Climate Change
In Denmark, all new renewable projects have to offer 20% ownership of the overall venture to local residents.
Some good reading here, more if you search:
https://www.nordicpolicycentre.org.au/community_owned_wind_lessons_from_denmark
Everybody knows, or at least senses, our current system doesn't serve the pubic. We're all feeling ripped off, and people are starting to lash out, sometimes in the wrong direction at the wrong things.
We're in the midst of a wholesale energy transition that, irrespective of your ideology, is going to happen. Of that you can be sure. A way out of the malaise, to again feel like society works for the people, is to wrest back some ownership of energy infrastructure and the Danes have set a template for that.
There is just one thing holding us back from doing it here.
"But socialism..."
…as the polar ice caps melt …snow worries ;)
- our privileged hobbies and interests must also adapt,
renewable …sustainable …working together with nature.
…penguin surfing, the future is now ;)
https://m.
&t=128s
#Progressive Fake Left Anti-Economics Anti-Corporation Anti-Market Economy Fake Woke Virtue Signalling Communist Struggle Agenda Fake Left Voice Eco-Cult 15min-Cities Misinformation-Laws Persecution-Of-The-Poor-Old-Right Woke Mind Virus Movement
GSCO, I'm not attacking the capitalist system, just pointing out the impacts of a warming world.
This is a great chance for developed countries to use their wealth, technology and weight to transition over to renewables.
As these events continue to compound, the rich and privileged will be able to adapt, move locations, buy more expensive produce etc, but the rest of us will shoulder the consequences.
Food-bowls will shift, water will be fought over, some locations will become unliveable etc.
That’s an extreme, doomsday, Armageddon, war of the worlds scenario, more like a movie scene, like the covid threat was.
It surprises me that there are people who believe this stuff.
There’s nothing special about the current moment in time relative to the past few hundred million years. There’s nothing new under the sun.
GSCO, you're correct but this time we've got an over-populated planet and a rapid rate of change.
Tell those in Lismore or under attack by the Black Summer bushfires that's all doomsday, armageddon bullshit.
Don’t forget that the greatest polluters, historically, are the developed countries… and it is the developing countries that are often being singled out in regard to curbing emissions etc.
Amongst all this hysteria and speculation, the greatest perpetrator of greenhouse gas emissions to this day continues to be the military industrial complex - the U.S. military and its overall continued expansion contributes nothing but lip service by using its wealth, technology and weight to demand that others should abide by conditions and transition over to renewables…
And, not surprisingly, whilst dictating a climate change agenda… the US keeps on supplying and moving its diesel powered tanks around at will, keeps producing and upgrading its fighter jets using refined aviation fuel (as well as recently stating that a new aviation fuel facility is being built in northern Australia with a base that accommodates nuclear capable bomber aircraft) and also continues the research and development of ballistic and hypersonic missiles at will. (Also hoping to use the vast open spaces of central Australia to test these missiles).
And, yet, we should be doing our utmost to reign in emissions and be conscious of ‘our’ impact on the environment ?
… just another case of the rules based order ;)
- follow the rules while the rule makers break em ;);)
Do the governments selling the advice actually have any legitimacy ?
Do the scientists really know ?
Do they have a big picture perspective beyond the records kept since the industrial revolution, or is the perspective biased to our modern version of events and based on manipulated and manufactured data ?
Is the information even applicable ?
In the last two decades, how exactly have western powers reduced their carbon footprint and how exactly have they curbed things like… let’s say… the continued production and supply of military hardware around the globe ?
Is there a reason this undeniable evidence is overlooked ;)
There is no doubt the climate is affected - there is no doubt measures need to be taken…
- there is also no doubt that the military industrial complex isn’t slowing down.
Paradox or straight out hypocrisy…
It might be what we don’t know that is the scary bit ;)
https://m.
&pp=ygUXY2xpbWF0ZSBjaGFuZ2UgZGVidW5rZWQ%3D
Craig wrote:GSCO, you're correct but this time we've got an over-populated planet and a rapid rate of change.
Over-populated? The neo-malthusians have arrived. Who are you to say? How many should there be? who should we kill off? Are those of us procreating a problem? Such a wierd thing to say.
The world has a population of humans, all of them worthwhile. This population will increase probs till about 2050 or so.
Humans are a resource; a benefit, not a cost.
Sorry, bit of a fly away comment.
