pmccarthy Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 It is interesting to see how far and quickly this off-topic debate has run. It is clearly about religion and not about science. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 To them democratization of the power to the people kills their old business model If you had ever tried to establish a community solar farm you would probably realise that the regulatory system has been designed to prevent "democratisation" . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 EAA 2019_1_25_.pdf EAA Sport Aviation article on B747 fire bomber pilot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgwilson Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Ok, out of left field, but I tried this the other day and it works. Like sweetcorn? Buy it on the cob (NOT wrapped in plastic, still in the leaf thingys over the cob). Bung it in the microwave. 4 minutes. (5 for 2 cobs). When you pull it out, the leaves protect your hand. Peel, butter salt pepper, serve. No plastic anywhere near it! We've been cooking sweetcorn like this for years & it always tastes far better than the pre peeled plastic wrapped stuff. Often though you find that they don't have any corn straight of the plant. If that is the case I don't buy it. With improving awareness of the polluting waste of plastic the wrapping of everything in plastic is slowly reducing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deanfi Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 [ATTACH]42240[/ATTACH] EAA Sport Aviation article on B747 fire bomber pilot Yes it would be pretty intense flying , not the usual 10 or more hour 747 boredom flight , good read thanks for sharing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thruster88 Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 ABC News: These two Western Sydney streets are completely different temperatures — here's why. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-21/western-sydney-heatwave-alleviated-by-tree-cover/11721698 I can believe the tree lined street was cooler but from my high school science in the cool street were did the sun's energy go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 Evaporating water from leaves, converting energy through chlorophyll into sugars in the plant, reflected back into the atmosphere before it heated the street. Probably reflection mostly, that is how a sun umbrella (parasol) works. As distinct from a paraplui or rain umbrella. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 More than 140,000 homes and businesses lost power in Victoria today. Up to 60,000 may not have power until Friday Melbourne Age. Did anyone get a look at the AEMO Dashboard before the cool change hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 Did anyone get a look at the AEMO Dashboard before the cool change hit? No, was watching the cricket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 No, was watching the cricket I was taking my wife to the hospital and missed the power demand spike that did the damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 It is interesting to see how far and quickly this off-topic debate has run. It is clearly about religion and not about science. Correction ; Science on one side Faith on the other. One other point: There are plenty of faith based opinions that seem to have little to do with religion . Strangely I have met quite a few scientist who have a strong religious faith - go figure! I used to think that pilots must be at the least emotional scientists (after all its science gets them off the ground) how wrong am I - so many faith based opinions out there. Scary!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 Correction ; Science on one side Faith on the other. Funnily enough....There are some prominent scientists out there who believe that climate change is real that also think that the current climate change hysteria is virtually a religion. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 Funnily enough....There are some prominent scientists out there who believe that climate change is real that also think that the current climate change hysteria is virtually a religion. The only scientists that count are those who went through Uni in Climate Science, and they understand the meaning of all the heating and cooling cycles which are overlaid, the time cycles and how they work, the greenhouse effect, the activities offsetting that, and so on. There are lots more than there were around 2000, but you still don't hear much crowing from the rooftops from them. I'd say there is a cross section of conclusions among them, but they are always ready to accept new evidence. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 The only scientists that count are those who went through Uni in Climate Science, and they understand the meaning of all the heating and cooling cycles which are overlaid, the time cycles and how they work, the greenhouse effect, the activities offsetting that, and so on... I disagree, Turbs. Much of human progress has come from people who were either new to a particular discipline, or totally outside it. Never underestimate the capacity of outsiders to innovate, or of insiders to hold us back by blindly following orthodoxy, despite the evidence. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 Getting back to the trees, I would say it's the reduction of direct sunlight reaching you. and a bit of "transpiration " of the leaves.Trees pump a lot of water up out of the soil and evaporate it and like your sweat evaporating that has a cooling effect. They reckon if they can tree line and have a canopy over Darwins streets they will lower the city temp two degrees . Currently direct sunlight on pavements and air conditioners pumping heat into the streets increases the temps of places like Melbourne by about that amount. Hong Kong was similar with airconditioners running everywhere. Cool inside but like HELL outside. Darwin has the least variable temperature of any place I know on the whole planet. The humidity does vary though. They have a "Wet" and a "DRY". Nev 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 I disagree, Turbs. Much of human progress has come from people who were either new to a I should qualify that I was talking about Climate Scientists only, and yes even in Climate Science there will be a few who observe and understand something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 I suspect there was no uni course in the world about climate science thirty years ago. People got into it from other fields like physics. There were courses in meteorology, predicting weather, but climate science was really the province of geologists. They had to understand how the past climates had made the world, and how plants and animals had responded to climate change. This all left a record in the rocks and mineral deposits. Climate science as currently practiced isn’t really science. For that, you need a hypothesis that can be tested by experiment and observation. The predictions made by climate science about future conditions using complex computer models have so far been wrong. They may have taken on an impossible task, as the climate varies continuously in complex ways driven by many variables that we don’t understand well. Ad you need periods of observation that are as long as the cycles, hundreds or thousands of years, to begin to see the pattern. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 We could debate climate change over and over and get nowhere. None of us here are climate scientists I assume. We do have to be careful on all sides not to mix up what we believe is true with what we wish the truth to be. We all have our confirmation biases and it is important to understand our biases. I would just urge people to spend time reading. If you feel that what NASA says seems suspicious then look elsewhere, try CSIRO or Bom or the British Academy of Science. Look for corroboration between scientific disciplines for example what do the majority Oceanographers say or the Geological Society of America say? Look for data from different sources, does NASAs satellite data look markedly different to JAXAs or ESAs? I do not believe what I am suggesting here is ridiculous, foolish, radical or offensive. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 We could debate climate change over and over and get nowhere. None of us here are climate scientists I assume. We do have to be careful on all sides not to mix up what we believe is true with what we wish the truth to be. We all have our confirmation biases and it is important to understand our biases. I would just urge people to spend time reading. If you feel that what NASA says seems suspicious then look elsewhere, try CSIRO or Bom or the British Academy of Science. Look for corroboration between scientific disciplines for example what do the majority Oceanographers say or the Geological Society of America say? Look for data from different sources, does NASAs satellite data look markedly different to JAXAs or ESAs? I do not believe what I am suggesting here is ridiculous, foolish, radical or offensive. I don't think we got nowhere; I certainly was prompted to research a few things, and the results are already on their way for other people to follow up on. Some people have been making predictions based on assumptions based on incorrect data. The trick is how to avoid those people. One post rang very true here; If the incoming data varies by several degrees or several mm, you are not going to be able to predict a change by a fraction of a degree, or one degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippydiesel Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 I suspect there was no uni course in the world about climate science thirty years ago. People got into it from other fields like physics. There were courses in meteorology, predicting weather, but climate science was really the province of geologists. They had to understand how the past climates had made the world, and how plants and animals had responded to climate change. This all left a record in the rocks and mineral deposits. Climate science as currently practiced isn’t really science. For that, you need a hypothesis that can be tested by experiment and observation. The predictions made by climate science about future conditions using complex computer models have so far been wrong. They may have taken on an impossible task, as the climate varies continuously in complex ways driven by many variables that we don’t understand well. Ad you need periods of observation that are as long as the cycles, hundreds or thousands of years, to begin to see the pattern. PM - Past events that have impacted on climate and climatic changes are "written" in plants/trees, geological structures, ice and fossils (probably missed something) - these are the evidence of change - "fact" if you will. The severity, duration and distribution can be determined with good accuracy. Patterns, cycles, deduced. Comparisons with historic (man recorded) and modern, (here & now) data made. Add our understanding of atmospheric chemistry and biology and you have the ingredients necessary to make scientific judgements about our species activities impact on climate/environment and the rate of change. All predictions of future outcomes are to some extent in the realm of "crystal ball" gazing BUT we all make predictions based on our experiences/historic events/ known results from certain actions however we never actually know in advance that the prediction is true/fact until it becomes historic. This inability to "know" the future does not stop us from making business/health decisions based on training. historic knowledge, "common sense" so why not try and make informed predictions about future climate outcomes. EG (all examples are prone to misunderstanding/interpritation0 Man, enters aircraft, his prediction (based on certain historical knowledge & biological limitations) is that if he jumps out at 14,000 ft, he will die. So he make a management decision, he wears a parashoot. In due course he jumps, shoot(s) fail. All commentators observers assume death in minutes - BUT falls into nice soft spruce forest and deep snow - survives. Most people would suggest that this is such an unlikely outcome the wearing of a correctly packed shoot is the prefered preventative action. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenaroo Posted November 22, 2019 Share Posted November 22, 2019 sniff, can we get back to talking about the plane 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 This is about to come to and end. Broken Hill's growth meant a more reliable waster supply was needed so NSW has built a pipeline direct from Broken Hill to Wentworth, so it can pick up both Darling water and take advantage of the Murray backflow if the Darling dries out. This will allow two, I think, of the Mendindee lakes, the highest evaporating ones where the MDBA have had to get water out of them or lose it, can now be closed down, for a good boost in water. The States all get an agreed amount of water allocations, and they in turn share their allocation out through water licences. SA simply called up their allocation and some politics started. The Broken Hill pipe line was done to provide reliable water to the city, an existing pipeline from Darling is there but quality and reliability of volume wasn't good enough. As this Menindee/Darling water is now, through buy backs, committed to CEWH and SA, they had to build this to allow the lakes to be used as flood storage alone. As can be seen this year, the Murray simply cant deliver volumes per day required to meet South Australia's portion. Theres been several proposals to increase efficiencies in Menindee lakes and keep them full longer, National Parks I believe prevented them over 30 years. Being a largely unregulated river, several towns and farms will less often have river water and more seasonal fish and bird deaths and "degradation' of the river Managers have been fooled into thinking Darling river is as reliable as Murray and committed water downstream based on this Irrigators will get the blame. The lower lakes in SA evaporate around 50% of the water all on their own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 The lower reaches get increased salinity and the extra water was for more almonds being planted that probably never should have been. Most is for export, The river is severely over allocated and has been for years and making the water so portable was a giant mistake. I had an irrigated Vineyard in Tresco near Lake Boga. People all along the River use water like there's no tomorrow and Victorians always paid more. Probably more realistic pricing, but the NSW types used to scoff at us paying more. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thruster88 Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 sniff, can we get back to talking about the plane The NSW RFS site is showing 5 new fires in the wilderness north west of Sydney this afternoon most likely a result of lightening. Hopefully the large air tankers can nip them in the bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted November 23, 2019 Share Posted November 23, 2019 lightening I hope you meant lightning 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts