Thread: Grid can go 75% renewable

I hadn't really heard anyone calling out a climate change catastrophe.....but what has Australian been experiencing?

Originally Posted by vnx205

He may be right, but a lot of highly qualified people think he is wrong.
Climate misinformation by source: John Christy

That was a typical response to facts that don't support the climate extremists.

In the video I had a link to, the doctor explained how they arrived at their "FACTS" but in that link you put up, the just continually made statements like "many people disagree with the Doctors facts" with out putting up any evidence.

Case of talk is cheap!

One perfect example he pointed out, and something I had never considered, was that where they had been taking temperature measurements in one place for over a hundred or so years, the human activity had changed the environment at that place, thus effecting the accuracy of the temperature readings.

Again, I had never heard that before, but it would make sense and so how do they recalculate for such a charge.

I have also read elsewhere, like NASA, that the increased CO2 is helping vegetation growth. A good thing when trying to feed the woulds ever increasing population.

Another FACT the Doctor spoke about, was the increased number of hurricanes.

Here in Australia we have had way higher than "AVERAGE" rain fall, but what do they bas the AVERAGE on?

Our records only go back 250 years, and that is hardly enough time to base AVERAGES on.

For just one example, have a look at all the flood plains around the country.

Like the major coastal flood plain between the Gold Coast and the southern Brisbane area.

That had to have been formed by a number of huge flood events, yet nothing that big has occurred during white history of the area.

So much for humans effecting the whether or climate.

You are right that my response (after acknowledging that he may be right) was to link to a page that was merely a summary of reasons to doubt some of Christy's claims.

However on that site skepticalscience.com there are pages that deal in detail with a great many climate myths. On those pages dealing with specific claims, there is evidence aplenty. The articles usually have three versions: Basic, Intermediate and Advanced. Obviously the Advanced version is where the most evidence is found.

I don't have the time or the enthusiasm to repeat all the evidence that casts doubt on Christy's claims. However I will respond to just one of his claims that you mention.

I am assuming that your reference to changed human activity is a version of the "urban heat island" claim. There is an article that offers evidence of why that claim is not the concern that some claim. It is found at :
John Christy, Climate Change denier, part I – Debunking Denial

It is quite a lengthy article, but is says in part that:

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project or BEST, led by Berkeley Professor Richard Muller and his daughter Elizabeth Muller.
... ... ... ..

BEST improved their capability for comparing urban to rural thermometer measurements. They confirmed findings that there was no “urban heat island effect” in measuring ground temperature increases. Rural stations show the same warming trend as urban stations and poorly-sited stations measure the same results as well-sited stations.

There is also a Part II that offers evidence that casts doubt on other of Christy's claims.
John Christy Climate-Change Denier Part II – Debunking Denial

Christy does come across as "the voice of reason" and his objections are well argued but that doesn't necessarily mean he is right (although he may be). I found the evidence in the links I provided and in many other articles to be just as convincing as Christy's evidence.

Certainly his views should be part of the discussion, but I am not convinced that everything he says can be accepted without question.

My initial response didn't offer evidence, but the evidence does exist and i have offered links to sites that provide that evidence.

Originally Posted by drivesafe

I have also read elsewhere, like NASA, that the increased CO2 is helping vegetation growth. A good thing when trying to feed the woulds ever increasing population.

Another FACT the Doctor spoke about, was the increased number of hurricanes.

Here in Australia we have had way higher than "AVERAGE" rain fall, but what do they bas the AVERAGE on?

Our records only go back 250 years, and that is hardly enough time to base AVERAGES on.

For just one example, have a look at all the flood plains around the country.

Like the major coastal flood plain between the Gold Coast and the southern Brisbane area.

That had to have been formed by a number of huge flood events, yet nothing that big has occurred during white history of the area.

So much for humans effecting the whether or climate.

Weather and climate are relatives not twins Sea levels rises are guaranteed by the ice melt in Greenland and almost every glazier. I love swimming, diving and fishing yet not at all sure that is good for almost any of us!

With inch by inch measurement possible now from satellites its evidence not opinions now.

Point of question is how much is natural climate change and how much is to do with the changes we know we have introduced can also be measured.

Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data | US EPA

Cost and Benefits for high rain fall - droughts- fires are fairly clear as well. The good bit about many changes is we will make a lot of money from several of them here in Australia.

With inch by inch measurement possible now from satellites its evidence not opinions now.

Er no . It is well documented that sea level by satellite is very influenced by the wave height and so is an approximation.
Yet sea level measurements on known geologically stable sites show no acceleration in sea level rise.
The most well known in Australia is Fort Denison where the sea level rise has been consistent for over 100 years at AFAIR 1.8MM per year..

From detailed analysis of global tide gauge records, IPCC (2007) concluded that the rate of observed sea level rise increased from the 19th to 20th century and that the total 20th century rise was estimated to be 17 ± 5 cm. IPCC (2007) similarly concluded that global average eustatic sea level rise over the period from 1961 to 2003 is estimated at 1.8 ± 0.5 mm/yr.

This is from a very speculative research report that says that Fort Denison will be inundated a bit by 2100. I have to say that I am a bit sceptical when a study uses IPCC reports as sources seeing they have more recently scaled back their projections.

Although significant conjecture and international debate has centred on climate change and postulated impacts for over two decades, IPCC (2007) concludes “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.” Further, IPCC (2007) warns “Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas emissions were to be stabilised”.

But for now it seems pretty safe.

Fort Denison Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Study October 2008 (nsw.gov.au)

I came across an interesting bit of data from the latest isssue of the ANARE Club journal "Aurora. The volume of ice in Antarctica is now being measure continuously and with extreme accuracy as a byproduct of satellite management.

The volume of ice on the continent (including the ice shelf) affects the orbit of a large number of satellites tracked by NASA. NASA needs to measure these orbits very accurately and in real time for multiple reasons. For example, the orbit of GPS satellites needs to be known accurately for the GPS position to be accurate.

It is simple to set up automatic calculations of the changes to the ice using published orbital data.

Not the same, but multiple satellites have been regularly measuring surface temperature over the whole earth for at least the last fifty years, and calculating changes in average temperature from this is, again, quite simple. And is consistent with published weather station temperature changes.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

.........................

Not the same, but multiple satellites have been regularly measuring surface temperature over the whole earth for at least the last fifty years, and calculating changes in average temperature from this is, again, quite simple. And is consistent with published weather station temperature changes.

And people get obsessed with maximum temperatures that are 'no different' from their childhoods, yet the minima creep up over time.

DL