Climate change

[watt price tully]

A different way of presenting the issue:

[stui magpie]

A different way of presenting the issue:

[stui magpie]

1. Dealers won't go out of business while demand exists.
2. Solar indeed produces a similar high without the side effects, but has it's own issues if it becomes the drug of choice for a critical mass as the supply chain wasn't designed for it

This is a good article about how you can't just replace a fixed load power supply with a variable load supply without significant infrastructure overhaul.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-01/ ... d/11731452

And WA hasn't privatised it's power so it's in the best place of any to do something. it's going to be trickier for other states.

Lets see if those states subsiding solar panels on roofs are so keen to spend a lot more to future proof the infrastructure. I imagine the infrastructure in the countries that currently rely on coal would be equally as troubled if not worse.

[watt price tully]

[watt price tully]

[Wokko]

"On Record" means %$^ all. It's not much more than 100 years, climate is measured in the 1000s.

[stui magpie]

Go back to quoting the Betoota advocate, they have more credibility

It's pretty easy to get data from BoM.

eg, the mean top temp for Melbourne Airport for December 2019 so far, excluding today, is 23.5.

The average since 1970 is 24.6. So before today we're 1.1c below average for December. of those 17 days, 12 had below average temperatures and only 5 above.

Highest December temp there was 43.6 on 31/12/2005, We aren't going to pass that today, maybe Friday

For frame of reference, the hottest July day there was in 1975.

I grew up in Tocumwal where we get days over 40 from November through to march, and plenty of them and sub zero overnight lows from May through October. Harden up princess, data can be managed to suit your story.

[stui magpie]

Still a few records left.

Oodnadatta holds the record for the hottest temperature ever recorded in Australia.

Heat records by state Town Temperature Date
SA Oodnadatta 50.7C January 2, 1960
WA Mardie 50.5C February 19, 1998
NSW Menindee 49.7C January 10, 1939
Queensland Birdsville 49.5C December 24, 1972
Victoria Hopetoun 48.8C February 7, 2009
Northern Territory Finke 48.3C January 1-2, 1960
Tasmania Scamander 42.2C January 30, 2009


None of those seem very recent.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-18/ ... e/11810002

[Wokko]

They really should have shut down all the coal fire powerplants in 1851.

http://web.archive.org/web/201104061216 ... ursday.htm

[David]

Go back to quoting the Betoota advocate, they have more credibility

It's pretty easy to get data from BoM.

eg, the mean top temp for Melbourne Airport for December 2019 so far, excluding today, is 23.5.

The average since 1970 is 24.6. So before today we're 1.1c below average for December. of those 17 days, 12 had below average temperatures and only 5 above.

Highest December temp there was 43.6 on 31/12/2005, We aren't going to pass that today, maybe Friday

For frame of reference, the hottest July day there was in 1975.

I grew up in Tocumwal where we get days over 40 from November through to march, and plenty of them and sub zero overnight lows from May through October. Harden up princess, data can be managed to suit your story.

Only problem is that average temperatures are rising. There will be dips and troughs and outliers from day 1 until the end of time, but the trend doesn’t lie.

[stui magpie]

when dealing with averages and trends, they can change and go up and down. Unless the trend is consistent over a long period, don't assume it will necessarily continue. see long term trend

[stui magpie]

Now, for context of the chart above which I assume you can see, the Medieval warm period was 800-1400 AD, If you can't, it's here http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-bi ... re-swings/

The Roman warm period 250 to 400 AD

The Minoan warm period was around 3500 years ago and temperatures were on average 4c higher than now.

For further context, 20,000 years ago sea level was 100 metres lower than now. This is documented fact.

Sea level started rising around 10,000 years ago cutting off the land bridges between the Australian mainland and New Guinea and Tassie. The oral history of the Tiwi Islands recalls when the islands were separated from the mainland by the rising waters around 5,000 years ago.

Clearly the waters continued to rise for a while, then stopped when temperatures cooled enough that the ice caps stopped melting which would be the cold period before the Minoan warming.

Most of the data you see supporting climate change focuses on the past 50 to 100 years, which would show an upward trend but ignores the big picture. Likewise, stuff going back 1000 years tack in at the end of the last warming period, so again the data is skewed. You need to look back to really get the picture.

Now, does all this mean that fossil fuel burning, increasing CO2 levels hasn't at least contributed to the recent warming? No. It's possible it's part of a natural cycle but more likely that increased CO2 has at least a contributory factor.

Yes we should look to reduce burning fossil fuels and move to renewables but what the big picture tells us is that those preaching doom and apocalypse are either deluded, irresponsible or both.

As this all seems to conflict with the apocalypse propaganda, I fully expect those who have swallowed the kool aid of the new religion to ignore or deny.

[Pies4shaw]

Who is preaching doom or apocalypse? Most of the World’s climate scientists say that urgent and drastic action is required. That seems about right, based on their modelling. The question is not whether - for reasons that have nothing to do with anthropogenic change - it might otherwise be hotter or colder than at present. The question is what the present trend means for the continuity of our ways of life on the planet and whether (or if) they remain sustainable or possible going forward and what we can sensibly do about it.

Since you seem to accept all of the rational foundations of climate science, I do not understand at all why (or how) you want to argue so vehemently against the scientific conclusions.

[stui magpie]

Who is preaching doom or apocalypse? Most of the World’s climate scientists say that urgent and drastic action is required. That seems about right, based on their modelling. The question is not whether - for reasons that have nothing to do with anthropogenic change - it might otherwise be hotter or colder than at present. The question is what the present trend means for the continuity of our ways of life on the planet and whether (or if) they remain sustainable or possible going forward and what we can sensibly do about it.

Since you seem to accept all of the rational foundations of climate science, I do not understand at all why (or how) you want to argue so vehemently against the scientific conclusions.

What I'm vehemently arguing against is the people who claim every hot day, bushfires etc as being caused by climate change.

The protestors and zealots who brainwash children and claim the human race will be extinct in 20 years.

The alarmists who latch onto and adopt the most extreme climate models, not the majority, and use them to sustain their attacks.

The people who want to ban mining and use of fossil fuels ASAP and to hell with the economy and the developing countries who would be without power.

Unlike most of the misguided idiots who preach this crap, I understand why they're being fed it, change theory 101, but that doesn't mean we actually have an emergency, we have a situation that requires rational long term thinking not panic reactions.

[Pies4shaw]

Those people are a tiny, collective, straw person. None post in here.