https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/28/us/california-december-snow-record-drought-climate/index.html

The nearly 17 feet of snow in California's
Sierra Nevada is crushing records.


By Rachel Ramirez, CNN

Updated 0712 GMT (1512 HKT) December 29, 2021


https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/211228082941-02-winter-weather-california-122721-file-exlarge-169.jpg



(CNN)After months of extreme drought that triggered water shortages and stoked wildfires, heavy snow is falling in the Sierra Nevada -- enough to break decades-old records.
As of Tuesday, more than 202 inches of snow -- nearly 17 feet (5.2 meters) -- had fallen so far this month at the University of California, Berkeley's Central Sierra Snow Laboratory, at Donner Pass east of Sacramento.
Scientists at the lab said this month is now the snowiest December on record for the location and the third snowiest month overall. The top month was January 2017 when 238 inches (6 meters) fell, and it's not likely enough snow will fall in the next three days to challenge that record. Records here go back to 1970.
Lab officials said the snow was "deep and hard to get through," and it took them roughly 40 minutes to get to where the measurements are taken just 150 feet away from the lab's front door.

Heavy snow causes travel chaos in Japan

Issued on: 27/12/2021 - 07:30
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211227-heavy-snow-causes-travel-chaos-in-japan


Fcck OFF, Greta!!

Frank wrote on Dec 29^th, 2021 at 8:41pm:

Heavy snow causes travel chaos in Japan Issued on: 27/12/2021 - 07:30 https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20211227-heavy-snow-causes-travel-chaos-in-japan Fcck OFF, Greta!!

https://media.tenor.com/images/c3319a428ddf5c5a7a1478609bbf1bd9/tenor.gif

The good thing about Greta is that she shows a side of 'Adults' in this world who can't 'cope with children'.

Little Greta and her Friends around the world - scare the hell out of the Adults who are ruining this planet, rather than the ones who aren't.

Good on her for having a go.

Jasin wrote on Dec 29^th, 2021 at 9:18pm:

The good thing about Greta is that she shows a side of 'Adults' in this world who can't 'cope with children'. Little Greta and her Friends around the world - scare the hell out of the Adults who are ruining this planet, rather than the ones who aren't. Good on her for having a go.

Someone should bury her in 17 feet of snow.  ;D

Bobby. wrote on Dec 29^th, 2021 at 9:33pm:

Jasin wrote on Dec 29th, 2021 at 9:18pm: The good thing about Greta is that she shows a side of 'Adults' in this world who can't 'cope with children'. Little Greta and her Friends around the world - scare the hell out of the Adults who are ruining this planet, rather than the ones who aren't. Good on her for having a go. Someone should bury her in 17 feet of snow.  ;D

Just like Trump - she is a lightning rod that brings out all the evil, nasty and guilty people with her vulnerability - for the rest of the world to see.

Jasin wrote on Dec 29^th, 2021 at 9:45pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 29th, 2021 at 9:33pm: Jasin wrote on Dec 29th, 2021 at 9:18pm: The good thing about Greta is that she shows a side of 'Adults' in this world who can't 'cope with children'. Little Greta and her Friends around the world - scare the hell out of the Adults who are ruining this planet, rather than the ones who aren't. Good on her for having a go. Someone should bury her in 17 feet of snow.  ;D Just like Trump - she is a lightning rod that brings out all the evil, nasty and guilty people with her vulnerability - for the rest of the world to see.

She's just a kid who wouldn't know her arse from her elbow.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 29^th, 2021 at 9:33pm:

Jasin wrote on Dec 29th, 2021 at 9:18pm: The good thing about Greta is that she shows a side of 'Adults' in this world who can't 'cope with children'. Little Greta and her Friends around the world - scare the hell out of the Adults who are ruining this planet, rather than the ones who aren't. Good on her for having a go. Someone should bury her in 17 feet of snow.  ;D

https://i.imgur.com/8goZiAh.gif

Bobby. wrote on Dec 29^th, 2021 at 10:07pm:

She's just a kid who wouldn't know her arse from her elbow.

The ability to start a global movement -  aka "Fridays For Future" - would suggest otherwise.  Not to mention gaining speaking engagements at the UN.

I'm guessing you think the IPCC AGW climate science is nonsense?

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 11:59am:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 29th, 2021 at 10:07pm: She's just a kid who wouldn't know her arse from her elbow. The ability to start a global movement -  aka "Fridays For Future" - would suggest otherwise.  Not to mention gaining speaking engagements at the UN. I'm guessing you think the IPCC AGW climate science is nonsense?

It's just a cult of personality.
A young kid giving the old people harsh words
and the public go along for the ride.

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 11:59am:

The ability to start a global movement -  aka "Fridays For Future" - would suggest otherwise.

I prefer the kids who start their own non-profits or charities. At least they are useful. Greta is merely "famous" for her loud words. Scaring kids on that scale is mental abuse. And you blame AGW rather than AGW scare campaigns for kids failing mental health. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 11:59am:

Not to mention gaining speaking engagements at the UN.

That takes brains? Plenty of politicians get to do that; and they aren't known for brain power generally. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 11:59am:

I'm guessing you think the IPCC AGW climate science is nonsense?

Which climate science? The one that believe it negligible. The one that believes it beneficial? Or the one that believes it catastrophic? All are represented. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bobby. wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 12:19pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30th, 2021 at 11:59am: Bobby. wrote on Dec 29th, 2021 at 10:07pm: She's just a kid who wouldn't know her arse from her elbow. The ability to start a global movement -  aka "Fridays For Future" - would suggest otherwise.  Not to mention gaining speaking engagements at the UN. I'm guessing you think the IPCC AGW climate science is nonsense? It's just a cult of personality. A young kid giving the old people harsh words and the public go along for the ride.

1. You need to change "(she) wouldn't know her arse from her elbow". That's nonsense.

2. Can you state your views on the IPCC AGW issue?

Obviously related to the Greta Thunberg ("personality cult")......

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:06pm:

1. You need to change "(she) wouldn't know her arse from her elbow". That's nonsense.

So please show what SHE knows about climate science. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:07pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30th, 2021 at 1:06pm: 1. You need to change "(she) wouldn't know her arse from her elbow". That's nonsense. So please show what SHE knows about climate science. ;)

Probably less than me; however she believes in the IPCC consensus, and has started a global movement followed by billions of people. Amazing.

Unfortunately she thinks the science is irrefutable, and so she is outraged by the inaction of political leaders; whereas the real problem is orthodox market economics.      

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:16pm:

Probably less than me; however she believes in the IPCC consensus, and has started a global movement followed by billions of people.

And you have shown you know nothing. You quoted Edward Teller. I responded and then you lamely said you believed the IPCC. The same IPCC that says the Summary for Policy Makers is supreme to the science. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:16pm:

Unfortunately she thinks the science is irrefutable, and so she is outraged by the inaction of political leaders; whereas the real problem is orthodox market economics.

So now the "science" is refutable. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bobby. wrote on Dec 29^th, 2021 at 8:00pm:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/28/us/california-december-snow-record-drought-climate/index.html The nearly 17 feet of snow in California's Sierra Nevada is crushing records. By Rachel Ramirez, CNN Updated 0712 GMT (1512 HKT) December 29, 2021 https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/211228082941-02-winter-weather-california-122721-file-exlarge-169.jpg (CNN)After months of extreme drought that triggered water shortages and stoked wildfires, heavy snow is falling in the Sierra Nevada -- enough to break decades-old records. As of Tuesday, more than 202 inches of snow -- nearly 17 feet (5.2 meters) -- had fallen so far this month at the University of California, Berkeley's Central Sierra Snow Laboratory, at Donner Pass east of Sacramento. Scientists at the lab said this month is now the snowiest December on record for the location and the third snowiest month overall. The top month was January 2017 when 238 inches (6 meters) fell, and it's not likely enough snow will fall in the next three days to challenge that record. Records here go back to 1970. Lab officials said the snow was "deep and hard to get through," and it took them roughly 40 minutes to get to where the measurements are taken just 150 feet away from the lab's front door.

Parts of Japan are also experiencing catastrophic global warming  :'( :'( :'(

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/12/27/national/record-snowfall-west-japan-delays/

lee wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:23pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30th, 2021 at 1:16pm: Probably less than me; however she believes in the IPCC consensus, and has started a global movement followed by billions of people. And you have shown you know nothing. You quoted Edward Teller. I responded and then you lamely said you believed the IPCC. The same IPCC that says the Summary for Policy Makers is supreme to the science. ::)

Did you miss the point? Greta believes in the IPCC consensus which is driving the COP meetings. What I believe is not the issue.


Quote:

So now the "science" is refutable.

See above. The COP meetings are unstoppable. You lost the debate, regardless of the "(ir)-refutable"  science.

Frank wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:25pm:

Parts of Japan are also experiencing catastrophic global warming  :'( :'( :'( https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/12/27/national/record-snowfall-west-japan-delays/

https://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/2021-02-14-does-cold-weather-disprove-climate-change

It's possible that cold polar air is being circulated in unusual patterns, consistent with global warming; hence these local freezes. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:37pm:

Greta believes in the IPCC consensus which is driving the COP meetings.

She also believes she can see CO2, according to her mother. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:37pm:

The COP meetings are unstoppable.

Yay More snouts in the trough. More gatherings in exotic locations. More private jet flights to those exotic locations. "But this is serious I tell you". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:37pm:

You lost the debate, regardless of the "(ir)-refutable"  science.

Nope. Young public opinion is not debate. ::)

So all this time the alarmists have been saying the "science is settled" and it's not. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Remember 42.5% of German youth would do something (unquantified).

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:44pm:

It's possible that cold polar air is being circulated in unusual patterns, consistent with global warming; hence these local freezes.

You mean those "unusual" conditions that have occurred before AGW were also AGW? ;D ;D ;D

They have been known since the 1800's. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:44pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30th, 2021 at 1:37pm: Greta believes in the IPCC consensus which is driving the COP meetings. She also believes she can see CO2, according to her mother. ::)

oh dear, Lee descending into diversions and irrelevance (again) when he loses a debate.


Quote:

Yay More snouts in the trough. More gatherings in exotic locations. More private jet flights to those exotic locations. "But this is serious I tell you"

Undoubtedly "nice work if you can get it..."



Quote:

Nope. Young public opinion is not debate. ::)

The IPCC consensus is not "young public opinion ". You lose.


Quote:

So all this time the alarmists have been saying the "science is settled"

The IPCC have alarmed most of the world's citizens, and hence leaders who want to get re-elected; you lose.

Meanwhile Xi Jinping knows he has to clean up the poisonous fossil-caused smog ruining life in Chinese cities, so even he is on board. Ditto Modi in India.

lee wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:48pm:

You mean those "unusual" conditions that have occurred before AGW were also AGW? ;D ;D ;D

No , the unusual conditions that are breaking record cold temps in given localities, since industrialization began 


Quote:

They have been known since the 1800's. ;)

Yes.

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 2:03pm:

No , the unusual conditions that are breaking record cold temps in given localities, since industrialization began

So the LIA was in the midst of industrialisation? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:59pm:

oh dear, Lee descending into diversions and irrelevance (again) when he loses a debate.

Poor petal. You were the one that brought up what she believes. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:59pm:

The IPCC consensus is not "young public opinion ". You lose.

The IPCC is not debate. It is a closed club. Consensus is not debate; it is the antithesis of debate. You lose.


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:59pm:

The IPCC have alarmed most of the world's citizens, and hence leaders who want to get re-elected; you lose.

They have. Now all you have to do is show they are right. But you can't; you lose.


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 1:59pm:

Meanwhile Xi Jinping knows he has to clean up the poisonous fossil-caused smog ruining life in Chinese cities, so even he is on board. Ditto Modi in India.

They are building nuclear not solar or wind. You lose.

