Climate change

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51015
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman »

I understand that, but what they're essentially doing is opening the Galilee basin so other companies can mine it too. There's plenty of other big players pretty keen on Carmichael going ahead, let me tell you.

They all just need someone else to set-up the rail, power, water etc, and it should be a big free-for-all.
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 Rickman wrote: November 12, 2019, 4:44 pm I understand that, but what they're essentially doing is opening the Galilee basin so other companies can mine it too. There's plenty of other big players pretty keen on Carmichael going ahead, let me tell you.

They all just need someone else to set-up the rail, power, water etc, and it should be a big free-for-all.
Yeah, as per my earlier post. The cost of infrastructure investment could not justify the returns to mine it. Now its opened up there will be plenty willing to utilise it. Less selective about the quality now its become more accessible.

I can't imagine all the Galilee coal is crap though. My knowledge is mostly based on anecdotal discussion. Surely there must be some pockets of better quality stuff across such a large region. You probably have far better access to that info than I do.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51015
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman »

Northern Raider wrote: November 12, 2019, 4:53 pm
The Rickman wrote: November 12, 2019, 4:44 pm I understand that, but what they're essentially doing is opening the Galilee basin so other companies can mine it too. There's plenty of other big players pretty keen on Carmichael going ahead, let me tell you.

They all just need someone else to set-up the rail, power, water etc, and it should be a big free-for-all.
Yeah, as per my earlier post. The cost of infrastructure investment could not justify the returns to mine it. Now its opened up there will be plenty willing to utilise it. Less selective about the quality now its become more accessible.

I can't imagine all the Galilee coal is crap though. My knowledge is mostly based on anecdotal discussion. Surely there must be some pockets of better quality stuff across such a large region. You probably have far better access to that info than I do.
The biggest problem is low rank, which means high moisture, which means lower energy, which means you have to burn more. Think Rolleston-type coal, it's very similar.

The advantages is relatively low ash, no serious pollutants or trace elements and LOTS of coal. It'll be cheap to mine.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16588
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

So in a nutshell, a good economic outcome of cheaper coal/energy. Poor environmental/climate change outcome relative to other Australian coal sources?
User avatar
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12617
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gerg »

As somebody who doesn't know a great deal on this issue, what environmental issues are there with mining coal? Sure I'll accept that we may have higher grade coal but is the simple act of mining coal destructive to the surrounding area? And why would an Indian billionaire care about the Australian environment if it possibly digs into his profits?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
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 »

gergreg wrote: November 12, 2019, 5:48 pm As somebody who doesn't know a great deal on this issue, what environmental issues are there with mining coal? Sure I'll accept that we may have higher grade coal but is the simple act of mining coal destructive to the surrounding area? And why would an Indian billionaire care about the Australian environment if it possibly digs into his profits?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
A coal mine is a great big hole in the ground but realistically it's not greater impact on the surrounding area than any other kind of development. Particularly the QLD coal mines which are in the middle of nowhere surrounded by a lot of nothing. You might find a different opinion of the Hunter Valley where there is a lot of agriculture in the region too. Of course those 2 industries have coexisted for more than a hundred years.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11267
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: November 12, 2019, 7:21 am
RedRaider wrote:Gangers, I am attempting to discuss with you the need to rely on the Empirical evidence on the issue of Climate change. For someone like me, empirical evidence is all important. It is that evidence which should determine actions by business, Government and individuals.
Oh yes, of course you’re much more qualified to lecture to me on the need for evidence. You’ve got to be **** kidding me.