I don't think the planet can support infinite growth though? It is a closed, finite system yes?
[quote=mcbain][quote=Craig]GSCO, you're correct but this time we've got an over-populated planet and a rapid rate of change. [/quote]
Over-populated? The neo-malthusians have arrived. Who are you to say? How many should there be? who should we kill off? Are those of us procreating a problem? Such a wierd thing to say.
The world has a population of humans, all of them worthwhile. This population will increase probs till about 2050 or so.
Humans are a resource; a benefit, not a cost.[/quote]
Dunno the exact number, but any environment has a carrying capacity, same with wild animals, same with domesticated humans. We can fiddle with the numbers via green revolutions - agricultural advances - but there'd still be a capacity. Soz if that scares you.
Can't see where Craig mentioned killing people off. Populations naturally decline with rising living standards.
"Humans are a resource" Yes, I've seen The Matrix too.
I agree w Craig on overpopulation.
Whether you consider it an over-population or not, Craig's point that the current rate of climate change will be in a vastly more populated world and thus effect more people than previous eras of climate change, still holds true.
Just add more hi-rise apartments and put the extra animals in the apartments.
velocityjohnno wrote:Just add more hi-rise apartments and put the extra animals in the apartments.
We definitely need more high rises. We need less of never ending urban sprawl. Plenty of crappy old existing buildings that can be replaced with something better.
Anton Petrov notes we may have entered an interglacial termination event:
Very interesting discussion of papers and evidence of methane concentrations running away after human-related emissions of this gas entered a stable level. He notes these have occurred many times before during interglacials before the resumption of ice age cold phase conditions.
Not Quite Right……in the head that is.
Quote : Opposition Leader Peter Dutton describes nuclear power as “most credible” pathway to reduce emissions.
Is that right Peter ? Ok, so you won’t mind if we store all of the radioactive waste at yours.
Who votes these uneducated nutcases in to power?
Nothing at all intelligent between those little flaps of cartilage.
The sheer stupidity of even suggesting nuclear power for Australia is dumbfounding.
Please consider your children’s, children and their children and so on.
“When the stuff gets in, you cannot get it out “. AW
Gerday AW, hope you well and enjoying the seasonal changes.
A mate was just reflecting on the above in an email, he wrote:
"Dear god, libs are fooling themselves... first, by the time we got any sort of fission reactors made and on-line, there's a good chance that fusion would be coming up for grabs... never mind the waste from the fission reactors... I've been a believer in solar since I saw panels at the royal show in (I think) 1976; we have a ginormous country, shedloads of sun ... a friend of mine in uk is hardly alone in having panels on his roof - he pays zero for elec, even in winter, and most of the time the govt pays him for the elec he provides. UK was waaaay behind us in the 70s on solar... the useless buggers have caught up and outpaced us. ludicrous"
- absolutely loving the Botany thread btw, cheers, great place to go when the other threads weird you out ; )
With greatest respect AW I disagree. Putting aside Dutton's disingenuous antics aside. The case for nuclear has never been stronger for Australia. We are told we are in a climate emergency. It's becoming highly doubtful we will reach the less than 2C target. we are not acting fast enough. Rising population, tyranny of distance and infrastructure challenges, conflicting land use & enviro values, NIMBYS, Growing 1/3 Rentier class, the ethics of exporting & opportunities for reusing nuclear waste sent to other countries, and plain old politicking are just some of the good reasons for nuclear. If we acted 10 years ago we'd be somewhere by now. All options need to be on the table. Nuclear has shown to be extremely safe and its only getting safer thanks to technological advancements - it needs to be part of the solution. The economics argument against nuclear is a furphy - economics change, global supply chains oscillate, all of sudden private investment becomes much more favourable. My children's and their planet depend on us taking action now. We need to start saying yes to something.
basesix wrote:Gerday AW, hope you well and enjoying the seasonal changes.
A mate was just reflecting on the above in an email, he wrote:
"Dear god, libs are fooling themselves... first, by the time we got any sort of fission reactors made and on-line, there's a good chance that fusion would be coming up for grabs... never mind the waste from the fission reactors... I've been a believer in solar since I saw panels at the royal show in (I think) 1976; we have a ginormous country, shedloads of sun ... a friend of mine in uk is hardly alone in having panels on his roof - he pays zero for elec, even in winter, and most of the time the govt pays him for the elec he provides. UK was waaaay behind us in the 70s on solar... the useless buggers have caught up and outpaced us. ludicrous"
- absolutely loving the Botany thread btw, cheers, great place to go when the other threads weird you out ; )
Basesix. Hi mate. Nice to hear from you. Hope you are well.
