Australian Politics Forum - Climate, CO2 and the Sun

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17928
Gender: male

Re: Climate, CO2 and the Sun
Reply #15 - Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 12:20pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 10:41am:

Assuming this to be true (and it does tie in with the recorded collapses of various civilizations/cultures in history, due to climate change), how do you propose to deal with future climate change, while avoiding similar economic collapses going forward?

Hint: business as usual won't cut the mustard....

There is no imperative Economic or otherwise for the continued existence of life on planet earth. Most civilisations collapsed on cooler changes, not warmer when they expanded.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 47220
Gender: male

Re: Climate, CO2 and the Sun
Reply #16 - Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 1:29pm

AusGeoff wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 10:00am:

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 9:36am:

"The whole thing is a total scam. There is actually no scientific evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change over the eons". That’s Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace...

Why would you trust anything Moore says Frank?

Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media
as an environmental "expert" or even an "environmentalist",
while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range
of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance.
He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell
himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson,
usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.

Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting
industries for more than 30 years, including the timber,
mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries, and has
now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked
for Greenpeace.

Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder
of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated
this characterisation. Although he played a significant role
in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not
found Greenpeace. Phil Cote, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen
founded Greenpeace in 1970, a year before Moore joined the
organisation.

CO2 is not 'pollution'. To call agriculture, timber etc industries 'polluting industries', as if their main purpose was to cause harm, is idiotic and malicious in the extreme.

I can't take you seriously if you are unthinkingly, propagandistically conflate concepts and then preen and emote.

anthropogenic CO2 is not causing climate change and it's not a pollutant.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 1:36pm by Frank »

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 13057
Gender: male

Re: Climate, CO2 and the Sun
Reply #17 - Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 4:29pm

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 12:20pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 10:41am:

Assuming this to be true (and it does tie in with the recorded collapses of various civilizations/cultures in history, due to climate change), how do you propose to deal with future climate change, while avoiding similar economic collapses going forward?

Hint: business as usual won't cut the mustard....

There is no imperative Economic or otherwise for the continued existence of life on planet earth. Most civilisations collapsed on cooler changes, not warmer when they expanded.

You missed 'The Cosmos through Symphony' concert MC'ed by prof. Brian Cox last night.

The capacity of lifeless atoms and energy to achieve consciousness, and comprehend joy and transcendence, is not necessarily widespread in the universe; we have a profound responsibility to preserve life in the universe.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide Gold Member Offline Australian Politics<br /> Posts: 13057 Gender:	Re: Climate, CO2 and the Sun Reply #18 - Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 4:37pm Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 1:29pm: anthropogenic CO2 is not causing climate change and it's not a pollutant. The first proposition is disputed, and the 2nd proposition is (admittedly erroneously) caught up in that dispute.....
Back to top	IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17928
Gender: male

Re: Climate, CO2 and the Sun
Reply #19 - Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 6:50pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 4:29pm:

You missed 'The Cosmos through Symphony' concert MC'ed by prof. Brian Cox last night.

Oh noes. Brian Cox? Grin

Alarmist extraordinaire.

But perhaps you can expound on those claims of his with which you agree.

Did I miss it? Nope. I had better things to do.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 4:29pm:

The capacity of lifeless atoms and energy to achieve consciousness, and comprehend joy and transcendence, is not necessarily widespread in the universe; we have a profound responsibility to preserve life in the universe.

Err no we don't. We have a responsibility to ourselves. What makes you think that we are the only sentient beings in the universe?

But further to civilisation extinctions, the cooler conditions caused famine, the warmer made food more plentiful. As we now have a far larger population, we do not need cooler conditions causing famine. We do however need despatchable energy, and renewables can't do that. The people want more energy. Unless you want large swathes of Africa and Asia to live in energy poverty. Some want more to charge EV's, which can only lead to larger increases in energy.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17928
Gender: male

Re: Climate, CO2 and the Sun
Reply #20 - Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 6:57pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 4:37pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 1:29pm:

anthropogenic CO2 is not causing climate change and it's not a pollutant.

The first proposition is disputed, and the 2nd proposition is (admittedly erroneously) caught up in that dispute.....

So what is the dispute? That we can categorically state the CO2 causes warming? All things being equal, that is true. However all things do not remain equal. A laboratory experiment is not the same as an open air experiment. Do I think CO2 has caused some warming? Yes, but I certainly don't believe it is anything but benign.
A warmer world is a better world, more people die of cold than heat, even now.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby.