You’d ask for empirical evidence that if you jumped off a cliff that you’d die.
RedRaider wrote: I have no doubts the empirical evidence shows rising trend temperatures beginning from the early to mid 1970s. This is consistent with a longer term warming trend which can also see decades of 'cooler than average' temperatures. For me this means linear model forecasts need to be questioned.
Not satisfied being unjustifiably condescending to me you up the ante. Highly educated Climate scientists are simply putting a ruler on this upward trend and drawing a line? RR with no scientific understanding is here to tell you that he doesn’t accept that which he doesn’t understand.
RedRaider wrote: How quickly should Australia go with the low emissions future? I think we are doing the right thing with our Paris Agreement commitment.
And how are we tracking on those emission reductions again? Increasing? Ok.
RedRaider wrote: Carbon taxes contribute to increased unemployment as proved when we had the two year duration carbon tax. That makes it a poor option imo.
Proved? That’s going a little far. What a simplistic analysis regardless. What are the job losses from inaction? What is the lost opportunity cost of not properly investing in renewables?
RedRaider wrote: If it is accepted that Australia has 1.3% of current World emissions then our share of the 2 degree forecast increase in Global temperatures is 2 degrees multiplied by 1.3% or 0.026 degrees.
So if 100 people each give a person a non-lethal cut and they bleed to death then they’re free from guilt. Is that your line of argument?

RedRaider wrote: My opinion is that a balance will be drawn and that a mix of coal fired power will be maintained well into the future due to the technology state for storage of wind and solar power production.
Depends how you define “well into the future”. Obviously coal will continue to play a part in years to come and can’t be switched off with current tech. Which is why you should be investing in R&D of the transition and end goal technology so that you can speed up the transition and sell the tech to the world.
RUOK Gangers. Once again there must be some trigger word/s which brings from you emotive responses far away from what has been written. You have again questioned my level of scientific knowledge when I have already advised you that I have only high school level science learning, but I do have a keen interest in this subject. We were taught to seek proof and facts. Can I ask what area your Science Degree is in please? On your final 3 sentences, I presume you would approve of the Federal Government putting an extra $1billion into the clean energy finance corporation as announced in October 2019. FTR I think it is a very good move. I'll finish this reply with how I began in this thread: "Climate change is real". Twist away.
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51015
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman »

Haha I love how gangrenous accuses Red of being condescending to him when it's literally IMPOSSIBLE for gangy to be anything OTHER than condescending in a discussion.

The ironing!!
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16588
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

I said unjustifiably condescending Nickman! Image

Yes RR I do have tertiary science quals, but I prefer to stand on the strength of the argument.

The thing that is angering me RR is your offhand dismissal of thousands of hours of work from thousands of scientists because you don’t understand it. That’s poor form.
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11267
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

'offhand dismissal'?? Let's get to what was actually said.
'My concern is with the validity of the modelling. No one predicted the extent of the current drought in western NSW. If weather forecastes are limited in reliability, How can climate modelling not be questioned for its predictions.
It could be predicting too hot or too cold and none of us will really know until we live through it.'

It is a perfectly reasonable thing to say that accurate forecasting of the future is not an exact science.

So why do I think this way about modelling? It is because it is almost impossible to predict the variables which will impact on the model outcomes. Nothing at all to do with the qualifications/skills of the scientists doing the modelling.

I think it's reasonable to presume that there were great hopes for the Paris Agreement in limiting the use of fossil fuels. But the Worlds largest emitter, China, already at 30% of global emissions is allowed to grow it further over the coming decade. Would it not have been reasonable for climate Scientific modellers to believe that the case for global warming was so strong that every nation would reduce emissions? That is clearly not happening. In todays newspapers there is a report on India and its need for expansion of energy production including a vast increase in the use of Coal from '600 million tonnes in 2016 to 1100 million tonnes in 2030'. Did the modelling of some years ago take that into account? I don't see how the modellers could have known these variables.

On the other side of the coin we don't know what technological advancements will be made which could reduce the demand for power as light emitting diodes did when replacing incandescent globes. Battery technology and cost improvements will be all important for turning currently intermittent wind and solar power into a reliable 24/7 electric power source.

I'll say it again for you: Climate change is real. Our response to it should include investments such as currently being made with interconnectors. This will link States - Tasmania to Victoria and recently Qld to NSW and now also NSW to SA so in areas where there is an abundance of power it can be readily shared.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145102
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

RedRaider... you say climate change is real, but you seem to leave out the bit about it being caused by the activity of humans.

That’s the broad scientific consensus.

They might be wrong... but given it’s going to be virtually impossible to turn it back around... shouldn’t we do something now? Even if it’s just insurance, it’d be wise and sensible to do so.

It’s important to recognise that climate change is result of the activity of humans... because we know it’s in our hands to do something about it.

The fact that some nations refuse to act... that international agreements are flawed... should we just throw up our hands and say... let’s just wait for unknown technological advance to fix it up? That might happen... but given the impacts are hard, if not impossible to reverse... shouldn’t we do something? The things you’re talking about aren’t nearly enough to do anything to reduce emissions. A carbon price would have. Not only that, it’s the cheapest, most efficient policy of all... producing the least economic cost. It’s the thing that would have driven technological advancements... at least cost. It’s sad that this has become so political, that the basic economics are simply ignored and economic arguments are twisted about to suit particular vested interests.

There are a lot of excuses which allow us to do postpone... do nothing. The economic impacts in transition are, however, not big when you consider the longer term impacts and economic costs. There’s comprehensive economic modelling that shows that.

All this won’t impact me too much probably. I’ll be dead. We should think about the future, however, IMO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16588
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RR you have in discussing climate modelling forecasts in this thread:

* belittled the work by stating the need to move away from linear models when you don’t know the first thing about how the models work.

* dismissed their predictions because of an inability to forecast weather as opposed to climate which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the difficulty in predicting individual probabilistic events versus their aggregation. It’s the difference between me being able to predict whether a flipped coin will be heads or tails (wrong 50% of the time!) versus me predicting how many heads there will be in 1000 tosses which is going to be correct to within a relatively small degree of error. Because I can’t predict one coin toss doesn’t mean I don’t completely understand the system of tossing a coin.

* in dismissing due to a weather event, you used the extent of the current drought as your example. That would actually fit perfectly with the predictions that have been made. Not to mention the current extreme bushfire conditions.

* you talk about the emissions of specific countries as negating the value of models when the inputs to the models are likely to be global emissions, with examination of the varied results for a range of different input values. The only difference your change will make is to bring their predictions forward in time.

The basis upon which you are questioning the experts is ignorance. You haven’t indicated any willingness to understand or accept that, despite admitting your lack of training in the area.

You’re not alone. There are millions like you taking the easy way out by ignoring the warnings and facts. So here we are with a response that is not in proportion to the risk.
Last edited by gangrenous on November 17, 2019, 5:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16588
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

GE - nails it as usual
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 »

I'm not sure too many say human activity is the "cause" of climate change. The climate on this planet has continually changed through history. It's more about human activity being a contributing factor and accelerating the change. The area of most contention is the level of contribution and what needs to happen (within practical means) to rectify it, or at least slow it down.

It's a topic that needs far more discussion and debate with a goal achieving tangible results. As GE said though, it's unfortunately become overly politicised. Arguments on what could/should be done have become major campaign topics from all aspects of politics. While the subject remains mired in this situation we'll see little positive action.

Even in the public forum it's descended into arguments between alarmists and deniers. It's a case "if you don't agree with me you are wrong". Hard to progress while this attitude prevails.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145102
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

Of climate changes have happened over time. And will continue to. But the scientific consensus is that global warming has accelerated due to human activity since industrial times. The vast bulk of scientists support that conclusion.
Image
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 »

greeneyed wrote: November 17, 2019, 12:33 pm Of climate changes have happened over time. And will continue to. But the scientific consensus is that global warming has accelerated due to human activity since industrial times. The vast bulk of scientists support that conclusion.
So you agree with my opening paragraph then.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16588
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Northern Raider wrote:I'm not sure too many say human activity is the "cause" of climate change ... The area of most contention is the level of contribution
IPCC 2018 summary for policy makers - “Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate.”

Quick summary - The scientists say it’s likely nearly all of it.

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 »

gangrenous wrote: November 17, 2019, 1:06 pm
Northern Raider wrote:I'm not sure too many say human activity is the "cause" of climate change ... The area of most contention is the level of contribution
IPCC 2018 summary for policy makers - “Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5 above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate.”

