Climate Change
Different name but still the biggest wanker going round.
indo-dreaming wrote:Different name but still the biggest wanker going round.
Glad he's back. Might have to lurk more.
Ha ha Indo the "Yew" gave it away. Still gender bending is an innovation.
???... not sure what you are on about?...i dont believe in genders anyway or god both just beliefs in things that cant be proven to exist.
indo-dreaming wrote:Different name but still the biggest wanker going round.
Time to get back on your meds info
I hear there's wide spread shortages of that medicine though, so good luck getting ahold of any.
Indo - I think you are right about viewing the media is in the eye of the beholder .
I only read Vic and NSW publications and the same with watching TV .
The AFR is published by Fairfax . They also publish the AGE and SMH .
All are highly left leaning imo . Why would one be different to the others ?
The coverage of Climate Change is the same in all three .
AFR is "highly left leaning"
If you had any credibility left Hutchy, it's now completely disappeared.
VicLocal "If you had any credibility left Hutchy, it's now completely disappeared."
Coming from you Vic I view this as a huge compliment . Thanks again for your 98.8% figure . I see I was not the only one who missed you calculation .
You hassling and bullying Blowin over .7% has made my day . Keep up the good work . ha ha
You would bully someone who you said could have one of your hundred waves but took two . Dick head !
0.7% of 100k = 7-800 extra deaths. Go the callous bastards! We can win this one.
BB - "7-800 extra deaths. Go the callous bastards! We can win this one." You are a big DH !!!!!
You might think you can win this one . You have lost re the Fed shareholders and maybe your ego needs a boost .
To me this is not about winning or losing . I was pointing out that both a 98.8% and 99.5% survival rates from Covid were BOTH very good .
The costs of lockdowns are VERY high . Economically and socially with mental issues going through the roof .
I believe there are no winners . I hope we can work out the best way to minimalize the loses .
Mate people on this site have been arguing against the measures designed to minimise infections since day one of the pandemic. Callous bastards is a generous description. Watch them scurry out now from under their rocks with their usual crap about their precious freedoms and it's only old people anyway bullshit.
And you want to win an argument BB when tragedy is on both sides of deaths by covid and lockdowns negatives .
Time for you to check your numbers on another thread YOU callous bastard .
"you want to win an argument"
Well yeh....nah, I suppose I could ignore the endless streams of ignorant assertion that constantly attempt to undermine the public health policies of our democratically elected government......but probably not,.
Deliberately LYING again BB . You have really pissed me off today !!!!!!!!
Well that's a pity Hutchy, I was quite enjoying our little exchange. Hint: Never get angry at people on the internet, it's a waste of energy and damaging to your health.
blindboy wrote:Well that's a pity Hutchy, I was quite enjoying our little exchange. Hint: Never get angry at people on the internet, it's a waste of energy and damaging to your health.
Speaking from experience bb
Ha ha the best place to give advice from!
I don't know why studies like this are allowed to happen . No one wants to know the "Inconvenient Truth ".
A handful of US states and countries around the world are set to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars as soon as 2030, but a new study finds holding onto your 'gas guzzler' is better than switching to the green technology.
Researchers at Kyushu University in Japan found using cars with good fuel efficiency longer could reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly more than an accelerated transition to alternative fuel vehicles.
This was found after the team conducted a case study of newly registered and used cars in Japan between 1990 and 2016, which allowed them to model how 'replacement behavior' impacts the nation's carbon footprint.
Results of the study showed that if an car is kept 10 percent longer, the average ownership of a car is seven years, the overall carbon footprint of cars would decrease by 30.7 million tons.
No link, no credibility.
https://climate200.com.au/
Interesting to see how this pans out. Independents into Lib held seats such as Frydenberg, Sharma etc. Wentworth previously fell and Warringah now independent. Current federal government needs to be held to account on so many issues this being just one.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/climate-200-gove...
Interview on RN re climate 200
"Researchers at Kyushu University in Japan found using cars with good fuel efficiency longer could reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly more than an accelerated transition to alternative fuel vehicles."
