Thread: Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Is there any connection between natural erosion into the sea, geological upheaval ( we are regularly reminded about tectonic plate movement, volcanoes creating new islands) the creation of man made land eg Singapore, the Spratly Islands (China's effort), I know its just a wee drop in the bucket but what has gone on over these thousands of years that we are not aware of as well as the gravitational effect of the moon (there is no data of thousands of years for that) and we are also told by the scientific community that the universe is constantly expanding so what effect does this have as well. Then there are the cities literally sinking under there own weight, where does the displaced earth mass go as a result of this?
I don't see too much of these factors incorporated in the debate anywhere.
Its very convenient to denigrate one group of people because they don't "look at all the facts" but the other group also ignores some facts as well, I suspect that there is a middle ground which is closer to the truth than either side realizes.

Is there any correlation between the melting Arctic and to a lesser degree the Antarctic and the recent large shift in the north magnetic pole (which is affected by the magma core of the earth) westwards.

There appears to be a correlation, but that's not necessarily causation, although some have proposed mechanisms where one is driving the other. I think the jury is still out on it.
There seems to be more evidence of the melting polar ice caps effecting the earth's rotational axis, causing the position of "true" north to wander more than usual.

Originally Posted by rwbuild

Is there any connection between natural erosion into the sea, geological upheaval ( we are regularly reminded about tectonic plate movement, volcanoes creating new islands) the creation of man made land eg Singapore, the Spratly Islands (China's effort), I know its just a wee drop in the bucket but what has gone on over these thousands of years that we are not aware of as well as the gravitational effect of the moon (there is no data of thousands of years for that) and we are also told by the scientific community that the universe is constantly expanding so what effect does this have as well. Then there are the cities literally sinking under there own weight, where does the displaced earth mass go as a result of this?
I don't see too much of these factors incorporated in the debate anywhere.
Its very convenient to denigrate one group of people because they don't "look at all the facts" but the other group also ignores some facts as well, I suspect that there is a middle ground which is closer to the truth than either side realizes.

The relationship between erosion, accretion, subduction and lifting are long established and reasonable estimates have been made. I would be very surprised if these have not been accounted for in models. The cities that are sinking under their own weight, e.g. Mexico City, are doing so because groundwater is being extracted from beneath them. Perhaps you can give examples of others that are "sinking under their own weight" for some other reason.
The behaviour of the moon - both its position and rotation - has been pretty confidently modelled for at least the last 4.5 million years. True, there's no directly measured data, but by using geology physics and other well understood science, fairly confident estimates can be made, and these are taken into account.
I'm not going to play "whack the rat" by chasing after data for every sceptic that can't be bothered to chase it down for himself. The scientific evidence around human-induced climate change is now so overwhelming that it's no longer good enough to just say "I'm not convinced." Either put up contrary evidence or sit down, shut up and watch the world go past.

Originally Posted by rwbuild

Its very convenient to denigrate one group of people because they don't "look at all the facts" but the other group also ignores some facts as well, I suspect that there is a middle ground which is closer to the truth than either side realizes.

It's not that they won't "look" at the facts - they just won't accept them - they are facts - truths. They just will not accept the proven bleeding obvious - and that is that all the crap (mainly CO & CO2) we have put into the atmosphere has put it badly out of balance, and as a result the planet is heating up.

In less time than you have been alive the CO2 content has increased by ~33%. Do you not see that that is seriously out of whack and hugely accelerated? (whether or not it may have increased at some tiny rate naturally). It's a greenhouse gas - increased by 1/3 - measured by instruments within crowie's lifetime, which means that by default he will be satisfied with those measurements.

What if the oxygen content of the atmosphere had increased by 1/3 from 21% to 28%? Do you think would change anything?

All the other things you have mentioned in your last couple of posts may or may not have something to do with it - I don't know. What I do know is that if they are in some way related they are NOTHING - miserably tiny, compared to what the increase in CO2 has done.

We MUST take CO2 out of the atmosphere rapidly and we MUST vastly reduce the amount we are putting into it. The first part of that would appear to be reasonably simple to do, although I doubt Jair Bolsinaro would be willing to help. The second part is substantially more complex and will take longer. It will mean a loss of jobs in some sectors and geographical locations. It will mean creation of jobs in other sectors and locations - that's just the way economies develop.

When the automobile replaced the horse & cart there were a great many people who were put out of work. Is it fair to say that a helluva lot more jobs were created worldwide (and probably much better jobs too)?

When computers came alive in the 70s everyone was scared of losing their jobs (and as a young person working in IT I had much first hand experience of seeing this fear). Guess what - a whole new industry was created around computers, creating tens if not hundreds of millions of MUCH better jobs than they replaced - hugely more financially rewarding too.

It will be the same with artificial intelligence, and it will be the same with energy creation. Filthy dirty, dangerous coal mining/oil drilling jobs will be replaced with other jobs, and so it will go on. Within 50 years we can look forward to no more catastrophic oil spills.




Despite my numerous requests, not a single nay-sayer, or "open-minded love to be convinced one way or the other" person has said what they are afraid of, or why we shouldn't act (with great haste I might add - because they have held us back for so long). Industry/commerce/corporate greed/superannuation funds/hedge funds and so on all want action on carbon emissions. WHAT THE BLOODY HELL IS THE PROBLEM THEN?

In the absence of answers to that, one can only assume it is fear of the unknown, just as it was with the horse & cart and computers.

I have searched for, but cannot find a breakdown on deniers by decile age group (i.e. 70-80, 60-70......20-30). I believe that would be a fascinating read. I would bet things very precious to me that the younger the age the exponential drop-off of denying, and remember that they will be the age group that inherit a) the mess we are leaving, but more importantly b) the bill for cleaning it up, and yet they will still want to proceed with cleaning it up because they can see that the longer it is left the more difficult and expensive the clean-up will be.

Originally Posted by AlexS

I'm not going to play "whack the rat" by chasing after data for every sceptic that can't be bothered to chase it down for himself. The scientific evidence around human-induced climate change is now so overwhelming that it's no longer good enough to just say "I'm not convinced." Either put up contrary evidence or sit down, shut up and watch the world go past.

Absobloodylutely! (and if my age decile theory is correct - and no doubt it - then rather a lot of deniers won't be around within the next decade or so - I only hope that we get serious action before then though because I deeply suspect that if we are held up for another 10 years we will be certain to have tipped over....to a point beyond which we cannot return)

Do you think that we are also focusing on the wrong point.
We have become a very wasteful consumer based society creating a lot of waste and sourcing products from all over the globe. Everyone talks about our dirty fuel source but the reality is we don’t have a viable alternative so we are stuck with it for the immediate future so no point banging on about it too much but there are major lifestyle changes that could be happening but they don’t seem to get much attention

Originally Posted by Beardy

Do you think that we are also focusing on the wrong point. Nope!
We have become a very wasteful consumer based society creating a lot of waste and sourcing products from all over the globe. Yep - separate issue though.

Originally Posted by Beardy

Everyone talks about our dirty fuel source but the reality is we don’t have a viable alternative so we are stuck with it for the immediate future

Eh? Where you been? We have so much VIABLE solar going in that it is starting to cause difficulties for the out-of-date poles and wires - the old needs to catch up, but that doesn't mean the new is not viable - it means the old is NO LONGER viable. That means we need the three levels of Govt to press the "Go MUCH faster" button. The only part about solar energy production that is not yet properly up to speed ($$ wise) is battery storage, and that will change quite quickly I think.

Ask Chris Parks how his power bills are going - without a battery. He has a large energy consumption house/lifestyle that costs bugger all to run, last time I heard.

What do you mean by the immediate future - the end of this year? I think perhaps you could do some research into what % of Germany's energy is from renewables RIGHT NOW, and what their targets are. Not forgetting that Germany (and the rest of Europe) has nowhere near the amount of sunshine that we have. They are putting us to shame with renewable energy. I must also mention that many/most nuclear powered countries are looking to phase it out - so we should not be talking about phasing it in.

Like Alex, I'm pretty much over doing research for other people who won't/don't/can't believe it anyway (that's a general comment aimed at nobody in particular - just lazy researchers in general).

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Eh? Where you been? We have so much VIABLE solar going in that it is starting to cause difficulties for the out-of-date poles and wires - the old needs to catch up, but that doesn't mean the new is not viable - it means the old is NO LONGER viable. That means we need the three levels of Govt to press the "Go MUCH faster" button. The only part about solar energy production that is not yet properly up to speed ($$ wise) is battery storage, and that will change quite quickly I think.

