Climate change

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44297
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman » September 25, 2019, 11:29 pm

gangrenous wrote:It seems to always come back to people are jerks.
It really, really does, old friend
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
bonehead
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13357
Joined: March 1, 2005, 5:29 am
Location: Smelling The Shiraz

Re: Climate change

Post by bonehead » September 26, 2019, 5:25 am

take aside the speech for a moment, here's a 16yo standing up in front of the entire UN and delivering what she has to know is a world attention grabbing speech - incredible kid
Edrick The Entertainer

User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 26075
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: Climate change

Post by Botman » September 26, 2019, 8:22 am

I think the thing i've enjoyed most about Thunberg's speech has been the response by guys like Bolt.
50 year old men, who have been reduced to puddles of goo by a 16 year old girl's words

Amazing
CREATE PROCEDURE BotMan_Post AS
SELECT * FROM Previous_Post
EXEC quote_post
WHERE UserName = 'Aknalkfgnaa' OR 'Yeah Raiders' OR 'Billy B'
EXEC RAND(good_grief; cheak_notes; uh82cit;)

GO;

The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44297
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman » September 26, 2019, 8:38 am

PigRickman wrote:I think the thing i've enjoyed most about Thunberg's speech has been the response by guys like Bolt.
50 year old men, who have been reduced to puddles of goo by a 16 year old girl's words

Amazing
The best thing is, they’re not even arguing the science anymore, they’re now just arguing the fact she’s a 16 year old girl or claiming she’s somehow a pawn... it’s tremendous stuff
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24637
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: Climate change

Post by Manbush » September 28, 2019, 1:15 pm

"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7561
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » October 3, 2019, 6:25 pm

Climate change is real. We have had numerous ice ages and mini ice ages and come out of them. This indicates global warming and global cooling many times and for a variety of reasons.

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.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10118
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous » October 3, 2019, 6:58 pm

RedRaider wrote:Climate change is real. We have had numerous ice ages and mini ice ages and come out of them.
The earth has. 7 billion humans have not. How do you think our civilisation goes in an ice age?
RedRaider wrote: This indicates global warming and global cooling many times and for a variety of reasons.
The biggest concern is the rate of change. The climate is changing faster than species and systems can evolve and adapt.
RedRaider wrote: My concern is with the validity of the modelling.
I’d suggest your best bet is to trust that there’s a lot of effort going into this and very clever scientists are putting in their best efforts to get this right.
RedRaider wrote: No one predicted the extent of the current drought in western NSW.
Well, they kind of did. One of the major conclusions is that we can expect more regular and extreme weather events like this drought.
RedRaider wrote: 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.
When you pull out the plug in the bath, can you tell me the path one of the drops of water will take to the drain? Nope, that’s a really complex fluid dynamics problem to solve.

Can you tell me where it’ll end up? Yep, in the drain. Because although you don’t know all the tiny details of what will happen, you understand the simpler concepts that governs the overarching behaviour. Gravity will draw all the water to the drain.

You don’t have to be able to predict the weather tomorrow to be able to predict the long term trends governed by the greenhouse effect.

I’d also note I’m old enough to have seen dramatic progress in their ability to predict tomorrow’s weather from when I was a kid too!



RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7561
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » October 4, 2019, 1:08 pm

Have you been on the cans Gangers?
Did you write the last part in the tub and have now proven gravity??
When I get some time I'll come back to you on your early points.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10118
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous » October 4, 2019, 1:46 pm

Nope, neither on the cans nor having an Archimedes moment.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7561
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » October 5, 2019, 2:54 am

Gangers my point of view on your points:
Point 1. Ice ages and mini ice ages would result in catastrophic crop failures and cause mass starvation. It is interesting to look at the history of climate. The Roman warm period from about 250BC to 400AD was followed by a cooler period up to around 900AD to around 1300AD of the Medieval warm period. This was then followed by the 'little ice age' up to 1850AD. Then from 1850 we have seen warming temperatures. Again there are several theories as to why this was so, ranging from volcanic activity to solar activity. The science doesn't take sides it just records what has happened using methods such as ice cores and tree rings to determine climate at a particular time range.

Point 2. An interesting point here is the 'Global Cooling' scare of around 25years from the mid 1940s to late 1960s. Recorded temperatures fell during this time and stayed low for a couple of decades. I remember the head lines about concerns of glaciation growth in my early teens and how crop failures were being forecast due to cold. Instead this was replaced by global warming and far from crop failures, global output of food has grown. Some is due to increasing the land area under cultivation and some is due to better farm practices. There have been a number of possible reasons for this recorded cooling, one of which involved Australia - this was atmospheric nuclear testing. Australia allowed the Poms to set off 12 nuclear weapons on our soil in the 1950s. The tests were conducted in South Australia and off the coast of Western Australia. Four were equal to or greater than the atom bomb used over Hiroshima - the greatest was 6 times the size of the Hiroshima weapon. It was a time when the world was coming out of World War 2 and the rapid economic growth of nations such as Japan, Germany and China were underway. It goes to show that warming is not linear and cooler temperatures can occur even during a warming period.

Point 3. I still have concerns about the accuracy of some of the modelling. For example, I don't believe the Chinese want to exterminate themselves. The Paris Agreements allow China, the worlds biggest polluter which consumes more than 50% of the worlds coal (Source: BP - Statistical Review 2019), to Increase emissions up to 2030. If the models are so compelling why would not the nations of the world call them out on it? (Was this the basis of Scott Morrisons recent speech about China being a 'newly developed' country). The globe is finite. The largest polluters can have the biggest effect on bringing down global emissions. This is not to say that Australia should not bring down its emissions although the measures show that Australian emissions are increasing due to the fact that increasing exports of LNG, which are burnt overseas, are counted as Australia's emissions because the commodity was produced here.

Point 4. I don't think predicting extremes of weather events is anything new as records will be broken from time to time eg 1816 was recorded as a year without a summer and this was put down to a volcano in Indonesia causing the cooling of Europe. Dorothea Mackellar wrote 'My Country' in about 1904 following living through the record temperatures and droughts of the 1890s in Australia with her famous 'land of droughts and flooding rains'. Live long enough and records will be set both high and low.