Quick summary - The scientists say it’s likely nearly all of it.
"Estimated"
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16588
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

And what is your estimate based off thousands of hours of research, measurements and modelling exactly?

Fair dinkum...
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 »

gangrenous wrote: November 17, 2019, 1:22 pm And what is your estimate based off thousands of hours of research, measurements and modelling exactly?

Fair dinkum... Image
An estimate is an estimate. Doesn't matter how long it took to come to the figure.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16588
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

An estimate is an estimate because there’s no book somewhere with the right answer written in the back for you to check.

There is no way for an assessment like this not to be an estimate! They’ve done the work, provided their best estimate for value. Given you a confidence interval to indicate how confident they are that the answer sits in that range somewhere...

Yet still like RR you just dismiss the work of experts because it doesn’t fit what you want or don’t understand how these things work or the terminology.
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11267
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

greeneyed wrote: November 16, 2019, 11:47 pm RedRaider... you say climate change is real, but you seem to leave out the bit about it being caused by the activity of humans.

That’s the broad scientific consensus.

They might be wrong... but given it’s going to be virtually impossible to turn it back around... shouldn’t we do something now? Even if it’s just insurance, it’d be wise and sensible to do so.

It’s important to recognise that climate change is result of the activity of humans... because we know it’s in our hands to do something about it.

The fact that some nations refuse to act... that international agreements are flawed... should we just throw up our hands and say... let’s just wait for unknown technological advance to fix it up? That might happen... but given the impacts are hard, if not impossible to reverse... shouldn’t we do something? The things you’re talking about aren’t nearly enough to do anything to reduce emissions. A carbon price would have. Not only that, it’s the cheapest, most efficient policy of all... producing the least economic cost. It’s the thing that would have driven technological advancements... at least cost. It’s sad that this has become so political, that the basic economics are simply ignored and economic arguments are twisted about to suit particular vested interests.

There are a lot of excuses which allow us to do postpone... do nothing. The economic impacts in transition are, however, not big when you consider the longer term impacts and economic costs. There’s comprehensive economic modelling that shows that.

All this won’t impact me too much probably. I’ll be dead. We should think about the future, however, IMO.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
GE - I am not in the denier camp so I have no problem agreeing with IPCC Working Group 1 information which says:
'Scientists all over the world regularly assess the rich body of scientific literature, contributing to an ever-strengthening understanding of how the climate system works, and how it is changing in response to human activity'. Hopefully this clarifies my opinion for you.

There is nothing I have written that says we should do nothing. In fact my opinion is that I endorse our Paris Agreement and its fulfillment.

I can't see anywhere in what I've written that says we should 'throw up our hands'. In fact I have written that I support the 'Battery of the Nation' in Tasmania and Snowy 2.0 and the $1billion given to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in October 2019 and the Development of the National Hydrogen Strategy. There are further feasibility studies taking place now to supply solar electric power to Singapore from the Northern Territory. An export market like this makes a lot of sense to me from both an economic and emissions sense. I hope it happens. I also hope it leads to more advanced power storage systems which will make intermittent renewable energy far more practical.

I have further stated that I saw the logic in the Labor Party going for a 50% reduction in emissions because our vast forest and grass lands absorb about 50% of our total emissions of CO2. Further that if we are going to build replacement coal fired power stations they should be using ultra super critical technology because of the reduction in emissions using such technology. (As previously stated the proponents say 26% reduction while Green Peace and others say 14% so I think around 20% will be close to the mark for the same amount of energy produced). Victoria is currently hooked on the dirtiest of coal fired power using Brown coal. Eg the 1480MW Yallourn power station creates 13.8 million tonnes of CO2 where as the Super critical technology (not Ultra but old Super critical) at the 1400MW Mt Piper black coal power station produces 6.8millioni tonnes of CO2. That's half using old tech. No Australian Federal Gov't has ever built a coal fired power station that I am aware of. It was in the hands of the State Governments and now in some States the power stations are in private hands which has been a cost increasing market failure imo.