Similarly, in 1978 in a science class at school, i made a solar oven that actually cooked food quickly and efficiently, i was so stoked with my apparatus that one of the teachers asked if he could take it home and cook on it over the weekend, i said yes.
I’m thinking now, did he really want to cook on it or plagiarise my design.
I was often in strife in Grade 6 at primary school and every other year at high school, merely because i wore about 5 badges daily protesting woodchipping, coal power, unnecessary logging and nuclear power.
I was informed i was degrading the reputations of the respective schools, want crap.
Australia thinks it’s progressive with clean energy, it’s happening, albeit all too slowly for my liking.
It should’ve started at least 40 years ago when people like Bob Brown suggested that we as a nation, borrow heavily and set up a global epicentre of solar hardware manufacturing, coupled with software engineers/programmers etc.
We are very slow and lack foresight regarding keeping smart people here and for them to not go offshore.
We have no problems borrowing billions for intensive military hardware, so why not renewables.
David Suzuki when he used to do an annual environmental lecture series here use to shake his head when arriving into Australian capital cities by plane.
He was gobsmacked and very disappointed when looking out the plane windows, all he could see in peoples backyards were swimming pools and not solar panels. Why?
We are a flat continent, have seriously high rates of solar insolation, very little topographic relief, bar a tall mountain (2200m) and a not so high Great Dividing Range, which starts in Casterton, west Victoria and terminates at Mt.Cornwallis on Dauan Island which is about 10km from PNG mainland.
Germany has a system similar to Denmark where you can get an interest free loan, purchase photovoltaic panels, bang them on any free wall space or roof, or rent space, you keep 50% of proceeds and the government the other 50%. Win, win. Vineyards ripping out vines and installing parabolic solar sun trackers etc.
We have much work ahead of ourselves, nuclear power should never be a remedy for our short or long term provision of energy.
Wholeheartedly agree Basesix, when things in life are not so normal , delve into the biological world. Clears all cobwebs.
Spent all day Saturday in Anglesea at Angair Wildflower Show, stoked by the sheer number of people interested in using local native flora who attended over both days, a very heartening future lays ahead , represented by so many children showing interest from guiding parents. Great to see.
Followed the next day in beautiful warm weather with more ‘cobweb clearing’, 12kms of slow bushwalking, plants, birds and everything else stuff. AW
bonza wrote:With greatest respect AW I disagree. Putting aside Dutton's disingenuous antics aside. The case for nuclear has never been stronger for Australia. We are told we are in a climate emergency. It's becoming highly doubtful we will reach the less than 2C target. we are not acting fast enough. Rising population, tyranny of distance and infrastructure challenges, conflicting land use & enviro values, NIMBYS, Growing 1/3 Rentier class, the ethics of exporting & opportunities for reusing nuclear waste sent to other countries, and plain old politicking are just some of the good reasons for nuclear. If we acted 10 years ago we'd be somewhere by now. All options need to be on the table. Nuclear has shown to be extremely safe and its only getting safer thanks to technological advancements - it needs to be part of the solution. The economics argument against nuclear is a furphy - economics change, global supply chains oscillate, all of sudden private investment becomes much more favourable. My children's and their planet depend on us taking action now. We need to start saying yes to something.
Bonza. Hi Your opinion., ive had mine. Very good points you make, every source of energy must be judged, BUT,
Radioactive waste- Where is it going to end up ? AW
I know we are not there yet - but the tech is moving in the right direction around different small scale 4th Gen reactors where low grade radioactive waste can be used (e.g. we don't necessarily need mine new uranium). I'm far from an expert but it makes for exciting reading. That aside Australia is very geological stable as you know so there good safe reasons why we can appropriately store the waste here. Currently we export our radioactive waste or at least historically have- someone else's problem (or resource?). We should be optimistic in our scientists and technologists to develop the solutions to these challenges. time is running out - we can't keep blaming the other side.
basesix wrote:Gerday AW, hope you well and enjoying the seasonal changes.
