If you want to know the truth about the Global Warming theory, check out Tallbloke's Talkshop 16/10 2020. You will find the science in the most lay person friendly effort I have seen.

If you want to continue to believe the unbelievable, or have an interest in promoting the scam, don't go near it.

I blame Donald Trump.

Phil,

What is it that the scientific community would need to show you that would convince you that large-scale anthropogenic global warming is real and that human activity is responsible for the current greenhouse effect?

If you cannot answer this question in an educated manner then you do not have a clue what you are just full of hot air."

My comment was corrupted so I will reload it.

Phil,

What is it that the scientific community would need to show you that would convince you that large-scale anthropogenic global warming is real and that human activity is responsible for the current greenhouse effect?

If you cannot answer this question in an educated manner then you do not have a clue what you are talking about and as they would say in the greenhouse gas game "You are just full of hot air."

There's only one truth to Global Warming & that is, that no matter what we do now we can't change this point of evolution because we are not inclined to arrest population growth !

pseudo-individual,

Are you speaking for Phil?

If you are you can tell him from me that he is wrong about that.

Mr O only my friends are entitled to address me by my christian name, & you are not one of them. I am Hasbeen to you.

Obviously by your post you have not read the science in the reference I posted.

When you can show evidence of having done so, by refuting it if you don't believe it, I will talk to you again.

Obviously it is you who need to become familiar with the science, to straighten out your university humanities brain washing. Do try to free your self, & prove you actually do have a brain capable of absorbing facts.

I think this is the link Hasbeen to the sites articles.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/

Interesting comment by Angstrom on the saturation of the CO2 infrared band.

I've heard that the Methane absorption band is wider than the CO2 one and so is a worse Greenhouse Gas. (Refrigeration gases are even worse)

Hasbeen,

Out of respect I will refrain from calling you Phil.

How about Mr. West? That's respectful. Or even better how about Flight Squadron Leader West?

I am up on the science around anthropogenic global warming. It is you who is turning a blind eye to the reality that humankind is responsible for the increasing warming of the planet over the past 250 years, being coincident with modernity.

The question still stands: What is it that the scientific community would need to show you that would convince you that large-scale anthropogenic global warming is real and that human activity is responsible for the current greenhouse effect?

Not being able to answer that question demonstrates that you anthropogenic global warming denialists do not have any knowledge of the subject.

individual,

You are right. The whole thing is a yawn; but people with limited interests and not much up top need something to keep banging on about long after there is nothing left to say. It's same with the China virus. Everything that can be said has been said - time after time, after time. Boring.

ttbn,

When it comes to the study of climate change you are the odd one out.

gw is now a religion for the self righteous to preach to the masses. I mean look at the underprivileged Hollywood deviants, the pope, Prince Charles, Greta, Flannery, Gore etc etc. Anyone of them flying more kilometres in a year than 99% of the population but still the audacity to preach their garbage. Apologies the Greta whose fellow sailors had to fly back to Europe after her stunts. The Chinese with their hundreds of new coal plants just laughing at the stupidity of the West. No wonder China loves Biden so much. Oh for 10 Trumps.

runner,

I saw somewhere the other day that China is now putting more carbon into the atmosphere than the rest of the world put together.

Which means that there is now no way of combating the effects of anthropogenic global warming.

The Chinese can now determine the future of humankind and the rest of the world cannot do anything about it.

I hold ignorant people like you responsible for letting it come to this.

'I hold ignorant people like you responsible for letting it come to this.'

Just when you thought arts degrees could not make you so stupid.

Hasbeen, I could not find the specific article you might have been
referring to but interesting site anyway.
I had not heard of it previously.
Now that everyone knows that we cannot afford just wind and solar the
greens and pollies will have to come into line on power generation.
The misunderstanding of the co2 sensitivity for earths temperature
meant that too much blame was put on CO2.
Seems that the co2 rise in the last century only caused 0.1 c rise.
The rest was caused by the cycles that have been with us for millennia.
A warm peak around 1000 BC, the Roman warming, when wine was cultivated
in Scotland by Roman troops, the Medieval Warming when the Vikings
settled Greenland, the Maunder Minimum when the Thames froze every
year and the present warming which is believed to have peaked about 1995.
So we can now look forward to a cooling which will reach a low about
300 to 500 years time. Because of the multiple cycles the period varies.
It is all about cycles within cycles. Sun, Sunspots, & Milanovitch.
For those who want to look further start with Hendrik Svenmark and
then go further.
So predictable.

Bazz,

I don't believe anything you have to say about global warming and climate change simply because you have never studied these things.

It takes a lot of knowledge and expertise to understand and work these things out and you just don't have what it takes.

Bazz, you outsmart Mr O every time, he feels threatened as evidenced by his last post. He cannot refute the claims, as his experience in Climate science is zero, so tries to demean the messenger.

pseudo-Josephus,

I can tell that Bazz has never studied global warming and climate change.

To someone with my background it is obvious.

Maybe he can fool the likes of you but he can't pull the wool over my eyes.

What he preaches is pseudo-science which is all he knows because he has never studied science and therefore does not have the knowledge and experience needed to work out how the world works.

He's a dreamer like Squadron Leader West (aka Hasbeen nee Phil) who is off with the fairies imagining himself as an ace fighter pilot always coming in to land on an imaginary aircraft carrier after completing a series of dog fights with the Red Baron.

What they do exhibit is undeniably a case of dementia, which is pretty much what you seem to suffer from as well.

Mr 0,
> I saw somewhere the other day that China is now putting more carbon
> into the atmosphere than the rest of the world put together.
I think you misunderstood what you saw.

If you look at the twenty highest emission countries and the rest of the world, you'll find that the biggest emitter (China) emits more CO2 than the rest of the world, but nowhere near as much as the other nineteen.

And yes, Australia is in the top twenty.

BTW your vapid criticism of Bazz comes across as intellectual snobbery. If you can't point out the actual flaws in his reasoning or assumptions, it's best to keep quiet.
_______________________________________________________________________________

individual,
Population growth is largely a re herring. Stoping population growth would be insufficient to stop global warming. But if we value the environment, we can solve the problem even with a much higher population.

_______________________________________________________________________________

runner,
gw deniaism is now a religion for the deluded to preach to the masses. And why would the Chinese be laughing with uneconomic coal plants they built for political reasons?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
Now that wind and solar have become cheaper than fossil fuels, it's disappointing that you're still spreading the lie that we can't afford them.

Meanwhile the temperature keeps getting hotter, completely destroying the credibility of your hypothesis that it's all down to cycles.

The article in question is at http://rclutz.wordpress.com/2020/05/25/pick-your-a-team-arrhenius-or-angstrom/ but it is rather incoherent, with overuse of obscure abbreviations and unsupported assertions.

Aidan,

I said: "I saw somewhere the other day that China is now putting more carbon into the atmosphere than the rest of the world put together." Savvy? "I saw somewhere ......"

If pseudo-scientists like Bazz can't handle criticism then stop spreading bullsh!t about things they have never studied and hence have no knowledge and experience about.

All they do is create false ideas about the seriousness of global warming and climate change and give people false hope that everything will be alright if they fail to act.

What Bazz, Hasbeen, mhaze, and a long list of other pseudo-scientists are selling is a cancer for life on Earth.

And this is because none of them have ever studied science but think they know more that the scientists do.

If there was a University of Bullsh!t these guys would all be Professors of Bullsh!t.

Mr 0,
Yes you saw somewhere. Now it could be that what you saw was an outright lie, but I think it's more likely you just misunderstood what "rest of the world" meant.

>If pseudo-scientists like Bazz can't handle criticism...
There's more than one kind of criticism. If you'd pointed out (as I did) some examples of why what he said was wrong, there'd be no problem. But instead you resorted to ad hominems. You used your presumptive and rather dubious criticism of him as an excuse for your failure to provide any objective criticism of what he said.

>All they do is create false ideas about the seriousness of global warming and climate
>change and give people false hope that everything will be alright if they fail to act.
True. But when instead of proper criticism you disparage their ability to hold valid opinions, it damages your credibility not theirs.

Aidan,

I refuse to engage in discourse with people who have nothing to offer to a discussion but lies.

Would I discuss the Holocaust with Holocaust deniers? NO.

So I also refuse to discuss global warming and climate change with the deniers.

God gave me X number of heartbeats and I'm not wasting any of them on people who don't know what they are talking about.

A spade is a spade is a spade is a shovel.