Moderator

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 106120
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Climate, CO2 and the Sun
Reply #21 - Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 7:51pm

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 6:57pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 4:37pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 1:29pm:

anthropogenic CO2 is not causing climate change and it's not a pollutant.

The first proposition is disputed, and the 2nd proposition is (admittedly erroneously) caught up in that dispute.....

So what is the dispute? That we can categorically state the CO2 causes warming? All things being equal, that is true. However all things do not remain equal. A laboratory experiment is not the same as an open air experiment. Do I think CO2 has caused some warming? Yes, but I certainly don't believe it is anything but benign.
A warmer world is a better world, more people die of cold than heat, even now.

It cannot be argued that pouring billions of tonnes of CO2
and other gases from fossil fuels into our atmosphere every year is a good idea.
Methane is much worse and we put plenty of that into our atmosphere too.

Our only hope is clean energy from nuclear fusion or Thorium nuclear reactors.
It's such a pity that Deuterium is all around us in water
and Thorium is an abundant element found everywhere too -
even in your garden soil -
yet it is so difficult to release their energy in a commercial way.
Maybe one day when we discover the means to do so we
can undo all the environmental damage we've done?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17928
Gender: male

Re: Climate, CO2 and the Sun
Reply #22 - Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 7:56pm

Methane would only be much worse if they had the same weight, as methane is measured in parts per billion (ppb) rather than parts per million (ppm).

"Clyde Spender explained that changes to radiation effects occur on a molecule-by-molecule basis in the atmosphere in an article here titled The Misguided Crusade to Reduce Anthropogenic Methane Emissions. The Climate Act tracks emissions by weight. In the atmosphere CO2 is more than two orders of magnitude more abundant than CH4 on a molecular basis. The Climate Act uses the global warming potential that estimates the mid-range, long-term warming potential of CH4 is 32 times that of CO2. However, that equivalence is for equal weights of the two gases! Using a molecular basis (parts per million-volume mole-fraction) to account for the lighter CH4 molecule reveals that the annual contribution to warming is a fraction of that claimed for CO2. Methane emissions on a molecular basis are increasing at a rate of 0.58% of CO2 increases. Therefore, changes in methane emissions have insignificant effects."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/29/new-years-resolution-methane-response/

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 13057
Gender: male

Re: Climate, CO2 and the Sun
Reply #23 - Jan 4^th, 2024 at 11:46am

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 6:50pm:

Err no we don't. We have a responsibility to ourselves. What makes you think that we are the only sentient beings in the universe?

Cox explained it; from the example of life on earth, it takes a long time for life to develop - c. 4 billion years from single cell 'life', to complex self-aware, reasoning organism (us).

Turns out there are not many likely life-friendly planets in the Milky Way that are much older than earth.

Quote:

But further to civilisation extinctions, the cooler conditions caused famine, the warmer made food more plentiful.

Not only; drought and desertification were also factors.

Quote:

As we now have a far larger population, we do not need cooler conditions causing famine. We do however need despatchable energy, and renewables can't do that.

Wrong on both counts, as noted above; and indeed an area less the the size of Spain - c.500,000 square klms, is sufficient to power the world.

Quote:

The people want more energy. Unless you want large swathes of Africa and Asia to live in energy poverty. Some want more to charge EV's, which can only lead to larger increases in energy.

We have the capacity to run the world on free sun and wind, with judiciuous nuclear backup.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17928
Gender: male

Re: Climate, CO2 and the Sun
Reply #24 - Jan 4^th, 2024 at 12:37pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 11:46am:

Cox explained it; from the example of life on earth, it takes a long time for life to develop - c. 4 billion years from single cell 'life', to complex self-aware, reasoning organism (us).

And?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 11:46am:

Not only; drought and desertification were also factors.

Exactly right... in a cooler climate. EG California drought 900 years. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 11:46am:

Wrong on both counts, as noted above; and indeed an area less the the size of Spain - c.500,000 square klms, is sufficient to power the world.

Please provide the calculations. You haven't provided anything above. Sort term memory loss?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 11:46am:

We have the capacity to run the world on free sun and wind, with judiciuous nuclear backup.

Nuclear yes. You haven't provided data on renewables. The MINSKY model is not proof of anything, it depends on the underlying assumptions. I see in the USA, offshore windfarms are bailing, they want more money. In Europe also. Free wind and free solar but the infrastructure and the replacement infrastructure are NOT free. And Batteries are not free. Roll Eyes

But you are a typical NO engineering, NO science hack.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17928 Gender:	Re: Climate, CO2 and the Sun Reply #25 - Jan 4^th, 2024 at 12:42pm
Back to top	IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 13057
Gender: male

Re: Climate, CO2 and the Sun
Reply #26 - Jan 4^th, 2024 at 1:34pm

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 12:37pm:

Nuclear yes. You haven't provided data on renewables.