A mate was just reflecting on the above in an email, he wrote:
"Dear god, libs are fooling themselves... first, by the time we got any sort of fission reactors made and on-line, there's a good chance that fusion would be coming up for grabs... never mind the waste from the fission reactors... I've been a believer in solar since I saw panels at the royal show in (I think) 1976; we have a ginormous country, shedloads of sun ... a friend of mine in uk is hardly alone in having panels on his roof - he pays zero for elec, even in winter, and most of the time the govt pays him for the elec he provides. UK was waaaay behind us in the 70s on solar... the useless buggers have caught up and outpaced us. ludicrous"
- absolutely loving the Botany thread btw, cheers, great place to go when the other threads weird you out ; )
Yeah sure. They can bring the incentives for solar back and we will outpace the UK in no time. 8c per kWh is just pointless. It only makes sense with batteries at that rate.
bonza wrote:I know we are not there yet - but the tech is moving in the right direction around different small scale 4th Gen reactors where low grade radioactive waste can be used (e.g. we don't necessarily need mine new uranium). I'm far from an expert but it makes for exciting reading. That aside Australia is very geological stable as you know so there good safe reasons why we can appropriately store the waste here. Currently we export our radioactive waste or at least historically have- someone else's problem (or resource?). We should be optimistic in our scientists and technologists to develop the solutions to these challenges. time is running out - we can't keep blaming the other side.
I agree bonza. I also like solar but energy storage persist to be an issue. It requires mass battery production and distribution.
I’m with you, I’ll take anything to move away from fossil fuels.
bonza wrote:I know we are not there yet - but the tech is moving in the right direction around different small scale 4th Gen reactors where low grade radioactive waste can be used (e.g. we don't necessarily need mine new uranium). I'm far from an expert but it makes for exciting reading. That aside Australia is very geological stable as you know so there good safe reasons why we can appropriately store the waste here. Currently we export our radioactive waste or at least historically have- someone else's problem (or resource?). We should be optimistic in our scientists and technologists to develop the solutions to these challenges. time is running out - we can't keep blaming the other side.
Bonza. Agree, cant keep blaming either side because it’s a concern for all of us.
Again, I recently mooted why do we need so much energy per capita, we are breeders, thats why.
Would we be interested in a one child policy ? Probably not, but it’d make sense.
Our biggest problem is population growth nationally and globally.
I think i read last week 2000 new arrivals per week into Oz at present.Why ?
Aside from holding a supermarket item in your hand, what are most of our population thinking when purchasing food, there’s some kind of endless supply and resource beyond the four walls of the shop or they simply don’t know or care.
Australia has already exceeded its true carrying capacity of 12mill people.
This number was deduced in the mid 90’s, anything above that amount is at a total net loss to our soils, water etc.
So, we are cruising along in a false environmental and economic situation, almost like permanently being in debt, where you just pay the monthly limit to keep the ball rolling, but you’ll still always be in debt.
True you state we are geologically/tectonically stable, we sit roughly in the middle of our plate., the whole world sits on an enormous pluton of granite.
Sequestering radioactive waste kilometres below the ground is a furphy IMO. The scenario has not changed, simply creating a problem for another generation/s., something will go wrong and all we’ve done is handpass it to someone else to deal with. The major crux of sequestration, its like holding a hot potato.
Ive concerns at present with the rates of copper, gold and lithium extractive industries globally.
Copper and lithium form part of this new generation of energy supply, at what cost ?
Im all for any type of clean energy, tidal, wind, solar, regrettably so much copper is required for the generator wiring of large wind turbines and lithium, well, its the new gold, batteries for EV, phones, computers etc.
Does the environmental damage negate the very reason we want clean energy in the first place ?
And, what really defines clean energy? All questions, we need answers.
Energy supply should constitute an amalgam of all available clean sources, not just being totally reliant on one.AW
agreed AW.
but worse case scenario if things do screw up its negligible on the earth's ability to recover compared to a rapidly warming planet or current FF impacts on human health.
I'm not sure where the Big Australia proponents think we are gunna get our water from. Have they seen the state of the Basin? How will we activate all those almonds they are growing in the south sucking up all that water and paying off all those wall st traders? Desalination starts to become more of a likely option once again. where does the energy come from?
flollo wrote:basesix wrote:Gerday AW, hope you well and enjoying the seasonal changes.
