NSW Boeing 737 Fire Bomber

[octave]

That's good stuff and should be commended

 

Bet it wasn't cheaper than fossil fired or maybe provided by nuclear (which we are also too morally upstanding to use here)

 

If it was at cost parity it wouldn't just be for a few weeks 

 

SA is generating lots of renewables but relies on others providing its power when it suits them and their power is one of the dearest in the world I thought.

 

There is plenty information about relative costs of various methods of power generation.  It is of course complicated. As an example many of the coal fired power stations are many years old and their capital cost has long ago been paid for.  New generation of any type has large up front costs.  If we were to continue along the coal road there would still be significant coast for building new plants and upgrading old plants.  These costs must be factored into any cost comparisons and they must continue to earn revenue for the next perhaps 60 years, betting that new technologies will disrupt their business model. believe we are on the brink of massive changes in the way we generate our power and transport ourselves. So much so that one of my pastimes is investing in disruptive technologies.     

 

This is quite an interesting talk although it would take an investment in your time to watch and perhaps your interest is not that deep but I will post a link anyway.

 

 

 

[Methusala]

I take it that the basis of your indignation is the hypothesis that CO2 causes global warming?

 

Definition. Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounding assumptions.

 

  Definition of hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

 

Definition of scientific fact: In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. (From a NASA fact sheet on CO2 in the atmosphere.)

 

Scientific evidence of action of CO2 in causing warming of the climate system is unequivocal. The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.

 

Burning (oxidation) of hydro carbon fuel produces heat, water vapour and CO2

 

How many ways do you guys need to have this explained to you before 'the penny drops"?

 

 

[Litespeed]

I think it might be like gravity.

 

You have to drop them from height head first.

 

We might have to do multiple repeated drops. 

 

 

[M61A1]

I'd like to take this opportunity to suggest that we nominate Litespeed to be our most gracious, beneficial dictator and run the world for us......

 

He is clearly smarter than anyone else on the planet, and as such will save us form all that ails society, including Climate Chang or Global Warming (whichever you wish to call it), bushfires, drought, and will sort out aviation manufacturers and regulators, ensuring that all their engineering is flawless. Without a doubt he will also have the answers to all of societies ills as well. 

 

 

[turboplanner]

Definition. Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounding assumptions.

 

  Definition of hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

 

Definition of scientific fact: In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. (From a NASA fact sheet on CO2 in the atmosphere.)

 

Scientific evidence of action of CO2 in causing warming of the climate system is unequivocal. The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.

 

Burning (oxidation) of hydro carbon fuel produces heat, water vapour and CO2

 

How many ways do you guys need to have this explained to you before 'the penny drops"?

 

As I mentioned to you before, I was asking OK his opinion on CO2; nothing more nothing less; if you want to go off into your world that's fine; just don't attach it to my conversation, which OK hadn't answered. 

 

 

[spacesailor]

". The UK recently ran for several weeks without any coal power,"

 

YES

 

BUT

 

they have nuclear back-up, haven't they.

 

I believe we are warming.

 

But

 

It started Way before the industrial revolution.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Methusala]

As I mentioned to you before, I was asking OK his opinion on CO2

 

Opinions only count in the fashion world. You have your answer - what you choose to do with it is (maybe) your fate! Regards Don.

 

This is an open and respectful conversation on a forum that I've been a member of for many years. You may block people who annoy you.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

I am not a scientist & probably not very bright. Knowing this I try to listen hard to those that have been trained and are very bright, in matters of climate/environmental science - in my own little way, my understanding is that they (the scientists who have & can interpret the data) say we have a major world problem with rapid climate change. Further they say we (humans) are the cause  (of the rapid bit) by our profligate burning of fossil fuels, decimation of the worlds great forests, use of CFC's, etc etc.

 

I do not believe the world's climate scientists have anything to gain by promoting this concern - So why oh why are they not receiving the respect due to their learning????

 

Even if you dont understand, surely the united voice of the world's climate scientists must mean something - we are "hatching" one hell of a problem - I fear for my children and grandchildren .................................

 

 Those who oppose the scientific view or seek to explain it as a beneficial opportunity (more plant growth, rain, heat, etc) are either populist polation's out for short term gain, religious fanatics, or (forgive me) n----rs!

 

 

[octave]

Why do I believe that we are experiencing Anthropogenic global warming?

 

Although I have had a lifelong interest in science I am not a scientist and I understand the limits of what I can conclude though my own thinking.  The notion that CO2 and other gasses allow light from the sun through to the earth and once that light heats the earth it is radiated back as infrared which is less able to pass though CO2 and is thereby re radiated back to earth.  This is  uncontestable and is well understood by physics. But I guess the question is what effect this has as the amount of CO2 increases.  This is not something I am skilled enough to be able to calculate, therefore I rely upon people who do have those skills.   This is not an unusual situation in modern life.    I visit a GP because I know I personally don't have the training and knowledge to diagnose and treat myself.   Of course experts can be wrong so when my GP prescribes something I do a little research myself. I try to ascertain if the treatment follows the best practice as it is known at the time. I might visit another doctor and get a second opinion. This I believe is the rational way.  Perhaps in the future best practice could change due to advances in research , then the diagnosis and the treatment may change.

 

So how does this apply to climate change?

 

My first port of call might be NASA or CSIRO or the British academy of Science or JAXA or ESA. These people have the hardware to provide the data and I suspect the expertise to interpret it.  First I might look at what NASA says.  Now of course they could be wrong so then I might look at the Japanese and European space agencies and see what there data is and how they interpret it. I don't have to stop there I can see what CSIRO concludes.  I am then left with a degree of certainty that although is not 100% it is at least rigorous.   Some of the deniers will no doubt mutter vague accusations that findings are skewed in order to ensure funding dollars.  A friend of mine who is an atmospheric physicist snorts at that suggestion, he claims his pay would be higher if he took up an offer from a fossil fuel company rather than a university salary. 

 

Perhaps I might still harbour some doubts.   I wonder what the fossil fuel companies themselves are saying. We know, and Shell does not disagree as much of the early research was undertaken by oil companies.  http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988-shell-report-greenhouse/      

 

 

Although these companies have the used delaying tactics we are all familiar from the tobacco industry, they non the less do not dismiss the CO2 problem. Likewise look at the speech made by the CEO of BHP  https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/fully-committed-bhp-to-maintain-climate-push-vows-new-ceo-20191114-p53anh.html

 

or perhaps Woodside petroleum https://www.woodside.com.au/news-and-media/stories/story/climate-change-challenge

 

I could go on posting links but you get the point.

 

At this time the denier fraternity is looking a bit lonely.  Now having had this conversation many times I can foresee the objections, so lets just take short cut.

 

Conspiracy to bring down the capitalist system?  - why does NASA, JAXA ESA want to bring down the system? are they hippies or something?  If NASA are so easily bought then why not approach Trump and say double our funding and you will get the science you pay for?

 

Australia's CO2 production is irrelevant so why bother.   I believe if you add up all the countries in the world with a similar C02  it adds up the quite a large proportion (I can find the link if anyone doubts this)   Also I being self employed I could avoid paying some of my tax obligation, my justification could be that my measly portion doesn't make much difference either way, so why should I. This does not work as most peoples tax contribution is a drop in the ocean, perhaps they could all avoid it.

 

Apart from all this we are in a time of great technological change, we do need to keep up with the rest of the world, we do not want to be the poor primative people who still throw black rocks on the fire to keep warm.

 

Now I am actually an optimist and not a communist who merely wants to bring down the capitalist system.   I believe that science and engineering will provide some answers to mitigate to a degree future problems.   I do not have much faith in governments, they are too short sighted.  Part of my optimism is based on what private enterprise is doing. The coming transport and power revolution is largely from private enterprise.

 

I think we need to a knowledge the problem and to seriously begin the transition to the post fossil fuel era as other countries are doing. If climate scientists are wrong the coal and oil will still there, my nderstabing is that it does not "go off"

 

I am always happy to debate facts using evidence but I have little patience for what people reckon. The data is everything 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

As I mentioned to you before, I was asking OK his opinion on CO2; nothing more nothing less; if you want to go off into your world that's fine; just don't attach it to my conversation, which OK hadn't answered. 

 

Sorry Turbs, I thought my position was plain enough: that the increased concentration of CO2 (and several other gases we release into our atmosphere) are contributing to the changes in climate that we see. 

 

I also accept that not all evidence supports this conclusion, but the time is long past when our species can afford to put off cleaning up its act.

 

 

[octave]

Sorry Turbs, I thought my position was plain enough: that the increased concentration of CO2 (and several other gases we release into our atmosphere) are contributing to the changes in climate that we see. 

