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 > Climate Change and what we should do about it > Comments

Climate Change and what we should do about it : Comments

By Guy Hallowes, published 4/2/2021

Surely it is not a big stretch to apply these principles (i e listening to the scientists) in dealing with Climate Change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
The biggest ever single cause of emissions would have to be Black Summer caused by lack of mild burning. A huge peak in charcoal deposition across 70,000 years of record occurred when Europeans disrupted Aboriginal burning. When foresters reinstated landscape burning after the mid 20th century it declined against the trend of warming temperatures. Greens put and end to that and gave us what we have today.
Posted by Little, Thursday, 4 February 2021 9:08:50 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
Climate policies and actions need to be justified on the basis of the economic impacts of global warming, not on the amount, rate or causes of projected temperature changes. If global warming is beneficial, as empirical evidence indicates may be the case, policies and actions to reduce global warming are not justified.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 4 February 2021 9:23:19 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
Don't pull the "Don't be fooled by the mild summer" stunt. The fact is that the climate is not doing what you scare mongers said it would. You don't even know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide, so stop the lecturing.

As for being a "world leader", we are now a world leader in high electricity prices, thanks to the likes of you.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 4 February 2021 9:29:26 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
To pre-empt Alan B.'s accustomed THORIUM pitch :)

CHINA may be WORLD LEADER in Thorium reactors for ELECTRICAL POWER!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#China

"In March 2014, with [CHINA'S] reliance on coal-fired power

having become a major cause of their current "smog crisis,"

[CHINA] reduced [CHINA's] original goal of creating a working reactor from 25 years down to 10.

"In the past, the [CHINESE] government was interested in nuclear power because of the energy shortage. Now they are more interested because of smog," said Professor Li Zhong, a scientist working on the project. "This is definitely a race," he added.

In early 2012, it was reported that China, using components produced by the West and Russia, planned to build two prototype thorium MSRs by 2015, and had budgeted the project at $400 million and requiring 400 workers." China also finalized an agreement with a Canadian nuclear technology company to develop improved CANDU reactors using thorium and uranium as a fuel.

Currently two reactors are under construction in [CHINA'S] Gobi desert, with completion expected in 2020.

CHINA expects to put thorium reactors into commercial use by 2030."
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 4 February 2021 9:45:59 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
Guy Hallowes,
There is no need to compensate mines and power stations closing down. The evidence of their environmental effects has been clear for over thirty years.

We needn't specify how trucks will be powered; just that they will get their energy from sustainable non fossil sources.

> The only way of actually creating, implementing and maintaining a coherent policy to
> combat Climate Change in Australia is by having a bi-partisan approach to the issue.
I'm not so sure about that. The USA appears to be starting to do so another way - perhaps we could too?

_____________________________________________________________________________

Little,
>The biggest ever single cause of emissions would have to be Black Summer caused by lack of mild burning.
...Except it wasn't just caused by lack of mild burning. For example it also extended into areas that were normally too wet to burn. And even where there was a lack of mild burning, that was often because hot weather in the preceding months had reduced the opportunity for mild burning.

I think in future there will need to be a lot more mechanical removal of undergrowth.

> A huge peak in charcoal deposition across 70,000 years of record occurred when
>Europeans disrupted Aboriginal burning.

So more carbon was stored in the soil at that time? Are you sure? That's not what I'd expect!

>When foresters reinstated landscape burning after the mid 20th century it declined against the
>trend of warming temperatures. Greens put and end to that and gave us what we have today.

I don't ever recall seeing any Green campaigns against such burning. Do you have any evidence?
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 4 February 2021 10:17:00 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
Climate Change and what we should do about it
Guy hallowes,
Let COVID-19 do an unhindered run ! That'll cleanse our atmosphere ! Birth control would be an even better option !
Posted by individual, Thursday, 4 February 2021 10:18:42 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
Aidan
Aborigines burnt forests in summer
scrub growth now makes it too wet to burn anywhere unless it's hot and dry
mulch burns too that's why 500 homes were destroyed in Canberra 2003
it's illegal to burn frequently and mildly enough in NSW to keep bush healthy and safe because Nature Conservation Council is on the Bushfire Coordinating Committee.
Posted by Little, Thursday, 4 February 2021 10:38:35 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
The author fails to understand that, while scientists are correctly telling us we have a problem which we must solve, it is not scientists but economists and politicians who must make the decisions about the specific actions we should take to solve the problem. Climate scientists have no expertise in government/politics, managing the national economy, addressing social issues arising from unemployment, responding to higher energy prices which impact more severely on the poor, etc, so the author is wrong to blandly state that we should decarbonise our economy in ways that will lead to non-scientific impacts.
As a scientist, I believe the simplest, most cost effective, natural and safest response we can take to address the climate change challenges is to implement iron fertilisation of the oceans to remove from the atmosphere at least as much CO2 as we are putting into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, land clearing, etc. The science behind iron fertilisation of the oceans is well understood but is not what the activists prefer as the major climate solution because it does not achieve the societal change they want to meet their political goals.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Thursday, 4 February 2021 11:08:38 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
Solar panels? No, they create mountains of toxic waste in manufacture and again with disposal in landfill!