Carbon Pricing has its advantages if everyone is playing by the same rules. ie if all nations were using the same carbon price. However we can't get agreement on emission reductions let alone a world carbon price. For a lone nation to introduce a carbon tax simply raises the cost of production/services in that nation and transfers jobs to nations with lower input costs. It looks fine in theory but unless everyone is applying a similar carbon price then it is a job exporter system.
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 »

gangrenous wrote: November 17, 2019, 1:46 pm An estimate is an estimate because there’s no book somewhere with the right answer written in the back for you to check.

There is no way for an assessment like this not to be an estimate! They’ve done the work, provided their best estimate for value. Given you a confidence interval to indicate how confident they are that the answer sits in that range somewhere...

Yet still like RR you just dismiss the work of experts because it doesn’t fit what you want or don’t understand how these things work or the terminology.
I didn't dismiss it. Figure could be spot on, could be too high or too low. If all researchers involved independently came up with very similar figures then the estimate has a greater probability of accuracy. If they came up with largely varying figures then eventually agreed on this final estimate then it has lesser chance of accuracy.

It still an estimate and I don't dismiss estimates, neither do I accept them as gospel.

Your reaction is definitely confirming something I said in my earlier post.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12617
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gerg »

This country has so much to lose if things keep going the way they are. Hottest and driest continent and not particularly mountainous. It's not good enough to not be doing more and claim we shouldn't do more because other countries are worse.

We should do more than other countries and then lobby them to do better. At the moment whenever we try to take the moral high ground other countries just snigger at us.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017
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 »

gergreg wrote: November 17, 2019, 2:24 pm This country has so much to lose if things keep going the way they are. Hottest and driest continent and not particularly mountainous. It's not good enough to not be doing more and claim we shouldn't do more because other countries are worse.

We should do more than other countries and then lobby them to do better. At the moment whenever we try to take the moral high ground other countries just snigger at us.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Agree that everybody needs to do more. It's the specifics of what "more" is that cause the most conjecture.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16588
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Northern Raider wrote: It still an estimate and I don't dismiss estimates, neither do I accept them as gospel.

Your reaction is definitely confirming something I said in my earlier post.
It’s the best estimate to work from at the moment. It is a combination of the work of many scientists, from many institutions, across many years. The high confidence range covers something like 70-100% of the observed change and you’re trying to quibble like maybe what we’re doing is some small component after all, or that the estimate is likely to significantly change any moment.

You can try and categorise your ignorance as my extremism if you want. Sometimes in life you’re just wrong NR, and people calling your Bull doesn’t make them extremists.
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 »

gangrenous wrote: November 17, 2019, 2:39 pm
Northern Raider wrote: It still an estimate and I don't dismiss estimates, neither do I accept them as gospel.

Your reaction is definitely confirming something I said in my earlier post.
It’s the best estimate to work from at the moment. It is a combination of the work of many scientists, from many institutions, across many years. The high confidence range covers something like 70-100% of the observed change and you’re trying to quibble like maybe what we’re doing is some small component after all, or that the estimate is likely to significantly change any moment.

You can try and categorise your ignorance as my extremism if you want. Sometimes in life you’re just wrong NR, and people calling your Bull doesn’t make them extremists.
I questioned your argument therefore I am wrong. Thanks for confirming.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
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 »

Back to the subject GE raised about it becoming overly politicised. Doubt it would happen but I'd love to see leadership teams of both major parties locked away until they get agreement on Australia's climate policy. Once agreement is reached that policy becomes set in stone prior to next election. That way whoever wins we know what will happen in this area. Climate policy would then become a non-issue during campaigns.

Both major parties are centered enough for this to work. Even their current leaders might be secure enough in their own position to pull off such a play. Unfortunately broader politics will win out and we won't see it happen.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16588
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Northern Raider wrote: I questioned your argument therefore I am wrong. Thanks for confirming.
You suggested the culmination of decades of research is just an estimate that we’re not going to give much weight to. I suggested maybe the experts have the answer we should work with.

Who is the arrogant one here?
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 »

gangrenous wrote: November 17, 2019, 2:50 pm
Northern Raider wrote: I questioned your argument therefore I am wrong. Thanks for confirming.
You suggested the culmination of decades of research is just an estimate that we’re not going to give much weight to. I suggested maybe the experts have the answer we should work with.