 

I also accept that not all evidence supports this conclusion, but the time is long past when our species can afford to put off cleaning up its act.

 

 

 

If anyone is truly interested in the mechanism of CO2 in the atmosphere , I found this video extremely useful

 

 

For those who just "reckon it must be bollocks" why not watch it if only to give your argument more credibility?

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sorry Turbs, I thought my position was plain enough: that the increased concentration of CO2 (and several other gases we release into our atmosphere) are contributing to the changes in climate that we see. 

 

I also accept that not all evidence supports this conclusion, but the time is long past when our species can afford to put off cleaning up its act.

 

There's no need for an apology; I was just curious, asked the question you answered, pointed me in the right direction for some research. Where old mate is floating I don't know.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...This is quite an interesting talk although it would take an investment in your time to watch and perhaps your interest is not that deep but I will post a link anyway.

 

 

Thanks for posting this, Octave. I've just started watching and will hopefully find time to see it all later.

 

It occurred to me that the major problem we face is narrow thinking and lack of imagination among our leaders.

 

Marco Polo was ridiculed when he came back to medieval Europe with stories about the technological wonders he saw during his years in China.

 

As we see the amazing engineering feats in the videos Bex and others post, the Middle Kingdom is rapidly returning to its place as the powerhouse economy of the world. Our leaders are scrambling to adjust to this.

 

Alexander Graham Bell, when he invented the telephone, couldn't foresee any use for it other than for broadcasting news around the district.

 

IBM helped invent the computer, but thought the world market might be less than a dozen.

 

Bob Memzies, revered as Australia's elder statesman, argued vociferously against the Snowy Mountain Scheme, and refused to support Australia's early lead in computers and space science, claiming there was no future in them.

 

John Howard, like many of his party, mocked the potential for solar energy and has been proven dead wrong.

 

We need a new political messiah who understands the enormous potential of these new technologies and can carry the electorate into a cleaner, more sustainable future.

 

 

[octave]

Thanks for posting this, Octave. I've just started watching and will hopefully find time to see it all later.

 

It occurred to me that the major problem we face is narrow thinking and lack of imagination among our leaders.

 

Marco Polo was ridiculed when he came back to medieval Europe with stories about the technological wonders he saw during his years in China.

 

As we see the amazing engineering feats in the videos Bex and others post, the Middle Kingdom is rapidly returning to its place as the powerhouse economy of the world. Our leaders are scrambling to adjust to this.

 

Alexander Graham Bell, when he invented the telephone, couldn't foresee any use for it other than for broadcasting news around the district.

 

IBM helped invent the computer, but thought the world market might be less than a dozen.

 

Bob Memzies, revered as Australia's elder statesman, argued vociferously against the Snowy Mountain Scheme, and refused to support Australia's early lead in computers and space science, claiming there was no future in them.

 

John Howard, like many of his party, mocked the potential for solar energy and has been proven dead wrong.

 

We need a new political messiah who understands the enormous potential of these new technologies and can carry the electorate into a cleaner, more sustainable future.

 

 

 

 

 

In the talk he shows magazine articles from the late 90s where analyst lampooned the I phone claiming it would never catch on and yet we know how foolish those predictions were.  

 

 

[kgwilson]

Just another point to note. Banks and venture capitalists no longer are prepared to lend money to fossil fuel industries like coal fired power stations and coal mines etc. A local example is none would go near the Adani mine project. They are not run by greenies or climate change activists and their motives are purely economic. They have highly paid advisors and all agree there is no future in these industries and therefore the risk is too high. They are funding Wind and Solar farms though.

 

Also the biggest Wind turbines now in existence produce 12 megawatts of power each. The UK has the largest offshore wind farms and while Nuclear still provides a large amount of their power they have begun exporting wind generated power to Europe. The change to renewables isn't happening overnight but the growth is exponential. Australia has one of the highest uptakes of solar generation in the world despite almost no support or financial incentives from the Federal government who keeps rabbiting on about base load power which is a myth. 

 

 

[octave]

Just another point to note. Banks and venture capitalists no longer are prepared to lend money to fossil fuel industries like coal fired power stations and coal mines etc. A local example is none would go near the Adani mine project. They are not run by greenies or climate change activists and their motives are purely economic. They have highly paid advisors and all agree there is no future in these industries and therefore the risk is too high. They are funding Wind and Solar farms though.