I don't doubt we are in a warming cycle, but this does not mean we won't have decades of cooler temperatures as happened from the 1940s to the late 1960s. How does the modelling stack up against such recorded counter cyclical events? I don't think it can because there are too many variables which can cause such a change.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10118
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous » October 5, 2019, 9:47 am

RedRaider wrote:
Point 1. Precisely, extreme cold temperatures would cause us big problems. Same for extreme hot temperatures. So your original point about the climate having changed in the past when we weren’t here is utterly meaningless.

Point 2. Yes climate science and agricultural science may have advanced a little bit from the 40s-60s in the 60 intervening years... what were they running their complex models on then? The back of an envelope?

RedRaider wrote: Point 3. I still have concerns about the accuracy of some of the modelling. For example, I don't believe the Chinese want to exterminate themselves. The Paris Agreements allow China, the worlds biggest polluter which consumes more than 50% of the worlds coal (Source: BP - Statistical Review 2019), to Increase emissions up to 2030.
So your concerns over the modelling are largely because you don’t understand the fairness of China’s treatment? I’ve done something similar before, but let me explain why that’s the case:

Let’s say there are 10 of us. I emit 60 units, and my 9 Chinese mates each emit 10 units. There is no reason why I get more, it’s just worked out that way historically. In fact I have benefitted greatly in my quality of life from being able to emit at 60 each year to this point. So each year we emit 150 units together, and we want to bring that down to 120 in a year. What is the fairest way to divide that?

Is it to say, we’ll actually you 9 make up 60% of emissions. Off you go, I’ll drop to 48 and you guys can all drop to 8. Or do you consider that actually working towards 12 each is far fairer and the increase for my Chinese friends is generally pulling people out of poverty instead of allowing wealthy families to have an overseas holiday every year?
RedRaider wrote: This is not to say that Australia should not bring down its emissions although the measures show that Australian emissions are increasing due to the fact that increasing exports of LNG, which are burnt overseas, are counted as Australia's emissions because the commodity was produced here.
The emissions by foreign nations aren’t counted against us. Only the emissions from the production in Australia. Yes presumably we’ve taken a hit on this to some degree for the greater good, but I’m yet to see exact numbers on that from the government. It also is a long way from excusing 6 years without a legitimate energy policy.
RedRaider wrote: Point 4. I don't think predicting extremes of weather events is anything new as records will be broken from time to time
We’re not seeing records broken from time to time! What is it 17 of the hottest years in the last 20? This is not some random one off event!

A lot of this is irrelevant nonsense. I think you should probably just own that you value your expertise on climate over the scientists of the world.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7561
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » October 5, 2019, 3:19 pm

1. Utterly meaningless?? you must have missed the part about the heating and cooling over the last 2 millennia and the human race is still here. I'm not talking millions of years ago.
2. These were measures of world temperatures taken by scientists of the time (Mid 1940s to late 1960s). Factual readings of Global cooling. Nothing 'back of the envelop' about it. I know a lot of this stuff is probably new to you, but I would ask you to keep an open mind on the science.
3. The figures you have used in your example are miles from factual. Simply use the real figures and it will help. I thought the aim was to bring down emissions to limit increases in CO2? Remember we live on a finite globe and there are other forms of energy eg Nuclear which China already has and could expand, whereas Australia currently cannot go down that path by law. China is around 30% of global CO2 emissions and Australia a little over 1%. Per Capita means little when it is total emissions which need to reduce. Yet China can expand their already World record run of emissions and get a free pass to do so. The second biggest emitter is the USA on around 14% and Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement due to the treatment afforded to China. China currently the Worlds second largest economy and due to become the largest at some time in the first half of the current century. According to the previously quoted BP - Statistical Review 2019, China will have depleted its coal resources to near zero between 2050 and 2060. They will have to invest heavily in other forms of power generation (Yes I am aware of the Three Gorges Dam project which is the largest producer of electricity in the world) or see their economy decline.
3(a) From Australian Financial Review 30 August 2019 "Electricity sector emissions, the biggest single contributor to the national total, fell 2.1 per cent in the year to March and are down 15.7 per cent from their peak in 2008-09." The figures quoted are actual declines in emissions in this sector in Australia. The increase in LNG exports along with the transport sector has shown an overall increase in emissions.
4. No doubt some yearly temperature records are being set but they are set against a relatively small (by geological time measure) set of years. The records also show highest temperatures occurring in 1939 with mid 40 degrees for Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. It doesn't mean there isn't great variability eg I was living in Canberra when it snowed in 1986. It was spring time. Was the famous snowy footy game in 2005?
To get the facts on Yearly temperature variations the ABC has an excellent site but it only goes to 2014. Yearly variations are amazing. you will be able to see why there were fears of global cooling between mid 1940s and late 1960s as you slide the cursor along the time line.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-09/ ... es/5582146

I know you will enjoy the Grand Final Gangers and I'll look forward to your posts following the game. My son won the ticketing lottery when he got our seats which are on the half way line 12 rows from the fence. He is 183cms and has a green suit to wear with an extra large horned hat and fake platted beard. I'll be the little bloke (in stature not girth) beside him in the 2019 Raiders Jersey wearing a green wig and face paint. One more sleep to go.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10118
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous » October 5, 2019, 4:28 pm

RedRaider wrote:1. Utterly meaningless?? you must have missed the part about the heating and cooling over the last 2 millennia and the human race is still here. I'm not talking millions of years ago.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/glo ... ate-shifts

The conclusions from the Nature papers were that we are seeing universal global warming unlike some regional fluctuations seen previously in the last 2000 years. Particularly “the rate at which temperatures are increasing now far exceeds any previous temperature fluctuations measured in the last two Millenia”.