Aiden, re affordability of solar and wind.
It is the duplication of turbines and solar panels that makes them unaffordable.
I agree that probably a wind turbine in a wind that enables it to
generate maximum output is producing the cheapest electricity ever.
However figures I have seen suggest that any one turbine will produce
35% of its yearly nameplate KW/Hrs. Some recent designs are said to reach 50%.
That being so it means that you have to install two more turbines in
two other locations.
I have seen argument that that duplication factor is as high as 12.
Seems too high to me but the figures of existing wind farms should
give reasonable estimates. However to find alternative wind systems
far enough away to be active when the first is calm is the trick.
That is the crux of my argument, although it gets worse for other
reasons, but please explain where I have that wrong.

M 0,
>I refuse to engage in discourse with people who have nothing to offer to a discussion but lies.
Firstly, is such a refusal wise? These are lies they've fallen for rather than lies they've made up!
Secondly, if that's how you feel, you shouldn't've responded to Bazz at all.

> God gave me X number of heartbeats
Humans are not limited in the number of heartbeats they have. Heart failure is never the result of running out of beats!

> and I'm not wasting any of them on people who don't know what they are talking about.
If that's your concern, it's not just this thread you shouldn't waste your time on, but this entire board.

> A spade is a spade is a spade is a shovel.
Their functions overlap, but a spade is primarily a cutting tool, whereas a shovel is primarily a transferring tool.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
The affordability of wind and solar power are based on estimates of what they'll actually generate, not their nameplate capacity. Where storage is needed, that too is taken into account.

The "truth" about global warming is that the people who took away our freedoms under the cover of the China virus are going to do the same thing in the name of climate change. Open your eyes. Take notice of the goings on in the ghastly, unelected World Economic Forum, founded by an 82 year old German fascist. Listen to politicians who have publicly said, without the slightest embarrassment, that now they have got people accepting the loss of their freedoms during the China virus, they should be able to get away with the same thing to 'fix' climate change. Listen to HRH Prince Wackjob spruiking the "opportunity" to reset everything without interfering with his privileged existence. Just bloody listen instead of putting out homespun opinions.

Mr O tells us he was an engineer, but obviously either does not have enough math to understand the Global Warming hypothesis, or knows his whole value system will be destroyed if he actually reads the truth.

Poor old Aidan actually believes all the bill with his acceptance of rubbish like "wind is cheaper than fossil fuels".

Prey tell when the first wind farm is built with out subsidy, & when it supplies it's own back up. Then I'll be all for wind. Meanwhile he is all just hot air.

runner,
gw deniaism is now a religion for the deluded to preach to the masses. And why would the Chinese be laughing with uneconomic coal plants they built for political reasons?
'

It is obvious Aiden that you are learning from Greta.

Aidan,

You know who we need on OLO Forum?

A philosopher.

I put my trust in philosophers to steer us in the right direction. They have a knack for doing that sort of stuff.

Speaking of royal wackjobs, next in line to the throne, William, has started bleating about climate change. Given Charles, William and Ginger (not a royal anyway) and their dragging of the good name of the Monarchy and our admirable Queen into grubby politics, with two of them cavorting with commoners, the UK might drop them after the Her Majesty's passing before we do.

ttbn,
> The "truth" about global warming is that the people who took away our freedoms under
> the cover of the China virus are going to do the same thing in the name of climate change.r
Conjecture does not equate to truth. And seeing as how governments failed to take effective action on climate change at all, the claim that they'd take away our freedoms to achieve that objective are highly illogical. That you take those claims seriously shows far more about your prejudices than anything anyone else plans to do!

> Take notice of the goings on in the ghastly, unelected World Economic Forum,
This forum is also unelected. Do you regard it as ghastly too?

> founded by an 82 year old German fascist.
Though its founder is now 82, he founded it nearly half a century ago. And on what evidence do you base the claim that he is, or ever was, a fascist?

__________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
As an engineer myself, I can tell you that understanding global warming doesn't require a great deal of mathematical knowledge or ability. You just need to understand the key processes and have a sense of how outputs relate to inputs.

Considering your apparent failure to grasp the above, I'm wondering: do you lack that sense?

And yes, I believe the evidence. But again, you seem to fail to understand that, at least for the existing power generation companies, doing nothing is the most lucrative option as it pushes up electricity prices. Without subsidies, no power stations at all are likely to be built for general supply, though mines would continue to invest in wind turbines, solar panels and batteries.

_________________________________________________________________________________

runner,
Greta hasn't had much TV coverage lately, and I haven't actively sought her, so I doubt I am learning from her. It's far more likely that your bias has made false assumptions seem obvious.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Mr 0

When you refuse to debate what the deniers are saying, i doubt you could gain anything by trying to engage them in a philosophical discussion!

Aidan,

I find global warming/climate change deniers as abhorrent as Holocaust deniers.

These sickos depend on having knowledgeable people engage with them in discussions because it affords them an opportunity to spread their web of lies and deceit.

They try to win arguments by trickery.

I think the best thing to do is just ignore them, but without turning a blind eye to them and be ready to name and shame them at every opportunity.

The world will be a much better place when there is no room in it for their kind.

Dear Hasbeen,

Windfarms built without subsidy?

Goodness me you are shamelessly hypocritical aren't you. Virtually all of the coal fired power stations were built almost exclusively with public funds. Sure some have been sold off increasing electricity prices but you name a single one that was commissioned without subsidies.

As to Global Warming Truth you wouldn't know about truth if it hit you smack in the face. For you to be inviting us to read anything by Roger Tattersall is proof enough. The bloke is a whack job of the highest order and is among the few of diehard deniers who seem to be circling their wagons into smaller and smaller circles. Don't you have anyone the least bit more credible?

I see SR has now joined Mr O in demeaning the messenger.

I'm waiting 50 years when we have exhausted all lithium and aluminium and copper, and the third World is still burning wood and dung to cook and keep warm. The only alternative will be coal and gas, of which we have plenty of.

There is a small high speed wind turbine on a vineyard just up the road from us worked for 2o + years now scrap metal. They have since connected to the grid. One of the companies near us had Solar installed ten years ago, now outdated and needing to be replaced. It may be good for 25 years but after that all is scrap.

pseudo-Josephus,

If you like burning coal so much then why don't you migrate to China where they'll even let you eat it for breakfast if you want.

Fellow Climate Change denier Squadron Leader West (aka Hasbeen nee Phil) will even fly you there in his make believe fighter jet.

Don't be late! UP UP AND AWAY.

Mr 0,
Holocaust deniers are relatively easy to deal with; the Nazis kept meticulous records.
But if, instead of doing so, you ignored their arguments and instead resorted to ad hominems, other readers would conclude that the deniers are smarter and/or better informed than you. Intellectual snobbery isn't naming and shaming your opponents, it's shaming yourself by calling your opponents names!

__________________________________________________________________________________

Josephus,
Resources don't run out in the way you think they do. Aluminium in particular is extremely abundant, and there will always be alternatives.

Why do you expect the third world to still be burning wood and dung to cook and keep warm in 50 years? They're moving away from that now, so that statement looks particularly stupid... though far less so than your next claim:
> The only alternative will be coal and gas,
Have you forgotten the alternative of electricity?

Also, are you unaware that wood and dung can be used to make gas, and that the process is far more environmentally friendly than burning them directly?

Most of the soar panels are likely to last longer than 25 years, though those in high value situations are likely to be cascaded to lower value situations when better ones are available. And it's hardly surprising that a wind turbine from the 20th century has now been put to be recycled!

Aiden, and what is their Gwatt/Hrs output divided by the number of
turbines/NPrating per year ?
Unless you take into account the number of turbines involved and their
rating you are avoiding the cost of maintenance and installation.
Basically what is needed is the amount of energy generated per year
compared to what would be generated if the wind never stopped blowing at top speed !
You are also avoiding the necessary duplication of sites and the more
capable grid with which to interconnect them.

The lifetime of a turbine also seems to be under a cloud as many in
the US seem to be not making 20 years.
Also Germany is scrapping turbines and selling them to Australia amoungst others. Any idea why ?

SR you are too smart to actually believe the crap you post. What is your angle?

I know most of the other warmists are too dumb to see the truth if it hit them in the face, but you know the facts, so are simply a con man.

Hasbeen,
Understanding the effects of the laws of physics does not make anyone dumb, however much you try to spin it otherwise.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz, You appear to be implying that baseload power is what we need. But that s utterly ridiculous! Demand fluctuates and supply has to match it. The capacity factor for wind in SA is 34.7%. I think the figure for fossil fuelled power is much lower, though I haven't checked it recently.

Al the costs of wind turbines are taken into account. The claim that wind turbines get free transmission lines built to wherever they are is false, and will always be false.