 

Also the biggest Wind turbines now in existence produce 12 megawatts of power each. The UK has the largest offshore wind farms and while Nuclear still provides a large amount of their power they have begun exporting wind generated power to Europe. The change to renewables isn't happening overnight but the growth is exponential. Australia has one of the highest uptakes of solar generation in the world despite almost no support or financial incentives from the Federal government who keeps rabbiting on about base load power which is a myth. 

 

 

 

It is interesting that for years I have had my super (wife too) in ethical investments. During the crash of 2008ish we did alright.    A principal I have now is that whenever i interact with a denier instead of getting P1ssed off I take an actioin . So far this year " whats up australia" forum has caused me to organise panels to be fitted to my house  (early Jan)  changed my banking from westpac which invest in the fossil fuel sector to Bank Australia which has no share holders, it is owned by the customers and does not invest in the old industries. I have also changed my power supplier to Powershop which sources its power from renewable generators.  I hope that people will keep provoking me into investing in areas which will make me  my eventual grandchildren be proud of me rather to critical of me.

 

In terms of renewable energy, deniers could you just do a little research before you post so you don't look foolish.

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

And meanwhile we destroy manufacturing in this country by having the highest power prices in the world. Smugness has its price but we live in a competitive world and should not, as a small nation, put ourselves in an un-competitive position just to feel good about ourselves. Very few industrial nations met their Kyoto target and I suspect that not many will met the Paris goals but the politicians of all nations will be saying one thing whilst doing another, whilst we in Australia pat ourselves on the back by telling ourselves what good little vegemites we are and wondering where the jobs that sustain the nation are.

 

 

[octave]

And meanwhile we destroy manufacturing in this country by having the highest power prices in the world. Smugness has its price but we live in a competitive world and should not, as a small nation, put ourselves in an un-competitive position just to feel good about ourselves. Very few industrial nations met their Kyoto target and I suspect that not many will met the Paris goals but the politicians of all nations will be saying one thing whilst doing another, whilst we in Australia pat ourselves on the back by telling ourselves what good little vegemites we are and wondering where the jobs that sustain the nation are.

 

 The proportion of energy generated in the UK 2018 33%  Australia 2017 15% New Zealand 79% all these countries have fairly similar economies.  I am happy to admit that we cant change quickly it is the smart and adaptable countries that have historically thrived and this will continue in the future. 

 

 

[turboplanner]

And meanwhile we destroy manufacturing in this country by having the highest power prices in the world. Smugness has its price but we live in a competitive world and should not, as a small nation, put ourselves in an un-competitive position just to feel good about ourselves. Very few industrial nations met their Kyoto target and I suspect that not many will met the Paris goals but the politicians of all nations will be saying one thing whilst doing another, whilst we in Australia pat ourselves on the back by telling ourselves what good little vegemites we are and wondering where the jobs that sustain the nation are.

 

If the original global warming predictions are true, and the faithful ared still well and truly on message, we are past the easy road and facing the temperature runaway period, so will have to bite the bullet and live to mid 1800's poverty standards. We certainly will have to be focusing on extracting every minute cent out of the things we will do.  However, we've been missing predicted disasters, so it's not quite set in stone yet.

 

I'm very intrigued that no one has commented on the complex graph I posted in #143. - the Global Distribution of Atmospherice CO2.

 

This appears to be a bombshell in some respects. It looks like CO2 induced events are being caused by the northern Hemisphere only, with Australian latitudes emitting very little CO2 at all.  I'd be very interested in people's comments and analysis of this graph.

 

The other bombshell, to me, was finding that the Williamstown Tidal Gauge recent history is not indicating sea level rise.

 

 

[Marty_d]

And meanwhile we destroy manufacturing in this country by having the highest power prices in the world. Smugness has its price but we live in a competitive world and should not, as a small nation, put ourselves in an un-competitive position just to feel good about ourselves. Very few industrial nations met their Kyoto target and I suspect that not many will met the Paris goals but the politicians of all nations will be saying one thing whilst doing another, whilst we in Australia pat ourselves on the back by telling ourselves what good little vegemites we are and wondering where the jobs that sustain the nation are.

 

 

 

Why can't the manufacturing jobs be in high-tech renewables creation, using solar farms and battery for power?

 

FFS the point that every conservative and climate skeptic/denier seems to miss is that if we don't ALL do something about this, and that includes little Australia whose fossil fool exports make us #3 in the world for emissions,  then there are no jobs.  Or food.  Or fresh water.

