Climate change wankers
wellymon wrote:AndyM wrote:wellymon wrote:Best rain we've had in months.
Loving it , keeps the ticks down the nasty ones and keeps me from buying 12,000 litres for $280 .
Lucky I got an extra 33,0000 l tank onsite. Great investment IMO;)Bloody nice rain in Northern NSW!
200,000+ litres, full!Nice Andy good to hear :)
Thats some litres champ.
Geez you must have some good roof area as well as holding tanks.Now that's a climate change wanker eh;)
Oooops..........
Yeah big roof and two big tanks - maybe a bit of overkill but that's ok. Built a granny flat over the biggest tank...
Sounds like you have more than enough though!
Nuclear ......... to misquote lines in two very popular Australian movies
"nuclear, tell them they are dreaming"
"mate will you shut up, with nuclear there are risks in there that will outlive religion"
And Tones, did I read you mentioned dams/hydro? now that is funny, coz they need to be built where it rains ..... mmmm, got a scientific handle on that have we ole boy?
@sypkan…sure can understand your view re nuclear. Personally, I am still hopeful for fusion but I know thats been going on for a good fifty years. One of the key arguments for nuclear is 'just how urgent or critical is the expected climate change for this country' in the immediate 20 - 30 year period. After that time frame, most are hopeful that fusion may be better understood and be available. hydro is a good renewable option but takes time and money. We have done this well in the past.
@tonybarber, to misquote the late great Jack Gibson;
waiting for cold fusion is like waiting for Cronulla to win the premiership!
Where are the true believers. This year the semis, next year the grand. Have hope son or be consumed by cold fusion.
tonybarber wrote:Where are the true believers. This year the semis, next year the grand. Have hope son or be consumed by cold fusion.
Whilst having a soft spot for the Sharkies I am no supporter, particularly this year! We had an off season but that one really hurt! Mind they probably did us a favour by saving further embarrassment!
yep, I voted for this man in the senate election (twice)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/06/call-me-emotional-i...
Shatner'sBassoon wrote:yep, I voted for this man in the senate election (twice)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/06/call-me-emotional-i...
Something to be proud of Shats!
Old dog.... You write ;
"Most of the doubters on this thread don't even understand the difference between climate and weather"
Climate............I rest my case. Looking at isolated weather events and trying to equate it to climate change is laughable at best.
Climate science is the culmination of billions of pieces of data collected and analyzed over many years by experts in the field at universities across the world, for common laymen to dismiss the science and think they know better because they have skimmed the surface and experienced a short time in one place on this planet is a joke. This thread is like an AGW debate for 3 year olds.
The future is coming. Slowly but certainly. Sell your fossil fuel shares now before the rush!
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/exxon-keystone-and-the-turning-t...
BB, I have been thinking that while there might be money to be made in fossil fuels yet, there isn't any "big money" IE there aren't any new frontiers of high returns available, just maintenance of existing returns at best. However the switch to renewables is a new frontier for profits and its proven to have taken root in the market now. There's a good chance capital will start to flow to renewables at increasing rates to capture some of this.
Its like those huge infrastructure projects that you can't really work out why they happened or where the money came from but it did anyway. Global capital is always looking for a project and dealmakers are always looking for a deal, it might just be aligned with social benefit for once.
I think there will be a financial tipping point mk1 when enough investors realise the risk of having money tied up in stranded assets and look to recoup what they can before it's too late. Investment in fossil fuel projects will also start to come with a higher in built risk as they depend on long term returns while short term changes in government policies can destroy their value. Solar and wind are starting to look like much more reliable investments.
blindboy wrote:I think there will be a financial tipping point mk1 when enough investors realise the risk of having money tied up in stranded assets and look to recoup what they can before it's too late. Investment in fossil fuel projects will also start to come with a higher in built risk as they depend on long term returns while short term changes in government policies can destroy their value. Solar and wind are starting to look like much more reliable investments.
Good insight BB.
Hopefully BB.
Great article here on the rapidly changing economics of renewables and the pressures mounting on the fossil fuel industry (AEP again)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11633745/Fossil-industry-fa...
" The International Monetary Fund has let off the first thunder-clap. An astonishing report - blandly titled "How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies" - alleges that the fossil nexus enjoys hidden support worth 6.5pc of world GDP.
This will amount to $5.7 trillion in 2015, mostly due to environmental costs and damage to health, and mostly stemming from coal. The World Health Organisation - also on cue - has sharply revised up its estimates of early deaths from fine particulates and sulphur dioxide from coal plants.
"This is a deeply-threatening line of attack for those accustomed to arguing that solar or wind are a prohibitive luxury, while coal, oil, and gas remain the only realistic way to power the world economy. The annual subsidy bill for renewables is just $77bn, trivial by comparison.
"The publication of such claims by the world's premier financial body is itself a striking fact. The IMF is political to its fingertips. It rarely deviates far from the thinking of the US Treasury.
" Mr Xi promises to cap total CO2 emission by 2030, building 1000 gigawatts (GW) of solar, wind, and nuclear power in fifteen years. His country already has more wind power (115 GW) installed than Britain's entire energy system. It plans to add another 22 GW this year - equal to 15 nuclear reactors - building hundreds of miles of turbines across the North China steppe.
"The International Energy Agency says that two-thirds of all fossil fuel reserves booked by global companies can never be burned if the world reaches a 2C accord in Paris. The assets will be worthless.
