension might just not run to buying it.

BTW, saw the display shop setup in Pennant Hills to explain the North
Connex tunnels to the plebs.
Asked the question, did they take into account what the price of fuel
might be after it is finished and the effect on the traffic count.
Surprise surprise, they didn't !

Coming up another motorway for the receivers.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 24 July 2014 10:46:04 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
"Hydrogen has one unsurmountable problem.
You cannot park them in underground car parks"

Alloy substrate storage is even safer than high pressure storage. A rethink on the above will occur.

Anyway, bottom line, unless H2 is produced by nuclear or solar energy, what's the environmental point of any of it, and that goes for electric vehicles too, IMO. Burning coal or hydrocarbons or reacting these with steam to form hydrogen ultimately ends up putting the same amount of CO2 into the air.

On current technology, home energy could rest on solar energy for both immediate electrical needs and electrolysing water with the excess electricity, producing hydrogen that can be safely alloy-stored ready for fuel-cells after sundown. Alternatively this could be done at the grid level. What incentive exists without a carbon price to get this going and with coal-subsidies in place?

I still believe, however, that the biggest kick-along needed is nuclear.
Posted by Luciferase, Thursday, 24 July 2014 10:57:37 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
How can we have a climate policy that is informed and genuine, Lucifer? The electorate has succumbed to the AGW fraud, which is why Abbott has the direct action policy.
It is baseless because it acknowledges that global warming is caused by CO2, while we know that for the last 17 years there has been no global warming despite the increase in the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere over that period.
Action must be taken to demonstrate to all that there is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. Our climate policy should be to expose the AGW fraud, and bring the perpetrators to account. The carbon tax was fraud based, as Gillard well knew, and direct action has no purpose but to satisfy those duped by the AGW fraud. The electric car should go back to being the car of the future.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 24 July 2014 11:20:02 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
But agro

The weather we experienced could not have happened if the oceans had warmed.

But then again it might have if the surface temps on the land had been substantially lower than those recorded in winters over the past .... years or it could have been a southeast trough driven cold front contacting an approaching east moving upper level high.

And none of those conditions could have happened if, as you and your scientists mates, claim the globe is warming.

Your simplistic it's the weather, it's the weather is monty-pythonesque. Climate is determined by weather. Lol.
Posted by imajulianutter, Friday, 25 July 2014 11:05:02 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
imajulianutter, the conditions Brisbane experienced on Tuesday night are perfectly possible with a warming ocean. It is called variability and it is known to be a massive influence on weather.

It is only those who have no understanding of the causes of weather who would make such a claim as you made.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 25 July 2014 6:32:31 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
Many on onlineopinion argue that anthropogenic climate change is not happening.
Don suggests that no policy is needed in relation to climate change; how would Miami be without planning for the future (ie policy)?
When there are storms allied to high tides, waters travel up culverts in lower lying areas of Miami; apart from, crashing over foreshores. Sea levels are rising.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 26 July 2014 11:47:52 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
Where on earth do you get this garbage ant, some less than honest academic, looking for grant money no doubt.

In Port Arthur, & Sydney harbor, convict engraved tide marks are still as relevant today, as the day they were chiseled in the rock.

Satellite measurements do show some very minor rise in some areas, which could be subsidence depending on interpretation.

Perhaps Miami is subsiding like much of Florida, after too much extraction of ground water. May be the Florida authorities should be spending some time studying in Holland, rather than pinning some forlorn hope that robbing everyone of their energy requirements will turn back the sea. Hell even King Canute could do that.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 26 July 2014 12:18:16 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
Hasbeen, there have been film clips in relation to flooding of Miami and
the capital works being completed. The Guardian has also written about it.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 26 July 2014 1:45:43 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
Science is ignored by ant. I will remind her again of what Professor Robert Carter said five years ago:
“ the hard reality is that after twenty years of intensive research effort, and great expenditure, no convincing empirical evidence exists that the human effect on climate (which is undeniable locally) adds up to a measurable global signal.
Rather, it seems that the human global signal is small and lies submerged deeply within the noise and variability of the natural climate system.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/4/a-new-policy-direction-for-climate-change
Quadrant April 2009.
Nothing has changed since then. The human effect is trivial and not measurable. Anyone asserting AGW is ignorant or dishonest.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 26 July 2014 10:00:41 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
Ant if it was in the Guardian, you know it is garbage.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 26 July 2014 10:49:00 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
But Argo

