Skip to main content
Topic: Deer in the Headlights (Read 3763 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #180
Not sure they're culprits.

They're just doing what they have to do to make their country and people more prosperous.

Can't blame them for that. After all, we in the west did it for centuries to get where we've got today?
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #181
Not sure they're culprits.

They're just doing what they have to do to make their country and people more prosperous.

Can't blame them for that. After all, we in the west did it for centuries to get where we've got today?

Fly .. they're an economic and military super power.  They're being treated leniently when they are by far the biggest polluter on Earth (double the U.S.) and that is insane on any level. To kick us on a per capita basis is BS when the country simply can't sustain a bigger population so China is afforded emissions leniency.  Last time I looked China wasn't 35% desert but we are. 

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #182
Sure, and no one is going to get them to change their ways in our lifetimes!

Which only goes to support the idea that's it's bloody stupid for us here to do anything (even if you believe the climate change stuff)....
Finals, then 4 in a row!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #183
I heard a story about the Netherlands.

Apparently they turned off their nuclear plants to go green and focus on solar and wind.

Apparently they had to have coal powered backup to cover the shortfall in green technology.

On a side note building a giant solar farm comes with it's own environmental drawbacks.  Bird populations suffer due to radiation and reflection of said panels.

Nuclear appears to be the most environmentally friendly of all the options available provided there's no meltdown...
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #184
Nuclear appears to be the most environmentally friendly of all the options available provided there's no meltdown...
Not to mention Japan which is now building modern coal to supplement remaining nuclear, and it's turning nuclear plants back on slowly as are some of the European states as you mention. Two reasons seem to be primary concerns, reliability of energy supply and the unsubsidised ongoing cost of green energy. Green activists make claims that countries like Japan are addicted to nuclear, but that claim doesn't stack up as many of the same countries are actually providing the green energy innovation as well.

In fairness I don't think we can compare Three Mile Island or Chernobyl to a modern plant, and as much as screwushima(Cop this autocorrect mods, some activist is taking the piss!) Daiichi now presents some problems there may have been the odd external influence. Those old plants, the design, construction and location, are relics compared to modern plants. It's like comparing a Model-T Ford to a Tesla. But in fairness, even the situation with coal plants is pretty much the same, we talk about our Latrobe Valley facilities but these are dinosaurs compared to modern plants, the main difference being the old plants lack of ability to ramp production to meet demand, they are too slow to react so they leave them running wasting far too much resource. It's like leaving your car running overnight so it can ready to go at breakfast! In fairness nuclear plants are similar, they leave them idling 24x7, but they don't consume much resource or produce greenhouse gas in that state.
The Force Awakens!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #185
^^

Don't get me wrong, mother nature can and will cause a variety of unforseen circumstances, but screwushima is literally a freak act of nature that caused their problems.  If we dont do things because of the threat of mother nature, then realistically we may as well have remained in caves keeping the power off altogether.

The big question that I have that I have literally seen not one person talking about 13 pages about the environment is as follows:

Given what we understand about nature, and the fact that it is a well known fact that cloud seeding technology exists (yes we create the conditions which cause rain artificially read more here: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/cloud.htm) what piques my interest is whether or not this is a bigger factor towards climate change than anything else we can conceive.

What is the ongoing effect of seeding our own clouds on the overall environment?

Im led to believe that the world is a delicate eco system (studies show this is true of every environment that occurs naturally) so modifying one part of a natural cycle would only naturally lead to modifications that are both foreseen and unforseen wouldnt it?
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #186
Whist reading loads of stuff here and elsewhere re climate change v deniers I stumbled across this article/science (?) re climate change being a huge hoax. They actually gave us a satellite photo of how CO2 is greening the planet! The author of the article, Mike Adams, is widely quoted by deniers.

Anyway, here's the link to his shattering discoveries... the satellite photo (?) is great news for Namibia, our Gibson Desert, Nullabor... and how Alice Springs has changed... just to name a few who've benefitted from CO2 greening!!