Solar thermal? Ever seen what happens to birds who fly through that concentrated beam of sunlight? Their feathers are badly burned and the results often terminal!

Wind farms reportedly kill around a million birds a year? And need to turn for around thirty years to offset the carbon created in their manufacture?

Germany shut down its nuclear energy and put up huge wind and solar farms! Outcome? Increased carbon emissions and much more expensive electricity!

Conclusion? The only viable solution to climate change is the nuclear option! And that option has to be MSR thorium! Check out the vids I've shared on FB and the views of many credentialed scientists and thinking environmentalists!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 4 February 2021 11:42:14 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
It's too late to fix the problem.

How many times do I have to tell you people?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Thursday, 4 February 2021 11:57:08 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
The moment you get some clown telling you renewables will replace fossil fuels in generating the electricity we need, you know that either they are too damn lazy to do the research, or too damn stupid to understand what they are reading if they tried.

There is no way on earth that the current renewables can replace our current electricity requirements. Add the fact those pushing renewables as viable replacement, are the same people who want to add the requirement to recharge 50 million electric cars to our electricity requirement, & it becomes even more stupid.

These people are either dills, gravy train riders, or have a hidden agenda they aren't prepared to enunciate to the public.

Just not worth bothering with.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 4 February 2021 12:01:43 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
The only reduction that'll pull up GW is a reduction in human population. As soon as humanity's demands reduce, so will emission !
Posted by individual, Thursday, 4 February 2021 12:18:25 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
Cool burning of a hectare of grass, puts as much carbon into the atmosphere as 6,000 cars.

Intensive cell grazing with goats is available year-round 24/7! See the numerous vids I've shared on FB and the views of other first nation people.

Burning now is just a diabolically dumb invitation for weed infestation often accompanied by a lot of (stone age) (broken record) cultural noise!

Moreover, anthropologists are not climate scientists! Neither are geologists! Sorry, Little. Should be in politics mate. They don't listen to the science either? Just their carved in stone, ideological views?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 4 February 2021 12:22:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B. Best if you read The Biggest Estate on Earth by Bill Gammage or Fire and Hearth by Sylvia Hallam if you really want to understand the place of fire in the Australian environment.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Thursday, 4 February 2021 12:29:58 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
Mr O. That is just your (the sky will fall) opinion and not one shared by the informed Science community! Things we can do.

Stop now today pumping ever-increasing CO2 into the planet's atmosphere! Instead, start to vacuum it out to combine it with hydrogen to make all our plastics and fertilisers.

Use the nuclear cycle to make copious endless hydrogen and use that as the primary fuel source for electric vehicles!

Stop chopping down or burning forests! Want building products? Try bamboo and all manner of recycled material.

All that prevents us recycling everything, is the current cost of the energy input!

Pete. I believe the Chinese are putting thorium reactors in their warships and subs. They pulled the video almost as soon as it was posted?

It seems they have solved they have solved the alleged corrosion problem with carbon? Metal heated to the colour of straw, then plunged into a(n) (waste) oil bath?

Tritium is sorted by using a nitrate salt as the heat exchange material? Tritium combining chemically with the nitrate?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 4 February 2021 12:59:24 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
Alan B
You removed any doubt about your incredibility by quoting ridiculous numbers about grass and cars. When you burn properly grass grows better and takes up more carbon dioxide. Cars don't emit carbon dioxide when they're parked on the showroom floor. Only when they're built and when they're running.
By the way, goats breathe and fart.
Posted by Little, Thursday, 4 February 2021 1:13:47 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
Bernie. The place you refer to, was past tense! I prefer on the ground living evidence-based examples that show just how misinformed the advocates of burning were! Where humans and herds have coexisted? The grasslands are denser and healthier.

And satellite imagery shows the desertification of vast swathes continues apace, thanks to current, burn baby burn, agricultural practice.

Endlessly sustainable farming practice, that stores/sequesters carbon, may well reverse climate change if universally adopted.