Ask Chris Parks how his power bills are going - without a battery. He has a large energy consumption house/lifestyle that costs bugger all to run, last time I heard.

What do you mean by the immediate future - the end of this year? I think perhaps you could do some research into what % of Germany's energy is from renewables RIGHT NOW, and what their targets are. Not forgetting that Germany (and the rest of Europe) has nowhere near the amount of sunshine that we have. They are putting us to shame with renewable energy. I must also mention that many/most nuclear powered countries are looking to phase it out - so we should not be talking about phasing it in.

Like Alex, I'm pretty much over doing research for other people who won't/don't/can't believe it anyway (that's a general comment aimed at nobody in particular - just lazy researchers in general).

Ok, let’s turn off the coal fired plants when it isn’t windy, is overcast and at night. How are we looking now?

Originally Posted by AlexS

Either put up contrary evidence or sit down, shut up and watch the world go past.

I will not sit down and shut up at your behest or anyone else and if that's how you project your intellect then I really do fear for the future generations.
I am currently researching the points I referred to and was merely attempting to open up other avenues and factors that could be attributed to climate change.

Originally Posted by Beardy

Ok, let’s turn off the coal fired plants when it isn’t windy, is overcast and at night. How are we looking now?

That's the same sort of comment that came up from someone else (a Pollie I think) - we have to switch everything off now, and convert to renewables instantly. It's a ridiculous notion.

You said we don't have a viable alternative - we do, but it's not viable for everybody, yet. It's about transitioning. So let's transition a little faster, especially with attitudes and mindsets. Get these damned conservative Govts bums off their hands. Get the deniers out of the way - sooner or later there'll be no choice but to change one's mind - the $$ involved will see to it, and the deniers will be dragged into renewables anyway. Commerce will see to that. It's only a matter whether it's too late or not by then.

I repeat - what do you call the immediate future?

Originally Posted by rwbuild

I really do fear for the future generations.

So do I Ray, but maybe for different reasons.

One day everyone still alive will understand what the urgency was all about. I share Alex's deep frustration at being held back by <20% of the population who have an unjustified fear of the unknown.

The Tony Abbots of this world remind me of the Russian Submarine Commander in The Hunt For Red October. So zealous was he to kill the Red October that his torpedo launch hit his own sub. Immediately before it hit the second in command said "You've killed US, you idiot".

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

That's the same sort of comment that came up from someone else (a Pollie I think) - we have to switch everything off now, and convert to renewables instantly. It's a ridiculous notion.

You said we don't have a viable alternative - we do, but it's not viable for everybody, yet. It's about transitioning. So let's transition a little faster, especially with attitudes and mindsets. Get these damned conservative Govts bums off their hands. Get the deniers out of the way - sooner or later there'll be no choice but to change one's mind - the $$ involved will see to it, and the deniers will be dragged into renewables anyway. Commerce will see to that. It's only a matter whether it's too late or not by then.

I repeat - what do you call the immediate future?

By immediate future I am suggesting perhaps 5 to 10 years who knows, it all depends on what technology we come up with to replace our current supply and how long it would take to implement. What is this viable alternative we have now you speak of?
You seem to have misunderstood my post, I am all for the transition to renewables and hope we can come up with a solution ASAP to replace coal but I am also a realist. The people who tout that they are running on green energy ( like Canberra is gloating about) is a nonsense and nothing but an accounting exercise unless you are off grid.
The first part of my post was about concentrating on the areas we can make a difference to now but that seems to have been missed.

Originally Posted by Beardy

By immediate future I am suggesting perhaps 5 to 10 years who knows

I deeply suspect that will be too late.

Originally Posted by Beardy

What is this viable alternative we have now you speak of?

Best read post #323 again.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I deeply suspect that will be too late.

Best read post #323 again.

Hopefully a solution is found quicker but I can’t imagine whatever it is it can be implemented quickly

I don’t know the details of Chris Parks setup but if he doesn’t have a battery I can only assume that he draws his power from the coal fired grid and sells the energy he collects back into the system? It might be a financially viable setup and that is great but it doesn’t solve the problem that we still have.