Climate change

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Botman wrote:This is the problem with compensation for volunteers... we can all agree that RFS volo’s should get paid, but then what about other services?

Once that door is open, well it’s probably fair and just to compensate all volunteers... RFS, SES, CFU, Health, education etc al

And maybe you’re ok with that. I certainly am. But that’s a significant bill for a government to foot

Personally, I’d like our army to be crossed trained as a rural fire service to take on the bulk of this work, and volunteers would simply be a first response until the army arrived.

But I haven’t really thought that much about it so maybe I’m missing something
I agree there’s not an easy answer. So it would be good to start the conversation.

I think the key difference is the length of time. Like Fui suggested, maybe have some time threshold beyond which support kicks in?

I think cross training the army in some capacity makes a lot of sense.
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11265
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

Dubby, as yours is the first post I thought I would let you know why I think that climate change is real.

The temperature close to the surface of the Earth is warmer because of the interaction of solar (infrared) radiation on molecules which make up the atmosphere which I will limit to Carbon Dioxide(CO2) and Water Vapour/clouds.

It is not the heat from the sun which warms the Earth. If that was the case then we could expect the Stratosphere to be warmer as it is closer to the sun. But the Stratosphere is cold because the atmosphere is 'thinner'. Less CO2 molecules. Solar radiation causes the CO2 molecules to move or vibrate. In doing so they give off heat. The more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere the more heat is generated. This is both a natural process and increased by the actions of humans in burning past carbon storehouses such as coal, oil and natural gas. More CO2 causes more heat when the solar radiation from the sun reaches it. Less CO2 will therefore mean cooler temperatures.

However, nothing works in a vacuum. The CO2 in the atmosphere is used by plants and grasses who store the carbon and emit the Oxygen which we mammals needs therefore perpetuating life for mammals. The ocean also takes up a lot of the CO2. The more CO2 in the atmosphere which has interacted with solar radiation, means the oceans are taking in more warm CO2 molecules. The warming of the oceans spreads the heat in their never ending transition around the Earth.

There is argument about why the warmer oceans do not seem to be generating more water vapour for cloud formation. Clouds absorb/reflect some of the infrared radiation. This means there is less infrared radiation to interact with CO2. This means that the denser clouds closer to the Earths surface have a net cooling effect on the temperature (from NASA Earth Observatory). Others argue that the clouds will act as a blanket causing more warming at the surface of the Earth.

But to me it seems clear, that the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more heat will be generated. The jury is still out on the effect of cloud formation on moderating or increasing global warming.
User avatar
FuiFui BradBrad
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8651
Joined: May 3, 2008, 10:23 pm
Favourite Player: Phil Graham
Location: Marsden Park

Re: Climate change

Post by FuiFui BradBrad »

Botman wrote:Personally, I’d like our army to be crossed trained as a rural fire service to take on the bulk of this work, and volunteers would simply be a first response until the army arrived.

But I haven’t really thought that much about it so maybe I’m missing something
See this is a great idea, and why the convo needs to be had.

I do see the argument for other volunteers, but I can’t think of any other volunteer group that go through the same ordeal as the firies, for a prolonged period of time. People have mentioned lifesavers, but they don’t have to contend with an unexpected 24/7 bout of drownings 3 months earlier than expected
Feel free to call me RickyRicky StickStick if you like. I will also accept Super Fui, King Brad, Kid Dynamite, Chocolate-Thunda... or Brad.

Nickman's love of NSW
  • NSW has done a superb job - 18/12/2020
  • NSW has been world-class with their approach to date, that's a fact. - 04/02/2021
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote:Dubby, as yours is the first post I thought I would let you know why I think that climate change is real.

The temperature close to the surface of the Earth is warmer because of the interaction of solar (infrared) radiation on molecules which make up the atmosphere which I will limit to Carbon Dioxide(CO2) and Water Vapour/clouds.

