Just in case you don’t think about it.
Let us start with today’s news. Covid inclusive.
Boom in recreational fishing having major impact on seabirds, say wildlife rescuers
ABC North Coast
/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-15/anglers-create-a-nightmare-for-seabirds/100294268
the link was there.
Seriously though. We are keen to improve our population growth but not keen on educating this growth about where they live and how precious it is.
These people almost always come from countries that have fucked theirs.
roughbarked said:
Seriously though. We are keen to improve our population growth but not keen on educating this growth about where they live and how precious it is.
These people almost always come from countries that have fucked theirs.
Like aussies that have fucked here? highest extinction rate isn’t it here?
Bogsnorkler said:
roughbarked said:
Seriously though. We are keen to improve our population growth but not keen on educating this growth about where they live and how precious it is.
These people almost always come from countries that have fucked theirs.
Like aussies that have fucked here? highest extinction rate isn’t it here?
Yes, highest extinction rate of mammal species. We have our dismal control feral animals, in particular foxes and cats, to thank for that.
Bogsnorkler said:
roughbarked said:
Seriously though. We are keen to improve our population growth but not keen on educating this growth about where they live and how precious it is.
These people almost always come from countries that have fucked theirs.
Like aussies that have fucked here? highest extinction rate isn’t it here?
Not arguing that. Though it is fact. and Fact is what we are asking for in this thread.
What we have is way too lackadaisical an attitude or aptitude to use our vast wealth and intelligence to lead the way. Though this could clearly be our way out of depending upon making Australia the hole i the ground for the rest of the world.
Speedy said:
Bogsnorkler said:
roughbarked said:
Seriously though. We are keen to improve our population growth but not keen on educating this growth about where they live and how precious it is.
These people almost always come from countries that have fucked theirs.
Like aussies that have fucked here? highest extinction rate isn’t it here?
Yes, highest extinction rate of mammal species. We have our dismal control feral animals, in particular foxes and cats, to thank for that.
These people almost always come from countries that have fucked theirs.
roughbarked said:
Seriously though. We are keen to improve our population growth but not keen on educating this growth about where they live and how precious it is.
These people almost always come from countries that have fucked theirs.
this story is about locals though and how the demise of fishing clubs has led to lack of environmental educations and safe fishing practices… which sure needs to be addressed, but do we need to turn this into something else?
Arts said:
roughbarked said:
Seriously though. We are keen to improve our population growth but not keen on educating this growth about where they live and how precious it is.
These people almost always come from countries that have fucked theirs.
this story is about locals though and how the demise of fishing clubs has led to lack of environmental educations and safe fishing practices… which sure needs to be addressed, but do we need to turn this into something else?
No but we do need to address this something else.
roughbarked said:
Arts said:
roughbarked said:
Seriously though. We are keen to improve our population growth but not keen on educating this growth about where they live and how precious it is.
These people almost always come from countries that have fucked theirs.
this story is about locals though and how the demise of fishing clubs has led to lack of environmental educations and safe fishing practices… which sure needs to be addressed, but do we need to turn this into something else?
No but we do need to address this something else.
and all I started with was, today’s news.
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
Arts said:this story is about locals though and how the demise of fishing clubs has led to lack of environmental educations and safe fishing practices… which sure needs to be addressed, but do we need to turn this into something else?
No but we do need to address this something else.
and all I started with was, today’s news.
I think I referred to it as OUR environment.
I doubt there are any populations in any country that haven’t had an impact on the local environment.
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:No but we do need to address this something else.
and all I started with was, today’s news.
I think I referred to it as OUR environment.
Mind, I no longer have any permeate free.
Bogsnorkler said:
I doubt there are any populations in any country that haven’t had an impact on the local environment.
You can be sure of this, to be sure.
roughbarked said:
Arts said:
roughbarked said:
Seriously though. We are keen to improve our population growth but not keen on educating this growth about where they live and how precious it is.
These people almost always come from countries that have fucked theirs.
this story is about locals though and how the demise of fishing clubs has led to lack of environmental educations and safe fishing practices… which sure needs to be addressed, but do we need to turn this into something else?
No but we do need to address this something else.
fine, can we do it without being racist about it?
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:and all I started with was, today’s news.
I think I referred to it as OUR environment.
Mind, I no longer have any permeate free.
Unless of course, he decides to chip in with his specific scientific exposé.
Arts said:
roughbarked said:
Arts said:this story is about locals though and how the demise of fishing clubs has led to lack of environmental educations and safe fishing practices… which sure needs to be addressed, but do we need to turn this into something else?
No but we do need to address this something else.
fine, can we do it without being racist about it?
Where do you define racism?
roughbarked said:
Arts said:
roughbarked said:No but we do need to address this something else.
fine, can we do it without being racist about it?
Where do you define racism?
I mean I earlier not only accepted fact but also required it.
roughbarked said:
Arts said:
roughbarked said:No but we do need to address this something else.
fine, can we do it without being racist about it?
Where do you define racism?
These people…
look just be real about it.. you explicitly said that ‘these people’ fuck their own countries then come here to fuck ours.. why not just say people, why not stick to the point of lack of education doing damage, rather than create a them and us scenario… which I think is what Boris was trying to allude to… we are ALL responsible for both fucking up and learning to be better…
Arts said:
roughbarked said:
Arts said:fine, can we do it without being racist about it?
Where do you define racism?
These people…
look just be real about it.. you explicitly said that ‘these people’ fuck their own countries then come here to fuck ours.. why not just say people, why not stick to the point of lack of education doing damage, rather than create a them and us scenario… which I think is what Boris was trying to allude to… we are ALL responsible for both fucking up and learning to be better…
Well fuck.These people also includes the first people. What the fuck do you think I mean?
roughbarked said:
Arts said:
roughbarked said:Where do you define racism?
These people…
look just be real about it.. you explicitly said that ‘these people’ fuck their own countries then come here to fuck ours.. why not just say people, why not stick to the point of lack of education doing damage, rather than create a them and us scenario… which I think is what Boris was trying to allude to… we are ALL responsible for both fucking up and learning to be better…
Well fuck.These people also includes the first people. What the fuck do you think I mean?
I have explained what I thought you meant. That’s how it came across..
roughbarked said:
Arts said:
roughbarked said:Where do you define racism?
These people…
look just be real about it.. you explicitly said that ‘these people’ fuck their own countries then come here to fuck ours.. why not just say people, why not stick to the point of lack of education doing damage, rather than create a them and us scenario… which I think is what Boris was trying to allude to… we are ALL responsible for both fucking up and learning to be better…
Well fuck.These people also includes the first people. What the fuck do you think I mean?
If you are connecting to human.. then let us do science.
roughbarked said:
Arts said:
roughbarked said:Where do you define racism?
These people…
look just be real about it.. you explicitly said that ‘these people’ fuck their own countries then come here to fuck ours.. why not just say people, why not stick to the point of lack of education doing damage, rather than create a them and us scenario… which I think is what Boris was trying to allude to… we are ALL responsible for both fucking up and learning to be better…
Well fuck.These people also includes the first people. What the fuck do you think I mean?
whatever you wish it to mean once a bit of backlash occurs. You obviously didn’t mean aboriginals in your initial statement, but foreigners. I say this because what country did aboriginals fuck up before coming here?
anyway I have done a bit for the environment and education since coming here.
Bogsnorkler said:
roughbarked said:
Arts said:These people…
look just be real about it.. you explicitly said that ‘these people’ fuck their own countries then come here to fuck ours.. why not just say people, why not stick to the point of lack of education doing damage, rather than create a them and us scenario… which I think is what Boris was trying to allude to… we are ALL responsible for both fucking up and learning to be better…
Well fuck.These people also includes the first people. What the fuck do you think I mean?
whatever you wish it to mean once a bit of backlash occurs. You obviously didn’t mean aboriginals in your initial statement, but foreigners. I say this because what country did aboriginals fuck up before coming here?
OK let us come back to 16 or 17 of whatever.
and neglect whatever the first peoples did to change the environment if you wish. This is where that statement becomes more accurate. Like Dampier polluted the environment with a pewter plate.
Bogsnorkler said:
anyway I have done a bit for the environment and education since coming here.
Glad to hear of it.
Bogsnorkler said:
roughbarked said:
Arts said:These people…
look just be real about it.. you explicitly said that ‘these people’ fuck their own countries then come here to fuck ours.. why not just say people, why not stick to the point of lack of education doing damage, rather than create a them and us scenario… which I think is what Boris was trying to allude to… we are ALL responsible for both fucking up and learning to be better…
Well fuck.These people also includes the first people. What the fuck do you think I mean?
whatever you wish it to mean once a bit of backlash occurs. You obviously didn’t mean aboriginals in your initial statement, but foreigners. I say this because what country did aboriginals fuck up before coming here?
well, I mean their use of natural resources and sustainable practices for 40000 years is a bit much…
roughbarked said:
Bogsnorkler said:
anyway I have done a bit for the environment and education since coming here.
Glad to hear of it.
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:
roughbarked said:Well fuck.These people also includes the first people. What the fuck do you think I mean?
whatever you wish it to mean once a bit of backlash occurs. You obviously didn’t mean aboriginals in your initial statement, but foreigners. I say this because what country did aboriginals fuck up before coming here?
well, I mean their use of natural resources and sustainable practices for 40000 years is a bit much…
sure, but didn’t fire change the make-up of the types of tree species?
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:
roughbarked said:Well fuck.These people also includes the first people. What the fuck do you think I mean?
whatever you wish it to mean once a bit of backlash occurs. You obviously didn’t mean aboriginals in your initial statement, but foreigners. I say this because what country did aboriginals fuck up before coming here?
well, I mean their use of natural resources and sustainable practices for 40000 years is a bit much…
a bit much? for whom to digest?
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:
roughbarked said:Well fuck.These people also includes the first people. What the fuck do you think I mean?
whatever you wish it to mean once a bit of backlash occurs. You obviously didn’t mean aboriginals in your initial statement, but foreigners. I say this because what country did aboriginals fuck up before coming here?
well, I mean their use of natural resources and sustainable practices for 40000 years is a bit much…
also, I wonder what impact they would have had if the population had been in the millions?
Bogsnorkler said:
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:whatever you wish it to mean once a bit of backlash occurs. You obviously didn’t mean aboriginals in your initial statement, but foreigners. I say this because what country did aboriginals fuck up before coming here?
well, I mean their use of natural resources and sustainable practices for 40000 years is a bit much…
sure, but didn’t fire change the make-up of the types of tree species?
Fire did that anyway/
Bogsnorkler said:
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:whatever you wish it to mean once a bit of backlash occurs. You obviously didn’t mean aboriginals in your initial statement, but foreigners. I say this because what country did aboriginals fuck up before coming here?
well, I mean their use of natural resources and sustainable practices for 40000 years is a bit much…
sure, but didn’t fire change the make-up of the types of tree species?
was it sustainable?
Bogsnorkler said:
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:whatever you wish it to mean once a bit of backlash occurs. You obviously didn’t mean aboriginals in your initial statement, but foreigners. I say this because what country did aboriginals fuck up before coming here?
well, I mean their use of natural resources and sustainable practices for 40000 years is a bit much…
also, I wonder what impact they would have had if the population had been in the millions?
Exceedingly so.
Bogsnorkler said:
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:whatever you wish it to mean once a bit of backlash occurs. You obviously didn’t mean aboriginals in your initial statement, but foreigners. I say this because what country did aboriginals fuck up before coming here?
well, I mean their use of natural resources and sustainable practices for 40000 years is a bit much…
also, I wonder what impact they would have had if the population had been in the millions?
I guess we’ll never know.. because that didn’t seem to happen in all the time they had to procreate prior to the invasion…
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:
Arts said:well, I mean their use of natural resources and sustainable practices for 40000 years is a bit much…
sure, but didn’t fire change the make-up of the types of tree species?
was it sustainable?
Depends who is arguing why they deliberatley lit a fire.
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:
Arts said:well, I mean their use of natural resources and sustainable practices for 40000 years is a bit much…
sure, but didn’t fire change the make-up of the types of tree species?
was it sustainable?
I was pointing out that everyone changes the environment to suit their lifestyle. And therefore some species must lose out.
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:
Arts said:well, I mean their use of natural resources and sustainable practices for 40000 years is a bit much…
also, I wonder what impact they would have had if the population had been in the millions?
I guess we’ll never know.. because that didn’t seem to happen in all the time they had to procreate prior to the invasion…
Their connection with the environment naturally restricted that. Something they may have learned from kangaroos.
Bogsnorkler said:
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:sure, but didn’t fire change the make-up of the types of tree species?
was it sustainable?
I was pointing out that everyone changes the environment to suit their lifestyle. And therefore some species must lose out.
Unless it is their totem.
Bogsnorkler said:
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:sure, but didn’t fire change the make-up of the types of tree species?
was it sustainable?
I was pointing out that everyone changes the environment to suit their lifestyle. And therefore some species must lose out.
fair point.
I’m still sad about the dinosaurs…
what about brumbies, they once talked about brumbies
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:
Arts said:was it sustainable?
I was pointing out that everyone changes the environment to suit their lifestyle. And therefore some species must lose out.
fair point.
I’m still sad about the dinosaurs…
Fair but seriously, if they were still here we probably could not be having this discussioon which relies on us desecrating specific inigenous ecosyestms for a few mobile phines.
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:
Arts said:was it sustainable?
I was pointing out that everyone changes the environment to suit their lifestyle. And therefore some species must lose out.
fair point.
I’m still sad about the dinosaurs…
Meh. Overrated lizards.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/580147665365255/
I look here everyday. The wildlife that is in just one small corner of the country is just amazing.
SCIENCE said:
what about brumbies, they once talked about brumbies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFLJFl7ws_0
SCIENCE said:
what about brumbies, they once talked about brumbies
should be cleared from Nat Parks.
roughbarked said:
SCIENCE said:
what about brumbies, they once talked about brumbies
Bogsnorkler said:
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:I was pointing out that everyone changes the environment to suit their lifestyle. And therefore some species must lose out.
fair point.
I’m still sad about the dinosaurs…
Meh. Overrated lizards.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/580147665365255/
I look here everyday. The wildlife that is in just one small corner of the country is just amazing.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/roughbarked/51308530602/in/photostream
Bogsnorkler said:
SCIENCE said:
what about brumbies, they once talked about brumbies
should be cleared from Nat Parks.
we agree but has Gutful come around to this idea yet
Like, who gives a shit?
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:I think I referred to it as OUR environment.
Mind, I no longer have any permeate free.
Unless of course, he decides to chip in with his specific scientific exposé.
For goodness sake, leave it alone.
buffy said:
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:Mind, I no longer have any permeate free.
Unless of course, he decides to chip in with his specific scientific exposé.
For goodness sake, leave it alone.
nuff sed
Bogsnorkler said:
SCIENCE said:
what about brumbies, they once talked about brumbies
should be cleared from Nat Parks.
I agree completely.
Michael V said:
Bogsnorkler said:
SCIENCE said:
what about brumbies, they once talked about brumbies
should be cleared from Nat Parks.
I agree completely.
Horses for courses
Read back. Always do that. See what you said. Ask yourself why.
I don’t find problems with that.
Do You?
Bogsnorkler said:
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:I was pointing out that everyone changes the environment to suit their lifestyle. And therefore some species must lose out.
fair point.
I’m still sad about the dinosaurs…
Meh. Overrated lizards.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/580147665365255/
I look here everyday. The wildlife that is in just one small corner of the country is just amazing.
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/580147665365255/
“NT Field Naturalists’ Club Inc. Public group. 4.7K members”
Looks like a good group.
> I’m still sad about the dinosaurs…
You can’t pin the blame for that on humans.
It is a good group. Started in 1978.
Bogsnorkler said:
It is a good group. Started in 1978.
Climate change and deforestation have flipped a large swathe of the Amazon basin from absorbing to emitting planet-warming CO2, a transformation that could turn humanity’s greatest natural ally in the fight against global warming into a foe, researchers reported on Wednesday. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-15/global-warming-turns-amazon-basin-into-source-of-co2/100297432
roughbarked said:
Just in case you don’t think about it.Let us start with today’s news. Covid inclusive.
Boom in recreational fishing having major impact on seabirds, say wildlife rescuers
ABC North Coast
/
It all comes down to
A Shift In Fundamental Values
When GREED blinds people to everything that actually matters
(see also: the root of all evil)
it’s helpful to remember that
the TRUE Lesson in it’s Polar Opposite “The Sadim Touch”
wherein everything these greedy bastids touch Turns To Dross
(see also: Donald Dump)
Ogmog said:
roughbarked said:
Just in case you don’t think about it.Let us start with today’s news. Covid inclusive.
Boom in recreational fishing having major impact on seabirds, say wildlife rescuers
ABC North Coast
/It all comes down to
A Shift In Fundamental ValuesWhen GREED blinds people to everything that actually matters
(see also: the root of all evil)it’s helpful to remember that
the TRUE Lesson in it’s Polar Opposite “The Sadim Touch”
wherein everything these greedy bastids touch Turns To Dross
(see also: Donald Dump)
Actually, there are those who are greedy yes but there are also so many who are simply attempting to feed themselves cheaply.
.
A WiseMan once told me that; “Enough Is Enough”
Ogmog said:
.
A WiseMan once told me that; “Enough Is Enough”
Well it simply is.
roughbarked said:
Ogmog said:
roughbarked said:
Just in case you don’t think about it.Let us start with today’s news. Covid inclusive.
Boom in recreational fishing having major impact on seabirds, say wildlife rescuers
ABC North Coast
/It all comes down to
A Shift In Fundamental ValuesWhen GREED blinds people to everything that actually matters
(see also: the root of all evil)it’s helpful to remember that
the TRUE Lesson in it’s Polar Opposite “The Sadim Touch”
wherein everything these greedy bastids touch Turns To Dross
(see also: Donald Dump)
Actually, there are those who are greedy yes but there are also so many who are simply attempting to feed themselves cheaply.
Actually I wasn’t referring to the subsistence farmer or fisherman
but rather the people who became corporations that rape the land & sea
nothing wrong about owning a horse (Bromby) or two………………………..
but stock breeding pushed to the absolute limit of what the land could support
is a story quite literally goes back to the very beginning of recorded history
when a family goat became a source of status, wealth & a monetary exchange
until herds of goats denuded the hills & valleys leading to the collapse of society
Ogmog said:
nothing wrong about owning a horse (Bromby) or two………………………..but stock breeding pushed to the absolute limit of what the land could support
is a story quite literally goes back to the very beginning of recorded history
when a family goat became a source of status, wealth & a monetary exchange
until herds of goats denuded the hills & valleys leading to the collapse of society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMd7g9_7ao8
roughbarked said:
Ogmog said:
nothing wrong about owning a horse (Bromby) or two………………………..but stock breeding pushed to the absolute limit of what the land could support
is a story quite literally goes back to the very beginning of recorded history
when a family goat became a source of status, wealth & a monetary exchange
until herds of goats denuded the hills & valleys leading to the collapse of society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMd7g9_7ao8
Brumbies aren’t owned by people. If they are caught and fenced in, they become mere horses.
Never the less
too many of them
nibbling meager scrub
much like a flock of f*n goats
adds up or more to the point; subtracts
Ogmog said:
Never the less
too many of them
nibbling meager scrub
much like a flock of f*n goats
adds up or more to the point; subtracts
+1
Tau.Neutrino said:
Ogmog said:
Never the less
too many of them
nibbling meager scrub
much like a flock of f*n goats
adds up or more to the point; subtracts
+1
Concern for the protection of the biblical “cedars of God” goes back to 1876, when the 102-hectare (250-acre) grove was surrounded by a high stone wall, paid for by Queen Victoria, to protect saplings from browsing by goats.[
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Ogmog said:
Never the less
too many of them
nibbling meager scrub
much like a flock of f*n goats
adds up or more to the point; subtracts
+1
Concern for the protection of the biblical “cedars of God” goes back to 1876, when the 102-hectare (250-acre) grove was surrounded by a high stone wall, paid for by Queen Victoria, to protect saplings from browsing by goats.
Financed by Great Britain’s Queen Victoria, the wall protects against one of the cedar’s natural enemies, the goats who enjoy feasting on young saplings. http://www.middleeast.com/thecedars.htmMy FiL was a forester and he banned the ajistment of goats sheep and cattle from his forests, due to them ruining the shape of young Callitris seedlings or killing them altogether.
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:+1
Concern for the protection of the biblical “cedars of God” goes back to 1876, when the 102-hectare (250-acre) grove was surrounded by a high stone wall, paid for by Queen Victoria, to protect saplings from browsing by goats.
Financed by Great Britain’s Queen Victoria, the wall protects against one of the cedar’s natural enemies, the goats who enjoy feasting on young saplings. http://www.middleeast.com/thecedars.htmMy FiL was a forester and he banned the ajistment of goats sheep and cattle from his forests, due to them ruining the shape of young Callitris seedlings or killing them altogether.
Id like to see jobs created to remove goats and other pests, turn them into fertilizer or dog food.
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:Concern for the protection of the biblical “cedars of God” goes back to 1876, when the 102-hectare (250-acre) grove was surrounded by a high stone wall, paid for by Queen Victoria, to protect saplings from browsing by goats.
Financed by Great Britain’s Queen Victoria, the wall protects against one of the cedar’s natural enemies, the goats who enjoy feasting on young saplings. http://www.middleeast.com/thecedars.htmMy FiL was a forester and he banned the ajistment of goats sheep and cattle from his forests, due to them ruining the shape of young Callitris seedlings or killing them altogether.