"Carbon Tracker estimates that $1.1 trillion of investment has gone on ventures that will require oil prices above $95 a barrel over the next decade to break even.
"The IEA estimates that the cost of a lithium-ion battery for grid-scale storage has fallen by more than three-quarters since 2008. The batteries last over three times as long.
"This is surely just the beginning. The world's scientific superpower is now throwing itself into the fight with gusto, conducting over 220 research projects into various forms of battery storage.
"Fossils fuels are caught in a pincer squeeze, threatened with a 'Pigouvian' climate tax just at the moment when the upstart technologies are coming of age.
Regardless of whether the denialists are right or wrong (wouldn't be nice if they are right!?) its becoming increasingly obvious they are standing on the wrong side of history. Huge fortunes are ready to be made from the transfer to renewables and those with the power are starting to line up to get their piece.
US prosecutors have subpoenaed documents from Exxon, investigating whether the company knew about the link between CO2 and climate change but deliberately mislead the public and investors. Sounding like the early days of smoking and asbestos industry investigations.
tonybarber wrote:hydro is a good renewable option but takes time and money. We have done this well in the past.
Been tree-hugging in the forest for 3 days out of internet range living only on mung beans and water and this is the shit I have to read when I come back!!!
Didn't see Lake Pedder before it went under but did some to save the Gordon River, pray tell me Tones where have we done it good in the past?
old-dog][quote=Sheepdog wrote:Old dog.... You write ;
"Most of the doubters on this thread don't even understand the difference between climate and weather"
Climate............I rest my case. Looking at isolated weather events and trying to equate it to climate change is laughable at best.
Climate science is the culmination of billions of pieces of data collected and analyzed over many years by experts in the field at universities across the world, for common laymen to dismiss the science and think they know better because they have skimmed the surface and experienced a short time in one place on this planet is a joke. This thread is like an AGW debate for 3 year olds.
"This thread is like an AGW debate for 3 year olds."
If it's that childish, why are you taking part? What, to stand above the children? To show how much more mature you are than the rest of us? Your twisting a semantics should be left in your school locker, bro.....
"Looking at isolated weather events and trying to equate it to climate change is laughable at best. "
Ohh I fully agree..........Firstly, next time a hardcore warmist uses a local isolated weather event as proof of global warming, I expect you to show the same contempt as you do when a skeptic or agnostic uses a local isolated weather event as proof of no climate change... Otherwise you are making one set of rules for "them", and another set of rules for "you"....
Vanuatu, 2015;
"Climate change 'exacerbated' Cyclone Pam damage, Climate Council says"......
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-19/climate-change-exacerabated-cyclon...
"Climate science"....... That's different to "Climate"..... You started off patronizing some here saying we don't know the difference between "climate", and "weather"......... You've now sneakily changed from one word - "climate"...... to 2 words --- "climate science".... It was a noun on it's own.....
Stop it man.......
AndyM wrote:Sheepdog wrote:It's good some of you are finally discussing nuclear.... The hardcore climate change advocates need to get a grip on what some in their camp are really up to.... the whole thing reminds me of Gallipoli ..... The Kumbaya brigade landing on Flannery Beach.... They don't even realize they are a decoy for a bigger mission down at Neutron Hill..........
Don't worry about the skeptics.... Don't worry about agnostics like me..... Worry about your own nuclear trojans setting us up for the most dangerous world imaginable.....
Anyhooooooo, I gotta put some more Chinese imported Fuji Xerox a4 paper in the printer and so some shit..........Your theory that "the carpetbaggers might take advantage of the situation therefore it's a scam and the science is crap", is a bit off, don't you think?
I'm hearing lots of talk of sustainable energy and very little of nuclear; where are you getting your info from Sheepy?
And you're basing the definition of climate change out of a dictionary? Come on mate, you're better than that.
Have you walked in and started reading "chapter 4" without reading chapters 1, 2 and 3, mate? Where am i getting my info?????? Open your fuckn eyes, mate...... I supplied these links 2 pages ago... Don't just jump in without going back to the start, which is the logical place to pick up the conversation from....
Here, if you are too lazy to find it, i'll supply them again.....
Listen to Finkel; Listen to Turnbull stuttering, stammering, them backing an increased nuclear future with Australia as the waste dumping ground;
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2015/s4343038.htm
And here's the complete show.. Also listen to Greg Hunt.....
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2015/s4343056.htm
Of course there's Flannery; "Time to go nuclear" - Tim flannery;
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/time-to-go-nuclear-flannery/2006/08/...
So THAT'S where I'm getting my info from, Andrew... . Oh and of course there's the CURRENT S.A commission into Nuclear power.... So i'll say it again.... Don't worry about me..... worry about the nuclear trojans using lentil munchers as a wedge.....
http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/
Bottomline, if global warming is real, I'd rather live on a planet that's warmer, with more storms, therefore more rain, therefore more vegetation in Greenland for example, therefore possibly more carbon sinks, than a world that is a fucking nuclear bomb ready to go off, with Australia a cesspit dumping ground for the worlds filth.... Filth that will be with us for thousands of years.....
re extreme events
"Understanding how long-term global change affects
the intensity and likelihood of extreme weather events
is a frontier science challenge. This fourth edition of
explaining extreme events of the previous year (2014)
from a climate perspective is the most extensive yet
with 33 different research groups exploring the causes
of 29 different events that occurred in 2014. A number
of this year’s studies indicate that human-caused climate
change greatly increased the likelihood and intensity for
extreme heat waves in 2014 over various regions. For
other types of extreme events, such as droughts, heavy
rains, and winter storms, a climate change influence was
found in some instances and not in others. This year’s
report also included many different types of extreme
events. The tropical cyclones that impacted Hawaii were
made more likely due to human-caused climate change.