Germany is investing very heavily in wind turbines, so I suppose it would make sense for them to replace the smaller ones with bigger ones, and sell the old ones for further use where appropriate.

Aiden said;
The capacity factor for wind in SA is 34.7%.
So from where does the other 65.3% come ?
Not from more wind turbines in Sth Aus.
Has to be from another two wind systems some distance away.
They cost money don't they ?

Dear Hasbeen,

Still waiting for you to tell me about a single coal fired power station which has been built in this country without subsidies.

As to me being a con man you are still riding on the enthusiasm with which the denier crowd greeted the so called hiatus.

That has been blown out of the water during the intervening years and the rest of us look at these figures then look to you lot with growing pity.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Bazz,
Sorry, I'd thought you understood what capacity factor meant!

Capacity factor is just a ratio. 100% of capacity factor is nothing to do with our requirements; it's merely the maximum output.

Wind generated 70.4% of our requirements last month. Another 4.7% came from utility solar, and 14.8% from rooftop solar.

Bazz and Aidan,

Nothing I enjoy more than hearing a couple of guys talking about engineering stuff like you two do.

It's about as exciting as watching wet paint dry.

Aiden, so your 37.4% is the average over a period of time of the rated output ? Y/N ?
That was my understanding and it is not related to the demand at any time.
It is just a integrated measure of output of that equipment.
So if an energy system has to deliver the peak load of that equipment,
then it has to spread the turbines around at least three wind systems.
But what if two wind systems are in calm ? And the sun has set ?
So, in reality is 3 a big enough multiplication ?
You raised the matter of batteries, but they have to be recharged.
Can you use the same three turbines ?
Would the time of low demand needed to recharge be available ?
Is six times a big enough multiplication of turbines enough ?
The argument you put suggests that no multiplication is needed.
That is my argument that the cost of the system is unaffordable.
Then the grid has to be more capable of sending all power everywhere.
How large has the grid got to be to get enough different wind systems ?

I'm still waiting for you SR to refute the rock solid science I quoted in my first post.

Try staying on the subject if you want to earn any respect around here old boy, not your airy fairy twaddle.

Hasbeen,

When you quote from rather dubious sources you're
in no position to talk about anything "airy-fairy".
You look silly.

Foxy,

If you want to put a global warming/climate change denier to the test just ask what evidence he needs to see to demonstrate that it is real.

If he can't answer that convincingly then you know he is full of hot air.

Me thinks Squadron Leader West (aka Hasbeen nee Phil) plays with the joy stick a bit too much when he's in the cockpit of his imaginary fighter plane.

And I bet he's had more than a few rough landings too.

Mr O,

Hasbeen and I go a way back on this forum. He's a top
bloke most of the time.

A balanced debate;
http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-polar-ice-caps-are-melting/

Dear Hasbeen,

Lol.

There were two articles posted on that date by past university web content editor. Which one are you touting is "rock solid science"?

You are still refusing to name a single Australian coal fired power station which was built without any public subsidy. Now we are stumping up billions in a 'gas led recovery' yet not a peep from you.

Dear Josephus,

"I went into this kind of hoping I would discover that the data was overstated or wrong. That is not my takeaway, although I reserve room to be proved wrong (after-all data showing that the ice-caps are melting isn’t the same as proving everything related to the climate change and ice cap melt debate).

My takeaway is that climate skeptics essentially know global warming is a problem to some extent, but many don’t think it’s “that bad”, and are using confusion to hinder what could very well be oppressive regulation. On the same note, it’s likely that those who want more regulation have their own agenda."

So both sides recognising that Global Warming is a problem is pretty one sided in my book. That is not what Hasbeen thinks.

Bazz,
>So if an energy system has to deliver the peak load of that equipment,
What exactly do you mean here? Are you trying to contrive a staggering coincidence where the demand is equal to the nameplate capacity?
Or are you referring to transmission capacity?

(The latter would seem a more sensible basis for a discussion, but the rest of your post seems to imply the former).

Bazz and Aidan,

B-O-R-I-N-G

Oh dear, one turbine is is installed with a certain capacity X.
To get that capacity the wind has to blow at 25knots (as I understand it)
However that only happens 37.4% of the time.
Therefore two more turbines have to be installed to get the design output.
However there is no point installing them alongside the first one,
because if the wind drops it drops for all three.
So the other two have to be installed in two other sites.
Hopefully, there will be enough wind on all three sites to get X output.
However that would never happen 100% of the time.
I think that is a reasonable assumption.
X output availability at any particular time is the requirement
said by to be available by renewable advocates.

To obtain the needed real world output at any unspecified time will
need more than three turbines on three sites.
Why ? Because two sites could be in a dead calm and the other light wind.
So what is the multiplication factor if three is not enough ?
So, to get more output you will need more turbines and sites.
There will be a number that will do it but it might need an area
larger than Australia to always find enough wind.

Bazz,
> Therefore two more turbines have to be installed to get the design output.

FALSE!

The nameplate capacity is NOT the design output objective.
You are falsely assigning great significance to the nameplate capacity (a rather trivial statistic) and because of that you're obsessing over problems that don't exist!

________________________________________________________________________________

Mr 0,
Now you know how I feel about the waffle that you keep posting!

To Mr Opinion,

With respect did you look at the website that Hasbeen referred to?

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/

In the first article apparently the famous scientist "Angstrom"- who gives his name to the unit of measurement "The Angstrom" 10^-10 metres- said that the CO2 infrared band is saturated- this would surely imply that no more energy could be absorbed by CO2 than currently- and hence presumably CO2 can do no more damage to the Earth than it has already done. This to me is interesting- perhaps not complete. There are other substances that can absorb EM Energy other than CO2.

I share your mistrust of the energy companies not because they are necessarily untrustworthy but because they have a vested interest.

To calculate the complete absorption of energy from the Sun by the Earth from my understanding would require obtaining Time Sequence EM Spectral Signatures- Black Body Radiation by satellite and calculating the heat energy of the Earth over time from this. But perhaps at lower temperatures the Black Body curve gives a less precise indication of temperature.

Aiden said;
The nameplate capacity is NOT the design output objective.

Then what is the design objective ?
To build a system that provides half the needed load, a quarter ?
Why build a system that cannot supply maximum demand ?
Just what are you trying to do ?
I have always thought the objective was to provide electricity for
the country, have I got that wrong ?
Have I twigged the real objective !
Is it to reduce the amount of energy that we use by just not making it available ?
Rationing ?

Canem Malum,

I refuse to debate with global warming / climate change deniers.

They are on the same level as Holocaust deniers.

They are a cancer to life on Earth.

Dear Canem Malum,

Also with respect both you, Hasbeen and Tallbloke are furiously barking up the wrong tree.

Here is a short video explaining why. It includes a reference to Angstrom's experiment.

http://youtu.be/we8VXwa83FQ

It is couched in fairly basic terms but if you are still confused and would like a fuller discussion I am happy to have it.

Bazz,
> I have always thought the objective was to provide electricity for the country, have I got that wrong ?
No, you've got that right. But you're the only one who's conflating the amount of electricity provided with the nameplate capacity.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Canem,
Infrared can be absorbed and reemitted by CO2 multiple times.

Aiden, there is no point in continuing, as you cannot seem to be able
to explain the context of what you believe to be required of an
electricity system while taking into account a variable energy source.

Is anyone else here having trouble understanding what I'm saying? Or is it just Bazz?

To Mr Opinion- Generally my view is that talk is required to reach consensus- the alternative step is war- sometimes war is necessary. But I do empathize with your view.

To Steele Redux- Well I often find a good bark is necessary in discipline of dogs. But I'll view your video evidence. Thanks for your offer of explanation as I'm easily confused.

Aiden said- "Infrared can be absorbed and reemitted by CO2 multiple times."
Answer- Yes I envisaged this argument but I felt that the point was the CO2 intensity at the band was equal to the intensity of the Sun at the Earths orbit- hence saturated. But I may have misunderstood. Maybe I need to re-read the article as to the parameters and conclusions.

Come off the raw prawn SR. Do try some straight talking just once.

Government owned power houses were not subsidised, but owned. You do realise there is a difference or don't you?

Retailers forced to take all & any hugely expensive unreliable power from wind or solar is a pretty is a pretty good subsidy from all of us.

Then there is the South Oz interconnector, there only to make it possible for them to have a high dependence on unreliables.

Now they want another projected 2 Billion [sure to be 4 billion in fact], for another interconnector. Sensible power generation doesn't need it, power users don't need it, it is simply wanted to keep their lights on with reliance on crazy unreliable wind & solar.

