and the very important question needs to be asked, who's going to pay for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by SpudHeadTed
ive nothing agsint the idea but someone has to pay for it.
Printable View
and the very important question needs to be asked, who's going to pay for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by SpudHeadTed
ive nothing agsint the idea but someone has to pay for it.
I envisage an energy future based on renewables down the track but I am not into political grabs.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Exports of Orstralian LNG and quality coal have helped reduce CO2 emissions in quite a few developing and developed countries.
Is that not a positive thing?
DL
In those fifteen years, we have had an increase in rooftop solar from a very low base, very substantial increases in electricity prices, the banning of sale of tungsten filament bulbs for ordinary use, "inverter" airconditioners, continual increases in efficiency of most domestic appliances. This has led to, among other results, criticism of power companies that have goldplated their networks against a (no longer realistic) assumption of steadily increasing per capita power consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevo
Australians export **** quality coal too. The Adani mine is a recent example of high impact mining to ship out vast quantities of cheap **** quality coal.Quote:
Originally Posted by 350RRC
Australia helps to lower the price of coal with generous supply. This encourages more coal usage in developing countries. Australia claiming it is lowering CO2 emissions through mining and exporting coal..... That's quite a stretch!
Gillard's government was responsible for the 'goldplating' at taxpayer's expense. Would have kept at least one major union's members awash with fully funded everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Still going on AFAIK and none of the money is really being used to bring the grid into line with the new renewables reality.
DL
That's part of the problem......................... I garnered the info from one of the ABC stations and the LNG and quality coal thing came across as a credible argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by manic
DL
Quote:
Gillard's government was responsible for the
Eerrrrrr remind me again. This Gillard you speak of who was that? [bigsad][biggrin]
This is the kind of 'scientific mumbo jumbo' that irks me most!Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
How?
Think about it logically: many older people move to warmer climates, eg. in Aus from freezing November Melbourne to tropical QLD .... alternatively the infamous US reversal process where it's Florida(equiv to QLD) where they move from their literally frozen norther latitudes.
So older folks gravitate to warmer climates and global warming is supposedly going to cause 250,000 additional deaths per year.
Global warming may diminish the grey nomad migration to warmer climates, but additional deaths?
250K deaths per year .. world wide?
In 2017, we see there were around 56 million deaths globally; nearly half of these (49%) were in those aged 70 years or older; 27% in the 50-69 year age group; 14% aged 15-49; only 1% aged 5-14; and around 10% in children under the age of 5.
no death is a good thing, but looking at the numbers there, 49% aged 70+ is this where the additional 250K will come from? or is it from the 50-69 group .. etc.
If they can predict deaths from some potential cause, then why not just do something for those individuals that will supposedly suffer. [bighmmm]
They obviously have all encompassing predictive powers, so why not use them more specifically.
It's all a load of malarkey.
How many deaths have been due to a 1°C increase in average temperature .. say if it was 30° today, how many will be at risk tomorrow if it's 31°C?
And another example of how the 'data' is misused to misrepresent some sensationalist headline:
On ABC news tonight, they had a guy from the BoM on explaining how tomorrow in Melb we're going to experience 'record breaking' temperatures for Nov.
On the face of it, and in a very obscure manner, he's right. If we hit 39°C tomorrow it'll be a record. But when dig deep into the data, a reading of 39.0°C would make it the 8th hottest Nov day since records began.
So? how could it be a record at 39° when 39° would be the 8th hottest on record. Again, delve into the data. Melb has had a couple of stations that they used to use. Main one was regional(literally just out of the centre of melb). But this station closed in 2015.
The new station opened in 2013(Olympic Park) and for this station 35.8° was the highest on record(in 6 years!!!), so technically, the BoM man was right .. will be(if it happens) a record temp for Nov .. for that new station!
How do we interpret this info from the BoM man? Accurate? of course it sure is. But is it misleading .. 101% definitely!
As a scientist(or climate scientist at BoM) isn't it his job to report the info in a more accurate manner?
Sensationalism science .. and the ABC should be ashamed of themselves!
BoM should be ashamed, there was plenty about this a couple of years ago all over Oz.Quote:
Originally Posted by AK83
Standardisation of data or some such.
DL
So we disregard all of the weather records for Melbourne which is an expansive city because they moved the city weather station from the north to south end of the city block. Doesn’t seem seem that misleading to me. It’s a 5 min weather report on the evening news, you don’t get many words to qualify the data.