Going Green who believes this

Nightjar wrote:Season change, not climate change! We still have our low winter temperatures and high summer, just slightly adjusted on the calendar...
Surely hobby prospectors here in WA have noticed they have to adjust their timing to beat the heat?

Greater Perth in summer 2021-22: hottest summer on record
Summer 2021–22 was the hottest summer on record across Greater Perth. The mean maximum temperature in Perth (at Perth Metro site) was one degree higher than the previous record. Mean minimum temperature were above average and rainfall was below average at all sites.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/wa/perth.shtml
https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/climate-trends-western-australia
Average temperature trends across Western Australia
Below is an approximate 120 year comparison of average annual mean minimum and maximum temperatures at 31 different locations across Western Australia, including weather in the capital city of Perth.
http://www.waclimate.net/

This is not BS it is scientific proven fact.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_2.php

If you think that the cyclical changing axial tilt of the planet will not cause and is not the reason for extreme changes to the Earths climatic conditions then you are in denial or are a Green who loves plants more than people.

I think both natural cycle climate changes (eg caused by events such as volcanic cycles and astronomic cycles such as the Milankovitch and solar activity cycles) as well as man made atmospheric emissions and massive increases in urban heat sinking are involved in global warming.
Quite frankly ma’am, I don’t give a damm. That is not sitting on the fence just asking the question about what are we going to do if anything?
I think it would be prudent to commence transition from fossil fuels but in a orderly way.
I resent the activists calling for dramatic actions that will potentially cause economic and societal disruption. We all know who will suffer most in those circumstances, the less well off. Who will benefit, the ones able to benefit from massive taxpayer subsidies selling their expensive products to a public forced into purchasing them.
Our current technology is not up to doing it yet in terms of 24 hr power availability, transport power needs, remote power needs, battery storage and bulk emissionless power generation.
Our universities and research establishments would be well advised to spend their money on scientific research rather than paying people to rehash, redo or duplicate any of the 88000 studies already done into climate change and global warming.

Adrian, all good & proper, but lets not leave out any other important relevant information claimed by other scientists also saying that, if there were no human influences on climate by man, according to the Milankovitch theory, earths current orbital positions within the Milakovitch cycles, predict our planet should be cooling & not warming.
This too is no BS but scientific theory based on the sciences, of which anyone here could google up for themselves under "How accurate is the Milankovitch Theory of orbital variation" & why the Milankovitch orbital cycles can't explain earths current warming & no, I ain't no cluey scientist, just one who likes to expand my horizons of information through my keyboard.
The main thing here we all would like to know or better understand, is that are we to continue seeing such dramatic climate or season change across the globe, continue in the manner it is or has been doing, or are we to expect even worse global events to come, because of the warming of our climate?  
Hawkear makes some good points. More than one variable might be involved here.

Kon

The climate is going to continue to get worse and the warming will mainly be in one hemisphere while the other cools. (due to changing Axial Tilt).
The overall warming as the result of human activity will be be more evenly distributed globally
   The Equator divides the Earth into northern and southern hemispheres, with both experiencing different amounts of daylight at different times. This, weather, climate and the seasons we experience are a result of the Earth's tilt on its axis and its orbit around the sun.

The major contributors to global warming and atmospheric pollution are between the Latitude of Madrid & Addis Ababa  and the longitude of Dakar & Kushiro.
    The regions enclosed by these Lat/ Lon degrees are the cause of all of the global pollution. The rest of the world is clean.

https://www.ventusky.com/?p=23;60;2&l=pm25&t=20220522/0000

adrian ss wrote:The climate is going to continue to get worse and the warming will mainly be in one hemisphere while the other cools. (due to changing Axial Tilt).

The most rapid warming is occurring in the Arctic and is due to big changes in Albedo and Arctic amplification. The Arctic is warming 4x faster than the global average.

planetcare wrote:

adrian ss wrote:The climate is going to continue to get worse and the warming will mainly be in one hemisphere while the other cools. (due to changing Axial Tilt).

The most rapid warming is occurring in the Arctic and is due to big changes in Albedo and  Arctic amplification. The Arctic is warming  4x faster than the global average.  

Probably right but for the majority of plebs not something that we can check for ourselves only take the advice of some invested scientist earning their wages for Producing a paper.
The world as a whole (excepting China and obviously now Russia) appear to have accepted a path towards zero emissions so is there any point in us debating global warming despite the views that many of us may hold to some degree otherwise.
What is worthy of debate now is the way zero emissions is going to accomplished without making things impossibly expensive or impracticable for us.
Maybe OK for millionaires and yuppies running around in their $100K Teslas but not for the rest of us.
We seem to have too many activists activisting and not enough people coming up with doable solutions. More and more of the same eg wind and solar for instance isn’t going to solve the problem when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine.

hawkear wrote:

What is worthy of debate now is the way zero emissions  is going to accomplished without making things impossibly expensive or impracticable for us.
Maybe OK for millionaires and yuppies running around in their $100K Teslas but not for the rest of us.
We seem to have too many activists activisting and not enough people coming up with doable solutions. More and more of the same eg wind and solar for instance isn’t going to solve the problem when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine.

For Aus we must move to a H2 based economy as well as measures to improve energy efficiency in buildings and infrastructure and transport. With our huge coastline and size the wind will always be blowing somewhere and during the day the sun will be always shining somewhere. To take full advantage of this we need a massive upgrade of our electrical grid system.

Correct, and it is called Nuclear Power electricity generation..
   Anyway if we want to know what will happen to the climate, just ask the Aborigines, they have been here for 60,000 years which means that they must have lived through about 4 or 5 Ice Ages and warming's....Too bad they didn't write it down on Paper Bark or something . Even an ancient painting of an iceberg would be handy.

adrian ss wrote:Correct, and it is called Nuclear Power electricity generation..
 

Nuclear power for Australia is not an option because its simply its politically unacceptable, nuclear power plants are incredibly expensive to build and the electricity they produce cannot compete price wise with wind or solar.

If it is so expensive why are there so many nuke power stations around the world?..(More than 400 )
Solar power is totally inefficient with power out not even close to matching the power in and the power in is not free power.
What do you do with the millions worn out panels
Wind farms are ridiculous and require massive ongoing upkeep not to mention the mining operations required to obtain the materials to construct the actual generators, and then there is those toxic rotor blades. How do you dispose of those broken blades?

What is Renewable Energy??
Solar is not renewable. You cannot gather up all of that used solar power and electricity and use it again. How about Wind farm generators; the generate electricity while the wind blows and once it is used you have to keep on generating more and more and more...You cannot reuse it coz it aint there to re use....It is time Renewable Energy is given a more correct identity

adrian ss wrote:If it is so expensive why are there so many nuke power stations around the world?..(More than 400 )
Solar power is totally inefficient with power out not even close to matching the power in and the power in is not free power.
  What do you do with the millions worn out panels
Wind farms are ridiculous and require massive ongoing upkeep not to mention the mining operations required to obtain the materials to construct the actual generators, and then there is those toxic rotor blades. How do you dispose of those broken blades?

What is Renewable Energy??
Solar is not renewable. You cannot  gather up all of that used solar power and electricity and use it again. How about Wind farm generators; the generate electricity while the wind blows and once it is used you have to keep on generating more and more and more...You cannot reuse it coz it aint there to re use....It is time Renewable Energy is given a more correct identity

"If it is so expensive why are there so many nuke power stations around the world?..(More than 400 )
Look at what UK's latest reactor has cost- i believe 30 billion pounds and has taken 15 years  to build!
Solar power is totally inefficient with power out not even close to matching the power in and the power in is not free power.
Yes solar panels are inefficient  but they don't produce radioactive  waste or require vast amounts of shielding and cannot lead to a fukushima nuclear disaster!
  What do you do with the millions worn out panels
About 80% of each panel can be recycled!
Wind farms are ridiculous and require massive ongoing upkeep not to mention the mining operations required to obtain the materials to construct the actual generators, and then there is those toxic rotor blades. How do you dispose of those broken blades?
Recycle them!
The upkeep and running of nuclear power power plants is far more demanding than any wind farms and the consequences of improper uptake and running can be catastrophic as chernobyl  demonstrated!

Since the introduction of Nuclear power stations there has been only 2 melt downs.

There have been two major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power – Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Chernobyl involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and Fukushima Daiichi severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity.
These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 18,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 36 countries.
The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Radiological effects on people of any radioactive releases can be avoided.

I have said it before and I say it again; Australia could sink into the ocean tomorrow and the effect on global atmospheric pollutants and emissions will be so small as to be not worth measuring.....The United States Of America could sink into the ocean with similar results.

The effects of reducing our (Australia's) so called global Warming Emissions to zero will be disastrous to our economy and standards of living and will serve absolutely zero benefit to the world as a whole.

adrian ss wrote:Since the introduction of Nuclear power stations there has been only 2 melt downs.

   There have been two major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power – Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Chernobyl involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and Fukushima Daiichi severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity.
   These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 18,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 36 countries.
   The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity. The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining. The consequences of an accident or terrorist attack are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Radiological effects on people of any radioactive releases can be avoided.

I have said it before and I say it again; Australia could sink into the ocean tomorrow and the effect on global atmospheric pollutants and emissions will be  so small as to be not worth measuring.....The United States Of America could sink into the ocean with similar results.

The effects of reducing our (Australia's)  so called global Warming Emissions to zero will be disastrous to our economy and standards of living and will serve absolutely zero benefit to the world as a whole.

"Since the introduction of Nuclear power stations there has been only 2 melt downs."
And the effects have been economically and environmentally  catastrophic. Their is still the problem of long term storage of spent fuel rods or sending them O/S to be reprocessed and then having to find a suitable repository for the nuclear waste for   geological time frames.
"The United States Of America could sink into the ocean with similar results."
The USA is the currently the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases!
Australia per capita is amongst the largest greenhouse gas  emitters. If we want less developed countries to cut their emissions then developed countries must take the lead.
"The effects of reducing our (Australia's)  so called global Warming Emissions to zero will be disastrous to our economy and standards of living and will serve absolutely zero benefit to the world as a whole."
I do not agree and far from damaging our economy  we have a great opportunity to become a large exporter of green H2   and  green steel  using H2 rather than coal.

Your car won't go far on a kg of hydrogen at 6 dollars a kg A kg of petrol is way cheaper. Also you will not get as much power out of the kg of hydrogen as that of a kg of 95 petrol, so you will have to use a lot more hydrogen.

adrian ss wrote:Your car won't go far on a kg of hydrogen at 6 dollars a kg  A kg of petrol is way cheaper. Also you will not get as much power out of the kg of hydrogen as that of a kg of 95 petrol, so you will have to use a lot more hydrogen.

Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs)  are more efficient than conventional internal combustion engine vehicles and produce no tailpipe emissions  other than water vapor
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/fuel_cell.html
Toyota Mirai sets new world distance record; over 1000km on a tank of hydrogen
The Japanese car giant has claimed bragging rights just weeks after Hyundai set the world record in Australia.
The Mirai averaged 0.55kg/100km hydrogen consumption, the Toyota’s tank capable of holding 5.6kg. Toyota used green hydrogen for the record attempt.
https://www.drive.com.au/news/toyota-mirai-sets-new-world-distance-record-over-1000km-on-a-tank-of-hydrogen/
So adrian ss based on your figure of $6/kg H2 this car traveled over a 1000km for about $36!!!!!!!!

Adrian, I wish I could say planetcare is wrong in what he says about cars driven on hydrogen, but in any of the latest fuel cell cars, it is said that 1kg of hydrogen will let you drive 97 to 100klms & that hydrogen is an excellent energy carrier with respect to weight.
1kg of hydrogen, contains 33 kWh of useable energy, whereas petrol & diesel only hold about 12 kWh/kg. Not only that, but hydrogen is cheap & its combustion produces only water & (wait for it) it produces 3 times as much energy as an equivalent quantity of petrol . Not my words, google it up for yourself.
Now is there anything else I can sell you on  Nah just kidding

Kon

Bummer I was hoping you would miss that.
What was the average speed for those record attempts....Did it take a week ta do the 1000 kays

adrian ss wrote:Bummer I was hoping you would miss that.
What was the average speed for those record attempts....Did it take a week ta do the 1000 kays

2 days for the  trip. Average speed was 68 Km /hour.

Don't push me Adrian, my finger is about to hit the google search button

Kon

I still reckon this is the go, especially around town/short school trips.
Unfortunately compressed air is cheap and no one will make a bob out of it.
There are a few people I know that are full of wind and could power it themselves

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_car



cheers   moredeep

Kon61gold wrote:Don't push me Adrian, my finger is about to hit the google search button

Kon  

Blimey don't do that mate, you might find I have an overactive imagination.

moredeep wrote:I still reckon this is the go, especially around town/short school trips.
Unfortunately compressed air is cheap and no one will make a bob out of it.
There are a few people I know that are full of wind and could power it themselves

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_car



cheers   moredeep

Couple of high capacity 6000 psi compressed air cylinders, a big heavy air driven gyro wheel an accelerator peda, at least three wheels and a clutch, a steering wheel and away ya go.
Might be a bit tricky getting around corners but what the hell, life wasn't meant to be easy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrobus
I think we have talked about this b4, but who cares if we have a touch of the oldtimers disease


cheers moredeep

The Antarctica was a rain forest 90 million years ago. Then the ice age, and now the planet is warming again.
Natural occurrence back then now it is we humans

It's a tough job but somebody or something has gotta do it. Last Summer was but right now it is

Nightjar wrote:The Antarctica was a rain forest 90 million years ago. Then the ice age, and now the planet is warming again.
Natural occurrence back then now it is we humans

What is happening now is NOT a natural occurrence.

Some of it is.

adrian ss wrote:Some of it is.

The cumulative evidence shows that the major driver of climate change is now man's activities.

For that matter liquid hydrocarbon fuel can be produced from air and water. The technology is already known.
Air contains CO2 water is H2O. Carbon and Hydrogen are the ingredients for liquid hydrocarbon fuel.
All that is needed is energy and large scale technology.
Any Technology will not get off the ground until people can afford to buy it.
Our future will be driven by market forces and indeed Hydrogen internal fuel cells, internal combustion with hydrogen or green hydrocarbons, or electric vehicles will each compete in the market against each other and other possibilities.