Next is Snowy 2.0. Absolutely crazy idea, with no chance of paying for even it's running costs, after we have been slugged another projected 2 Billion, [sure to be 4 billion at least], again for infrastructure that is only required to make wind & solar even remotely capable of supplying our needs. We don't need it, coal & gas power don't need it, it's sole purpose is to try the impossible & prop up unreliable wind.

So there's about 8 billion in real life needed to prop up [subsidise], wind & solar

Obviously I have miss judged you, you are as stupid as your posts would suggest.

Bazz,
Something that might help you comprehend things:
In some cases it would be possible to install a higher capacity generator on the wind turbine. This would boost nameplate capacity but reduce capacity factor. It wouldn't make the turbine any less useful, but it wouldn't be much more useful either.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Come of the raw prawn, Hasbeen!
Despite how much you want to equate renewables with unreliables, they're not. 'Tis the coal fired power stations that have proven to be unreliable.

SA has two links to the Victorian grid: the Heywood Interconnect is the main link; it's been there since the early '90s, long before there were any renewables connected to SA's grid, or even any plans for them. The real reason it was built was, of course, to trade electricity. Back then, VIC's was cheaper than SA's most of the time.

There's also the DC Murraylink connector to NW Victoria. The main reason for that was to address the supply shortages SA had around the turn of the millennium. Three other things were done to address these shortages: changing market rules, more gas turbines, and more renewables. The latter has been most effective.

There are still huge fluctuations in power prices, and a direct connection to NSW will alleviate that in both states, and is something that should have been done twenty years ago. Snowy 2.0 is another measure that will address this. It's a very sensible idea, though whether it's cost effective is another matter.

Stop press, like everything to do with unreliable power generation Aidan, the Snowy 2.0 cost is now up to $5.7 Billion, just for the scheme. All up with transmission lines & buying out Victoria it is now at a staggering $15 Billion. No wonder we can't get into our hospitals, we blew the budget on fool green rubbish.

Remember this is a project that is only required to try to make wind & solar, the unreliables into something a little more reliable.

Talk about subsidising wind power, or a special hand out to the con men who run it. Which ever you like, it is a totally unnecessary expenditure only required if we are stupid enough to try to make these crazy expensive unreliable wind & solar systems viable.

And it gets even funnier.

The poms, even with the catastrophe of the German attempt to do wind power right beside them for an example, have gone mad on wind power, or could it be wanting a pat on the head from the con men running the United Nations for being obedient fools.

Well they started shutting coal, gas & nuclear power stations. Even started using US wood chips for gods sake.

Of course their wind unreliables won't keep their lights on, so they have been buying nuclear power from France.

Now with Brexit they want their own fishing grounds back from the EU, for their own use. The French who have been ripping 600,000,000 pounds worth of fish from the Pomy grounds each year, want to stay. The poms have found the French none too careful about protecting fish stocks, so have a couple of good reasons for wanting the French gone.

Now the French are threatening to close down the supply of their nuclear generated power supply, leaving the poms really dependent on their unreliable wind power.

So do the poms give up their fishing grounds, or go cold & dark this coming winter? They don't seem to be able to get much right these days. Come on Boris, what would Churchill do? It certainly wouldn't be kowtow to the French. The poms invented steam power, & made the world a better, richer, healthier place, & now by turning their backs on it, have stuffed themselves.

Anyone who advocates renewables to replace fossil fuels is either an idiot, or really wants to push us peasants back to the dark ages.

Aiden;
In some cases it would be possible to install a higher capacity
generator on the wind turbine.

It would increase the possible maximum o/p .
The annual capacity factor would be the same, same wind.
However that 37.4% would be a bigger 37.4% !
Got it ?

Hasbeen,
Dispachability and reliability are two very different things, and the renewables are reliable no matter how many times you push the lie that they're not. As for the real unreliables, I had not considered the unreliability of NSW's coal fired power stations to be a reason for building Snowy 2.0, but I guess it makes sense - they've been breaking down a lot.

What do you mean about "buying out Victoria"?

Despite their unwise decision to phase out nuclear power, Germany's transition to renewables is far from a catastrophe. Though they had some reliability problems a few years ago, those have all been fixed.

The UK is not trying to phase out nuclear power, though there's a limit to how long the lifespan of their reactors can be extended, and obtaining commercially viable replacements has been problematic. Nor is there a policy of closing gas fired power stations - occasionally old ones close, but new ones open. And though they want to phase them out eventually, new ones open. There's a policy of phasing them out eventually, but it will not be at the expense of reliability.

Britain has been buying nuclear power from France for man decades, due to it being cheap (as the costs of their power stations were inflated away in the 1970s).

Have the French REALLY threatened to stop exporting electricity to the UK? A quick Google search revealed speculation that they could do, but no reports of them actually making that threat.

The cost of global warming, if nothing is done about it, will be in the quadrillions. Fossil fuels have to be replaced, and in most (though not all) cases, renewables can do the job more cheaply than nuclear power.

Bazz,
>It would increase the possible maximum o/p .
Correct. However that would only make a difference in VERY windy conditions.
Most of the time, the output would be the same.
Therefore the capacity factor would be lower.
Got it?

As far as the global warming goes, obviously I do not KNOW what the
truth is and I doubt anyone here does.
All we can do is try to understand what the various groups say is the
cause of the rise in temperature.
The "settled" theory is that it is ALL caused by CO2.
"settled" in the sense that a majority have accepted a CO2 cause.
However it so happens that the temperature rise has occurred at the
same time as a rise could be expected due to a long term well known
cycle whose last peak was known as the Medieval Warming Period around
900AD 1300 AD. Midway between then and now, the late 18th century to
early 19th century was known as the Maunder Minimum.
At that time the climate was colder and the sunspot count was lower
than usual.

As the Maunder Minimum climate temperature increased it coincided
with the increase in CO2 due to industrialisation with the burning of coal.
The length of the cycle appears to be between 600 years and 1000 years.
The current warm peak is believed to have occurred around mid 1990s.

Significant Dates:
Roman Warming 100 BC to 300 AD Grapes grown in Scotland by Romans.
Dark Ages 300AD 800AD
Medieval Warming 800AD 1300AD Vikings settle Greenland.
1400 AD Vikings leave Greenland.
1790 to 1840 Maunder Minimum Thames freezes over every year
1814 Last year London's Ice Festival held on Thames.
1950 to ? Global warming
Next cold period 2600 ?

I understand that all the above will offend the
sensitivities of some people so I can only apologise.
Plenty of info available. Search Turku & Kobe Universities
on the subject Henrik Svenmark for original work regarding Cosmic Rays
and clouds.
The authors have been attacked of course for their suggestion that
CO2 has only caused a rise of 0.1 deg C.
Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi are the Finnish scientists at Turku
University in Helsinki.
Kauppinen was a member of the IPCC.

Aiden said'
Most of the time, the output would be the same.
Therefore the capacity factor would be lower.
Got it?

No, because for the same windspeed the output would be higher
therefore the Capacity Factor would be unchanged.
Bigger turbines, bigger blades.
OK ?

For gods sake Aidan, just try to keep your lights on if connected to nothing but wind & solar power.

The fact that you have to spend tens of billions backing up renewables with coal, gas & some form of incredibly expensive storage system proves they can't do the job. If that is not seen as unreliability in your eyes, you must be totally blind.

Bazz,
Your assumption of a bigger turbine was due to poor comprehension on your part. I'm referring to the effects of a bigger generator on the same size turbine.

Now, as regards global warming:
>The "settled" theory is that it is ALL caused by CO2.
Not exactly.

Firstly, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. But its relative abundance makes it the most significant... apart water vapour, which mainly acts as a feedback mechanism because the amount the atmosphere holds depends mainly on temperature.

Secondly, it is know that there are other factors at work. There are changes in solar radiation and changes in albedo. Changes in solar activity affect cloud formation (which is significant both because of albedo and of water vapour concentration). But the effects are relatively small - they are currently being swamped by the effect of increased CO2.

________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
Are you really so stupid that you don't know the difference between what is currently being done and what can be done?

Aiden, a bigger turbine needs a bigger push, otherwise there is no point to having it.
All energy comes from the blades. You can only get what the blades produce.

What is this: Tradesmen's Corner?

We've got Bazz, Squadron Leader West & Aidan talking nuts & bolts about machines to each other totally oblivious to the fact that not one except them cares about tradies' stuff.

Next thing you they'll be telling each other how to fix fridges and replace an axle.

These engineers .......... don't you just love them though?

Dear Hasbeen,

Don't be idiotic.