A mate was just reflecting on the above in an email, he wrote:
"Dear god, libs are fooling themselves... first, by the time we got any sort of fission reactors made and on-line, there's a good chance that fusion would be coming up for grabs... never mind the waste from the fission reactors... I've been a believer in solar since I saw panels at the royal show in (I think) 1976; we have a ginormous country, shedloads of sun ... a friend of mine in uk is hardly alone in having panels on his roof - he pays zero for elec, even in winter, and most of the time the govt pays him for the elec he provides. UK was waaaay behind us in the 70s on solar... the useless buggers have caught up and outpaced us. ludicrous"
- absolutely loving the Botany thread btw, cheers, great place to go when the other threads weird you out ; )Yeah sure. They can bring the incentives for solar back and we will outpace the UK in no time. 8c per kWh is just pointless. It only makes sense with batteries at that rate.
Follo. Hi. Hows things ? Good points, nice discussion by all.
How is it pointless, surely its not about how much money you make from solar, isn’t it just about doing the right thing for the planet.
We are on our second iteration of a Solar energy system.
Initially getting 67c feed in tariff some years ago, now 9c. It’s never been about making a profit for us, its always about doing the right thing.
Agree, the feed in tariff back to the grid is appalling, shame on our State and Federal governments for caving into the pressure of the FF providers, weak as piss IMO. They pull out the old card, well if you don't lower the rates we might all of a sudden not employ so many people, they fall for it everytime.
Solar and wind storage (batteries) can be an issue, especially for mega large scale projects but it’s resolvable, 10km from here there is a bank of 20 batteries, each about the size of a 20feet long shipping container, they are no impost on the landscape at all and connected to an enormous wind farm.
Home storage batteries are affordable and can simply be mounted on a wall outside or even inside, if every home in Australia had solar, solar/wind(little 2 prop set up) sending its juice to a battery, we’d probably not be in this current situation .
Again a lot of this snail paced progression is compounded by the involvement of many large businesses who are gross polluters and users of FF but simply don’t have the funds to transform and cross over to clean energy.
Politics and big business typically get in the way.
Albeit, many of the very large mining firms are now some of the biggest converts to clean energy, well it’s easy, they are very cashed up.
Shareholders destroy countries IMO.
The day i’m forced to access energy from nuclear is the day I will depart Australia, we’ve already fucked everything I value, that would be simply the last straw. Waste not wanted. AW
bonza wrote:agreed AW.
but worse case scenario if things do screw up its negligible on the earth's ability to recover compared to a rapidly warming planet or current FF impacts on human health.I'm not sure where the Big Australia proponents think we are gunna get our water from. Have they seen the state of the Basin? How will we activate all those almonds they are growing in the south sucking up all that water and paying off all those wall st traders? Desalination starts to become more of a likely option once again. where does the energy come from?
Bonza. Good topics. Desal plants and Hydro Electricity operations use huge amounts of energy, either are not so green, especially Hydro., we believe most things we are told, I don’t, always like to check the facts.
Why are we growing rice, cotton and other water intensive products , I’ll tell you, we are copying the US, where most of their agricultural and horticultural pursuits are being performed in areas in a range way outside where those plants or animals would normally grow sustainably but in way fewer volumes.
There needs to be a new name in global farming , ‘Contrived Farming’
Food production in geographic locations 1000;s km from a water or energy source, i.e California, Nevada, Arizona, water piped in from the Rockys, Colorado River, which ends just into northern Mexico where it becomes a dribble and eventually dust, sickening stuff environmentally speaking.
Again and again, it’s population increase driving it all.
Again, this ‘growing flowers in the desert’ syndrome is fools paradise.
My partner was a major contributor and reporter on the state of the Artesian Basin and it’s rapidly diminishing water volume several years ago, its historically spewing out water unabatedly at points in some areas for years on end. She received mainly hostile feedback from farmers she confronted along the way, bad attitudes were rife, many, when asked why don’t they tap off a pipe/spring feed , answered why should i, its never going to run out. A typical attitude.
Say no more. AW
Bonza.
The earth’s ability to recover from catastrophic human induced events.
You make a very good point that reminded me of an interview decades ago.
British TV guy David Frost interviewed Professor Stephen Jay Gould, one of the greatest evolutionary biologists, he hailed from the US, author of many books that I assume a lot of us have read , including myself.
David asked him a ridiculous question as to what he (Stephen) thought about computers and that level of IT and could he foresee a day where computers and robots overtook the earth. Stephen looked perplexed, briefly answered , how could they, the directive comes from humans in the first place.