 

Those "yellow jacket" protestors in France said "You're worried about the end of the world; we're worried about the end of the month."  Which probably sounded like a snappy line to them, but just illustrates the idiocy.  At the end of the month you'll survive to the end of the next month; but if we all don't turn off the CO2 tap then there'll be no future for a large proportion of the human race.

 

I have kids and I worry about this.  I also worry about them getting jobs.  Funnily enough though, my concern about them living in a world ruined by climate change is far stronger than my concern about them not having a job in a coal mine.  

 

 

[turboplanner]

 

 

 

Why can't the manufacturing jobs be in high-tech renewables creation, using solar farms and battery for power?

 

To stay in business you have to sell something.

 

high-tech renewables are like those 1930s widgets; everyone talked about them but there weren't too many widgets sitting on counters.

 

 

[octave]

The other bombshell, to me, was finding that the Williamstown Tidal Gauge recent history is not indicating sea level rise.

 

 

 

You seem to be asserting that the measurements from one gauge indicative of global sea rise and yet the radar altimetry measurements from NASAs Jasan satellites show a clear rise  https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/data/products/ocean-indicators-products/mean-sea-level/products-images.html 

 

If you believe the the Willytwn measurements are relevant  by themselves then why not  Darwin's measurements by themselves they show a steady increase.

 

Do you believe the radar altimetry is inaccurate and why do you believe that.  Does it contradict measurements from other satellite? if so which ones?

 

I'm very intrigued that no one has commented on the complex graph I posted in #143. - the Global Distribution of Atmospherice CO2.

 

I am not sure what conclusion you are drawing from this so perhaps you could explain it.

 

 

[Marty_d]

To stay in business you have to sell something.

 

high-tech renewables are like those 1930s widgets; everyone talked about them but there weren't too many widgets sitting on counters.

 

• Battery tech
   
  
• Smart grids
   
  
• Hydrogen creation & transport
   
  
• Algae
   
  
• Carbon fibre from black coal
   
  
• Plastic extraction from the ocean
   
  
• Recycling
   
  
• Biofuels
   
  
• Education & research
   
  
• Electric vehicles
   
  

 

 

 

And that's just off the top of my head in the last 30 seconds.  There would be literally hundreds of industries that Australia could be world leaders in, if the government actually a) acknowledged the urgency, b) acknowledged that even if we meet Kyoto/Paris it's not nearly enough, and c) showed some leadership and certainty to industry by placing the true costs of emissions back on the industries which do it.

 

 

[octave]

To stay in business you have to sell something.

 

high-tech renewables are like those 1930s widgets; everyone talked about them but there weren't too many widgets sitting on counters.

 

So I am investing in these high tech renewables, I guess I will lose my money, although not so far.  It is a little sad when the old folks suddenly think that although during their lifetime have gone from television being amazing to having a computer in there pocket with a processing power that they could not even conceived of.  This is not unusual , I cant quite remember but someone famous around about 1900 said everything has already been invented. This is just a failure of intellect and imagination.   Turbs I would love it if you would watch the video I link to earlier in this thread about the adoption curve of disruptive technologies  I would be happy to hear your criticisms but only if you have watched it, I am not interested in what you "reckon" 

 

I bought shares in Tesla recently, just before Q3, I bought them at $437 Au a share. they are now at $517 a share, iI think you will agree a tidy little profit. I do expect them to go higher. I guess you think the shares will fall when they all start bursting into flames. The thing is I do my research.

 

 

[octave]

• Battery tech
   
  
• Smart grids
   
  
• Hydrogen creation & transport
   
  
• Algae
   
  
• Carbon fibre from black coal
   
  
• Plastic extraction from the ocean
   
  
• Recycling
   
  
• Biofuels
   
  
• Education & research
   
  
• Electric vehicles
   
  

 

 

 

And that's just off the top of my head in the last 30 seconds.  There would be literally hundreds of industries that Australia could be world leaders in, if the government actually a) acknowledged the urgency, b) acknowledged that even if we meet Kyoto/Paris it's not nearly enough, and c) showed some leadership and certainty to industry by placing the true costs of emissions back on the industries which do it.

 

 

 

It is amazing how the FUDs (this is what we call them now) seem to believe that they live at the pinnacle of human technological development. Ignoring the change in technology throughout their lifespan thus far they suddenly believe that the only sound investment is in today's technology or perhaps even yesterdays.