Whether a power station is fully paid for by the taxpaying community and it stays in government hands or it is partially paid for and it is in private hands we still subsidise both out of our pockets.

The distinction you are attempting to draw is in name only.

Anyway half your arguments about the effectiveness of various strategies to reduce emissions seem to be based on the premise we have a warming planet. Yet overtly you haven't accepted this fact instead often claiming it is cooling instead.

Could I ask you give even the smallest regard for consistency on this issue. Or perhaps your position has evolved to a degree or two as the case may be.

Bazz,
>Aiden, a bigger turbine needs a bigger push, otherwise there is no point to having it.
And it gets bigger push when it's very windy.

Alternatively you can look at it the other way round: you could use a lower capacity generator with the same size blades; that would give you a higher capacity factor and a lower maximum output.

Do you get it yet? Cost effectiveness is the objective, not meeting some figure for nameplate capacity or capacity factor.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Mr 0,
I'm not a tradesman, I'm a professional engineer.
I don't know, nor do I wish to know, how to fix a fridge or replace an axle.

Aidan,

I regard engineers as tradesmen.

Aiden, there is no resolution if you do not understand that there is
an optimum match for turbine and blades. Perhaps you need to ask
Hasbeen about this I am sure he will know more about that subject
due to his wide experience in the marine field.

At least we have now resolved why we cannot agree.
Good Night !

Mr 0,
What you're that ignorant about what engineers do, this really doesn't surprise me.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
Again you'e basing you post on mistaken assumptions. There is indeed an optimum match... but it's a contextual economic optimum not a physical optimum.

Aidan,

I have a degree in engineering and have worked in the industry for my entire working life so I think that qualifies me to recognise engineers as tradesmen.

I think the community in general recognises engineers as tradesmen.

"Engineer' is a very broad term and should not be restricted to only those tradesmen who have earned a degree in engineering.

My TV repairman is just as much an electronics engineer as a graduate in TV engineer.

And my mechanic is just as much a mechanical engineer as the guy who designed the car.

'Engineer' is a relative term not an absolute term.

I regard myself as a tradesman albeit I have a degree in engineering.

Mr O refrain from talking about your credentials, and prove you have them by demonstrating the science of Wind and solar.

Myself I believe in ocean current and tidal flow power generation, it is more reliable than sun and wind.

pseudo-Josephus,

I only mentioned it because Aidan wrote

"Mr 0,
What you're that ignorant about what engineers do, this really doesn't surprise me."

in response to my reference that engineers are tradesmen.

If he doesn't like it that engineers are tradesmen then tough bananas!

Mr 0,
The fact that you think engineers are tradesmen makes me suspect you are lying about having an engineering degree. Unless maybe you also think doctors and lawyers are tradesmen?

If, as you say, the community in general recognises engineers as tradesmen, it's because the community in general doesn't realise what engineering involves. Unfortunately many people get misled because of the similarity with the word "engine".

Your TV repairman (if he exists) may be a technical engineer (it's far easier to become one of those than a professional engineer) and I suppose you could call him an electronics engineer, but he's not an electronic engineer - that has a specific meaning. As indeed does "mechanical engineer" and that doesn't include your mechanic!

If you don't like it, perhaps you'd care to suggest some alternative terms to distinguish the guy who designed the car from someone who just fixes it?

Aidan,

'engineer' is a broad term that applies to a vast cross section of vocational types.

The reason you refer to yourself as a 'professional engineer' is because you want people to see you as a degree qualified engineer as distinct from the other engineers who don't have engineering degrees.

I have a degree in mechanical engineering. What did you do your degree in?

Mr 0,
>'engineer' is a broad term that applies to a vast cross section of vocational types.
Yes it is. But that doesn't mean your mechanic is an engineer.

>The reason you refer to yourself as a 'professional engineer' is because you want people to see you as a
>degree qualified engineer as distinct from the other engineers who don't have engineering degrees.
True to some extent. But in this case it was aimed at you rather than people in general, as you were unable to distinguish engineers from tradesmen.

>I have a degree in mechanical engineering.
Did you use it? Or did you spend most of your life working as an overqualified technical engineer?

>What did you do your degree in?
Civil engineering.

Aidan,

I've always worked in engineering in a number of roles but mostly design doing calcs and drafting. Primarily building and industrial services eg fans, pumps, pipes, cooling towers, refrigeration, etc.

What area of civil engineering are you in?

We all now know that our dams will never fill again, Professor Flannery said so.

Except maybe sometimes:

http://www.9news.com.au/national/weather-forecast-nsw-heavy-rain-strong-winds-severe-weather-warning/5a53f897-c8b9-4136-b226-5940a18a7e0b

Oops.

Joe

Mr 0,
Transport engineering.

____________________________________________________________

Joe,
Why do you feel the need to spread lies about what Flannery said?

Hi Aidan,

Sorry, isn't this is what he declared, twenty-odd years ago ?

If not, I apologise. Do you know what hev may have said in connection with rainfall and global warming ?

Joe

He said regarding the rain "it may not come".
The implied timeframe was until after the dams were empty.

His opponents had such poor comprehension that they inferred he was saying it WILL NEVER rain again!

Dear loudmouth2,

Perhaps this might help.

http://indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/tim-flannery-did-not-say-australias-dams-would-never-fill-again/

Aidan,

One needs to take into account that those who stand against what Tim Flannery has to say about environmental issues have probably never read any of his work such as 'We The Weathermakers'.

I am into environmental sociology these days and Flannery has had a major influence on my thinking.

Flannery urges us to listen to what the scientific community is telling us about climate change.

He challenges the deniers, asking them to define what evidence they need to see that would convince them that anthropogenic global warming is real. He points out they do not have an answer to this question which demonstrates they do not know what they are talking about.

And most importantly, he asks us if we should take a chance that the scientific community is wrong about global warming and climate change because if we are disregard them we will never be able to undo the damage to our planet and human civilisation.

Aidan,

I sincerely apologise. I honestly thought he declared that the dams around Sydney would never fill again.

Just by the way, historically, during a prolonged cold spell, or an Ice Age, or even the Little Ice Ages over the last millenium, not only has it got colder but drier.

Conversely, it seems, during warming periods, such as around 1200-1000 BC, around the time of Christ, and around 800-1200 AD, it seems that rainfall was much more plentiful. i.e. during global warming, perhaps because there is a prolonged, higher level of evaporation over the oceans, there is higher (and perhaps more catastrophic) rainfall.

So, if anything, the current rate of rainfall conforms to the principles of global warming: increases in precipitation. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, I suppose: over here in SA, we always love when it rains. We might even get more of our rightful share of the Murray-Darling water now.

Joe

Joe,
You are correct that, in general, a warming climate will bring more rain. However there are two reasons why it could have the opposite effect in Australia:
Frstly, it will push the sub tropical high pressure zone further south. This means that southern Australia will get less rain, though the summer rains of northern Australia are likely to extend a bit further south.
Secondly, El Niño events are likely to become both more frequent and more intense. These bring more rain to Chile but less to Australia.

Aidan and pseudo-mouth,

You are both on the right track but how the hydrosphere-atmosphere complex works is still not understood well enough to make accurate predictions.

The El Nino-La Nina system is unpredictable because scientists do not understand how it connects to other things eg the great ocean conveyor belt that circulates water/cold water from the North Sea through the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and into/out of the NE Pacific. If this stops (which it has done) it can throw the northern hemisphere into a cold snap for millennia.

There are plenty of books on this in local libraries. Flannery discusses it and so do writers like Brian Fagan who delves into environmental archaeology just to name a couple.

Getting hotter is it SR?

Ray Garnett¹*, Madhav Khandekar² and Rupinder Kaur³

Abstract: During the grain growing months of May-July, the mean temperature on the Canadian prairies has cooled down by 2ºC in the last 30 years. The cooling appears to be most certainly linked to diminishing solar activity as the Sun approaches a Grand Solar Minimum in the next decade or so. This cooling has led to a reduction in Growing Degree Days (GDDs) and has also impacted the precipitation pattern. The GDDs in conjunction with mean temperature and precipitation are important parameters for the growth of various grains (wheat, barley, canola etc.) on the prairies.

Same in antarctic. Got to read more than global warming propaganda sights to know which way is up old boy.

Squadron Leader West (aka Hasbeen nee Phil),

Tuck in that stomach and stick that chest airman!

Your mission today is over enemy territory.

You need to tell us what evidence the scientific community must show you to make you accept that anthropogenic global warming and its consequential climate change are real.

Dear Hasbeen,

Really mate?

Have you really reached for that lot of climate denying reprobates who couldn't get published in a single reputable journal to save themselves?

