Meanwhile we're still voting in governments that don't believe in climate change and which fight tooth and nail to destroy any chance of addressing the problem. No worries giving endless buckets of taxpayer money to climate-denying farmers and coal plants, though.
Even those that believe in climate change seem to have a problem with naming overpopulation as a principle cause of the problem.
Australia’s Darling River is running dry
121–130 of 172 posts
Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Australia would be a net power exporting nation if they harnessed their solar and especially wind resources. The fact that they still burn coal is ridiculous and shameful.
To where and how? Electricity is not something you can export when your main grid is 5000km from your nearest neighbour
Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry
#123Meanwhile we're still voting in governments that don't believe in climate change and which fight tooth and nail to destroy any chance of addressing the problem. No worries giving endless buckets of taxpayer money to climate-denying farmers and coal plants, though.
The IPCC gave models to scientists that are necessarily missing part of the picture (namely, all energy from the sun that is not part of a specific EMR spectrum)[1], and then said "we have a consensus" when the scientists came back with an inevitable conclusion. This resulted in the inevitable false attribution of human activity being the cause of [strike: global warming] climate change. To fully appreciate the gravi…
For example: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FI...
>"Solar forcing is the only known natural forcing acting to warm the climate over the 1951–2010 period but it has increased much less than WMGHG forcing, and the observed pattern of long-term tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is not consistent with the expected response to solar irradiance variations. Considering this evidence together with the assessed contribution of natural forcings to observed trends over this period, it is assessed that the contribution from solar forcing to the observed global warming since 1951 is extremely unlikely to be larger than that from WMGHGs. Because solar forcing has very likely decreased over a period with direct satellite measurements of solar output from 1986 to 2008, there is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to global warming during that period. However, there is medium confidence that the 11-year cycle of solar variability influences decadal climate fluctuations in some regions through amplifying mechanisms. {8.4, 10.3; Box 10.2} "
So there are multiple avenues of evidence that conclude that solar forcing isn't the cause of the temperature increase. This includes direct measurements of "total solar irradiance" (TSI).
And the numbers at the bottom in brackets? Those are sources for the claims made in that paragraph!
10.3 and "Box 10.2": https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapt...
The above source even has an explanation for how the causes are determined: "FAQ 10.1 | Climate Is Always Changing. How Do We Determine the Causes of Observed Changes?"
Here is "8.4": https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapt...
>"Total solar irradiance (TSI) measured by the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on the spaceborne Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m–2 during 2008 (Kopp and Lean, 2011) which is ~4.5 W m–2 lower than the Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos (PMOD) TSI composite during 2008 (Frohlich, 2009).The difference is probably due to instrumental biases in measurements prior to TIM."
The don't rely on single measurements of "total solar irradiance" either.
> "Since 1978, several independent space-based instruments have directly measured the TSI. Three main composite series were constructed, referred to as the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) (Willson and Mordvinov, 2003), the Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium (RMIB) (Dewitte et al., 2004) and the PMOD (Frohlich, 2006) series. "
The above claim that "all energy from the sun that is not a part of a specific EMR spectrum" is missing when the conclusions were drawn is just plain wrong.
from 8.4:
>"Solar spectral irradiance (SSI) variations in the far (120 to 200 nm) and middle (200 to 300 nm) ultraviolet (UV) are the primary driver for heating, composition, and dynamic changes of the stratosphere, and although these wavelengths compose a small portion of the incoming radiation they show large relative variations between the maximum and minimum of the SC compared to the corresponding TSI changes. As UV heating of the stratosphere over a SC has the potential to influence the troposphere indirectly, through dynamic coupling, and therefore climate (Haigh, 1996; Gray et al., 2010), the UV may have a more significant impact on climate than changes in TSI alone would suggest. Although this indicates that metrics based only on TSI are not appropriate, UV measurements present several controversial issues and modelling is not yet robust.
Multiple space-based measurements made in the past 30 years indicated that UV variations account for about 30% of the SC TSI variations, while about 70% were produced within the visible and infrared (Rottman, 2006). "
It is correct that UV is only 30% of TSI. Hence why TSI was used to make conclusions about the impact of "solar forcing" on the climate instead of just UV.
The links I give are to just a couple sections of just one of the reports (the "physical science basis" one).
Here is the full "physical science basis" report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even those that believe in climate change seem to have a problem with naming overpopulation as a principle cause of the problem.
Because you can't reduce your population by any acceptable method and birth rates are below replacement levels in most parts of the world anyway.
Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
The IPCC gave models to scientists that are necessarily missing part of the picture (namely, all energy from the sun that is not part of a specific EMR spectrum)[1], and then said "we have a consensus" when the scientists came back with an inevitable conclusion. This resulted in the inevitable false attribution of human activity being the cause of [strike: global warming] climate change. To fully appreciate the gravi…
The IPCC report is massive with every single thing painstakenly cited, sourced and explained. For example: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FI... >"Solar forcing is the only known natural forcing acting to warm the climate over the 1951–2010 period but it has increased much less than WMGHG forcing, and the observed pattern of long-term tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is not con…
TSI stands for total solar irradiance. This is the EMR spectrum I’m referring to. If you continue to read the report from the IPCC, you will notice there is no mention of energetic particle precipitation (EPP), or any particle forcing of any kind.
So yes, the IPCC report is extraordinarily thorough and exactly perfect in everything that it purports to be; unfortunately it completely leaves out the largest part of the equation. Please see my analogy above.
Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry
#126Australia has plentiful uranium reserves, relatively dry climate, a well-educated population, and huge amounts of empty space. Seems tailor made for nuclear powered desalinization.
A few words changed/added and we have solutions that have a bunch of advantages:
- Lower cost (startup and running)
- Faster to deploy (Tapping existing production streams)
- Ability to scale more easily based on regional needs (while most of the population live near the coast, there's still a significant population that live inland who are most at risk from water shortages. There's not a national grid that covers everyone)
- More acceptable to our regional neighbours (Australia using Nuclear power tech that can be pivoted to produce Nuclear weapons would likely trigger our neighbours to also have this ability)
- More acceptable to the locals that have to live near it
- Safer (both a direct operational safety aspect, but also less likely to trigger regional conflict)
- Can be deployed close to/in existing cities and opportunity for dual-use sites (eg solar ontop of buildings, carparks; wind in existing farm fields) with minimal negative impact, and possibly positive impacts for land-owners.
Why pick Nuclear when it'll take decades to deploy, cost far more and piss off our neighbours?
Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry
#127Australia has plentiful uranium reserves, relatively dry climate, a well-educated population, and huge amounts of empty space. Seems tailor made for nuclear powered desalinization.
Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
To where and how? Electricity is not something you can export when your main grid is 5000km from your nearest neighbour
Typically power is exported by smelting aluminum from bauxite. A big advantage of doing it this way is you can run the smelters only when there is an overproduction of power to help even out demand on the grid.
Good power sources: hydro, geothermal. Which is why we see smelters in places with hydro and geothermal.
Australia should go nuclear. Plenty of places to put plants. A dozen plants would generate all the electricity they need and they can stop burning coal.
Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that fixing climate change requires poor life quality for people in Western countries? Is poor life quality in the West going to stop worldwide deforestation somehow?
No, why? Not poor, but maybe involving using cars/tech items for longer times or spend more on locally grown food leaving less for vacation flights etc.
What does "opposite" mean in your comment then, exactly?
Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry
#130If only it was somehow possible to charge more for water, so that people would use less.
I heard that most water consumption comes from farming and industry use and that personal use is only a very small percent of global water use. It seems that industries and farmers see water as a nearly free resource and have no problem drying up water supplies. The avocado industry is an example of an industry that through greed has contributed to many ecological problems.
We produce more food that we use, and the food we consume is so processed it is killing us.
I am not optimistic about man's will to change.