RedRaider wrote: 2. These were measures of world temperatures taken by scientists of the time (Mid 1940s to late 1960s). Factual readings of Global cooling. Nothing 'back of the envelop' about it. I know a lot of this stuff is probably new to you, but I would ask you to keep an open mind on the science.
You’ve got a lot of nerve here asking me to “keep an open mind on the science”.

You mentioned there was some cooler weather and people were concerned about global cooling. My remark was to question the scientific maturity of those concerns at the time at a point when the climate science is not even close to the sophistication we have today.

RedRaider wrote: 3. The figures you have used in your example are miles from factual. Simply use the real figures and it will help.
Of course they are. It was to understand the principle.

The real numbers in 2017 has us more than double the emissions of China per Capita
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... _emissions

RedRaider wrote: I thought the aim was to bring down emissions to limit increases in CO2?
Of course that’s the aim. I explained why in terms of fairness it’s not always the case that that means everyone cuts by the same amount to achieve that goal.

RedRaider wrote: Remember we live on a finite globe and there are other forms of energy eg Nuclear which China already has and could expand, whereas Australia currently cannot go down that path by law.
Cannot go down the path by law? What nonsense argument is that. You tell that to China. I’m sure they can whip up a law so they don’t have to either. Why not just tell them we made a law where we can’t cut emissions at all and they’d better do it all? Image

Sure Nuclear should be in the discussions about the best way to reduce emissions. It has some obvious flaws so it’s no clear solution, but by all means it should be weighed in solutions.

RedRaider wrote: China is around 30% of global CO2 emissions and Australia a little over 1%. Per Capita means little when it is total emissions which need to reduce.
Well actually no. Per Capita means an awful lot when you’re looking at a co-operative equitable solution. We need the whole world to help and if you think China will do more than it’s share of the lifting because it has more people, then I think you’re in fairy land.

RedRaider wrote: 3(a) From Australian Financial Review 30 August 2019 "Electricity sector emissions, the biggest single contributor to the national total, fell 2.1 per cent in the year to March and are down 15.7 per cent from their peak in 2008-09."
Got the plot there RR? Just how much of the reduction came about while there was a carbon tax do you think?

RedRaider wrote: 4. No doubt some yearly temperature records are being set but they are set against a relatively small (by geological time measure) set of years. The records also show highest temperatures occurring in 1939 with mid 40 degrees for Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. It doesn't mean there isn't great variability eg I was living in Canberra when it snowed in 1986. It was spring time. Was the famous snowy footy game in 2005?
To get the facts on Yearly temperature variations the ABC has an excellent site but it only goes to 2014. Yearly variations are amazing. you will be able to see why there were fears of global cooling between mid 1940s and late 1960s as you slide the cursor along the time line.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-09/ ... es/5582146
Some temperature records being set? The climate scientists are telling you this is not just the odd hot day here or there! They’re telling you we have a problem and we need to address it now!

Image

RedRaider wrote: I know you will enjoy the Grand Final Gangers and I'll look forward to your posts following the game. My son won the ticketing lottery when he got our seats which are on the half way line 12 rows from the fence. He is 183cms and has a green suit to wear with an extra large horned hat and fake platted beard. I'll be the little bloke (in stature not girth) beside him in the 2019 Raiders Jersey wearing a green wig and face paint. One more sleep to go.
Enjoy the GF RedRaider. You’ve got far better taste in football teams than you have depth of scientific understanding.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7561
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » October 5, 2019, 7:13 pm

Wow Gangers, insulting from beginning to end. Only thing is, I have never argued that climate change isn't happening or that we should not continue to reduce emissions. Nor have I argued against Australia fulfilling the Paris Agreement. I won't agree that the Worlds biggest emitter should be waived through to increase emissions though. That undermines the Worlds efforts to reduce total emissions imo. Look at the increase in Global Average Temperatures (which you put in your post) over the past 50 years and try to credibly excuse the actions of the Paris negotiating teams by allowing this gargantuan emitter to increase the level of emissions up to 2030 which they are allowed to do under the Paris Agreement. Even a freeze in their level of emissions would still make them the Worlds largest emitter over the next decade.

When I said Australia currently cannot go down the Nuclear Energy path by law, I meant it. See below:

How nuclear power came to be banned in Australia
Australia’s nuclear timeline
1969
Proposal to build Australia’s
first nuclear reactor at Jervis
Bay. Tenders were called and
land cleared, but low cost
coal and fiscal constraints
saw the plan deferred and
eventually scrapped.
1980S-90S
Anti-nuclear movement gains
traction against a back-drop
of French nuclear testing
in the Pacific; the Rainbow
Warrior incident; the siting of
a nuclear waste repository for
medical and industrial nuclear
waste; and leaked plans to
commercially site international
nuclear waste in Australia.
1998
The ARPANS Act 1998 passes
into law. The Australian
Radiation Laboratory and
the Nuclear Safety Bureau
are merged and renamed the
Australian Radiation Protection
and Nuclear Safety Agency
(ARPANSA). Horsetrading with
the Greens and the Australian
Democrats results in the
‘prohibition on certain nuclear
installations’ included in the Act.
1999
A similar clause, but with
greater effect, is written into
the EPBC Act 1999. Section
140A(1)(b) reads:
The Minister must not
approve an action consisting
of or involving the construction
or operation of a:
b) nuclear power plant.

It will take a change of the law in Australia before a Nuclear Power Plant can be considered. If the nuclear path were to be considered then it would likely need to go first to a referendum and depending on the referendum outcome a change made to the law. I don't make this stuff up Gangers, I'm just a bit surprised you weren't aware of it. No big deal, always happy to pass on the facts. Did you get the opportunity to look at the work put together by the ABC on Australia's yearly temperatures? It is very informative.

I really hope we are together in celebrating a Grand Final win, tomorrow. Have a great weekend Gangers.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10118
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous » October 5, 2019, 7:44 pm

RedRaider wrote:Wow Gangers, insulting from beginning to end.
Apart from the last line I’m curious as to what you found insulting?