Id like to see jobs created to remove goats and other pests, turn them into fertilizer or dog food.
Our local council has tried several times to get rid of the goats on Scenic hill. Problem is, they can travel the length of the McPherson ranges unmolested. You want a job? http://www.griffith.nsw.gov.au/page.asp?f=RES-BNC-68-53-34
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:+1
Concern for the protection of the biblical “cedars of God” goes back to 1876, when the 102-hectare (250-acre) grove was surrounded by a high stone wall, paid for by Queen Victoria, to protect saplings from browsing by goats.
Financed by Great Britain’s Queen Victoria, the wall protects against one of the cedar’s natural enemies, the goats who enjoy feasting on young saplings. http://www.middleeast.com/thecedars.htmMy FiL was a forester and he banned the ajistment of goats sheep and cattle from his forests, due to them ruining the shape of young Callitris seedlings or killing them altogether.
if you mist my post
“over grazing has impacted even
fertile lands since before recorded history”
https://grist.org/article/2009-07-29-learning-from-past-civilizations/but to address the OP
so has over-exploitation of resourcesSome guy wanting to feed his family
makes a bigger net and catches more than
they can eat in one sitting and suddenly has the
bright idea to turn a few shekels for his time & troubleFast Forward to Today
Q: When IS Enough Enough?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/16/scientists-dismiss-warren-entschs-claim-warm-water-from-northern-hemisphere-is-damaging-reef
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2021/jul/16/a-bee-before-it-dies-its-mouth-opens-and-closes-kissing-the-ground
Bogsnorkler said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2021/jul/16/a-bee-before-it-dies-its-mouth-opens-and-closes-kissing-the-ground
and a Bull Ant tries to sting itself to death.
from roughbarked’s Flickr..
The third world needs to cut its birthrates to cut pollution
https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/reality-is-catching-up-with-our-freeloading-populist-climate-deniers-20210718-p58apl.html
Bogsnorkler said:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/reality-is-catching-up-with-our-freeloading-populist-climate-deniers-20210718-p58apl.html
Classic Gittens.
Saying what any political party that called itself “liberal” should be saying, but isn’t.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/20/a-shocking-failure-chevron-criticised-for-missing-carbon-capture-target-at-wa-gas-project
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-07-21/sea-creatures-crabs-lobsters-fish-octopus-humane-treatment/100292422
Bogsnorkler said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-07-21/sea-creatures-crabs-lobsters-fish-octopus-humane-treatment/100292422
>A 2018 study also found that octopuses given the party drug ecstasy were increasingly sociable, measured through the amount of touch and interaction between one another.
Lucky there are no aquarium cops, they might have been strip-searched.
Bubblecar said:
Bogsnorkler said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-07-21/sea-creatures-crabs-lobsters-fish-octopus-humane-treatment/100292422
>A 2018 study also found that octopuses given the party drug ecstasy were increasingly sociable, measured through the amount of touch and interaction between one another.
Lucky there are no aquarium cops, they might have been strip-searched.
Mmmmm. Calamari strips.
:)
Michael V said:
Bubblecar said:
Bogsnorkler said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-07-21/sea-creatures-crabs-lobsters-fish-octopus-humane-treatment/100292422
>A 2018 study also found that octopuses given the party drug ecstasy were increasingly sociable, measured through the amount of touch and interaction between one another.
Lucky there are no aquarium cops, they might have been strip-searched.
Mmmmm. Calamari strips.
:)
hehe
Michael V said:
Bubblecar said:
Bogsnorkler said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-07-21/sea-creatures-crabs-lobsters-fish-octopus-humane-treatment/100292422
>A 2018 study also found that octopuses given the party drug ecstasy were increasingly sociable, measured through the amount of touch and interaction between one another.
Lucky there are no aquarium cops, they might have been strip-searched.
Mmmmm. Calamari strips.
:)
calamari is from squid not octopuses.
Bogsnorkler said:
Michael V said:
Bubblecar said:>A 2018 study also found that octopuses given the party drug ecstasy were increasingly sociable, measured through the amount of touch and interaction between one another.
Lucky there are no aquarium cops, they might have been strip-searched.
Mmmmm. Calamari strips.
:)
calamari is from squid not octopuses.
you’re just jealous that fiVe was funny
Bogsnorkler said:
Michael V said:
Bubblecar said:>A 2018 study also found that octopuses given the party drug ecstasy were increasingly sociable, measured through the amount of touch and interaction between one another.
Lucky there are no aquarium cops, they might have been strip-searched.
Mmmmm. Calamari strips.
:)
calamari is from squid not octopuses.
¿ not cuttlefish ?
Bogsnorkler said:
Michael V said:
Bubblecar said:>A 2018 study also found that octopuses given the party drug ecstasy were increasingly sociable, measured through the amount of touch and interaction between one another.
Lucky there are no aquarium cops, they might have been strip-searched.
Mmmmm. Calamari strips.
:)
calamari is from squid not octopuses.
Shush, you.
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:
Michael V said:Mmmmm. Calamari strips.
:)
calamari is from squid not octopuses.
you’re just jealous that fiVe was funny
Thank you Arts.
:)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-22/one-big-climate-theory/100311336
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/environment-minister-appeals-ruling-she-must-protect-children-from-climate-harm-20210721-p58bpm.html
Bogsnorkler said:
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/environment-minister-appeals-ruling-she-must-protect-children-from-climate-harm-20210721-p58bpm.html
(Smiling face): She’s paying for this appeal herself, right?
(Worried face): Right?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bogsnorkler said:
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/environment-minister-appeals-ruling-she-must-protect-children-from-climate-harm-20210721-p58bpm.html
(Smiling face): She’s paying for this appeal herself, right?
(Worried face): Right?
I doubt it.
(I also doubt Porter will be paying the $550k himself.)
Shows what we could easily have missed in every paddock we cleared and ploughed. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-28/new-orchid-species-discovered-in-gold-coast-hinterland/100322870
Is fire now in a climate feedback loop?
Fire thunderstorm super-outbreaks are now emerging as a potential feedback loop in the climate system, according to Mr McRae.
He said climate change could drive an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme fire events that, in turn, could change the climate.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-28/fire-thunderstorms-may-cause-nuclear-winter-scientists-say/100323566
roughbarked said:
Shows what we could easily have missed in every paddock we cleared and ploughed. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-28/new-orchid-species-discovered-in-gold-coast-hinterland/100322870
Pterostylis is one of the names being changed a lot in the last few years.
https://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/cd-keys/orchidkey/html/namechanges.html
buffy said:
roughbarked said:
Shows what we could easily have missed in every paddock we cleared and ploughed. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-28/new-orchid-species-discovered-in-gold-coast-hinterland/100322870
Pterostylis is one of the names being changed a lot in the last few years.
https://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr/cd-keys/orchidkey/html/namechanges.html
ta.
https://theconversation.com/artificial-refuges-are-a-popular-stopgap-for-habitat-destruction-but-the-science-isnt-up-to-scratch-164401
Witty Rejoinder said:
for here.
Scientists expected thawing wetlands in Siberia’s permafrost. What they found is ‘much more dangerous.’
A 2020 heat wave unleashed methane emissions from prehistoric limestone in two regions stretching 375 miles, study saysBy Steven Mufson
Yesterday at 11:42 p.m. EDTScientists have long been worried about what many call “the methane bomb” — the potentially catastrophic release of methane from thawing wetlands in Siberia’s permafrost.
But now a study by three geologists says that a heat wave in 2020 has revealed a surge in methane emissions “potentially in much higher amounts” from a different source: thawing rock formations in the Arctic permafrost.
The difference is that thawing wetlands releases “microbial” methane from the decay of soil and organic matter, while thawing limestone — or carbonate rock — releases hydrocarbons and gas hydrates from reservoirs both below and within the permafrost, making it “much more dangerous” than past studies have suggested.
Nikolaus Froitzheim, who teaches at the Institute of Geosciences at the University of Bonn, said that he and two colleagues used satellite maps that measured intense methane concentrations over two “conspicuous elongated areas” of limestone — stripes that were several miles wide and up to 375 miles long — in the Taymyr Peninsula and the area around northern Siberia.
The study was published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Surface temperatures during the heat wave in 2020 soared to 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1979-2000 norms. In the long stripes, there is hardly any soil, and vegetation is scarce, the study says. So the limestone crops out of the surface. As the rock formations warm up, cracks and pockets opened up, releasing methane that had been trapped inside.
The concentrations of methane were elevated by about 5 percent, Froitzheim said. Further tests showed the continued concentration of methane through the spring of 2021 despite the return of low temperatures and snow in the region.
Radical warming in Siberia leaves millions on unstable ground
“We would have expected elevated methane in areas with wetlands,” Froitzheim said. “But these were not over wetlands but on limestone outcrops. There is very little soil in these. It was really a surprising signal from hard rock, not wetlands.”
The carbonates in the outcroppings date back 541 million years to the Paleozoic era, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
“It’s intriguing. It’s not good news if it’s right,” said Robert Max Holmes, a senior scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center. “Nobody wants to see more potentially nasty feedbacks and this is potentially one.”
“What we do know with quite a lot of confidence is how much carbon is locked up in the permafrost. It’s a big number and as the Earth warms and permafrost thaws, that ancient organic matter is available to microbes for microbial processes and that releases CO2 and methane,” Holmes said. “If something in the Arctic is going to keep me up at night that’s still what it is.” But he said the paper warranted further study.
The geologists who wrote the report usually study things such as tectonic plate boundaries and the way those geologic plates fold over one another. But they have worked in the Arctic and that has piqued their interest.
Methane gas is released from seep holes at the bottom of Esieh Lake, Alaska. (Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)
The biggest sources of methane in the world are agricultural, such as rice growing, and leaks and flares from oil and gas operations, such as in the U.S. Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico where production has soared in the past decade. But Froitzheim said that in the permafrost “the question is: how much will come, and we don’t really know.”Normally the frozen permafrost acts as a cap, sealing methane below. It also can lock up gas hydrates, which are crystalline solids of frozen water that contain huge amounts of methane. Unstable at normal sea-level pressure and temperatures, gas hydrates can be dangerously explosive as temperatures rise.
The study said that gas hydrates in the Earth’s permafrost are estimated to contain 20 gigatons of carbon. That’s a small percentage of all carbon trapped in the permafrost, but the continued warming of gas hydrates could cause disruptive and rapid releases of methane from rock outcrops.
“It will be important to continue to compare methane in future years to really pinpoint how much additional geologic methane is being emitted to the atmosphere as the permafrost thaws,” said Ted Schuur, professor of ecosystem ecology at Northern Arizona University. “We know the heat wave was real, but whether it triggered the methane release cannot be determined without additional years of methane data.”
The Arctic has also delivered other sobering news. Polar Portal, a website where Danish Arctic research institutions present updated information about ice, said last week that a “massive melting event” had been big enough to cover Florida with two inches of water.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/08/02/climate-change-heat-wave-unleashes-methane-from-prehistoric-siberian-rock/?
Αθήνα, apparently.
https://theconversation.com/giant-bird-eating-centipedes-exist-and-theyre-surprisingly-important-for-their-ecosystem-161744
Virtually all emperor penguin colonies doomed for extinction by 2100 as climate change looms, study finds
An emperor penguin stands on Peka Peka Beach on the Kapiti Coast in New Zealand. (Mark Mitchell/New Zealand Herald/AP)
By Rachel Pannett
Yesterday at 2:53 a.m. EDT
Nearly all of the world’s emperor penguin colonies may be pushed to the brink of extinction by 2100, a study has found, as the United States moves to list them as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
If climate change continues at its current rate, more than 98 percent of emperor penguin colonies are expected to become quasi-extinct by the turn of the century, a group of global researchers wrote in the journal Global Change Biology on Tuesday. The scientists’ near-term predictions were equally grim: They estimated at least two-thirds of colonies would be quasi-extinct by 2050.
(Quasi-extinction refers to a population being doomed for extinction even if some members of the species remain alive.)
Emperor penguins are the world’s largest penguin species. A study published in 2020 estimated there are about 280,000 breeding pairs worldwide, nearly all of which are in Antarctica. The species is especially vulnerable to climate change because, like polar bears in the Arctic, they depend on sea ice for vital activities including breeding, feeding and molting, the researchers say.
The penguins breed on stable sea ice locked to the coast, on ice shelves or on islands around the Antarctic during the winter. Sea ice floes also offer a place for adult emperor penguins to rest or seek refuge from predators.
“There is a sea ice ‘Goldilocks’ zone,” said Stephanie Jenouvrier, a seabird ecologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and a lead author of the study, in a statement. “If there is too little sea ice, chicks can drown when sea ice breaks up early; if there is too much sea ice, foraging trips become too long and more arduous, and the chicks may starve.”
In parts of the Antarctic Peninsula, according to the researchers, sea ice cover has shrunk by over 60 percent in three decades and one emperor penguin colony has already “virtually disappeared.”
An emperor penguin colony in the Antarctic’s Weddell Sea was effectively wiped out in 2016 because of record-low sea ice and early ice breakup, Jenouvrier said. More than 10,000 chicks are thought to have drowned when the sea ice broke up before they were ready to swim. A British Antarctic Survey base in the area has been mothballed in recent years, partly because of fears the nearby ice could soon calve one or more giant icebergs into the ocean, the BBC reported.
Building off information from the new study, as well as other scientific and commercial information, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will list the proposal to protect emperor penguins as a threatened species on the federal register Wednesday. The Endangered Species Act has been called the world’s strongest law for preventing extinction of imperiled species, and it is increasingly being applied to animals that are threatened by climate change, scientists say.
For species outside U.S. jurisdiction, certain protections like the mandated use of evidence-based tools to reduce climate threats don’t necessarily apply. But a U.S. mandate can still promote research and conservation actions, scientists say.
The polar bear was the first species listed for protection under the act because of climate change in 2008. Researchers say the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided the emperor penguin didn’t warrant listing nearly 15 years ago, in part because of uncertainty in future predictions of sea ice conditions and a lack of significant population decline.
Emperor penguins are a vital part of the Antarctic food chain, preying on krill, squid and small fish and providing a source of food for leopard seals and killer whales.
“Although they are found in Antarctica, far from human civilization, they live in a delicate balance with their environment, which today is rapidly changing — they have become modern-day canaries” for the effects of climate change, Jenouvrier said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/04/emperor-penguins-climate-antarctica/?
Witty Rejoinder said:
Virtually all emperor penguin colonies doomed for extinction by 2100 as climate change looms, study finds
An emperor penguin stands on Peka Peka Beach on the Kapiti Coast in New Zealand. (Mark Mitchell/New Zealand Herald/AP)By Rachel Pannett
Yesterday at 2:53 a.m. EDT
….
“Although they are found in Antarctica, far from human civilization, they live in a delicate balance with their environment, which today is rapidly changing — they have become modern-day canaries” for the effects of climate change, Jenouvrier said.https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/08/04/emperor-penguins-climate-antarctica/?
Critical ocean system may be heading for collapse due to climate change, study finds
By Sarah Kaplan
August 6, 2021 — 3.10am
Human-caused warming has led to an “almost complete loss of stability” in the system that drives Atlantic Ocean currents, a new study has found – raising the worrying prospect that this critical aquatic “conveyer belt” could be close to collapse.
In recent years, scientists have warned about a weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which transports warm, salty water from the tropics to northern Europe and then sends colder water back south along the ocean floor. Researchers who study ancient climate change have also uncovered evidence that the AMOC can turn off abruptly, causing wild temperature swings and other dramatic shifts in global weather systems.
Scientists haven’t directly observed the AMOC slowing down. But the new analysis, published on Thursday in the journal Nature Climate Change, draws on more than a century of ocean temperature and salinity data to show significant changes in eight indirect measures of the circulation’s strength.
These indicators suggest that the AMOC is running out of steam, making it more susceptible to disruptions that might knock it out of equilibrium, says study author Niklas Boers, a researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Science in Germany.
If the circulation shuts down, it could bring extreme cold to Europe and parts of North America, raise sea levels along the east coast of the United States and disrupt seasonal monsoons that provide water to much of the world.
“This is an increase in understanding … of how close to a tipping point the AMOC might already be,” said Levke Caesar, a climate physicist at Maynooth University who was not involved in the study.
Boers’ analysis doesn’t suggest exactly when the switch might happen. But “the mere possibility that the AMOC tipping point is close should be motivation enough for us to take countermeasures,” Caesar said. “The consequences of a collapse would likely be far-reaching.”
The AMOC is the product of a gigantic, ocean-wide balancing act. It starts in the tropics, where high temperatures not only warm up the seawater but increase its proportion of salt by boosting evaporation. This warm, salty water flows north-east from the US coastline toward Europe – creating the current we know as the Gulf Stream.
But as the current gains latitude it cools, adding density to waters already laden with salt. By the time it hits Greenland it is dense enough to sink deep beneath the surface. It pushes other submerged water south toward Antarctica, where it mixes with other ocean currents as part of a global system known as the “thermohaline circulation”.
This circulation is at the heart of Earth’s climate system, playing a critical role in redistributing heat and regulating weather patterns around the world.
As long as the necessary temperature and salinity gradients exist, AMOC is self-sustaining, Boers explained. The predictable physics that makes dense water sink and lighter water “upwell” keeps the circulation churning in an endless loop.
But climate change has shifted the balance. Higher temperatures make ocean waters warmer and lighter. An influx of freshwater from melting ice sheets and glaciers dilutes North Atlantic’s saltiness, reducing its density. If these waters aren’t heavy enough to sink, the entire AMOC will shut down.
It’s happened before. Studies suggest that, toward the end of the last ice age, a massive glacial lake burst through a declining North American ice sheet. The flood of freshwater spilled into the Atlantic, halting the AMOC and plunging much of the northern hemisphere – especially Europe – into deep cold. Gas bubbles trapped in polar ice indicate the cold spell lasted 1000 years. Analyses of plant fossils and ancient artifacts suggest that the climate shift transformed ecosystems and threw human societies into upheaval.
“The phenomenon is intrinsically bi-stable,” Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution president Peter de Menocal said of the AMOC. “It’s either on or it’s off.”
But is it about to turn off now?
“That’s the core question we’re all concerned about,” said de Menocal, who was not involved in Boers’s research.
In its 2019 “Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate,” the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected that the AMOC would weaken during this century, but total collapse within the next 300 years was only likely under the worst-case warming scenarios.
The new analysis suggests “the critical threshold is most likely much closer than we would have expected,” Boers said.
The “restoring forces,” or feedback loops, that keep the AMOC churning are in decline, he said. All the indicators analysed in his study – including sea surface temperature and salt concentrations – have become increasingly variable.
It’s as though the AMOC is a patient newly arrived in the emergency room, and Boers has provided scientists with an assessment of its vital signs, de Menocal said. “All the signs are consistent with the patient having a real mortal problem.”
Physical oceanographers like him are also trying to confirm the AMOC slowdown through direct observations. But the AMOC is so big and complex it will likely take years of careful monitoring and data collection before a definitive measurement is possible
“Yet everyone also realises the jeopardy of waiting for that proof,” de Menocal said.
After all, there are plenty of other indications that Earth’s climate is in unprecedented territory. This northern hemisphere summer, the Pacific Northwest was blasted by a heat wave scientists say was “virtually impossible” without human-caused warming. China, Central Europe, Uganda and India have all experienced massive, deadly floods. Wildfires are ranging from California to Turkey to the frozen forests of Siberia.
The world is more than 1 degree warmer than it was before humans started burning fossil fuels, and it’s getting hotter all the time.
And the apparent consequences of the AMOC slowing are already being felt. A persistent “cold blob” in the ocean south of Greenland is thought to result from less warm water reaching that region. The lagging Gulf Stream has caused exceptionally high sea level rise along the east coast of the United States. Key fisheries have been upended by the rapid temperature swings, and beloved species are struggling to cope with the changes.
If the AMOC does completely shut down, the change would be irreversible in human lifetimes, Boers said. The “bi-stable” nature of the phenomenon means it will find new equilibrium in its “off” state. Turning it back on would require a shift in the climate far greater than the changes that triggered the shutdown.
“It’s one of those events that should not happen, and we should try all that we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible,” Boers said. “This is a system we don’t want to mess with.”
https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/critical-ocean-system-may-be-heading-for-collapse-due-to-climate-change-study-finds-20210806-p58gbz.html.
Witty Rejoinder said:
Critical ocean system may be heading for collapse due to climate change, study finds
By Sarah Kaplan
August 6, 2021 — 3.10am“It’s one of those events that should not happen, and we should try all that we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible,” Boers said. “This is a system we don’t want to mess with.”
https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/critical-ocean-system-may-be-heading-for-collapse-due-to-climate-change-study-finds-20210806-p58gbz.html.
So how do we fix something that is already buggered?
roughbarked said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Critical ocean system may be heading for collapse due to climate change, study finds
By Sarah Kaplan
August 6, 2021 — 3.10am“It’s one of those events that should not happen, and we should try all that we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible,” Boers said. “This is a system we don’t want to mess with.”
https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/critical-ocean-system-may-be-heading-for-collapse-due-to-climate-change-study-finds-20210806-p58gbz.html.
So how do we fix something that is already buggered?
By doing whatever you can to reduce the level of buggeration.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Critical ocean system may be heading for collapse due to climate change, study finds
By Sarah Kaplan
August 6, 2021 — 3.10am“It’s one of those events that should not happen, and we should try all that we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible,” Boers said. “This is a system we don’t want to mess with.”
https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/critical-ocean-system-may-be-heading-for-collapse-due-to-climate-change-study-finds-20210806-p58gbz.html.