The weather condition experienced has not happened in Brisbane before in winter and the great east coast current which brings the warmer water from the coral sea, which is also cooling, to the region is cooler and not as broad as it was. Warming ocean is one of your mantras which doesn't fit the facts ... As usual with you warmest terrorists.

You make me laugh with your fundamental 'variability'. Do you know what that means in a meteorological terms?

Explain it to us all. Lol.
Posted by imajulianutter, Sunday, 27 July 2014 10:12:29 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
Ant ask agro he'll tell you it is ' variability'.

Lolololol
Posted by imajulianutter, Sunday, 27 July 2014 10:14:14 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
http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_2_2_9t.htm

Try this for size ant and agro. It is a lesson aimed at year nine students. Should be simple enough.

In the example used they used 100+ temps days in summer and averages. For balance and a real understanding of variability and the difficulty in predicting climate change, I would have also looked at cold days in winter and then looked at averages for both hot and cold days before I made any assumption and attempted any modelling.

That that would make prediction g warming impossible, hey?
Posted by imajulianutter, Sunday, 27 July 2014 10:29:40 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
imajulianutter, fabulous lesson.

"It is very important to keep in mind that this is temperature data for one location only. If we had picked different years or even months to use as examples, we would likely see even different results. For example, during the same time period the global average yearly temperature has warmed, but at this location, for the month of July, the average temperature has cooled. This seemingly contradictory example illustrates the effect of your sample over time and space in determining climate trends."

So weather on one winter's Tuesday night in Brisbane is just weather. It tells us nothing about the climate in Brisbane. It also tells us nothing about the global climate.
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 27 July 2014 12:41:04 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
Argo
Wrong it tells us something if the event has never been recorded before and the meteorologicak conditions contributing to it at the time and the region had not occurred either. It was in thst sense an extrene weather event and one which would be impossible if the conditions for warming had been present.

You really do need to reassess your belief in global warming. This is actual evidence that cannot be scientifically refuted.
Posted by imajulianutter, Sunday, 27 July 2014 1:17:10 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, imajulianutter you would obviously argue that the extreme heat weather events that have been seen over most of the world in the past decade are impossible, because it hasn't been warming?

It is a stupid argument. Extreme weather events will occur from time to time due to fluctuations in climate. when the climate is warmer extreme highs are more likely and extreme lows are less likely, but they are not impossible.

This is a point that year 9 lesson you linked to made.
Posted by Agronomist, Sunday, 27 July 2014 2:06:39 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
Come on Agronomist, you have to get your TV & radio off the ABC, then look at some of the latest peer reviewed papers.

There has been a decrease in all extreme weather phenomena in the last 2 decades, except for a great increase in ice.

Less cyclones, less extreme heat, less floods, & less damage to human habitation.

There has been a huge increase in bitterly cold winters, but that could be merely weather. Of course the ship of fools showed us that even summer ice is increasing. It also highlighted what idiots many "climate scientists" really are.

The only place there has been an increase in temperatures is in computers, where they torture data in so many ways, adding non existent heat to perfectly flat to declining temperatures.

