Author Topic: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever  (Read 7190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #25 on: May 14, 2018, 05:03:44 pm »
The latter is prediction, the former doesn't even care about acceleration, just the steady rise. The gauge data is in the thread for anyone to see. Den Helder is representative, averaging our gauges with long term data just makes it even more of a straight line.
Yes, the data show a straight line that is pointing up: sea level is rising. The reason it is rising is because water expands when it gets warmer, and to a lesser extent because land based glaciers are melting. Glad we all agree.  :)
 

Offline Mr. Scram

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9810
  • Country: 00
  • Display aficionado
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #26 on: May 14, 2018, 05:07:30 pm »
As I said, we're fucked in so many ways ... climate change is just a funny little far off problem we can concentrate on to distract ourselves from the more intractable ones on our doorstep.
Climate change multiplies other problems, it's already causing increasingly troublesome issues and that will only get worse and to stand any chance of dealing with it you have to start now. We're likely already much too late, but better late than never. Waiting until we get run over isn't viable. We simply can't risk making our only planet barely habitable. We need this rock.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #27 on: May 14, 2018, 05:13:20 pm »
Quote
Solar isn't a problem as people tend to use most of their power when the sun is in the sky.
Not if they start using EVs.
EVs use batteries... batteries that can be charged when the sun is in the sky?

Australia got to be close to ideal for solar power: it's close to the equator and has large dessert areas (lots of sun hours) that could be used for solar panel installations.

Quote
Autarky is worth a bit of money, paying a premium for native fossil fuel makes sense. It's not like we haven't had a systemic collapse of the global economy and trade before.
And there are other options than coal/gas if you really need a backup source. Australia is currently exporting uranium fuel for example. They are sitting on 39% of the worlds uranium reserves. (http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/corporate/annual-reports/asno-annual-report-2016-17/html/section-2/australias-uranium-production-and-exports.html)

 Australia is a technically advanced peaceful country that is more than capable of operating a nuclear power plant safely if they wanted to.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 05:20:50 pm by apis »
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6686
  • Country: nl
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #28 on: May 14, 2018, 05:28:51 pm »
Lets say you get renewable up to say 95% ... then using nuclear makes no sense. A gas turbine plant is cheap to build and expensive to fuel, a nuclear plant is expensive to build and cheap to fuel. You want the former for backup, not the latter.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #29 on: May 14, 2018, 05:39:54 pm »
You have to look at the whole picture: burning coal/gas not only produce green house gas emissions, it also produce air pollution which is really bad for peoples health, leads to ocean acidification and mercury poisoning. A nuclear plant might be a little bit more expensive to build, but as you said: it is worth paying a little extra for autarky, but also for peoples health, a habitable climate and a clean environment!
« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 05:49:46 pm by apis »
 

Online Halcyon

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5614
  • Country: au
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #30 on: May 14, 2018, 10:14:06 pm »
Coal is dying for economic reasons anyway, cost to much to run compared to alternatives.
Nothing new about equipment getting upgraded one year, then shut down for good the next.
At some point the cost of repairing what did need major repairs, exceeds what money it could bring in as income.

Compare solar to coal
Solar produces power when pointed at the sun.
Coal turbine produces power when feed tons of coal, and keep clean of ash.

Solar maintenance is cleaning dust from panels, and the odd bit of electronics to replace.
Coal turbine maintenance is not bothering to clean the black dust and rust off, heavy welding, pipework, electrical work etc.

Solar power plant is still young in age.
Coal Turbine is a from the 1950's to 1970s, with all the problems that come with it.

Solar produces power where ever there is sunlight
Coal Turbine produces power in places where coal exists, or a railroad.

Solar is just far less work/expense to keep running, has almost no single points of failure, no need to keep shovelling black dirt into it.
As for all this baseload nonsense, the terms you need to learn are "minimum load" and "demand curve"
Solar isn't a problem as people tend to use most of their power when the sun is in the sky.
Wind isn't a problem as the wind is always blowing somewhere in the country, site lots of turbines in areas with few wind free days, and switch off some if you get too much energy.

From wikipedia: "EnergyAustralia began the process of removing useful equipment from the station in 2015"
This didn't happen yesterday, the company are the ones that pulled the plug to lack of cheap coal.

I don't see why politics needs to be involved, in what is honestly about modernising the power grid with modern technology.
NSW does have a very heavy use of coal generated electricity, compared to all the other states, not sure why they are forcing their outdated thinking onto the rest of the country.

Because renewables aren't the answer to Australia's energy requirements, there needs to be another, economical solution and right now, it's coal (well, it's nuclear but until the laws change here, that's not going to happen). Renewable sources such as wind and solar are fine together with existing technologies, but you're a nut case if you think they can entirely replace what we have and power the country.

But to say coal generation is the same as it was in the 1950's is ridiculous. It's like saying modern nuclear reactors are still based on Russia's RMBK design or that car engines are just as efficient as they were 20 years ago.

Ultra-critical and supercritical coal fired technology exists today and is used around the world. It's not "clean" but it's a hell of a lot better than the old stuff they used to build power plants out of.

As for cost, utilising Australias current coal fired plants, electricity generation from coal costs less than $40 per megawatt-hour. The new
pumped hydro system being built will cost something like 5 times that figure.

The other thing is the change in climate is undeniable, the science shows that it is happening, but we need to shift this thinking from Carbon Dioxide being this big invisible bogey man and concentrate on all the other crap we pump into our environment. Human-made CO2 is relatively insignificant.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 10:18:44 pm by Halcyon »
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2018, 01:13:53 am »
The other thing is the change in climate is undeniable, the science shows that it is happening, but we need to shift this thinking from Carbon Dioxide being this big invisible bogey man and concentrate on all the other crap we pump into our environment. Human-made CO2 is relatively insignificant.
You are right that climate change is a fact, but not that human made CO2 is insignificant. CO2 is not the only factor, but it is the largest:
Quote
In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report concluded that "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."[7] The largest human influence has been the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Climate model projections summarized in the report indicated that during the 21st century, the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) in the lowest emissions scenario, and 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in the highest emissions scenario.[8] These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations[9][a] and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[11][12]
That is from wikipedia, if anyone wants to check sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Coal and gas need to go completely. Nuclear isn't the solution either but it could be part of the solution. Nuclear can only replace a few percent of coal the coming decades because it takes a long time to build new nuclear plants and there isn't enough competence or infrastructure in the world to do it quickly enough. I think it would be better if democratic industrialised nations like Australia use the available competence than yet another dictator though. (it's politically difficult here too, they are still trying to shut down reactors here when we should be building new ones.)

Solar is the long term solution. Solar can produce more than enough power for anyone and Australia got to have the best preconditions for solar in the world. Although it only produce energy intermittently, that is still fine for many applications even today. With "smart" appliances that only power on when electricity is cheap (i.e. the sun is shining) and with other methods of energy effectivisation you can go a long way.

With a combination of energy effectivisation, solar, nuclear and new energy storage techniques (like pumped hydro) it can be done, although it will not be easy. The alternative of not doing anything and hoping for the best is far worse though.
 
The following users thanked this post: NiHaoMike

Online Halcyon

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5614
  • Country: au
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2018, 03:05:01 am »
You are right that climate change is a fact, but not that human made CO2 is insignificant. CO2 is not the only factor, but it is the largest:
Quote
In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report concluded that "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."[7] The largest human influence has been the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Climate model projections summarized in the report indicated that during the 21st century, the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) in the lowest emissions scenario, and 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in the highest emissions scenario.[8] These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations[9][a] and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[11][12]

Cows and sheep contribute about 20% of the world's CO2 emissions, shall we stop drinking milk and eating lamb? CO2 has been around since day dot, it's not a bad thing to have in the atmosphere, in fact, plants and trees love the stuff. This focus on just CO2 is stupid, sure, everything is bad in large enough quantities, but as I said, we should be looking at reducing other pollutants before we look at Carbon Dioxide. Australia's CO2 output is less than 1% compared to the rest of the world, hardly a significant amount, I think focus and money can be better spent elsewhere, like installing a proper broadband network.

Coal and gas need to go completely. Nuclear isn't the solution either but it could be part of the solution. Nuclear can only replace a few percent of coal the coming decades because it takes a long time to build new nuclear plants and there isn't enough competence or infrastructure in the world to do it quickly enough. I think it would be better if democratic industrialised nations like Australia use the available competence than yet another dictator though. (it's politically difficult here too, they are still trying to shut down reactors here when we should be building new ones.)

What do you suggest a viable, efficient replacement is? Our current range of renewables can't replace our base load plants in order to keep up with energy demand. Personally, I don't fancy rubbing two sticks together at night just to provide heat and light.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 03:07:27 am by Halcyon »
 

Online Jeroen3

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4064
  • Country: nl
  • Embedded Engineer
    • jeroen3.nl
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #33 on: May 15, 2018, 06:03:34 am »
Based on recent happenings, aging energy distribution and more common short time shortages, I expect the energy grid to lose this high "base load" principle completely.
Energy price will fluctuate, based on real-time demand. Even for consumers, and we will have to learn to live with it.

Products like a powerwall will become more common, even on grid level, to stabilize the price.

I'm not that worried about the rising sea level.
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19284
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #34 on: May 15, 2018, 09:37:53 am »
You are right that climate change is a fact, but not that human made CO2 is insignificant. CO2 is not the only factor, but it is the largest:
Quote
In 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report concluded that "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."[7] The largest human influence has been the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Climate model projections summarized in the report indicated that during the 21st century, the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 0.3 to 1.7 °C (0.5 to 3.1 °F) in the lowest emissions scenario, and 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in the highest emissions scenario.[8] These findings have been recognized by the national science academies of the major industrialized nations[9][a] and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[11][12]

Cows and sheep contribute about 20% of the world's CO2 emissions, shall we stop drinking milk and eating lamb? CO2 has been around since day dot, it's not a bad thing to have in the atmosphere, in fact, plants and trees love the stuff. This focus on just CO2 is stupid, sure, everything is bad in large enough quantities, but as I said, we should be looking at reducing other pollutants before we look at Carbon Dioxide. Australia's CO2 output is less than 1% compared to the rest of the world, hardly a significant amount, I think focus and money can be better spent elsewhere, like installing a proper broadband network.
You're way off. The problem with cows is methane, not CO2.

Yes CO2 has been around for a long time, but it was fine as the system was in balance: any CO2 released by animals was taken up by plants, to make O2 and biomass. Now we're burning fossilised carbon and releasing CO2 at a faster rate than it's absorbed. What's worse is we've been cutting down trees which helped to soak up the extra CO2.

Quote
What do you suggest a viable, efficient replacement is? Our current range of renewables can't replace our base load plants in order to keep up with energy demand. Personally, I don't fancy rubbing two sticks together at night just to provide heat and light.
Nuclear, along with more renewables and investment in energy storage. In this case, Australia has more than enough potential solar power to meet its needs. The issue is storage.
 

Offline Psi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9875
  • Country: nz
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #35 on: May 15, 2018, 10:37:45 am »
Thanks for posting. What an eerie place!

If you liked that, go watch "the proper people" videos on youtube.
They explore abandoned buildings, power stations, hospitals, mental institutions etc.
I got addicted and watched all their videos.
Pro tip, watch them late at night for extra scariness
:)

There is some absolute gold in their videos.
Coming across cool/scary stuff and exploring really sketchy places.

(paraphrasing)
"You know what, I dont think this floor is entirely safe, wood is a bit mushy"
<opens door to next room to reveal floor in their has collapsed 2 stories down>
"yep, not safe. shit"


Here's a couple of videos to get you started







« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 10:49:04 am by Psi »
Greek letter 'Psi' (not Pounds per Square Inch)
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #36 on: May 15, 2018, 01:14:32 pm »
Cows and sheep contribute about 20% of the world's CO2 emissions, shall we stop drinking milk and eating lamb?
As Hero999 said, it's methane not CO2. Its from manure and ruminating animals. According to wikipedia: "Removing all U.S. agricultural animals would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2.6%.[2]" That is pretty insignificant, especially since the US is one of the biggest meat consumers iirc. The whole anti meat thing is new, I find it a bit odd to be honest, maybe the vegans are exaggerating it.

The largest factors causing global warming are greenhouse gases, aerosols and soot, and land use change such as deforestation (in that order I believe).

Quote
Australia's CO2 output is less than 1% compared to the rest of the world, hardly a significant amount, I think focus and money can be better spent elsewhere, like installing a proper broadband network.
There's no reason you can't do both, and no you are not insignificant, you are among the highest emitters per capita:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?view=map&year=2014
 

Offline Harb

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 244
  • Country: au
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #37 on: May 15, 2018, 01:32:08 pm »
I call that map BS
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
 

Online BrianHG

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7638
  • Country: ca
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #40 on: May 15, 2018, 02:46:37 pm »
It still looks the same, the worldbank map and data i linked is from 2014: (was just easier to copy/paste the wikipedia image)

It still looks the same because nothing is happening :(




« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 02:49:24 pm by apis »
 

Online Halcyon

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5614
  • Country: au
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2018, 11:14:27 pm »
If you liked that, go watch "the proper people" videos on youtube.
They explore abandoned buildings, power stations, hospitals, mental institutions etc.
I got addicted and watched all their videos.
Pro tip, watch them late at night for extra scariness
:)

There is some absolute gold in their videos.
Coming across cool/scary stuff and exploring really sketchy places.

(paraphrasing)
"You know what, I dont think this floor is entirely safe, wood is a bit mushy"
<opens door to next room to reveal floor in their has collapsed 2 stories down>
"yep, not safe. shit"

Thanks for that! Amazing stuff. I love videos like this. The Chernobyl ones are particularly interesting.
 

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28058
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. Siglent Distributor NZ.
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #42 on: May 15, 2018, 11:46:14 pm »
You're way off. The problem with cows is methane, not CO2.
Methane emissions an be attributed to all herbage consuming mammals.

And BTW alternative herbage cultivars and selective animal breeding is being investigated to reduce emissions.....here anyway.
Avid Rabid Hobbyist
Siglent Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@SiglentVideo/videos
 

Offline TerraHertzTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3958
  • Country: au
  • Why shouldn't we question everything?
    • It's not really a Blog
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #43 on: May 16, 2018, 05:25:19 am »
Up until around 2008 I believed the Anthropogenic Global Warming storyline: "Mankind is increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, (was around 300ppm @ 1800, is around 410ppm in 2018) and the CO2 acts to retain heat, so the Earth is warming dangerously."

Then I happened to come across this graph.


WTF? That... contradicts everything in the AGW story. Obviously they cannot both be true. Curious, I started looking into this more carefully.

Turns out the entire AGW story is a manufactured lie, made up by Globalists in the 1980s, as a wedge to use to achieve their ideological agenda. They just like the idea of a global population under 800 million, and want to de-industrialise human society and kill a lot of people (9/10ths) to achieve that. The core lie is that CO2 in the air is the major factor influencing Earth surface temp. Actually, it has a small effect, that saturates at less than the current (very low) CO2 level, but the major factors are: atmospheric water vapor, and Solar output. (The Sun is a variable star.)

The key questions to ask yourself:
1. What was the average level of atmospheric CO2 over the geological history of life on Earth?
    A: around 1000 to 3000ppm. Not a typo. Yes, far, far higher than now. And life on Earth was fine.
    This was what immediately stood out to me from that graph. Obviously someone is lying.

2. When was the lowest-ever level of CO2?
    A: in the Carboniferous-Permian transition, and now.

3. What is the lowest level of atmospheric CO2 that plants can survive?
    A: around 150 to 100 ppm. Below that they just die. CO2 is plant food. Earth was nearly down to plant-starvation in the  recent epoch. Greenhouse growers pump in CO2, 1000+ ppm, to make the plants grow very vigorously.

4. Anything else about plants and CO2?
    Yes. Plants use openings in their leaves, called stomata, to regulate gas transfer for photosynthesis. The less CO2 available, the more they open the stomata to increase diffusion. Problem: the more they open stomata, the more H2O diffuses OUT from the leaf. So, the less CO2 around, the faster plants lose water. The more CO2, the less water they need. With higher CO2 levels, plants can survive far lower average rainfall climate. Apart from the low availability of carbon to build plant structure, Earth's current near starvation level of CO2 ALSO results in arid areas remaining barren, because CO2-starved plants can't survive without lots of water. In short, Earth's land surface is mostly desert atm, because of low CO2 levels in the air. Compared to historical levels that were far higher.

For a while I wondered if it was an honest mistake, a misunderstanding, just some bad science.

Nope. It's flat out barefaced lying and fraud. There are many, many instances of this becoming clear.
One good example - Michael Mann's 'hockey stick graph'. He's a climate scientist at CRU (Climate Research Unit, Univ of East Anglia - coincidentally an actual ivory-colored tower, which was the original locus of AGW theory dissemination) wrote a paper purporting to show a historically flat average Earth temp suddenly shooting up in recent decades , supposedly due to increasing CO2. This paper has been shown to be fraudulent, and there's an ongoing court battle to force Mann to show his raw data and statistical manipulations. He refuses. Because he falsified all of it.