It is not the heat from the sun which warms the Earth. If that was the case then we could expect the Stratosphere to be warmer as it is closer to the sun. But the Stratosphere is cold because the atmosphere is 'thinner'. Less CO2 molecules. Solar radiation causes the CO2 molecules to move or vibrate. In doing so they give off heat. The more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere the more heat is generated. This is both a natural process and increased by the actions of humans in burning past carbon storehouses such as coal, oil and natural gas. More CO2 causes more heat when the solar radiation from the sun reaches it. Less CO2 will therefore mean cooler temperatures.

However, nothing works in a vacuum. The CO2 in the atmosphere is used by plants and grasses who store the carbon and emit the Oxygen which we mammals needs therefore perpetuating life for mammals. The ocean also takes up a lot of the CO2. The more CO2 in the atmosphere which has interacted with solar radiation, means the oceans are taking in more warm CO2 molecules. The warming of the oceans spreads the heat in their never ending transition around the Earth.

There is argument about why the warmer oceans do not seem to be generating more water vapour for cloud formation. Clouds absorb/reflect some of the infrared radiation. This means there is less infrared radiation to interact with CO2. This means that the denser clouds closer to the Earths surface have a net cooling effect on the temperature (from NASA Earth Observatory). Others argue that the clouds will act as a blanket causing more warming at the surface of the Earth.

But to me it seems clear, that the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more heat will be generated. The jury is still out on the effect of cloud formation on moderating or increasing global warming.
That’s not quite right. Sunlight is more intense in the visible part of the spectrum where the atmosphere is more transparent. It is absorbed and reradiated as infra-red light (heat) from the earth. This is absorbed by CO2 and reradiates back to earth. Trapping the heat.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

-TW- wrote: You know what will? Proper fuel management strategies, which have been thrown out the window over the last few years
Still interested in your source for this.
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11265
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

From an Australian drought breaking point of view, I am hoping for a strong negative Indian Ocean Dipole outcome for mid 2020. This will mean sea surface temperatures are warmer in the Eastern Indian Ocean near Australia and will likely produce above average rainfall events in South East Australia. We need the rain and the past 3 years have been positive IODs which have produced drought in Oz. Considering the Indian Ocean Dipole was only discovered by Dr Yamagata of the University of Tokyo in 1999 (Happy 20th anniversary Doc). I hope his work continues to provide information to allow farmers to adjust to possible rainfall predictions.
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51011
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman »

RedRaider wrote:From an Australian drought breaking point of view, I am hoping for a strong negative Indian Ocean Dipole outcome for mid 2020. This will mean sea surface temperatures are warmer in the Eastern Indian Ocean near Australia and will likely produce above average rainfall events in South East Australia. We need the rain and the past 3 years have been positive IODs which have produced drought in Oz. Considering the Indian Ocean Dipole was only discovered by Dr Yamagata of the University of Tokyo in 1999 (Happy 20th anniversary Doc). I hope his work continues to provide information to allow farmers to adjust to possible rainfall predictions.
Oh boy, gangy is going to ridicule you relentlessly for THAT post, Red!
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Why?
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51011
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman »

Because that’s what you do, old friend.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

I’ve corrected him. I’ve criticised some of his views.

I don’t believe I’ve ridiculed him. Can you quote where I ridiculed him?
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51011
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman »

Haha you’ve been nothing BUT condescending throughout this whole debate, he’s called you on it multiple times!

As for finding you a quote, do your own damned research... there’s plenty of examples to go by.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

So now it’s not ridicule, it’s condescension?