Only a fool, or someone with an agenda could suggest warming is going on with all the evidence otherwise.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 27 July 2014 2:52:20 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
"Australia will be the laughing stock of the world!" Sorry, but this claim by an ALP person is simply wrong. My wife and I have just returned from 5 months in Europe - 22,400km of driving through 20 countries - and Australia just does not rate on the world scene and why should it? Italy so far this year has seen 80,000 illegal immigrants arrive on its shores from north Africa, 3000 of whom died in the attempt to reach Europe. Greece has 20%+ adult unemployment and 40%+ youth unemployment. The French economy isn't doing much better and it has its own immigrant issues. Australia's climate change policy or lack thereof simply doesn't exist in the European consciousness. So Don's question - why does Australia need a climate policy? - is valid and needs to be addressed on its merits.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 28 July 2014 11:24:51 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
A decrease in extreme weather Hasbeen? That must be on another planet to this one. Clearly this didn’t happen http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a001-summer-heatwave-2013.shtml

“The last seven months have been exceptional in terms of heat records”

Or this? http://climatecommission.angrygoats.net/wp-content/uploads/Final-temperature-records2.jpg

Sea ice extent http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ shows Arctic ice at 1.54 million sq km below the long term average and Antarctic sea ice extent at 1.37 million sq km above the long term average. No evidence of a great increase in ice there.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 28 July 2014 11:37:22 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
agro

you really are descending into the ridiculous now. Time to give it a bone mate.
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 28 July 2014 7:13:55 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
There has been anomalous weather patterns around the globe for 2014.

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,323.400.html
Posted by ant, Monday, 28 July 2014 7:29:07 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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_floods#1950s

The number and severity of extreme flood events has been rising since the 1950s with the last two decades particularly bad.
Posted by warmair, Monday, 28 July 2014 9:01:50 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
Scientist Roger Pielke, in his evidence to the Senate recently said there has been no increase in the events and some evidence of a decline:
“Pielke, however, notes that U.S. floods have not increased in “frequency or intensity” since 1950 and economic losses from floods have dropped by 75 percent as a percentage of GDP since 1940. Tornado frequency, intensity, and normalized damages have also not increased since 1950, and Pielke even notes that there is some evidence that this has declined.
Pielke noted in his testimony that droughts have been shorter, less frequent, and have covered a smaller portion of the U.S over the last century. Globally, there has been very little change in the last 60 years, he said.
“The absolute costs of disasters will increase significantly in coming years due to greater wealth and populations in locations exposed to extremes,” Pielke added. “Consequent, disasters will continue to be an important focus of policy, irrespective of the exact future course of climate change.””

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/18/scientist-tells-senators-global-warming-not-causing-extreme-weather/#ixzz38lJoSwLt

Agro refers us to the BOM, already caught out this year in a blatant lie about what it alleged was a “hottest day on record”. Like any fraud backer, it is dishonest
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 28 July 2014 9:49:28 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
Good one Leo,

<<Agro refers us to the BOM, already caught out this year in a blatant lie about what it alleged was a “hottest day on record”. Like any fraud backer, it is dishonest>>

I picked-up on that also, It's funny how warmists are happy to latch on to short time frames when they appear to bolster their case.

Agro ought to hand in his scientific credientials!
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 7:38:28 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
Leo, you continue to use the words "fraud" and "dishonesty" very carelessly.
Leo, Pielke is a political scientist, he is neither an economist,nor a climate scientist.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/03/nate_silver_climate_change_denial_it_s_time_to_dump_fivethirtyeight_s_roger.html

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/19/3416369/538-climate-article/

Here is a project where real science is being completed, Leo; it is in the process of extending the work already completed by Shakhova and Semiletov in the winter of 2014. The project is obtaining much objective data, not just opinion.

http://a4rglobalmethanetracking.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/major-methane-releases-at-laptev.html

Be worried if they continue to find menthane flares.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 9:09:41 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
Ant
To clarify
Roger A. Pielke senior is a climate scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke
From Leo’s point of view he would claim Pielke Senior is a fraud.
Quote Pielke Senior
“I have been asked if I consider if the human addition of CO2 is a first order climate forcing. The answer, of course, as I have consistently emphasized in my research papers and presentations, and on my weblog, is a categorical YES.”

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/is-the-human-input-of-co2-a-first-order-climate-forcing/

Incidentally he also believes that humans are the cause of most of the heating, over the last contrary, but he lays the blame on a range of factors, and attributes no more than 28% to CO2.