Before Stephen could formulate a decent reply, Frost quickly asked another question ,
‘What would happen to earth tomorrow if all humans no longer existed ?
Goulds reply was straight faced and succinct, easy answer he said,
All structures be it timber or brick/concrete no matter how large, would slowly be covered in vegetation, acids would slowly break down concrete and steel would oxidise and eventually after a very long period of time there would be little to no trace of our existence and the planet would simply carry on business as usual as it did before we evolved. AW
AlfredWallace wrote:My partner was a major contributor and reporter on the state of the Artesian Basin and it’s rapidly diminishing water volume several years ago, its historically spewing out water unabatedly at points in some areas for years on end. She received mainly hostile feedback from farmers she confronted along the way, bad attitudes were rife, many, when asked why don’t they tap off a pipe/spring feed , answered why should i, its never going to run out. A typical attitude.
Say no more. AW
In SA mining companies use a lot of water from the artesian basin, but the EPA police it closely, and there is a limit to what they can take. Don’t know about other states or industries, but EPA do monitor the water level. Not saying you could trust them, you know, there’d be a lot of influence from certain quarters.
chin wrote:AlfredWallace wrote:My partner was a major contributor and reporter on the state of the Artesian Basin and it’s rapidly diminishing water volume several years ago, its historically spewing out water unabatedly at points in some areas for years on end. She received mainly hostile feedback from farmers she confronted along the way, bad attitudes were rife, many, when asked why don’t they tap off a pipe/spring feed , answered why should i, its never going to run out. A typical attitude.
Say no more. AW
In SA mining companies use a lot of water from the artesian basin, but the EPA police it closely, and there is a limit to what they can take. Don’t know about other states or industries, but EPA do monitor the water level. Not saying you could trust them, you know, there’d be a lot of influence from certain quarters.
Chin. Hi. Thanks for that info, Must be difficult to fully police the entire area of the basin, imagine the personnel and funds required to do a proper job.
Periodically, some type of business gets caught, fined for misuse or abuse of the access to water and life goes on.AW
NSW lack significantly in their ability to monitor let alone regulate water use in comparison to other MD basin states. You can’t regulate if you don’t have the data. This was highlighted several years ago in that infamous four corner doco and subsequent icac referrals and department upheavals. . Just one of many many sad episodes in the story of the life of the MD basin.
Anyway to your point AW. The trad owners tell us look after the country it will look after you. The earth will be fine. Will we?
bonza wrote:NSW lack significantly in their ability to monitor let alone regulate water use in comparison to other MD basin states. You can’t regulate if you don’t have the data. This was highlighted several years ago in that infamous four corner doco and subsequent icac referrals and department upheavals. . Just one of many many sad episodes in the story of the life of the MD basin.
Anyway to your point AW. The trad owners tell us look after the country it will look after you. The earth will be fine. Will we?
Bonza. Hi. Yes, i remember it well, I share your sentiments as well.
The FNP know that, the problem is I don’t think the rest of us have heeded their message.
Earth will be fine, not so sure about us.
My wish is for my son and his future children and their children and so on to see and appreciate what’s here on Earth. Why should they inherit a place devoid of natural beauty just because we decided to play the ‘selfish gene’ card at present ?. AW
More data. Give it a couple of minutes to digest and ponder over..
Its hard to overstate just how exceptionally high global temperatures are at the moment. They have blown past anything we've previously experienced by a huge margin.
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) September 25, 2023
Over at The Climate Brink, we try and visualize this summer of extremes in seven charts. https://t.co/yApwMbyxgG pic.twitter.com/P0Hd8UvjIq
Socialist, fake left, identity politicking nonsensical agenderising.
Soz, just getting in before the Great Swellnet China Operative does.
Craig wrote:More data. Give it a couple of minutes to digest and ponder over..
Craig. Welcome home, you are always missed. I hope you and your lovely partner had wonderful experiences.
Thanks for this recent post regarding global temperatures, pretty alarming.
I was privy to a great presentation by a member of our Field Naturalist club last Thursday, topic was Short-tailed Shearwaters (muttonbirds).