Happy to discuss specific examples. I’m assuming you’re referring mainly to my criticism of him disparaging expert models on the basis of what appears to be limited knowledge in the area. I don’t think that’s condescension.
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51011
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman »

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree then?
User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 32522
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

The Nickman wrote: December 24, 2019, 1:04 pm I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree then?
I disagree
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51011
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman »

Northern Raider wrote:
The Nickman wrote: December 24, 2019, 1:04 pm I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree then?
I disagree
Well the correct answer is “I don’t agree to that”, but I’ll give you points for trying
User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 32522
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider »

The Nickman wrote: December 24, 2019, 3:37 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
The Nickman wrote: December 24, 2019, 1:04 pm I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree then?
I disagree
Well the correct answer is “I don’t agree to that”, but I’ll give you points for trying
Well you can take a ****, turn it sideways and stick it right up your ****.

....and merry Xmas.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51011
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman »

Fair.

Merry Christmas to you too, pal
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-24/ ... e/11825416

Better. Try to lead the country instead of vice versa next time?

Now time to get working on changing your climate and energy policy.
User avatar
FuiFui BradBrad
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8651
Joined: May 3, 2008, 10:23 pm
Favourite Player: Phil Graham
Location: Marsden Park

Re: Climate change

Post by FuiFui BradBrad »

gangrenous wrote:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-24/ ... e/11825416

Better. Try to lead the country instead of vice versa next time?

Now time to get working on changing your climate and energy policy.
Yeah but apparently this was already a thing for public sector jobs. So nothing has really changed
Feel free to call me RickyRicky StickStick if you like. I will also accept Super Fui, King Brad, Kid Dynamite, Chocolate-Thunda... or Brad.

Nickman's love of NSW
  • NSW has done a superb job - 18/12/2020
  • NSW has been world-class with their approach to date, that's a fact. - 04/02/2021
User avatar
-TW-
Mal Meninga
Posts: 35369
Joined: July 2, 2007, 11:41 am

Re: Climate change

Post by -TW- »

It's delegate discretion as to how much an agency grants. This is just making it more consistent.

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

gangrenous wrote:
-TW- wrote: You know what will? Proper fuel management strategies, which have been thrown out the window over the last few years
Got a source for the fuel management strategies?
You don’t seem to want to provide a source for this.

Would I be correct if I guessed that your source is Barnaby Joyce or a Facebook meme?
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11265
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: December 24, 2019, 12:42 pm So now it’s not ridicule, it’s condescension?

Happy to discuss specific examples. I’m assuming you’re referring mainly to my criticism of him disparaging expert models on the basis of what appears to be limited knowledge in the area. I don’t think that’s condescension.
Except I've not been disparaging (except in your imagination) and gave the below example from an IPCC report, that it is perfectly reasonable to question aspects of a report and the reported modelling. You will have to show me an example of where I have disparaged the entirety of the IPCC report or subsequent reports. There are other reports on this incident which state the information was not peer reviewed before it was published. See below as quoted from NewScientist:

"The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been forced to apologise for including in its 2007 report the claim that there was a “very high” chance of glaciers disappearing from the Himalayas by 2035.

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, conceded yesterday that “the clear and well-established standards of evidence required by the IPCC procedures were not applied properly” when the claim was included in the 900-page assessment of the impacts of climate change.

The paragraph at issue reads: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high.”


Single source
The report’s only cited source was a 2005 report by the environment group WWF, which in turn cited a 1999 article in New Scientist.

The New Scientist article quoted senior Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, the then vice-chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, who was writing a report on the Himalayas for the International Commission for Snow and Ice. It said, on the basis of an interview with Hasnain, that his report “indicates that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035”. The claim did not, however, appear in the commission’s report, which was only made available late last year.

This week a group of geographers, headed by Graham Cogley of Trent University at Peterborough in Ontario, Canada, have written to the journal Science pointing out that the claim “requires a 25-fold greater loss rate from 1999 to 2035 than that estimated for 1960 to 1999. It conflicts with knowledge of glacier-climate relationships, and is wrong.”