Climate change also decreased the Antarctic sea ice
extent in 2014 and increased the strength and likelihood
of high sea surface temperatures in both the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans. For western U.S. wildfires, no link to the
individual events in 2014 could be detected, but the overall
probability of western U.S. wildfires has increased due to
human impacts on the climate."
It takes a while to load but worth the wait.
https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-amer...
@ sheepdag, steady on pal don't get off your bike I'll pick up your pump. You want to know the difference between weather and climate... and its a huge difference.
The weather changes everyday , the climate stays the same barring a catastrophic event such as an asteroid strike or a doubling in co2 in the atmosphere in a short period of time as is the case at present.
You could have several years of record low temps and floods but the overall trend is still global warming.
I dare you to post your " feelings" about AGW on Whirlpool forum " Climate change the facts" their reactions would be hilarious to say the least until the mods barred you for trolling. BTW you are the master of semantics twisting, stop it man.
Sheepdog wrote:Bottomline, if global warming is real, I'd rather live on a planet that's warmer, with more storms, therefore more rain, therefore more vegetation in Greenland for example, therefore possibly more carbon sinks, than a world that is a fucking nuclear bomb ready to go off, with Australia a cesspit dumping ground for the worlds filth.... Filth that will be with us for thousands of years.....
....don't forget the heavy metal & toxic waste that is associated with solar PV cell and battery storage dumping in an unregulated manner....and consider the actual size of nuclear waste versus alternative sources on a MW per MW comparison, its relatively tiny of course.....and lastly don't forget that research is already going into reactors to harnessing energy from traditional fission reactor waste. I don't hold hopes for fusion within the next 100 years....maybe one day but ill be long dead, but spent nuclear fuel re-use is much more realistic.
Australians are just afraid of nuclear plain and simple. which blows my mind when you consider that Australia could much like Europe have reactors relatively safely well away from fault lines and tsunami threats. fukushima was a disaster waiting to happen, but if its only 1 major disaster every 30 years then we need to consider it in context too, and not completely freak out. at the end of the day, the real human disaster in japan was actually from the tsunami and not the meltdown.
in my mind we need a sensible mix of solutions.....just saying that renewables are the answer is too simple....renewables cannot today easily provide baseload power in Australia because we lack hydro and geothermal sources....alternatively to suggest that we will overnight build a "smart grid" of intermittent renewable sources all feeding baseload is also unrealistic....battery storage is getting better but its still expensive, and don't forget we want to charge our electric cars at home too.
sure we can push nuclear aside on the assumption that renewables will provide the soln...maybe they will. but what if they cant or it takes too long....are we then 30 years behind the eightball? I much prefer clean fuels too, but I get disappointed everytime the debate about nuclear becomes one of fear overriding rational thought.
Wow, go offline for a bit and you miss some feisty comments.
Barley I had to google halo and world of warcraft. It seems they're computer games of some kind? I didn't realise you play computer games but now I've got this image of you as an angry computer game guy! Couldn't help but think of the guy in this video that a mate sent to me once ;-)
Error 37!?
Jokes aside though mate, I would be very interested in learning what you can teach me about climate. A couple of weeks ago, when I started responding to this thread, I was in Vietnam interviewing rice farmers there about the constraints on their production and risk factors that lead to crop failure. It's part of a project I'm working on with them to identify steps to mitigate risks of crop failure. There's a bunch of us impractical scientists monitoring the system and running experiments on different methods. Step 1 was to speak to them, learn from them about what they know, how they make their decisions and the steps they currently take to minimise risks (that was a couple of years ago). Then we started planning the experiments to address those needs, with their support.
They'd had a fair few good years and then over the recent decade they've had multiple bad years (which is why the project got off the ground in the first place). As you might imagine, they have a pretty bloody good idea what some of the issues are but they had several things they weren't sure about so we're working on those areas together.
You might be surprised to hear that one of the major issues is saline intrusion. It's lowland rice farming and apparently salt water gets into the waterways now more than it used to so there's a shorter season of abundant freshwater. Maybe that's just a coincidence though ;-)
So yeah, sitting down with farmers and learning about what they know is a part of what I do, so if you're a farmer with something to teach me about climate I'm all ears mate. Speak up about what you know rather than throwing petty insults around.
tonybarber, I do have one point of view on a solution about hydropower not being the best solution we could take. It's renewable in the sense that power would continue to be produced of course, but damming rivers has such a big impact on the ecosystem that I think the tradeoffs are probably too great. Although apparently we could improve things for surfers who "suffer from a lack of adequate surfable coastline"....just ask Kelly!
One final thing, sorry barley I'll try to be brief rather than write another essay, climate is defined by the WMO as a summary of 30 years of weather. So the rainfall in the month of October is influenced by the prevailing climate of course but it's just a summary of the recent weather.