Shame on you.

What else do you have?

SteeleRedux,

Squad Leader West (aka Hasbeen) is going to tell us what evidence he would need to see to convince him that the scientific community is correct about AGW and its consequential climate change.

Let's give him all the time in the world.

Because as we all know he cannot come up with an answer.

Watch and see. None of these deniers can offer an answer.

Tim Flannery says it is because they don't know what they are talking about.

It is possible I suppose that one day SR will actually make a statement containing some actual evidence of the ridiculous theory of CO2 caused global warming he pretends to believe. Possible, but highly unlikely, as no one else has ever has ever been able to produce any evidence to support it.

Of course it may be dangerous if he was ever able to do so, as we are all so used to his usual vindictive posts, that many may faint from the shock, & freeze to death while unconscious in his globally warmed theoretical world.

Squad Leader West (aka Hasbeen),

You are absolutely wrong.

There is plenty of evidence for AGW and it consequential climate change.

Which piece of evidence are you looking for?

Ask and you shall receive.

Dear Hasbeen,

Sorry but why was my post factually incorrect?

Here are two of the three at a climate skeptics meeting.

http://whatsupwinnipeg.ca/climate-skeptics-meet-to-discuss-canadian-prairie-climate/

And why are you calling my posts vindictive?

I always try and use the same tone you use back to you therefore there is quite an easy fix if you are going to be a snowflake about it

Mr Opinion

Why are you asking, and what does it matter to you whether other people share your beliefs about the clilmate?

Cumberland,

What people think and do about global warming and climate change interests me because I am an environmental sociologist studying the relationship between humankind and the environment.

Would you deem it alright for historians to ignore Holocaust deniers?

I see global warming / climate change deniers as a cancer to life on Earth.

AGW and its consequential climate change are real and it is destroying the environment that humankind depends for its survival.

Having your shares in coal mining adversely affected by attempts to avert an environmental catastrophe is not a good reason to deny that humans are destroying the environment.

Can you see how you have just instantly descended into nasty aggressive malicious personal argument, on merely being asked what your interest in the subject is?

Questions of climate policy aside, what is the relevance of the topic?

Cumberland,

You just told me:

"Can you see how you have just instantly descended into nasty aggressive malicious personal argument, on merely being asked what your interest in the subject is?"

Reply: It's Zero Tolerance for AGW / climate change deniers.

Cumberland,

If you don't think preventing AGW and its consequential climate change is relevant then just ignore it and keep your fingers crossed that it never affects you.

And let people like me to get on with the job of finding solutions to what could be an extinction event for humankind.

Climate change denialists is a dishonest term, and you know it, since no-one has ever denied that the climate changes. That's not what's in issue.

Stop pretending to care about "humankind". You regard them as a plague, remember?

And stop pretending to know or care about "science". The very fact that you can't even begin to express yourself on the topic without vomiting anger, hatred and misanthropy says it all. Science does not supply value judgments and policy requires them, so you're openly admitting that you don't understand what you're talking about. And it is not a requirement of science that I must just swallow down your assumptions and beliefs as a precondition to entering into the disucssion. You obviously don't understand what science means.

Your pretension to be interested in a discussion about science is false. What you're interested in is pushing your circular superstitious anti-human fascist cult , that's all.

You call yourself an environmental sociologist, but you don't even know what the relevant data set is, do you? If so, prove it. If not, admit it.

Your pretended concerns for "the environment" is as phony as your pretended concern for humankind. What you're interested in is policy i.e. POLICING everyone into obeying your opinions, which you cannot rationally defend and I'll prove it.

I've proved it so far by proving that you can't discuss the issue without circularity and ad hominem.

What you've got is not science, it's religion

Just to get back to reality, and away from hysteria, what might indicate evidence of global warming, and what might be partial remedies which - I'm sure - we can all agree on ?

Temperature seems to have increased by 1.5 degrees or so in 200 years. In SA, our maximum ever was recorded last year, at half a degree above the Black Summer measurement for 1939.

Sea-level seems to have risen an inch or so in a century.

Wow.

Can there be anything that we can do to avoid dreadful catastrophe ?

* Plant billions of trees.

* Switch to renewables. In SA, solar power now provides all of household needs. Just wait until we really get into wind power as well :)

* Turn down your AC in cool months, say, to 17-18 degrees; and turn it up in warmer months, say, to 23-24 degrees. Get used to it, our ancestors did. Ignore your snowflake kids.

* Build smaller cars and put them on electricity.

* Sequester carbon, in the soil if possible.

I think we'll be okay.

Joe

Just to get back to reality, and away from hysteria, what might indicate evidence of global warming, and what might be partial remedies which - I'm sure - we can all agree on ?

Temperature seems to have increased by 1.5 degrees or so in 200 years. In SA, our maximum ever was recorded last year, at half a degree above the Black Summer measurement for 1939.

Sea-level seems to have risen an inch or so in a century.

Wow.

Can there be anything that we can do to avoid dreadful catastrophe ?

Plant billions of trees.

Switch to renewables. In SA, solar power now provides all of household needs. Just wait until we really get into wind power as well :)

Turn down your AC in cool months, say, to 17-18 degrees; and turn it up in warmer months, say, to 23-24 degrees. Get used to it, our ancestors did.

Build smaller cars and put them on electricity.

Sequester carbon, in the soil if possible.

I think we'll be okay.

Jo

How can you suggest remedies if you don't even know what the relevant data set is?

What is it?

If you don't know, ask Mr Opinion. He's an "environmental sociologist". So he'll know, for sure.

Won't you, Mr Opinion?

Come on then. Answer the question. What's the relevant data set?

If you don't know what it is, you admit you are a clueless babbler, okay? Your failure to reply, or making any other reply whatsoever, constitutes your IRREVOCABLE AGREEMENT that you have no understanding of what you're talking about, that you pretended interest science is false, and that your interest is ONLY in pushing other people into obeying your irrational anti-human ignorant superstition.

So hurry up and answer.

Joe do have a real look, you are too smart to allow your self to be conned as you currently are.

The only place you will find any global warming recently is in computer models, or in homogenized figures, after the tampering with real observation figures to make them conform to the narrative.

Look as hard as you like, & any study you do will prove CO2 as innocent as a new born babe. It simply can not do what the warmist claim. They have to invent easily disproved "tipping points", & even the theory doesn't hold water or heat.

The elites don't like us lowly peasants living such rich & comfortable lives. What the hell use is it being an elite, if your plumber & electrician have it almost as good as you do.

I find it hard to believe you have ever looked seriously at the theory or the arguments for the theory. If any one as rational as you have always been on other topics actually looks at the subject they can not do other than be amazed that they fell for the scam in the first place.

Cumberland,

When it comes to environmental issues you and other AGW deniers are 'outsiders'.

And your comments are a hindrance, not a help.

All that you and others of your ilk are really interested in is protecting your dividends from shares in the fossil fuel industry.

Personally I think it is all too late anyway and the worse is yet to come.

Hi Hasbeen,

Please read my last post again, but with a sense of irony: half a degree rise in eighty years ? Catastrophe ? Half an inch sea-level rise in a century, a catastrophe ?

I was trying to be polite to the hysterics. No, I don't think global warming is some dreadfully, barely-solveable, problem. It's in hand, science, technology and crass business investment sense will see to that.

And of course, there will always be climate change, one way or the other, much of it well out of our control, but not particularly rapid or brutal.

There are vastly more important and urgent issues in the world today. Jesus, I'm for the stake now :). Can I have the little bag of gunpowder under the heart, like Joan of Arc, please ?

Joe

Mr Opinion

Hahaha wotta loser.

So you admit that
a) you weren't interested in a discussion about science in the first place, you just want to go round and round endlessly repeating your brainwashing, and going straight to ad hominem and question-begging when challenged hahahahahaaaa
b) you thought "science" enables you to use a thermometer to read off what the tax rate should be hahahahaha
c) you have no idea what the data set is to know whether the downsides of any climate policy are rationally justified or not - you don't even admit there is such a thing - and killing all the human beings would satisfy your intellectual standard pffffft!
d) even if you did understand what you're talking about, which you don't, you agree it would be would be irrelevant!
pffffft, hahahahahaha, wotta loser, hahahaha!

I guess you must be just an older and uglier version of Greta the Brainwashed Mongoloid - bitter and twisted before her time.

Of course, *real* science doesn't consist of just a jumble of ad hominems, begging the question, and appeal to authority, & trotting out 16 year old poster girls to front your intellectual bankruptcy, and if you knew anything about science, you would know that.