There has been a bit of research on this issue with variable results. I suppose if you had never been to Japan or didn't know much about it you could easily think that this data could apply just as well in Australia. But it doesn't for a number of reasons:
1. Car replacement is especially rapid in Japan with new vehicles being sold, on average after 7 years. In Australia that figure is closer to 11 years. This is important because on selling new vehicles can remove older vehicles from the road before there is any emission advantage.
2. Cars in Japan travel on average 9800 km/year. In Australia that figure is over 13000 km/year. this means that as well as being sold on more rapidly the vehicles are likely to be in better condition. So once again older vehicles are reduced before there is any emission advantage.
Until we have Australian research on the issue it will be hard to put exact figures on how long a car should be kept to actually reduce emissions, but it is likely any remaining advantage drops off pretty rapidly after it is 10 years old, though even this is dependent on the type of vehicle and how well it has been maintained. The fuel efficiency of the vehicle is also a key factor. The research refers only to petrol driven vehicles so converting from diesel to a similar sized hybrid or full electric, at a much younger age, would almost certainly reduce emissions almost immediately.
Read the research here:
https://www.kyushu-u.ac.jp/en/researches/view/218
BB - Thanks for proving your own statement about my posts credibility wrong . I don't expect you to change you views about me even when you prove your statement wrong .
In one sentence to say the statement has no credibility and a moment later you say "There has been a bit of research on this issue with variable results. "
You couldn't lie straight in bed you bullshitter . Try and make it less obvious .
It would go against your poor character flaws . Thanks again though .
Ask yourself is there any shit that hutchy has shat that info hasn’t already shat here many times before? Coincidence????
What I say about BB must be true then . I am no persona figmatata (whatever) .
No coincidence just fact .
Hutchy the point is to provide the link to your source. If you do not, then your statement has no credibility. This is not a personal slight just a fundamental of these kinds of discussions. And you should try and find the original source not a news site. In this case it took me about 30s to do so. A secondary point is when you summarise something briefly, it can be misleading or be so incomplete the meaning is not clear. Climate change is a scientific issue, you need to abide by reasonable standards if you expect to be taken seriously by any one other than those seeking to confirm their pre-existing views.
Piss off BB . The Uni was named . It took you one second to find the study . The news site summarised it . I posted the summary .
Were credibility was lost ( you have none now in my eyes after yesterday ) was when you said my post had no credibility and then said -""There has been a bit of research on this issue with variable results. "
You are a total pretender know it all .
Has the environmental movement held us back for too long? Is it time for the nuclear barbarians?
A solid polemic:
https://nuclearbarians.substack.com/p/welcome-to-the-beginning?r=tcjlv&u...
Bonza - Are you there ?
Back onto my suggestion that we dam the Mitchell River in Vic .
A quick summary . I say yes as it will stop the violent floods that destroy infrastructure , farmers fences etc . It will stop the hatcheries at the mouth of the river being decimated . It will be a good source of water and stop fresh water flowing out to sea and the desal sal plant sucking in salt water 40km down the beach . Less CO2 .
You say no as it will decimate the local river system and its flora and fauna . It will stop valuable silt replenishing the soil . Probably other things I cannot recall .
I spoke to a farmer in Swan Hill today and he said the Murray was almost overflowing which is great . Also the the Hume Weir is full which surprised me as it was almost empty 18 months ago .
I asked him if , when the Murray floods , does it , like the Nile , replenish the soil ? He said no . Although the river is muddy there is little silt . He said it causes major problems with "Black Water " .
Due to the build up of leaf litter the flooded water quickly turns Black and looses its oxygen .
This then kills all the fish .
You could not name one plant species that would be negatively effected by a dam on the Mitchell ( not where the dam is of course ) .
Does the Black Water effect change your views ? I already know the answer .
" I already know the answer"
well that was easy. Almond farmer was he? makes sense. best thing that ever happened to the southern Basin - a expanding monoculture of perennial water intensive trees. tell him we all say thanks.
good chat hutchy. glad i'm still keeping you up at night. xx
Yeah, it would be a great idea to turn the Mitchell River into our version of the Colorado, which is providing good evidence that West Coast America is Ground Zero for the effects of global warming.
The Colorado River, after two decades of drought (that sounds like climate as opposed to weather to me) is running at less than forty percent capacity. Some forty million Americans rely on the Colorado for water and power. Not to mention the meat and produce that gets shipped across the whole country.