He showed a time lapse video captured by satellite imaging of Antarctica , the room went silent, the reduction in ice was extremely alarming as well as the implications for birds and every other organism thats tied to or reliant upon those systems.AW
well the reality is it's just carefully selected descriptive statistics on a tiny dataset that doesn't prove anything. It's just pseudo-scientific confirmation bias.
Actual science doesn't proceed like this.
The retreating glaciers I recently witnessed in the Canadian Rockies aren't 'carefully selected statistics' as is the lack of Antarctic Sea Ice seen this year that AW referenced.
My brother studies the Antarctic krill that sit below this sea ice and need it to survive, the fundamentals of a much larger ecosystem and when that starts to go..
Think what you may GSCO, but right now we continue to see warming of our oceans/atmosphere and I'll continue to document and provide ongoing observations as they occur.
This is an El Niño year so global temperatures are up both in the ocean and atmosphere, along with the buffering of sulfates from ships removed hence adding to the record observations. This all adds to the current record breaking observations globally.
all these processes have played out thousands of times over millions of years. There's nothing new here.
Instead of providing data visualisations and anecdotal evidence, people need to conclusively, scientifically, rigorously, quantitatively, clearly and concisely prove that these specific events are due to humans and only humans.
Otherwise it's just all pseudoscientific noise, overwhelmingly from the socialist left.
But it's fascinating to watch the twitter army continue to peddle it all.
What's new is the amount of humans now inhabiting this earth that will be impacted by the current changes.
Hence the need to address the drivers leading to increasing natural disasters, that being both in intensity and volatility.
Again, the green house theory and effect has been known and proven for over a century.
Seems there's nothing remotely like it in the last 800,000 years.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#:~:text=The%20current%20warming%20tre....
gsco wrote:all these processes have played out thousands of times over millions of years. There's nothing new here.
Instead of providing data visualisations and anecdotal evidence, people need to conclusively, scientifically, rigorously, quantitatively, clearly and concisely prove that these specific events are due to humans and only humans.
Otherwise it's just all pseudoscientific noise, overwhelmingly from the socialist left.
But it's fascinating to watch the twitter army continue to peddle it all.
GSCO. Hi. Your opinion, definitely not mine.
It’s only selfish people who’d share that view.
If you can be bothered , try to find a graph that shows the approximate start of the Industrial Revolution, you will clearly see from that time onwards, as years pass, the C02 ppm in the atmosphere starts trending upwards and is still going up.
I do agree that the globe has had and will have non-human induced events, after all there is a melting pot at the earths core as well as one overhead, both influencing geological/climatological events.
But theres no denying (in your case there is) that with human interference to all the systems on earth, and an acceleration over multiple decades to a century of the use of internal combustion machines, motors, industry of all nature that’ve used fossil fuels, that we have definitely made our mark.
Just look at the planet at present, high rates of human induced extinctions across all biota, polluted everything, deforestation like I’ve never seen previously, its tiring, it just goes on unabated, year after year after year.
And, this week we read the article about the Salmon pens in Tassie, despite all the negatives of this industry, that state government allows it, all in the name of jobs, we seriously lack foresight, we can see we are fucking things up, but yet, keep doing it, time and time again, thats insanity in my eyes.
A small snapshot of one organism- Nth American birds, since 1970 , a reduction in number to the tune of 3 billion birds.
Globally since 1970, a 70% reduction of all the wildlife that exists, surely thats alarm bells. That’s a ridiculous number.
True, we wont exist at some stage in the near future, but how about for the children of today and their children, surely we can’t be as selfish as we are at present.AW
Thanks for the response AW, but you’ve got me all wrong. Nowhere have I denied human induced climate change.
My gripe is with the nonsensical, non scientific way the debate is played out in the media, mostly due to it being hijacked by the global socialist left. It’s the perfect information warfare tool for the global left to use in their agenda of trying to prove that corporations are evil and the capitalist system is destructive and exploitative.
It’s kind of like that podcast Stu linked today in the other thread on the current media and information environment (although that podcast tried to frame the centre-right as the cause and the problem).
It’s interesting and amusing that people assume that I deny human induced climate change from my comments.
The cause of human induced climate change is the purchasing and consumption decisions of ordinary people combined with inadequate government regulation - and same with the problems in the Tasmanian Salmon industry - not greedy corporations or the capitalist system as peddled by the global left. We are the ones who are greedy and destructive: you and me.