Roger A. Pielke Junior is a political scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke_(Jr)

I can not establish which of them it was who gave evidence to the US senate. Which ever of them said it, it is misleading because floods have increased in severity world wide, so has the number of heat waves and storm intensity
Posted by warmair, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 12:02:12 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
LL cites Roger Pielke to demonstarte that there has been no impact from CC and of course by inference, no global warming. But he/she omits all of the rebuttals to this of which there are dozens.

Start with this if anyone reading this OLO piece is interested: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-p-abraham-phd/roger-pielke-climate-science_b_5038272.html

LL won't as he/she is paid to peddle misinformation and seed this site with jargon and denier rhetoric.

what is frustrating is that so many other contributors are presumably "doing it for themselves" and yet these posters will go to the doctor or hospital or fly in an aeroplane based on their confidence in the scientific process and yet choose to ignore the same process on AGW.
Posted by Peter King, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 12:14:35 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
Peter King, besides his proven dishonesty in backing the fraud of AGW puts forward a baseless lie about me. I am not paid to tell the truth about the AGW fraud. I tell it because of my disdain for dishonesty.

No one who backs the fraud has come up with any science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
How about you, Peter, have you anything to back your assertions, or do you join the others, on this thread, with dishonesty the sole basis for your fraud-backing?
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 1:24:59 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
Arrant nonsense again from Leo; empirically based data is being collected constantly by observation, by measurement, and satellite data. There is an International Scientific team measuring the state of methane in the Arctic (Laptev Sea) right now. Leo, can only offer an opinion from a layman's point of view which does not do the slightest amount of damage to climate scientists.
By constantly saying something is the case (fraud) is meaningless without any kind of proof, Leo has never provided any proof.

http://a4rglobalmethanetracking.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/major-methane-releases-at-laptev.html
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 3:18:15 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 the one backing AGW, so the onus of proof is in you, ant to provide evidence. This is where I usually say that you cannot be as stupid as you pretend to be, but I think I have to consider that may be too stupid to understand your position. You assert that human emissions affect climate, and have no basis to justify your assertion, then ask for proof from me that you are wrong. You cannot prove that you are right, so your assertion is dismissed on that basis. Why do you refer constantly to methane? You seem to think it has something to do with the topic of human effect on climate.It has no bearing on it.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 29 July 2014 9:43:37 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
Leo, if you are not a scientist it is a nonsense to say whether the science is right or wrong. Deniers simply do not have access to the data available; nor would many understand much of the data.
To have any kind of legitimate denier opinion that counts, one needs to have some understanding about what is being denied.

Leo, you would no doubt have a negative opinion about this statement taken randomly; "...Looking at the Euro, GFS ensembles, ukmet, and Euro ensembles the Laptev(Eastern side) is in for a world of pain."
But, do you know what it actually means?

There are dogs you see occasionally that only have three legs (due to accidents); does that mean that anybody who says dogs have four legs are creating fraud. That is, the logic of what you say.
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 9:19:54 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
You seem to be incapable of expressing rational thought, ant. Should you take a break, and stop displaying your condition.Perhaps it is the frustration of having no science to justify your fraud-backing.

Peter King seems to have belatedly realised that he is better to say nothing, than to demonstrate, any further, his confused state.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 10:25:58 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
There is no "onus of proof"...science does not work that way as LL well knows.

Science makes a proposition and then attempts to disprove it which is why the Watts, Carters and other professional "deniers" have no sway amongst the global scientific community. The onus is on them to disprove that increases in thermal energy in the oceans, rising water and ice melts is caused by other factors.

