So much for global warming

the major cause of carbon emmissions is humans. the planet is overpopulated as it is (imo) and until we can get the population explosions under control - mainly in developing countries as they tend to have a higher birth rate, with a decreasing death rate - then that will be a major step forward. and i am not against a limit on 1 or 2 children per family. perhaps two so that the current population is replaced only.

i also agree that not enough is being done to investigate/followthru with alternatives to coal fired electricity (or nuclear).

how many physical houses are there is australia? say, 8million. how much would it cost to install solar panels on each house? say, $5,000 (bulk discount). it would cost a total of $40,000,000,000 to install every house with solar ... possible. how much in carbon trading taxes are they expecting to raise? somewhere near that amount?
 
pieman,

Go to the Copenhagen Diagnosis web site and have a look at the report and the data...

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/default.html

Exactly what I reported in my earlier post is in this report, they ignore the increase in Antarctic sea ice, yet highlight the decrease in Arctic sea ice up to 2007, not 2008 or 2009. It is selective use of data. Lies damned lies and statistics.

My mind is open to data, full use of the data, not just the bits that seem to comply with a theory while ignoring other data that is relevant but overlooked.

bye
 
who here has a PHD in science, specifically one where the thesis centered around climatology, ecology, oceanography or glaciology???

No takers?? please, is there anyone??? Neither have I...
Well take a look at this publication and have a look at the contributing authors. No time, ok I've done a little research. The six I viewed have PHD's with focus on the above areas. Unless you clasiify your area of expertise as scientists in the above area, you should take a view this doc unless you would rather read "experts" in news pictorials.

http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf

Statements of interest include...
"By far the greatest part of the observed century-scale warming is due to human factors."
"There is no indication in the data of a slowdown or pause in the human-caused climatic warming trend."

"Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. The area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models."

"Current sea-level rise underestimated: Satellites show recent global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be ~80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets."

etc...

bill..''A few loose email comments by a couple of researchers does not bring down the central science of climate change.''
 
lizzie said:
how many physical houses are there is australia? say, 8million. how much would it cost to install solar panels on each house? say, $5,000 (bulk discount). it would cost a total of $40,000,000,000 to install every house with solar ... possible. how much in carbon trading taxes are they expecting to raise? somewhere near that amount?
Click to expand...

A very common misconception... but a $5000 solar power system (this would be 1000Watts) on your house would be LUCKY to produce 1000W of power at peak daylight hours, and overall will produce around 4kWh per day of electricity.
You couldnt even run your kettle off this solar power alone.

The current solar rebate scheme that everyone has been buying into is little more than a "supplement" to a household's electricity demands.

Your average house typically uses about 20kWh per day.

In sydney, the solar "peak sun hours" are 6 hours per day.
That means you would need around 3500-4000 watts of solar panels. In solar panels alone, that is over $10,000.

Then you need the inverter. A 4kW grid-tie inverter will cost around $5000.

Then you need power storage - otherwise what are you doing with the solar power that is being produced during the middle of the day when you arent home... and how are you using that power at night time?
You would need some LARGE batteries.... around 2600Ah at 24V should do it. That's another $10,000.

So all up.... $25,000 for panels, inverter and batteries. Add another $5000-10000 or more for other equipment and installation costs.

Then you have a $30,000-$35,000 bill.... and the house can virtually run off it's own power generation from the sun.
This doesnt take into consideration losses in efficiencies, necessary headrooms, etc etc.

Compare that to the power bill of that same 20kWh/day home: ~$350/qtr.

It will therefore take at least 25 years to re-coup your costs of solar vs mains electricity.



Current solar technology is simply FAR too expensive as a viable alternative. Even if you are comparing ex-factory costs of solar equipment versus retail costs of mains electricity (i know what the ex-factory costs of solar products are.... im in the business of importing them).

Wind is cheaper than solar... but is also unreliable and not really practical on a wide scale thanks to the large moving parts required.


Im not trying to knock your suggestion Lizzie.... just trying to highlight that most people dont quite understand how ineffective and inefficient the current government rebated solar power systems are.
 
pieman,

The document admits Antarctic sea ice is growing, yet there is a significant decrease in the west antarctic. This probably means that there is a significant increase somewhere else (but it doesn't go into those details).

Then it states the difference between the arctic that has land surrounding it, and Antarctica that has water surrounding it as significant. Elsewhere in the report is mention of an increase in seawater temperatures (including and especially the Southern Ocean).

Perhaps I am missing something, but an increase in seawater temperature would not lead to an increase in sea ice in the physics that I understand.

Too many inconsistencies, and just because someone has a Phd does not make them right if they cherry-pick the data they use.

bye
 
Antarctica is not cooling: it has warmed overall over at least the past 50 years. Although the weather station at the South Pole shows cooling over this period, this single weather station is not representative. For example, there is a warming trend at Vostok, the only other long-term monitoring station in the interior of the continent. Several independent analyses (Chapman and Walsh 2008; Monaghan et al. 2008; Goosse et al. 2009; Steig et al. 2009) show that on average, Antarctica has warmed by about 0.5°C since wide-scale measurements began in the 1957 International Geophysical Year, with particularly rapid warming around the Antarctic Peninsula region and over the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (Figure 14 shows the mean trend from 1957-2006). Furthermore, there is direct evidence from borehole measurements that warming in West Antarctica began no later than the 1930s (Barrett et al. 2009).
 
Bill.L said:
pieman,

The document admits Antarctic sea ice is growing, yet there is a significant decrease in the west antarctic. This probably means that there is a significant increase somewhere else (but it doesn't go into those details).

Then it states the difference between the arctic that has land surrounding it, and Antarctica that has water surrounding it as significant. Elsewhere in the report is mention of an increase in seawater temperatures (including and especially the Southern Ocean).

Perhaps I am missing something, but an increase in seawater temperature would not lead to an increase in sea ice in the physics that I understand.

Too many inconsistencies, and just because someone has a Phd does not make them right if they cherry-pick the data they use.

bye
Click to expand...

mmmm - i always thought that the shift in sea-ice formation east/west or north/south meant that one current on one side is colder than the other side....?

that proves nothing, other than water is fluid and moving.
 
Bill.L said:
The climate of the earth has always been changing, so a bit warmer here a bit cooler there over a couple of decades is to be expected, any concept of trying to 'do something' to keep the climate constant is irrational, it is just not possible.

bye
Click to expand...

Finally.

Well done Bill.

Amen (and I don't believe in god, jesus, allah et al) to that.
 
lol that reminded me of the flight of the concords episode where murray invests the band's cash on moon real estate.....funny funny show.


waaaaaaaaaaay OT....
 
pieman said:
Antarctica is not cooling: it has warmed overall over at least the past 50 years. Although the weather station at the South Pole shows cooling over this period, this single weather station is not representative. For example, there is a warming trend at Vostok, the only other long-term monitoring station in the interior of the continent. Several independent analyses (Chapman and Walsh 2008; Monaghan et al. 2008; Goosse et al. 2009; Steig et al. 2009) show that on average, Antarctica has warmed by about 0.5°C since wide-scale measurements began in the 1957 International Geophysical Year, with particularly rapid warming around the Antarctic Peninsula region and over the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (Figure 14 shows the mean trend from 1957-2006). Furthermore, there is direct evidence from borehole measurements that warming in West Antarctica began no later than the 1930s (Barrett et al. 2009).
Click to expand...

my cousin is studying in the antarctic as we speak. i might send him an email and see if this is actual or not.
 
yep - Turnbull is in strife.

I just hope the libs can get across the message to the public that they arent climate change skeptics, they are just realistic about what actual impact an ETS will have vesus how much it will cost average Joe voter.

Im glad that a few of them are standing up to say "this ETS is just going to cost our economy shedloads, and provide no significant change to our carbon emissions.... so why go ahead with it?"
Let hope the whole party can pull together with that one message.



LATEST NEWS: http://www.smh.com.au/national/hockey-makes-his-move-on-turnbull-20091127-jvgp.html

ABOUT BLOODY TIME!!!
 
hear hear.
ETS taxation is a danger to us all.
Never been a fan of the libs but they've won a few points with me if they scuttle this legislation.

Now let's see the politicians come up with a scheme to improve our carbon emissions without just imposing a new and ineffectual tax.

How about a bit of nation building with a rail and public transport network that actually encourages use by people rather than providing something that is a last resort.
 
it's going to be election time soon... what is the consensus? is Labor likely to return to power? as a Lib sorta guy I didn't really mind too much when Rudd got in, but I have been very disappointed. It really has been a do nothing govt. Apologise to aborigines, sign some cheques and back the banks. tick, off to the Lodge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Release equity and buy facebook shares
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
hobo-jo
hobo-jo
geoffw
AirBnB
Replies
9
Views
3K
Gargamel
G
D
10km CBD Rule Why?
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
Swearengen
Swearengen
see_change
Macrobusiness Bears -well meaning but ignores reality
Replies
9
Views
3K
see_change
see_change
Propertunity
Buyers back in shacks as flats fail to sell
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Peter Parker
Peter Parker
Back
Top