My other gripe is with the hysterical, fanatical “climate doomsday” weather scenarios being speculated in the left media and overall debate. It seems that every day we have some weather event, the global left media immediately jumps on it and yells “climate change!” And I remember reading a few weeks ago academic historical accounts about weather patterns and events and its effects on human migration patterns etc during periods of global warming 1,000s of years ago. It’s nothing like the Armageddon movie scene like hysteria we see speculated about and are being programmed into believing will happen by the global socialist left media.
The basic climate change science is buried under a mess of socialist activism.
gsco wrote:It’s kind of like that podcast Stu linked today in the other thread on the current media and information environment (although that podcast tried to frame the centre-right as the cause and the problem).
You didn't even listen to it. If you had you would've heard that the same media environment is causing those on the right to disagree with each other. The point was, anyone can stand united in a reactionary way, but modern media patterns make it hard, near impossible, to agree on solutions.
Also, the 'cause' wasn't right politics but Big Tech, which you keep saying is left-controlled.
here's just another very alarming example (out of the 1,000s) i noticed the other day of what's happening and going wrong:
Why We Can’t Trust the Science Journals
WESLEY J. SMITH wrote:The science and medical journals have become highly ideological on many of the most important and contentious societal issues of the day, ranging from global warming to gender ideology, to critical race theory, to virtually everything woke.
Severing the discourse from true scientific objectivity could mean that legitimate research will be stifled, properly sourced articles that do not follow the preferred ideological narrative refused publication by politicized editors, or perhaps, that scientists could self-censor their own work so as to ensure their studies make it into a prestigious journal with all the career rewards that offers.
And now, a climate scientist has written that he pulled his punches in a climate-change article in order to be published by the prestigious journal Nature. From, “I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published,” by Patrick T. Brown:
"The paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.
"This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society."
In other words, if Brown provided a thorough and nuanced study, it would never have passed the ideological blockade he knew controls the scientific discourse on this important topic.
Brown explains why we see such an anti-science paradigm:
"In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value.
"In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them."
Brown left academia so he could engage in better science. And, that allowed him to write this article.
He concludes:
"Climate scientists shouldn’t have to exile themselves from academia to publish the most useful versions of their research. We need a culture change across academia and elite media that allows for a much broader conversation on societal resilience to climate.
"The media, for instance, should stop accepting these papers at face value and do some digging on what’s been left out. The editors of the prominent journals need to expand beyond a narrow focus that pushes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. And the researchers themselves need to start standing up to editors, or find other places to publish."
"What really should matter isn’t citations for the journals, clicks for the media, or career status for the academics—but research that actually helps society."
Brown has done a true service in illustrating how science has been distorted by nonscientific agendas at the highest level of “expert” discourse — aided and abetted by the media. Until and unless that changes, public trust in the scientific and medical sectors will continue to bleed out. Once exsanguinated, it will never recover.
This is interesting.
It just won't stop. Canada realized its most intense episode of fire growth to date (as shown by accumulated FRP), never-mind that it happened on a date after which every previous season (in the MODIS record) had slowed to a trickle... #pyrocene #canadianwildfires pic.twitter.com/O6AygbSSBW
— Neil Lareau (@nplareau) September 26, 2023
It shows the rate of fire growth over the past two decades or so.
Usually in September, as things start to cool we see things flat line as the fires peter out, but this year, September instead saw the largest jump in fire growth (FRP = fire radiative power) recorded on this index.
More here re Canada's worst and most polluting fire season to date.. https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/northern-hemisphere-wildfires-summer-ex...
Climate change models are flawed and at best just a statistical exercise:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/nobel-winner-refutes-climate-change-nar...
Waveman, no need for models here.
a more measured, less "very alarming" explanation from Browne.
https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/correcting-the-record-regarding-my-essa...
"Nature has published papers that push back against the narrow focus on climate impacts that I describe. I can’t say for certain that a paper focused more broadly on climate and non-climate factors would not have been published in Nature".
a long bow between this and pseudoscientific socialist activism gsco would have us believe is dominating climate science...
i do appreciate the irony of an article wailing about a non-scientific agenda, re-published and amplified by an author who is affiliated with an institution that investigates Inteligent design.
Pretty standard socialist left response there bonza: carefully cherry picking a non-representative few sentences and then slandering and trying to discredit the author…
I get the feeling you work in academia and thus know what the publishing culture is like. It’s why I left for the private sector and just do some sessional lecturing nowadays.
.