So how do we fix something that is already buggered?
By doing whatever you can to reduce the level of buggeration.
It’s kind of how it is. We are now in a situation of choosing fuckedness.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:So how do we fix something that is already buggered?
By doing whatever you can to reduce the level of buggeration.
It’s kind of how it is. We are now in a situation of choosing fuckedness.
The rules of Bridge (the card game, not the science and art of building them) has much to say on these matters:
1. If there is just one distribution of the cards that might stop you making your contract, play as if that is the actual distribution, even if it means forgoing some bonus points.
2. If there is just one distribution of the cards that will allow you to make your contract, play as if that is the actual distribution, even if it is unlikely.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:By doing whatever you can to reduce the level of buggeration.
It’s kind of how it is. We are now in a situation of choosing fuckedness.
The rules of Bridge (the card game, not the science and art of building them) has much to say on these matters:
1. If there is just one distribution of the cards that might stop you making your contract, play as if that is the actual distribution, even if it means forgoing some bonus points.
2. If there is just one distribution of the cards that will allow you to make your contract, play as if that is the actual distribution, even if it is unlikely.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:It’s kind of how it is. We are now in a situation of choosing fuckedness.
The rules of Bridge (the card game, not the science and art of building them) has much to say on these matters:
1. If there is just one distribution of the cards that might stop you making your contract, play as if that is the actual distribution, even if it means forgoing some bonus points.
2. If there is just one distribution of the cards that will allow you to make your contract, play as if that is the actual distribution, even if it is unlikely.
Hello, Davros…
The Greenland ice sheet experienced a massive melting event last week
This could have short-term and long-term implications for sea-level rise.
By Kasha Patel
Yesterday at 8:00 a.m. EDT
Last week, a heat wave spurred Greenland’s biggest melting event of the 2021 season so far. The Polar Portal, run by Danish research institutions, stated that enough water melted to cover all of Florida with two inches of water.
“It’s becoming more and more common to see these large melt events,” said Lauren Andrews, a glaciologist with NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office. “That’s because we generally have a warmer climate.”
The heat wave began around July 28 because of a high-pressure system over Greenland. That system cleared clouds from the skies and allowed for more sunlight to reach the ground, causing temperatures inland to soar.
Heat waves to drastically worsen in Northern Hemisphere, studies warn
Various models show an unusually high amount of melting during this time. Martin Stendel, a climate researcher at the Danish Meteorological Institute, reported a loss of around 41 gigatons, or 8 gigatons per day, from July 28 to Aug. 1. Xavier Fettweis, a climate scientist from the University of Liège, stated that the loss on July 28 was the third-largest on a single day since 1950.
The melt rates were high, but not unheard of, according to Stendel. He said several days in 2019, a record melt year, exceeded 10 gigatons per day. Unlike 2019, though, this event was more widespread across the territory — particularly on the western and northern coasts.
The melt extent, shown in pink, covered a more widespread area during the recent event in 2021 than in July 2019.
“There was pretty extensive amounts of melt in the northern part of Greenland. It looked like it was actually more extensive than the northern melting we saw in 2019,” Andrews said.
So far, researchers say, Greenland has experienced a typical melt season, which runs from June to early September. In addition to this large melting event, Andrews said another noticeable one occurred earlier in the month.
Cooler weather earlier in the season kept significant melting at bay longer than usual, allowing for a positive accumulation of snow for the time of year. The cooler weather was a consequence of oscillations in the jet stream. These same fluctuations were also linked to record-breaking temperatures in the Pacific Northwest and western Canada as well as flooding in Germany.
“The weather forecasts do not indicate another Greenland heat wave within the next two weeks,” wrote Stendel, who thinks 2021 will probably end with a larger-than-average surface mass balance. A positive surface mass balance means more snow was gained through accumulation than lost through processes such as melting and runoff.
Why melting events matter
Melting events can have numerous short-term effects on the ice sheet, Andrews explained. For one, when snow melts, it exposes the darker underlying ice as well as soot, dust and other dark particles that are typically trapped within it. Melting also can deform snow crystals, making them darker. The exposed darker surfaces absorb more sunlight instead of reflecting it back toward space, which can lead to additional melting.
“When you have a melt event over areas that don’t normally see intense melt events, you can trigger those add-on effects,” said Andrews, who noted that extensive melting as far north in Greenland as seen last week is not common. “ can really modify the surface in ways that the surface hasn’t been modified before.”
Large melting events can also create ice lenses or slabs of ice that can help increase meltwater runoff and mass loss on Greenland.
During large melt events, meltwater on the surface can seep through the snow and into firn, or a layer of compacted snow that is not yet compressed into glacial ice. Depending on the temperature of the water, snow and firn, the meltwater can refreeze and can create ice lenses. If those lenses are extensive and thick, new meltwater cannot penetrate farther down. Water will then run off the snow and ice and empty into the ocean. Andrews said melt events can create thicker ice lenses — and potentially across a more widespread area.
https://youtu.be/K7INIDPApLA
According to Reuters, Fettweis reported that around 22 gigatons of ice melted on July 28 alone. About 12 gigatons flowed to the ocean and 10 gigatons were absorbed by the snowpack. Andrews said some of the meltwater absorbed in the snowpack could refreeze and create ice lenses.
“The darkening can affect melt for the rest of the season,” Andrews said. “Ice lenses have the potential to impact runoff for many years to come.”
Stendel noted that the amount of ice melted from this event contributed to global sea-level rise by roughly 0.1 millimeter and that it could also impact sea-level rise further down the line.
“When ice from the ice sheet melts, the remaining ice is at lower altitudes and can therefore melt easier. Even if we stopped all emission of greenhouse gases today, the sea level would continue to rise for the next several hundreds of years,” Stendel wrote. “In other words, what happens now has a relevance for the future.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/08/05/greenland-melt-event-season-2021/?
So ¿ Did anyone die ¿
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:So how do we fix something that is already buggered?
By doing whatever you can to reduce the level of buggeration.
It’s kind of how it is. We are now in a situation of choosing fuckedness.
SCIENCE said:
So ¿ Did anyone die ¿
each and every moment.
roughbarked said:
SCIENCE said:
So ¿ Did anyone die ¿
each and every moment.
they were going to die anyway, there are no excess deaths
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:
SCIENCE said:
So ¿ Did anyone die ¿
each and every moment.
they were going to die anyway, there are no excess deaths
The clock ever ticketh.
roughbarked said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:By doing whatever you can to reduce the level of buggeration.
It’s kind of how it is. We are now in a situation of choosing fuckedness.
Yes. I’ve spent my entire life warning of this and now we are here.
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
dv said:It’s kind of how it is. We are now in a situation of choosing fuckedness.
Yes. I’ve spent my entire life warning of this and now we are here.
Carl Jackson on Banjo and Col. Isaac Moore Covering, “Ridin That Midnight Train”
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/08/05/lake-oroville-reaches-all-time-low-level-hydroelectric-plant-will-shut-down-for-first-time-ever/
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
I didn’t walk down to where the greenhoods are the other day. I only found some helmet orchids out. I think the gnats and mosquitos might be next.
buffy said:
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
I didn’t walk down to where the greenhoods are the other day. I only found some helmet orchids out. I think the gnats and mosquitos might be next.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-13/japan-cargo-ship-breaks-in-two-causes-oil-slick/100373730
roughbarked said:
“https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-13/japan-cargo-ship-breaks-in-two-causes-oil-slick/100373730” :https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-13/japan-cargo-ship-breaks-in-two-causes-oil-slick/100373730
is that their version of Pearl Harbor with a declaration of war
roughbarked said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-13/japan-cargo-ship-breaks-in-two-causes-oil-slick/100373730
is that their version of Pearl Harbor with a declaration of war
but we do apologise for the link code fail
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:“https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-13/japan-cargo-ship-breaks-in-two-causes-oil-slick/100373730” :https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-13/japan-cargo-ship-breaks-in-two-causes-oil-slick/100373730
is that their version of Pearl Harbor with a declaration of war
IIRC, their version of Pearl Harbour involved a lot of aeroplanes and bombs and torpedoes.
captain_spalding said:
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:“https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-13/japan-cargo-ship-breaks-in-two-causes-oil-slick/100373730” :https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-13/japan-cargo-ship-breaks-in-two-causes-oil-slick/100373730
is that their version of Pearl Harbor with a declaration of war
IIRC, their version of Pearl Harbour involved a lot of aeroplanes and bombs and torpedoes.
Witty Rejoinder said:
whatever the earth has been around for plenty more than 100000 years and it’ll be fine these jokers are just exaggerating
SCIENCE said:
that’s quite good.
Witty Rejoinder said:
All of the warming in the last 100,000 years is caused by humans? That’s just being silly.
SCIENCE said:
I like that, but they left out:
Either/orism
Sticks without carrots
Treating hidden costs as zero cost.
sibeen said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
All of the warming in the last 100,000 years is caused by humans? That’s just being silly.
i don’t think it says that. we have heated the environment to a 100 000 year high. the actual human bit is from 1850 to now. that is how i interpret it looking at the graphs
Bogsnorkler said:
sibeen said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
All of the warming in the last 100,000 years is caused by humans? That’s just being silly.
i don’t think it says that. we have heated the environment to a 100 000 year high. the actual human bit is from 1850 to now. that is how i interpret it looking at the graphs
But that’s not what the headline says and that’s what is there to grab your attention, and it’s stupid.
sibeen said:
Bogsnorkler said:
sibeen said:All of the warming in the last 100,000 years is caused by humans? That’s just being silly.
i don’t think it says that. we have heated the environment to a 100 000 year high. the actual human bit is from 1850 to now. that is how i interpret it looking at the graphs
But that’s not what the headline says and that’s what is there to grab your attention, and it’s stupid.
nah, you are just reading it wrong.
Bogsnorkler said:
sibeen said:
Bogsnorkler said:i don’t think it says that. we have heated the environment to a 100 000 year high. the actual human bit is from 1850 to now. that is how i interpret it looking at the graphs
But that’s not what the headline says and that’s what is there to grab your attention, and it’s stupid.
nah, you are just reading it wrong.
OK, but even saying that all the heating since 1850 is caused by humans is a stupid thing to say, IMHO.
sibeen said:
Bogsnorkler said:
sibeen said:But that’s not what the headline says and that’s what is there to grab your attention, and it’s stupid.
nah, you are just reading it wrong.
OK, but even saying that all the heating since 1850 is caused by humans is a stupid thing to say, IMHO.
Bogsnorkler said:
sibeen said:
Bogsnorkler said:nah, you are just reading it wrong.
OK, but even saying that all the heating since 1850 is caused by humans is a stupid thing to say, IMHO.
What? I’m saying the headline is stupid either way you read it. That’s not moving any goalposts.
sibeen said:
Bogsnorkler said:
sibeen said:OK, but even saying that all the heating since 1850 is caused by humans is a stupid thing to say, IMHO.
What? I’m saying the headline is stupid either way you read it. That’s not moving any goalposts.
LOL, you were adamant until you realised I was right in my interpretation so you then changed tack.
Bogsnorkler said:
sibeen said:
Bogsnorkler said:
What? I’m saying the headline is stupid either way you read it. That’s not moving any goalposts.
LOL, you were adamant until you realised I was right in my interpretation so you then changed tack.
No, I still read it as the 100,000 year statement. I never said I’d changed my view on that. I just stated that if we use your take on it then I still think it’s stupid.
sibeen said:
Bogsnorkler said:
sibeen said:What? I’m saying the headline is stupid either way you read it. That’s not moving any goalposts.
LOL, you were adamant until you realised I was right in my interpretation so you then changed tack.
No, I still read it as the 100,000 year statement. I never said I’d changed my view on that. I just stated that if we use your take on it then I still think it’s stupid.
Opinion noted.
As I read the IPCC report more (though not much), I’m becoming aware of some subtle distinctions:
None of the four is synonymous.
There are changes to the environment that aren’t due to biosphere changes,
There are biosphere changes that aren’t due to climate change,
There are climate changes that aren’t due to global warming,
There is global waming that isn’t due to greenhouse gases, and
There are greenhouse gas changes that aren’t due to CO2 emissions.
And by the time we filter through the five steps to “changes to the environment”, “CO2 emissions” may have become insignificant.
Just a thought.
Witty Rejoinder said:
sibeen said:
Bogsnorkler said:LOL, you were adamant until you realised I was right in my interpretation so you then changed tack.
No, I still read it as the 100,000 year statement. I never said I’d changed my view on that. I just stated that if we use your take on it then I still think it’s stupid.
Opinion noted.
yeah we mean wtf you can bet your top rouble that pretty much all of the atmospheric warming at all in the last 1000000000 years was caused by the sun
sibeen said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
All of the warming in the last 100,000 years is caused by humans? That’s just being silly.
I’m with sibeen. There’s been quite a bit of variation within that timespan. Were the cooling periods also caused by humans, or only the warming bits?
buffy said:
sibeen said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
All of the warming in the last 100,000 years is caused by humans? That’s just being silly.
I’m with sibeen. There’s been quite a bit of variation within that timespan. Were the cooling periods also caused by humans, or only the warming bits?
But then you don’t agree with the science around anthropogenic global warming…
buffy said:
sibeen said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
All of the warming in the last 100,000 years is caused by humans? That’s just being silly.
I’m with sibeen. There’s been quite a bit of variation within that timespan. Were the cooling periods also caused by humans, or only the warming bits?
so you misread it too.
Bogsnorkler said:
buffy said:
sibeen said:All of the warming in the last 100,000 years is caused by humans? That’s just being silly.
I’m with sibeen. There’s been quite a bit of variation within that timespan. Were the cooling periods also caused by humans, or only the warming bits?
so you misread it too.
Well, I don’t think all of the warming is caused by human influence as the headline says.
buffy said:
Bogsnorkler said:
buffy said:I’m with sibeen. There’s been quite a bit of variation within that timespan. Were the cooling periods also caused by humans, or only the warming bits?
so you misread it too.
Well, I don’t think all of the warming is caused by human influence as the headline says.
i just read the graph that labels the different inputs. sun and volcanos etc seem to keep to the long term average and the human bit is a big spike. so i take it as human induced warming excludes the natural average. which also ties in with the industrial revolution, the warming lagged.
Bogsnorkler said:
sun and volcanos etc seem to keep to the long term average and the human bit is a big spike. so i take it as human induced warming excludes the natural average. which also ties in with the industrial revolution, the warming lagged.
now do deaths
Find yourself some graphs of the ice core proxy data and see if you can see why 100,000 years ago was chosen.
buffy said:
Find yourself some graphs of the ice core proxy data and see if you can see why 100,000 years ago was chosen.
why not just tell me instead of this bullshit?
SCIENCE said:
Bogsnorkler said:sun and volcanos etc seem to keep to the long term average and the human bit is a big spike. so i take it as human induced warming excludes the natural average. which also ties in with the industrial revolution, the warming lagged.
now do deaths
no, you do them.
Bogsnorkler said:
buffy said:
Find yourself some graphs of the ice core proxy data and see if you can see why 100,000 years ago was chosen.
why not just tell me instead of this bullshit?
Buffy likes to be elusive in her cherry-picking…
Witty Rejoinder said:
Bogsnorkler said:
buffy said:
Find yourself some graphs of the ice core proxy data and see if you can see why 100,000 years ago was chosen.
why not just tell me instead of this bullshit?
Buffy likes to be elusive in her cherry-picking…
yeah. anyway i don’t really care as i was just commenting on people misreading the graph. that’s it.
buffy said:
Find yourself some graphs of the ice core proxy data and see if you can see why 100,000 years ago was chosen.
CO2 levels are higher than any time in the past 420k years.
Nibbling away at the 2021 IPCC report.
Footnote, if an increase in precipitation is called a “positive trend” in precipitation, then an increase in temperature shoulc be called a “positive trend” in temperature, nyet?
Why is only the drying of southern Africa considered to have an anthropogenic origin?
I can confirm the decrease in rainfall in SW Western Australia and around the Mediterranean.
The map of monsoon regions comes as a bit of a shock to me. I never would have guessed.
Not a close correlation between precipitation and sea surface temperature (SST). If I understand the plots correctly (IIUC)?
Again IIUC, trends in future precipitation come from weather station observations, not from any computation based on greenhouse gas changes?
mollwollfumble said:
Why is only the drying of southern Africa considered to have an anthropogenic origin?
it doesn’t say that.
For the past 100,000 years the global temperatures have been well below those of today. The recent upward changes have occurred since the Industrial Revolution and specifically from the 1960’s when there has been a steep rise that is totally uncharacteristic with previous temperatures within the 100,000 year period. We started from a much lower temperature base and the current higher temperatures take us into uncharted territory.
Bogsnorkler said:
sibeen said:
Bogsnorkler said:i don’t think it says that. we have heated the environment to a 100 000 year high. the actual human bit is from 1850 to now. that is how i interpret it looking at the graphs
But that’s not what the headline says and that’s what is there to grab your attention, and it’s stupid.
nah, you are just reading it wrong.
I regret to report that I agree with bogsnorkler.
mollwollfumble said:
Nibbling away at the 2021 IPCC report.Footnote, if an increase in precipitation is called a “positive trend” in precipitation, then an increase in temperature shoulc be called a “positive trend” in temperature, nyet?
Why is only the drying of southern Africa considered to have an anthropogenic origin?I can confirm the decrease in rainfall in SW Western Australia and around the Mediterranean.
The map of monsoon regions comes as a bit of a shock to me. I never would have guessed.
Not a close correlation between precipitation and sea surface temperature (SST). If I understand the plots correctly (IIUC)?
Again IIUC, trends in future precipitation come from weather station observations, not from any computation based on greenhouse gas changes?
> trends in future precipitation come from weather station observations, not from any computation based on greenhouse gas changes?
Perhaps both, if they’ve succeeded in marrying he global climate model to the regional climate models correctly.
The following is unexpected. The IPCC (Chapter 12.1 from 2021) predicts that global warming won’t cause droughts. I had been sure that it would, so am very pleasantly surprised.
Also a pleasant surprise. The IPCC predicts that global warming won’t cause changes in hail, ice storms, severe storms, dust storms, heavy snowfall, and avalanches. Again, I had been expecting an increase in severe storms and dust storms with global warming. I was wrong.
mollwollfumble said:
mollwollfumble said:Why is only the drying of southern Africa considered to have an anthropogenic origin?
I can confirm the decrease in rainfall in SW Western Australia and around the Mediterranean.
that isn’t what it said, take 2yeah, we in the SW of WA have known this for a while. been well reported.
mollwollfumble said:
mollwollfumble said:
Nibbling away at the 2021 IPCC report.Footnote, if an increase in precipitation is called a “positive trend” in precipitation, then an increase in temperature shoulc be called a “positive trend” in temperature, nyet?
Why is only the drying of southern Africa considered to have an anthropogenic origin?I can confirm the decrease in rainfall in SW Western Australia and around the Mediterranean.
The map of monsoon regions comes as a bit of a shock to me. I never would have guessed.
Not a close correlation between precipitation and sea surface temperature (SST). If I understand the plots correctly (IIUC)?
Again IIUC, trends in future precipitation come from weather station observations, not from any computation based on greenhouse gas changes?
> trends in future precipitation come from weather station observations, not from any computation based on greenhouse gas changes?
Perhaps both, if they’ve succeeded in marrying he global climate model to the regional climate models correctly.
The following is unexpected. The IPCC (Chapter 12.1 from 2021) predicts that global warming won’t cause droughts. I had been sure that it would, so am very pleasantly surprised.
Also a pleasant surprise. The IPCC predicts that global warming won’t cause changes in hail, ice storms, severe storms, dust storms, heavy snowfall, and avalanches. Again, I had been expecting an increase in severe storms and dust storms with global warming. I was wrong.
>> trends in future precipitation come from weather station observations, not from any computation based on greenhouse gas changes?
> Perhaps both, if they’ve succeeded in marrying he global climate model to the regional climate models correctly.
There’s no way to know without diving into individual references.
I’ve now figured out that the 2021 IPCC report as it relates to regional areas (chapter 12) is purely a literature review. There’s no control of methodology whatever, that is solely up to the paper(s) being referenced. So there’s no way to know from the IPCC report, for instance, whether the results are just a linear fit to observations (correlation assumed to imply causation) or whether the results are purely theoretical (with no agreement to observations) or handwaving, or a mixture of all three.
All the rigor is outside the 2021 IPCC report.
I hope they talk about methodology in the radiation forcing chapter.
Nibbling away at the 2021 IPCC report.
>> Why is only the drying of southern Africa considered to have an anthropogenic origin?
Bogsnorkler
> That’s not what they said
It’s what they didn’t say that matters. If any other drying had been shown to be of anthropogenic origin in any of their scientific references then they would have said so, probably have shouted it from the rooftops, but have remained eerily quiet. Unless, of course, you can find it mentioned later in Chapter 12. You’re welcome to look.
I’ve now figured out that the 2021 IPCC report as it relates to regional areas (chapter 12) is purely a literature review. There’s no control of methodology whatever, that is solely up to the paper(s) being referenced. So there’s no way to know from the IPCC report, for instance, whether the results are just a linear fit to observations (correlation assumed to imply causation) or whether the results are purely theoretical (with no agreement to observations) or handwaving, or a mixture of all three.
All the rigor is outside the 2021 IPCC report.
I hope they talk about methodology in the radiation forcing chapter.
