Re: Off Topic. Renewable Energy

keogh Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:06 pm

Well obviously jennifer Marohasy does not agree with you. There is huge money involved in this climate change religion and hundreds of scientists who do not agree with the agenda of global warming. What is your opinion of the geoengineering of our atmosphere. You do not happen to know, the infamous Reg Wilson do you?.

planetcare Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:17 pm

keogh wrote:Well obviously jennifer Marohasy does not agree with you. There is huge money involved in this climate change religion and hundreds of scientists who do not agree with the agenda of global warming. What is your opinion of the geoengineering of our atmosphere. You do not happen to know, the infamous Reg Wilson do you?.

Jennifer Marohasy has NO expertise in the field of climate science. Nearly every recognized climate scientist who publishes in state of the art peer reviewed journals agrees that the earth is warming rapidly in response to rising atmospheric levels of C02 from the burning of fossil fuels. The consensus amongst these climate scientists is nearly 100%!!!

keogh Sat Sep 28, 2019 8:01 pm

Say hello to Reg for me and tell him we are missing his knowledgeable input, on prospecting around the forums. Smile

Kon61gold Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:00 pm

According to "Statista" Countries with the highest CO2 emissions, the largest per capita CO2, included the United States & Opec (Saudi Arabia & United Arab Emirates) Russia India & China, were all ranked among the 5 largest emitters, with China taking top spot.
The point I'm trying to make here is that anyone can do some research, pointing the finger at one another, when all countries & people are to blame.
The problem is & lies in what the world is doing about greatly reducing carbon emissions, which lead to the "Green House Effect" in turn playing havoc with our atmosphere/whether.
I'll tell you what the world is doing & that, is very little at all. So what exactly is new, "Nothing" is the answer.
Profits made from fossil fuels will continue to exceed & blind man of all logic/common sense, to the point where the earths climate/environment starts hitting back. As a matter of fact, you don't need to be a scientist to notice that climate change, has already begun.
Does man go out of their way, putting up a pedestrian crossing, before anyone gets killed on hearsay alone? Of course not. Lets wait & see how many deaths occur first, before spending an insignificant sum of money, in order to prevent Innocent lives being lost.
This is mans nature, to want to own, to possess & consume more & more, till the unexpected deluge engulfs him.
The quote "What purpose is it for man to possess the whole world, but forfeit his own life in doing so" truly befits us all.
Pointing the finger at who to blame is easy, quoting this man or that mans statistics, is even easier, but going out of our way towards doing the right thing by one another, for one another, for our own sake's, without self interest involved, is always the hardest part.
Whether for the good or bad, change is inevitable & the "actions" that man takes today (not just words full of hot air) but good common sense actions, will also play a role in determining the future of mankind tomorrow.

Cheers Kon. T25

keogh Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:45 pm

The problem is Kon, that the worlds governments, including Australia. Are not telling the people what they are doing in our atmosphere.So how do we know what is natural and what is engineered

https://weathermodificationhistory.com/?fbclid=IwAR0AR04P__6SBAJdh7Uy7oat_RJZ1VDa6prnzHmRAlstKQS0yGmS62SalTo

Kon61gold Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:17 am

When first introduced & In the early days/weeks/months/years of atomic fallout testing, scientists/doctors, well knowing the effects of what high doses of radiation had/has on the human body, or how dangerous the long term breathing of asbestos dust particles or fibreglass particles are or were, or even the effects of everyday smoking had/has on the human body, did they warn the people then or go out of their way to stop these poisons from being consumed or released into the atmosphere? The answer because of self interest/huge profits, is no & will continue to be no, for anything new that is introduced on the market, to the people in the near future, whether it being for human consumption, or just plainly released quietly into the atmosphere, into our oceans, into our rivers, or buried into the ground, without the people ever knowing what repercussions/debilitating effects it might have on ones health down the track.
The worlds governments, including Australia, are not telling the people what their real intentions are about anything/everything Keogh. For like I said, it is simply not in their interest to do so. One has more chance, of leading a horse to water & making it drink, than obtaining the truth from a government politician.
I do believe Isaac Newtons laws, can better explain natural/unnatural as in created by nature itself or man made, for like positive & negative, right from wrong, good from bad, one cannot exist without the other, they both coexist in unison & work together at the same time as one.
Man thinks he can put one over nature & get away with it, but only for so long & within such a short spanse of time, when in reality, it is nature who has the long term upper hand. Shocked

Cheers Kon. T25

Nightjar Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:07 am

Have said it before and will say it again, Al Gore should have been burnt at the stake.
Blind Freddy knows we have had an Ice Age (Yes, we all know there is a present Ice Age, drugs) and varying climates through the ages long before the so called man made.
Certainly in favour of a world clean up removing plastic from our trolleys but as for the other let nature take it's course.

granite2 Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:54 am

WE MUST BELIEVE OUR SCIENTISTS ON GLOBAL WARMING???