There was a famous leak of emails from the CRU, in which Mann and colleges (also Warmist fakers) discuss how to 'hide the decline, and eliminate the middle ages warm period. ie fake the data record to hide that Earth was warmer in the Middle Ages than now, and had a considerable decline in temp during the middle 1900s. The fakery involved applying unfounded statistical manipulations to the historical data record, to 'flatten' it (into the 'stick' of the hockey stick.)

The Warmists NEVER show graphs of Earth's long term temperature variations, including the major ice ages and warm periods, because even with the faked temp data for the recent century, past variations dwarf current swings.
Also CO2 levels LAG temperature swings, not the other way round.

Here's a couple of longer term temperature records. See what I mean about putting current 'catastrophic warming' in perspective? That tiny bump at the right, that's what Warmists are wailing about. And what's more it isn't even doing that. Going on raw, unmanipulated surface temp data, there hasn't been any warming for the last 18 years. And in fact in the last year and half there's a sharp cooling becoming noticeable - more on that later.







Why do you think they changed their slogan from AGW to 'Climate change'? It's because they have become aware in the last decade of having to struggle harder and harder to skew data to make it look like Earth is still warming, that this sham is going to collapse pretty soon.

The hardest thing to grasp, is that so called scientists would actually outright lie. But they do. Even the Australian BOM (bureau of meterology) has been caught time and again faking - both current raw data (always drifted upwards by various means) and pushing historical records lower, again by multiple means. The entire BOM management should be sacked, and a judicial inquiry launched into their fraudulent behavior.

The worst side effect, is that the Global Warming scandal has corrupted the process of science itself. It's insidious. Everything from peer review journals that reject papers contrary to the status quo, independence of scientists (as opposed to being forced to produce the politically commanded results or have their funding cut and careers ruined), fraudulent pretense of 'consensus conclusions' that never existed (witness opposing groups of thousands of scientists signing counter petitions, that never get mentioned in any mainstream media), and international bodies (eg the IPCC) that are nothing but Elitist tools pushing a Globalist agenda.

Result: the public's faith in Science is seriously damaged. Conservationism and Environmentalism have been smeared by association with the Warmist liars. Science itself has lost the ability to fairly investigate real risks to Humankind and the Earth. The Scientific Method has become corrupted to a dysfunctional travesty. Like this:



The final irony lies in how badly the Global Warming scam is blowing up in the faces of its proponents. Because, surprise surprise, the Sun is right now entering into another Minimum, that both new theories of Solar physics, and the actual measured characteristics of the Sun both agree, will be around the same scale as the Maunder Minimum. The mini ice age that occurred in the Middle ages, lasted a few hundred years, and caused incredible suffering, starvation and death globally.


Little Ice Age, Big Chill (Climate Documentary)

It's impossible and not even desirable to deeply discuss here the history of the disastrous scam known as Global Warming. There's something of a chronological history in the links list below.  Articles about the coming ice age are in the last few years of the chronology, since awareness of it has been around for a while, but mostly ignored till recent severe winters have started to bite.

http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_quotes.txt
http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_links.txt

« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 10:07:26 am by TerraHertz »
Collecting old scopes, logic analyzers, and unfinished projects. http://everist.org
 
The following users thanked this post: tautech, Halcyon, Synthtech

Online Halcyon

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5614
  • Country: au
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #44 on: May 16, 2018, 07:23:31 am »
Up until around 2008 I believed the Anthropogenic Global Warming storyline: "Mankind is increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, (was around 300ppm @ 1800, is around 410ppm in 2018) and the CO2 acts to retain heat, so the Earth is warming dangerously."

Didn't the studies of the Vostok ice cores reveal evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 occurred after notable increase in temperatures?
 

Offline Synthtech

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 222
  • Country: au
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #45 on: May 16, 2018, 08:49:23 am »
The Earth is due for another ice age. Where it starts snowing and doesn’t stop until Northern Europe is under kilometres of ice for 90,000 years. If the hippies and greenies are whining about things getting warmer just wait to see how much they will blubber when things start getting colder. A lot colder. They will of course blame the ice age on global warming.
 