RedRaider wrote: Only thing is, I have never argued that climate change isn't happening or that we should not continue to reduce emissions. Nor have I argued against Australia fulfilling the Paris Agreement.
What are you actually arguing then? Because your posts are full of the typical climate denier falsehoods and distractions like “well it was cold on Tuesday”...

You came into this thread and all you write is that climate has always changed, that you don’t accept the modelling of scientists with far greater knowledge than you. Then a clear misunderstanding that predicting weather is the same as predicting climate.

RedRaider wrote: I won't agree that the Worlds biggest emitter should be waived through to increase emissions though. That undermines the Worlds efforts to reduce total emissions imo. Look at the increase in Global Average Temperatures (which you put in your post) over the past 50 years and try to credibly excuse the actions of the Paris negotiating teams by allowing this gargantuan emitter to increase the level of emissions up to 2030 which they are allowed to do under the Paris Agreement. Even a freeze in their level of emissions would still make them the Worlds largest emitter over the next decade.
Look I’d be stoked if we could renegotiate greater action than the Paris targets. But as I’ve mentioned the earth hasn’t been a level playing field for countries, and pragmatically this means the burden of emission reduction should be taken more so by those who benefited more from the emissions. Australia is in no position currently to push for more stringent targets when we’re currently displaying no clear approach to hitting our current ones! But if that can happen obviously I’m overjoyed.

RedRaider wrote: Gangers, I'm just a bit surprised you weren't aware of it. No big deal, always happy to pass on the facts.
It doesn’t matter! The idea that you can legislate yourself out of global problem solving is ridiculous! That’s the fact here.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7561
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » October 13, 2019, 8:23 pm

Gangers, when you say "The idea that you can legislate yourself out of global problem solving is ridiculous!" I would say that the Paris agreement is all about legislating how Countries act. But that was Not the point about nuclear power in Australia. It is currently not possible to have nuclear power in Australia under Australian law. There seems to be trigger words which create a response from you unrelated to what has been written.

To give China, as the worlds biggest emitter and second largest economy in the world, a free pass on increasing CO2 levels is ridiculous. The Paris agreement to allow them to increase emissions up to 2030 is completely counter productive in reducing world CO2 levels. Due to this the second largest emitter has withdrawn from the agreement. Other large emitters like Russia have signed but not ratified the agreement. To repeat my view, yes Australia should do its bit to reduce levels of CO2 emissions, but so should the major emitters and certainly to accept increased emissions in a document designed to reduce emissions is, in your words, fairyland.

Your point about new scientific modelling saying that the past 2 millenia of temperature change is only regional in nature would be challenged by volcanologists. Each volcanic eruption ejects material of different chemical composition. This is like a chemical finger print for each eruption. While it is true that eruptions in the northern hemisphere tend to stay there as do eruptions in the southern hemisphere that is not the case for all eruptions in the tropics. The Samalas eruption of 1257 on the island of Lombok is estimated by scientists to have resulted in 2 degrees of cooling in the northern hemisphere and is possible to have begun initial glaciation of the cooling period from the mid 13th century to the mid 19th century. Ice cores linked to this eruption occur in both the Arctic and Antarctic ice cores where the chemical compositions on opposite sides of the globe are the same and match Samalas. It had global reach. Scientific estimates of 170 million tonnes of SO2 associated with this eruption dwarf better known 19th century eruptions such as Tambora and Krakatoa. Samalas is believed to have caused crop failure and subsequent starvation. Humans had to adapt to centuries of cooler weather.

You earlier asked about the Carbon Tax. It was in place for 2 years. I don't know that 2 years of operation would give evidence one way or the other of reductions of CO2 in Australia. There is evidence of impact on those on low incomes in being less able to afford fuel and on businesses which had higher energy cost inputs which resulted in higher prices again hitting low income earners.

I question the hysteria and effects on mental health around comments such as the extinction of life on Earth. Humans and the majority of other species have been through warmer and cooler climates over the last 2 millenia. Charles Darwin identified in his work that some species evolve and thrive within their environment and others don't. I think he was right. The Earth itself though has billions of Earth years to go. I have no doubt we will be discussing this for many years to come Gangers.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10118
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous » October 14, 2019, 7:36 am

I notice you didn’t let me know which bits you found insulting? Perhaps you consider being corrected insulting and upon re-reading realise I didn’t actually say anything offensive?
RedRaider wrote:Gangers, when you say "The idea that you can legislate yourself out of global problem solving is ridiculous!" I would say that the Paris agreement is all about legislating how Countries act. But that was Not the point about nuclear power in Australia. It is currently not possible to have nuclear power in Australia under Australian law. There seems to be trigger words which create a response from you unrelated to what has been written.
You’re not understanding my point at all. Creating a mutual framework via the Paris agreement to solve a problem is completely unrelated to my point.

This is what I am saying - Using Australian law as a reason Australia cannot take an action but others should makes absolutely no sense and would in no way be acceptable to the international community. It’s a self-created rule! It’s like me negotiating household chores with Mrs.gangers and saying “well actually I had a vote and decided it’s illegal for me to do the dishes, so you’d better do the dishes”. She’d slap me and rightly so. You cannot claim you are restricted by your own self-created rules. That is stupid.

RedRaider wrote: To give China, as the worlds biggest emitter and second largest economy in the world, a free pass on increasing CO2 levels is ridiculous. The Paris agreement to allow them to increase emissions up to 2030 is completely counter productive in reducing world CO2 levels. Due to this the second largest emitter has withdrawn from the agreement. Other large emitters like Russia have signed but not ratified the agreement. To repeat my view, yes Australia should do its bit to reduce levels of CO2 emissions, but so should the major emitters and certainly to accept increased emissions in a document designed to reduce emissions is, in your words, fairyland.
China does not have a free pass. They still have limits that were agreed to by the international community. I have explained why that agreement was reached, but engaging with my actual argument doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.