It's an important distinction because the accuracy of weather models is not related to the accuracy of climate models because they're integrating different processes over different spatial and temporal scales. Conflating the two and saying the climate models can't be trusted because the weather forecasters got it wrong (although they got it pretty right for October's rainfall in Vic) would be kind of like saying antibiotics for a lung infection can't possibly work because we don't have a cure for HIV.
benski wrote:...sorry barley I'll try to be brief rather than write another essay...
*chortle, chortle*
Old dag.... You've gone from "the difference between climate and weather" to changing from "climate" to "climate science".... Climate and "climate science" are two totally different things... Just as "climate science" and "climate history" are different.... You wrote it, bro... Not me... You're trying to be an elitist, but you're not pulling it off...
Now this is for you old dag, and it's also for Benski.....
Benski, you write that "climate is defined by the WMO as a summary of 30 years of weather." Can you please supply a link where the WMO defines climate as such? Because after reading your post, I of course went to the WMO site and found their definition of climate to be this;
"WHAT IS CLIMATE"
"On the simplest level, the WEATHER is what is happening in the atmosphere at any given time. The climate, in a narrow sense, can be considered as the “AVERAGE WEATHER”, or in a more scientifically accurate way, it can be defined as “the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time”.
https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/understanding_climate.php
So a link would be great re' "a summary of 30 years of weather"
I'd also like your opinion on a nuclear future..... Old dag avoided that one.... But i'd like your opinion, Benski, maybe even BB's opinion on the links I provided re' Turnbull, Finkel, Hunt, Flannery, and many other influential leaders in the global warming movement.. Will you all be horrified in your winter years, seeing the big end of town (Exon etc) simply jumping from oil/coal to nuclear? Will you have security around your home, as the silent majority ( the agnostics like me - not the hardcore skeptics or hardcore warmists) riot and hold you all accountable for turning the world into one big reactor?
(and yes - I'm being theatrical lol )....
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.php#q1
"Climate, sometimes understood as the "average weather,” is defined as the measurement of the mean and variability of relevant quantities of certain variables (such as temperature, precipitation or wind) over a period of time, ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.
The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system."
Also relevant... http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.php#q5
"Occasionally, an event or sequence of events occurs that has never been witnessed before (or recorded before), such as the exceptional hurricane season in the Atlantic in 2005. Yet even that could be part of natural climate variability. If such a season does not recur within the next 30 years, we would look back and call it an exceptional year, but not a harbinger of change."
Quick edit with some other relevant links about climate science and its use of the term climate...
You'll find the WMO definition of climate typically summarising 30 years of weather is used by the IPCC as well (that's not surprising since it was established by the UN and the WMO).
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/annexessglossary-a-...
It also explains why temperature anomalies based on the mean of 30 years of record are used to describe climate and its change rather than the raw temperature (note it's not always 30 years but that's typical).
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalies-vs-tempera...
See figure 1.3 here for another example showing the anomaly to a 30 year average: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-3-2.html
The specific 30 year definition also explains why the IPCC defines "climate change" as changes in the climate that persist for "decades or longer."
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains1.html
Regarding my opinion of the links you provided about "influential leaders in the global warming movement" (spoken like a true agnostic....), as I've said before on this thread, I don't have a strong opinion I want to discuss about the solutions because I don't think I'm sufficiently well informed to argue one way or the other.
AndyM wrote:Shatner'sBassoon wrote:yep, I voted for this man in the senate election (twice)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/06/call-me-emotional-i...
Something to be proud of Shats!
Well, the AEC did fuck up by losing ballots so we all had to vote again.
Sheepster, the link...thoughts? He is a Green true believin' 'warmist'. Naive and/or duped? You think the science community is naive and/or being duped too...by BIG NUCLEAR?
Or are they actively in on it? Paid shills for a human-induced climate change that isn't real or really that big a deal?
Sheepdog wrote:AndyM wrote:Sheepdog wrote:It's good some of you are finally discussing nuclear.... The hardcore climate change advocates need to get a grip on what some in their camp are really up to.... the whole thing reminds me of Gallipoli ..... The Kumbaya brigade landing on Flannery Beach.... They don't even realize they are a decoy for a bigger mission down at Neutron Hill..........
Don't worry about the skeptics.... Don't worry about agnostics like me..... Worry about your own nuclear trojans setting us up for the most dangerous world imaginable.....
Anyhooooooo, I gotta put some more Chinese imported Fuji Xerox a4 paper in the printer and so some shit..........Your theory that "the carpetbaggers might take advantage of the situation therefore it's a scam and the science is crap", is a bit off, don't you think?
I'm hearing lots of talk of sustainable energy and very little of nuclear; where are you getting your info from Sheepy?
And you're basing the definition of climate change out of a dictionary? Come on mate, you're better than that.Have you walked in and started reading "chapter 4" without reading chapters 1, 2 and 3, mate? Where am i getting my info?????? Open your fuckn eyes, mate...... I supplied these links 2 pages ago... Don't just jump in without going back to the start, which is the logical place to pick up the conversation from....
Here, if you are too lazy to find it, i'll supply them again.....
Listen to Finkel; Listen to Turnbull stuttering, stammering, them backing an increased nuclear future with Australia as the waste dumping ground;
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2015/s4343038.htmAnd here's the complete show.. Also listen to Greg Hunt.....