LL writes on all these blogs in a professional manner, using the "denier" industry tactics that were inherited and very effective for the tobacco industry last century. They attempt to confect an argument that implies there is debate about the science. There is no debate amongst genuine scientists other than how quickly the symptoms will escalate and what quantum of change will occur. When that is ineffective they then resort to claims of fraud and dishonesty amongst the scientific community but again with no logical explanation to substantiate the claims; they hope that amongst the "noise" this creates that the public will befooled.
Posted by Peter King, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 10:47:11 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 am not sure I agree with ANT on the question as to whether a layman can understand the science. It does require not require a very high level of science knowledge to understand.
Simply the sun is the original source of heat at the surface. The sun’s heat for the most part passes unimpeded through the atmosphere and transfers that heat to the surface. The heat raises the surface temperature, which in turn causes it to radiate heat. The radiated heat is of longer wavelengths and is absorbed in part by water vapour, co2, methane and a number of other greenhouse gases. This slows down the rate at which the atmosphere close to the ground cools, as the escape route for the heat is restricted. This is simply an observation, it does not require proof. Any fool should then be able to work out that if you add more GHGs you will further reduce the ability of the surface to cool.
Posted by warmair, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 11:17:47 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
Peter King, the situation is that ant asserted her support for the proposition of AGW, and was asked for a scientific basis for her support. This places the onus on her to supply the scientific basis upon which she relies. Her position may be referred to as bearing the onus of proof. The fact that you are aware of other circumstances where the phrase “onus of proof” is used which has nothing to do with the discussion is irrelevant, and merely shows your lack of comprehension, something which you have evidenced from your first post.

You say:” There is no "onus of proof"...science does not work that way”. Who said it did? I was dealing with the orderly conduct of a conversation or debate.
She has no science to support her position, just as you have none, so you attempt to muddy the waters with irrelevant nonsense.

How about an honest answer, Peter? The science shows that the effect of human emissions on climate is trivial, and does not have the significance necessary to justify it being scientifically noticed.

There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 1:59:39 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
Leo Says
"There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate"

The statement is wrong not matter how often it is repeated.

http://www.science.org.au/sites/default/files/user-content/resources/file/climatechange2010_1.pdf

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

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/rapid.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
Posted by warmair, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 5:40:15 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
Leo, you say "You seem to be incapable of expressing rational thought, ant."
You either do not understand analogies, or you are lying when you say that you do not understand them. My analogy about three legged dogs was very clear.

Warmair, Leo writes constantly about fraud being perpetrated; he has not shown any proof.
Leo, and his denier mates write off NASA as providing fraudulent information. The very people who have sent men to the moon, exploratory robots to Mars, and a craft heading off beyond Pluto.
NASA has a number of satellites circling the earth; yet, Leo and other deniers say NASA is wrong.
When Leo suggests fraud is taking place I think we can expect more than just wrong opinion from him.

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications/LskyetalRecursiveFury4UWA.pdf
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 8:39:15 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
Leo, might like to explain how these huge craters are of no concern, created by the breakdown of permafrost; methane is being released (measured) at high worrying rates. Has fraud been committed here, Leo?

http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/are-siberias-methane-blowholes-the-first-warning-sign-of-unstoppable-climate-change/story-fnjwvztl-1227006746397

The International Science expedition currently on the icebreaker Oden operating in the Laptev sea has also been measuring methane release at worrying levels.
Anybody who writes off these examples as fraud obviously has their brain rammed up their fundamental orifice.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 31 July 2014 8:46:08 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 no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate"

The statement is wrong not matter how often it is repeated. “

What a ridiculous statement for you to make, warmair, just after you put up all those links, none of which disclose science demonstrating any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. You are as irrelevant as ant, who has no science, either, so fills her posts with pointless rubbish.

There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. The IPCC when it made the stupid statement some years ago, that it was "99% certain" promised scientific disclosure of a "hotspot" which would be the "signature" of human caused warming. All these years later there is no "hotspot" shown, no "signature", and no apology for a baseless, stupid statement, just another stupid statement that it is "94% certain, and no science to justify their nonsense.
See where dishonesty takes you, warmair?
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 31 July 2014 10:45:34 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
Just repeating statements Leo does not make them true.
Likewise, it is easy to make allegations of dishonesty and fraud. Please provide evidence where climate scientists have been found guilty of providing fraudulent information. Your problem though is that fraud has not been discovered in relation to climate change scientists. There is a psychological process of projection going on. Lewandowsky et al are right on the money, previously referenced.
You might like to comment on the methane blow holes also, Leo.
But, remember where your brain is positioned if you try and deny the worry about methane blowholes. Your brain needs to be firmly rammed up your fundamental orifice if you try and discount that worrying find.