Offline Synthtech

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 222
  • Country: au
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #46 on: May 16, 2018, 08:51:32 am »
Up until around 2008 I believed the Anthropogenic Global Warming storyline: "Mankind is increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, (was around 300ppm @ 1800, is around 410ppm in 2018) and the CO2 acts to retain heat, so the Earth is warming dangerously."

Didn't the studies of the Vostok ice cores reveal evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 occurred after notable increase in temperatures?

Yes, CO2 levels lag climate change by about 800 years.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #47 on: May 16, 2018, 11:28:24 am »


WTF? That... contradicts everything in the AGW story. Obviously they cannot both be true. Curious, I started looking into this more carefully.
No it does not contradict AGW. There are many other things that influence temperature. For example, look at the scale in that graph: 500 millions of years ago the sun was 4% less bright! The sun is the most important factor for earths climate, that is basically the only source of heat/energy earth has. Less sunlight, less heat. But there are other factors like volcanic activity, etc.

Also look at the temperature scale: if we act now, the hope is we only get a rise in average temperature of 2 °C, at most 4 °C. That graph shows it could get as much as 15 °C warmer on average!. That would make human life on earth very very difficult, maybe plants can deal with it, but we can't.

Quote
The core lie is that CO2 in the air is the major factor influencing Earth surface temp. Actually, it has a small effect, that saturates at less than the current (very low) CO2 level, but the major factors are: atmospheric water vapor, and Solar output. (The Sun is a variable star.)
No one is saying that!

It's the first thing you learn if you open a textbook about these things. The sun is the major driver of earths climate. But we have been keeping track of solar output for a long time (since medieval period via sunspot records), and it is clear that change in solar output can't explain the current warming trend. In fact it should be getting colder!

And yes, water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. But because the earth is 70% oceans the atmosphere and the oceans is in a sort of equilibrium. We don't influence the amount of water vapour directly. However if the earth gets just a little bit warmer, more water will evaporate from oceans and the water vapour content in the atmosphere rises. That in turn leads to more greenhouse effect and it gets even warmer... which makes more water evaporate... That is an example of positive feedback. It's the reason why a small change in CO2 causes a large change in temperature; the water vapour feedback amplifies the effect.

Quote
Turns out the entire AGW story is a manufactured lie, made up by Globalists in the 1980s, as a wedge to use to achieve their ideological agenda. They just like the idea of a global population under 800 million, and want to de-industrialise human society and kill a lot of people (9/10ths) to achieve that.
Now you are sounding a lot like a flat earther, i.e. like a conspiracy theorist. There are no doubt globalists and others who would like we all lived like the Amish, etc. And they probably will try to take advantage of global warming to suit their interests, just like many other groups. But that doesn't make AGW any less real or dangerous. There are literally many thousands of scientists from all over the world who all agree that AGW is real, there is no chance they are all part of some huge globalist conspiracy.

If you don't want globalisation then it is in your best interest to show that the world doesn't need it, that we can solve problems (like global warming) together as individual nations. If the world doesn't manage to cooperate and solve problems like these then in a hundred years from now people will be screaming for a global undemocratic government to come and rescue them. It's just another reason why we have to solve this problem now!
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 11:31:07 am by apis »
 

Offline Synthtech

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 222
  • Country: au
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #48 on: May 16, 2018, 11:58:57 am »
There is no “correct” global temperature. The “global warming” proponents have no baseline for their claims because they have no idea what global temperatures should be in the first place. Based on the history of the last 1000 years an average temperature somewhat higher than the current one seems to be preferable based on historical records.

It’s all about money, power and control and there is no scientific consensus, that idea is repeaated constantly by activists but it’s false.
 

Offline apis

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1667
  • Country: se
  • Hobbyist
Re: Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever
« Reply #49 on: May 16, 2018, 12:15:44 pm »
There is no “correct” global temperature. The “global warming” proponents have no baseline for their claims because they have no idea what global temperatures should be in the first place. Based on the history of the last 1000 years an average temperature somewhat higher than the current one seems to be preferable based on historical records.
You are right, there is no "correct" temperature, but there are temperatures that are more or less suitable for human life on earth. The current thinking is that if we manage to stay below a 4 °C increase we should be able to cope.

It’s all about money, power and control and there is no scientific consensus, that idea is repeaated constantly by activists but it’s false.
No it's true. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agree, it means most scientist agree on the most important facts. There have been several studies showing there is a consensus on AGW, look at this for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf