Climate Change

As for a cold Antarctica, you do of course realise that trapping heat in the atmosphere will not just make everything more warm but rather add energy to global climate systems, increasing their extremes in both directions (hot and cold)?

Did a bit of Thermodynamics during my University days, and it was pretty well acknowledged that adding energy to a system....by definition....heated it up.

I don't recall one item in existence, no matter what molecule, gets colder when you add energy to it.

Things get colder in the extreme when you add energy to it.....I don't buy it.
 
Things get colder in the extreme when you add energy to it.....I don't buy it.

I know it seems counter intuitive to us engineers but heat drives all the world's climate systems - for example both high pressure and low pressure systems at the most basic. Add more energy into the mix and both types of pressure systems get more intense. Increase the intensity of a low pressure system and it gets colder. Decrease the North Atlantic Drift and Western Europe definitely gets colder. Similar effects are likely for other cycles like La Nina / El Nino, which is so important for Australia.

This is also relevant for example in cyclones / typhoons / hurricanes (whatever we choose to call them), which are driven by sea water temperature, given that it's the the ocean where a lot of this heat has been ending up so far.
 
Did a bit of Thermodynamics during my University days, and it was pretty well acknowledged that adding energy to a system....by definition....heated it up.

I don't recall one item in existence, no matter what molecule, gets colder when you add energy to it.

Things get colder in the extreme when you add energy to it.....I don't buy it.
So a fridge gets hotter by adding energy to the system?

Some bits get hotter,some colder.
 
So a fridge gets hotter by adding energy to the system?

You're being facetious Geoff. A fridge is not a molecule.

Look up how a fridge works at a heat transfer level and how it actually works.

These supercilious "like examples" that your brigade keep throwing into the conversation do your cause no good with the common man.

Suffice to say, despite the number of posts, no resolution or agreement has been reached....and I'm yet to read of even one, not a solitary one, member agreeing that at the start of thread their opinion was one way and now after the thread they have completely changed their opinion.

End result of thread.....as always.....nil.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The earth is not a molecule either. It is a system. The system as a whole can heat up while parts of it cool down. The climate change scientists say that increased heat into the system will change the extremes of heat and cold.

End result of thread.....as always.....nil.
Just like any thread on politics. But people still like to express their opinions. We only shut those down when things start to get nasty.

The other climate change thread shutdown was prompted by bad behaviour from a climate change supporter.
 
The fact that CO2 is transparent to visible light and absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation is very well proven. Do you dispute it?

This (along with the other GHGs in the atmosphere with the same properties) is the only reason that can explain why the planet remains as warm as it currently is, rather than dropping to something like -40C, which would happen if GHGs didn't exist at all and no heat was trapped in the atmosphere. Do you dispute that?

The amount of GHGs in the atmosphere over the known life of the earth is very well correlated to its temperature. Do you dispute that?

If no to the above, then what do you expect to be the effect of increasing the concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere, as we are clearly doing, given there are no man made sources of GHG absorption...

As for a cold Antarctica, you do of course realise that trapping heat in the atmosphere will not just make everything more warm but rather add energy to global climate systems, increasing their extremes in both directions (hot and cold)? Or slow down key global weather systems such as the North Atlantic drift, responsible for the relative warmth of Western Europe, thereby making that part of the world colder rather than hotter?

Thought it was well understood that CO2 concentration follows temperature.
 
Thought it was well understood that CO2 concentration follows temperature.

There was a reason I worded it in that way...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html

While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, other changes are involved in the glacial climate, including altered vegetation, land surface characteristics, and ice-sheet extent.
 
haven't read the majority of the thread, I assumed you were using the historical CO2 measurements and temperature as a proof of the effect of GHG's, aka the Al Gore example which is clearly incorrect.

Just to clarify, the fact that temperature drops can cause GHG drops is not evidence against the fact that GHG rises can cause temperature rises.
 
So, why have we got a CO2 tax then?

In Australia, the Carbon Tax was never going to have any significant change to the climate. I'm not sure if the govt ever made that claim. But many commentators incorrectly asserted that this was its only purpose and it was totally obvious that it would have a negligible global effect.

The carbon tax was there primarily to change the Australian economy. The govt was getting us ready for the massive global change that was to come, rather than play catch up we could be ahead of the curve and this would be a massive advantage to Australia. Also, it allowed us to show some moral leadership, and encourage other countries to follow our lead.
 
In Australia, the Carbon Tax was never going to have any significant change to the climate. I'm not sure if the govt ever made that claim. But many commentators incorrectly asserted that this was its only purpose and it was totally obvious that it would have a negligible global effect.

The carbon tax was there primarily to change the Australian economy. The govt was getting us ready for the massive global change that was to come, rather than play catch up we could be ahead of the curve and this would be a massive advantage to Australia. Also, it allowed us to show some moral leadership, and encourage other countries to follow our lead.
I am not a Politics follower, but I'm sure the purpose was to;
a) Tax the "greedy b2stard Mining Companies" and therefore win votes...looking after the Aussie Battler.
b) Try to stop the world from bursting into flames; resulting in flooding out our homes when the ice disappears along with the polar bears, and therefore win more votes.

I'll await Dazz's reply for the Official reason on what the purpose of the CT was/is - from one who actually knows.

The carbon tax was there primarily to change the Australian economy.
Change it from what, to what? :confused:
 
I am not a Politics follower, but I'm sure the purpose was to;
a) Tax the "greedy b2stard Mining Companies" and therefore win votes...looking after the Aussie Battler.
b) Try to stop the world from bursting into flames; resulting in flooding out our homes when the ice disappears along with the polar bears, and therefore win more votes.

I'll await Dazz's reply for the Official reason on what the purpose of the CT was/is - from one who actually knows.

Change it from what, to what? :confused:

The carbon tax relates to this thread. The mining tax (which hasn't raised any significant revenue) would be off topic.

Both side of politics have unconditionally committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 5 per cent below 2000 levels by the end of 2020 as a minimum target.

So the argument has been about how to achieve that.
Labor wanted to introduce an emissions trading scheme.
However as a result of the hung parliament Labor negotiated a deal whereby in return for forming Government one of the things they agreed to was setting up a multi party committee on carbon pricing. The Coalition were invited to be part of that process but declined.
The reason we ended up with a Carbon tax is because at the time of introduction overseas permits were trading at a very low price (due to oversupply).
The committee decided that a period of time should be set where the permits would have a set price before transitioning to market pricing thus providing an incentive for companies to reduce green house gas emissions.
This set price became known as a carbon tax.

The Coalition propose a different way of achieving the Carbon reduction targets
The crux of their scheme involves a fund of money that would bid for certificates from polluters in a reverse auction process.
So if a business reduces it's emissions below a predetermined baseline they will be able to sell that reduction at tender.
It's unclear, however what happens if a business exceeds that cap.
Whether they will be financially punished or not. If they are financially punished then it will be a tax by another name. They would presumably pay into the fund or buy permits at the going rate.

The basic overall premise is to transition to a low carbon economy which for those who believe in there being deleterious repercussions of increasing CO2 into the atmosphere would equate to sustainable economies.
 
I am not entering the political or scientific debate as I know little about either and am just happy to "do my lot" on my own plot of dirt.

However, if directional change in economy to reduce reliance on carbon fuels is what the government is after then why are they pouring billions into failed car manufacturing instead of using the money for research and development into things like solar roof paint or long life battery electric cars or biofuel made from kitchen scraps or ...

Instead, as an example, one of the largest manufacturer of solar panels in China originally came from Australia but moved his business due to government red tape and lack of assistance. I can't remember the name off the top of my head as it was 2-3 years ago when we had a different brand installed.
 
Instead, as an example, one of the largest manufacturer of solar panels in China originally came from Australia but moved his business due to government red tape and lack of assistance. I can't remember the name off the top of my head as it was 2-3 years ago when we had a different brand installed.
I remember seeing a similar scenario on a docco about a broom manufacturer who moved from Aus to China.

He was having a bit of a laugh about how the employees wanted 7 day work weeks or they wouldn't work for him...wanted to work loads and make more.

They even wanted onsite accommodation - he was happy to provide it too.

Good luck getting that work ethic here in Aus...and good luck getting a Union to let them.

Try and get a tradie onsite after 3.00pm most days, and after midday on a Fri, for eg....and there is more.
 
Instead, as an example, one of the largest manufacturer of solar panels in China originally came from Australia but moved his business due to government red tape and lack of assistance. I can't remember the name off the top of my head as it was 2-3 years ago when we had a different brand installed.

Might be Sam Yang who studied economics at Macquarie University in NSW and co-founded Suntech.
Or co-founder Shi Zhengrong who researched the technology at the University of NSW.

Currently solar panel makers are negotiating difficult times as they adjust to the problem of manufacturing oversupply.
They've joined those other industries that can't make profits for the same reason, like tv panel manufacturers and airlines.

Yang is anticipating the next research breakthrough which he thinks will be a game changer, cost efficient energy storage.


http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/interview-hareon-ceo-sees-50gw-solar-in-china-within-years-17209
Quote Yang:

And most importantly of all, he says, solar manufacturers must offer a 25-year warranty on their product. Solar panels must work for 25 years, Yang said, otherwise it is not a renewable product at all.

As for the technology to watch, it's energy storage which Yang finds really exciting. I believe that energy storage technology, like any other technology will have a breakthrough. I am curiously expecting that, Yang told RenewEconomy.