America agreed to those terms and I’d suggest their backing out has more to do with the denial of their new president and a desire to bring manufacturing back to the states. Does it help solve the problem by pulling out of the agreement altogether?
RedRaider wrote: Your point about new scientific modelling saying that the past 2 millenia of temperature change is only regional in nature would be challenged by volcanologists. Each volcanic eruption ejects material of different chemical composition. This is like a chemical finger print for each eruption. While it is true that eruptions in the northern hemisphere tend to stay there as do eruptions in the southern hemisphere that is not the case for all eruptions in the tropics. The Samalas eruption of 1257 on the island of Lombok is estimated by scientists to have resulted in 2 degrees of cooling in the northern hemisphere and is possible to have begun initial glaciation of the cooling period from the mid 13th century to the mid 19th century. Ice cores linked to this eruption occur in both the Arctic and Antarctic ice cores where the chemical compositions on opposite sides of the globe are the same and match Samalas. It had global reach. Scientific estimates of 170 million tonnes of SO2 associated with this eruption dwarf better known 19th century eruptions such as Tambora and Krakatoa. Samalas is believed to have caused crop failure and subsequent starvation. Humans had to adapt to centuries of cooler weather.
So what actually is your argument here? This time period is covered by the actual scientists drawing the conclusions I quoted in a highly reputable journal. So it clearly doesn’t change the conclusions.

Or is it that rapid temperature changes (in this case caused by volcanos) can cause significant problems for humans? Because I’m pretty clearly on board with that.
RedRaider wrote: You earlier asked about the Carbon Tax. It was in place for 2 years. I don't know that 2 years of operation would give evidence one way or the other of reductions of CO2 in Australia. There is evidence of impact on those on low incomes in being less able to afford fuel and on businesses which had higher energy cost inputs which resulted in higher prices again hitting low income earners.
Have a look at the emissions of Australia over the last two decades. Interesting correlation between the governing party and emissions...

“According to the Investor Group on Climate Change, emissions from companies subject to the tax went down 7% with the introduction of the tax, and the tax was "the major contributor" to this reduction.” - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_ ... _Australia

As for low income earners they were compensated for the higher prices as you’ll recall.

How have energy prices gone since it’s removal? The uncertainty for the energy market is the worst of both worlds.
RedRaider wrote: I question the hysteria and effects on mental health around comments such as the extinction of life on Earth. Humans and the majority of other species have been through warmer and cooler climates over the last 2 millenia. Charles Darwin identified in his work that some species evolve and thrive within their environment and others don't. I think he was right. The Earth itself though has billions of Earth years to go. I have no doubt we will be discussing this for many years to come Gangers.
No one sensible is arguing the earth will vanish. Nor that total extinction of life on earth is likely. But there is certainly potential for large scale human misery with wars and famine if climate changes significantly impact food production and make regions unliveable.

Charles Darwin identified that species can adapt over time through reproduction and genetic mutation. If the change is rapid, then you may not have sufficient generations over which the species can adapt.

User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6196
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear » October 17, 2019, 11:37 am

gangrenous wrote:
October 3, 2019, 6:58 pm
RedRaider wrote:Climate change is real. We have had numerous ice ages and mini ice ages and come out of them.
The earth has. 7 billion humans have not. How do you think our civilisation goes in an ice age?
RedRaider wrote: This indicates global warming and global cooling many times and for a variety of reasons.
The biggest concern is the rate of change. The climate is changing faster than species and systems can evolve and adapt.
RedRaider wrote: My concern is with the validity of the modelling.
I’d suggest your best bet is to trust that there’s a lot of effort going into this and very clever scientists are putting in their best efforts to get this right.
RedRaider wrote: No one predicted the extent of the current drought in western NSW.
Well, they kind of did. One of the major conclusions is that we can expect more regular and extreme weather events like this drought.
RedRaider wrote: 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.
When you pull out the plug in the bath, can you tell me the path one of the drops of water will take to the drain? Nope, that’s a really complex fluid dynamics problem to solve.

Can you tell me where it’ll end up? Yep, in the drain. Because although you don’t know all the tiny details of what will happen, you understand the simpler concepts that governs the overarching behaviour. Gravity will draw all the water to the drain.

You don’t have to be able to predict the weather tomorrow to be able to predict the long term trends governed by the greenhouse effect.

I’d also note I’m old enough to have seen dramatic progress in their ability to predict tomorrow’s weather from when I was a kid too!
Thus we should encourage our systems to evolve and adapt.

Its the direction and special interest behind which direction they evolve and adapt that I look into.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10118
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous » October 17, 2019, 5:38 pm

Are you genetically modifying wildlife and releasing them into the wild again papabear? Is that what you’re telling me?

User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6196
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: Climate change

Post by papabear » October 22, 2019, 8:46 am

gangrenous wrote:
October 17, 2019, 5:38 pm
Are you genetically modifying wildlife and releasing them into the wild again papabear? Is that what you’re telling me?
so they can devour the plastic in the oceans.

The way I see it, the two fundamentally largest problems faced by our planet are:-

1 - Ocean health - Plastic and over fishing
2 - Deforestation - Land health

Then a distant third for me is what we do with our land waste and how that impacts point 1 above.

Yet all the discussion regarding climate change / global warming ultimately just hovers around energy policies and taxation doing little to solve actual environmental problems which imo got larger air time before the push regarding global warming / climate change.

Again, imo, and I am just as bad as anyone else (regarding living in a environmentally sustainable way) but those two issues are what concern me and would have me consider voting for someone who has some effectiveness about implementing solutions regarding the above.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10118
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous » October 22, 2019, 8:14 pm

What are you thinking? Maybe like a Baleen whale or something? Built in filter already!

I think your two problems are serious issues and interrelated with climate change. A holistic approach to all of it would be best.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7561
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » October 24, 2019, 7:07 am

Gangers, I realized I had not responded to your point about the impacts of the Carbon Tax for the two years it was in force in Australia.

See below from www.Centreforpublicimpact.org/case-stud ... Australia/

"The Australian government introduced a carbon pricing scheme or "carbon tax" through the Clean Energy Act 2011. The initiative was intended to control emissions in the country, as well as support the growth of the economy through the development of clean energy technologies. It was supervised by the newly-created Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Regulator. However, although it did achieve a reduction in the country's carbon emissions, the initiative faced significant challenges from the opposition and the public, as it resulted in increased energy prices for both households and industry and was finally repealed in 2014.