Who is the arrogant one here?
Yes they may and it's a path we should follow for now, but not ignore alternative views, research etc.

P.S. I do have an opinion on you last question but not willing to share it.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16588
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

Northern Raider wrote: Yes they may and it's a path we should follow for now,
Good, so we’ve answered your question and the current status is that climate change is predominantly caused by man.
Northern Raider wrote: but not ignore alternative views, research etc.
Why hello straw man!
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 »

gangrenous wrote: November 17, 2019, 2:59 pm
Northern Raider wrote: Yes they may and it's a path we should follow for now,
Good, so we’ve answered your question and the current status is that climate change is predominantly caused by man.
Northern Raider wrote: but not ignore alternative views, research etc.
Why hello straw man!
Your really not interpreting what I'm saying very well. Whether intentional or not I can't say. Either way I'll leave you with it.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11267
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider »

gangrenous wrote: November 17, 2019, 5:59 am GE and mods I apologise in advance for going outside forum guidelines
RR you have in discussing climate modelling forecasts in this thread:

* belittled the work by stating the need to move away from linear models when you don’t know the first thing about how the models work.

I've belittled no one. If your kids or wife or workmates ask you a question does that mean they are belittling you? Do you really mean that to question something is to belittle a person? Your meals around the dinner table must be very quiet with no one game to ask a question for fear of being labelled a 'belittler'. Your responses are once again far removed from anything that has been said. You are intent on putting labels on people who quote a statement of fact (historical global warming and cooling) that you subsequently agree with but you do not put the same label on yourself. Some would call that hypocrisy but as the omnipotent owner of the label machine you won't see it.

* dismissed their predictions because of an inability to forecast weather as opposed to climate which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the difficulty in predicting individual probabilistic events versus their aggregation. It’s the difference between me being able to predict whether a flipped coin will be heads or tails (wrong 50% of the time!) versus me predicting how many heads there will be in 1000 tosses which is going to be correct to within a relatively small degree of error. Because I can’t predict one coin toss doesn’t mean I don’t completely understand the system of tossing a coin.

I agree you have been doing a lot of tossing in this thread. Enjoy.

* in dismissing due to a weather event, you used the extent of the current drought as your example. That would actually fit perfectly with the predictions that have been made. Not to mention the current extreme bushfire conditions.

It would also fit perfectly with the lived experience of the people of Australia who have recorded such events.

* you talk about the emissions of specific countries as negating the value of models when the inputs to the models are likely to be global emissions, with examination of the varied results for a range of different input values. The only difference your change will make is to bring their predictions forward in time.

It is not my change Gangrenous, it is the actions of Countries who will increase the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. If you agree as I do that an increase in CO2 will increase global warming then it is not only the timing which is affected but the extent of the warming.

The basis upon which you are questioning the experts is ignorance. You haven’t indicated any willingness to understand or accept that, despite admitting your lack of training in the area.

I have come to the belief that you will question nothing, ever. The IPCC will always be correct. Even when they admitted to error in 2014 that the glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035. I know you won't like facts that disagree with your closed mind narrative, but the IPCC are human and admitted, to their credit, error.

You’re not alone. There are millions like you taking the easy way out by ignoring the warnings and facts. So here we are with a response that is not in proportion to the risk.
Once again I am ignoring nothing but your label. If you actually read what was written, difficult I know with your head so firmly in your pompous posterior, you, Omnipotent one, might actually have read that, despite your label, I am not in the denier camp. It does not mean I do not reserve the ability to question what has been put forward, because as we saw in 2014, sometimes information produced by the IPCC can be inaccurate.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145102
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by greeneyed »

RedRaider wrote: November 17, 2019, 1:56 pm I can't see anywhere in what I've written that says we should 'throw up our hands'. In fact I have written that I support the 'Battery of the Nation' in Tasmania and Snowy 2.0 and the $1billion given to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in October 2019 and the Development of the National Hydrogen Strategy. There are further feasibility studies taking place now to supply solar electric power to Singapore from the Northern Territory. An export market like this makes a lot of sense to me from both an economic and emissions sense. I hope it happens. I also hope it leads to more advanced power storage systems which will make intermittent renewable energy far more practical.