Not helping is the way the water extraction operates. It’s dependent on an antiquated 1922 agreement that overestimated the river’s capacity, and operates on a who was there first has first dibs basis. It hasn’t adequately adapted for the growth of cities in the interim. Users must use their full allowance to keep their allowance. So upstream ranchers take their whole share out even when they don’t need it all.
Lake Mead, fed by The Colorado, is at dangerously low levels. In a few years water won’t be able to get past the Hoover Dam. Vegas will be okay as they’ve dug a really low drainage tunnel into the lake, but the other cities might be screwed.
One solution could be as simple as California adopting a No Meat Monday, which would save enough water to get the river back to decent health.
However, lots of water gets lost to leakage through ageing infrastructure. And think about all the old lead water pipes that are crumbling away throughout the US - and their ageing infrastructure in general.
It’s easy to conclude that the lack of spending on infrastructure over the last two decades must be related to the trillions spent on the Forever Wars. Only now are they starting to act. And to think the US budget was in good shape prior to 9/11.
Looking at some photos of The Colorado taken over the course of its 1450 miles one can appreciate how Americans can get so teary eyed patriotic. Such an epic landscape.
As it enters and stutters through Mexico however, The Colorado, which way upstream near its source in the Rockies is still a wild and abundant river, is reduced to little more than a trickle.
A much different picture was described in 1746 by Father Ferdinand Konščak. The Croatian missionary marvelled at the phenomenon of a major springtime tidal bore in the delta and estuary of the lower Colorado.
Baja has enough waves as it is. I guess they aren’t missing this one. But it seems the Barra de la Cruz local govt. didn’t learn the lesson. Don’t mess with the river!
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/what-next-tbd-can-this-river-be-sa...
No Bonza - wrong again . Doesn't grow Almonds but he said the irrigated crops are doing well .
I haven't thought about you in weeks and sleeping well thanks .
Since you didn't mention Black water I assume you don't know what I am talking about . And you said you were a river expert . I knew that was BS as well .
I will not bother with you and dams again .
I will not bother with you and dams again .
is that a promise?
Hutchy, proving he's the dumbest prick on here time and time again.
The mouth of the Mitchell is 200km as the crow flies from the desal plant, and until this year has been in severe drought. Any functional dam would need to be up in the high country and limit water supply to the Lindenow valley, one of Australia's largest food producing areas. As well as further limit flow into what used to be significant freshwater lakes systems.
The generation location would be a bloody long way from any existing HV infrastructure and cost a bomb.
Dams will be a component of future energy storage but as closed loop systems and not on river.
Spot on carpetman.
Telling everyone that we should damn the Mitchell, while having no clue where the river actually is, is bloody embarrassing Hutchy.
Not even the environmentally destructive LNP are proposing this damn stupid idea.
The last time I heard anyone run the "Damn the Mitchell" plan was Andrew Bolt about 10 years ago. How stupid would you have to be to be 10 years behind Andrew bolt?
Ok I was out by 100 miles . Makes no difference to anything I said . I hate the idea we are letting the fresh water from the Mitchell flow into the sea and are sucking in salt water into the de sal plant which is only 100 miles away .
The Mitchell River was low , like every other river , VicLocal . Same with all the other dams and weirs . Someone mentioned to me today that the Thompson Dam ( our most important ) is 80% full .
Sounds you are like all the other thick people who said that there is no point damming the Mitchell because the river is not flowing . Over the last 10-15 years it has probably flooded 3-5 times .
A good idea 10 years ago , especially water related , can STILL be a good idea today .
Carpetman -you say " Dams will be a component of future energy storage but as closed loop systems and not on river. "
It might take a while to fill a dam that's not on a river or some other water carriage way . How long and which dam in Vic is fed this way ?
The Mitchell has flooded approx every three years .
Hutchy you are a reverse polymath. You know nothing about everything or is that everything about nothing? Probably both. Maybe spend a bit more time reading and thinking about an issue before posting.
I just checked and Bairnsdale to Wonthaggi is 220 km .
Viclocal you say a Dam on the Mitchell River would be " environmentally destructive " .