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2015/s4343056.htmOf course there's Flannery; "Time to go nuclear" - Tim flannery;
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/time-to-go-nuclear-flannery/2006/08/...So THAT'S where I'm getting my info from, Andrew... . Oh and of course there's the CURRENT S.A commission into Nuclear power.... So i'll say it again.... Don't worry about me..... worry about the nuclear trojans using lentil munchers as a wedge.....
http://nuclearrc.sa.gov.au/Bottomline, if global warming is real, I'd rather live on a planet that's warmer, with more storms, therefore more rain, therefore more vegetation in Greenland for example, therefore possibly more carbon sinks, than a world that is a fucking nuclear bomb ready to go off, with Australia a cesspit dumping ground for the worlds filth.... Filth that will be with us for thousands of years.....
"You up the back of the class. Andrew. ANDREW!!"
"Yes Sir?"
"Have you been listening to me?"
"Umm, kind of Sir.. "
"Well you can't just gaze out the window then take off early for a surf and expect to pass this class now can you?
"But Sir, this lesson's been as long as War And Peace, or even Poor Fella My Country."
"No buts Andrew!! Pay attention and stop goofing off! And I'm not surprised you look a little, well, Sheepish."
Cheers Sheepdog!
Love your work, just don't let the veins in your neck bulge out!
Ohh I'm an agnostic, Benski,.... Ask a woolly mammoth about that one....... The climate and weather patterns change over time.... There is no arguing that.... So climate change is a sure thing.... In fact whole continents move over time.... But that's another story...
Whether "climate change" is happening as fast as some of these people say it is, (one "leading" person I can't think of said sea levels could rise by average 1 metre a year over the next 100 years...... pffft yeah right....) and whether carbon and burning coal is to blame, well...... I don't know about that..... On the other side, to say human behaviour is having only a tiny effect on the atmoshpere.. Well. I don't know about that..... I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.... No one gives 2 hoots about carbon sinks, on both sides of the argument..... Phytoplankton isnt sexy... A carbon trading scheme is....
Now back to this definition... Your link specifically defines climate in one paragraph... The 30 year "classic" period is a separate issue, as there are many periods of climate..... So the true definition of climate, in it's essence, does not include anything to do with a 30 year period... it's the initial explanation in paragraph one, which is the same in my link, from the same website..... Otherwise, the website itself has an issue, with 2 different definitions....
In regards to nuclear power, yeah let that one go through to the keeper, Benski.... Don't get your fingers dirty there, mate.....;)
But here's a bit more light reading for you;
"Energy Department Goes Nuclear To Solve Global Warming"
"Global installed nuclear capacity is expected to grow 60 percent by 2040, according to the International Energy Agency"
"Of the 59 new nuclear reactors under construction worldwide"
Full article - http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/09/energy-department-goes-nuclear-to-solv...
"Plans For New Reactors Worldwide"
*Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily, with over 60 reactors under construction in 15 countries.
*Most reactors on order or planned are in the Asian region, though there are major plans for new units in Russia.
*Significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading.
*Plant life extension programs are maintaining capacity, in USA particularly
"Today there are some 437 nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries"
"Over 60 power reactors are currently being constructed in 13 countries"
"n China, now with 29 operating reactors on the mainland, the country is well into the next phase of its nuclear power programme. There were seven new grid connections to end of October in 2015. Over 20 more reactors are under construction"
Full article - http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/current-and-future-generation/plans-fo...
So yeah...... Benksi, old dag..... Don't get your hands dirty..... But just be careful what you wish for...
Thanks Benski but I don't think I will be sending any money to either Redford or Ferrell. Reminds of the time Al Gore and his disciples came out here to sell the climate change issue. Yeah, you guessed it they wanted money. Anyway, point taken that dams do impact valleys, lands, rivers etc but heh are we are not supposedly trying to resolve the 'greatest dilemma of mankind' ? Does Climate Change need to be addressed 'as soon as possible'. Im sure you are aware of the 'doom and gloom' on this. Out of all the renewable forms of energy sources, hydro is arguable the optimal for base load. Nuclear is of curse possible but thats another key point. I would argue that world population and migrations do have an impact but need to be addressed. I trust you are aware of how the permanent magnets used in windmills are made. A bit like the boards we ride - not very enviro friendly, unfortunately.
On a different note, I do find it interesting that we are expected to accept that weather forecasts can be incorrect or out in short time frames (whichever term you wish to use) yet climate forecasts well into the future are expected to accepted as 100% correct - a conundrum ?
@sheepy, I don't want to carp on but I believe my comment that some on here don't understand the difference between climate and weather is a valid point considering every time we get cold wet weather the deniers have a field day and start back slapping. Also AGW is about global climate change not short term climate of Tassie or Vic. You say climate and weather are the same ,just one egg or half a doz. (your words). However a 1-2 degree temp. rise in weather means nothing but the same temp. rise in the planets climate is a fucken catastrophe for coral reefs and many other eco systems.
I will admit my comment about 3 year olds was a tad severe ( there are some smart cookies here) although if you look at the original post that started this thread some might argue that I'm being disingenuous towards 3 year olds.
Your stance on global warming seems to be straight out of the Andrew Bolt handbook for conservatives, perhaps you two could get together over a jar of vasoline and toss around a few conspiracy theories, (sorry mate that was just an attempt at humour.) Anyway I will just stick with 21st century main stream science for my info. if that makes me an elitist then so be it. Cheers. I love you all.
Really sheepdog? The second paragraph means it's a separate issue? That's your line? Come on man. Stop wasting your time with pointless strawmen and have a proper discussion.