Now reading the radiation forcing chapter. Chapter 7.
Annoyingly, for methodology what they say is “read five other previous IPCC reports”.
Damnit. Read the following. They’ve kicked all the science out of their methodology ie. Planck response (ie. thermal absorption by greenhouse gases), changes in water vapour, lapse rate (which gives us the height of clouds), surface albedo and clouds. Which together comprise all the most important components of radiative forcing. And replaced it with a non-scientific “that looks about right” sort of approach. The “feedback parameter” they talk about and use is treated as a constant but is not a constant, not even remotely. For starters, it decreases with increasing atmospheric CO2. You cannot, literally cannot, discard all the science of the theoretical model and expect the result to be even remotely useful.
I’m sorry, I’ve got to stop. I’m too upset.
Bogsnorkler said:
buffy said:
Find yourself some graphs of the ice core proxy data and see if you can see why 100,000 years ago was chosen.
why not just tell me instead of this bullshit?
If you wish. I like ice cores. They go a long way back in time. 100,000 years ago happens to be in a spot after the last big spike.
More graphs here:
http://www.climatedata.info/proxies/ice-cores/
buffy said:
Bogsnorkler said:
buffy said:
Find yourself some graphs of the ice core proxy data and see if you can see why 100,000 years ago was chosen.
why not just tell me instead of this bullshit?
If you wish. I like ice cores. They go a long way back in time. 100,000 years ago happens to be in a spot after the last big spike.
More graphs here:
http://www.climatedata.info/proxies/ice-cores/
And if you prefer NOAA (the graph is the same, just a bit chunkier and goes a bit further back)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change
buffy said:
buffy said:
Bogsnorkler said:why not just tell me instead of this bullshit?
If you wish. I like ice cores. They go a long way back in time. 100,000 years ago happens to be in a spot after the last big spike.
More graphs here:
http://www.climatedata.info/proxies/ice-cores/
And if you prefer NOAA (the graph is the same, just a bit chunkier and goes a bit further back)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change
Rate of change…
poikilotherm said:
buffy said:
buffy said:If you wish. I like ice cores. They go a long way back in time. 100,000 years ago happens to be in a spot after the last big spike.
More graphs here:
http://www.climatedata.info/proxies/ice-cores/
And if you prefer NOAA (the graph is the same, just a bit chunkier and goes a bit further back)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change
Rate of change…
Fairly similar to the previous spike.
buffy said:
poikilotherm said:
buffy said:And if you prefer NOAA (the graph is the same, just a bit chunkier and goes a bit further back)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change
Rate of change…
Fairly similar to the previous spike.
From the original discussion:
“Humanity has heated the climate to at least a 100,000 year high. All of the warming is caused by human influence”
buffy said:
buffy said:
poikilotherm said:Rate of change…
Fairly similar to the previous spike.
From the original discussion:
“Humanity has heated the climate to at least a 100,000 year high. All of the warming is caused by human influence”
Hi buffy, I think the response from bogsnorkler and friends last night was typically over the top, but I am wondering what your point is.
I mean they aren’t saying that current temperatures are the highest ever, they are saying they are the highest for 100,000 years, which your graphs seem to indicate is true.
The Rev Dodgson said:
buffy said:
buffy said:Fairly similar to the previous spike.
From the original discussion:
“Humanity has heated the climate to at least a 100,000 year high. All of the warming is caused by human influence”
Hi buffy, I think the response from bogsnorkler and friends last night was typically over the top, but I am wondering what your point is.
I mean they aren’t saying that current temperatures are the highest ever, they are saying they are the highest for 100,000 years, which your graphs seem to indicate is true.
It’s the bit “All of the warming is caused by human influence”. I think it is useful to know that the ice cores show cycles, which I was actually surprised to see the regularity of when I rechecked the graphs, because showing only from 100,000 years ago is misleading.
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
buffy said:From the original discussion:
“Humanity has heated the climate to at least a 100,000 year high. All of the warming is caused by human influence”
Hi buffy, I think the response from bogsnorkler and friends last night was typically over the top, but I am wondering what your point is.
I mean they aren’t saying that current temperatures are the highest ever, they are saying they are the highest for 100,000 years, which your graphs seem to indicate is true.
It’s the bit “All of the warming is caused by human influence”. I think it is useful to know that the ice cores show cycles, which I was actually surprised to see the regularity of when I rechecked the graphs, because showing only from 100,000 years ago is misleading.
But why is it misleading.
If they had said, this graph shows that the climate was pretty uniform for ever, before humans started messing with it, that would certainly have been misleading, but they didn’t even imply that, and everyone knows it isn’t true.
The Rev Dodgson said:
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Hi buffy, I think the response from bogsnorkler and friends last night was typically over the top, but I am wondering what your point is.
I mean they aren’t saying that current temperatures are the highest ever, they are saying they are the highest for 100,000 years, which your graphs seem to indicate is true.
It’s the bit “All of the warming is caused by human influence”. I think it is useful to know that the ice cores show cycles, which I was actually surprised to see the regularity of when I rechecked the graphs, because showing only from 100,000 years ago is misleading.
But why is it misleading.
If they had said, this graph shows that the climate was pretty uniform for ever, before humans started messing with it, that would certainly have been misleading, but they didn’t even imply that, and everyone knows it isn’t true.
It’s misleading because unless you look at the longer pattern you can’t see what is being superimposed by us. The ice cores are so beautiful because the let us know what the underlying pattern is.
Tree rings are also interesting but there isn’t really long term data.
The Rev Dodgson said:
buffy said:
buffy said:Fairly similar to the previous spike.
From the original discussion:
“Humanity has heated the climate to at least a 100,000 year high. All of the warming is caused by human influence”
Hi buffy, I think the response from bogsnorkler and friends last night was typically over the top, but I am wondering what your point is.
I mean they aren’t saying that current temperatures are the highest ever, they are saying they are the highest for 100,000 years, which your graphs seem to indicate is true.
Over the top? LOL, when I get someone telling me to “do my own research” i treat them the same way as I do the nutters. Put up or shut up. simple.
I still maintain that the meaning is clear. Others don’t. tough.
Bogsnorkler said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
buffy said:From the original discussion:
“Humanity has heated the climate to at least a 100,000 year high. All of the warming is caused by human influence”
Hi buffy, I think the response from bogsnorkler and friends last night was typically over the top, but I am wondering what your point is.
I mean they aren’t saying that current temperatures are the highest ever, they are saying they are the highest for 100,000 years, which your graphs seem to indicate is true.
Over the top? LOL, when I get someone telling me to “do my own research” i treat them the same way as I do the nutters. Put up or shut up. simple.
I still maintain that the meaning is clear. Others don’t. tough.
Never mind dear, I linked the graphs into this thread this morning for you.
Bogsnorkler said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
buffy said:From the original discussion:
“Humanity has heated the climate to at least a 100,000 year high. All of the warming is caused by human influence”
Hi buffy, I think the response from bogsnorkler and friends last night was typically over the top, but I am wondering what your point is.
I mean they aren’t saying that current temperatures are the highest ever, they are saying they are the highest for 100,000 years, which your graphs seem to indicate is true.
Over the top? LOL, when I get someone telling me to “do my own research” i treat them the same way as I do the nutters. Put up or shut up. simple.
I still maintain that the meaning is clear. Others don’t. tough.
I know it’s your standard practice to act like an arrogant arsehole when you feel like it.
That doesn’t make it right.
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
buffy said:It’s the bit “All of the warming is caused by human influence”. I think it is useful to know that the ice cores show cycles, which I was actually surprised to see the regularity of when I rechecked the graphs, because showing only from 100,000 years ago is misleading.
But why is it misleading.
If they had said, this graph shows that the climate was pretty uniform for ever, before humans started messing with it, that would certainly have been misleading, but they didn’t even imply that, and everyone knows it isn’t true.
It’s misleading because unless you look at the longer pattern you can’t see what is being superimposed by us. The ice cores are so beautiful because the let us know what the underlying pattern is.
We can’t know for certain what the causes of the current spike is, but I don’t know of any reliable evidence to indicate it would have happened without human GHG emissions.
I’d say that looking at previous spikes, and saying this one looks similar is misleading.
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
buffy said:It’s the bit “All of the warming is caused by human influence”. I think it is useful to know that the ice cores show cycles, which I was actually surprised to see the regularity of when I rechecked the graphs, because showing only from 100,000 years ago is misleading.
But why is it misleading.
If they had said, this graph shows that the climate was pretty uniform for ever, before humans started messing with it, that would certainly have been misleading, but they didn’t even imply that, and everyone knows it isn’t true.
It’s misleading because unless you look at the longer pattern you can’t see what is being superimposed by us. The ice cores are so beautiful because the let us know what the underlying pattern is.
Attributing all warming to underlying patterns means you think all of our understanding of green-house gases and their effect on the atmosphere is erroneous. Do you really think that climate scientists and their modeling are wrong?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bogsnorkler said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Hi buffy, I think the response from bogsnorkler and friends last night was typically over the top, but I am wondering what your point is.
I mean they aren’t saying that current temperatures are the highest ever, they are saying they are the highest for 100,000 years, which your graphs seem to indicate is true.
Over the top? LOL, when I get someone telling me to “do my own research” i treat them the same way as I do the nutters. Put up or shut up. simple.
I still maintain that the meaning is clear. Others don’t. tough.
I know it’s your standard practice to act like an arrogant arsehole when you feel like it.
That doesn’t make it right.
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
buffy said:From the original discussion:
“Humanity has heated the climate to at least a 100,000 year high. All of the warming is caused by human influence”
Hi buffy, I think the response from bogsnorkler and friends last night was typically over the top, but I am wondering what your point is.
I mean they aren’t saying that current temperatures are the highest ever, they are saying they are the highest for 100,000 years, which your graphs seem to indicate is true.
It’s the bit “All of the warming is caused by human influence”. I think it is useful to know that the ice cores show cycles, which I was actually surprised to see the regularity of when I rechecked the graphs, because showing only from 100,000 years ago is misleading.
you are talking about energy flow, captive energy and energy gradients, how they embed structure, in systems (weather and climate for example, but further organic life), so there’s a need for some perspective, and refinements of perspective to do that, base points, sort of system landmarks through time if you will
humans are immersed in an energy system, which transforms structure (organic life, replicators), sure it all happened by a lot of accidents, but still qualifies as systems, of latter because it evolved mechanisms that tend or incline some equilibrium
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bogsnorkler said:Over the top? LOL, when I get someone telling me to “do my own research” i treat them the same way as I do the nutters. Put up or shut up. simple.
I still maintain that the meaning is clear. Others don’t. tough.
I know it’s your standard practice to act like an arrogant arsehole when you feel like it.
That doesn’t make it right.
This.
maybe if some of you didn’t come out with puerile bullshit i wouldn’t tell you to go fuck yourselves. you want me to change but you don’t want to change. sorry, but until you do i’m not. after 20 years i thought you would have worked that out.
Bogsnorkler said:
after 20 years i thought you would have worked that out.
You have to give us marks for persistence
My advice? Let’s all be nice,
Or leastwise, let us try.
Or we’ll be more than sorry,
When those we’ve cussed have died.
Bubblecar said:
My advice? Let’s all be nice,
Or leastwise, let us try.
Or we’ll be more than sorry,
When those we’ve cussed have died.
Sod off Bubblecar.
captain_spalding said:
Bogsnorkler said:
after 20 years i thought you would have worked that out.
You have to give us marks for persistence
hope i get a few too.
Bogsnorkler said:
captain_spalding said:
Bogsnorkler said:
after 20 years i thought you would have worked that out.
You have to give us marks for persistence
hope i get a few too.
It is not a race. ;)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-14/sacred-sites-under-threat-singleton-station-water-licence/100371276
3. part of IPCC report already leaked (public release scheduled to march 2022)
https://scientistrebellion.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/12/greenhouse-gas-emissions-must-peak-within-4-years-says-leaked-un-report
https://ctxt.es/es/20210801/Politica/36900/IPCC-cambio-climatico-colapso-medioambiental-decrecimiento.htm
The third part of the IPCC report also states: The next ten years are crucial for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
“There is a very big risk that we will just end our civilisation. The human species will survive somehow but we will destroy almost everything we have built up over the last 2000 years” - Prof. Hans Schellnhuber, director emeritus of the Potsdam Institute.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:But why is it misleading.
If they had said, this graph shows that the climate was pretty uniform for ever, before humans started messing with it, that would certainly have been misleading, but they didn’t even imply that, and everyone knows it isn’t true.
It’s misleading because unless you look at the longer pattern you can’t see what is being superimposed by us. The ice cores are so beautiful because the let us know what the underlying pattern is.
Attributing all warming to underlying patterns means you think all of our understanding of green-house gases and their effect on the atmosphere is erroneous. Do you really think that climate scientists and their modeling are wrong?
I don’t think what I said attributed all warming to underlying patterns.
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:It’s misleading because unless you look at the longer pattern you can’t see what is being superimposed by us. The ice cores are so beautiful because the let us know what the underlying pattern is.
Attributing all warming to underlying patterns means you think all of our understanding of green-house gases and their effect on the atmosphere is erroneous. Do you really think that climate scientists and their modeling are wrong?
I don’t think what I said attributed all warming to underlying patterns.
If not the underlying pattern what do you attribute the warming of the past 150 years to?
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Attributing all warming to underlying patterns means you think all of our understanding of green-house gases and their effect on the atmosphere is erroneous. Do you really think that climate scientists and their modeling are wrong?
I don’t think what I said attributed all warming to underlying patterns.
If not the underlying pattern what do you attribute the warming of the past 150 years to?
I didn’t. I said you need to look at the underlying pattern, ice cores are good for this, then you can see if there is something else going on.
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:I don’t think what I said attributed all warming to underlying patterns.
If not the underlying pattern what do you attribute the warming of the past 150 years to?
I didn’t. I said you need to look at the underlying pattern, ice cores are good for this, then you can see if there is something else going on.
You didn’t answer my question. It’s not hard. Do you consider atmospheric green house gases as the cause of the rapid warming of the past 150 years?
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:If not the underlying pattern what do you attribute the warming of the past 150 years to?
I didn’t. I said you need to look at the underlying pattern, ice cores are good for this, then you can see if there is something else going on.
You didn’t answer my question. It’s not hard. Do you consider atmospheric green house gases as the cause of the rapid warming of the past 150 years?
Part of it. All the usual stuff has been going on as well. And as I said before, we are reproducing prolifically because the climate suits Homo sapiens at the moment. It’s a fairly well understood thing that organisms do.
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:I didn’t. I said you need to look at the underlying pattern, ice cores are good for this, then you can see if there is something else going on.
You didn’t answer my question. It’s not hard. Do you consider atmospheric green house gases as the cause of the rapid warming of the past 150 years?
Part of it. All the usual stuff has been going on as well. And as I said before, we are reproducing prolifically because the climate suits Homo sapiens at the moment. It’s a fairly well understood thing that organisms do.
How large a part? I don’t know what human fecundity has to do with anything.
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:You didn’t answer my question. It’s not hard. Do you consider atmospheric green house gases as the cause of the rapid warming of the past 150 years?
Part of it. All the usual stuff has been going on as well. And as I said before, we are reproducing prolifically because the climate suits Homo sapiens at the moment. It’s a fairly well understood thing that organisms do.
How large a part? I don’t know what human fecundity has to do with anything.
You think a small population has the same effect as a large population?
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:Part of it. All the usual stuff has been going on as well. And as I said before, we are reproducing prolifically because the climate suits Homo sapiens at the moment. It’s a fairly well understood thing that organisms do.
How large a part? I don’t know what human fecundity has to do with anything.
You think a small population has the same effect as a large population?
How large a part? Human populations have risen and fallen in pre-industrial times with little effect on the environment. What matters is the greenhouse footprint. Hopefully by 2050 10 billion people will have a smaller footprint than 6 billion in 1990.
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
How large a part? I don’t know what human fecundity has to do with anything.
You think a small population has the same effect as a large population?
How large a part? Human populations have risen and fallen in pre-industrial times with little effect on the environment. What matters is the greenhouse footprint. Hopefully by 2050 10 billion people will have a smaller footprint than 6 billion in 1990.
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:I don’t think what I said attributed all warming to underlying patterns.
If not the underlying pattern what do you attribute the warming of the past 150 years to?
I didn’t. I said you need to look at the underlying pattern, ice cores are good for this, then you can see if there is something else going on.
But if the underlying pattern is variable, which it is, it is not very helpful in interpreting what is happening at a specific time.
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:How large a part? I don’t know what human fecundity has to do with anything.
You think a small population has the same effect as a large population?
How large a part? Human populations have risen and fallen in pre-industrial times with little effect on the environment. What matters is the greenhouse footprint. Hopefully by 2050 10 billion people will have a smaller footprint than 6 billion in 1990.
Um, yeah…
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:You think a small population has the same effect as a large population?
How large a part? Human populations have risen and fallen in pre-industrial times with little effect on the environment. What matters is the greenhouse footprint. Hopefully by 2050 10 billion people will have a smaller footprint than 6 billion in 1990.
Um, yeah…
You’re being very evasive. Disease and societal collapse have caused populations to fall by significant amounts. The population of Europe fell by 25% during the black death.
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:How large a part? Human populations have risen and fallen in pre-industrial times with little effect on the environment. What matters is the greenhouse footprint. Hopefully by 2050 10 billion people will have a smaller footprint than 6 billion in 1990.
Um, yeah…
You’re being very evasive. Disease and societal collapse have caused populations to fall by significant amounts. The population of Europe fell by 25% during the black death.
Yes, that is shown on the graph.
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:How large a part? Human populations have risen and fallen in pre-industrial times with little effect on the environment. What matters is the greenhouse footprint. Hopefully by 2050 10 billion people will have a smaller footprint than 6 billion in 1990.
Um, yeah…
You’re being very evasive. Disease and societal collapse have caused populations to fall by significant amounts. The population of Europe fell by 25% during the black death.
so COVID-19 is barely a sneeze from kicked up house dust
So we’re agreed that it’s carbon footprint and not population that matters. So once again what percentage of warming over the past 150 years do you attribute to manmade factors?
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:You think a small population has the same effect as a large population?
How large a part? Human populations have risen and fallen in pre-industrial times with little effect on the environment. What matters is the greenhouse footprint. Hopefully by 2050 10 billion people will have a smaller footprint than 6 billion in 1990.
Um, yeah…
That’s almost an equilateral hockey stick.
Witty Rejoinder said:
So we’re agreed that it’s carbon footprint and not population that matters. So once again what percentage of warming over the past 150 years do you attribute to manmade factors?
I have no idea.
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
So we’re agreed that it’s carbon footprint and not population that matters. So once again what percentage of warming over the past 150 years do you attribute to manmade factors?
I have no idea.
Righto.
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
So we’re agreed that it’s carbon footprint and not population that matters. So once again what percentage of warming over the past 150 years do you attribute to manmade factors?
I have no idea.
Righto.
😂
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
So we’re agreed that it’s carbon footprint and not population that matters. So once again what percentage of warming over the past 150 years do you attribute to manmade factors?
I have no idea.
Righto.
Well, that’s sorted, then.
Next on the agenda: the failure of the West to operate an effective counter-insurgency programme in Afghanistan, and its future effects.
Who wants to go first?
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
So we’re agreed that it’s carbon footprint and not population that matters. So once again what percentage of warming over the past 150 years do you attribute to manmade factors?
I have no idea.
Righto.
Pretty easy to look up.
In the absence of human activity, the Earth would be in a cooling phase. The percentage of global warming since the dawn of the industrial age turns out to be about 105 to 110%.
captain_spalding said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:I have no idea.
Righto.
Well, that’s sorted, then.
Next on the agenda: the failure of the West to operate an effective counter-insurgency programme in Afghanistan, and its future effects.
Who wants to go first?
I think it’s China’s turn now.
Witty Rejoinder said:
captain_spalding said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Righto.
Well, that’s sorted, then.
Next on the agenda: the failure of the West to operate an effective counter-insurgency programme in Afghanistan, and its future effects.
Who wants to go first?
I think it’s China’s turn now.
To have a lash at controlling Afghanistan? Sure, why not, look at the great job they’ve done with Tibet. And it might take the heat off Taiwan for a while.
captain_spalding said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
captain_spalding said:Well, that’s sorted, then.
Next on the agenda: the failure of the West to operate an effective counter-insurgency programme in Afghanistan, and its future effects.
Who wants to go first?
I think it’s China’s turn now.
To have a lash at controlling Afghanistan? Sure, why not, look at the great job they’ve done with Tibet. And it might take the heat off Taiwan for a while.
Perhaps Afghanistan could be allocated a thread of its own, or just go back to chat?
The Rev Dodgson said:
captain_spalding said:
Witty Rejoinder said:I think it’s China’s turn now.
To have a lash at controlling Afghanistan? Sure, why not, look at the great job they’ve done with Tibet. And it might take the heat off Taiwan for a while.
Perhaps Afghanistan could be allocated a thread of its own, or just go back to chat?
Yes, although i hadn’t had the intention of actually initiating such a discussion.
dv said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:I have no idea.
Righto.
Pretty easy to look up.
In the absence of human activity, the Earth would be in a cooling phase. The percentage of global warming since the dawn of the industrial age turns out to be about 105 to 110%.
Fuck
In the absence of human activity, the Earth would be in a cooling phase. The percentage of global warming since the dawn of the industrial age THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO HUMAN ACTIVITY turns out to be about 105 to 110%.
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
How large a part? Human populations have risen and fallen in pre-industrial times with little effect on the environment. What matters is the greenhouse footprint. Hopefully by 2050 10 billion people will have a smaller footprint than 6 billion in 1990.
Um, yeah…
So¿ Not like West Taiwan Mainland Taiwan can’t save us, we mean look what they can do.
captain_spalding said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
captain_spalding said:
Well, that’s sorted, then.
Next on the agenda: the failure of the West to operate an effective counter-insurgency programme in Afghanistan, and its future effects.
Who wants to go first?
I think it’s China’s turn now.
To have a lash at controlling Afghanistan? Sure, why not, look at the great job they’ve done with Tibet. And it might take the heat off Taiwan for a while.
you all think you joke but unlike any recent others at least Afghanistan and CHINA are actually friendly neighbours, you know, there are people around with actual local interests in the area, they’re not flying across the world to put boots into the ribs of some desert dwellers
Witty Rejoinder said:
How large a part? Human populations have risen and fallen in pre-industrial times with little effect on the environment. What matters is the greenhouse footprint. Hopefully by 2050 10 billion people will have a smaller footprint than 6 billion in 1990.
It’s certainly doable.
dv said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
How large a part? Human populations have risen and fallen in pre-industrial times with little effect on the environment. What matters is the greenhouse footprint. Hopefully by 2050 10 billion people will have a smaller footprint than 6 billion in 1990.
It’s certainly doable.
I really don’t see the point of debating whether the problem is either the population size or the level of GHG emissions. Clearly neither can be allowed to keep growing for ever, and the lower the population when it finally stabilises, the easier it will be to reduce GHG emissions.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:Witty Rejoinder said:
How large a part? Human populations have risen and fallen in pre-industrial times with little effect on the environment. What matters is the greenhouse footprint. Hopefully by 2050 10 billion people will have a smaller footprint than 6 billion in 1990.
It’s certainly doable.
I really don’t see the point of debating whether the problem is either the population size or the level of GHG emissions. Clearly neither can be allowed to keep growing for ever, and the lower the population when it finally stabilises, the easier it will be to reduce GHG emissions.
Sure but look at this way.
Population looks like it will stablise without changing the way we do things, whereas right now we are on course for a GHG calamity unless there is a concerted international effort.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:It’s certainly doable.
I really don’t see the point of debating whether the problem is either the population size or the level of GHG emissions. Clearly neither can be allowed to keep growing for ever, and the lower the population when it finally stabilises, the easier it will be to reduce GHG emissions.
Sure but look at this way.
Population looks like it will stablise without changing the way we do things, whereas right now we are on course for a GHG calamity unless there is a concerted international effort.
I’d rather look at it this way:
It’s quite likely that the population will not stabilise, unless active measures are taken to ensure that it does, but either way, the faster the rate of population growth can be reduced, the easier it will be to reduce GHG emissions.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I really don’t see the point of debating whether the problem is either the population size or the level of GHG emissions. Clearly neither can be allowed to keep growing for ever, and the lower the population when it finally stabilises, the easier it will be to reduce GHG emissions.
Sure but look at this way.
Population looks like it will stablise without changing the way we do things, whereas right now we are on course for a GHG calamity unless there is a concerted international effort.
I’d rather look at it this way:
It’s quite likely that the population will not stabilise, unless active measures are taken to ensure that it does, but either way, the faster the rate of population growth can be reduced, the easier it will be to reduce GHG emissions.
You are going to have to convince people they don’t need as many electrical devices – until there is a lot more solar and wind etc. Everywhere, not just in the “advanced” countries. And convince people they don’t have to fly around the world all the time. And convince people to produce less waste. We’ve just had evidence with the pandemic of how people respond to being limited in what they can do. And the whingeing about not being able to go on holidays because they can’t fly around the place. Particularly in more populous countries. Then you have to factor in religion. Because it won’t go away on its own, there is a lot of it around the world. It’s a very big job.
buffy said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
Sure but look at this way.
Population looks like it will stablise without changing the way we do things, whereas right now we are on course for a GHG calamity unless there is a concerted international effort.
I’d rather look at it this way:
It’s quite likely that the population will not stabilise, unless active measures are taken to ensure that it does, but either way, the faster the rate of population growth can be reduced, the easier it will be to reduce GHG emissions.
You are going to have to convince people they don’t need as many electrical devices – until there is a lot more solar and wind etc. Everywhere, not just in the “advanced” countries. And convince people they don’t have to fly around the world all the time. And convince people to produce less waste. We’ve just had evidence with the pandemic of how people respond to being limited in what they can do. And the whingeing about not being able to go on holidays because they can’t fly around the place. Particularly in more populous countries. Then you have to factor in religion. Because it won’t go away on its own, there is a lot of it around the world. It’s a very big job.
we prefer to look at it this way
there are too many problems in the world
no solution will fix all of them completely at once
therefore no solution is good enough to bother with
we mean no solution will necessarily fix many of them even partially
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:
Witty Rejoinder said:How large a part? I don’t know what human fecundity has to do with anything.
You think a small population has the same effect as a large population?
How large a part? Human populations have risen and fallen in pre-industrial times with little effect on the environment. What matters is the greenhouse footprint. Hopefully by 2050 10 billion people will have a smaller footprint than 6 billion in 1990.
I doubt that would be the case. In pre-industrial times there were considerably less than one billion people in the world, which had proven to be suitable for humanities long-term survival, which means whatever they buggered up would be limited and reparable in a few years. Now days it is not humans that physically change things but their machines that are far more efficient. Couple that with a higher population all wanting more of everything, then more permanent changes develop.
More wealthy people want more and can buy more, meaning the environment is degraded by others on their behalf. Wealthy people use far more resources than poor people. People are the root cause of our environmental problems, the more of us there are the more resources they need and demand.
When people lived sustainably, their population was below 1 billion and even less when they were hunter/gatherers. So a population of 10 billion is unsustainable as our current population of 7 billion is already consuming more than what can be replaced by natural reproduction.
PermeateFree said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
buffy said:You think a small population has the same effect as a large population?
How large a part? Human populations have risen and fallen in pre-industrial times with little effect on the environment. What matters is the greenhouse footprint. Hopefully by 2050 10 billion people will have a smaller footprint than 6 billion in 1990.
I doubt that would be the case. In pre-industrial times there were considerably less than one billion people in the world, which had proven to be suitable for humanities long-term survival, which means whatever they buggered up would be limited and reparable in a few years. Now days it is not humans that physically change things but their machines that are far more efficient. Couple that with a higher population all wanting more of everything, then more permanent changes develop.
More wealthy people want more and can buy more, meaning the environment is degraded by others on their behalf. Wealthy people use far more resources than poor people. People are the root cause of our environmental problems, the more of us there are the more resources they need and demand.
When people lived sustainably, their population was below 1 billion and even less when they were hunter/gatherers. So a population of 10 billion is unsustainable as our current population of 7 billion is already consuming more than what can be replaced by natural reproduction.
Let not Ambition mock their useful toil,
Their homely joys, and destiny obscure;
Nor Grandeur hear with a disdainful smile
The short and simple annals of the poor.
Siblicidal kookaburras, truffle-snuffling potoroos: Why did Australia’s wildlife astonish even Charles Darwin?
The “father of evolution” was stunned by what he saw on a visit to Australia in 1836. How did our plants and animals get to be so uniquely quirky?
https://www.theage.com.au/national/siblicidal-kookaburras-truffle-snuffling-potoroos-why-did-australia-s-wildlife-astonish-even-charles-darwin-20210722-p58c1h.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/17/paralysis-by-analysis-financial-sector-focused-on-climate-data-instead-of-action-report-says
Bogsnorkler said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/17/paralysis-by-analysis-financial-sector-focused-on-climate-data-instead-of-action-report-says
The financial sector should have nothing to do with it.
It is up to the government to make the future costs of climate change visible by putting a cost on GHG emissions.
Without that, market economic activities cannot be expected to, and will not, produce a favourable outcome.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bogsnorkler said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/17/paralysis-by-analysis-financial-sector-focused-on-climate-data-instead-of-action-report-says
The financial sector should have nothing to do with it.
It is up to the government to make the future costs of climate change visible by putting a cost on GHG emissions.
Without that, market economic activities cannot be expected to, and will not, produce a favourable outcome.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-17/australian-exporters-pay-the-price-with-european-carbon-tax/100379998
https://theconversation.com/forget-massive-seawalls-coastal-wetlands-offer-the-best-storm-protection-money-can-buy-165872
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bogsnorkler said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/17/paralysis-by-analysis-financial-sector-focused-on-climate-data-instead-of-action-report-says
The financial sector should have nothing to do with it.
It is up to the government to make the future costs of climate change visible by putting a cost on GHG emissions.
Without that, market economic activities cannot be expected to, and will not, produce a favourable outcome.
dunno, you need feed the breeding humans, the expansion, and they need things to do, even if mostly watching the world on their devices, or TV
what is exactly a favorable outcome, now, given the trajectory and momentum, yeah, well, the ‘democracy’ of nearing eight-billion people invested in that, what is there to say
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bogsnorkler said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/17/paralysis-by-analysis-financial-sector-focused-on-climate-data-instead-of-action-report-says
The financial sector should have nothing to do with it.
It is up to the government to make the future costs of climate change visible by putting a cost on GHG emissions.
Without that, market economic activities cannot be expected to, and will not, produce a favourable outcome.
dunno, you need feed the breeding humans, the expansion, and they need things to do, even if mostly watching the world on their devices, or TV
what is exactly a favorable outcome, now, given the trajectory and momentum, yeah, well, the ‘democracy’ of nearing eight-billion people invested in that, what is there to say
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bogsnorkler said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/17/paralysis-by-analysis-financial-sector-focused-on-climate-data-instead-of-action-report-says
The financial sector should have nothing to do with it.
It is up to the government to make the future costs of climate change visible by putting a cost on GHG emissions.
Without that, market economic activities cannot be expected to, and will not, produce a favourable outcome.
dunno, you need feed the breeding humans, the expansion, and they need things to do, even if mostly watching the world on their devices, or TV
what is exactly a favorable outcome, now, given the trajectory and momentum, yeah, well, the ‘democracy’ of nearing eight-billion people invested in that, what is there to say
A favourable outcome is reducing GHG emissions to the point where the level of GHGs in the atmosphere is stable, and can over time be reduced.
You can do that whilst still feeding humans, and even allowing them to partake in activities other than eating and sleeping.
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:The financial sector should have nothing to do with it.
It is up to the government to make the future costs of climate change visible by putting a cost on GHG emissions.
Without that, market economic activities cannot be expected to, and will not, produce a favourable outcome.
dunno, you need feed the breeding humans, the expansion, and they need things to do, even if mostly watching the world on their devices, or TV
what is exactly a favorable outcome, now, given the trajectory and momentum, yeah, well, the ‘democracy’ of nearing eight-billion people invested in that, what is there to say
A favourable outcome is reducing GHG emissions to the point where the level of GHGs in the atmosphere is stable, and can over time be reduced.
You can do that whilst still feeding humans, and even allowing them to partake in activities other than eating and sleeping.
you’re talking about an indeterminate number of humans, ‘exploring’ the limits of the environment (evolved structure of climate etc) to support an indeterminate number of humans, indeterminate expansion, with off planet ambitions also
you’ll be needing floods, fires and plagues for entertainment, human-caused problems so it all makes sense
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:dunno, you need feed the breeding humans, the expansion, and they need things to do, even if mostly watching the world on their devices, or TV
what is exactly a favorable outcome, now, given the trajectory and momentum, yeah, well, the ‘democracy’ of nearing eight-billion people invested in that, what is there to say
A favourable outcome is reducing GHG emissions to the point where the level of GHGs in the atmosphere is stable, and can over time be reduced.
You can do that whilst still feeding humans, and even allowing them to partake in activities other than eating and sleeping.
you’re talking about an indeterminate number of humans, ‘exploring’ the limits of the environment (evolved structure of climate etc) to support an indeterminate number of humans, indeterminate expansion, with off planet ambitions also
you’ll be needing floods, fires and plagues for entertainment, human-caused problems so it all makes sense
No, I’m talking the number of humans there are when GHG emissions are reduced to the level of GHG absorptions.
I won’t be needing floods, fires and plagues for entertainment, human-caused problems, thanks all the same.
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:A favourable outcome is reducing GHG emissions to the point where the level of GHGs in the atmosphere is stable, and can over time be reduced.
You can do that whilst still feeding humans, and even allowing them to partake in activities other than eating and sleeping.
you’re talking about an indeterminate number of humans, ‘exploring’ the limits of the environment (evolved structure of climate etc) to support an indeterminate number of humans, indeterminate expansion, with off planet ambitions also
you’ll be needing floods, fires and plagues for entertainment, human-caused problems so it all makes sense
No, I’m talking the number of humans there are when GHG emissions are reduced to the level of GHG absorptions.
I won’t be needing floods, fires and plagues for entertainment, human-caused problems, thanks all the same.
I thought there were already variously plagues, including humans, fires and whatever, and isn’t all that entertainment, you’re just talking about the max temp thermostat setting now, the democracy cough of everyone having a hopefully sensible contribution to that, you’re one of the overpopulationists hanging on the thermostat, empowered by the many doing your good work
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:you’re talking about an indeterminate number of humans, ‘exploring’ the limits of the environment (evolved structure of climate etc) to support an indeterminate number of humans, indeterminate expansion, with off planet ambitions also
you’ll be needing floods, fires and plagues for entertainment, human-caused problems so it all makes sense
No, I’m talking the number of humans there are when GHG emissions are reduced to the level of GHG absorptions.
I won’t be needing floods, fires and plagues for entertainment, human-caused problems, thanks all the same.
I thought there were already variously plagues, including humans, fires and whatever, and isn’t all that entertainment, you’re just talking about the max temp thermostat setting now, the democracy cough of everyone having a hopefully sensible contribution to that, you’re one of the overpopulationists hanging on the thermostat, empowered by the many doing your good work
Feel free to re-write that in a way that makes some cogent point, if you feel so inclined.
And why are you calling me an overpopulationist when I haven’t commented on population growth in this thread, but when I do I consistently argue that more should be done to reduce population growth?
Toothless Tiger and Former UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon has declared Australia “out of step” with the world on tackling climate change, as international pressure grows on the federal government to do more to limit global warming.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-17/un-ban-ki-moon-australia-behind-climate-action/100383384
Speaking at the same forum, Populist and New South Wales Environment Minister Matt Kean, a Liberal MP, took a swipe at his federal colleagues for not seizing the opportunities of a transition to renewable energy.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/19/we-cant-begin-in-2049-chris-bowen-calls-for-stronger-climate-goals-as-he-signals-labors-plan
JudgeMental said:
sure we can we will use fossil fuels to turn Australia into such an industrial powerhouse with so much infrastructure that in 2049 we can turn it on and achieve 30 years of negative carbon emission in one go, we’ll literally suck our quota out of the atmosphere
Chlorpyrifos, which has been linked to health problems in children, is being banned from use on food crops in the US.
Posted
….the most widely-used plastic, the stuff used to make shopping bags, is the one that produces the greatest amount of these warming gases … after 212 days in the sun, this plastic emitted 176 times more methane than at the start of the experiment. Ironically, when plastics were exposed to air the amount of methane emitted was double the level from sea water.
They’ve found commercially sold sea salt contaminated with micro-plastics.
Australian frogs are on the brink of extinction, and four species likely already lost, scientists say
ABC Science
/
By environment reporter Jo Khan
Posted 30m ago
“It just seems wrong to me that the wild horses are protected when there are so many threatened animals up there that are being kept on life support.”
thanks Gutless another genius move
seems like incursion is the correct word
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-20/oil-exploration-kids-science-lesson/100388140
When Perth mother Michelle got a note from her son’s public primary school about an upcoming incursion — a visit by outside instructors — she was taken aback to find out it was a science lesson offered by volunteers sponsored by oil and gas giant Woodside. Michelle told Nadia Mitsopoulos on ABC Radio Perth she was concerned that the year 3 children would be given a pro-fossil fuels message without also being taught about its impact on climate change.
well aren’t we all about the false balance now
SCIENCE said:
seems like incursion is the correct wordhttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-20/oil-exploration-kids-science-lesson/100388140
When Perth mother Michelle got a note from her son’s public primary school about an upcoming incursion — a visit by outside instructors — she was taken aback to find out it was a science lesson offered by volunteers sponsored by oil and gas giant Woodside. Michelle told Nadia Mitsopoulos on ABC Radio Perth she was concerned that the year 3 children would be given a pro-fossil fuels message without also being taught about its impact on climate change.
well aren’t we all about the false balance now
Have to counteract that lefty tree-hugging nonsense that those pinko teachers are always spouting.
SCIENCE said:
seems like incursion is the correct wordhttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-20/oil-exploration-kids-science-lesson/100388140
When Perth mother Michelle got a note from her son’s public primary school about an upcoming incursion — a visit by outside instructors — she was taken aback to find out it was a science lesson offered by volunteers sponsored by oil and gas giant Woodside. Michelle told Nadia Mitsopoulos on ABC Radio Perth she was concerned that the year 3 children would be given a pro-fossil fuels message without also being taught about its impact on climate change.
well aren’t we all about the false balance now
free science… well I NEVER! (Clutches pearls)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/27/how-a-hot-blob-off-new-zealand-is-contributing-to-drought-in-south-america
Southern Blob of unusual Pacific heat blamed for creating megadrought
By Peter Hannam
August 26, 2021 — 11.00pm
A huge region of the South Pacific is warming unusually fast, disrupting rainfall patterns and contributing to a lengthy megadrought across parts of South America.
Scientists have dubbed the region, covering about 8 million square kilometres to the east of New Zealand, the “Southern Blob”.
A paper published this week in the Journal of Climate argues the phenomenon had a natural origin but the build-up of heat over the past four decades has been exacerbated by global warming.
Read more:
https://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/southern-blob-of-unusual-pacific-heat-blamed-for-creating-megadrought-20210826-p58m7p.html
buffy said:
Bogsnorkler said:
buffy said:
Find yourself some graphs of the ice core proxy data and see if you can see why 100,000 years ago was chosen.
why not just tell me instead of this bullshit?
If you wish. I like ice cores. They go a long way back in time. 100,000 years ago happens to be in a spot after the last big spike.
More graphs here:
http://www.climatedata.info/proxies/ice-cores/
Correlation is not causation. Proxies aren’t necessarily reliable either, especially when it relates to temperature.
PS. I take it that no-one believes any more that Milankovitch cycles are responsible for the ice ages?
I sent off a “why I’m a climate cynic” email to an anti-lockdown anti-vaxxer anti-dams anti-coal activist today.
Well, she sent me a “why covid doesn’t exist” email so I thought I should return the favour.
mollwollfumble said:
buffy said:
Bogsnorkler said:why not just tell me instead of this bullshit?
If you wish. I like ice cores. They go a long way back in time. 100,000 years ago happens to be in a spot after the last big spike.
More graphs here:
http://www.climatedata.info/proxies/ice-cores/
Correlation is not causation. Proxies aren’t necessarily reliable either, especially when it relates to temperature.
PS. I take it that no-one believes any more that Milankovitch cycles are responsible for the ice ages?I sent off a “why I’m a climate cynic” email to an anti-lockdown anti-vaxxer anti-dams anti-coal activist today.
Well, she sent me a “why covid doesn’t exist” email so I thought I should return the favour.
You don’t think climates exist?
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
buffy said:If you wish. I like ice cores. They go a long way back in time. 100,000 years ago happens to be in a spot after the last big spike.
More graphs here:
http://www.climatedata.info/proxies/ice-cores/
Correlation is not causation. Proxies aren’t necessarily reliable either, especially when it relates to temperature.
PS. I take it that no-one believes any more that Milankovitch cycles are responsible for the ice ages?I sent off a “why I’m a climate cynic” email to an anti-lockdown anti-vaxxer anti-dams anti-coal activist today.
Well, she sent me a “why covid doesn’t exist” email so I thought I should return the favour.
You don’t think climates exist?
But seriously, cherry-picking the data that suggests climate change is not a problem doth not a sceptic make.
Or even a cynic.
The country with the most fresh water on the planet has lost 15 per cent of it
By Diane Jeantet
August 28, 2021 — 1.20pm
Rio de Janeiro: The Brazilian scientists were sceptical. They ran different models to check calculations, but all returned the same startling result.
The country with the most freshwater resources on the planet steadily lost 15 per cent of its surface water since 1991. Gradual retreat in the Brazilian share of the Pantanal, the world’s largest tropical wetland, left water covering just one-quarter the area it did 30 years ago.
And the data only went through to 2020 – before this year’s drought that is Brazil’s worst in nine decades.
“When we got the first results, we wondered if there was a problem in the equations,” said Cassio Bernardino, a project manager for environmental group WWF-Brazil, which took part in the survey along with Brazilian universities and local partners like the Amazon Environmental Research Institute, plus international collaborators including Google and The Nature Conservancy. They used artificial intelligence to parse some 150,000 satellite images measuring the surface of lakes, rivers, marshes and all surface water across Brazil.
The figures checked out, and the MapBiomas data published this week has heightened an existing sense of alarm. The ongoing drought has already boosted energy costs and food prices, withered crops, rendered vast swaths of forest more susceptible to fire and prompted specialists to warn of possible electricity shortages. President Jair Bolsonaro said hydroelectric dam reservoirs were “at the limit of the limit”.
“The prospects are not good; we’re losing natural capital, we’re losing water that feeds industries, energy generation and agribusiness,” Bernardino said. Brazil’s “society as a whole is losing this very precious resource, and losing it at a frighteningly fast rate.”
The study accompanying MapBiomas’s data hasn’t been published yet. Two outside experts consulted by The Associated Press who reviewed the survey’s methodology said the approach appeared robust, and its scale offered important insight into Brazilian water resources. They noted, however, use of artificial intelligence to analyse satellite images without on-the-ground verification could increase the margin of error.
Evaporation is a part of the natural cycle that can diminish water resources, particularly in areas with shallower supplies like the Pantanal wetlands, which sprawl across up to 207,000 square kilometres in three countries.
The MapBiomas study didn’t establish the extent to which Brazil’s retreating water resources resulted from natural causes. But experts have warned human activity is affecting global weather patterns, causing more frequent extreme events such as severe droughts and floods. The cutting and burning of forest, construction of large hydroelectric plants and dams or reservoirs for crop irrigation, all contribute to shifting natural patterns, said Mazeika Patricio Sullivan, an ecology professor at Ohio State University.
“We’re altering the magnitude of those natural processes,” said Sullivan, a wetlands expert who has studied water systems in the US, South America, Eastern Europe, and the Caribbean. “This is not just happening in Brazil, it’s happening all over the world.”
Sullivan said the MapBiomas data was “eye-popping”, though unsurprising; nearly 90 per cent of South America’s wetland area is estimated to have vanished since 1900, and nearly 40 per cent in North America, he said. Wetlands are essential to many species of wildlife and key to retaining water to be gradually released into rivers, which prevents flooding.
In Brazil’s Amazon rainforest, water that evaporates then travels on air currents to provide rainfall far afield. But some climate experts argue that the Amazon is headed for a “tipping point” in 10 to 15 years: if too much forest is destroyed, the Amazon would begin an irreversible process of degradation into tropical savanna.
There are more immediate sources of alarm, like possible power rationing this year. Hydroelectric reservoirs have been drained by a decade of lower-than-usual rainfall. Reservoirs in the Parana River basin, which powers the metropolis Sao Paulo and several states, have never been so depleted, the grid operator said this month.
The Parana River runs from Brazil into Argentina and along its course are the iconic Iguazu Falls at the border of the nations; the majestic cascades were unrecognisable for a few days in June, having dwindled to a trickle. The Parana waterway and its aquifers supply fresh water to some 40 million people, and a livelihood for fishing communities and farmers.
Brazilians Energy Minister Bento Albuquerque on August 25 called a press conference to deny the possibility of rationing, while at the same time calling on companies and people to reduce power consumption. Some analysts have speculated the dismissiveness is politically motivated ahead of an election year.
“At the current rate, blackouts are likely to happen this year, especially during peak hours,” said Nivalde de Castro, coordinator of the electricity sector studies group at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
The declining water resources also risk exacerbating fires that people often set during the Southern Hemisphere’s winter to clear pasture, which then rage out of control.
Last year, more than one-quarter of Brazil’s Pantanal went up in flames. It was by far the worst annual devastation since authorities started keeping records in 2003.
The Pantanal has strong capacity to regenerate if given the opportunity to do so without repeated burning events. A surge of fires in the past week stirred concern among locals.
“Once again, the spectre of fires is back,” said Angelo Rabelo, president of a local environmental group that oversees a protected area of about 300,000 hectares. Last year, 90 per cent of his land was damaged by blazes.
Researchers at the State University of Mato Grosso found parts of the Pantanal in 2019 had 13 per cent more days without any precipitation compared to the 1960s. Jibing with the MapBiomas study, their findings also showed the marshes were losing surface water.
South of the Amazon, battle is on to save wetlands and jaguars from record fires
“The scenario is even worse this year: drier, and with less water,” Rabelo said from Corumba, a municipality in Mato Grosso do Sul state.
For Rabelo and others, last year’s fires were a wake-up call. He formed a full-time private fire brigade of seven people — the Pantanal’s first. They are better trained and have so far been able to respond faster, before fires spiral out of control.
But fresh challenges lie ahead. In areas without roads, navigation on smaller rivers can become problematic due to low water levels, Rabelo said. That means firefighters could soon have trouble reaching some blazes and, even if they can, less water available to extinguish them.
“The integration of water loss and wildfires: that’s a big issue that we need to start thinking more about,” said Sullivan.
https://www.theage.com.au/world/south-america/the-country-with-the-most-freshwater-on-the-planet-has-lost-15-per-cent-of-it-20210828-p58mpz.html
Witty Rejoinder said:
The country with the most fresh water on the planet has lost 15 per cent of it
By Diane Jeantet
August 28, 2021 — 1.20pmRio de Janeiro: The Brazilian scientists were sceptical. They ran different models to check calculations, but all returned the same startling result.
The country with the most freshwater resources on the planet steadily lost 15 per cent of its surface water since 1991. Gradual retreat in the Brazilian share of the Pantanal, the world’s largest tropical wetland, left water covering just one-quarter the area it did 30 years ago.
And the data only went through to 2020 – before this year’s drought that is Brazil’s worst in nine decades.
“When we got the first results, we wondered if there was a problem in the equations,” said Cassio Bernardino, a project manager for environmental group WWF-Brazil, which took part in the survey along with Brazilian universities and local partners like the Amazon Environmental Research Institute, plus international collaborators including Google and The Nature Conservancy. They used artificial intelligence to parse some 150,000 satellite images measuring the surface of lakes, rivers, marshes and all surface water across Brazil.
The figures checked out, and the MapBiomas data published this week has heightened an existing sense of alarm. The ongoing drought has already boosted energy costs and food prices, withered crops, rendered vast swaths of forest more susceptible to fire and prompted specialists to warn of possible electricity shortages. President Jair Bolsonaro said hydroelectric dam reservoirs were “at the limit of the limit”.
“The prospects are not good; we’re losing natural capital, we’re losing water that feeds industries, energy generation and agribusiness,” Bernardino said. Brazil’s “society as a whole is losing this very precious resource, and losing it at a frighteningly fast rate.”
The study accompanying MapBiomas’s data hasn’t been published yet. Two outside experts consulted by The Associated Press who reviewed the survey’s methodology said the approach appeared robust, and its scale offered important insight into Brazilian water resources. They noted, however, use of artificial intelligence to analyse satellite images without on-the-ground verification could increase the margin of error.
Evaporation is a part of the natural cycle that can diminish water resources, particularly in areas with shallower supplies like the Pantanal wetlands, which sprawl across up to 207,000 square kilometres in three countries.
The MapBiomas study didn’t establish the extent to which Brazil’s retreating water resources resulted from natural causes. But experts have warned human activity is affecting global weather patterns, causing more frequent extreme events such as severe droughts and floods. The cutting and burning of forest, construction of large hydroelectric plants and dams or reservoirs for crop irrigation, all contribute to shifting natural patterns, said Mazeika Patricio Sullivan, an ecology professor at Ohio State University.
“We’re altering the magnitude of those natural processes,” said Sullivan, a wetlands expert who has studied water systems in the US, South America, Eastern Europe, and the Caribbean. “This is not just happening in Brazil, it’s happening all over the world.”
Sullivan said the MapBiomas data was “eye-popping”, though unsurprising; nearly 90 per cent of South America’s wetland area is estimated to have vanished since 1900, and nearly 40 per cent in North America, he said. Wetlands are essential to many species of wildlife and key to retaining water to be gradually released into rivers, which prevents flooding.
In Brazil’s Amazon rainforest, water that evaporates then travels on air currents to provide rainfall far afield. But some climate experts argue that the Amazon is headed for a “tipping point” in 10 to 15 years: if too much forest is destroyed, the Amazon would begin an irreversible process of degradation into tropical savanna.
There are more immediate sources of alarm, like possible power rationing this year. Hydroelectric reservoirs have been drained by a decade of lower-than-usual rainfall. Reservoirs in the Parana River basin, which powers the metropolis Sao Paulo and several states, have never been so depleted, the grid operator said this month.
The Parana River runs from Brazil into Argentina and along its course are the iconic Iguazu Falls at the border of the nations; the majestic cascades were unrecognisable for a few days in June, having dwindled to a trickle. The Parana waterway and its aquifers supply fresh water to some 40 million people, and a livelihood for fishing communities and farmers.
Brazilians Energy Minister Bento Albuquerque on August 25 called a press conference to deny the possibility of rationing, while at the same time calling on companies and people to reduce power consumption. Some analysts have speculated the dismissiveness is politically motivated ahead of an election year.
“At the current rate, blackouts are likely to happen this year, especially during peak hours,” said Nivalde de Castro, coordinator of the electricity sector studies group at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
The declining water resources also risk exacerbating fires that people often set during the Southern Hemisphere’s winter to clear pasture, which then rage out of control.
Last year, more than one-quarter of Brazil’s Pantanal went up in flames. It was by far the worst annual devastation since authorities started keeping records in 2003.
The Pantanal has strong capacity to regenerate if given the opportunity to do so without repeated burning events. A surge of fires in the past week stirred concern among locals.
“Once again, the spectre of fires is back,” said Angelo Rabelo, president of a local environmental group that oversees a protected area of about 300,000 hectares. Last year, 90 per cent of his land was damaged by blazes.
Researchers at the State University of Mato Grosso found parts of the Pantanal in 2019 had 13 per cent more days without any precipitation compared to the 1960s. Jibing with the MapBiomas study, their findings also showed the marshes were losing surface water.
South of the Amazon, battle is on to save wetlands and jaguars from record fires
“The scenario is even worse this year: drier, and with less water,” Rabelo said from Corumba, a municipality in Mato Grosso do Sul state.For Rabelo and others, last year’s fires were a wake-up call. He formed a full-time private fire brigade of seven people — the Pantanal’s first. They are better trained and have so far been able to respond faster, before fires spiral out of control.
But fresh challenges lie ahead. In areas without roads, navigation on smaller rivers can become problematic due to low water levels, Rabelo said. That means firefighters could soon have trouble reaching some blazes and, even if they can, less water available to extinguish them.
“The integration of water loss and wildfires: that’s a big issue that we need to start thinking more about,” said Sullivan.
https://www.theage.com.au/world/south-america/the-country-with-the-most-freshwater-on-the-planet-has-lost-15-per-cent-of-it-20210828-p58mpz.html
It is actually a finite resource.
In September 2018, the federal government unveiled a plan to radically expand Australia’s timber plantations by one billion trees over a decade.
Today, less than 1 per cent of that goal has been planted.
“At this rate, forget hitting the 2050 target; it will take 357 years to hit a billion trees,” independent senator Rex Patrick told parliament.
Despite the pledge to grow the national estate, Senator Patrick said plantation land had declined in Australia since a peak of more than two million hectares in 2008.
Statistics from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) show only 2,800 hectares of new plantation trees have been planted.
“That’s roughly 2.8 million trees against an annual target of 170 million that is needed ,” Senator Patrick said.
“I think the government knows the billion trees is not a possibility — they ought to admit that.”A man in a check blue shirt looks to the camera. He is surrounded by reporters and camera operators.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-08-31/slow-progress-on-plan-to-plant-billion-trees/100421414
“FUCK CHINA”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-09-05/resurgent-coal-market-hits-new-high/100431418
Oh wait what the laugh out loud¿
Mr Nicholas said the coal market was inherently “volatile” and this would remain the case even as demand fell away because supply could reduce at a faster rate. “If anything, this is bad for the outlook of thermal coal in the long term because higher prices now make coal even more expensive relative to cheap renewable energy,” Mr Nicholas said. “So it’s actually potentially a negative impact … potentially accelerating the shift away from thermal coal in the long run.”
Mr Nicholas acknowledged that what happened in Asia would have a large bearing on global efforts reach net zero emissions in coming decades. But he argued that China’s autocratic government meant it would act “fast” once it decided to move away from fossil fuels, while India was rapidly approaching “peak coal”.
Thorium Thorium Thorium
https://theconversation.com/destroying-vegetation-along-fences-and-roads-could-worsen-our-extinction-crisis-yet-the-nsw-government-just-allowed-it-167801
ChrispenEvan said:
https://theconversation.com/destroying-vegetation-along-fences-and-roads-could-worsen-our-extinction-crisis-yet-the-nsw-government-just-allowed-it-167801
Sends shivers down my spine.
Heartless profiteers.
roughbarked said:
ChrispenEvan said:
https://theconversation.com/destroying-vegetation-along-fences-and-roads-could-worsen-our-extinction-crisis-yet-the-nsw-government-just-allowed-it-167801
Sends shivers down my spine.
Heartless profiteers.
What do you mean “allowed it”?
They already spray insecticides on roadside vegetation. And herbicides for “weed” control.
mollwollfumble said:
roughbarked said:
ChrispenEvan said:
https://theconversation.com/destroying-vegetation-along-fences-and-roads-could-worsen-our-extinction-crisis-yet-the-nsw-government-just-allowed-it-167801
Sends shivers down my spine.
Heartless profiteers.
What do you mean “allowed it”?
They already spray insecticides on roadside vegetation. And herbicides for “weed” control.
Problem is, they oonly kill the natives. The weeds flourish.
Bogsnorkler said:
Arts said:
Bogsnorkler said:sure, but didn’t fire change the make-up of the types of tree species?
was it sustainable?
I was pointing out that everyone changes the environment to suit their lifestyle. And therefore some species must lose out.
Here’s an example. Some people want horses and wish to allow them to roam all over what they consider to be thier property.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-09-30/indigofera-poisoning/100500520
This may mean that they’ll actively eradicate this species from the land which previously belonged to the inhabitants which includes indigofera.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-30/alleged-unlawful-land-clearing-near-horizontal-falls-kimberley/100483526
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-30/daintree-handed-back-to-traditional-owners/100498982
The US Fish and Wildlife Service announces plans to declare 23 species extinct, including a bird last seen in 1944, a bat, two fish and eight types of mussel.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-30/us-declares-23-species-including-ivory-billed-woodpecker-extinct/100502454
roughbarked said:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service announces plans to declare 23 species extinct, including a bird last seen in 1944, a bat, two fish and eight types of mussel.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-30/us-declares-23-species-including-ivory-billed-woodpecker-extinct/100502454
Luckily, it’s their environment.
Michael V said:
roughbarked said:
The US Fish and Wildlife Service announces plans to declare 23 species extinct, including a bird last seen in 1944, a bat, two fish and eight types of mussel.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-30/us-declares-23-species-including-ivory-billed-woodpecker-extinct/100502454
Luckily, it’s their environment.
Australia luckily has a much better track record
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/06/nsw-government-faces-crucial-court-challenge-to-murray-darling-water-plan
Academic Christopher Barnatt, from the website ExplainingTheFuture.com, describes sustainability as a “dangerous” concept.
“It gives the impression that we could all go on living exactly as we live today but sustainably — with this sort of magic thing wrapped around it,” he tells ABC RN’s Future Tense.
Listen to the podcast
Sustainable development may be “politically convenient”, he argues, but it has no real meaning in a world driven by exponential consumption and powered by unlimited extraction.
“As a physical concept, is impossible. Life itself is a physically consumptive process.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/the-myth-of-sustainable-development/100504448
roughbarked said:
Academic Christopher Barnatt, from the website ExplainingTheFuture.com, describes sustainability as a “dangerous” concept.“It gives the impression that we could all go on living exactly as we live today but sustainably — with this sort of magic thing wrapped around it,” he tells ABC RN’s Future Tense.
Listen to the podcastSustainable development may be “politically convenient”, he argues, but it has no real meaning in a world driven by exponential consumption and powered by unlimited extraction.
“As a physical concept, is impossible. Life itself is a physically consumptive process.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/the-myth-of-sustainable-development/100504448
I’d say that Academic Christopher Barnatt is a “dangerous” concept.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
Academic Christopher Barnatt, from the website ExplainingTheFuture.com, describes sustainability as a “dangerous” concept.“It gives the impression that we could all go on living exactly as we live today but sustainably — with this sort of magic thing wrapped around it,” he tells ABC RN’s Future Tense.
Listen to the podcastSustainable development may be “politically convenient”, he argues, but it has no real meaning in a world driven by exponential consumption and powered by unlimited extraction.
“As a physical concept, is impossible. Life itself is a physically consumptive process.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/the-myth-of-sustainable-development/100504448
I’d say that Academic Christopher Barnatt is a “dangerous” concept.
:) We have to look at life from all sides now.
The scent of extinction in the wild?
= plant more weeds?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/sandalwood-plantation-push-allays-fears-of-extinction/100518578
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
Academic Christopher Barnatt, from the website ExplainingTheFuture.com, describes sustainability as a “dangerous” concept.“It gives the impression that we could all go on living exactly as we live today but sustainably — with this sort of magic thing wrapped around it,” he tells ABC RN’s Future Tense.
Listen to the podcastSustainable development may be “politically convenient”, he argues, but it has no real meaning in a world driven by exponential consumption and powered by unlimited extraction.
“As a physical concept, is impossible. Life itself is a physically consumptive process.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/the-myth-of-sustainable-development/100504448
I’d say that Academic Christopher Barnatt is a “dangerous” concept.
:) We have to look at life from all sides now.
but still somehow …
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I’d say that Academic Christopher Barnatt is a “dangerous” concept.
:) We have to look at life from all sides now.
but still somehow …
some people call them clods. ;)
roughbarked said:
The scent of extinction in the wild?
= plant more weeds?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/sandalwood-plantation-push-allays-fears-of-extinction/100518578
It’s the WA species that’s being hunted to extinction. That’s up to the WAliens to sort out.
In the meantime, there are plenty of other sandalwoods to exploit, eg: _Santalum lanceolatum. _ (I expect you have that in your area.)
Conservation status in QLD: Least Concern
Conservation status in NT: Least Concern
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
https://bie.ala.org.au/search?q=SANTALUM%2BLANCEOLATUM
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?q=lsid:https://id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2908232#tab_mapView
Michael V said:
roughbarked said:
The scent of extinction in the wild?
= plant more weeds?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/sandalwood-plantation-push-allays-fears-of-extinction/100518578
It’s the WA species that’s being hunted to extinction. That’s up to the WAliens to sort out.
In the meantime, there are plenty of other sandalwoods to exploit, eg: _Santalum lanceolatum. _ (I expect you have that in your area.)
Conservation status in QLD: Least Concern
Conservation status in NT: Least Concern
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
https://bie.ala.org.au/search?q=SANTALUM%2BLANCEOLATUM
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?q=lsid:https://id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2908232#tab_mapView
Also, see:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-03-01/native-sandalwood-groups-call-for-change-risks-collapse/13197368
Michael V said:
roughbarked said:
The scent of extinction in the wild?
= plant more weeds?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/sandalwood-plantation-push-allays-fears-of-extinction/100518578
It’s the WA species that’s being hunted to extinction. That’s up to the WAliens to sort out.
In the meantime, there are plenty of other sandalwoods to exploit, eg: _Santalum lanceolatum. _ (I expect you have that in your area.)
Conservation status in QLD: Least Concern
Conservation status in NT: Least Concern
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
https://bie.ala.org.au/search?q=SANTALUM%2BLANCEOLATUM
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?q=lsid:https://id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2908232#tab_mapView
We do have S. lanceolatum in my area.
Tthough it is rare compared to the presence of S. acuminatum.
Michael V said:
Michael V said:
roughbarked said:
The scent of extinction in the wild?
= plant more weeds?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/sandalwood-plantation-push-allays-fears-of-extinction/100518578
It’s the WA species that’s being hunted to extinction. That’s up to the WAliens to sort out.
In the meantime, there are plenty of other sandalwoods to exploit, eg: _Santalum lanceolatum. _ (I expect you have that in your area.)
Conservation status in QLD: Least Concern
Conservation status in NT: Least Concern
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
https://bie.ala.org.au/search?q=SANTALUM%2BLANCEOLATUM
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?q=lsid:https://id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2908232#tab_mapView
Also, see:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-03-01/native-sandalwood-groups-call-for-change-risks-collapse/13197368
Point is, should we be needing to have plantations of S. album when it would seem smarter to make the plantations of our own native species?
roughbarked said:
Michael V said:
Michael V said:It’s the WA species that’s being hunted to extinction. That’s up to the WAliens to sort out.
In the meantime, there are plenty of other sandalwoods to exploit, eg: _Santalum lanceolatum. _ (I expect you have that in your area.)
Conservation status in QLD: Least Concern
Conservation status in NT: Least Concern
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
https://bie.ala.org.au/search?q=SANTALUM%2BLANCEOLATUM
https://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?q=lsid:https://id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2908232#tab_mapView
Also, see:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-03-01/native-sandalwood-groups-call-for-change-risks-collapse/13197368
Point is, should we be needing to have plantations of S. album when it would seem smarter to make the plantations of our own native species?
Do plantations of native sandalwood work?
Michael V said:
roughbarked said:
Michael V said:Also, see:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-03-01/native-sandalwood-groups-call-for-change-risks-collapse/13197368
Point is, should we be needing to have plantations of S. album when it would seem smarter to make the plantations of our own native species?
Do plantations of native sandalwood work?
And, to be fair, Santalum album is a native species, so obviously it can be done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santalum_album
Michael V said:
roughbarked said:
Michael V said:Also, see:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-03-01/native-sandalwood-groups-call-for-change-risks-collapse/13197368
Point is, should we be needing to have plantations of S. album when it would seem smarter to make the plantations of our own native species?
Do plantations of native sandalwood work?
Yes.
Michael V said:
Michael V said:
roughbarked said:Point is, should we be needing to have plantations of S. album when it would seem smarter to make the plantations of our own native species?
Do plantations of native sandalwood work?
And, to be fair, Santalum album is a native species, so obviously it can be done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santalum_album
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2903055
Michael V said:
Michael V said:
roughbarked said:Point is, should we be needing to have plantations of S. album when it would seem smarter to make the plantations of our own native species?
Do plantations of native sandalwood work?
And, to be fair, Santalum album is a native species, so obviously it can be done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santalum_album
hmm, I see, “may have been introduced to India”
Michael V said:
Michael V said:
Michael V said:Do plantations of native sandalwood work?
And, to be fair, Santalum album is a native species, so obviously it can be done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santalum_album
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2903055
Looks like an interloper.
roughbarked said:
Michael V said:
Michael V said:And, to be fair, Santalum album is a native species, so obviously it can be done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santalum_album
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2903055
Looks like an interloper.
However, it’s equally likely that it’s restricted by climate and soils to those areas. And growing in plantations at Kununurra is near ideal, as it occurs naturally in that region.
Michael V said:
roughbarked said:
Michael V said:
https://bie.ala.org.au/species/https://id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2903055
Looks like an interloper.
However, it’s equally likely that it’s restricted by climate and soils to those areas. And growing in plantations at Kununurra is near ideal, as it occurs naturally in that region.
I can come around to that argument, yes.
However, care should be taken to keep each species in its area.
roughbarked said:
Michael V said:
roughbarked said:Looks like an interloper.
However, it’s equally likely that it’s restricted by climate and soils to those areas. And growing in plantations at Kununurra is near ideal, as it occurs naturally in that region.
I can come around to that argument, yes.
However, care should be taken to keep each species in its area.
I’m OK with plantations at Kununnurra – within the native range.
I also think management and sustainable harvest of the WA species (and probably the other native species, too) should be allocated only to first nations peoples who develop and lodge sustainable management plans.
Michael V said:
roughbarked said:
Michael V said:However, it’s equally likely that it’s restricted by climate and soils to those areas. And growing in plantations at Kununurra is near ideal, as it occurs naturally in that region.
I can come around to that argument, yes.
However, care should be taken to keep each species in its area.
I’m OK with plantations at Kununnurra – within the native range.
I also think management and sustainable harvest of the WA species (and probably the other native species, too) should be allocated only to first nations peoples who develop and lodge sustainable management plans.
Couldn’t agree more.
Interesting quotes..
“If Indian sandalwood is the king of all woods, then Australian Sandalwood is the undisputed prince.” https://quintis.com.au/knowledge-centre/sandalwood/australian-sandalwood/
“It is estimated that around 90% of sandalwood is sourced from illegally harvested means. “ https://quintis.com.au/knowledge-centre/sandalwood/indian-sandalwood/
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened
https://www.watoday.com.au/business/companies/gina-rinehart-warns-of-propaganda-in-climate-denial-video-to-students-20211006-p58xry.html
It’s not just WA: Sydney and Melbourne will see dangerous 50C temperatures soon enough
The Conversation
/
By Andrew King
Extreme heat over 50C is likely to become more common, giving us yet another reason for Australia to act fast on climate change, writes Andrew King.
“We’ve been able to fill 50 to 70 per cent of the wetlands along the
Darling.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-19/bourke-transformed-by-floodwaters-heading-to-sa/100765128
roughbarked said:
That looks a bit horrible.
Bubblecar said:
roughbarked said:
That looks a bit horrible.
Prolly just butterfly eggs on a wattle.
Big oil all talk, no action on climate change? Researchers say they’ve got the proof
“ExxonMobil, Chevron and Toyota accused of being corporate “influencersthat are blocking action against global warming
roughbarked said:
Big oil all talk, no action on climate change? Researchers say they’ve got the proof“ExxonMobil, Chevron and Toyota accused of being corporate “influencersthat are blocking action against global warming
I’m reading Michael Mann’s book The New Climate War.
He argues that “no action “ would be a misleading description.
They have continuing action to stop action against climate change.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
Big oil all talk, no action on climate change? Researchers say they’ve got the proof“ExxonMobil, Chevron and Toyota accused of being corporate “influencersthat are blocking action against global warming
I’m reading Michael Mann’s book The New Climate War.
He argues that “no action “ would be a misleading description.
They have continuing action to stop action against climate change.
:)
This be looking like the truth.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
Big oil all talk, no action on climate change? Researchers say they’ve got the proof“ExxonMobil, Chevron and Toyota accused of being corporate “influencersthat are blocking action against global warming
I’m reading Michael Mann’s book The New Climate War.
He argues that “no action “ would be a misleading description.
They have continuing action to stop action against climate change.
Fuelling the doubt machine.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
Big oil all talk, no action on climate change? Researchers say they’ve got the proof“ExxonMobil, Chevron and Toyota accused of being corporate “influencersthat are blocking action against global warming
I’m reading Michael Mann’s book The New Climate War.
He argues that “no action “ would be a misleading description.
They have continuing action to stop action against climate change.
:)
This be looking like the truth.
Also supported by your second link above.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
Big oil all talk, no action on climate change? Researchers say they’ve got the proof
“ExxonMobil, Chevron and Toyota accused of being corporate “influencersthat are blocking action against global warming
I’m reading Michael Mann’s book The New Climate War.
He argues that “no action “ would be a misleading description.
They have continuing action to stop action against climate change.
action to stop action, pull the other action
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/origin-to-shut-eraring-power-station-early/100838474
Origin Energy is seeking approval to shut Australia’s largest coal-fired power plant seven years early, with the Eraring facility in the NSW Hunter Valley now set to close by August 2025. The company says it intends to install a big battery of up to 700MW on the site
also note the disunity but whatever
SCIENCE said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/origin-to-shut-eraring-power-station-early/100838474Origin Energy is seeking approval to shut Australia’s largest coal-fired power plant seven years early, with the Eraring facility in the NSW Hunter Valley now set to close by August 2025. The company says it intends to install a big battery of up to 700MW on the site
also note the disunity but whatever
I’m sure electricity suppliers are only too happy to switch to renewables if they are cheaper.
The problem arises when storage costs rise sufficiently to make fossil fuels competitive again, but maybe the future costs of GHG emissions will be recognised with a price on emissions by then.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/origin-to-shut-eraring-power-station-early/100838474
Origin Energy is seeking approval to shut Australia’s largest coal-fired power plant seven years early, with the Eraring facility in the NSW Hunter Valley now set to close by August 2025. The company says it intends to install a big battery of up to 700MW on the site
also note the disunity but whatever
I’m sure electricity suppliers are only too happy to switch to renewables if they are cheaper.
The problem arises when storage costs rise sufficiently to make fossil fuels competitive again, but maybe the future costs of GHG emissions will be recognised with a price on emissions by then.
are storage costs likely to rise
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/origin-to-shut-eraring-power-station-early/100838474
Origin Energy is seeking approval to shut Australia’s largest coal-fired power plant seven years early, with the Eraring facility in the NSW Hunter Valley now set to close by August 2025. The company says it intends to install a big battery of up to 700MW on the site
also note the disunity but whatever
I’m sure electricity suppliers are only too happy to switch to renewables if they are cheaper.
The problem arises when storage costs rise sufficiently to make fossil fuels competitive again, but maybe the future costs of GHG emissions will be recognised with a price on emissions by then.
are storage costs likely to rise
Well since storage capacity is now close to zero, and needs to be sufficient to cover protracted periods of low wind cloudy weather, I should think they must rise very substantially.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
I’m sure electricity suppliers are only too happy to switch to renewables if they are cheaper.
The problem arises when storage costs rise sufficiently to make fossil fuels competitive again, but maybe the future costs of GHG emissions will be recognised with a price on emissions by then.
are storage costs likely to rise
Well since storage capacity is now close to zero, and needs to be sufficient to cover protracted periods of low wind cloudy weather, I should think they must rise very substantially.
do you mean the demand for storage solutions will outstrip supply at least initially and therefore a price bubble will develop before cavitation occurs when CHINA leaps into the market
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:SCIENCE said:
are storage costs likely to rise
Well since storage capacity is now close to zero, and needs to be sufficient to cover protracted periods of low wind cloudy weather, I should think they must rise very substantially.
do you mean the demand for storage solutions will outstrip supply at least initially and therefore a price bubble will develop before cavitation occurs when CHINA leaps into the market
Well I suppose that’s possible, although I’m not sure how practical storing energy in China will be within the foreseeable future.
But I just meant that when “renewable” energy sources get close to supplying 100% of our electricity, the costs associated with storage will be very much higher than they are now.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Well since storage capacity is now close to zero, and needs to be sufficient to cover protracted periods of low wind cloudy weather, I should think they must rise very substantially.
Do you mean the demand for storage solutions will outstrip supply at least initially and therefore a price bubble will develop before cavitation occurs when CHINA leaps into the market¿
Well I suppose that’s possible, although I’m not sure how practical storing energy in China will be within the foreseeable future.
But I just meant that when “renewable” energy sources get close to supplying 100% of our electricity, the costs associated with storage will be very much higher than they are now.
We mean market for solutions which may be offshore but could be exported installations or whatever.
But fair point on the need to consider upfront / fixed / sunk / maintenance / marginal costs in the equation.
Then there were these 2 other articles up as well so one could imagine if the different parts of industry just sat down and talked to each other.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/ev-price-tipping-point-petrol-prices-electric-cars/100829628
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Well since storage capacity is now close to zero, and needs to be sufficient to cover protracted periods of low wind cloudy weather, I should think they must rise very substantially.
do you mean the demand for storage solutions will outstrip supply at least initially and therefore a price bubble will develop before cavitation occurs when CHINA leaps into the market
Well I suppose that’s possible, although I’m not sure how practical storing energy in China will be within the foreseeable future.
But I just meant that when “renewable” energy sources get close to supplying 100% of our electricity, the costs associated with storage will be very much higher than they are now.
BTW, reading
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-12/largest-battery-in-australia-to-be-built-at-nsw-coal-fired-plant/13050642
I note that the MW has now become a unit of “storage”
What do we use for power these days?
The Rev Dodgson said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:do you mean the demand for storage solutions will outstrip supply at least initially and therefore a price bubble will develop before cavitation occurs when CHINA leaps into the market
Well I suppose that’s possible, although I’m not sure how practical storing energy in China will be within the foreseeable future.
But I just meant that when “renewable” energy sources get close to supplying 100% of our electricity, the costs associated with storage will be very much higher than they are now.
BTW, reading
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-12/largest-battery-in-australia-to-be-built-at-nsw-coal-fired-plant/13050642
I note that the MW has now become a unit of “storage”
What do we use for power these days?
Yes, I read that and thought WTF.
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
Do you mean the demand for storage solutions will outstrip supply at least initially and therefore a price bubble will develop before cavitation occurs when CHINA leaps into the market¿
Well I suppose that’s possible, although I’m not sure how practical storing energy in China will be within the foreseeable future.
But I just meant that when “renewable” energy sources get close to supplying 100% of our electricity, the costs associated with storage will be very much higher than they are now.
We mean market for solutions which may be offshore but could be exported installations or whatever.
But fair point on the need to consider upfront / fixed / sunk / maintenance / marginal costs in the equation.
Then there were these 2 other articles up as well so one could imagine if the different parts of industry just sat down and talked to each other.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/ev-price-tipping-point-petrol-prices-electric-cars/100829628
Yes, I’m sure dual use car batteries will be a significant resource in coming years, and they have the benefit that the cost is hidden from the electricity purchasers who don’t have electric cars.
But it will be a small part of the total storage required.
sibeen said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Well I suppose that’s possible, although I’m not sure how practical storing energy in China will be within the foreseeable future.
But I just meant that when “renewable” energy sources get close to supplying 100% of our electricity, the costs associated with storage will be very much higher than they are now.
BTW, reading
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-12/largest-battery-in-australia-to-be-built-at-nsw-coal-fired-plant/13050642
I note that the MW has now become a unit of “storage”
What do we use for power these days?
Yes, I read that and thought WTF.
I did think of posting a warning that the thread contains units that some people might find offensive :)
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
Do you mean the demand for storage solutions will outstrip supply at least initially and therefore a price bubble will develop before cavitation occurs when CHINA leaps into the market¿
Well I suppose that’s possible, although I’m not sure how practical storing energy in China will be within the foreseeable future.
But I just meant that when “renewable” energy sources get close to supplying 100% of our electricity, the costs associated with storage will be very much higher than they are now.
We mean market for solutions which may be offshore but could be exported installations or whatever.
But fair point on the need to consider upfront / fixed / sunk / maintenance / marginal costs in the equation.
Then there were these 2 other articles up as well so one could imagine if the different parts of industry just sat down and talked to each other.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/ev-price-tipping-point-petrol-prices-electric-cars/100829628
My first exposure to the idea of using vehicle batteries as storage for the grid was at a conference I attended in Sydney, in 1991 :)
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
Do you mean the demand for storage solutions will outstrip supply at least initially and therefore a price bubble will develop before cavitation occurs when CHINA leaps into the market¿
Well I suppose that’s possible, although I’m not sure how practical storing energy in China will be within the foreseeable future.
But I just meant that when “renewable” energy sources get close to supplying 100% of our electricity, the costs associated with storage will be very much higher than they are now.
We mean market for solutions which may be offshore but could be exported installations or whatever.
But fair point on the need to consider upfront / fixed / sunk / maintenance / marginal costs in the equation.
Then there were these 2 other articles up as well so one could imagine if the different parts of industry just sat down and talked to each other.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/ev-price-tipping-point-petrol-prices-electric-cars/100829628
My first exposure to the idea of using vehicle batteries as storage for the grid was at a conference I attended in Sydney, in 1991 :)
From:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/ev-price-tipping-point-petrol-prices-electric-cars/100829628
“Despite the hip-pocket pain at the bowser, the Australasian Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association (ACAPMA) says petrol prices would have to reach $3.85 a litre before a consumer could recover the extra costs of an EV within five years.”
Electric vehicles only last five years?
The Rev Dodgson said:
From:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/ev-price-tipping-point-petrol-prices-electric-cars/100829628“Despite the hip-pocket pain at the bowser, the Australasian Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association (ACAPMA) says petrol prices would have to reach $3.85 a litre before a consumer could recover the extra costs of an EV within five years.”
Electric vehicles only last five years?
Also:
Moreover, he said the biggest “speed hump” to EV supply in Australia was the lack of fuel standards, which he said were “absolutely central” to the market.
In the absence of fuel standards, he said car makers would not be punished for selling dirtier models such as four-wheel drives and SUVs.”
What have “fuel standards” got to do with it?
Just put a price on all GHG emissions.
“
The Rev Dodgson said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
From:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/ev-price-tipping-point-petrol-prices-electric-cars/100829628“Despite the hip-pocket pain at the bowser, the Australasian Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association (ACAPMA) says petrol prices would have to reach $3.85 a litre before a consumer could recover the extra costs of an EV within five years.”
Electric vehicles only last five years?
Also:
Moreover, he said the biggest “speed hump” to EV supply in Australia was the lack of fuel standards, which he said were “absolutely central” to the market.In the absence of fuel standards, he said car makers would not be punished for selling dirtier models such as four-wheel drives and SUVs.”
What have “fuel standards” got to do with it?
Just put a price on all GHG emissions.
“
Many European countries have gone down the fuel standards route. This has forced manufacturers to improve their petrol/diesel car engines (amongst other things), and, more importantly, sell electric vehicles at much lower prices. The lower prices means much higher uptake of electric vehicles.
In any case, why can’t we have both? They are not mutually exclusive.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
And getting back to the other question, I also seriously dislike the journalists nonsense use of MW for energy storage. It immediately means any information is negated.
I mean, say a Musky South Australian 100 MW battery. Can it supply that for just 0.001 of a second or 10 weeks continuously? That’s nonsense.
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
From:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/ev-price-tipping-point-petrol-prices-electric-cars/100829628“Despite the hip-pocket pain at the bowser, the Australasian Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association (ACAPMA) says petrol prices would have to reach $3.85 a litre before a consumer could recover the extra costs of an EV within five years.”
Electric vehicles only last five years?
Also:
Moreover, he said the biggest “speed hump” to EV supply in Australia was the lack of fuel standards, which he said were “absolutely central” to the market.In the absence of fuel standards, he said car makers would not be punished for selling dirtier models such as four-wheel drives and SUVs.”
What have “fuel standards” got to do with it?
Just put a price on all GHG emissions.
“
Many European countries have gone down the fuel standards route. This has forced manufacturers to improve their petrol/diesel car engines (amongst other things), and, more importantly, sell electric vehicles at much lower prices. The lower prices means much higher uptake of electric vehicles.
In any case, why can’t we have both? They are not mutually exclusive.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
And getting back to the other question, I also seriously dislike the journalists nonsense use of MW for energy storage. It immediately means any information is negated.
I mean, say a Musky South Australian 100 MW battery. Can it supply that for just 0.001 of a second or 10 weeks continuously? That’s nonsense.
How do fuel standards force manufacturers to sell electric vehicles at much lower prices?
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be tighter fuel standards (which is what I assume they mean, since we do have fuel standards in Australia), but I don’t see them as being a significant driver to electric vehicles.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Also:
Moreover, he said the biggest “speed hump” to EV supply in Australia was the lack of fuel standards, which he said were “absolutely central” to the market.In the absence of fuel standards, he said car makers would not be punished for selling dirtier models such as four-wheel drives and SUVs.”
What have “fuel standards” got to do with it?
Just put a price on all GHG emissions.
“
Many European countries have gone down the fuel standards route. This has forced manufacturers to improve their petrol/diesel car engines (amongst other things), and, more importantly, sell electric vehicles at much lower prices. The lower prices means much higher uptake of electric vehicles.
In any case, why can’t we have both? They are not mutually exclusive.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
And getting back to the other question, I also seriously dislike the journalists nonsense use of MW for energy storage. It immediately means any information is negated.
I mean, say a Musky South Australian 100 MW battery. Can it supply that for just 0.001 of a second or 10 weeks continuously? That’s nonsense.
How do fuel standards force manufacturers to sell electric vehicles at much lower prices?
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be tighter fuel standards (which is what I assume they mean, since we do have fuel standards in Australia), but I don’t see them as being a significant driver to electric vehicles.
The real answer is affordability. They will sell like hotcakes when they are as available and as cheap as hot chips.
This is something that the vehicle manufacturers have been avoiding for as long as possible and they lobby governments to keep it that way.
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
From:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/ev-price-tipping-point-petrol-prices-electric-cars/100829628“Despite the hip-pocket pain at the bowser, the Australasian Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association (ACAPMA) says petrol prices would have to reach $3.85 a litre before a consumer could recover the extra costs of an EV within five years.”
Electric vehicles only last five years?
Also:
Moreover, he said the biggest “speed hump” to EV supply in Australia was the lack of fuel standards, which he said were “absolutely central” to the market.In the absence of fuel standards, he said car makers would not be punished for selling dirtier models such as four-wheel drives and SUVs.”
What have “fuel standards” got to do with it?
Just put a price on all GHG emissions.
“
Many European countries have gone down the fuel standards route. This has forced manufacturers to improve their petrol/diesel car engines (amongst other things), and, more importantly, sell electric vehicles at much lower prices. The lower prices means much higher uptake of electric vehicles.
In any case, why can’t we have both? They are not mutually exclusive.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
And getting back to the other question, I also seriously dislike the journalists nonsense use of MW for energy storage. It immediately means any information is negated.
I mean, say a Musky South Australian 100 MW battery. Can it supply that for just 0.001 of a second or 10 weeks continuously? That’s nonsense.
Quite.
The story today is that Origin energy wants to retire the Eraring coal powered plant earlier than anticipated to focus on renewables and gas. The article says it will build a “700 MW capacity battery”. Meaningless.
I’ve looked up the specs elsewhere. 700 MW is its maximum output, and its effective storage capacity is 2800 MWh.
This is a very important number and voters needs to start getting their heads around these concepts because a lot of the future will depend on them understanding the costs and requirements, but journalists and company press are very coy on it. DGMW, maximum output is also important.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/origin-to-shut-eraring-power-station-early/100838474
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Michael V said:Many European countries have gone down the fuel standards route. This has forced manufacturers to improve their petrol/diesel car engines (amongst other things), and, more importantly, sell electric vehicles at much lower prices. The lower prices means much higher uptake of electric vehicles.
In any case, why can’t we have both? They are not mutually exclusive.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
And getting back to the other question, I also seriously dislike the journalists nonsense use of MW for energy storage. It immediately means any information is negated.
I mean, say a Musky South Australian 100 MW battery. Can it supply that for just 0.001 of a second or 10 weeks continuously? That’s nonsense.
How do fuel standards force manufacturers to sell electric vehicles at much lower prices?
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be tighter fuel standards (which is what I assume they mean, since we do have fuel standards in Australia), but I don’t see them as being a significant driver to electric vehicles.
The real answer is affordability. They will sell like hotcakes when they are as available and as cheap as hot chips.
This is something that the vehicle manufacturers have been avoiding for as long as possible and they lobby governments to keep it that way.
Can you provide some examples of this lobbying?
The only way to make electric cars as cheap as chips would be for the government to heavily subsidise them, and I would have thought the manufacturers would be quite keen on that.
dv said:
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Also:
Moreover, he said the biggest “speed hump” to EV supply in Australia was the lack of fuel standards, which he said were “absolutely central” to the market.In the absence of fuel standards, he said car makers would not be punished for selling dirtier models such as four-wheel drives and SUVs.”