The public impact

The Act partially achieved its goals by reducing the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 1.4 percent in the second year after the carbon price introduction – the largest recorded annual decrease in the previous decade.[8]

However, it also caused an increase in electricity costs for households and industry, which led to business closures and other economic hardships for businesses:
The tax reportedly increased the cost of electricity for the average family by 10 percent.[9]
Approximately 75,000 businesses paid the carbon tax directly or paid an equivalent penalty through changes to duties and rebates. They typically passed on part or all of this cost to their customers, smaller businesses and households, which experienced higher prices as a result of the tax. “The introduction of the carbon tax from 1 July 2012 (at AUD23 per tonne in 2012-13) was estimated by the Treasury to have increased the cost of living of households by around AUD9.90 per week on average, and increased the Consumer Price Index by 0.7 percent.”[10]
For businesses, the impact was more significant with “up to 30 percent of small and medium sized enterprises’ electricity bills stemmed from carbon pricing and other green schemes”.[11] There were also reports of factory closures due to cost increases, with resulting job losses. One CEO at the time reported that their company had to pay AUD8 million a year for the carbon tax, which it negotiated down, but which still forced it to stop operations.[12]"

So for the two years of operation there was, in the second year, a 1.4% decrease in Greenhouse Gas emissions and as you can see an impact on households and business closures. While Pensioners were compensated the low paid workers were disadvantaged. Tony Abbott was elected as Prime Minister in 2013 following his 'Axe the Tax' campaign. Clearly by it's second year there were reductions in Greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. We won't know if that reduction in Greenhouse gas emissions would have been a consistent reduction or have then generated a greater/lesser reduction in subsequent years because the election outcome meant the Tax was repealed.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10118
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous » October 24, 2019, 5:24 pm

So saving a whole bunch of words.
* It cut emissions.
* Families experienced a raise of $10 a week on average which you neglected to mention was compensated through changes to the personal tax system for people earning under 80k.
* Anecdotally some factories closed. Anecdotally some jobs were lost. This was of course part of the purpose of the tax so the question is the scale.

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7561
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » October 25, 2019, 2:16 pm

Gangers, I have no doubt the Carbon Tax had an effect on emissions reduction. While I have no science education beyond high school level, my degree consisted of majors in the 'Dismal' Science of Economics and the related Economic History. I can read the figures and it is clear that emissions reduced. Was that due to a change in people's behaviour or a change in the level of economic activity? Specific purpose consumption taxes are used to raise revenue by making goods and services more expensive. Consumption taxes are a blunt instrument which can result in unintended consequences.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... 4ISkCovQ&s

Not sure if this graph came out, but it tracks unemployment from 2004 to 2017. The Global Financial impacts of 2008/09 are clearly evident. Unemployment is a lagging indicator. It also shows that unemployment rates increased to a point above the Global Financial shocks between 2013 and 2015. Whilst not attributing the total unemployment effect solely to the carbon tax, once it was repealed in 2014, the unemployment rate fell from 2015.

So your comments on the Carbon Tax:
'It cut emissions' - I think is clearly correct
'Compensation was provided for the low paid' - also correct, although consumption taxes by their nature affect people in different ways Eg a person who has no access to public transport (much of NSW country) who has to drive to work is impacted more.
'Anecdotally some jobs were lost' - the increase in the unemployment rate as a lagging indicator over 2 years would indicate that there is a likely correlation with the introduction of the carbon tax as is the correlation of a decline in the lagging indicator once the carbon tax was removed. Again, I am not suggesting the carbon tax was the sole factor but it is a common factor with its introduction and removal.

On a broadly related issue the privatization of the energy sector in some states has resulted in increased costs for electricity particularly in NSW. This is clearly evidence of market failure in that the privatization was advertised to reduce the cost of electricity. Increased retail prices however do have a similar effect as a carbon tax in raising the price of electric power. This could also result in some of the behavioral changes, which were part of the reason for the introduction of the carbon tax. The question can rightly be asked - why did this market failure occur and how can it be corrected?

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10118
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous » October 25, 2019, 5:43 pm

I’d agree with most of that.

Returning to the original point that we’ve drifted a long way from. You cited a reduction of 15% in Australian Electricity emissions from 2009 to now. We’ve focussed in on the carbon tax part of my response, but in a nutshell the key part is that the 15% reduction occurred over the years 2009-2014 and since then they increased and recovered that increase to be neutral from 2014-2019 under the current policies. I’d certainly agree that much of that initial reduction should be attributed to economic slowdown. But I also don’t see the statistic as supporting current approaches.

No doubt the carbon tax was not the perfect instrument. I don’t doubt there exist better solutions and lessons to be learned.

What I would like to see is a more proactive current solution with results from our government. Which brings me back to asking what you’re arguing for in this thread RR?

RedRaider
Steve Walters
Posts: 7561
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by RedRaider » November 10, 2019, 9:20 pm

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. 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.

As I have mentioned in other threads I work for NRMA Motoring and Services (the roadside assistance company completely separate to the Insurance company). You may not be aware but NRMA M&S has undertaken to install 40 Electric Vehicle fast chargers at locations around NSW which will see an EV fast charger at distances of around 150km or less along every major highway in NSW. Currently more than 25 are in place. It does not cost the owner of the electric vehicle to charge their vehicle battery when using the EV fast charger. Why has NRMA gone down this path? Electric Vehicles are the future. Range anxiety has been identified as a reason why people in NSW are not converting to EVs. This is the NRMAs effort to remove some of that anxiety. There is a high cost to current EVs which is also a barrier to entry into the market. We are currently using all electric Hyundai Kona vehicles to open the EV fast charger sites. They have a range of 450km and can be charged to 85% within 30 minutes. The Kona batteries have an 8 year warranty life. I am proud the company I work for has made this investment.

I do not own an electric vehicle. The nearest I come to one in my private life is with my son racing model cars. The evidence is they are faster and more reliable than fuel powered model cars. Could they be seen as a micro version of a full size car? To an extent yes. However the model battery packs are light and readily replaced. This style of 'cassette' type battery replacement could be used on passenger vehicles but it would require massive infrastructure investment and is not currently being considered by manufacturers. Charging stations are the way to go with current technology.

I have a general interest in the issue of climate change. I accept the accounts which say that Australia is responsible for 1.3% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Due to the extent of forest and grasslands in Australia the net emissions is around half that figure. This number becomes relevant when considering why the labor party wanted to move to a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030. That would mean Australia was net emissions neutral. We have seen similar attempts in South Australia which led to massive blackouts due to the ideology being in front of the technology and storage investment. They are building a gas fired power station to ensure the lights stay on.

SPOILER ALERT: WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SAY MAY TRIGGER YOUR CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER RESPONSE.

How quickly should Australia go with the low emissions future? I think we are doing the right thing with our Paris Agreement commitment.
Carbon taxes contribute to increased unemployment as proved when we had the two year duration carbon tax. That makes it a poor option imo. 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. This is not to say we should not continue to look at ways to reduce emissions eg Battery of the nation in Tasmania and Snowy 2.0. The development of the National Hydrogen Strategy is also of importance as the burning of hydrogen produces water and heat as emissions.
Coal. Australia has hundreds of years of reserves at current extraction rates. Should Australia continue to mine coal? My view is that future coal fired power stations should be limited to companies that will invest in Ultra Super Critical Coal Fired Power Stations. The viability of these economically remains an open question. The promoters say they produce 26% less emissions than current technology power stations. Green Peace among others say it is a 14% reduction. Average it out and it is likely to be a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions for the same amount of power produced. The advantage of coal is that it is 24/7 base load power. It does not rely on sun, wind or storage. It's draw back are the emissions. 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.

The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44297
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman » November 11, 2019, 12:29 pm

Something that also gets glossed over in most discussions regarding Australian coal mining is that Australian coal is among the highest energy and lowest pollutants of coals in the world. This means you burn less to generate more power and there's less emissions. While coal is still being burned to generate energy anywhere in the world, they are best off using Australian coal to generate the energy.

If Australia stopped mining coal tomorrow, it would actually contribute MORE greenhouse gases to the problem, not less.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10118
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Climate change

Post by gangrenous » November 11, 2019, 6:02 pm

I don’t have time for a full response now.

So RR what empirical evidence of climate change would you accept exactly?

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10118
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous » 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.
Last edited by gangrenous on November 12, 2019, 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10118
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Climate change

Post by gangrenous » November 12, 2019, 7:26 am

The Rickman wrote:Something that also gets glossed over in most discussions regarding Australian coal mining is that Australian coal is among the highest energy and lowest pollutants of coals in the world. This means you burn less to generate more power and there's less emissions. While coal is still being burned to generate energy anywhere in the world, they are best off using Australian coal to generate the energy.

If Australia stopped mining coal tomorrow, it would actually contribute MORE greenhouse gases to the problem, not less.
Yes, depending upon transport and relative retrieval emissions which I don’t know enough to comment on and I’m sure you would.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23466
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider » November 12, 2019, 2:17 pm

The Rickman wrote:
November 11, 2019, 12:29 pm
Something that also gets glossed over in most discussions regarding Australian coal mining is that Australian coal is among the highest energy and lowest pollutants of coals in the world. This means you burn less to generate more power and there's less emissions. While coal is still being burned to generate energy anywhere in the world, they are best off using Australian coal to generate the energy.

If Australia stopped mining coal tomorrow, it would actually contribute MORE greenhouse gases to the problem, not less.
Not just glossed over. This fact is totally ignored in the whole debate (which is often overly simplistic arguments by both sides). Australian coal is very high grade by global standards. Cut off supply of the best coal and it will only increase use of the crap stuff.

When you want to discuss inconvenient truths this is the big one that the Green side of politics doesn't want to address. While I absolutely believe we should dramatically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for a variety of reasons, if there is still demand for coal fired power by overseas markets we should be encouraging supply of the most efficient sources instead of eliminating it. Australian coal industry should be one of the last ones shut down. Replace coal fired power first. After that there will be little demand for the coal so that industry will fade away.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44297
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman » November 12, 2019, 2:20 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
November 12, 2019, 2:17 pm
The Rickman wrote:
November 11, 2019, 12:29 pm
Something that also gets glossed over in most discussions regarding Australian coal mining is that Australian coal is among the highest energy and lowest pollutants of coals in the world. This means you burn less to generate more power and there's less emissions. While coal is still being burned to generate energy anywhere in the world, they are best off using Australian coal to generate the energy.

If Australia stopped mining coal tomorrow, it would actually contribute MORE greenhouse gases to the problem, not less.
Not just glossed over. This fact is totally ignored in the whole debate (which is often overly simplistic arguments by both sides). Australian coal is very high grade by global standards. Cut off supply of the best coal and it will only increase use of the crap stuff.

When you want to discuss inconvenient truths this is the big one that the Green side of politics doesn't want to address. While I absolutely believe we should dramatically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for a variety of reasons, if there is still demand for coal fired power by overseas markets we should be encouraging supply of the most efficient sources instead of eliminating it. Australian coal industry should be one of the last ones shut down. Replace coal fired power first. After that there will be little demand for the coal so that industry will fade away.
Yep, this is 100% my opinion too. I'm not a client change denier in the slightest, but anybody who thinks we should cut Australian exports of coal has no idea the implications of what they're saying.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23466
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider » November 12, 2019, 2:40 pm

The Rickman wrote:
November 12, 2019, 2:20 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
November 12, 2019, 2:17 pm
The Rickman wrote:
November 11, 2019, 12:29 pm
Something that also gets glossed over in most discussions regarding Australian coal mining is that Australian coal is among the highest energy and lowest pollutants of coals in the world. This means you burn less to generate more power and there's less emissions. While coal is still being burned to generate energy anywhere in the world, they are best off using Australian coal to generate the energy.