When I was in my 20’s away back in1970 we had every scientist in the world, (so we were told) warning us that we were entering a new ice age that would arrive by 2010. So far they have been wrong. Every one of them, but we all believed.

In the 1973 we were told by all the world scientists that we were going to run out of oil by the 1980’s. Today there is more oil available than ever before, so again all the worlds scientists were wrong, but we all believed.

Leading up to the year 2000 all the world’s scientists and IT experts told us that our computers were going to fail. The world’s economy would crash when the Wall Street computers failed. Planes would fall from the air, traffic lights would go crazy resulting in a myriad of deaths and the world as we knew it would end. It cost the world seven trillion dollars to fix what was never going to be a problem but we all believed.

( I actually witnessed a demonstration on an old green screened computer with only a two digit date before 2000 on how it was never going to be a problem, but everyone else believed).

We all saw flim flam Flannery stand in the bed of the Darling River and predict it would never run again and the dams would never fill again but the next year the dams were overflowing and where he had been standing in the Darling was 20’ underwater. And some believed.

We all saw the same flim flam predict the arctic ice would be all gone by 2010 and the GBR would be a stony dead waste land by the end of the decade (2010). Instead the GBR is thriving and healthy as it has ever been. But some believed him.

We were warned the ocean levels were rising at an unprecedented rate but BOM now tell us they haven’t risen at all since 1900.

We were warned that snow would fall less frequently and with smaller falls. This year we are having the longest ski/snow season in living memory

And now the global warmists want us to believe those same scientists models are true and the scientists are correct in their predictions and we should believe them.

Why the devil should we believe those people who have got it so wrong over the past fifty years? I think you’d have to be brain dead or very trusting to believe them again.

planetcare Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:04 am

Nightjar wrote:Have said it before and will say it again, Al Gore should have been burnt at the stake.
Blind Freddy knows we have had an Ice Age (Yes, we all know there is a present Ice Age, drugs) and varying climates through the ages long before the so called man made.
Certainly in favour of a world clean up removing plastic from our trolleys but as for the other let nature take it's course.

What you do not seem to understand is that the the climate now is changing at a rate that is far beyond natural variation.Let me give you one example.When the earth has emerged from past ice ages the global temperature rose about 6 Deg C over about 6000 years ie about 0.1 deg C per century and C02 levels rose from about 180ppm to about 280 ppm.In less than 200 years man activities have raised the global temperature by over 1 deg c and the C02 level to 410ppm - a whopping 40% increase. Its worth noting the the difference between past ice ice ages and a warmer more temperate global climate is only 100ppm of C02 ie ice ages about 180 ppm atmospheric C02-a warmer more temperate global climate 280ppm atmospheric C02.C02 was always between these levels for at least the last 800,000years. In the last 200 years mans activities have added 130ppm of C02!!!

planetcare Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:11 am

[quote="granite2"]WE MUST BELIEVE OUR SCIENTISTS ON GLOBAL WARMING???

When I was in my 20’s away back in1970 we had every scientist in the world, (so we were told) warning us that we were entering a new ice age that would arrive by 2010. So far they have been wrong. Every one of them, but we all believed.

That is incorrect.The media made this claim but if you look at the climate science peer reviewed literature from the 1970's the majority of publishing climate scientist did NOT make this claim!!!

planetcare Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:20 am

granite2 wrote:WE MUST BELIEVE OUR SCIENTISTS ON GLOBAL WARMING???

We were warned the ocean levels were rising at an unprecedented rate but BOM now tell us they haven’t risen at all since 1900.

Again that is factually incorrect! Look at BOM state of the climate 2018 on oceans and you will see that the MSL has been rising since 1880!

granite2 Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:21 am

That Co2 causes global warming is an unsubstantiated claim. It is a theory only and no one has yet been able to prove Co2 is anything more than plant food.

There have been times even during past ice ages that Co2 was far higher than it is today. But if you want to be one of those who blindly follow the scientists who have been proven wrong so many times in the last 50 years go ahead.

In my 75 years I have lived through so many predictions by the world's scientists that were totally wrong I have lost all faith in predictions, especially those modeled predictions that the global climate changers throw at us.

And please look at where the money trail leads. Who will benefit most from all these protests and wild predictions? Those who build wind power and solar panel systems of course. And for all the trillions of dollars thrown at renewables and those who make them what have we got, less than 3 percent of the world's electricity generated by wind or solar. What a scam.

planetcare Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:25 am

[quote="granite2"

There have been times even during past ice ages that Co2 was far higher than it is today.[/quote]

Can you direct me to some peer relieved climate climate publications which show this?

planetcare Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:31 am

granite2 wrote:That Co2 causes global warming is an unsubstantiated claim. It is a theory only and no one has yet been able to prove Co2 is anything more than plant food.

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
John E. Harries1,
Helen E. Brindley1,
Pretty J. Sagoo1 &
Richard J. Bantges1
Nature volume 410, pages355–357 (2001) | Download Citation
Abstract
The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1,2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3,4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5,6,7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8,9,10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11,12,13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010
R. Feldman, W. D. Collins, P. J. Gero, M. S. Torn,, E. J. Mlawer & T. R. Shippert
Nature 2015
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.8260.19Wm22 . However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-skyCO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmosphericCO2.The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2Wm22 per decade (with respective uncertainties of 60.06Wm22 per decade and 60.07Wm22 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2Wm22. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in down welling long wave radiation. These results confirm the theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance

Perhaps you can show us where the conclusions of these papers are wrong?

granite2 Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:37 am

I'll take a couple of points here. The connection between Co2 and global warming is an unproven LINK only.

And in the 1970's I was there, were you?

And the following is from BOM records.

AUSTRALIA is lucky to possess the high-quality, 128-year-long tide gauge record from Fort Denison (Sydney Harbour), which since 1886 indicates a long-term rate of sea-level rise of 0.65mm a year, or 6.5cm a century.
Lucky, because 60-year-long oceanographic atmospheric oscillations mean a true long-term measurement of sea-level rise can be made only when such a record is available.
Similarly low rates of local sea-level rise have been measured at other tide gauges along the east coast. National Tidal Centre records reveal variations between about 5cm and 16cm/century in rates of relative rise. The differ¬ences between individual tide gauges mostly represent slightly differing rates of subsidence of the land at each site, and differing time periods.
For example, measurements at Sydney between 2005 and 2014 show the tide gauge site is sinking at a rate of 0.49mm/yr, leaving just 0.16mm/yr of the overall relative rise as representing global sea-level change. Indeed, the rate of rise at Fort Denison, and globally, has been decreasing for the past 50 years.

And as providing links for plant care, do your own research.

planetcare Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:41 am

granite2 wrote:I'll take a couple of points here. The connection between Co2 and global warming is an unproven LINK only.

And in the 1970's I was there, were you?

Yes i was doing scientific research!!

planetcare Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:45 am

granite2 wrote:I'll take a couple of points here. The connection between Co2 and global warming is an unproven LINK only.

AUSTRALIA is lucky to possess the high-quality, 128-year-long tide gauge record from Fort Denison (Sydney Harbour), which since 1886 indicates a long-term rate of sea-level rise of 0.65mm a year, or 6.5cm a century.
Lucky, because 60-year-long oceanographic atmospheric oscillations mean a true long-term measurement of sea-level rise can be made only when such a record is available.
Similarly low rates of local sea-level rise have been measured at other tide gauges along the east coast. National Tidal Centre records reveal variations between about 5cm and 16cm/century in rates of relative rise. The differ¬ences between individual tide gauges mostly represent slightly differing rates of subsidence of the land at each site, and differing time periods.
For example, measurements at Sydney between 2005 and 2014 show the tide gauge site is sinking at a rate of 0.49mm/yr, leaving just 0.16mm/yr of the overall relative rise as representing global sea-level change. Indeed, the rate of rise at Fort Denison, and globally, has been decreasing for the past 50 years.

And as providing links for plant care, do your own research.

From the BOM 2018 state of the climate,Oceans

Key points
Global sea level has risen by over 20 cm since 1880, and the rate has been accelerating in recent decades.
Rates of sea level rise vary around Australia.

planetcare Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:50 am

granite2 wrote:I'll take a couple of points here. The connection between Co2 and global warming is an unproven LINK only.

If the earth is not warming due to the greenhouse effect then what is your explanation for why the troposphere(lower atmosphere) is warming and the stratosphere (upper atmosphere)is cooling based on satellite data since 1979?
I am still waiting for you to tell us why the conclusions to the two nature papers i posted earlier are wrong.

planetcare Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:15 pm

[quote="granite2"
There have been times even during past ice ages that Co2 was far higher than it is today.
[/quote]
You obviously cannot provide any links or one iota of credible scientific evidence to support this claim!!!

granite2 Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:46 pm

Planet are. My post concerning sea levels was from BOM itself so I guess you are cherry picking BOM.

planetcare Sun Sep 29, 2019 1:40 pm

granite2 wrote:Planet are. My post concerning sea levels was from BOM itself so I guess you are cherry picking BOM.

you stated "We were warned the ocean levels were rising at an unprecedented rate but BOM now tell us they haven’t risen at all since 1900".
This is clearly incorrect! BOM show a graph of the MSL since 1880 !Perhaps you can show us where BOM state that the ocean MSL has not risen since 1900!

adrian ss Sun Sep 29, 2019 5:45 pm

From what I am reading here, it would seem that these tide and sea level gauges are very unreliable.
Just how one can say that an ocean that is rocking and rolling, and being constantly effected by lunar and solar gravitational forces and has an average depth of 12,000 ft, is full of mountains, volcanoes and vast plains and is subjected to constant earthquakes and ocean floor shifts can ever be measured to a rise and fall in fractions of a mm is nothing short of ridiculous

Oh yeah that's right, I can recall reading of a time when near on 100% of scientist, priests and other control freaks believed that the earth was flat and that the sun rotated around the earth and so when somebody tells me that they can measure sea level rises to within an accuracy of fractions of a mm then I become very sceptical of their ability to make rational decisions,observations. calculations on how to fire up a bbq let alone make accurate scientific observations.

Nightjar Sun Sep 29, 2019 5:46 pm

planetcare wrote:
granite2 wrote:I'll take a couple of points here. The connection between Co2 and global warming is an unproven LINK only.

And in the 1970's I was there, were you?

Yes i was doing scientific research!!

Planetcare,
Please! Go and preach to the converted not to those (me included) who do not believe in all this money making scaremongering.
Was still working for a worldwide company when the world was going to stop at midnight preceding the year 2000. Multi millions of dollars were spent, they had hard copy records being winged around the world so they wouldn't be lost during the chaos. AND some of the big chiefs believed this, we welcomed it with a huge party, apart from a headache next morning...………………..We're here today listening to the same BS.
As the saying goes, "You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time!"
It is season change NOT climate change.
Try reading the long standing farmers journals where a property has been handed down for generations.
Droughts, floods and other seasonal changes have been recorded by farmers in this country alone since 1778.
Feel sure some where in the indigenous beliefs this would also be covered on this land.

planetcare Sun Sep 29, 2019 5:58 pm

Nightjar wrote:
planetcare wrote:
granite2 wrote:I'll take a couple of points here. The connection between Co2 and global warming is an unproven LINK only.

And in the 1970's I was there, were you?

Yes i was doing scientific research!!

Planetcare,
Please! Go and preach to the converted not to those (me included) who do not believe in all this money making scaremongering.
Was still working for a worldwide company when the world was going to stop at midnight preceding the year 2000. Multi millions of dollars were spent, they had hard copy records being winged around the world so they wouldn't be lost during the chaos. AND some of the big chiefs believed this, we welcomed it with a huge party, apart from a headache next morning...………………..We're here today listening to the same BS.
As the saying goes, "You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all the people all of the time!"
It is season change NOT climate change.
Try reading the long standing farmers journals where a property has been handed down for generations.
Droughts, floods and other seasonal changes have been recorded by farmers in this country alone since 1778.
Feel sure some where in the indigenous beliefs this would also be covered on this land.

I am guided by science and the evidence which for global warming is now beyond all doubt!
Global warming is not about money making or scaremongering it is about the future of our planet and that of our children and grandchildren
With respect your attitude is selfish and ill informed.

Nightjar Sun Sep 29, 2019 7:16 pm

planetcare wrote:
I am guided by science and the evidence which for global warming is now beyond all doubt!
Global warming is not about money making or scaremongering it is about the future of our planet and that of our children and grandchildren
With respect your attitude is selfish and ill informed.

Yes it some areas it may be warmer than last year...……..
Guided by science and what has been proven wrong for decades and more. Sure happy I'm not in your science class...
With all respect your attitude is away with the fairies.... Using school children now to brain wash them is an absolute disgrace. Evil or Very Mad

Let's come back to this in 10 years time and we'll see who is ill informed?

I'm out of here before my bedroom floods...…… or truer to the point Kon steps in swinging his base ball bat. Laughing

planetcare Sun Sep 29, 2019 8:06 pm

Nightjar wrote:
"Guided by science and what has been proven wrong for decades and more."

planetcare wrote:
Where is the proof that climate science has been wrong for decades and more?Lets see your evidence and facts to support your assertion.
Show us that you are well informed on the subject and then you might be taken seriously.
If you think the climate scientists and IPCC are wrong then please show us how and why they are wrong.
For example tell us why a 40% increase in atmospheric C02( since the industrial revolution) a proven greenhouse gas will not result in global warming when an increase of 100ppm in the C02 level has been the difference between an ice age and a earth temperature 6 deg C warmer!
Or tell us why the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling? What can be causing this?
Lets have a debate on the science and the evidence and the facts!

pablop Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:00 pm

Folks, much of the quoted information that appears to come from both sides of the arguments to date, do not appear to me to be verified facts except for some of the significant historic information associated with sea levels, ice ages and the like, but are just quotes of the work by others, which in many cases have been proven to be incorrect in some way shape or form, or likely will be withing a few more years.

My take of this as per my earlier simple response, is it is more important to let us know what you have personally done to address any concerns that you may have, rather than sprout the data that we are unable to verify here, and expect others to believe it and take action based on your information. If you want me to believe what you are saying, I don't just want to see supposed "facts", provided by others, but I expect people to be leading by doing and not expect others to do what you aren't prepared to do yourself.
e.g.
- Have you given up driving a vehicle and now resort to use of a bicycle for all transport?
o Remember that trains, trams and busses are contributing to the arguments, espoused, as well as cars.
o Have you ever been on an overseas holiday? Would you or do you plan to do so again?
- Do you have solar HWS? Is it sufficient for your household?
- Do you have solar power panels? If so how many?
- Do you grow any of your own food? If so are you self supporting in this field?
o If you grown your own food, do you do your own composting and multch creating?
- Do you use bottled water or soft drinks? Re-useable drink containers?
- Do you harvest rainwater from your own property? On a global scale,this can have positive & negative impacts!!
- What other things have you personally done, to mitigate the impact that YOU may be having on our planet, be it environemnt or climate and the like?
- Do you have a computer, mobile phone, TV, motor bike, motor boat, motor mower, etc, etc, as using/owning these is contributing to the arguments.
- Do you climb stairs instead of using a lift or escalator?
- Etc, etc and don't tell me that by trying to convince others that your position is the correct and only one, that that is you contribution, as I do not buy that for one second.

Facts as quoted are rarely verifiable facts, and figures quoted can manipulate the information presented and this is a known fact, so suck it up and do what you can personally do to manage your own contibution to the problems that you see.

Enough from me for now.

AraratGold Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:09 pm

Bugger off back to your AEGPF flopum Doug ( Planetcare ), we've all had a gutful of your global warming diatribe !

Rick

planetcare Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:29 pm

AraratGold wrote:Bugger off back to your AEGPF flopum Doug ( Planetcare ), we've all had a gutful of your global warming diatribe !

Rick

So you have no concern for future generations and are not prepared to have a civil discussion of the issue?

AraratGold Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:57 pm

planetcare wrote:
AraratGold wrote:Bugger off back to your AEGPF flopum Doug ( Planetcare ), we've all had a gutful of your global warming diatribe !

Rick

So you have no concern for future generations and are not prepared to have a civil discussion of the issue?

Yes, I do care Doug, which is why I have a 5.2Kw solar system on my roof and a 10,000 litre water tank plumbed into my toilets, to try and do what I can.

As for having a civil discussion with you, that is impossible, which is why you have been banned from every forum on the planet ! Rolling Eyes

Your way or the highway comes to mind ! Rolling Eyes

Rick