If your issues with climate science, your alleged agnosticism about climate change, is due to what you read in the media, then you've got a lot more thinking to do man. Relying on what some "leading person" said in an interview to make your assessment? I thought I showed you the problem of doing that with the Vic rainfall in October :-).
Seriously, you know how much crap is in the media (misreported or otherwise), why bother relying on that for something this complicated when the forecasts with associated probabilities and estimates of uncertainty are available to you directly (all based on a 30 year definition of climate)? Do some proper reading for yourself.
You reckon no one gives a hoot about carbon sinks and phytoplankton? The IPCC consider it explictly...
Here's their discussion from the 4th assessment report on the capacity of phytoplankton
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch11s11-2-2.html
And here's their analysis of the scientific literature on carbon sinks from the third assessment reports
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=274
And here's a presentation of the probable rates of sequestration from re-afforestation
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/land_use/index.php?idp=151
If you think the science community isn't considering this stuff then you're not reading enough before jumping to your conclusions.
"So yeah...... Benksi, old dag..... Don't get your hands dirty..... But just be careful what you wish for... "
huh? Love to know what you think I'm wishing for but I just don't have a dog in the fight you're promoting there.
"yet climate forecasts well into the future are expected to accepted as 100% correct - a conundrum ?"
tonybarber they most certainly are not expected to be accepted as 100% accurate. They're probable forecasts based on scenarios. Take a look at Figure SPM 5 here (it's outdated now as it's been updated but it is a useful illustration)
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections...
You'll have to scroll down a bit but it's the first figure you come to. It's the forecasts for the global average temperature out to 2100. You'll see the shading around the lines, which is +- 1 standard deviation in the forecasts and then the grey vertical bars on the right. Those are the most relevant, they show the most probable temperature for 2100 under each scenario and the likely range of values (including the scenario that magically emissions stopped increasing in 2000). Likely is a key word in that it denotes this range is 66-100% probable (as opposed to very likely which is 90-100% or virtually certain which is 99-100%).
Read more about that here: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf
So that figure shows that under scenario B1 the most likely global average temp increase is about 1.8 degrees and it is 66-100% probable that it will be between 1 and 3 degrees if the world follows the developmental path of scenario B1. I don't know what that is but I'm just highlighting that we aren't expected to accept a single number as 100% probable because they're probabilistic forecasts.
For the more recent forecasts the summary for policy makers from AR5 has the same kind of forecast for the newer scenarios I described in an earlier post (the RCPs), page 19 of the following.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
PS you should send your money to Ferrell, Kelly looked pretty psyched for extra coastline.
tonybarber wrote:On a different note, I do find it interesting that we are expected to accept that weather forecasts can be incorrect or out in short time frames (whichever term you wish to use) yet climate forecasts well into the future are expected to accepted as 100% correct - a conundrum ?
A. They are fundamentally different systems trying to forecast different things. The models are different, the inputs are different, the processes are different, the outputs are different, the aren't even operated by the same people or the same bodies.
B. How out are we talking? Cheery picking that the weather forecast wasn't perfect in your home town this one time is different to doing a global statistical analysis of national weather bodies forecasts against observed weather, but even if you did, you would probably find they are structurally correct the vast majority of the time, not that it is relevant.
The statement that "my local weatherman got the weather wrong last Tuesday therefore global climate change is bullshit" doesn't stand up to even the beginnings of critical thinking or logic.
@mk1...sure I understand that the models are different for 'weather' as opposed for 'climate'. The key point is the you would think our maths would be more effect or accurate for near time scenarios. Maybe not a good example but it's like betting on a horse after the start or say 100 meters down the track. The odds change. Regards to weather predication, well maybe check your quote - I can't see where I stated what you claim -'my local weatherman....'
I am sure you are aware of the challenges Ben and co have when predicting swell and wind. They do a good job and valuable.
Well, Benski, I am sure you are right re the different scenarios and probabilities but do you think that is the impression or information given to the wider public ? I would suggest that the public is expected to accept the 100%.
tonybarber, it's got nothing to do with the quality of the maths we have and all to do with the understanding of the different processes and their randomness. I'll try to explain, and sorry barley this will probably become another essay.
If a weather forecaster was asked to predict the temperature in Melbourne tomorrow, they would consider things like how fast the low pressure system that's sitting there now would move, whether the cold front way way south might push up some cooler air, whether the high in the bight might push in some dry air and clear out the rain. No doubt I've got that wrong in some way as I'm not a weather forecaster but hopefully you can see that none of those things has anything to do with the changes in the composition of the atmosphere between today and tomorrow because there'll be no meaningful change in that over 24 hours. The processes that are likely to affect the local weather are those more immediate processes. The models they use would include relevant parameters to quantify the likelihood of all those things interacting and make a forecast.
Now if you ask a forecaster to predict the temperature on November 12 2016 they would probably have a great deal of difficulty because all of those immediate processes that will influence that are unclear 366 days out. But if you ask them to predict the average maximum temperature for November 2016, they would consider things like the likely stage of the ENSO cycle, the season November falls in (i.e. historical November temperatures), and whatever other things affect the monthly average between now and then. Nothing to do with the processes that someone would use to predict the temperature tomorrow.
So if you ask a scientist to predict the average annual temperature in Melbourne in 2100, then they'd have to consider the longer term processes that will change the climate between now and then and how those changes might "persist for decades or longer". That of course includes the composition of the atmosphere relative to today, the solar activity, the degree of deforestation around the world and whatever other processes are relevant to how the climate at that time (i.e. the average of 15 years either side of 2100).
There is nothing the forecaster for tomorrow's weather can use that the forecaster for average annual temp in 2100 can also use. They're separate physical processes governing the outcomes because of the immediacy (or otherwise) of the outcome of interest. Do you see what I mean? They're such different physical processes that are being predicted that the quality of the forecast of one is completely unrelated to the quality of the forecast of the other. The quality of the forecasts from the models for each depends on the quality of the understanding of the processes that govern each.
So hopefully you can see that your analogy of the horse race is not accurate. A better one would be to compare horses and the dogs. Rejecting the forecasts of climate change because a weather forecaster gets it wrong sometimes would be like saying I'm not gonna bet on the favourite in race 8 at the doggies this Saturday night because the favourite didn't win the Melbourne cup last week.
As for what the public is expected to accept about climate change forecast accuracy, given everything I provided to you is available to the public and is written in lay terms so the public can understand and promoted as such by the agencies who write it, I'd suggest the public are expected to accept the probabilities the IPCC goes to great lengths to explain (along with BOM, CSIRO, NOAA, the Royal Society and just about every scientific agency on the planet). If someone from the public thinks the forecasts are supposed to be 100% infallible then they are at fault for not understanding what the scientists are telling them in every paper they write.
Thanks Benski … I may not have been as explicit as you. Regardless, here is what the ABC (and others) has recently announced to the public (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-09/global-warming-to-impact-megacitie...) . Certainly no one from BOM or CSIRO willing to explain the IPCC probabilistic models in any possible scenario. Granted I can chase these up myself but I will agree with you that forecasts are not 100% infallible.
...meanwhile in Greenland
http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2015/11/how-warming-oceans-unleas...
Benski, I am having a proper discussion, but you are now calling me a "denier".. You are now insinuating that i am lying about my stance... As is old dag.... Now that seems typical from the hardcore warmists like you guys...
Old dag couldn't even understand that our earlier discussion re' current BOM stats was a totally different tanget and slightly off topic in regards to the thread.... It had/has nothing to do with the definitions of climate and weather..... I know, and you know where that particular side debate began.. It was in regards to emergency commissioner clutching at straws re local predicted weather events being used as a scare campaign, and in regards to a particular NOAA map we disagree on.... So old dag is arguing with himself, over nothing, because anyone with 1/2 a brain knows that weather and climate are intrinsically linked.... If old dag, or yourself say otherwise, you really should give it away.... And my egg analogy is so easy to follow, that if old dag doesn't get it, he's a bigger idiot than I thought..... If one egg is the "weather" for say one day, and you then get a whole bunch of "weathers" - eggs,,,,,,, and you then look at that bunch of weathers, and look for cracks in the shells and yolk size and weight etc etc you'll have a picture on the CLIMATE of the eggs....... It's that basic an analogy that even a 5th grader could get it..... But no, not old dag.......
Now as far as you getting your imported shipped, made in china knickers in a knot over "classic 30 years", I have given you the link to the oxford dictionary, the cambridge dictionary, the same site you use, and all say the same thing..... Your "30 year" period is purely one facet.... Because we can discuss the "climate" during the jurrassic period... We can discuss the different climates of Antarctica compared to Bali.... We can discuss the climate during the ice age... It has nothing to do with 30 fucking years mate.....
And you know it..... Just another red herring....That's why you are now going the man and not the ball.......
And of course you don't have a dog in the fight re nuclear...... I'd expect that..... Not one word from you, old dag....... But the nuclear future thanks to the "oooh that's got nothing to do with me crowd" continues........... We'll be coming with pitchforks for you guys in 10 years..... Washing your hands of a problem you are helping to create........ lol
"SA Government 'open' to nuclear waste dump proposal despite previous opposition: Weatherill"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/sa-govt-consider-nuclear-waste-pro...
"Six sites shortlisted for Australia's first nuclear waste dump"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-13/government-releases-shortlist-site...
"SA Nuclear royal commission: Waste dump best economic option for state, Business SA says"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-02/nuclear-waste-dump-best-economic-o...
And when a ship bringing back this poison to Australia is hijacked by extremists, or when a dodgy dockworker with connections pockets a heap of crap for "dirty bombs" ( and it will happen), Flannery, Finkel, and all the other hardcore pro nuclear pro "end of the world from global warming" fucktards AND their braindead followers, AND the cretins who want to spend hours being elite on threads arguing crap over word definitions who wipe their hands over the imminent nuclear future will run and hide like rats down their fucking holes........
Then ya get dickheads like blindboy saying 5m locked in..for 1000yrs..what a kook.
This whole things a bore..no ones doing anything about it and a bunch of know nothings on swillnet think they are the kings of know it all..get fucked
"Washing your hands of a problem you are helping to create......"
Let me get this right - if you believe in AGW, you are pro-nuclear/creating a nuclear future therefore you are an idiot to believe in AGW.
Logic so twisted it's pretty much broken Sheepdog.
Mate I agree with you with regards to the fact that we should be very aware of this "trojan horse" however to me, AGW and a "nuclear future" are two separate issues that some are trying to pass off as one. Clearly there's a link but they are certainly not inseparable.