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-12-climate-change-hoax-collapses-new-science-cloud-cover.html?fbclid=IwAR0qX_RvvgYn9yG-UQhRFuhoztDWtY6GRb7ZEY1QNxPQXtk2RArQsqIbfAY
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #187
Anyway, here's the link to his shattering discoveries... the satellite photo (?) is great news for Namibia, our Gibson Desert, Nullabor... and how Alice Springs has changed... just to name a few who've benefitted from CO2 greening!!

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-12-climate-change-hoax-collapses-new-science-cloud-cover.html?fbclid=IwAR0qX_RvvgYn9yG-UQhRFuhoztDWtY6GRb7ZEY1QNxPQXtk2RArQsqIbfAY
Yeah, I've read so many of these and they all follow the same pattern.

Most common is flipping cause and effect which breaks causality, the laws of thermodynamics or the flow of time. Generalisations of land based effects to global conditions, ignoring that land, ice and ocean behave differently and that the critical effects and influences of climate change on weather patterns is more than 90% contained in the sea and ocean.

They confuse or correlate broad scientific findings from astronomy(in this case the effects of low altitude cloud cover and albedo over land) and localised physics(land observations) with "climate science" which is land(~10%) and sea or ocean(~90%).

Finally, they cherry-pick data often from already disproved and/or non-peer reviewed papers often by non-climate specialists. Quite a good plain language critique of the linked Jyrki Kauppinen(A Finnish Physicist not a Climate Scientist) paper used as evidence in this article is contained here at the website Climate Feedback, there are lots of others floating around.

For the uninitiated, one of the biggest warning signs of a dodgy scientific paper is not being peer reviewed or published before peer review, a lack of declare sources of data and generalised starting conclusions that are unsupported by data or reference sources. The Kauppinen paper is loaded with them, for example Richard Betts found;
Quote from: Richard Betts
This document only cites 6 references, 4 of which are the authors’ own, and of these 2 are not actually published.
That self referencing is Kauppinen basically claiming it's that way because I said so, without providing any data or evidence! ::)
The Force Awakens!

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #188
I thought this topic was going to be ab out Paul Bowers or Simon Tregenza

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #189
I thought this topic was going to be ab out Paul Bowers or Simon Tregenza

 ^-^
Reality is when you stop believing in something it doesn’t go away.......

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #190
hi guys,

I know this is in the wrong thread but I am lost with the navigating side of the new site and don't know how or where to put it. 

I'm not the best computer wise and Im really struggling with the new layout and navigating side of things.  I've read the original posts regarding the update but just still find it too complicated for a dummy like me!

I could follow the old one as it had the rolling latest top 10 or so threads running on the right side so I just had to use that part and could get my forum fix quickly and easily without having to use the rest of the site but this new site doesn't seem to offer this.

Can anyway help me in real basic terms.....as im in fear I wont be able to use this one !!   


Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #191
Shawny
Probably the best way to get the 'quick fix' is to just click the "New posts" button at the top of the page.
It will display all the topics posted in since your last visit.
Click on the topic for instant access.
Once you get used to it it's much quicker than waiting for the scrolling thread to roll around to topics of interest.

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #192
Shawny
Probably the best way to get the 'quick fix' is to just click the "New posts" button at the top of the page.
It will display all the topics posted in since your last visit.
Click on the topic for instant access.
Once you get used to it it's much quicker than waiting for the scrolling thread to roll around to topics of interest.

Many thanks Lods.  Will give it a go 

Re: Deer in the Headlights

Reply #193
I heard a story about the Netherlands.

Apparently they turned off their nuclear plants to go green and focus on solar and wind.

Apparently they had to have coal powered backup to cover the shortfall in green technology.

On a side note building a giant solar farm comes with it's own environmental drawbacks.  Bird populations suffer due to radiation and reflection of said panels.

Nuclear appears to be the most environmentally friendly of all the options available provided there's no meltdown...

Hi Thry. 

The story is familiar, but I don't think it was the Netherlands (although they do have blackouts and need additional energy)
My quick research says that they built a few new coal plants ~2015, with some to be phased out by 2029.  They also have one nuclear plant, which was supposed to have the plug pulled, but it wasn't (commissioned to be operational to 2033).  There are possible plans to build another.  Their actual renewables is quite small.