Once this breakthrough happens, he says, that would really be a total revolution of this energy. That means every family can have their own independent power supply, an outcome Yang believes would be particularly fortunate for countries like Australia.


Edit:
For those that may not know about Shi Zhengrong and may be interested.


When Shi Zhengrong was born to a destitute rural family in eastern China in 1963, his parents were so poor they gave him up for adoption. Forty years later, after founding Suntech, the solar-panel maker, he was one of China’s richest men and widely celebrated as one of the top green entrepreneurs in the world.

However, over the past six months the fortunes of Mr Shi have fallen.

Mr Shi, or “Dr Shi” as he is known to Suntech employees, has been largely forced out the company he founded and now stands to lose much of his fortune because of the bankruptcy proceedings at Suntech’s main subsidiary. The bankruptcy, announced on Wednesday, marked a milestone for the painful decline of the Chinese solar industry, which has been struggling to stem losses amid a glut of overcapacity.

An exceptionally gifted student, Mr Shi won a scholarship to the University of New South Wales in Australia in the late 1980s. After earning his PhD he joined one of the country’s top solar cell research groups.

After more than a decade in Australia, during which he acquired Australian citizenship, Mr Shi received an offer from local officials in Wuxi, a town in eastern China not far from where he was born.

“They said, we need a scientist like you to come here and be a boss,” Mr Shi recalled in a 2009 interview with Chinese television. “I’d never thought of myself as a boss before.”

But a boss he became. Using start-up capital provided by the government of Wuxi, Mr Shi founded Suntech in 2001. The company seemed unstoppable. When Mr Shi took Suntech public on the New York Stock Exchange in 2005, its share price rose 41 per cent on the first day of trading. Two years later, the stock price had leapt more than fivefold, making Mr Shi one of the richest men in China. By 2011, thanks to Suntech’s low-cost production and cheap financing, the company had become the world’s largest panel maker by sales.

However, as the global market for solar panels collapsed, Suntech’s high debt levels left it more exposed than its peers. The company’s fall has been almost as precipitous as its rise. At the end of March 2012, it had $1.6bn in net debt and reported a net loss of more than $1bn for the previous year. In September, it received a delisting warning from the New York Stock Exchange.

As Suntech struggled to turn round, Mr Shi was gradually pushed out of his roles at the company. In August he stepped down as chief executive and became chief strategy officer. In March, the board announced that it had also removed him as chairman and appointed someone else in his place. In a rare display of public acrimony, Mr Shi issued a statement saying that the board’s move was “unlawful” and that he was still chairman.

Since then, Mr Shi has largely disappeared from public view. The Shanghai Securities News, a prominent Chinese newspaper, reported on Friday that his movements were being restricted and that he was not allowed to leave the country pending an investigation related to his role at Suntech. Suntech declined to comment.

For China’s former solar star, there could be dark times ahead.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3647937a-92da-11e2-9593-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2lzKe4d16
 
Last edited:
Might be Sam Yang who studied economics at Macquarie University in NSW and co-founded Suntech.

Currently solar panel makers are negotiating difficult times as they adjust to the problem of manufacturing oversupply.
They've joined those other industries that can't make profits for the same reason, like tv panel manufacturers and airlines.

Yang is anticipating the next research breakthrough which he thinks will be a game changer, cost efficient energy storage.


http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/interview-hareon-ceo-sees-50gw-solar-in-china-within-years-17209
Quote Yang:

And most importantly of all, he says, solar manufacturers must offer a 25-year warranty on their product. Solar panels must work for 25 years, Yang said, otherwise it is not a renewable product at all.

As for the technology to watch, it's energy storage which Yang finds really exciting. I believe that energy storage technology, like any other technology will have a breakthrough. I am curiously expecting that, Yang told RenewEconomy.

Once this breakthrough happens, he says, that would really be a total revolution of this energy. That means every family can have their own independent power supply, an outcome Yang believes would be particularly fortunate for countries like Australia.

After 20 years, they close up business.
Problem solved.

Or do what everone else does...say it customer misuse of the product.
 
I saw this:
Forty years later, after founding Suntech, the solar-panel maker, he was one of China?s richest men

Then this:
The company?s fall has been almost as precipitous as its rise. At the end of March 2012, it had $1.6bn in net debt

Doesn't make sense; if he was one of the Countrie's richest men, could he have put his personal wealth back into the Company to keep it afloat (as I have to do).

Or, was it that his wealth was really the Company wealth?
 
I think that in most cases, the only measurable way for an outsider to measure the wealth of an individual is to measure the value of their holding in a company.
 
I think that in most cases, the only measurable way for an outsider to measure the wealth of an individual is to measure the value of their holding in a company.
That was my suspicion too.

Mind you; you would think a billionaire would have access to a decent chunk of it through something else other than the Company...houses, boats, cash, etc.
 
Back
Top