If it can't be grazed or harvested? It needs to be ploughed back in! Very short term cell grazing allows the alleged fuel to be converted to manure and mulch! And soil much more pervious to rainfall! Add dung battles to complete the transformation!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 4 February 2021 1:45:42 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
Alan B. Please at least read Bill Gammage's book. It will inform you through dozens of examples of how Aboriginal burning produced the grasslands you keep referring to on which kangaroos abounded. We have removed Aboriginal people from national parks and state forests, stopping their use of fire and hence stopping the maintenance of grasslands. But, as Little points out, when you burn grass, it regrows, removing CO2 from the atmosphere in exactly the same amounts as the CO2 emitted by the fire. The same happens with forests and logging.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Thursday, 4 February 2021 1:53:29 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 Alan B,

You claimed: "Cool burning of a hectare of grass, puts as much carbon into the atmosphere as 6,000 cars."

What a crock.

Native grasses per hectare run at about 50 tonnes of biomass. About half would get burnt in a fire. Cars run at under 5 tonne of CO2 per year.
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle#:~:text=typical%20passenger%20vehicle%3F-,A%20typical%20passenger%20vehicle%20emits%20about%204.6%20metric%20tons%20of,around%2011%2C500%20miles%20per%20year.

So we are talking about 10 cars not 6,000.

I invite you to either retract such a ridiculous claim or provide evidence to substantiate it.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 4 February 2021 2:43:02 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
steele redux
not to mention that burning the grass maintains the health and improves the growth of eucalypts and grass so more carbon is taken up
Posted by Little, Thursday, 4 February 2021 2:50:03 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
Well same old, same old story.
What if the scientists made a major blunder and blamed the rise in
temperature to the industrial revolution's release of co2 ?
What if it is just another cycle in that millennium old cycle which
has just reached a peak in temperature, right on time ?

I am not in a position to prove it either way but there are those
that have proved it.
Ever heard of the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm period and
the Maunder minimum. A 600 to 1000 year cycle. It has been staring us
in the face all this time.
Look up these scientists;

Henrik Svenmark, Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi Of Tuku Uni in Helsinki.
Prof. Masayuki Hyodo and his team Yusuke Ueno, Tianshui Yang and Shigehiro Katoh from Kobe University.

It is not a popular thesis and if you let anyone know you are reading
these authors you will come under attack. I have been accused by my
mad green daughter in law as being insane, oh well she should talk !
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 4 February 2021 2:59:28 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
Cool burning of a hectare of grass, puts as much carbon into the atmosphere as 6,000 cars.
Alan B,
Are you saying natural burning is more polluting than industrial burn fumes ?
Posted by individual, Thursday, 4 February 2021 4:49:05 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
BAZZ. The moment you make the claim that the sun is the major cause of global temperature change you come up against the ‘orthodoxy’. These people are the true ‘climate deniers’. Don’t be sucked into the rabbit hole trying to elucidate these loopy folk caught in a never ending loop of catastrophic visions. The insanity of blaming CO2 for current weather/climate is inexplicable. However, hang in there mate.
Posted by Pete S, Friday, 5 February 2021 11:19:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pete S,

Are you a scientist?

I know Bazz and all the other AGW deniers on The Forum are not scientists, so I assume you are not a scientist as well.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 6 February 2021 6:26:07 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
Pete S, oh yes I am aware that the "conventional" belief has become
so ingrained that it has become religion like.
The next time I see smoke coming out of a power station stack I will
know they have elected a green pope.
Do their Cardinals wear green or red capes and hats ?
Give them time they will buy unused churches, ha !

Quite funny really, just thinking about my facetious comment I just
made they really do have their Pope, bishops etc even their mad monks !
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 6 February 2021 5:19:31 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
The Author States - Consequences of not doing enough
The consequences of not doing enough will be catastrophic for both Australia and the World at large.

An increase in droughts, heatwaves, devastating bushfires and Cyclones. This is already happening.
A rise in sea levels, which has and will result in coastal erosion. For example many Sydney suburbs will be prone to flooding, including Sydney Airport and suburbs surrounding Paramatta river . All Australian Capital cities will be similarly affected.
The Pacific Island States will be devastated. Many will become unliveable, resulting in large numbers of people feeling they have no option but to migrate to Australia.
The world at large.
Similar trends to Australia.
Australia has an opportunity to become a world leader in renewable technology. Instead we seem to be clinging onto what is rapidly becoming dated technology.

I ask the author - could you please provide evidence as to to claims in article.

Or what evidence (do you have) as to above claims that not other Aussie persons researching "global climate" can agree to?
Posted by SAINTS, Wednesday, 10 February 2021 9:11:58 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
Errr Saints I think some of your assertions are untrue.
One in particular I note is about Island states.
Look up Coastal Institute Auckland University.
They did a survey of Pacific Islands;
65% were larger.
20% were unchanged.
The rest were smaller.

Cheers
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 10 February 2021 9:35:00 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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