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... z699C9KDi9


As I have also said, I find it refreshing that when an error is made the IPCC come out and say so - even some years after the fact. They do not claim to be infallible and credit to them. Your self appointed defence of the entire process was notable except for your excruciating attempt at censorship of others not being 'allowed to participate' (your words) in the climate change issue by questioning reports or models produced by Scientists on the basis of Scientists having worked for years in the field. It doesn't make them always correct. There are too many unknowns which has been acknowledged by the IPCC. Indeed I can't think of a human endeavour which is 'always' correct. To use an example of human activity of decades which has produced failure, I'll go as far as Boeing has found out with their Boeing 737 Max8 aircraft. The Boeing engineers wanted to take the 'human element' out of flying these aircraft and condemned hundreds of people by doing so.

Keep asking questions - it's what humans do.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote: Except I've not been disparaging
Oxford Dictionary wrote: Disparage
Regard or represent as being of little worth.
RedRaider wrote: For me this means linear model forecasts need to be questioned.
So are you not saying the model forecasts of the experts are of little value? That you won’t change your views on what actions we should take based on them? That would be the dictionary definition of disparaging. On the basis that you are counting as little worth the forecasts formed by years of work of thousands of experts, based purely on your opinion. With complete ignorance as to how the models work, as evidenced by your repeated misunderstanding of more fundamental concepts.

The mistake those aircraft engineers made is orders of magnitudes worse than a remark in a 12 year old document, the revisions of which I would have to imagine to be some of the most scrutinised science around. If we extend your plane analogy. I assume you no longer fly in aircraft. You would be tapping the side of a 747 and going “got to question the engineering of this thing, they shouldn’t be using flux capacitors”.

If that’s the worst error that’s been made in the last 12 years then those authors have done a fantastic job.
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11265
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

Oxford Dictionary Wrote:

Question: 'a sentence, phrase or word that asks for information'

Nothing in there about 'belittling' or 'disparaging' - that is simply another attempt by yourself to censor or redirect conversation.

Greenhouse Dictionary Wrote:

Question: 'highly entertaining contributor to the Greenhouse who some of us wish, would post more often'
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

The comprehension skills of RedRaider need to be questioned.

I’m sure you’ll find that comment not the least insulting. I am after all, just questioning.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote:My concern is with the validity of the modelling. No one predicted the extent of the current drought in western NSW.
2007 IPCC summary for policy makers wrote:By 2030, production from agriculture and forestry is projected to decline over much of southern and eastern Australia [...] due to increased drought and fire.
How about this one?

User avatar
-TW-
Mal Meninga
Posts: 35369
Joined: July 2, 2007, 11:41 am

Re: Climate change

Post by -TW- »

gangrenous wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
-TW- wrote: You know what will? Proper fuel management strategies, which have been thrown out the window over the last few years
Got a source for the fuel management strategies?
You don’t seem to want to provide a source for this.

Would I be correct if I guessed that your source is Barnaby Joyce or a Facebook meme?
I have a life champ..

It was a professor who was interviewed about it on ABC about a week or so ago

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

What program? Where were they from?
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11265
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: December 26, 2019, 1:22 pm
RedRaider wrote: Except I've not been disparaging
Oxford Dictionary wrote: Disparage
Regard or represent as being of little worth.
RedRaider wrote: For me this means linear model forecasts need to be questioned.
So are you not saying the model forecasts of the experts are of little value? No - simply don't portray every detail as sacrosanct and unable to be questioned as you do.
That you won’t change your views on what actions we should take based on them? My views have been stated before. You won't have remembered them so I'll say again - this is a global issue and needs all nations on board. The four largest emitters are not on board and they generate more than 50% of global emissions. China for example has around 30%, they drew level with the USA in 2006 and are now more than double the emissions levels of the USA by 2019. The Paris agreement allows the Chinese to expand emissions and this is counter productive to the world effort. If does not mean Australia should do nothing and I think Australia should fulfill its Paris Agreement commitments by 2030. Not in 2019, but in 2030 as we have signed up to.
That would be the dictionary definition of disparaging. On the basis that you are counting as little worth the forecasts formed by years of work of thousands of experts, based purely on your opinion. With complete ignorance as to how the models work, as evidenced by your repeated misunderstanding of more fundamental concepts. What area of Science did you say your tertiary qualification was in?