As stated earlier NASA has been exploring space, NASA believes in climate science; yet, you claim to know better

The science is well founded; comments made by a non scientists make no difference to the viability of science.
Posted by ant, Friday, 1 August 2014 7:53:03 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
Quote Leo
“There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. The IPCC when it made the stupid statement some years ago, that it was "99% certain" promised scientific disclosure of a "hotspot" which would be the "signature" of human caused warming. All these years later there is no "hotspot" shown, no "signature", and no apology for a baseless, stupid statement, just another stupid statement that it is "94% certain, and no science to justify their nonsense.”

The so called tropical hotspot has nothing much to do with GHGs. It is simply an expected result from increased surface temperatures, as we can be reasonably sure surface temperatures have risen the point is irrelevant, anyway the data is just is not good enough to come to any conclusion.

I don’t why sceptics keep bringing it up unless they are trying to show climate models are wrong, in which case a better example would be that the arctic is warming a good deal faster than the models predict.

The most convincing evidence that CO2 and GHGs are the cause of global climate change over the 50 years or so is the cooling of the stratosphere while the surface warms, which is a specific prediction of climate change theory.

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.htm
Posted by warmair, Friday, 1 August 2014 3:03:40 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
warmair says:“The so called tropical hotspot has nothing much to do with GHGs. It is simply an expected result from increased surface temperatures, “ I never said it did, warmair. That was the IPCC.

IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predicted the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. No such “hotspot” exists. The computer models were wrong. What a surprise.

The article to which ant refers sets out specious reasoning to disagree with the IPCC statement “ “ that there is "medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change."

There is, of course, no basis except conjecture, to link global warming to extreme weather events, just wishful thinking of fraud=backers, and certainly no science.
The “proof” ant seeks exists is the failure to produce any science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. It is ludicrous to deny my statement, and refer to more baseless statements of human caused warming, as if it were science. This is what warmair did, with his plethora of links..

When the science shows that the human effect is negligible, how does it make any sense to say it is “highly likely” that global warming is human caused? This is the nonsense that warmair links to, when he baselessly denies my statement of the science.
Nature produces 97% of CO2, while humans produce 3%. Is it any wonder that the human effect is negligible?
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 1 August 2014 4:02:15 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 Leo
“Nature produces 97% of CO2, while humans produce 3%. Is it any wonder that the human effect is negligible?”

The above I understand is based on these figures, the atmosphere contains 720 billion tonnes of co2, and annual human emissions of 22 billion tonnes of CO2. (by the way we are now up 36 billion tonnes annually)

Surely Leo you can understand if you keep adding 3% annually to your bank balance over time it will grow substantially.

The facts are the level of co2 in the air in 1850 was 280 ppm, today it is close to 400 ppm. That is an increase of over 40%. All of which is attributed to human emissions.
Posted by warmair, Friday, 1 August 2014 5:21:31 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
Leo, like I stated before, you know better than NASA.
NASA does attribute CO2 with climate change.
Experiments have been complete to show the relationship between light and CO2. It is possible to show the relationship in very simple experiments in the classroom of any school.
Your not a scientist Leo, but you have the gall to say what comprises science and what does not.
Like stated before the is projection going on.
Posted by ant, Friday, 1 August 2014 5:50:05 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 a dishonest assertion. warmair, you know very well that Nature will continue to produce CO2 and you want to pretend that human emissions will add 3% a year to a quantity of CO2 which will remain static except for the addition of human emissions. I say you are dishonest, because you would have to be as stupid as ant, to believe what you are saying. Come back when you have some science. You have contributed enough nonsense. Goodbye, warmair.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 1 August 2014 6:16:32 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
Leo
I have no idea why you should wish to deny facts. Co2 levels have risen by over 40% since 1850. If you want dispute some aspect of climate science, there are plenty of topics you could discuss, but disputing simple observations is ridiculous.
Posted by warmair, Friday, 1 August 2014 9:14:54 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 might like to have a look at the Siberian Times ,Leo. Temperatures are up; but weather patterns are extremely variable. These out of kilter weather patterns are happening around the globe.