Meanwhile in Australia numpties want offshore wind turbines. And that in whale migration paths. I wonder what the infrasound will do to their location soundings. Sometimes greenies aren't green.

Greta never mentions this:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0

Thorium power could be a game changer.
Cheap, safe, unlimited power.
It would solve all our problems.
We wouldn't need to burn any fossil fuels.

That is the only way out that I can see.
It seems that only the Chinese and Indians are
making the massive investment required to do it.

lee wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 2:18pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30th, 2021 at 1:59pm: oh dear, Lee descending into diversions and irrelevance (again) when he loses a debate. Poor petal. You were the one that brought up what she believes.

You are the one saying what she believes is nonsense.


Quote:

The IPCC is not debate. It is a closed club. Consensus is not debate; it is the antithesis of debate. You lose.

The IPCC consensus is based on science, though refutable apparently. But the IPCC consensus has won the day. You lose.


Quote:

They have. Now all you have to do is show they are right. But you can't; you lose.

I don't have to do anything, the IPCC consensus has won the day around the entire world, further global course of action to be decided at the next COP, you lose.


Quote:

They are building nuclear not solar or wind. You lose.

They are building all three at a faster rate than any other country in the world.


Quote:

Meanwhile in Australia numpties want offshore wind turbines. And that in whale migration paths. I wonder what the infrasound will do to their location soundings. Sometimes greenies aren't green.

Nice to see your concern for whales. Technology can deal with those problems (eg, are whales blind? sonar devices? etc)

Bobby. wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 2:40pm:

Greta never mentions this: https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0 Thorium power could be a game changer. Cheap, safe, unlimited power. It would solve all our problems. We wouldn't need to burn any fossil fuels. That is the only way out that I can see. It seems that only the Chinese and Indians are making the massive investment required to do it.

China and India have nearly 3 billion people between them, suffering under vast fossil smogs; so the investment is worthwhile.

Likely not economic in Oz (and does Oz have its own Thorium)?
As for Greta, she likely is concerned about the unsolved waste problem with current nuclear plants; and even Germany is closing its nuclear power plants (and Japan is ambivalent after the Fukushima tsunami disaster).   

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 2:44pm:

You are the one saying what she believes is nonsense.

So you agree with her that she can see CO2? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 2:44pm:

The IPCC consensus is based on science, though refutable apparently. But the IPCC consensus has won the day

But you were pontificating about the debate being won. Now you are saying it doesn't matter about debate. Consensus is more important. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 2:44pm:

I don't have to do anything, the IPCC consensus has won the day around the entire world, further global course of action to be decided at the next COP

Poor petal. They haven't done much in 26; how many will it take? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 2:44pm:

They are building all three at a faster rate than any other country in the world.

Wind and solar will only ever be at the periphery. You don't understand energy density at all. ::)

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 3:03pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 30th, 2021 at 2:40pm: Greta never mentions this: https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0 Thorium power could be a game changer. Cheap, safe, unlimited power. It would solve all our problems. We wouldn't need to burn any fossil fuels. That is the only way out that I can see. It seems that only the Chinese and Indians are making the massive investment required to do it. China and India have nearly 3 billion people between them, suffering under vast fossil smogs; so the investment is worthwhile. Likely not economic in Oz (and does Oz have its own Thorium)?

We have some of the largest Thorium reserves in the world.
It's mostly unused tailings from existing mines.

lee wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 3:07pm:

So you agree with her that she can see CO2? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Dunno, don't care. 


Quote:

But you were pontificating about the debate being won. Now you are saying it doesn't matter about debate. Consensus is more important. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That's right, apparently too subtle for you; IPCC consensus, meaning the AGW debate  - about which I'm agnostic - is won.   


Quote:

Poor petal. They haven't done much in 26; how many will it take? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Dunno, they will turn up, but.....depends on how ugly the climate becomes,  I suppose.....and the rate of fall in cost of renewables. 


Quote:

Wind and solar will only ever be at the periphery. You don't understand energy density at all. ::)

I understand Oz could power itself many times over with solar/wind + pumpedhydro storage + smart grid, including interconnection to Tasmania as the nation's battery.

https://www.hydro.com.au/clean-energy/battery-of-the-nation

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 2:44pm:

Nice to see your concern for whales. Technology can deal with those problems (eg, are whales blind? sonar devices? etc)

Technology can give the whales the sonar to see past the structures? Have you noticed where whales eyes are on the head? Did you know whales apparently can't see more than about 12m? So what does that tell you about their sonar?

perhaps you want to fit earmuffs. ;D ;D ;D ;D

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 3:26pm:

Dunno, don't care.

oh dear. You lost.


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 3:26pm:

That's right, apparently too subtle for you; IPCC consensus, meaning the AGW debate  - about which I'm agnostic - is won.

The science is settled then. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 3:26pm:

I understand Oz could power itself many times over with solar/wind + pumpedhydro storage + smart grid, including interconnection to Tasmania as the nation's battery.

Tasmania as Australia's battery? You didn't know they had to ration power because of trying to supply too much?  That they had to import electricity?  ::)

Bobby. wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 3:09pm:

We have some of the largest Thorium reserves in the world. It's mostly unused tailings from existing mines.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/advanced-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

Development - thorium or uraniun - seems painfully slow. (The above article was updated in 2021).

Too expensive? (except in China?)  Or the fossil industry is hindering R&D? Or politics (eg, fear of waste, and plutonium  in bombs) is a barrier?

lee wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 3:39pm:

oh dear. You lost.

Life's too short for me to train you to think clearly :-( 
See you at the next COP. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 4:02pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 30th, 2021 at 3:09pm: We have some of the largest Thorium reserves in the world. It's mostly unused tailings from existing mines. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/advanced-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx Development - thorium or uraniun - seems painfully slow. (The above article was updated in 2021). Too expensive? (except in China?)  Or the fossil industry is hindering R&D? Or politics (eg, fear of waste, and plutonium  in bombs) is a barrier?

Thorium is turned into Uranium-233 not Plutonium 239.
That already makes it much safer than a Uranium reactor.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233

Uranium-233 is produced by the neutron irradiation of thorium-232.

While it is thus possible to use uranium-233 as the fissile material of a nuclear weapon,
speculation[10] aside, there is scant publicly available information
on this isotope actually having been weaponized:

.

---

A snowflake hit my forehead so there can't be climate change!

I notice no-one is willing to say what they think this 17 feet of snow means. Why is that? Do you already know you are lying?

climate "skeptics" lie: snowfall vs temperature

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1616292923

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2021 at 7:56am:

I notice no-one is willing to say what they think this 17 feet of snow means. Why is that? Do you already know you are lying? climate "skeptics" lie: snowfall vs temperature https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1616292923

That is a good point -
higher temperatures will cause more humidity over the ocean
and that in turn can dump more snow when that air cools down over land.

freediver wrote on Dec 31^st, 2021 at 7:56am:

I notice no-one is willing to say what they think this 17 feet of snow means.

it means it is weather. You know that chaotic thing that can't be modelled. ;)

Edit: "snow will be a thing of the past" "Children will not know what snow is". - David Viner Climate expert.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 31^st, 2021 at 9:07am:

higher temperatures will cause more humidity over the ocean and that in turn can dump more snow when that air cools down over land.

precipitation is not necessarily snow.

lee wrote on Dec 31^st, 2021 at 11:52am:

freediver wrote on Dec 31st, 2021 at 7:56am: I notice no-one is willing to say what they think this 17 feet of snow means. it means it is weather. You know that chaotic thing that can't be modelled. ;) Edit: "snow will be a thing of the past" "Children will not know what snow is". - David Viner Climate expert.

Have you proven David wrong?

lee wrote on Dec 31^st, 2021 at 12:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 31st, 2021 at 9:07am: higher temperatures will cause more humidity over the ocean and that in turn can dump more snow when that air cools down over land. precipitation is not necessarily snow.

But might be....? 

freediver wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2022 at 8:24am:

Have you proven David wrong?

Well he did say "in a few years" when he said it in 2000. I guess his few years is not. ;)

I will let you decide what "a few years" is. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

AiA wrote on Dec 30^th, 2021 at 11:47pm:

A snowflake hit my forehead so there can't be climate change!

Who was the snowflake who hit you? ::)

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2022 at 3:14pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 2nd, 2022 at 8:24am: Have you proven David wrong? Well he did say "in a few years" when he said it in 2000. I guess his few years is not. ;) I will let you decide what "a few years" is. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So the only reason you lot have been carrying on about snowfall is because of some obscure comment from a scientist from 20 years ago?

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 10:21am:

So the only reason you lot have been carrying on about snowfall is because of some obscure comment from a scientist from 20 years ago?

But according to the meme we should listen to "climate scientists" because they KNOW. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 11:56am:

But according to the meme we should listen to "climate scientists" because they KNOW.

...."(don't) know"? whereas of course you DO know.....

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:01pm:

lee wrote on Jan 3rd, 2022 at 11:56am: But according to the meme we should listen to "climate scientists" because they KNOW. ...."(don't) know"? whereas of course you DO know.....

oh dear thegreatdivide is back. like a pimple on the a*se.

So tell us what you know about precipitation. What are its forms?

So what do you want me to tell you about Climate. We know you you agree with the IPCC and AGW. Although strangely you then go on to describe yourself as an agnostic on AGW. A doubtful believer. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The IPCC famously said in 1991 - "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

I doubt the climate has differed from that.

I know what Exxon knew, what scientists generally knew. ;)

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 11:56am:

freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2022 at 10:21am: So the only reason you lot have been carrying on about snowfall is because of some obscure comment from a scientist from 20 years ago? But according to the meme we should listen to "climate scientists" because they KNOW. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So what is your point? That even when you are shooting fish in a barrel, you miss?

Why do you need to post about snow in California to prove that he was wrong about snow in England?

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:10pm:

oh dear thegreatdivide is back. like a pimple on the a*se. So tell us what you know about precipitation. What are its forms?

Like I said, you only prove you are incapable of thinking clearly. What I know about climate science is immaterial,  whereas the IPCC AGW climate change  consensus IS significant, leading to an agreed plan for global COP meetings to deal with this consensus.

Meanwhile you are the one claiming you KNOW the IPCC AGW climate-change consensus is wrong. 


Quote:

So what do you want me to tell you about Climate. We know you you agree with the IPCC and AGW. Although strangely you then go on to describe yourself as an agnostic on AGW. A doubtful believer

See...you can't think clearly. I've already explained umpteen times I'm agnostic  - have an open mind on AGW:  my interest is in eliminating the filthy, poisonous fossil industry, whereas your interest is in supporting the filthy, poisonous fossil industry because you "KNOW" AGW science is wrong....but feel free to tell why you are really determined to defend the filthy fossil industry and its overpriced products... Certainly we could easily close more than 50% of the fossil industry down in under a decade, with present technology. The Pilbara and Snowy 2.0 are beckoning.


Quote:

The IPCC famously said in 1991 - "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." I doubt the climate has differed from that. I know what Exxon knew, what scientists generally knew. ;)

You "doubt"? I thought you 'knew'.......

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:39pm:

What I know about climate science is immaterial,  whereas the IPCC AGW climate change  consensus IS significant, leading to an agreed plan for global COP meetings to deal with this consensus.

Consensus is about politics not science. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:39pm:

Meanwhile you are the one claiming you KNOW the IPCC AGW climate-change consensus is wrong.

Actually no one knows. AGW is certainly not as bad as posited. Remember all those things underpinning the CONSENSUS? It could be largely beneficial, it could be somewhat bad or it could be catastrophic. They are all there - so just what is the consensus on AGW?  Why do the IPCC use so many models if there is a consensus? Logically only one model can be right. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:39pm:

I've already explained umpteen times I'm agnostic  - have an open mind on AGW:  my interest is in eliminating the filthy, poisonous fossil industry, whereas your interest is in supporting the filthy, poisonous fossil industry because you "KNOW" AGW science is wrong....but feel free to tell why you are really determined to defend the filthy fossil industry and its overpriced products..

And yet your arguments show you NOT to be agnostic. Merely paying lip service to agnosticism. ::)

Where have I defended fossil fuels. They exist. They have given the whole world and increase in the ability to remain in one place. The ability to study after dark. The ability for hospitals etc to operate 24 hours. But you want them banned so that countries that don't have that wealth of product can advance. Neocolonialism at best.


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:39pm:

Certainly we could easily close more than 50% of the fossil industry down in under a decade, with present technology.

Rubbish. Show me your timeline.

Nuclear is a good option. But there are too many nimbys.


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:39pm:

You "doubt"? I thought you 'knew'.......

No I don't. But tell us how the climate has changed in that now it can be modelled. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:11pm:

Why do you need to post about snow in California to prove that he was wrong about snow in England?

It is supposed to be Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming.  ::)

.

---

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 1:10pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2022 at 12:11pm: Why do you need to post about snow in California to prove that he was wrong about snow in England? It is supposed to be Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming.  ::)

Are you trying to say something about snowfall Lee? Why are you afraid to actually say it? Does it look too stupid, even for you, when you write it down?

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 2:35pm:

Are you trying to say something about snowfall Lee?

No petal. Snow is a form of precipitation. Or  do you disagree? ;)

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 1:08pm:

Actually no one knows. AGW is certainly not as bad as posited. Remember all those things underpinning the CONSENSUS? It could be largely beneficial, it could be somewhat bad or it could be catastrophic. They are all there - so just what is the consensus on AGW?  Why do the IPCC use so many models if there is a consensus? Logically only one model can be right. ::)

Ask the IPCC; but logic is not your strong suit, as the following proves.


Quote:

And yet your arguments show you NOT to be agnostic. Merely paying lip service to agnosticism. ::)

  See? You turn my dislike of the fossil industry into "paying lip service to agnosticism". Pathetic inability to think clearly. 


Quote:

Where have I defended fossil fuels. They exist. They have given the whole world and increase in the ability to remain in one place. The ability to study after dark. The ability for hospitals etc to operate 24 hours. But you want them banned so that countries that don't have that wealth of product can advance. Neocolonialism at best.

Fossils are poisonous, environmentally disastrous (which is why heavily populated India and China want to get rid of them, in order to breathe clean air) and obsolete.


Quote:

Rubbish. Show me your timeline.

I'll let the engineers in the room laugh at you.


Quote:

Nuclear is a good option. But there are too many nimbys.

Not in China and India; but nuclear need only be  small part of the energy mix (unless/until fusion is mastered).   


Quote:

No I don't. But tell us how the climate has changed in that now it can be modelled.

Oh dear, addressed above - hopefully for the last time: I'm agnostic...even if you keep claiming otherwise - a clear case study in ideology ruining your capacity for clear thinking.   

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 2:48pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2022 at 2:35pm: Are you trying to say something about snowfall Lee? No petal. Snow is a form of precipitation. Or  do you disagree? ;)

What do you think this thread is about? Climate "skeptics" being afraid to say what they are saying?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm:

Ask the IPCC; but logic is not your strong suit, as the following proves. Quote: And yet your arguments show you NOT to be agnostic. Merely paying lip service to agnosticism. Roll Eyes   See? You turn my dislike of the fossil industry into "paying lip service to agnosticism". Pathetic inability to think clearly.

poor petal. I can only go on what you post. And you are a good b arracker for AGW and the IPCC.


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm:

Fossils are poisonous, environmentally disastrous (which is why heavily populated India and China want to get rid of them, in order to breathe clean air) and obsolete.

Which is why China and India are building more coal plants. Much more power output than Solar or wind. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm:

I'll let the engineers in the room laugh at you.

Poor petal. Can't back up your own rubbish.


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm:

Not in China and India; but nuclear need only be  small part of the energy mix (unless/until fusion is mastered).

That's why China and India are building nuclear. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 5:03pm:

Oh dear, addressed above - hopefully for the last time: I'm agnostic...even if you keep claiming otherwise - a clear case study in ideology ruining your capacity for clear thinking.

You are the one that asked whether the climate has changed from being unable to be modelled. So obviously you, as usual, don't know. A complete bupkiss. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 12:39pm:

Quote: The IPCC famously said in 1991 - "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." I doubt the climate has differed from that. I know what Exxon knew, what scientists generally knew. Wink You "doubt"? I thought you 'knew'...

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 1:08pm:

No I don't. But tell us how the climate has changed in that now it can be modelled.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So  I ask again what about the climate has changed that it can now be modelled? ::)

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 6:03pm:

What do you think this thread is about?

It is about 17 feet of snow in Canada. Did you forget that?

Nothing in the OP about climate. And they say the records only go back to 1970. ;)

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 8:24pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 3rd, 2022 at 6:03pm: What do you think this thread is about? It is about 17 feet of snow in Canada. Did you forget that? Nothing in the OP about climate. And they say the records only go back to 1970. ;)

For someone with nothing to say about snowfall, you are posting an aweful lot Lee.

Would you like to tell us what you are trying to say, or have you not figured it out yet? Do you think Bobby got confused and thought California was in the UK, so he could finally disprove something someone said 20 years ago?

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 9:06pm:

For someone with nothing to say about snowfall, you are posting an aweful lot Lee.

I have said things. You question things. Why is that so hard to understand? ;D ;D ;D ;D


freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 9:06pm:

Do you think Bobby got confused and thought California was in the UK, so he could finally disprove something someone said 20 years ago?

Perhaps you need to consult bobby on that. Or get out your ouija board. ;)

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 8:21pm:

poor petal. I can only go on what you post. And you are a good barracker for AGW and the IPCC.

No, the problem is you can't think clearly, and can't read what I post. I can 'barrack'  for the AGW "religion" while at the same  time being agnostic, because the IPCC consensus  serves my purposes (ie, getting rid of fossils).


Quote:

Which is why China and India are building more coal plants. Much more power output than Solar or wind.

China is building solar/wind at a faster rate than any other country, but the increasing demand for energy is so great that coal,  still being  the easiest and cheapest option, is also still increasing (set to peak in 2030). 


Quote:

Poor petal. Can't back up your own rubbish.

I know a huge Pilbara solar/wind scheme was denied approval recently, for political, NOT engineering reasons.


Quote:

You are the one that asked whether the climate has changed from being unable to be modelled. So obviously you, as usual, don't know. A complete bupkiss.

Blimey, are you  losing your memory, as well as capacity to think clearly?
I don't give two hoots about climate modelling, as you well know. That's the remit of the IPCC.  (I noted your doubt about a 1991 IPCC comment, as in

Quote:

The IPCC famously said in 1991 - "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." I doubt the climate has differed from that. I know what Exxon knew, what scientists generally knew. Wink

Me? I don't really care, the AGW science is too complex to interest me, I just want to get rid of the filthy fossil industry ASAP.


Quote:

So  I ask again what about the climate has changed that it can now be modelled? ::)

See.... you apparently want to conduct the argument you have with the IPCC through me as a proxy. I'm not interested.

Quote:

I have said things.

You are yet to say something that makes sense. Why do you think snowfall in California disproves something someone said about snowfall in the UK 20 years ago?


Quote:

Perhaps you need to consult bobby on that. Or get out your ouija board.

Do you think it is some kind of mystery why climate "skeptics" keep getting worked up about snowfall?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 10:41pm:

No, the problem is you can't think clearly, and can't read what I post. I can 'barrack'  for the AGW "religion" while at the same  time being agnostic, because the IPCC consensus  serves my purposes (ie, getting rid of fossils).

Ah. So you are only along for the ride. No other reason. But you said you believe the science as espoused by the IPCC. ;)

"aha ...so I'm debating a climate denier; the science says there is a climate emergency, but let's move on.."


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 10:41pm:

China is building solar/wind at a faster rate than any other country, but the increasing demand for energy is so great that coal,  still being  the easiest and cheapest option, is also still increasing (set to peak in 2030).

Yes. New coal plant 73GW. New Wind 55GW. Still lagging Coal install. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 10:41pm:

I know a huge Pilbara solar/wind scheme was denied approval recently, for political, NOT engineering reasons.

Oh political?

"Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley last week dismissed the USD-36-billion (EUR 30.3bn) proposal on the grounds that it would have “clearly unacceptable impacts” on wetlands designated of international significance and migratory birds in the region."

Ecologists don't like the ecology when it's green power they want.

You want a global governance that won't impinge on the green dream. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 10:41pm:

Blimey, are you  losing your memory, as well as capacity to think clearly? I don't give two hoots about climate modelling, as you well know. That's the remit of the IPCC.  (I noted your doubt about a 1991 IPCC comment, as in Quote: The IPCC famously said in 1991 - "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." I doubt the climate has differed from that.

Wow. How to misrepresent something. They said the climate could not be modeeled; I said that I doubted the climate had changed that much; meaning it still was not possible to model. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2022 at 10:41pm:

See.... you apparently want to conduct the argument you have with the IPCC through me as a proxy. I'm not interested.

You are not interested in science. We know. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 8:14am:

Do you think it is some kind of mystery why climate "skeptics" keep getting worked up about snowfall?

You mean like you do with "hottest day evah"? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 12:33pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2022 at 8:14am: Do you think it is some kind of mystery why climate "skeptics" keep getting worked up about snowfall? You mean like you do with "hottest day evah"? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Is this FD? - no -  maybe Monk?

https://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/snow-storm_1_001.jpg

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 12:33pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2022 at 8:14am: Do you think it is some kind of mystery why climate "skeptics" keep getting worked up about snowfall? You mean like you do with "hottest day evah"? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I think there is a strong correlation between temperature and temperature Lee.

Do you think it is possible for climate "skeptics" to make a rational argument from this high snowfall event and they are just too simple to string the words together? A lot seem to have a go, but none seem to be able to complete the sentence. Would you like to help Bobby out, or are you struggling too?

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 2:35pm:

I think there is a strong correlation between temperature and temperature Lee.

How about Temperature "Hottest evah" and AGW ;)

How about temperature and snowfall?

Folks, for your entertainment tonight, meet Lee, the confused climate "skeptic". All you have to do to confuse him is ask him to explain what he is trying to say. He honestly has no idea. If you press him real hard, he'll ask you to tell him what he means.

Quote:

Would you like to help Bobby out?

I don't need any help -
in fact I can help others.

Poor petal. Can't understand plain Englisch (edit: sic if needed). ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bobby. wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 2:48pm:

Quote: Would you like to help Bobby out? I don't need any help - in fact I can help others.

Can you make a rational argument from this snowfall event Bobby? Or have climate skeptic numbers dwindled to a few remnants who are only capable of copying and pasting pictures?

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 3:05pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 4th, 2022 at 2:48pm: Quote: Would you like to help Bobby out? I don't need any help - in fact I can help others. Can you make a rational argument from this snowfall event Bobby? Or have climate skeptic numbers dwindled to a few remnants who are only capable of copying and pasting pictures?

Yes - it was very cold with record snowfall.
That is in direct contradiction of the predictions of Al Gore
any many other global warming alarmists who said
20 years ago or more -
that children would never see snow -
that the Arctic circle would be free of ice,
and that sea levels would rise flooding many countries.


Did you believe them?

Bobby. wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 5:19pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2022 at 3:05pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 4th, 2022 at 2:48pm: Quote: Would you like to help Bobby out? I don't need any help - in fact I can help others. Can you make a rational argument from this snowfall event Bobby? Or have climate skeptic numbers dwindled to a few remnants who are only capable of copying and pasting pictures? Yes - it was very cold with record snowfall. That is in direct contradiction of the predictions of Al Gore any many other global warming alarmists who said 20 years ago or more - that children would never see snow - that the Arctic circle would be free of ice, and that sea levels would rise flooding many countries. Did you believe them?

You have been banging on about snowfall for a decade now Bobby. Why are you only just now revealing why?

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 5:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 4th, 2022 at 5:19pm: freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2022 at 3:05pm: Bobby. wrote on Jan 4th, 2022 at 2:48pm: Quote: Would you like to help Bobby out? I don't need any help - in fact I can help others. Can you make a rational argument from this snowfall event Bobby? Or have climate skeptic numbers dwindled to a few remnants who are only capable of copying and pasting pictures? Yes - it was very cold with record snowfall. That is in direct contradiction of the predictions of Al Gore any many other global warming alarmists who said 20 years ago or more - that children would never see snow - that the Arctic circle would be free of ice, and that sea levels would rise flooding many countries. Did you believe them? You have been banging on about snowfall for a decade now Bobby. Why are you only just now revealing why?

It was mentioned many times in The new ice age thread.

here - 447 pages for you to read through:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464603949/0#0

It's in there somewhere.

All I can find is you claiming we get more snowfall because it is colder.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 5:49pm:

All I can find is you claiming we get more snowfall because it is colder.

Seek and ye shall find -
knock at the door of The new Ice age thread
and it shall be opened to you.

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 12:31pm:

Ah. So you are only along for the ride.

well... if you want to put it that way...ok...


Quote:

. But you said you believe the science as espoused by the IPCC.

Show me where I said that. I've been expressing  my agnosticism since day one.


Quote:

"aha ...so I'm debating a climate denier; the science says there is a climate emergency, but let's move on.."

Er, that's what agnostics do, ie "move on", so long as the science serves the purposes of getting rid of the filthy fossil industry ASAP.   As for your 100% denialism.....


Quote:

Yes. New coal plant 73GW. New Wind 55GW. Still lagging Coal install. ;)

...with CO2 emissions to peak in 2030.
But China is fiddling around with free market carbon pricing, like everyone else. China could do much better. I'm trying to wake the PBofC upto that fact. 


Quote:

Oh political? "Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley last week dismissed the USD-36-billion (EUR 30.3bn) proposal on the grounds that it would have “clearly unacceptable impacts” on wetlands designated of international significance and migratory birds in the region." Ecologists don't like the ecology when it's green power they want.

Yes,  political (and Greens  are not always consistent, true.... not my fault).


Quote:

You want a global governance that won't impinge on the green dream.

My views noted above; and btw Susan Ley rejecting the Pilbara scheme on environmental grounds is.....fishy..... her  real reason for rejecting the Pilbara scheme would informative.

The fact remains: the Pilbara is ripe for solar development and the engineers are ready to go. 


Quote:

Wow. How to misrepresent something. They said the climate could not be modeeled; I said that I doubted the climate had changed that much; meaning it still was not possible to model.

That happened because of  your continuing argument with the IPCC, using me as a proxy  (which is why I misread your "modelling" narrative). 

 So the IPCC have changed their mind on "modelling"? Take it up with them. I'm more interested  progress on Snowy 2.0, among other things.    


Quote:

You are not interested in science. We know.

oh dear, talk about "misrepresentation".  I'm very interested in the science behind development of EVs, smart grids, and nuclear fusion, inter alia.

As for climate science, I'll let you waste your time  arguing with the IPCC.... who have gained the attention of the whole scientific and non-scientific world .

See you at the next COP (but don't tell anyone I'm agnostic....I'll be there to check out all the latest renewables technology and plans for implementation of same).    

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 5:53pm:

As for your 100% denialism, I will quote freediver here: "Folks, for your entertainment tonight, meet Lee, the confused climate "skeptic". All you have to do to confuse him is ask him to explain what he is trying to say. He honestly has no idea. If you press him real hard, he'll ask you to tell him what he means."

Wow a numpty quoting another numpty. ;D ;D ;D ;D
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 5:53pm:

with CO2 emissions tp peak in 2030.

Nope. They have made clear that is an aspirational "goal". That is the "aim".

"At the 75th session of the UN General Assembly last month, Mr Xi declared that China will 'aim to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.' "

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-29/china-carbon-emission-massive-blackouts-power-supply-shortage/100497674


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 5:53pm:

My views noted above; and btw Susan Ley rejecting the Pilbara scheme on environmental grounds is.....fishy....taking advantage of Green's inconsistencies. Her  real reason for rejecting the Pilbara scheme would informative.

Too funny. You don't agree so it is "political". ;D ;D ;D

You were the one wanting global governance of things related to climate. That includes the environment. The environment is critical to climate. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 5:53pm:

So the IPCC have changed their mind on "modelling"?

Nope they still insist an averaging a plethora of models is better than getting rid of the bad ones. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 5:53pm:

As for climate science, I'll let you waste your time  arguing with the IPCC.... who have gained the attention of the whole scientific and non-scientific world .

Oh only for the attention? ;D ;D ;D ;D

BTW - you forgot this bit "aha ...so I'm debating a climate denier; the science says there is a climate emergency, but let's move on.."

And you couldn't even show a peer-reviewed paper that claimed that. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 6:13pm:

Wow a numpty quoting another numpty.

You jumped in too soon. I edited out the reference to another  poster's remarks (though they are certainly correct.)


Quote:

Nope. They have made clear that is an aspirational "goal". That is the "aim".

Correct; and China is the one country which sets and achieves its 5 year plans.


Quote:

"At the 75th session of the UN General Assembly last month, Mr Xi declared that China will 'aim to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.' "

 
And  they could achieve it much quicker if they abandon  Western market carbon-pricing BS. Might yet happen, I'm spreading the word....which is apparently stronger than the sword.... time will tell.  


Quote:

Too funny. You don't agree so it is "political".

It certainly ain't engineering, which is my point. If Ley wants to play Greenie, that is certainly funny. 


Quote:

You were the one wanting global governance of things related to climate. That includes the environment. The environment is critical to climate.

..see how confused you always  become? I want global governance related to free global electricity.


Quote:

Nope they still insist an averaging a plethora of models is better than getting rid of the bad ones.

again, see how confused you are...still wanting to argue your case through me as a proxy for the IPCC statements on climate models: YOU claimed the IPPC in 1991 said it's too difficult to model climate, and now YOU've  changed this to "averaging a plethora of models is better than..." something or other... (listen carefully), I DON'T CARE..   


Quote:

Oh only for the attention?

Correct, and regardless,  it's the consensus  attention which wins the day...like.... "look, the earth is flat, right..." (the consensus for a few thousand years). But in the case of climate science, the AGW consensus/attention might turn out to be right, in decades or less....


Quote:

And you couldn't even show a peer-reviewed paper that claimed that.

Your ongoing confusion: I don't have to show ANY papers relating to the IPCC or AGW,  stop using me as  a proxy for your dispute with the IPCC.  Whereas I am using the IPCC consensus for my own purposes (ie, getting rid of the filthy fossil industry).  How hard is that to understand? See you at the next COP.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 5:51pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2022 at 5:49pm: All I can find is you claiming we get more snowfall because it is colder. Seek and ye shall find - knock at the door of The new Ice age thread and it shall be opened to you.

In the past I have only ever seen you use snowfall as a proxy for temperature.

Have you changed your mind about the link between snowfall and temperature?

Why did you wait until 5 pages into the discussion to tell people what the point of your thread was?

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 9:57pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 4th, 2022 at 5:51pm: freediver wrote on Jan 4th, 2022 at 5:49pm: All I can find is you claiming we get more snowfall because it is colder. Seek and ye shall find - knock at the door of The new Ice age thread and it shall be opened to you. In the past I have only ever seen you use snowfall as a proxy for temperature. Have you changed your mind about the link between snowfall and temperature? Why did you wait until 5 pages into the discussion to tell people what the point of your thread was?

To me - record snow does mean cold temperatures.

It was very cold with record snowfall.
That is in direct contradiction of the predictions of Al Gore
any many other global warming alarmists who said
20 years ago or more -
that children would never see snow -
that the Arctic circle would be free of ice,
and that sea levels would rise flooding many countries.


Did you believe them?

Quote:

To me - record snow does mean cold temperatures.

Cold relative to what?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2022 at 9:43pm:

I DON'T CARE..

Then piss off out of environment then if you are not interested. ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2022 at 8:30am:

Quote: To me - record snow does mean cold temperatures. Cold relative to what?

Colder than yesterday.




https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-59876423

Snowbound in Virginia traffic for over 10 hours

Nigel Hammett was on a bus to Atlanta, Georgia, when he fell asleep in traffic. He woke to find the bus in the same spot - stranded by heavy snowfall.

He was one of many trapped by a snowstorm that caused major travel delays and power outages. Drivers conserved gas and waited for roads to be cleared overnight. Some abandoned their cars, leaving them to be towed rather than spend the night on the snowy highway.

Transportation officials are hoping to reopen the road within 72 hours of the closure.

Have you forgotten what you are trying to say again Bobby?

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2022 at 1:25pm:

Have you forgotten what you are trying to say again Bobby?

My opening post still stands:

The nearly 17 feet of snow in California's
Sierra Nevada is crushing records.

I report the news - you decide.
I am just a humble messenger.

You are a pretty crap messenger if you cannot figure out what the  message is.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2022 at 1:48pm:

You are a pretty crap messenger if you cannot figure out what the  message is.

What is your message about that 17 feet of snow?

Bobby. wrote on Jan 5^th, 2022 at 2:20pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 5th, 2022 at 1:48pm: You are a pretty crap messenger if you cannot figure out what the  message is. What is your message about that 17 feet of snow?

That climate skeptics have such a fragile ego from decades of being ridiculed that they are afraid to say what they are saying.

lee wrote on Jan 5^th, 2022 at 12:38pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4th, 2022 at 9:43pm: I DON'T CARE..    Then piss off out of environment then if you are not interested. ::) ::)

"Environment"? You mean the debate?

You are the one defending the filthy, exploitative, poisonous, environmentally polluting (oil spills, smog etc etc), health-destroying fossil industry.

[quote author=AusbetterWorld link=1640772013/91#91 date=1641364570]You are the one defending the filthy, exploitative, poisonous, environmentally polluting (oil spills, smog etc etc), health-destroying fossil industry.




Posted by: freediver[/quote

Nope. But you are the one posting about "aha ...so I'm debating a climate denier; the science says there is a climate emergency, but let's move on.." ,  yet you can't show that the science says that. In other words you are a bullschist artist. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jan 5^th, 2022 at 4:47pm:

Nope. But you are the one posting about "aha ...so I'm debating a climate denier; the science says there is a climate emergency, but let's move on.." ,  yet you can't show that the science says that.

Indeed I can't (though others claim they can), that's why I said "let's move on":-(

...to deal with something we CAN achieve, namely, elimination  of the the filthy, exploitative, poisonous, environmentally polluting (oil spills, smog etc etc), health-destroying fossil industry.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 5^th, 2022 at 5:29pm:

Indeed I can't (though others claim they can), that's why I said "let's move on"

That settles it then you are bullscist artist who believes others (unsoecified). ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 5^th, 2022 at 5:29pm:

...to deal with something we CAN achieve, namely, elimination  of the the filthy, exploitative, poisonous, environmentally polluting (oil spills, smog etc etc), health-destroying fossil industry.

And as I have said the time is not yet right. Your beliefs notwithstanding. Something that is "technically" feasible is not necessarily feasible. ;)

lee wrote on Jan 5^th, 2022 at 5:37pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 5th, 2022 at 5:29pm: Indeed I can't (though others claim they can), that's why I said "let's move on" That settles it then you are bullscist artist who believes others (unsoecified)

oh dear back to your comprehension problems again; some say the science is settled, you say the science is false, I DON'T CARE....."let's move on"....


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 5^th, 2022 at 5:29pm:

...to deal with something we CAN achieve, namely, elimination  of the the filthy, exploitative, poisonous, environmentally polluting (oil spills, smog etc etc), health-destroying fossil industry.

Quote:

And as I have said the time is not yet right. Your beliefs notwithstanding. Something that is "technically" feasible is not necessarily feasible. ;)

The task is huge. Making a start to see how much of the fossil industry we can easily eliminate makes sense.

This thread didn't age well given that the Sierra snowpack has fallen to the lowest level in 70 years and so California's historic drought continues.

AiA wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2022 at 8:23am:

This thread didn't age well given that the Sierra snowpack has fallen to the lowest level in 70 years and so California's historic drought continues.

Link?  - or shall we trust you?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2022 at 8:25am:

AiA wrote on Apr 2nd, 2022 at 8:23am: This thread didn't age well given that the Sierra snowpack has fallen to the lowest level in 70 years and so California's historic drought continues. Link?  - or shall we trust you?

They are all over the place today. https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=APq-WBsXTXjFqCaq34LALv8BxRfbZjPxaQ:1648851133748&q=sierra+snowpack&tbm=nws&source=univ&tbo=u&sxsrf=APq-WBsXTXjFqCaq34LALv8BxRfbZjPxaQ:1648851133748&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5-PSQ8fP2AhXJDkQIHXOGCugQt8YBegQIAxAF&biw=1392&bih=707&dpr=2

AiA wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2022 at 8:27am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 2nd, 2022 at 8:25am: AiA wrote on Apr 2nd, 2022 at 8:23am: This thread didn't age well given that the Sierra snowpack has fallen to the lowest level in 70 years and so California's historic drought continues. Link?  - or shall we trust you? They are all over the place today. https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=APq-WBsXTXjFqCaq34LALv8BxRfbZjPxaQ:1648851133748&q=sierra+snowpack&tbm=nws&source=univ&tbo=u&sxsrf=APq-WBsXTXjFqCaq34LALv8BxRfbZjPxaQ:1648851133748&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5-PSQ8fP2AhXJDkQIHXOGCugQt8YBegQIAxAF&biw=1392&bih=707&dpr=2

https://www.google.com/search?q=california+drought&biw=1392&bih=707&tbm=nws&sxsrf=APq-WBuZ_yRoqnKoTXiBjEeOClN4uAt4rA%3A1648851204352&ei=BHlHYp2YFYuckPIP7JuVgAU&oq=cal&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MQARgAMgQIABBDMgUIABCRAjIICAAQgAQQsQMyCAgAEIAEELEDMggIABCABBCxAzIICAAQgAQQsQMyCAgAEIAEELEDMggIABCABBCxAzIICAAQgAQQsQMyCwgAEIAEELEDEIMBOgcIABCxAxBDOgUIABCABDoKCAAQsQMQgwEQQzoICAAQsQMQgwFQmBBYoRJgoSFoBHAAeACAAacBiAHvBZIBAzAuNZgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-news

AiA wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2022 at 8:27am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 2nd, 2022 at 8:25am: AiA wrote on Apr 2nd, 2022 at 8:23am: This thread didn't age well given that the Sierra snowpack has fallen to the lowest level in 70 years and so California's historic drought continues. Link?  - or shall we trust you? They are all over the place today. https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=APq-WBsXTXjFqCaq34LALv8BxRfbZjPxaQ:1648851133748&q=sierra+snowpack&tbm=nws&source=univ&tbo=u&sxsrf=APq-WBsXTXjFqCaq34LALv8BxRfbZjPxaQ:1648851133748&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5-PSQ8fP2AhXJDkQIHXOGCugQt8YBegQIAxAF&biw=1392&bih=707&dpr=2

Thanks - well that's no good.
Meanwhile over here in Queensland we have biblical floods.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2022 at 8:30am:

Thanks - well that's no good. Meanwhile over here in Queensland we have biblical floods.

Biblical floods? You many have something this time given our species obscene disrespect for the miracle that is planet earth.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2022 at 8:30am:

AiA wrote on Apr 2nd, 2022 at 8:27am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 2nd, 2022 at 8:25am: AiA wrote on Apr 2nd, 2022 at 8:23am: This thread didn't age well given that the Sierra snowpack has fallen to the lowest level in 70 years and so California's historic drought continues. Link?  - or shall we trust you? They are all over the place today. https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=APq-WBsXTXjFqCaq34LALv8BxRfbZjPxaQ:1648851133748&q=sierra+snowpack&tbm=nws&source=univ&tbo=u&sxsrf=APq-WBsXTXjFqCaq34LALv8BxRfbZjPxaQ:1648851133748&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5-PSQ8fP2AhXJDkQIHXOGCugQt8YBegQIAxAF&biw=1392&bih=707&dpr=2 Thanks - well that's no good. Meanwhile over here in Queensland we have biblical floods.

Climate Change = extreme changes in weather.

It looks like less than 10 cm on the ground.

AGW gobbled it all.

AiA wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2022 at 10:20pm:

Climate Change = extreme changes in weather.

Yep. Climate always changes more floods in the 1800's than recent in Brisbane. Perhaps we are getting back to that climate. ;)

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2022 at 11:40am:

Yep. Climate always changes more floods in the 1800's than recent in Brisbane. Perhaps we are getting back to that climate. ;)

Still, all that lovely free sunshine and wind are there for the taking, as technology improves; Oz especially should be going for it ASAP., now that fossil prices are going through the roof.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2022 at 3:47pm:

Still, all that lovely free sunshine and wind are there for the taking, as technology improves; Oz especially should be going for it ASAP., now that fossil prices are going through the roof.

So tell us how cheap the infrastructure is. You know batteries (imported) as well as solar panels (imported) and Wind Turbines (imported).

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2022 at 6:22pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 3rd, 2022 at 3:47pm: Still, all that lovely free sunshine and wind are there for the taking, as technology improves; Oz especially should be going for it ASAP., now that fossil prices are going through the roof. So tell us how cheap the infrastructure is. You know batteries (imported) as well as solar panels (imported) and Wind Turbines (imported).

No worries: I'll have a chat to the heads of the treasury and reserve bank, and authorize them to change the digits in the bank accounts of the suppliers of said infrastructure....which is what the half-wits in the treasury and reserve should be doing already.

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2022 at 6:22pm:

So tell us how cheap the infrastructure is.

Don't want to say eh? ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2022 at 6:22pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 3rd, 2022 at 3:47pm: Still, all that lovely free sunshine and wind are there for the taking, as technology improves; Oz especially should be going for it ASAP., now that fossil prices are going through the roof. So tell us how cheap the infrastructure is. You know batteries (imported) as well as solar panels (imported) and Wind Turbines (imported).

The fuel for renewables is free....So tell us how cheap the infrastructure is for fossil fuel energy production and what is their projected operational viability???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2022 at 11:12pm:

The fuel for renewables is free...

That is not infrastructure.


philperth2010 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2022 at 11:12pm:

So tell us how cheap the infrastructure is for fossil fuel energy production and what is their projected operational viability???

Far cheaper than renewables. Each wind generator has to have its own copper wires. There needs to be tons of cement for for each wind turbine base. There needs to be heaps of steel for each turbine stand.

"The answer, according to the American Wind Energy Association, is that it takes somewhere in the range of 200 to 230 tons of steel to make a single wind turbine."

"The construction of 15- to 20-foot-deep concrete foundations to support all of the 328-foot-high towers with 2-MW turbines required 30,000 tons of cement."

(and that's only 2MW turbines)

And then there is the requirement for rare earths for the magnets etc.

And remember the EU is currently trying to ramp up other fossil fuel generation because the cost of gas is so high.

Then of course China is the biggest supplier of rare earths and solar panels They have a large population base and so have economy of scale in selling them.

Then of course you need transmission lines from where you have the panels/turbines.

Projected operating viability?  With China still building Coal plant?

"According to the IEA, it’s mainly China:

The rebound of global CO2 emissions above pre-pandemic levels has largely been driven by China. . . .  China’s CO2 emissions increased by 750 Mt over the two-year period between 2019 and 2021. China was the only major economy to experience economic growth in both 2020 and 2021. The emissions increase in China more than offset the aggregate decline in the rest of the world of 570 Mt between 2019 and 2021. . . .  With rapid GDP growth and additional electrification of energy services, electricity demand in China grew by 10% in 2021, faster than economic growth at 8.4%. The increase in demand of almost 700 TWh was the largest ever experienced in China. With demand growth outstripping the increase of low emissions supply, coal was called on to fill 56% of the rise in electricity demand."

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-4-2-china-continues-to-laugh-at-western-green-energy-foolishness

It seems a very long time. ;)

lee wrote on Apr 4^th, 2022 at 2:43pm:

lee wrote on Apr 3rd, 2022 at 6:22pm: So tell us how cheap the infrastructure is. Don't want to say eh? ;D ;D ;D ;D

The BIS themselves said it at Davos a couple of years back : "Central banks might have to buy the fossil industry" (with their unlimited currency-issuing capacity). 

If central banks are authorized to do this, then they can also fund the required green infrastructure, ASAP.

Suspension of the free market will of course be necessary.

Nice to know we can actually 'afford' to save the planet, if indeed man-made CO2 emissions are destabilizing the atmosphere.

And the fact that human activity is lifting atmospheric CO2 concentrations to higher levels than seen in a millions years - with possibly catastrophic outcomes - gives us pause to think....

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 2:51pm:

The BIS themselves said it at Davos a couple of years back : "Central banks might have to buy the fossil industry" (with their unlimited currency-issuing capacity).

might eh? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 2:51pm:

lee wrote on Apr 4th, 2022 at 2:43pm: lee wrote on Apr 3rd, 2022 at 6:22pm: So tell us how cheap the infrastructure is. Don't want to say eh? ;D ;D ;D ;D The BIS themselves said it at Davos a couple of years back : "Central banks might have to buy the fossil industry" (with their unlimited currency-issuing capacity).  If central banks are authorized to do this, then they can also fund the required green infrastructure, ASAP. Suspension of the free market will of course be necessary. Nice to know we can actually 'afford' to save the planet, if indeed man-made CO2 emissions are destabilizing the atmosphere.

It is too late dolt. While you were in an intellectual coma AGW progressed beyond reversal.

lee wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 2:53pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5th, 2022 at 2:51pm: The BIS themselves said it at Davos a couple of years back : "Central banks might have to buy the fossil industry" (with their unlimited currency-issuing capacity). might eh? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes, because human activity is increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to the highest levels in 3 million years ( I read yesterday), with potentially catastrophic consequences.

[The fact that concentrations have been higher in the distant past is no reason to discount current effects of high CO2].

You happy to proceed with business as usual?

It's nice to know we can actually 'afford' to save the planet, even if we have to suspend the free market, to transition to green ASAP, funded by central bank currency issuance.   

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 3:03pm:

Yes, because human activity is increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to the highest levels in 3 million years ( I read yesterday), with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Really? Which catastrophic consequences?


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 3:03pm:

You happy to proceed with business as usual?

Yes. The old RCP8.5 which was  business-as-usual wasn't. It was an extreme scenario and is now labeled most implausible and yet the latest IPCC report spent 57% of mentions on it. Even though they said they were looking at plausible scenarios. So it is both implausible and plausible. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 3:03pm:

It's nice to know we can actually 'afford' to save the planet, even if we have to suspend the free market, to transition to green ASAP, funded by central bank currency issuance.

Ah yes the "afford" via MMT., ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Edit: Will China b e a lender of last resort? ;)

So interesting info -

"An energy system powered by clean energy technologies differs
profoundly from one fuelled by traditional hydrocarbon resources.
Building solar photovoltaic (PV) plants, wind farms and electric
vehicles (EVs) generally requires more minerals than their fossil fuel-
based counterparts. A typical electric car requires six times the
mineral inputs of a conventional car, and an onshore wind plant
requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired power
plant. Since 2010, the average amount of minerals needed for a new
unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share
of renewables has risen.
The types of mineral resources used vary by technology. Lithium,
nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite are crucial to battery
performance, longevity and energy density. Rare earth elements are
essential for permanent magnets that are vital for wind turbines and
EV motors. Electricity networks need a huge amount of copper and
aluminium, with copper being a cornerstone for all electricity -related
technologies."

"In a scenario that meets the Paris Agreement goals, clean energy
technologies’ share of total demand rises significantly over the next
two decades to over 40% for copper and rare earth elements, 60-
70% for nickel and cobalt, and almost 90% for lithium. EVs and
battery storage have already displaced consumer electronics to
become the largest consumer of lithium and are set to take over from
stainless steel as the largest end user of nickel by 2040."

[url]https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/24d5dfbb-a77a-4647-abcc-667867207f74/TheRoleofCriticalMineralsinCleanEnergyTransitions.pdf[/url

And any increase must be met by mining. As well as demand causing price hikes.

lee wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 3:16pm:

Really? Which catastrophic consequences?

Those outlined by the IPCC. Human civilization might not cope with the effects - outlined by the IPCC - of the highest levels of atmospheric CO2 concentrations - the consequence of human activity -  in 3 million years.


Quote:

Yes. The old RCP8.5 which was  business-as-usual wasn't. It was an extreme scenario and is now labeled most implausible and yet the latest IPCC report spent 57% of mentions on it. Even though they said they were looking at plausible scenarios. So it is both implausible and plausible. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Both? The question is - which one.....


Quote:

Ah yes the "afford" via MMT., ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Imagine a civilization destroying the planet's ecology because they didn't  know how to 'pay for' the timely transition to a renewables economy....

And no, China will not be the lender of last resort, an MMT-literate BIS will be.

What gets me –
why aren't cars not made out of aluminium?

I know it’s more expensive to fabricate with aluminium
but surely it wouldn’t add that much to the price using mass production?
Advantages:
lower weight means more acceleration or
lower weight means a smaller engine with greater fuel economy –
might even double the range of the car with the same tank of fuel.

Low end cars – shopping basket cars -
that’s where light aluminium is needed.
I know there are problems in doing so.   e.g.
Australian design rules require a certain strength for areas such as doors
to be strong enough for a side impacts and
that usually requires steel struts.


But aluminium cars have never been available as ordinary cars.
It means Govts. were never serious about lowering emissions.
If so they could have halved the emission of cars in the last 40 years
by having smaller engines but still good performance.
It proves the multi- national companies run the world not our elected Govts.

lee wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 3:20pm:

And any increase must be met by mining. As well as demand causing price hikes.

Which is why the mainstream are still bleating about climate change, while expecting someone other than themselves to pay for the green transition.

The mainstream have yet to discover MMT.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 3:30pm:

What gets me – why aren't cars not made out of aluminium? I know it’s more expensive to fabricate with aluminium but surely it wouldn’t add that much to the price using mass production? Advantages: lower weight means more acceleration or lower weight means a smaller engine with greater fuel economy – might even double the range of the car with the same tank of fuel. Low end cars – shopping basket cars - that’s where light aluminium is needed. I know there are problems in doing so.   e.g. Australian design rules require a certain strength for areas such as doors to be strong enough for a side impacts and that usually requires steel struts. But aluminium cars have never been available as ordinary cars. It means Govts. were never serious about lowering emissions. If so they could have halved the emission of cars in the last 40 years by having smaller engines but still good performance. It proves the multi- national companies run the world not our elected Govts. https://www.metalbulletin.com/Article/3330473/STEEL-VS-AL-Steel-still-trumps-aluminium-for-cost-efficient-sustainable-carmaking.html "In comparison, aluminium costs as much as 60% more when used in automotive production, World AutoSteel told Steel First. “If a product is not affordable, then its sustainability as a solution is questionable,” the association added".

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 3:28pm:

Those outlined by the IPCC.

Under which "plausible scenario"?  There are numerous scenarios there. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 3:28pm:

Both? The question is - which one.....

As I said the IPCC says it is not plausible but they factored the implausible anyway. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 3:28pm:

Imagine a civilization destroying the planet's ecology because they didn't  know how to 'pay for' the timely transition to a renewables economy...

Imagine a civilisation mining trillions of tons of ore for millions of tones of commodities needed to do "renewable".

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 3:37pm:

Which is why the mainstream are still bleating about climate change, while expecting someone other than themselves to pay for the green transition.

Energy density. Now as even salt land can sequester CO2 and you want to cover the land with these what does it do for Australia's carbon sink status? ;)

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 3:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 5th, 2022 at 3:30pm: What gets me – why aren't cars not made out of aluminium? I know it’s more expensive to fabricate with aluminium but surely it wouldn’t add that much to the price using mass production? Advantages: lower weight means more acceleration or lower weight means a smaller engine with greater fuel economy – might even double the range of the car with the same tank of fuel. Low end cars – shopping basket cars - that’s where light aluminium is needed. I know there are problems in doing so.   e.g. Australian design rules require a certain strength for areas such as doors to be strong enough for a side impacts and that usually requires steel struts. But aluminium cars have never been available as ordinary cars. It means Govts. were never serious about lowering emissions. If so they could have halved the emission of cars in the last 40 years by having smaller engines but still good performance. It proves the multi- national companies run the world not our elected Govts. https://www.metalbulletin.com/Article/3330473/STEEL-VS-AL-Steel-still-trumps-aluminium-for-cost-efficient-sustainable-carmaking.html "In comparison, aluminium costs as much as 60% more when used in automotive production, World AutoSteel told Steel First. “If a product is not affordable, then its sustainability as a solution is questionable,” the association added".

I don't believe that.
They just haven't invested in ways to make aluminium cars cheaper.
Remember they were making aeroplanes out of
aluminium in the 1930s before WW2.

lee wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 4:08pm:

Under which "plausible scenario"?  There are numerous scenarios there. As I said the IPCC says it is not plausible but they factored the implausible anyway. ;)

???

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/breaking-down-latest-ipcc-report/?gclid=CjwKCAjw0a-SBhBkEiwApljU0uvyanSM98qbHtBDa_t-8vQpVJFwfNk2PsMmQdZp7ba_Mmy3-fK5dhoCmx4QAvD_BwE

"What is the latest IPCC report (6AR WGII)?

Overall the Sixth Assessment Report (6AR) is the most comprehensive review of the state of knowledge on climate change ever completed, and contains over seven years’ worth of new peer-reviewed science. It is an update to the IPCC’s last such report published in 2014.

What are the main takeaways from this report?
Right now, inadequate global action means the Earth is heading towards catastrophic warming of over 2°C. If all countries copied Australia’s dangerously weak response, we would be headed for warming in excess of 3°C – far beyond anything it is possible to adapt to. We cannot afford to delay. Governments must slash emissions this decade and rapidly transition away from burning fossil fuels.

The latest contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report is from the IPCC’s Working Group II’s (WGII), which deals specifically with the damage that climate change is already causing, and is expected to cause into the future, what this means for communities and ecosystems, and what options we have to adapt to these changes.

If you’re thinking, hey, didn’t the IPCC release a report recently?, then, you’re right. The different working groups each have different focuses and release their findings at different times. The report that was released in October last year from Working Group I focused on the physical science basis of climate change and included projections for future warming and impacts on the climate system. The next release from the Sixth Assessment is set to come out in April and will focus on methods for reducing emissions or removing them from the atmosphere.

Together these three reports make up the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment report, which provides the best available science to all countries.


And today the WHO released a report showing 90% of the world's population is now suffering reduced health outcomes due to an increasingly polluted atmosphere - apart from the AGW  greenhouse gas problem.

(People living in outback Oz, with low population density, are probably lucky in this regard).   

Bobby. wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 4:20pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5th, 2022 at 3:42pm: Bobby. wrote on Apr 5th, 2022 at 3:30pm: What gets me – why aren't cars not made out of aluminium? I know it’s more expensive to fabricate with aluminium but surely it wouldn’t add that much to the price using mass production? Advantages: lower weight means more acceleration or lower weight means a smaller engine with greater fuel economy – might even double the range of the car with the same tank of fuel. Low end cars – shopping basket cars - that’s where light aluminium is needed. I know there are problems in doing so.   e.g. Australian design rules require a certain strength for areas such as doors to be strong enough for a side impacts and that usually requires steel struts. But aluminium cars have never been available as ordinary cars. It means Govts. were never serious about lowering emissions. If so they could have halved the emission of cars in the last 40 years by having smaller engines but still good performance. It proves the multi- national companies run the world not our elected Govts. https://www.metalbulletin.com/Article/3330473/STEEL-VS-AL-Steel-still-trumps-aluminium-for-cost-efficient-sustainable-carmaking.html "In comparison, aluminium costs as much as 60% more when used in automotive production, World AutoSteel told Steel First. “If a product is not affordable, then its sustainability as a solution is questionable,” the association added". I don't believe that. What, that steel cars are 60% cheaper than aluminium ones? Quote: They just haven't invested in ways to make aluminium cars cheaper. Because the raw material (alumina) is dearer than iron ore. "Is aluminium more expensive than iron? Even though aluminium is more abundant than iron in the Earth's crust , aluminium is more expensive than iron. This is mainly because of the large amounts of electrical energy used in the extraction process. [quote]Remember they were making aeroplanes out of aluminium in the 1930s before WW2.

Because it's lighter than steel.

Quote:

Because the raw material (alumina) is dearer than iron ore. "Is aluminium more expensive than iron? Even though aluminium is more abundant than iron in the Earth's crust , aluminium is more expensive than iron. This is mainly because of the large amounts of electrical energy used in the extraction process.

steel per tonne:
$1,480 per metric tonne
http://steelbenchmarker.com/history.pdf


aluminium per tonne:
$3,468 per metric tonne
https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/aluminum-price


So Aluminium does cost about twice as much
but you use less of it - that's the whole point -
so it wouldn't add that much to the cost of a car in terms of raw materials.

The cost of fabricating with aluminium?
I'm not sure - it's harder to weld
but it's been used for over 80 years in aeroplanes so
the technology is old and well known.
Only high end cars are made with it.



Quote:

Because it's lighter than steel.

Once again - that's the whole point.
lighter is better.


OK - so the bottom line -
if it adds say $5,000 to a $30,000 car to
have it made of aluminium then the owner would quickly
get that money back in petrol savings.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 6:22pm:

Quote: Because the raw material (alumina) is dearer than iron ore. "Is aluminium more expensive than iron? Even though aluminium is more abundant than iron in the Earth's crust , aluminium is more expensive than iron. This is mainly because of the large amounts of electrical energy used in the extraction process. steel per tonne: $1,480 per metric tonne http://steelbenchmarker.com/history.pdf aluminium per tonne: $3,468 per metric tonne https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/aluminum-price So Aluminium does cost about twice as much but you use less of it - that's the whole point - so it wouldn't add that much to the cost of a car in terms of raw materials. The cost of fabricating with aluminium? I'm not sure - it's harder to weld but it's been used for over 80 years in aeroplanes so the technology is old and well known. Only high end cars are made with it. [quote]Because it's lighter than steel.

Once again - that's the whole point.
lighter is better.


OK - so the bottom line -
if it adds say $5,000 to a $30,000 car to
have it made of aluminium then the owner would quickly
get that money back in petrol savings.[/quote]

Why would less metal be used in a car made of aluminium compared with steel?

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 6:39pm:

Why would less metal be used in a car made of aluminium compared with steel?

Because aluminium is lighter you use less weight of it.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 5:45pm:

lee wrote Today at 2:08pm: Under which "plausible scenario"?  There are numerous scenarios there. As I said the IPCC says it is not plausible but they factored the implausible anyway. Wink ???

"The high-end scenarios RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 have recently been argued to be implausible to unfold (e.g., (Hausfather and Peters, 2020); see Chapter 3 of the AR6 WGIII). However, where relevant we show results for SSP5-8.5, for example to enable backwards compatibility with AR5, for comparison between emission-driven and concentration-driven simulations, and because there is greater data availability of daily output for SSP5-8.5"

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_04.pdf

"Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading
Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome — more-realistic baselines make for better policy."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 5:45pm:

And today the WHO released a report showing 90% of the world's population is now suffering reduced health outcomes due to an increasingly polluted atmosphere - apart from the AGW  greenhouse gas problem.

Really? What science did they use?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 6:53pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 5th, 2022 at 6:39pm: Why would less metal be used in a car made of aluminium compared with steel? Because aluminium is lighter you use less weight of it.

But not less volume or quantity?

iirc, density = mass over volume.

lee wrote on Apr 5^th, 2022 at 6:57pm:

"The high-end scenarios RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 have recently been argued to be implausible to unfold (e.g., (Hausfather and Peters, 2020); see Chapter 3 of the AR6 WGIII). However, where relevant we show results for SSP5-8.5, for example to enable backwards compatibility with AR5, for comparison between emission-driven and concentration-driven simulations, and because there is greater data availability of daily output for SSP5-8.5" https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_04.pdf "Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome — more-realistic baselines make for better policy." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3

OK...."have been argued".... to form a different conclusion to:

"What are the main takeaways from this report?

Right now, inadequate global action means the Earth is heading towards catastrophic warming of over 2°C".

Good luck fighting it out with the IPCC.


Quote:

Really? What science did they use?

"For human health, the toxic PM2.5 particles of black carbon and sulfate "pose the greatest problems, because they can get deep into your lungs, and some may even get into your bloodstream," the Environmental Protection Agency said.

No doubt you have your own 'science' to dispute that....

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 6^th, 2022 at 1:33pm:

Right now, inadequate global action means the Earth is heading towards catastrophic warming of over 2°C".

In what way catastrophic? Be specific.


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 6^th, 2022 at 1:33pm:

Good luck fighting it out with the IPCC.

WG1 is labeled "The Physical Science Basis". That would make WG11 not the physical science basis. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 6^th, 2022 at 1:33pm:

"For human health, the toxic PM2.5 particles of black carbon and sulfate "pose the greatest problems, because they can get deep into your lungs, and some may even get into your bloodstream," the Environmental Protection Agency said.

And how did they measure that? How many autopsies did they perform? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 6^th, 2022 at 4:35pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 6th, 2022 at 1:33pm: Right now, inadequate global action means the Earth is heading towards catastrophic warming of over 2°C". In what way catastrophic? Be specific.

I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me. Apparently there are 3 reports, to conclude WGII.

Btw, still raining in the east coast.....

Interesting to see if a similar three month period has ever been previously recorded by the BOM.

And i the implications for the government budget are horrendous, not to mention insurance companies.

"Central banks might have to buy the fossil industry"....or at least fund government debt..)


Quote:

WG1 is labeled "The Physical Science Basis". That would make WG11 not the physical science basis. ;)

Like I said , I don't think you would last 3 minutes debating the IPCC.


Quote:

And how did they measure that? How many autopsies did they perform? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And also, I don't think you would last three minutes, with the authors of that article.

Tobacco companies tried the same trick for decades, claiming "our products are healthy".... 

Same for atmospheric pollution; no probs, according to you.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 7^th, 2022 at 2:26pm:

I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me. Apparently there are 3 reports, to conclude WGII.

And yet you can't cite ONE?That's called "Group Think". Somebody thinks it so its good enough for you.  ;D ;D ;D ;D 


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 7^th, 2022 at 2:26pm:

Btw, still raining in the east coast.....

Ah the climate is changing? For the better or worse for the majority that don't live on flood plains? According to the WMO (a UN Organisation) climate is the average of 30 years weather. Which 30 year period is your reference period?


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 7^th, 2022 at 2:26pm:

Interesting to see if a similar three month period has ever been previously recorded by the BOM.

Oh 3 months is now climate change? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

EDIT: JFY - http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Drain%26area%3Deaus%26season%3D1202%26ave_yr%3D0


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 7^th, 2022 at 2:26pm:

Like I said , I don't think you would last 3 minutes debating the IPCC.

WG1 says RCP8.5 is implausible. WG11 is predominantly about RCP8.5. (57% of mentions).   ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 7^th, 2022 at 2:26pm:

And also, I don't think you would last three minutes, with the authors of that article.

And yet you cite it with confidence and don't know that is done with statistical analyses. That says a lot about you.


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 7^th, 2022 at 2:26pm:

Tobacco companies tried the same trick for decades, claiming "our products are healthy"....

Ah so you compare physical studies to statistical studies and expect the same answers? You really are that dumb?


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 7^th, 2022 at 2:26pm:

Same for atmospheric pollution; no probs, according to you.

So which country's cities did it cite? And what were those populations? and then tell us about the rest of the world.

lee wrote on Apr 7^th, 2022 at 4:32pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 7th, 2022 at 2:26pm: I'm just the messenger, don't shoot me. Apparently there are 3 reports, to conclude WGII. And yet you can't cite ONE?That's called "Group Think". Somebody thinks it so its good enough for you.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Fair point (if I'm generous); the WGII report in 3 parts is outside my expertise, but the mainstream media are certainly becoming hysterical, which is a problem for you, not me...(I'm agnostic, remember).  


Quote:

Ah the climate is changing? For the better or worse for the majority that don't live on flood plains?

The issue concerns those who DO live on the flood plains.


Quote:

According to the WMO (a UN Organisation) climate is the average of 30 years weather. Which 30 year period is your reference period?

I'll settle for the BOM's rain records since inception. Has the entire east coast experienced this duration and quantity of rainfall  before, over a three month period? 


Quote:

Oh 3 months is now climate change? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Certainly if the last three months beat all other records for rainfall duration and intensity, it might be climate change...


Quote:

WG1 says RCP8.5 is implausible. WG11 is predominantly about RCP8.5. (57% of mentions).

So...a  c. 50-50 interpretation of data? How much of a risk taker are you? 


Quote:

And yet you cite it with confidence and don't know that is done with statistical analyses. That says a lot about you.

Like I said, I'm only the messenger:  polluted atmosphere is negatively affecting  health of 90% of the world's population.


Quote:

Ah so you compare physical studies to statistical studies and expect the same answers? You really are that dumb?

How do studies into the effects of inhaling  tobacco-borne  chemicals differ from studies into the effects of inhaling air-borne pollution chemicals?


Quote:

So which country's cities did it cite? And what were those populations? and then tell us about the rest of the world.

Hey; in a fabulous covid-enabled experiment in March 2020, the air in Los Angeles and New Dehli was cleaner than that seen for decades, as all non-essential industry and all transport was locked down. 

Common knowledge, google it.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 10^th, 2022 at 3:12pm:

I'll settle for the BOM's rain records since inception. Has the entire east coast experienced this duration and quantity of rainfall  before, over a three month period?

Yes.


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 10^th, 2022 at 3:12pm:

So...a  c. 50-50 interpretation of data? How much of a risk taker are you?

"In WG1 - "The Physical Science Basis" -

"The high-end scenarios RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 have recently been argued to be implausible to unfold (e.g.,(Hausfather and Peters, 2020); see Chapter 3 of the AR6 WGIII). "

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_04.pdf

However in WG2 - "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability"

"Most multi-model studies assuming rapid economic growth/business-as-usual scenarios (A2,A1B, RCP8.5) show an increase in future woody biomass and areas of woody cover towards the end of the 21st century in the temperate regions (Boit et al., 2016; Nabuurs et al., 2017) and in tropical forests in East Africa (Ross et al., 2021) but decrease in the remaining tropical regions (Anadón et al., 2014; Boit et al..2016; Lyra et al., 2017; Nabuurs et al., 2017; Maia et al., 2020).

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf


So, according to the IPCC, RCP8.5 is both implausible and business-as-usual.

That is not 50-50.


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 10^th, 2022 at 3:12pm:

How do studies into the effects of inhaling  tobacco-borne  chemicals differ from studies into the effects of inhaling air-borne pollution chemicals?

Autopsies showed the damage of smoking. Statistical studies are not autopsies. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 10^th, 2022 at 3:12pm:

Hey; in a fabulous covid-enabled experiment in March 2020, the air in Los Angeles and New Dehli was cleaner than that seen for decades, as all non-essential industry and all transport was locked down.

And did the poor in New Delhi stop burning dung etc for fuel? March 2020? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

As for LA it seems it was the cleanest for 3 months. The first recorded case was February 2020. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 10^th, 2022 at 3:12pm:

Common knowledge, google it.

Strange how you didn't get the story straight. ;)

lee wrote on Apr 10^th, 2022 at 3:30pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 10th, 2022 at 3:12pm: I'll settle for the BOM's rain records since inception. Has the entire east coast experienced this duration and quantity of rainfall  before, over a three month period?  Yes. thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 10th, 2022 at 3:12pm: So...a  c. 50-50 interpretation of data? How much of a risk taker are you?  "In WG1 - "The Physical Science Basis" - "The high-end scenarios RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 have recently been argued to be implausible to unfold (e.g.,(Hausfather and Peters, 2020); see Chapter 3 of the AR6 WGIII). " https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_04.pdf However in WG2 - "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" "Most multi-model studies assuming rapid economic growth/business-as-usual scenarios (A2,A1B, RCP8.5) show an increase in future woody biomass and areas of woody cover towards the end of the 21st century in the temperate regions (Boit et al., 2016; Nabuurs et al., 2017) and in tropical forests in East Africa (Ross et al., 2021) but decrease in the remaining tropical regions (Anadón et al., 2014; Boit et al..2016; Lyra et al., 2017; Nabuurs et al., 2017; Maia et al., 2020). https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf So, according to the IPCC, RCP8.5 is both implausible and business-as-usual. That is not 50-50. thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 10th, 2022 at 3:12pm: How do studies into the effects of inhaling  tobacco-borne  chemicals differ from studies into the effects of inhaling air-borne pollution chemicals? Autopsies showed the damage of smoking. Statistical studies are not autopsies. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 10th, 2022 at 3:12pm: Hey; in a fabulous covid-enabled experiment in March 2020, the air in Los Angeles and New Dehli was cleaner than that seen for decades, as all non-essential industry and all transport was locked down.  And did the poor in New Delhi stop burning dung etc for fuel? March 2020? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D As for LA it seems it was the cleanest for 3 months. The first recorded case was February 2020. ;D ;D ;D ;D thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 10th, 2022 at 3:12pm: Common knowledge, google it. Strange how you didn't get the story straight. ;)

https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/rio-tinto-quits-mining-lobby-group-amid-climate-rift/ar-AAWcJFG?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=47ebbb457eb8401eb3ce714adb8c6c9d



Rio Tinto quits mining lobby group amid climate rift
Nick Toscano  1 hour ago

"Rio Tinto, one of the largest Australian mining companies, has cut ties with Queensland's key resources lobby group after expressing concerns about its advocacy for policies surrounding the future of coal.


The mining giant's decision to quit the Queensland Resources Council (QRC), chaired by former federal Liberal minister Ian Macfarlane, follows moves by BHP and Origin Energy to suspend their memberships because of the group's controversial advertising campaign urging Queenslanders to "vote Greens last" at a 2020 state election".

Even the mining companies 'turning green'.....enjoy!