The mistake those aircraft engineers made is orders of magnitudes worse than a remark in a 12 year old document, the revisions of which I would have to imagine to be some of the most scrutinised science around. If we extend your plane analogy. I assume you no longer fly in aircraft. You would be tapping the side of a 747 and going “got to question the engineering of this thing, they shouldn’t be using flux capacitors”. The empirical evidence shows that flying is one of the safest forms of transport so while there is always risk, no tapping is required.

If that’s the worst error that’s been made in the last 12 years then those authors have done a fantastic job.
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11265
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: December 26, 2019, 4:42 pm
RedRaider wrote:My concern is with the validity of the modelling. No one predicted the extent of the current drought in western NSW.
2007 IPCC summary for policy makers wrote:By 2030, production from agriculture and forestry is projected to decline over much of southern and eastern Australia [...] due to increased drought and fire.
How about this one?
In the land of 'drought and flooding rains' things are bad in 2019. Can you and climate modellers advise what the Indian Ocean Dipole and SOI will be doing in 2029 and 2030? The National Farmers Federation have a plan to increase farm output to a sustainable $100billion by 2030. It would help to know what likely rainfall will be.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote: No - simply don't portray every detail as sacrosanct and unable to be questioned as you do.
Bull. You’ve shown you don’t accept the fundamentals of the modelling at all.

If you did you’d be happy to say this:
“The world is warming rapidly and the projections, that will almost certainly occur, are that it will continue to warm rapidly to levels that are dangerous to human civilisation”.
RedRaider wrote: You won't have remembered them so I'll say again - this is a global issue and needs all nations on board. The four largest emitters are not on board and they generate more than 50% of global emissions. China for example has around 30%, they drew level with the USA in 2006 and are now more than double the emissions levels of the USA by 2019. The Paris agreement allows the Chinese to expand emissions and this is counter productive to the world effort. If does not mean Australia should do nothing and I think Australia should fulfill its Paris Agreement commitments by 2030. Not in 2019, but in 2030 as we have signed up to.
We don’t meet 2030 targets by sitting around and doing little until then. The current projections are that we miss our Paris targets by a long way, unless we use carry over credits. An approach which does nothing to help our future, and we’re the only ones trying to argue for it and in doing so we helped derail the last U.N. talks. Talks where we could have actually helped to try and get the large emitters to do more. I’ve responded to your China concerns on multiple occasions and you’ve never engaged those at all. You merely repeat your original complaint.

Yes, it does need as many nations as possible to help. It also requires us to help because all those “negligible” countries add up to something like 40% of emissions (forget the exact number). So, are you going to look at your grandchildren and tell them “well they wouldn’t do anything first, what did you want me to do? Sorry your future is ****”? Australia is a wealthy country, with a strong research history. We can be a much stronger leader. Scratch that, we can actually be a leader instead of an active detriment to the process.

How about we truly focus on rapid technology development, bringing down our emissions and showing other countries how it can be done? We can be pioneers in the clean energy technologies, sell them and our implementation expertise to larger nations and multiply our impact on the future.

But I mean your approach of sitting and sulking is pretty good too I guess.
RedRaider wrote: What area of Science did you say your tertiary qualification was in?
Oh man, why would you go back to this well? You already established my academic credentials are better than yours. You want to keep going? What would it matter to you?