http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/others/features/weather-goes-crazy-in-siberia-with-record-high-temperatures-then-july-snow/

Usually methane is measured in parts per billion; but, methane sitting in the base of a blowout in Siberia; previously referenced, has been measured at 9.6% of the air at the base of one of the craters.

http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-siberian-crater-attributed-to-methane-1.15649

To just write this off as fraud Leo, you need your brain firmly placed up your fundamental orifice.
Scientists are in the process of trying to work out the mechanism for these blow outs.

"But Plekhanov and his team believe that it is linked to the abnormally hot Yamal summers of 2012 and 2013, which were warmer than usual by an average of about 5°C." from Nature article above.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 2 August 2014 9:29:43 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 nonsense about CO2 has been obvious since the inception of the climate fraud, with the assertion that CO2 was the cause of global warming, when it has been obvious that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere followed global warming, and did not precede it. The recent increase in CO2 should have caused warming, if the fraud-backers were right, instead of which we have seen a halt in warming, which the climate liars refer to as a “pause”.
Murray Salby makes sense of it all, with his finding that the temperature governs the CO2 content of the atmosphere. The CO2 content, as has now been abundantly observed, does not govern the temperature. The climate frauds have no science to counter this, but members of the fraud-promoting Climate Commission are part of Macquarie University, which has treated Salby disgracefully, for daring to produce valid science, exposing the climate fraud, and the ridiculous demonizing of CO2.
Any chance of you acknowledging the science, warmair? No chance of ant, she does not even understand the question, or she would not continue to post irrelevant nonsense,
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 3 August 2014 5:28:00 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
Leo, once again you claim fraud has taken place without any evidence.
You know better than NASA what is happening in relation to CO2, and scientists from a number of august scientific bodies believe the same in relation to the impact of CO2.
Please give the names of scientists who have been found guilty of fraud in relation to their climate change science.

Your suggestion that fraud has taken place would need to have charges laid against the Royal Society of Science and the apex science group of pretty well every nation ( NASA lists 197 scientific bodies who support the notion of anthropogenic climate change).
Objective persons only make charges of fraud when those charges have been proven beyond doubt.

Please show how we should not be concerned about the methane blow holes, Leo.
In pre-industrial times methane measured around 700 ppb; methane levels have been recorded at around 1950 ppb lately; yet, in one of the blow holes it has been recorded at 9.6% of the air volume.
Posted by ant, Monday, 4 August 2014 8:19:25 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
Leo
Acknowledging the science.

The first question that science has to answer to answer is this
Why is the average surface global temperature about 15 Deg C, but when if we look down on the earth from space and measure the global temperature with an infrared thermometer does it read as minus 18 deg C?

Basic science tells us that everything that is above absolute zero is emitting radiation, which in turn causes the object to cool. It also tells us that if you double the temperature the object emits 16 times as much radiation

The question above is very interesting, because it indicates something in the atmosphere is severally restricting the flow of radiation to space, and that something accounts for the 33 deg C difference we observe between the surface temperature, and the global temperature observed from space. We know from experiments that water Co2 and other GHGs absorb certain types of radiation, which accounts for the large chunk of the radiation that one would expect should escape to space, but never makes it. It should be obvious that adding more CO2 and GHGs will further restrict outgoing radiation and thus raise surface temperatures.
Posted by warmair, Monday, 4 August 2014 9:56:02 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
We are dealing with any justification you may have for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, warmair, and I do not see the relevance of what you say to your assertion of AGW.

It follows from Salby’s findings that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, and not from human emissions. What you assert to be obvious is not at all obvious, particularly as the current halt in warming shows it not to be so.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 4 August 2014 5:42:21 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
Leo, you are evading the questions that I have asked.
Please name climate scientists who have been convicted in relation to fraudulent claims about climate science.
Please provide a rational for the methane blowholes.
Remember that for three years running record temperatures were recorded in the area where the blow holes have been found in Siberia.