If Australia stopped mining coal tomorrow, it would actually contribute MORE greenhouse gases to the problem, not less.
Not just glossed over. This fact is totally ignored in the whole debate (which is often overly simplistic arguments by both sides). Australian coal is very high grade by global standards. Cut off supply of the best coal and it will only increase use of the crap stuff.

When you want to discuss inconvenient truths this is the big one that the Green side of politics doesn't want to address. While I absolutely believe we should dramatically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for a variety of reasons, if there is still demand for coal fired power by overseas markets we should be encouraging supply of the most efficient sources instead of eliminating it. Australian coal industry should be one of the last ones shut down. Replace coal fired power first. After that there will be little demand for the coal so that industry will fade away.
Yep, this is 100% my opinion too. I'm not a client change denier in the slightest, but anybody who thinks we should cut Australian exports of coal has no idea the implications of what they're saying.
This is the irony of the Adani project. By our own standards the Galilee Basin coal is fairly low grade and its never been worth the effort for local mining companies to make the necessary investment in infrastructure to extract it. India is one of the most heavily dependent countries on coal fired power and compared to coal they currently source its far superior grade. Allowing them to extract and utilise Australian coal will actually serve to reduce the carbon emissions of one of the world's biggest polluters.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44297
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Climate change

Post by The Nickman » November 12, 2019, 2:53 pm

Northern Raider wrote:
November 12, 2019, 2:40 pm
The Rickman wrote:
November 12, 2019, 2:20 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
November 12, 2019, 2:17 pm
The Rickman wrote:
November 11, 2019, 12:29 pm
Something that also gets glossed over in most discussions regarding Australian coal mining is that Australian coal is among the highest energy and lowest pollutants of coals in the world. This means you burn less to generate more power and there's less emissions. While coal is still being burned to generate energy anywhere in the world, they are best off using Australian coal to generate the energy.

If Australia stopped mining coal tomorrow, it would actually contribute MORE greenhouse gases to the problem, not less.
Not just glossed over. This fact is totally ignored in the whole debate (which is often overly simplistic arguments by both sides). Australian coal is very high grade by global standards. Cut off supply of the best coal and it will only increase use of the crap stuff.

When you want to discuss inconvenient truths this is the big one that the Green side of politics doesn't want to address. While I absolutely believe we should dramatically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for a variety of reasons, if there is still demand for coal fired power by overseas markets we should be encouraging supply of the most efficient sources instead of eliminating it. Australian coal industry should be one of the last ones shut down. Replace coal fired power first. After that there will be little demand for the coal so that industry will fade away.
Yep, this is 100% my opinion too. I'm not a client change denier in the slightest, but anybody who thinks we should cut Australian exports of coal has no idea the implications of what they're saying.
This is the irony of the Adani project. By our own standards the Galilee Basin coal is fairly low grade and its never been worth the effort for local mining companies to make the necessary investment in infrastructure to extract it. India is one of the most heavily dependent countries on coal fired power and compared to coal they currently source its far superior grade. Allowing them to extract and utilise Australian coal will actually serve to reduce the carbon emissions of one of the world's biggest polluters.
Haha mate, I could talk to you for hours about the Carmichael project. I've worked on many resources in the Galilee basin, and at the end of the day, the coal just isn't what it's cracked up to be.

Very low rank, high moisture stuff, there's so much better coal in Australia that should be mined and sold first.

But you're right about one thing... it's still a HELL of a lot cleaner than Indian coal.
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23466
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: Climate change

Post by Northern Raider » November 12, 2019, 4:40 pm

The Rickman wrote:
November 12, 2019, 2:53 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
November 12, 2019, 2:40 pm
The Rickman wrote:
November 12, 2019, 2:20 pm
Northern Raider wrote:
November 12, 2019, 2:17 pm
The Rickman wrote:
November 11, 2019, 12:29 pm
Something that also gets glossed over in most discussions regarding Australian coal mining is that Australian coal is among the highest energy and lowest pollutants of coals in the world. This means you burn less to generate more power and there's less emissions. While coal is still being burned to generate energy anywhere in the world, they are best off using Australian coal to generate the energy.

If Australia stopped mining coal tomorrow, it would actually contribute MORE greenhouse gases to the problem, not less.
Not just glossed over. This fact is totally ignored in the whole debate (which is often overly simplistic arguments by both sides). Australian coal is very high grade by global standards. Cut off supply of the best coal and it will only increase use of the crap stuff.

When you want to discuss inconvenient truths this is the big one that the Green side of politics doesn't want to address. While I absolutely believe we should dramatically reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for a variety of reasons, if there is still demand for coal fired power by overseas markets we should be encouraging supply of the most efficient sources instead of eliminating it. Australian coal industry should be one of the last ones shut down. Replace coal fired power first. After that there will be little demand for the coal so that industry will fade away.
Yep, this is 100% my opinion too. I'm not a client change denier in the slightest, but anybody who thinks we should cut Australian exports of coal has no idea the implications of what they're saying.
This is the irony of the Adani project. By our own standards the Galilee Basin coal is fairly low grade and its never been worth the effort for local mining companies to make the necessary investment in infrastructure to extract it. India is one of the most heavily dependent countries on coal fired power and compared to coal they currently source its far superior grade. Allowing them to extract and utilise Australian coal will actually serve to reduce the carbon emissions of one of the world's biggest polluters.
Haha mate, I could talk to you for hours about the Carmichael project. I've worked on many resources in the Galilee basin, and at the end of the day, the coal just isn't what it's cracked up to be.

Very low rank, high moisture stuff, there's so much better coal in Australia that should be mined and sold first.

But you're right about one thing... it's still a HELL of a lot cleaner than Indian coal.
Re: bolded section. Absolutely and thats exactly what the local mining companies are doing. Adani is basically mining for their own consumption and taking the stuff nobody else wants. :)
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

Post Reply