But perhaps if you bust out another few hundred billion on corrupt self-serving propaganda and rent-seeking parasites, you might eventually muster a rational argument?
pfffft hahahahahahahaha!

What you've got is misanthropic anxiety neurosis and a narcisisstic messiah complex, not science you loser hahahahah what a joke.

Post proof that the 7 billion people of humankind appointed YOU, of all people, to be their savious and redeemer BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

But it's too late! Because DE SKAH IS A-FAWLINl! DE SKAH IS A-FAWLINl! remember? All thos record cold events caused by global warming hahahahahaha!

Don't worry! Call Mr Environmental Sociologist! He will save the world forever, based on his brainwashed certainty that mankind is a noxious pest, and the solution is unlimited government power over anything and everything without limit or reason.

Hahahahaha. Real clown-world stuff!!

Science without logic is just story-telling, and that's all you've got hahahaha!

Cumberland,

Can't you find something to discuss that is more suited to who and what you are. Like the stock market, or cars, or football.

Trying to put yourself on the same level as people who are highly educated and knowledgeable will only make you look like a buffoon.

Like all AGW deniers you have a twisted sense of reality that is only matched by your lack of knowledge and training needed to discuss environmental concerns.

Sit on your sofa and count your money or watch the football or whatever it is that makes you people happy.

And leave the big important things to the people who know what they are talking about.

Loudmouth2 Said- "Can there be anything that we can do to avoid dreadful catastrophe ?"

Answer- Yes AGW can be reduced by reducing the "A"'s the anthropoid's. Less people less AGW. There may be additional things that could be done to reduce global warming. Reducing the people on the planet needs to be done. We need to find ways to decrease the birthrate in both high birthrate countries and high population countries. I would like to see a world population under one billion.

Canem Malum,

You would really have to wind back the clock in a hurry to only have 1 billion humans.

In 1900, world population was 1.6 billion.

Yes in just 120 years we have gone from 1.6 to just under 8 billion of us and it's still increasing.

Maybe China was hoping to wipe out the competition when it unleashed the Coronavirus.

According to Jared Diamond the sustainable population is 5,6 billion. That was reached in 1986 and the population is expected to reach about 11 billion in the next 30 years.

Climatologists told us we must STOP putting carbon into the atmosphere NOW.

That was about 12 years ago and the emissions have actually increased by about 50% in that 12 year period.

I think it is too late to stop the rot. Even if we stop emitting carbon TODAY the benefits would not be seen until about 100 years from now and sometime in between all the glaciers - being mostly Antarctica and Greenland - will have melted and probably never return again.

Mr Opinion- Sounds correct. But we need to turn off the water in the bath before mopping the floor

Canem Malum,

Are you aware that a lot of climatologists have had nervous breakdowns because they could not handle that there a so many idiots (my words) who refuse to accept the warnings about AGW and its consequential climate change and resulting damage to the environment?

Mr Opinion:

People who have studied biology and are biologists that believe in the theory of evolution don't claim that the environment can be "damaged". What the environment can do, indeed what it does all the time, is CHANGE.

The global environment is just the state of the biosphere at a particular time . The notion that particular part of it is pristine or damaged is purely a human construct from a human perspective by those who don't understand that change in the environment is the norm. The change in the environment is driven by randomness and without any particular direction or goal. For a modern biologist there is no purpose nor moral element in the evolution of the environment and species- it just is what it is and does what it does.

However, what a biologist might say is that for a certain change that may occur in the environment that it may/will impact detrimentally on particular species (where impact detrimentally means: drives them to extinction and/or makes its organisms live with pain and suffering). But in the case of our own species, whether the CO2 we've pumped into the air will have an overall detrimental effect in the next few centuries is certainly up for debate and definitely not a settled question. (Note: this is not the question about whether the CO2 will dramatically change the climate- but whether when you consider pros vs cons for humans as a species will we be detrimentally affected).

So far, to date, by increasing CO2 as a by-product of human industry has without as doubt been beneficial overall to humans as a species. (eg: the number of people on the planet has exploded and at the same time our life expectancy has increased as well as our overall health and well-being.)

Misopinionated & CM,

Both disgusting anti-humans. Do you hate people so much ?

Joe

Mr Opinion- No I wasn't aware of that- interesting.

pseudo-mouth,

I am definitely anti-human (as you put it) when it comes to Holocaust deniers and AGW deniers.

The first group is absolutely disgusting and the latter group is a cancer to life on the planet.

Can you blame me for having that attitude?

You might be willing to capitulate to these types of people but I will never do so.

Loudmouth said- "Misopinionated & CM, Both disgusting anti-humans. Do you hate people so much ? Joe Posted by loudmouth2"

Answer- I guess that means Loudmouth must be a "great human" and I'm a disgusting cancer. I see it differently. I guess it would be superfluous to criticize Loudmouth for having a loud mouth- and to perceive that having a loud mouth implies a quiet brain. You can't blame someone for what they are. Hopefully in my world view you will have a place- I dread my place in yours.

Maybe similar mirrors can be applied to the concept of a "Bad Dog".

It's fascinating watching human behavior.

But limited time- so we must prioritize

Mr Opinion

A: "We are faced with a dreadful catastrophe."
B: "How do you know?"
A: "Because Cumberland, a guy on the internet whom I don't know, is personally very bad."

You see, if you weren't brainwashed, you would see that your argument does not make logical sense.

But that's all you've got.

You could prove me wrong by answering my question of you.

But you choose not to do that, because you know you'll prove yourself wrong any answer you make, so you resort to name-calling instead.

But the fact you'll prove yourself wrong either way if you asnwer my question, is not because it's some kind of trick question. It's because what you're saying DOESN'T MAKE LOGICAL SENSE, because you don't understand what you're talking about. Otherwise you'd answer it, durrr!

The fact is, you don't have the knowledge, the goodness, or the capacity, to re-design the world's economy by fiat command-and-control technocracy, and it is conceited nonsense on your part to presume you can.

You've already admitted that you don't know what the relevant data set is, remember? But if I'm wrong, WHAT IS IT?

You have access to all this unspecified, absent, supposed super-knowledge. You're an "environmental sociologist" pfffft. ANSWER THE QUESTION that will prove you right, and me wrong!

What is the relevant data set for climate policy?

The fact is, YOU DON'T KNOW. You haven't even begun to understand the problem you are wrestling with.

You've got nothing.

You squark about Holocaust deniers, but YOU'RE IN FAVOUR OF TOTAL GOVERNMENT POWER AND GETTING RID OF BILLIONS OF PEOPLE, remember?

You need to understand that you're just a dumb, brainwashed 'useful idiot' to corrupt vested interests, that's all.

Note - Mr O is a student of Tim Flannery on climate deniers; "Tim Flannery says it is because they don't know what they are talking about.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 28 October 2020 9:25:43 AM"
Note the Mr Tim Flannery that stated we would never see the Dams full again.
ttps://theconversation.com/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709

Hi Canem Malum

Just out of curiosity, how come your nic is in the accusative case?

To Cumberland- Say again...

The Climate is changing.
ttp://electroverse.net/us-just-set-its-coldest-temperature-ever-recorded-this-early/?fbclid=IwAR1bG2jfqC3TzMejQBFgnBqinqtsvNGZKQERfK-Jm1FVVJQ94b8ILt8qcRI
Its getting colder, and whetter at the moment!

Dear Josephus,

You are talking about weather. This is more indicative of a change in climate.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_iqr_timeseries.png

If people aren't concerned about AGW being a threat then don't worry about it.

Time will prove who is right or wrong.

For me I don't really care because as an environmental sociologist my role is that of studying people in their relationship to the environment.

Leave you guys to argue about it from here on in.

It will be interesting to follow what happens.

And I promise not to tell you "I told yo so."

Yes, good that's fine.

So we're agreed that you cannot establish the justification of any climate policy by any method of reason i.e. one not based on logial fallacies, such as ad honinem, beggng the question, and appeal to authority. In other words, it's an irrational superstition and you agree now.

That's all I wanted to point out, so thanks for conceding the general issue.

SR, So Climate is not weather, Then the winds and hot drought last year that fanned fires is not evidence of climate change, though many Global warmists claim it was. Even as the extreme cold and rain is not a change in climate. They are just one of events, though they have similar cycles over hundreds of years.

A view:
http://www.facebook.com/drvernoncoleman/videos/692826581637718

Dear Josephus,

Well that bloke was probably the most wackiest nut job you have put up on this forum and that is saying something. Mate, you really need to dial it back, it can't be good for your mental health.

And please don't compare a cold snap in Montana with the successive years of record heat and dry spells across much of Eastern Australia or the fast declining sea ice extent in the Arctic circle year after year after year.