Leo, how is it that you as a layperson know that climate scientists are wrong about CO2 being a climate change agent. Remember experiments have been conducted showing the relationship between CO2 and warming.
The relationship has been known for over a hundred years.
Posted by ant, Monday, 4 August 2014 6:14:51 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
I informed you earlier, ant, that I will not respond to off-topic irrelevant questions, but that is all that you post. I supply science to justify my assertions, you do not. Find someone who wants to respond to your low level nonsense, because I will not. You have no science to support your assertions, and ignore any science presented to enlighten you.
Read the Climategate emails if you have any doubt about the dishonesty of the IPCC climate scientists, and their fraudulent methods.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 4 August 2014 9:50:21 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
Leo, you continually write that fraud has been completed by climate scientists; yet, when asked about that you say it is off topic. You say it is off topic as you know that your allegation is not able to be upheld. Leo, please name climate scientists who have had proven charges of fraud against their name.
There have been a number of reviews of the so called “Climategate” emails, no fraud has been found.
The IPCC has not been found to have produced fraudulent information.
So, provide the names of scientists who have committed fraud in the science they provide
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 9:12:46 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
You are a waste of time ,ant. As I explained, there is no science to support the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, so any assertion that global warming is human caused is fraudulent. It is not complicated, it does not require a court case. If you disagree, then, as I have told you many times, all that you have to do is give a reference to the science which shows otherwise. You have failed to do this, and have directed us to other baseless statements that the warming is human caused. You post endless irrelevance by way of questions and material, because you have nothing of any consequence to raise. I find it hard to believe that you are as stupid as you appear to be. You are a humbug who ignores science and reason.
I never said anyone committed fraud. I said that to assert that global warming was human caused is a fraudulent statement. Will you tell us, ant, why you think it is not?
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 11:21:47 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
You once again make assertions Leo without backing them up.
Your not a scientist Leo, and quite grandiose in what you say is acceptable science.
Playing with semantics does not make what you stated acceptable, or true.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 2:01:15 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
As I said, ant, I note that you ignore science, but I will post Professor Robert Carter’s pertinent comment on AGW again. You have seen it before:
“" our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."
Bob Carter http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 3:39:10 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
Leo, there have been several major papers written by climate scientists in 2014. Your Carter does not stand up to NOAA, NASA or the Royal Society of Science.The American NCA document was also significant, having been referenced by 3,000 papers. Some of those papers have multiple authors. But, you know better than all those scientists, Leo.
Posted by ant, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 5:03:38 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
Leo
In reference to professor Salby, It is easy to show that the increase in CO2 levels is not due to natural causes and demonstrate he is wrong.

1 The Increase in CO2 equals human emissions plus natural emissions less natural uptake.
or
CO2' = Ea + En – Un

2 So it must also be true that natural emissions less natural uptake equals the increase in CO2 level less human emissions.
Or
En - Un = CO2' – Ea

Unfortunately we do not know the values of natural emissions or the rate of natural uptake with any certainty, but we do have a good estimate for how much CO2 humans have produced and the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Or
CO2' – Ea= a positive know value

We know from observation that the increase in CO2 less human emissions is a positive value. Therefore natural emissions less natural uptake is also positive and natural uptake must be greater than natural emissions.
Or
CO2' – Ea= positive then En – Un must also be positive.
And En>Un

Therefore it is certain that humans are responsible for all the increase in CO2 emissions since we have had reliable measurements of the CO2 levels (1958)

Further to the above we also know that the level of CO2 in the ocean has increased and also plants take up more co2 when it is available. So the claim that nature is responsible for the increase in CO2 levels is not credible to begin with.
Posted by warmair, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 5:24:36 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
Correction to last post
last equation should read

We know from observation that the increase in CO2 less human emissions is a negative value. Therefore natural emissions less natural uptake is also negative and natural uptake must be greater than natural emissions.

Or
CO2' – Ea= negative then En – Un must also be negative.
And Un>En (natural uptake greater than natural emissions)
Posted by warmair, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 6:01:37 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. All

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