You strike me as someone who struggles to accept that other people’s views may be more informed than yours. Have you always been in roles of authority in life? Not had your views challenged very often?
RedRaider wrote: The empirical evidence shows that flying is one of the safest forms of transport so while there is always risk, no tapping is required.
The empirical evidence is that the scientific method has been humanity’s greatest tool in understanding and predicting our natural world. You are dismissing the outcome of that process because you are unwilling to believe it.
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11265
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: December 27, 2019, 9:00 am
RedRaider wrote: No - simply don't portray every detail as sacrosanct and unable to be questioned as you do.
Bull. You’ve shown you don’t accept the fundamentals of the modelling at all. I agree with your term 'Bull' to describe your response

If you did you’d be happy to say this:
“The world is warming rapidly and the projections, that will almost certainly occur, are that it will continue to warm rapidly to levels that are dangerous to human civilisation”. Yes, the evidence is that the world is warming rapidly and if the whole world does not act the whole world ecosystem will be dangerously affected - no only humans
RedRaider wrote: You won't have remembered them so I'll say again - this is a global issue and needs all nations on board. The four largest emitters are not on board and they generate more than 50% of global emissions. China for example has around 30%, they drew level with the USA in 2006 and are now more than double the emissions levels of the USA by 2019. The Paris agreement allows the Chinese to expand emissions and this is counter productive to the world effort. If does not mean Australia should do nothing and I think Australia should fulfill its Paris Agreement commitments by 2030. Not in 2019, but in 2030 as we have signed up to.
We don’t meet 2030 targets by sitting around and doing little until then. The current projections are that we miss our Paris targets by a long way, unless we use carry over credits. An approach which does nothing to help our future, and we’re the only ones trying to argue for it and in doing so we helped derail the last U.N. talks. Talks where we could have actually helped to try and get the large emitters to do more. I’ve responded to your China concerns on multiple occasions and you’ve never engaged those at all. You merely repeat your original complaint.

Australia has closed 12 coal fired power stations since 2012. The last 9 since 2014. Given that Paris is a reduction from 2005 emissions levels why shouldn't Australia count them because they overlap with Kyoto? The Paris Agreement allows it. Your China appeasement makes no sense at all if the goal is to reduce emissions as I have answered you on numerous times. All nations should be on board but it appears some are not convinced by the modelling and these include China, USA, Russia and India. I get the argument about bringing people out of poverty but why not use other technologies - you've never answered that. The Chinese not only build and operate coal fired power stations in China there is also a pipeline of coal fired power stations built and building around the world including the brown coal using plants in Pakistan.

Yes, it does need as many nations as possible to help. It also requires us to help because all those “negligible” countries add up to something like 40% of emissions (forget the exact number). So, are you going to look at your grandchildren and tell them “well they wouldn’t do anything first, what did you want me to do? Sorry your future is ****”? Where have I ever written that? Only you and the glue minded Extinction rebellion trundle out that sort of argument.Australia is a wealthy country, with a strong research history. We can be a much stronger leader. Scratch that, we can actually be a leader instead of an active detriment to the process.

How about we truly focus on rapid technology development, bringing down our emissions and showing other countries how it can be done? We can be pioneers in the clean energy technologies, sell them and our implementation expertise to larger nations and multiply our impact on the future.Yes we can. Snowy 2.0 is about providing 2000MW of additional capacity, Battery of the nation is an additional 1500MW. These could lead to the early closure of the Yallourn brown coal fired power station. What to do with the workers - well, around 4000 heavy vehicles currently run on natural gas in Australia. Hydrogen can be produced from brown coal and be blended with natural gas to power heavy vehicles with no change to the current internal combustion technology if a 20% hydrogen blend is used.

But I mean your approach of sitting and sulking is pretty good too I guess. The usual inaccurate statement when I have pointed out several things which could be done in the transport sector already including a transition to Electric vehicles and the subsequent technology transfer that will be of benefit to everyone. But you stick with your fiction and foetal position responses if that works for you.
RedRaider wrote: What area of Science did you say your tertiary qualification was in?
Oh man, why would you go back to this well? You already established my academic credentials are better than yours. You want to keep going? What would it matter to you? Transparency Gangers. I want to know the level of your superiority. Don't be afraid, it's not unhealthy to answer questions.