I still have some faith in the Australian public and the tiers of government in that the pro-nuclear crowd will not have a win.
Sheepie, I'm not sure why you wouldn't put your considerable energy into the anti-nuclear side of things as opposed to abusing those that believe in AGW.
Wow! A couple of previous queries, Sheepster:
Your theory that "the carpetbaggers might take advantage of the situation therefore it's a scam and the science is crap", is a bit off, don't you think? (Andy M.)
Sheepster, the link...thoughts? (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/06/call-me-emotional-i... ) He is a true believin' Green 'warmist'. Naive and/or duped? You think the science community is naive and/or being duped too...by BIG NUCLEAR?
Or are they actively in on it? Paid shills for a human-induced climate change that isn't real or really that big a deal? (This one is mine)
Enquiring minds have got to know...
I will pass your complaint about 5m of locked in sea level rise to the editors of New Scientist barley where the information came from. I am sure they will be shattered at the breath taking logic of your rebuttal.
Send it past the NASA scientists as well BB.
...meanwhile in China
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/11/11/chinas-coal-bubble-155-new-o...
No matter your views on AGW, this one isn't nice. For one it will torpedo any effort Australia makes to reduce its carbon footprint, for the other it looks a massive misallocation of capital. Again.
sheepdog I can't believe you're still going on this weather/climate thing. Clearly climate is the summary of the weather over a given period of time. I'm not arguing with you on that, you saw the links I provided that said exactly that.
But clearly it has everything to do with the 30 year time frame as that is what is relevant to the current debate about climate change as is being discussed in this thread. I don't even know why you'd waste energy on this. It's such a non debate that I don't understand why you're wasting your own time on it. And you accuse me of red herrings?
"now calling me a "denier"' .... and you accuse others of putting words in your mouth. You'll find I have never called you a denier. I've never called anyone that. I just don't believe your "agnostic" about it. When you refer to something as a scam, to the science as being crap and that it's all for carpetbaggers, you'll forgive me for not believing you don't have a position on it or that you are unsure about it.
I'm not playing the man. As I've done from the start on your posts, I'm calling out the inconsistencies of your reasoning (like your reasoning that I'm helping create a nuclear industry in Australia simply because I don't want to discuss the issue with you).
As for the relevance of weather to climate, clearly they are linked. But the forecasting methods are not. The processes governing the weather and the climate (where climate is defined for the purposes of climate change science as the average of 30 years of weather), are obviously different. You can read my post to tonybarber on Thursday, 12 Nov 2015 at 11:40am that explains why the accuracy of one is irrelevant to the accuracy of the other. If you feel the need to reply to it, please please please try to see the points I'm obviously intending to convey and not jump on some petty detail to prove that I got something "wrong", because I will have almost certainly got some details wrong but not the broad concepts that matter to that discussion. Also try to avoid some lame strawman that would fall away if you give me the credit of interpreting the posts as though someone with a brain wrote them and not someone you're determined to argue with over meaningless details.
Blindboy the problem with your view and your mates is that it is complete shit.
What happens lets say,in the next 20yrs and we get blistering cold winters and all that glacier shit refreezes if not rebuilds ?
obviously the scientists went up to greenland 50yrs ago and looked at each other and said..'what happens if this shit melts?'
'Well we shall better think of a plan for that'
You and benski shouldve seen this shit coming 50-60-70-100yrs ago!
the earth has evolved like this for millions of years.
and you still got no fucking idea!!
cant even tell when a volcano can erupt ?
Why doesnt the climate scientist try and stop the melting of ice instead of telling us our emissions are cooked.
do you have kids blindboy ?what do you tell them?
Sheepdog wrote:And when a ship bringing back this poison to Australia is hijacked by extremists, or when a dodgy dockworker with connections pockets a heap of crap for "dirty bombs" ( and it will happen), Flannery, Finkel, and all the other hardcore pro nuclear pro "end of the world from global warming" fucktards AND their braindead followers, AND the cretins who want to spend hours being elite on threads arguing crap over word definitions who wipe their hands over the imminent nuclear future will run and hide like rats down their fucking holes........
.....overly dramatic....but entertaining nonetheless
barley wrote:Blindboy the problem with your view and your mates is that it is complete shit.
What happens lets say,in the next 20yrs and we get blistering cold winters and all that glacier shit refreezes if not rebuilds ?
obviously the scientists went up to greenland 50yrs ago and looked at each other and said..'what happens if this shit melts?'
'Well we shall better think of a plan for that'
You and benski shouldve seen this shit coming 50-60-70-100yrs ago!
the earth has evolved like this for millions of years.
and you still got no fucking idea!!
cant even tell when a volcano can erupt ?
Why doesnt the climate scientist try and stop the melting of ice instead of telling us our emissions are cooked.
do you have kids blindboy ?what do you tell them?
I have conducted my own scientific analysis of barley's comments on this and other forum topics and yes folks a trend has emerged.
The evidence shows he is at his most incoherent late on a Friday night when he appears to have the mentality of a labotomised single brain celled slug.
Have said it before fuckstain you really shouldn't logon after a night on the piss.
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discover...
Now to all you fruit loops. This is the end to the biggest load bullshit of all time. The government know's it (but still won't say it ), the smart people like me know it. When will you clowns please apologise to me for your un-educated attacks.
To all the man made global warmest alarmist's suck shit losers.
Now go and do something worthwhile fuckwits.