I need to add one last thing.

Those who deny what the scientific community is saying about anthropogenic global warming and its concomitant adverse effects on the world's climate are liars.

The deniers are dishonest and untrustworthy.

They claim that it is the scientific community that is being dishonest and untrustworthy.

I find it impossible to believe that the scientists who have devoted their lives to the study and practice of science in order to inform us how the world works just turn around and start lying to us.

The scientific community just doesn't do that sort of thing. They spend their lives looking for the truth and when they find it they inform others so that everyone can understand what is happening and take the necessary action to improve their world and their lives.

It is the deniers who falsify the information and the facts.

The AGW / climate deniers are only concerned about two things: money and themselves.

Misopinionated,

Do you realise that in your last post, you said nothing ? You only slagged, which is of course your right, but what would anybody else have gained from your rant ?

Wow, there's a couple of minutes I'll never get back :(

joe

pseudo-mouth,

I'm asking people to consider which group they believe is most likely to be dishonest and untrustworthy: the scientific community or the AGW / climate deniers.

Capisce Signor Pseudo-Mouth?

I have never quite worked out where you stand on AGW / climate. Given your last remark I'm now assuming you belong to the denial group.

Mr Opinion

So you're saying that governments have no interest in the question?

And you're saying that the problem of knowledge is to solved by blind faith, and defended by mere personal argument?

Yes?

No?

Which?

Misop,

Of course, there is climate change going on, there always is and always has been.

Is it out of control ? No, of course not, not a degree-rise in a century and an inch-rise in sea-level in a century. Get a grip.

Joe

Cumberland,

It is obvious what I am saying.

The scientific community is honest and trustworthy and acting from altruism and a concern for the world and life on Earth.

Those who are denying what the scientific community is saying are dishonest and untrustworthy and are only concerned about money and themselves.

Please let me and everyone else know what you find difficult to understand about what I am saying.

pseudo-mouth,

Thanks for informing me that the Earth's climate has been constantly changing over the past 4 billion years.

I thought it only started happening a few years ago.

You better let the scientific community too.

Now they will have to go and completely revise all their calculations and models.

I'm nominating YOU for a Nobel Prize .......... you lucky bastard!

HEAR THAT EVERYONE ......... THE CLIMATE HAS BEEN ALWAYS CHANGING.

PSEUDO-MOUTH JUST SAID SO ........ HE'S GETTING A NOBEL PRIZE FOR IT.

Look who is coming to congratulate you pseudo-mouth. It's Hasbeen and mhaze and individual and Bazz and Josephus and all your friends from the Happy Deniers Club.

Dear Loudmouth2,

“an inch-rise in sea-level in a century”

Why do you keep doing this? I have corrected you on numerous occasions and some of them you have even acknowledged you were wrong, but then you trot this garbage out yet again.

For the record;

“In 2019, global mean sea level was 3.4 inches (87.61 mm centimeters) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). From 2018 to 2019, global sea level rose 0.24 inches (6.1 millimeters).”
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level

Misop,

So. ..... to speak of half-degree rises in temperature over the past 80 years, and inch-rises in sea-level over the past century is denial ?

To suggest that there have been warming periods and cooling periods over the last few thousand years is denial ?

Jesus. Morons to the right of us, morons to the left of us ....

Joe

Hi SR,

Okay, sorry, I'll take those figures on-board. About 0.13 - 0.24 inches sea-level rise each year. Thanks.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth2,

Well that was pretty well verbatim as the last time but thnk you anyway.

The second point is acknowledging that land based temperatures have gone up 75% more than the global temperatures. We are sitting at over 1.5 degrees C.

"Since the pre-industrial period (1850-1900) the observed mean land surface air temperature has risen considerably more than the global mean surface (land and ocean) temperature (GMST) (high confidence). From 1850-1900 to 2006-2015 mean land surface air temperature has increased by 1.53°C (very likely range from 1.38°C to 1.68°C) while GMST increased by 0.87°C (likely range from 0.75°C to 0.99°C)."
http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/4.-SPM_Approved_Microsite_FINAL.pdf

So what does that mean for bushfires?

"Projected into the future, the models simulate that a Fire Weather Index at the 2019/20 level would be at least four times more likely with a 2 ºC temperature rise, compared with 1900. Due to the model limitations described above this is likely an underestimate."
http://www.worldweatherattribution.org/bushfires-in-australia-2019-2020/

And you want to be flippant and downplay the increases?

Remember when Australia had a big inland Sea? Well we are going to have that again when the Ice Caps melt. However to get that result the continent plate will lower about 20 meters. We will not ever see this sea in our lifetime, so the science cannot be proved by us. Myself I currently live at 19 meters above sea level, and in the next few months will move to be 2 meters above sea level on Lake frontage.

http://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/what-sea-level-rise-means-australia

Is has supposedly risen 150mm in the last 100 years. Though the old fishermen moored in the local harbour deny any change in the ocean level.
http://www.ausmarinescience.com/marine-science-basics/sea-level-rise-1/
The two longest tide gauge records at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour and at Fremantle in Western Australia indicate a sea level trend of 0.73 mm/yr at Fort Denison and a trend of 1.78 mm/yr at Fremantle. Both of these Australian determinations may include changes in the reference datum relative to the International Frame (IRF) due to the vertical movement of land

pseudo-Josephus just asked us:

"Remember when Australia had a big inland sea?"

When I tell him I cannot remember it he will tell me "There, see how ignorant you are. No wonder you believe what the scientific community is saying about AGW / climate."

And here I was thinking that the deniers were just being dishonest and untrustworthy and believing that scientists were the honest and trustworthy ones.

Mr Self-Opinionated

You're an "environmental sociologist."

So .... what's the relevant data set in any given climate policy?

Obviously you can't claim any justification for any climate policy withou it so .... what is it, feller?

And you're saying government has no interest in the knowledge of the data set, right?

Yes?

Correct?

Do you think your slimy evasions are not transparently obvious?

Cumberland,

You can't draw me into one of your pseudo-scientific arguments.

The attempts by you AGW / climate deniers to discredit the scientific community is deceitful and dishonest.

It's similar to Holocaust deniers trying to discredit historians.

The only things that matter to the deniers of AGW / climate are money and themselves.

Cumberland, you will not get any intelligent answers from Mr OH!! He can only regurgitate what his lecturers and text books have told him, and they are not there to prompt him now. He follows the Climate science of Tim Flannery, as they can tell the future you know; like, "the dams will never again be full so start up the declination plants".

Dear Josephus,

Well that was pretty disingenuous of you wasn't it. Just referring to the century long trend but not how it is accelerating, even though that information was on the site you cited.

Here it is folks;

"In Australia, the trend in sea level has been calculated from long term averaged tide gauge records and satellite altimetry:

1900 to 2011 sea level trend = 1.2 mm/year

1966 to 2011 sea level trend = 1.7 mm/year

1993 to 2011 sea level trend = 4.6 mm/year"

Just another stark illustration of an expected result of the impact of climate change.

pseudo-Josephus,

You're the one being dishonest about the science and the one who the scientific community is calling wrong.

Not Me!

SR

So what's the relevant data set to know whether or not any given climate policy is justified?

Do you think your hopeless floundering is not obvious?

Come on. You're supposed to represent science here. Mr Opinion admits he can't answer the challenge cause he doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about.

So answer the question.

You people are a joke - the useful idiots of your manipulators who couldn't give a sh!t whether you live or die, and yet you can't lick their arses enough pfffffft.

Cumberland,

The scientific community is saying the exact opposite to what you are saying about AGW / climate.

Have you wondered as to why that is so?

One of you has to be wrong.

Have a guess who it is.

Mr O how can you be so sure who is wrong. You do not know the science and cannot debate the science.

Josephus,

You are absolutely wrong.

I am an environmental sociologist researching what scientists and scholars have to say about AGW / climate.

As such I have a very good understanding of what they say is happening.

They are saying that the adverse current climate change is the result of anthropogenic global warming which is produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

You and people like you, which we group together as AGW / climate deniers, think that the scientific community is dishonest and untrustworthy and is making up lies about global warming and climate change.

Obviously you cannot both be right.

Mr Opinion,
That is not debating the science, it is merely chanting your mantra. Post the evidence and the calculations that prove humans are causing Global warming.

Josephus,

I do not attempt to debate the science around AGW / climate because I am not a scientist.

I am a scholar studying what the scientists do and say and I can tell you that they are saying that the adverse current climate change is the result of anthropogenic global warming which is produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

Are you telling us that they are being dishonest and untrustworthy?