Try google.

Quote:

The MINSKY model is not proof of anything, it depends on the underlying assumptions. I see in the USA, offshore windfarms are bailing, they want more money.

Which the currency-issuing govt. COULD supply for free...capiche?

Collapsing economies will force the issue of free public sector money creation.

Quote:

In Europe also. Free wind and free solar but the infrastructure and the replacement infrastructure are NOT free. And Batteries are not free. Roll Eyes

More parrotting of mainstream economic nonsense re "free"; debt need only apply to the private sector as it apportions rsources in the private sector.

Quote:

But you are a typical NO engineering, NO science hack.

Like I said, use google to find out how much area is required to power the world with free sun (and wind); and study economics.

Start with the film "Finding the Money", on screens in Oz in March.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17928
Gender: male

Re: Climate, CO2 and the Sun
Reply #27 - Jan 4^th, 2024 at 3:35pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 1:34pm:

Try google.

Google is not now, and never has been, a source of engineering data. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 1:34pm:

Which the currency-issuing govt. COULD supply for free...capiche?

Collapsing economies will force the issue of free public sector money creation.

Your dedicated response to Minsky is acknowledged. It is still a MODEL. And subject to its limitations. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 1:34pm:

More parrotting of mainstream economic nonsense re "free"; debt need only apply to the private sector as it apportions rsources in the private sector.

Rubbish, new lamestream economics. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 1:34pm:

Like I said, use google to find out how much area is required to power the world with free sun (and wind); and study economics.

Google cannot tell you that. It depends on the underlying assumptions. Spain, at one time, figured out how to get solar power at night, at the same level as during the day. Roll Eyes

Telling me to study economics when you don't understand it yourself, is beyond laughable. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 1:34pm:

Start with the film "Finding the Money", on screens in Oz in March.

OOH finding money.? Does that mean it is printed and given away? Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 13057
Gender: male

Re: Climate, CO2 and the Sun
Reply #28 - Jan 4^th, 2024 at 4:50pm

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 3:35pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 1:34pm:

Try google.

Google is not now, and never has been, a source of engineering data. Roll Eyes

We are talking ball park figures: area to power the globe.

Try it.

Quote:

Your dedicated response to Minsky is acknowledged. It is still a MODEL. And subject to its limitations. Roll Eyes

Keen proves government debt is a positive for economic development.

Quote:

Rubbish, new lamestream economics. Roll Eyes

No, real economics, something you haven't begun to grasp.

Quote:

Telling me to study economics when you don't understand it yourself, is beyond laughable. Roll Eyes

Try the MMT thread; you will see the growing literature on real economics, there.

Quote:

OOH finding money.? Does that mean it is printed and given away? Grin

Well....yes, if you are the legal currency-issuer, and the resources you wish to buy are available for purchase in the currency of issue.....

Warning: you and I have to earn or borrow the stuff; unfortunately it's NOT free for players in the private sector.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17928
Gender: male

Re: Climate, CO2 and the Sun
Reply #29 - Jan 4^th, 2024 at 6:07pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 4:50pm:

We are talking ball park figures: area to power the globe.

What is the assumption on solar efficiency, wind turbine efficiency? Something with a 30% efficiency would need far more land than something that was 100% efficient. And when the there is cloud or a lack of wind or too much wind, more land is not necessarily a panacea.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Keen proves government debt is a positive for economic development.

Keen has not proved anything. It is a MODEL. It only needs one assumption to be wrong. And he can't guarantee any one assumption.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 4:50pm:

No, real economics, something you haven't begun to grasp.

Coming from you, that is hilarious. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Try the MMT thread; you will see the growing literature on real economics, there.

Nope. I won't. It won't.thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Well....yes, if you are the legal currency-issuer, and the resources you wish to buy are available for purchase in the currency of issue.....

Ah yes. Nothing about international trade dealing with depreciated dollars. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Warning: you and I have to earn or borrow the stuff; unfortunately it's NOT free for players in the private sector.

It never was and never will be. You really have a utopian view. Grin

So now you have gone down the rabbit hole again. Nothing about climate, CO2 or the sun. Wink

Back to top

IP Logged