I asked Bonza to name one plant that would ne negatively affected by a dam there ( not where the water would be of course ) . He said Blue Gum which I pointed out are plentiful in Oz ( In Qld also called the Red Gum ).
How about you ( or anyone else ) have a go at trying to name ONE plant .
While you are at it name ONE animal that is threatened that would be negatively affected .
I will then name 5 species of animals that are threatened and ARE affected by wind mills .
It took Bonza a few weeks to come up with Blue Gum but I would expect you to be a bit quicker .
Good luck getting it past the Bonacords and other farmers in the region that rely on that water to put vegetables on your table ya numpty.
As usual BB it is do as I say not as I do .
Carpet - I am not suggesting that water is stored in the dam when water flow levels are normal . The dam will fill when the river floods as I would expect most dams on rivers do .
It will stop all the damage done during a flood to farmers and other food producers properties . I would bet a lot of money that these people understand this and be massively in favour of a dam . It will be a big help to them having water in droughts to grow their vegetables . I find it hard to believe you don't get this !!!!!
As I have asked how does the type of dam you approve of fill up without being on a water way ? Also please give me ONE dams name in Vic that is NOT on a river or a regular water way .
Here's a great idea from the National Party, I guess because it's difficult to turn a profit in big oil these days, they need all the taxpayer help they can get.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/07/liberal-mps-scorn...
san g - you are exactly right . Almost impossible for any small player to do well . This can be shown by looking at the share price graphs of the major oil/gas companies .
The result is what you would expect from any market . Less investment flowing their way . So the companies invest less into their businesses . Less costly exploration . Business's going broke and leaving the industry . Survival of the fittest . Only the majors will be left but they will do very well when the market eventually corrects itself as it always does so well .
Then the market usually corrects itself . Low oil prices and low exploration eventually lead to oil prices going up . There is an old adage " Nothing fixes low prices better than low prices " . The opposite happens also of course .
It is amazing how so many people don't understand how markets work as it is so simple and logical .
A problem happens when bankers decide to do something they have never done . Blackball an industry and refuse to lend them money . Bankers are not doing this because they thing it is the right thing to do ( never met a banker that thinks this way ) . They are doing it to look good for the ESG investors so they get their share prices up and get their bonuses .Not too much of a long term problem as it will end up causing the price of oil and gas to skyrocket and someone else will find .the money to invest in a very profitable project .
Maybe some idiot from the NP doesn't believe in free markets and wants to try and stop the price of oil and gas skyrocketing .
and for some context here's what Australia spends annually on mental health (A$10.6 billion)
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mental-health-services/mental-health-ser...
Hutchy 19 wrote:Ok I was out by 100 miles . Makes no difference to anything I said . I hate the idea we are letting the fresh water from the Mitchell flow into the sea and are sucking in salt water into the de sal plant which is only 100 miles away .
The Mitchell River was low , like every other river , VicLocal . Same with all the other dams and weirs . Someone mentioned to me today that the Thompson Dam ( our most important ) is 80% full .
Sounds you are like all the other thick people who said that there is no point damming the Mitchell because the river is not flowing . Over the last 10-15 years it has probably flooded 3-5 times .
A good idea 10 years ago , especially water related , can STILL be a good idea today .
Carpetman -you say " Dams will be a component of future energy storage but as closed loop systems and not on river. "
It might take a while to fill a dam that's not on a river or some other water carriage way . How long and which dam in Vic is fed this way ?
The Mitchell has flooded approx every three years .
Blowin , couldn't let this one go thru to the keeper., and Climate must be one of your new subjects as what you are proposing is ludicrous in damming the Mitchell.
At present even in a wet La Nina event , Victoria is currently using it's desal plant for water supply for Melbourne , are you reading at the moment this will educate you on the future of water in Vic...and it's all desal and recycled water!
https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/victoria-to-rely-mo...
Brutus - I can't let this go through to the keeper and let Blowin take a bum rap .
"Blowin , couldn't let this one go thru to the keeper., and Climate must be one of your new subjects as what you are proposing is ludicrous in damming the Mitchell."
It was me .
Very strange that in the we La Nina cycle that the De Sal plant is running when we don't need water .
A mistake in the design that it costs so much to replace the membranes if they dry out that we run the very expensive process that produces so much CO2 .