You strike me as someone who struggles to accept that other people’s views may be more informed than yours. Have you always been in roles of authority in life? Not had your views challenged very often? Not only are my views regularly challenged by others, I make a point of asking myself does new information change my position. It's called evolution - I'm not sure if a 'born to rule' mentality like yourself would have heard of it'
RedRaider wrote: The empirical evidence shows that flying is one of the safest forms of transport so while there is always risk, no tapping is required.
The empirical evidence is that the scientific method has been humanity’s greatest tool in understanding and predicting our natural world. You are dismissing the outcome of that process because you are unwilling to believe it.
Yawn - wrong again
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote: Yes, the evidence is that the world is warming rapidly and if the whole world does not act the whole world ecosystem will be dangerously affected - no only humans
Well there’s a good step. If you honestly believe that you have a bizarre way of showing it. Walking into the thread and talking about historical climate change as though everything is business as usual. Throwing out all the favourite lines about how it was warmer on one day in nineteen dickety two. Questioning why no one predicted things that sit neatly within the predictions.

It’s also logically inconsistent with being cool that Australia isn’t reducing our emissions.

Should think about your communication skills.
RedRaider wrote: Australia has closed 12 coal fired power stations since 2012. The last 9 since 2014.
And?
RedRaider wrote: Given that Paris is a reduction from 2005 emissions levels why shouldn't Australia count them because they overlap with Kyoto? The Paris Agreement allows it.
Not all things that are legal are ethical. It is entirely against the spirit to sit on our hands and count historical efforts.
RedRaider wrote: Your China appeasement makes no sense at all if the goal is to reduce emissions as I have answered you on numerous times.
Your stance on Paris is hypocritical if you don’t accept the argument of developing nations. They don’t need to reduce their emissions because they’re not coming down from the historical excess we are. China and India should just say they’re counting all their credits from when they weren’t emitting like Australians all those years.
RedRaider wrote: I get the argument about bringing people out of poverty but why not use other technologies - you've never answered that. The Chinese not only build and operate coal fired power stations in China there is also a pipeline of coal fired power stations built and building around the world including the brown coal using plants in Pakistan.
I think that’s a great idea. Pretty sure they already do a bucketload of solar. I’m keen to see China reduce its emissions, absolutely. If we actually planned on meeting our Paris agreement without credits then we would absolutely be in a place to lobby for that, and share technologies perhaps?
RedRaider wrote: The usual inaccurate statement when I have pointed out several things which could be done in the transport sector already including a transition to Electric vehicles and the subsequent technology transfer that will be of benefit to everyone. But you stick with your fiction and foetal position responses if that works for you.
And what I am suggesting is that there should be way more drive from our government to get us there faster. You know, maybe reduce our emissions a bit? Maybe be unafraid to mention the phrase Climate Change and properly formulate national responses to changing conditions.
RedRaider wrote: Transparency Gangers. I want to know the level of your superiority. Don't be afraid, it's not unhealthy to answer questions.
Gosh, that’s a bit sad for you.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

-TW- wrote: You know what will? Proper fuel management strategies, which have been thrown out the window over the last few years
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-20/ ... s/11817336

This article suggests that hazard reduction burns would have had limited effect in the current conditions.

The stats they quote seem cherry picked, choosing weird time ranges for comparison and focussing on specific divisions. Might see if I can find any government reports tracking reduction burns over time.

Looks like the amount of fuel reduction burns is possibly lower than historically, but the climate reducing the window of safe opportunity plays a significant part in that. Also regulations around safe operating conditions for farmers, that’s going to be a delicate balancing act.

In what I’ve read so far, not convinced this is the easy fix you’re suggesting. Certainly the interplay with the climate still makes climate policy a key focus, even if it’s an even more complex beast with a longer lag to actual results. Looks like a national approach to research and enact improved fuel management processes for more consistent dry conditions would be valuable.




RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11265
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: December 27, 2019, 12:21 pm
RedRaider wrote: Yes, the evidence is that the world is warming rapidly and if the whole world does not act the whole world ecosystem will be dangerously affected - no only humans
Well there’s a good step. If you honestly believe that you have a bizarre way of showing it. Walking into the thread and talking about historical climate change as though everything is business as usual. What? Again your imagination is in overdrive. You made a wrong assumption and can't admit.Throwing out all the favourite lines about how it was warmer on one day in nineteen dickety two. Questioning why no one predicted things that sit neatly within the predictions. To predict a drought in Australia given the lived experience is not great foresight. No one predicted the nature and depth of this current drought. Any Australian can say there will be drought in or around 2030 and 2040 and 2050... It is entirely predictable.

It’s also logically inconsistent with being cool that Australia isn’t reducing our emissions.

Should think about your communication skills. Given what you have just said, you didn't read my posts and instead made up a label which you have stuck to far removed from what was actually written. I called them 'trigger words' which caused a response unrelated to what was written and you have just confirmed it
RedRaider wrote: Australia has closed 12 coal fired power stations since 2012. The last 9 since 2014.
And? Wow, I thought you would agree that closing coal fired power stations was a good thing.
RedRaider wrote: Given that Paris is a reduction from 2005 emissions levels why shouldn't Australia count them because they overlap with Kyoto? The Paris Agreement allows it.
Not all things that are legal are ethical. It is entirely against the spirit to sit on our hands and count historical efforts. Paris Agreement is about reducing emissions from 2005 levels. Any reduction from that time is logically counted.
RedRaider wrote: Your China appeasement makes no sense at all if the goal is to reduce emissions as I have answered you on numerous times.
Your stance on Paris is hypocritical if you don’t accept the argument of developing nations. They don’t need to reduce their emissions because they’re not coming down from the historical excess we are. China and India should just say they’re counting all their credits from when they weren’t emitting like Australians all those years. I know you are not an Economic Historian so I'll give you an example of why your comment is inaccurate. In 1967 China produced 14 millions of steel compared to Australia's 6.3 million tonnes with the associated emissions. More than double Australias output more than 50 years ago. In 2018 China produced 928 million tonnes of steel and Australia 5.7 million tonnes, now more than 160 times Australias output and associated emissions. But you think Australias comparatively miniscule production from prior to 1967 when we were already half the level of Chinese production is some sort of 'off set'. Good luck with that one.
RedRaider wrote: I get the argument about bringing people out of poverty but why not use other technologies - you've never answered that. The Chinese not only build and operate coal fired power stations in China there is also a pipeline of coal fired power stations built and building around the world including the brown coal using plants in Pakistan.
I think that’s a great idea. Pretty sure they already do a bucketload of solar. I’m keen to see China reduce its emissions, absolutely. If we actually planned on meeting our Paris agreement without credits then we would absolutely be in a place to lobby for that, and share technologies perhaps? Yet China gets to increase emissions until 2030. It is entirely inconsistent that the worlds largest emitter gets to increase emissions over the next decade.
RedRaider wrote: The usual inaccurate statement when I have pointed out several things which could be done in the transport sector already including a transition to Electric vehicles and the subsequent technology transfer that will be of benefit to everyone. But you stick with your fiction and foetal position responses if that works for you.
And what I am suggesting is that there should be way more drive from our government to get us there faster. You know, maybe reduce our emissions a bit? Maybe be unafraid to mention the phrase Climate Change and properly formulate national responses to changing conditions. I am sure I have heard both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister say exactly that over the past few weeks
RedRaider wrote: Transparency Gangers. I want to know the level of your superiority. Don't be afraid, it's not unhealthy to answer questions.
Gosh, that’s a bit sad for you.
I actually had a technical question for you, which I cannot find a definitive answer to. If you were a science teacher or lecturer or specialist in chemistry you would likely know. But as you are determined to be evasive, I'll continue to try to find the answer myself.
Post Reply