Carbon Pricing has its advantages if everyone is playing by the same rules. ie if all nations were using the same carbon price. However we can't get agreement on emission reductions let alone a world carbon price. For a lone nation to introduce a carbon tax simply raises the cost of production/services in that nation and transfers jobs to nations with lower input costs. It looks fine in theory but unless everyone is applying a similar carbon price then it is a job exporter system.
Red Raider... I'd actually say a lot of the alternative interventions being mentioned don't make any economic sense whatsoever. The aim is to reduce carbon emissions from Australia by a specified amount. Whatever Australia's commitments are, that's the thing to directly target with government policy... and with a carbon price. That's going to be the most efficient thing to do... and it's the only thing government needs to do. If you get the carbon price/tax mechanism right, all of the rest follows. You allow the market, the private sector, to determine what they do in response to reduce the emissions... and they'll find the least cost way.

It's actually to Australia's advantage to use a carbon price, because that's the cheapest thing to do ie it involves the least cost economic adjustment. If others choose not to have a carbon price... to reach their targets with all of these higher cost policies, fine, so long as they reach them... but they'll be paying a lot more for it and hampering their economy more.

I agree there is concern if every country doesn't pull their weight and reduce emissions... that is the biggest problem. But then I can see the point of some developing countries, that they are well behind other countries in the process of economic advancement. The best thing to do is for developed countries to help the developing more... but that's a very complicated process.

In any event, if we take our international obligations seriously, whatever they are, the economics tells us the most certain and cheapest way of getting to the emission reduction targets is a carbon price. All the alternatives of getting the target are going to cost us more. More probably we won't achieve the emissions reductions through these "alternative" policies. A lot of people actually push those alternatives, because fundamentally, they want to avoid the emission reductions, but want to appear to be doing something.
Image
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16588
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous »

RedRaider wrote: I've belittled no one. If your kids or wife or workmates ask you a question does that mean they are belittling you?
Asking a question to gain understanding is fine. Challenging someone on reasonable grounds, go for it.

You called into question the accuracy of the work of almost all climate scientists on the basis that they were using linear models, when everything else you write suggests you have no idea of what the models are or how they work. So what right do you have to “question” in that fashion?

Let’s talk about your work RR. I actually suspect that all your career’s work should be questioned because you used linear models.
RedRaider wrote: I agree you have been doing a lot of tossing in this thread. Enjoy.
I’ve had a couple of legitimate attempts at explaining why failing to predict a weather event does not preclude predicting climate. Do you still disagree? If so, why?
RedRaider wrote: It would also fit perfectly with the lived experience of the people of Australia who have recorded such events.
“Just a 1C temperature rise has meant the extremes are far more extreme, and it is placing lives at risk, including firefighters,” said Greg Mullins, the former chief of NSW Fire and Rescue. “Climate change has supercharged the bushfire problem.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ate-change
RedRaider wrote: I have come to the belief that you will question nothing, ever. The IPCC will always be correct. Even when they admitted to error in 2014 that the glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035. I know you won't like facts that disagree with your closed mind narrative, but the IPCC are human and admitted, to their credit, error.
No the IPCC are not going to be perfect. They will make mistakes, and the scientific process should see them fixed. What is the likelihood that the central thesis is completely flawed? Not high. I’m not going to say it’s impossible, but it’s not very likely. And in the meantime what should we base our decisions off? The findings of decades of work by experts, or the long shot hope of an error of a random guy on the internet?
RedRaider wrote: I am not in the denier camp. It does not mean I do not reserve the ability to question what has been put forward
I’m noticing this a bit recently. “I’m not in the denier camp” seems like it’s used now outright denial is socially unacceptable, so you’ll be allowed to participate in the conversation without having any questionable arguments against further action challenged.
Post Reply