Much better to turn it off when we have excess water and back on when the cycle changes back to El Nino in the future when we are low on this vital resource . I might be slow but that does seem sensible to me .
Hutchy, you can't turn off a desal plant !
Helpful that after writing the above that I just read this .
"DB's credit strategist Jim Reid also chimed in, writing that "maybe in the fullness of time this surge in mining between 2010-2015 will be the exception rather than the norm and that, in a rapidly changing and ever more ESG sensitive world, it will be harder to get oil out of the ground. Pricing climate-change externalities more generally could make things more expensive over time. Are we on the verge of another change in inflation expectations due to oil and energy, one that is in large part due to ESG."
Now that the direct effects of this catastrophic policy are becoming all too apparent, and nowhere more so than in Europe where gas prices have exploded to staggering levels..."
"... more are starting to lament the rise of the "green" cult, and overnight Bloomberg's John Authers, in seeking to explain the reasons behind Europe's energy hyperinflation - because that's what it is - writes that amid the attempt to “de-carbonize” and move from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, "the problem is to make sure that sufficient carbon-rich energy remains available until renewables are able to pick up the load. That hasn’t happened."
He is right, of course, but what is worse is that while more capital is flowing to renewables, less capital is going to existing fossil fuel sources, which while perhaps on the way out (over the next 4-5 decades) still need hundreds of billions to maintain a baseline production capex, even as the virtue-signaling Blackrocks of the world seek to starve them of all growth capex.
Putting it all together, overnight Moody’s Investors Service published a report which found that oil explorers need to raise drilling budgets by 54% to more than half a trillion dollars to forestall a significant supply deficit in the next few years.
Crude and natural gas drillers - chastened by last year’s unprecedented collapse in demand and prices, as well as the ongoing capital stigma associated with anything that is "not green" - haven’t responded to the recent market rebound as the industry typically does by expanding the search for untapped fields. While international crude and U.S. gas have risen more than 50% and 120% this year, respectively, drilling outlays are only forecast to increase by 8% globally, Moody’s analysts Sajjad Alam wrote.
Needless to say, that's too little to replace what those companies will pump from the ground in 2022, setting the stage for even tighter supply scenarios. Any such squeeze would come atop the current crises afflicting Asian and European economies scrambling to shore up fuel stockpiles as winter approaches and prices seemingly break records on an almost-daily basis. It would also mean sharply higher oil prices.
"The industry will need to spend significantly more, especially if oil and gas demand keeps climbing beyond pre-pandemic levels through 2025," the Moody’s analysts wrote.
Oil and gas companies are expected to spend $352 billion on drilling and related activities this year, Moody’s said, citing estimates from the International Energy Agency. If they raised to to the credit-rating firm’s recommended $542 billion, that would be the highest worldwide since 2015. Alas, with investors terrified of looking like uncouth cavemen to the powerful ESG lobby, there is no chance they will get a number even remotely close. "
Fill up your cars and your tanks .
Yep, we shoud have started the process of ending our reliance on fossil fuels several decades ago, so it just might hurt now we have to do it rapidly. Instead we have had a succession of pig ignorant PMs from Howard through Abbott to Morrison who were simply incapable of the intellectual flexibility necessary to accept that climate change was real and happening. So we had to put up with Morrison waving a piece of coal around the chamber as if it might achieve anything beyond confirming the impression of everyone who ever passed a HSC science subject that the man was, not only a fool, but an irresponsible one.
Now, in a month's time, we have probably the most important international conference since Yalta and what is our PM doing? Can't make up his mind whether to swallow his pride and attend to admit that he has been wrong or send someone else to cop the shit. At the same time, by his own admission, they have been unable to decide what they should say. This is way out beyond poor leadership and into complete diplomatic incompetence. When every other nation will have a well established plan with goals, the strategies to achieve them and the evidence to back up their position, what will we have? Some hotch potch cobbled together at the last minute to appease Barnabubby, and the skinny rump of climate deniers in the National Party. Fuck me! Hey, let's work out a strategy to make Australia look like a nation of smug selfish buffoons! You couldn't do a better job than the current bunch of ideologues and idiots in power in Canberra.
.