So, ya reckon that it will be a cold winter in Australia, after all that rainfall soaking the ground over the last few months? I do not know if Australia's cold winters follow California's cold winters. But, our region (CQ) is forecasted to have above-average May rainfall. We may end up having a bitterly cold winter this year.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 14^th, 2022 at 2:44pm:

Even the mining companies 'turning green'.....enjoy!

Really? Where did it say that? Its only concern was political and "vote Greens last". Nothing about advocating for the Greens. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 14^th, 2022 at 5:33pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 14th, 2022 at 2:44pm: Even the mining companies 'turning green'.....enjoy! Really? Where did it say that? Its only concern was political and "vote Greens last". Nothing about advocating for the Greens. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Er... I would have thought the biggest miners cutting ties with the fossil industry represents the general movement happening among many of the major financial and resource players toward "turning green".

If not actually advocating for the Greens political party.

UnSubRocky wrote on Apr 14^th, 2022 at 2:47pm:

So, ya reckon that it will be a cold winter in Australia, after all that rainfall soaking the ground over the last few months? I do not know if Australia's cold winters follow California's cold winters. But, our region (CQ) is forecasted to have above-average May rainfall. We may end up having a bitterly cold winter this year.

My bet is that it will be very cold as predicted.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 14^th, 2022 at 7:35pm:

Er... I would have thought the biggest miners cutting ties with the fossil industry represents the general movement happening among many of the major financial and resource players toward "turning green".

They didn't cut ties with the fossil fuel industry. They still rely on fossil fuels. ::)

lee wrote on Apr 14^th, 2022 at 8:58pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 14th, 2022 at 7:35pm: Er... I would have thought the biggest miners cutting ties with the fossil industry represents the general movement happening among many of the major financial and resource players toward "turning green". They didn't cut ties with the fossil fuel industry. They still rely on fossil fuels. ::)

"expressing concerns about its advocacy for policies surrounding the future of coal".

...not cutting ties?

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 14^th, 2022 at 10:13pm:

"expressing concerns about its advocacy for policies surrounding the future of coal". ...not cutting ties?

Exactly. Tell us where they have said from hereon in it is only renewables. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 15^th, 2022 at 3:36pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 14th, 2022 at 10:13pm: "expressing concerns about its advocacy for policies surrounding the future of coal". ...not cutting ties? Exactly. Tell us where they have said from hereon in it is only renewables. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Guess why BHP has sold all its petroleum assets in the US and Oz, (to Woodside, in the latter case) and both Rio and BHP, the world's largest mining companies, are exiting coal...

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15^th, 2022 at 3:48pm:

Guess why BHP has sold all its petroleum assets in the US and Oz, (to Woodside, in the latter case) and both Rio and BHP, the world's largest mining companies, are exiting coal...

Green activism. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Did you notice they sold them off? What dors that tell you? Other companies bought them and will continue to operate them. ;)

Tell us more, B00bby, about that 17 ft of snow in California ...

California declares historic water emergency measures amid drought


https://archive.ph/QDRj6#selection-361.0-364.0

What is the difference between Southern California and Sierra Nevada?

2 different geographic zones? Is that all? Only 8 hours by train or bus. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

AiA wrote on Apr 28^th, 2022 at 10:02am:

Tell us more, Bobby, about that 17 ft of snow in California ... California declares historic water emergency measures amid drought https://archive.ph/QDRj6#selection-361.0-364.0

It's another sign of the End Times.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 28^th, 2022 at 4:42pm:

AiA wrote on Apr 28th, 2022 at 10:02am: Tell us more, Bobby, about that 17 ft of snow in California ... California declares historic water emergency measures amid drought https://archive.ph/QDRj6#selection-361.0-364.0 It's another sign of the End Times.

It is another sign that B00bby is clueless about climate change. Here is another:

Record-breaking heat wave gripping India and Pakistan threatens crops, leaves millions sweltering


https://news.yahoo.com/record-breaking-heat-wave-gripping-india-and-pakistan-threatens-crops-leaves-millions-sweltering-205937185.html

AiA wrote on Apr 28^th, 2022 at 7:11pm:

Record-breaking heat wave gripping India and Pakistan threatens crops, leaves millions sweltering

And of course Pakistan and India can't pay the higher prices for gas caused by Putin's war. Gas used for electricity. More burning of dung to cook.

It never rains in California but girl don't they warn ya it dumps 17 foot of snow.

"It never rains in SOUTHERN California."

I really cannot sympathise with a country like India not having a population policy to limit the number of children they have. They can starve, as far as I am concerned.

lee wrote on Apr 28^th, 2022 at 8:51pm:

"It never rains in SOUTHERN California."

Point ?

this is bad, very bad

Las Vegas turns on low-level Lake Mead pumps designed to avoid a ‘Day Zero’



Quote:

The country’s largest man-made reservoir, Lake Mead, has dropped to such a historically low level that Las Vegas water officials have completed the process of turning on a pump station that will allow Southern Nevada to retrieve water, even under extreme conditions. The move — to turn on the pump station full bore — is an indication of how low Lake Mead has fallen over the past decade and serves as a bulwark against the possibility of Las Vegas losing physical access to its water as regional issues on the Colorado River become increasingly dire.

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/las-vegas-turns-on-low-level-lake-mead-pumps-designed-to-avoid-a-day-zero?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20220428&utm_term=The%20Atlantic%20Daily

Dnarever wrote on Apr 28^th, 2022 at 10:38pm:

Point ?

The real line. ;)

AiA wrote on Apr 29^th, 2022 at 8:46am:

Las Vegas turns on low-level Lake Mead pumps designed to avoid a ‘Day Zero’

But the land was cheap. ;)

lee wrote on Apr 28^th, 2022 at 7:27pm:

AiA wrote on Apr 28th, 2022 at 7:11pm: Record-breaking heat wave gripping India and Pakistan threatens crops, leaves millions sweltering And of course Pakistan and India can't pay the higher prices for gas caused by Putin's war. Gas used for electricity. More burning of dung to cook.

(from twitter)
The media silence on the climate-driven deadly heatwave in India & Pakistan is climate disinformation on an epic scale, and also an example sheer, unadulterated inhuman neglect of the suffering and deaths of 1/10 other humans. Unfathomable.

India's poor could never pay for gas, regardless of "Putin's war".

Your evil economic system is nearing its demise, as increasing climate catastrophes will force the nationalization of energy, so governments can subsidize distribution of electricity.

Free sunshine and wind will play an ever-increasing role in this subsidized energy production and distribution.   

Time's up for your evil debt-money system:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1519982177345228802

HSBC meeting disrupted by climate protesters.
The revolution is beginning. Enjoy.

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2022 at 11:54am:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 28th, 2022 at 10:38pm: Point ? The real line. ;)

The title yes and one of the lines yes but the real line Wrong.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 12:22pm:

The title yes and one of the lines yes but the real line Wrong.

"Two outta Three ain't bad." ;D ;D ;D ;D

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 11:27am:

(from twitter)

Poor GD reduced to the twits of twitterati. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 12:42pm:

Poor GD reduced to the twits of twitterati. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No, merely a convenient segue into my key point about our dysfunctional economic system (regardless of AGW CO2 emissions) which of course you cannot debate. (eg, why are 700 million Indians still reliant on  dung as an energy source, even before the Ukraine war?)

And the second twitter link is merely reporting actual news - of a climate change protest disrupting  a 'business as usual' USBC shareholder meeting. 

The revolution is starting.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 1:52pm:

No, merely a convenient segue into my key point about our dysfunctional economic system (regardless of AGW CO2 emissions) which of course you cannot debate

The reason you cannot debate AGW. ( You are an agnostic remember). ;D ;D ;D ;D



thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 1:52pm:

(eg, why are 700 million Indians still reliant on  dung as an energy source, even before the Ukraine war?)

Because they don't have a communist government. ;)


thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 1:52pm:

And the second twitter link is merely reporting actual news - of a climate change protest disrupting  a 'business as usual' USBC shareholder meeting.

So a green agenda. The twits really like those. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 2:00pm:

Because they don't have a communist government. ;)

Amazing ...correct (or rather they are subject to your evil, dysfunctional money as debt system, enforced by the IMF down: IMF = "Instant Misery Fund"). 


Quote:

So a green agenda. The twits really like those. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

This is what revolution looks like, you better get used to it, it's only going to increase as inequality continues to soar and capitalist pollution threatens the planet's ecology, in your evil money as debt system, regardless of the veracity of AGW-caused by CO2 emissions - veracity which you deny, thereby displaying  the worst type of fundamentalist ISIS behavior.    

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 2:23pm:

regardless of the veracity of AGW-caused by CO2 emissions - veracity which you deny, thereby displaying  the worst type of fundamentalist ISIS behavior.

And yet you are "agnostic". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 8:15pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 30th, 2022 at 2:23pm: regardless of the veracity of AGW-caused by CO2 emissions - veracity which you deny, thereby displaying  the worst type of fundamentalist ISIS behavior.  And yet you are "agnostic". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That's right - not fundamentalist; unlike you being  absurdly assured in your rejection of climate science.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 11:24pm:

That's right - not fundamentalist; unlike you being  absurdly assured in your rejection of climate science.

But you are just like the absurdly assured IPCC, to which you defer. An agnostic? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Which part of AR6 do you prefer? The RCP8.5 that is impalusible or the RCP8.45 that is business-as-usual?

lee wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 12:23pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 30th, 2022 at 11:24pm: That's right - not fundamentalist; unlike you being  absurdly assured in your rejection of climate science. But you are just like the absurdly assured IPCC, to which you defer. An agnostic? ;D ;D ;D ;D

I see that a large number of climate scientists have presented a compelling case for large numbers of people who see a connection between climate catastrophes and man-made CO2 emissions, and I am certainly not prepared to reject the science, as you are.

Hence I'm agnostic...and open to "conversion". 

But I am certain global capital serves its own profit- seeking purposes,  rather than investment in poverty reduction and sustainable prosperity.

Indeed I'm agnostic on AGW CO2 climate change (and open to "conversion" on the science, unlike you), but I'm fundamentalist on poverty eradication.   


Quote:

Which part of AR6 do you prefer? The RCP8.5 that is impalusible or the RCP8.45 that is business-as-usual?

Dunno...but more importantly, which part of global poverty (eg dung-burning Indians, tree-clearing Brazilians engaged in subsistence agriculture) are you insisting must remain, to threaten community and environmental  health and sustainability?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 10:27pm:

I see that a large number of climate scientists have presented a compelling case for large numbers of people who see a connection between climate catastrophes and man-made CO2 emissions, and I am certainly not prepared to reject the science, as you are. Hence I'm agnostic...and open to "conversion".

Nope. A full blown alarmist.


thegreatdivide wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 10:27pm:

Quote: Which part of AR6 do you prefer? The RCP8.5 that is impalusible or the RCP8.45 that is business-as-usual? Dunno...but more importantly, which part of global poverty (eg dung-burning Indians, tree-clearing Brazilians engaged in subsistence agriculture) are you insisting must remain, to threaten community and environmental  health and sustainability?

Global poverty can only be overcome by cheap, reliable electricity. Renewables can't do that.

Are you one of the woke that insist they should only be allowed to prosper (or Not) using renewable energy? Neocolonialism at its finest.

"Bihar village rejects solar-powered micro-grid and demands 'real' electricity"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2717149/Bihar-village-rejects-solar-powered-micro-grid-demands-real-electricity.html

"One year ago, environmentalists hailed this tiny village as the future of clean energy in rural India. Today, it is powered by coal.

Dharnai, a community of about 3,200 people in eastern India’s Bihar state, had been without electricity for three decades. So when activists with Greenpeace set up a solar-powered microgrid in July of 2014, the excitement was palpable. But, residents said, the problems started almost immediately."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-trumps-solar-in-india/