What have “fuel standards” got to do with it?
Just put a price on all GHG emissions.
“
Many European countries have gone down the fuel standards route. This has forced manufacturers to improve their petrol/diesel car engines (amongst other things), and, more importantly, sell electric vehicles at much lower prices. The lower prices means much higher uptake of electric vehicles.
In any case, why can’t we have both? They are not mutually exclusive.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
And getting back to the other question, I also seriously dislike the journalists nonsense use of MW for energy storage. It immediately means any information is negated.
I mean, say a Musky South Australian 100 MW battery. Can it supply that for just 0.001 of a second or 10 weeks continuously? That’s nonsense.
Quite.
The story today is that Origin energy wants to retire the Eraring coal powered plant earlier than anticipated to focus on renewables and gas. The article says it will build a “700 MW capacity battery”. Meaningless.
I’ve looked up the specs elsewhere. 700 MW is its maximum output, and its effective storage capacity is 2800 MWh.
This is a very important number and voters needs to start getting their heads around these concepts because a lot of the future will depend on them understanding the costs and requirements, but journalists and company press are very coy on it. DGMW, maximum output is also important.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/origin-to-shut-eraring-power-station-early/100838474
So the coal fired plant is to be replaced by something about a quarter of the size that can only run for about 4 hours without any input from other sources.
Sweet
The Rev Dodgson said:
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Also:
Moreover, he said the biggest “speed hump” to EV supply in Australia was the lack of fuel standards, which he said were “absolutely central” to the market.In the absence of fuel standards, he said car makers would not be punished for selling dirtier models such as four-wheel drives and SUVs.”
What have “fuel standards” got to do with it?
Just put a price on all GHG emissions.
“
Many European countries have gone down the fuel standards route. This has forced manufacturers to improve their petrol/diesel car engines (amongst other things), and, more importantly, sell electric vehicles at much lower prices. The lower prices means much higher uptake of electric vehicles.
In any case, why can’t we have both? They are not mutually exclusive.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
And getting back to the other question, I also seriously dislike the journalists nonsense use of MW for energy storage. It immediately means any information is negated.
I mean, say a Musky South Australian 100 MW battery. Can it supply that for just 0.001 of a second or 10 weeks continuously? That’s nonsense.
How do fuel standards force manufacturers to sell electric vehicles at much lower prices?
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be tighter fuel standards (which is what I assume they mean, since we do have fuel standards in Australia), but I don’t see them as being a significant driver to electric vehicles.
It’s quite different to our fuel standards. It’s about the amount of fuel consumed overall.
If a car manufacturer sells (say) 10,000 vehicles and the fuel standard is set at (say) 1 litre/100 km per vehicle, then the manufacturer may have to sell (say) 8,000 electric vehicles to achieve that. If they don’t sell the electric vehicles cheap enough to get people buying them, then severe penalties apply.
sibeen said:
dv said:
Michael V said:Many European countries have gone down the fuel standards route. This has forced manufacturers to improve their petrol/diesel car engines (amongst other things), and, more importantly, sell electric vehicles at much lower prices. The lower prices means much higher uptake of electric vehicles.
In any case, why can’t we have both? They are not mutually exclusive.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
And getting back to the other question, I also seriously dislike the journalists nonsense use of MW for energy storage. It immediately means any information is negated.
I mean, say a Musky South Australian 100 MW battery. Can it supply that for just 0.001 of a second or 10 weeks continuously? That’s nonsense.
Quite.
The story today is that Origin energy wants to retire the Eraring coal powered plant earlier than anticipated to focus on renewables and gas. The article says it will build a “700 MW capacity battery”. Meaningless.
I’ve looked up the specs elsewhere. 700 MW is its maximum output, and its effective storage capacity is 2800 MWh.
This is a very important number and voters needs to start getting their heads around these concepts because a lot of the future will depend on them understanding the costs and requirements, but journalists and company press are very coy on it. DGMW, maximum output is also important.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/origin-to-shut-eraring-power-station-early/100838474
So the coal fired plant is to be replaced by something about a quarter of the size that can only run for about 4 hours without any input from other sources.
Sweet
I think that’s not the correct read. They are also going to continuing amping up renewables and gas.
If Labor had compromised with Turnbull we would already be four years into an emissions pricing scheme…
dv said:
sibeen said:
dv said:Quite.
The story today is that Origin energy wants to retire the Eraring coal powered plant earlier than anticipated to focus on renewables and gas. The article says it will build a “700 MW capacity battery”. Meaningless.
I’ve looked up the specs elsewhere. 700 MW is its maximum output, and its effective storage capacity is 2800 MWh.
This is a very important number and voters needs to start getting their heads around these concepts because a lot of the future will depend on them understanding the costs and requirements, but journalists and company press are very coy on it. DGMW, maximum output is also important.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/origin-to-shut-eraring-power-station-early/100838474
So the coal fired plant is to be replaced by something about a quarter of the size that can only run for about 4 hours without any input from other sources.
Sweet
I think that’s not the correct read. They are also going to continuing amping up renewables and gas.
Yes, yes, I know, and there will be people screaming at them about going down the gas route because we need to go totally renewable, right now, even though this is an engineering, manufacturing & resourcing impossibility.
sibeen said:
dv said:
sibeen said:So the coal fired plant is to be replaced by something about a quarter of the size that can only run for about 4 hours without any input from other sources.
Sweet
I think that’s not the correct read. They are also going to continuing amping up renewables and gas.
Yes, yes, I know, and there will be people screaming at them about going down the gas route because we need to go totally renewable, right now, even though this is an engineering, manufacturing & resourcing impossibility.
If it were possible, there’s heaps of methane floating away which should somehow be captured and stored..
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:How do fuel standards force manufacturers to sell electric vehicles at much lower prices?
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be tighter fuel standards (which is what I assume they mean, since we do have fuel standards in Australia), but I don’t see them as being a significant driver to electric vehicles.
The real answer is affordability. They will sell like hotcakes when they are as available and as cheap as hot chips.
This is something that the vehicle manufacturers have been avoiding for as long as possible and they lobby governments to keep it that way.
Can you provide some examples of this lobbying?
The only way to make electric cars as cheap as chips would be for the government to heavily subsidise them, and I would have thought the manufacturers would be quite keen on that.
Have you ever heard of the doubt machine?
Speaking of our environment. Have the recent images of what Russia’s tanks have done to it in recent times, impressed anyone else?
Then again;
Speaking alongside Australia’s Army Chief, Lieutenant General Rick Burr, the visiting US General has argued strongly in favour of armoured land forces. “I believe that in the future for a peer, or near-peer fight, that the impact of combined arms manoeuvre, particularly in dense urban areas, you’re gonna want armour forces, you’re gonna need tanks,” General Flynn said.
Even thouugh we haven’t yet used the last ones we bought fifteen years back.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/us-general-charles-flynn-endorse-new-tanks/100838958
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:The real answer is affordability. They will sell like hotcakes when they are as available and as cheap as hot chips.
This is something that the vehicle manufacturers have been avoiding for as long as possible and they lobby governments to keep it that way.
Can you provide some examples of this lobbying?
The only way to make electric cars as cheap as chips would be for the government to heavily subsidise them, and I would have thought the manufacturers would be quite keen on that.
Have you ever heard of the doubt machine?
Well I hadn’t heard that term, but I’m (of course) very familiar with what it refers to.
It has zero to do with the current discussion.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Can you provide some examples of this lobbying?
The only way to make electric cars as cheap as chips would be for the government to heavily subsidise them, and I would have thought the manufacturers would be quite keen on that.
Have you ever heard of the doubt machine?
Well I hadn’t heard that term, but I’m (of course) very familiar with what it refers to.
It has zero to do with the current discussion.
Well it may help if the EV’s play a recording of a burbling Ferrari. ;)
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Michael V said:Many European countries have gone down the fuel standards route. This has forced manufacturers to improve their petrol/diesel car engines (amongst other things), and, more importantly, sell electric vehicles at much lower prices. The lower prices means much higher uptake of electric vehicles.
In any case, why can’t we have both? They are not mutually exclusive.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
And getting back to the other question, I also seriously dislike the journalists nonsense use of MW for energy storage. It immediately means any information is negated.
I mean, say a Musky South Australian 100 MW battery. Can it supply that for just 0.001 of a second or 10 weeks continuously? That’s nonsense.
How do fuel standards force manufacturers to sell electric vehicles at much lower prices?
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be tighter fuel standards (which is what I assume they mean, since we do have fuel standards in Australia), but I don’t see them as being a significant driver to electric vehicles.
It’s quite different to our fuel standards. It’s about the amount of fuel consumed overall.
If a car manufacturer sells (say) 10,000 vehicles and the fuel standard is set at (say) 1 litre/100 km per vehicle, then the manufacturer may have to sell (say) 8,000 electric vehicles to achieve that. If they don’t sell the electric vehicles cheap enough to get people buying them, then severe penalties apply.
Hadn’t heard of that.
Seems a strangely convoluted way of going about it, but if hiding the costs is the only way to get a CO2 price without getting kicked out at the next election, maybe it makes sense.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:How do fuel standards force manufacturers to sell electric vehicles at much lower prices?
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be tighter fuel standards (which is what I assume they mean, since we do have fuel standards in Australia), but I don’t see them as being a significant driver to electric vehicles.
It’s quite different to our fuel standards. It’s about the amount of fuel consumed overall.
If a car manufacturer sells (say) 10,000 vehicles and the fuel standard is set at (say) 1 litre/100 km per vehicle, then the manufacturer may have to sell (say) 8,000 electric vehicles to achieve that. If they don’t sell the electric vehicles cheap enough to get people buying them, then severe penalties apply.
Hadn’t heard of that.
Seems a strangely convoluted way of going about it, but if hiding the costs is the only way to get a CO2 price without getting kicked out at the next election, maybe it makes sense.
This is all stuff I obviously need to swot up on.
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Michael V said:It’s quite different to our fuel standards. It’s about the amount of fuel consumed overall.
If a car manufacturer sells (say) 10,000 vehicles and the fuel standard is set at (say) 1 litre/100 km per vehicle, then the manufacturer may have to sell (say) 8,000 electric vehicles to achieve that. If they don’t sell the electric vehicles cheap enough to get people buying them, then severe penalties apply.
Hadn’t heard of that.
Seems a strangely convoluted way of going about it, but if hiding the costs is the only way to get a CO2 price without getting kicked out at the next election, maybe it makes sense.
This is all stuff I obviously need to swot up on.
It’s the reason Ford brought out the 2.3 litre Mustang.
dv said:
If Labor had compromised with Turnbull we would already be four years into an emissions pricing scheme…
That’s not how I remember Turnbull’s proposal from 2017, and a quick look at TATE suggests I remember correctly.
The NEG didn’t have a price on GHG emissions, did it?
dv said:
voters needs to start getting their heads around these concepts because a lot of the future will depend on them understanding
Laugh Out Loud
SCIENCE said:
dv said:voters needs to start getting their heads around these concepts because a lot of the future will depend on them understandingLaugh Out Loud
Tamb said:
SCIENCE said:
dv said:
voters needs to start getting their heads around these concepts because a lot of the future will depend on them understandingLaugh Out Loud
IMO. People are not fundamentally opposed to EVs but simply want them to be equal to or better than present ICEs in performance, comfort, range & price.
forgive us for being uneducated and uninformed but apart from the perhaps doubled range which means a few extra trips before filling up, and the need for driving to and queuing up at the pump while guessing at whether the price cycle is high or low, and the lower acceleration from stopped at lights
in what way is rock oil better
Tamb said:
SCIENCE said:
dv said:voters needs to start getting their heads around these concepts because a lot of the future will depend on them understandingLaugh Out Loud
IMO. People are not fundamentally opposed to EVs but simply want them to be equal to or better than present ICEs in performance, comfort, range & price.
Methinks availability is of the utmost.
The supplpy isn’t even meeting the current demand.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
If Labor had compromised with Turnbull we would already be four years into an emissions pricing scheme…
That’s not how I remember Turnbull’s proposal from 2017, and a quick look at TATE suggests I remember correctly.
The NEG didn’t have a price on GHG emissions, did it?
It had financial penalties for not meeting the low emissions requirements, you are right to correct me as that’s not quite the same as an emissions price.
sibeen said:
SCIENCE said:The Rev Dodgson said:
Well I suppose that’s possible, although I’m not sure how practical storing energy in China will be within the foreseeable future.
But I just meant that when “renewable” energy sources get close to supplying 100% of our electricity, the costs associated with storage will be very much higher than they are now.
We mean market for solutions which may be offshore but could be exported installations or whatever.
But fair point on the need to consider upfront / fixed / sunk / maintenance / marginal costs in the equation.
Then there were these 2 other articles up as well so one could imagine if the different parts of industry just sat down and talked to each other.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/ev-price-tipping-point-petrol-prices-electric-cars/100829628
My first exposure to the idea of using vehicle batteries as storage for the grid was at a conference I attended in Sydney, in 1991 :)
Have you noticed how as you get older ideas come around in cycles? I don’t think people properly read the stuff that has been done before…
buffy said:
sibeen said:
SCIENCE said:We mean market for solutions which may be offshore but could be exported installations or whatever.
But fair point on the need to consider upfront / fixed / sunk / maintenance / marginal costs in the equation.
Then there were these 2 other articles up as well so one could imagine if the different parts of industry just sat down and talked to each other.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-17/ev-price-tipping-point-petrol-prices-electric-cars/100829628
My first exposure to the idea of using vehicle batteries as storage for the grid was at a conference I attended in Sydney, in 1991 :)
Have you noticed how as you get older ideas come around in cycles? I don’t think people properly read the stuff that has been done before…
maybe technology improves and things that were not easily possible before become easier
Australia’s largest coal-fired power station will close in three years
Origin Energy today informed regulators of their intention to close Eraring power station on Lake Macquarie by mid-2025.
This is fantastic news for the climate. Singlehandedly, this announcement will avoid up to 87 million tonnes of climate pollution. That is more than the annual emissions of 167 countries, including Austria, New Zealand, and Greece.
Announcing the decision Origin’s CEO Frank Calabria said:
Origin plan to build a large 700 megawatt battery on the power station site.
PermeateFree said:
Australia’s largest coal-fired power station will close in three yearsOrigin Energy today informed regulators of their intention to close Eraring power station on Lake Macquarie by mid-2025.
This is fantastic news for the climate. Singlehandedly, this announcement will avoid up to 87 million tonnes of climate pollution. That is more than the annual emissions of 167 countries, including Austria, New Zealand, and Greece.
Announcing the decision Origin’s CEO Frank Calabria said:
Origin plan to build a large 700 megawatt battery on the power station site.
He said that because he is an idiot.
sibeen said:
PermeateFree said:
Australia’s largest coal-fired power station will close in three yearsOrigin Energy today informed regulators of their intention to close Eraring power station on Lake Macquarie by mid-2025.
This is fantastic news for the climate. Singlehandedly, this announcement will avoid up to 87 million tonnes of climate pollution. That is more than the annual emissions of 167 countries, including Austria, New Zealand, and Greece.
Announcing the decision Origin’s CEO Frank Calabria said:
Origin plan to build a large 700 megawatt battery on the power station site.
He said that because he is an idiot.
He’s from Calabria mate. They’ve been conning people out of their money for hundreds of years.
Black swans return in big numbers to the Coorong and Lower Lakes
ABC Rural
/ By Cassandra Hough
Sustained high flows from the Murray-Darling Basin in recent months have drawn large numbers of wildlife and raised water levels.
It really is time to pull the water back from those who seem to think water is only to make profit from. Take a long hard look at what water usage efficiency is really all abiut rather than allowing people to scam off any gov’t decision.
Resources Minister Keith Pitt has reissued millions of dollars in grants to a fracking company searching for gas in the Beetaloo Basin, just months after a Federal Judge ruled them invalid.
Resources Minister reissues millions in grants to fracking company
ABC Katherine
/ By Roxanne Fitzgerald
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-23/nt-regs-minister-keith-pitt-reissues-controversial-fracking-gran/100853668Ali Kent said trucks bearing signs saying things like “vaccines are not safe” have been circling schools in Kalgoorlie Boulder.
“Why would you needlessly scare children like this?” she said.
“I think it’s quite disgusting and I would urge the people who are responsible for that to please think again.”Ms Kent said the campaigners were attempting to enter school car parks and arriving during drop-off and pick-up.
“We’ve thankfully stopped them going into the car parks of schools, because that’s trespassing, but they are still going past the lollipop ladies when they know that children are crossing,” the Labor MLA said.
These are the ecosystems Australia stands to lose in the next decade
ABC Science
roughbarked said:
ABC Analysis. The unexpected bright side of higher petrol prices
Though unrelated but yet seemingly important is the use of language.
ie: Some of Australia’s iconic and unique natural ecosystems may disappear for good if we keep emitting carbon at current rates, climate experts warn.
> well what is ‘for good’ about it?
roughbarked said:
ABC Analysis. The unexpected bright side of higher petrol prices
OK, but why do they call that unexpected?
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
ABC Analysis. The unexpected bright side of higher petrol prices
OK, but why do they call that unexpected?
An eye catching headline perhaps?
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
ABC Analysis. The unexpected bright side of higher petrol prices
OK, but why do they call that unexpected?
An eye catching headline perhaps?
Eye catching trumps accurate?
Surely not!
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
The Rev Dodgson said:OK, but why do they call that unexpected?
An eye catching headline perhaps?
Eye catching trumps accurate?
Surely not!
It gets people reading. Can that be a bad thing?
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
ABC Analysis. The unexpected bright side of higher petrol prices
OK, but why do they call that unexpected?
I wasn’t expecting it.
It would be better if they lowered the price of petrol, this would allow people to buy more petrol.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
ABC Analysis. The unexpected bright side of higher petrol prices
OK, but why do they call that unexpected?
I wasn’t expecting it.
It would be better if they lowered the price of petrol, this would allow people to buy more petrol.
and this would be better how?
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:OK, but why do they call that unexpected?
I wasn’t expecting it.
It would be better if they lowered the price of petrol, this would allow people to buy more petrol.
and this would be better how?
They can travel further and get around more.
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:
Tau.Neutrino said:I wasn’t expecting it.
It would be better if they lowered the price of petrol, this would allow people to buy more petrol.
and this would be better how?
They can travel further and get around more.
Which is probably not good for the environment.
roughbarked said:
roughbarked said:
ABC Analysis. The unexpected bright side of higher petrol prices
Though unrelated but yet seemingly important is the use of language.
ie: Some of Australia’s iconic and unique natural ecosystems may disappear for good if we keep emitting carbon at current rates, climate experts warn.> well what is ‘for good’ about it?
for good
phrase of good
forever; definitively.
“the experience almost frightened me away for good”
Smoke from large wildfires seems to damage the ozone layer
The ozone layer is often seen as a success story for human action to correct a climate emergency – but unfortunately we may be undoing our own hard work. A new study has shown that smoke from wildfires, such as those that recently devastated parts of Australia, can deplete the ozone layer further, delaying its recovery.
The team estimated that this smoke would have depleted the ozone column by up to one percent. Given the ozone hole is healing at a rate of about one to three percent per decade, this event effectively cancels out much of the healing it’s done in the past 10 years.
This ozone depletion isn’t the only climate effect from wildfires of this scale. A study last year found that these fires released some 788 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while another found that parts of the stratosphere warmed by up to 2 °C (3.6 °F) for six months.
Worse still, huge wildfires are expected to increase in frequency as the climate changes, and their environmental effects serve to accelerate that climate change, creating a vicious cycle. Gaining a better understanding of these processes can help us prepare.
The research was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
https://newatlas.com/environment/wildfire-smoke-damage-ozone-layer/
Continuous breaches of native forest regulations by Forestry Corporation show a systemic pattern of noncompliance despite the lack of profits from the industry, a state inquiry hearing has heard.
The hearing, held in Moruya on the New South Wales South Coast, is part of an ongoing state Legislative Council Inquiry investigating the long-term sustainability and future of timber production statewide.
It comes after Forestry Corporation was issued multiple fines amounting to $78,000 for breaching forestry rules, including destroying hollow-bearing trees and critical habitat for endangered wildlife.
The inquiry heard that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was under-resourced and unable to swiftly prosecute breaches.
“It can take months if not years before any action is taken, and in terms of wildlife it’s too little too late, as those trees are gone,” National Public Affairs Manager for Birdlife Australia, Sean Dooley said.
The habitats of threatened species on the South Coast such as Mogo, Bodalla and Brooman State Forests had been impacted, the inquiry heard.
South East Region Conservation Alliance Committee (SERCA) member Lisa Stone recommended that Section 69ZA of the Forestry Act, which prevents Forestry Corporation from being brought before a court, be repealed.
Only the state Environment Minister or the Department of Planning and Environment can take legal action against the corporation.
“No citizen can bring Forestry to court for breach of any law or any act, no matter how great the damage is,” she said.Hardwood profits highlighted
The economic viability of the native logging industry was also called into question at the hearing.
SERCA representatives told the inquiry Forestry Corporation’s hardwood profits, which came primarily from native forests, were significantly less than those from more sustainable softwood plantations.
The representatives cited a 2021 Frontier Economics report that revealed the industry generated $2.3 million from hardwood from 2015 to 2020, as opposed to $64m in the same period from softwood plantations.
The report argued that the significant gap suggested a poor return on the investment of taxpayers’ dollars.
“It’s not a highly visible or viable part of our community and yet this industry is sustained at a time when there is a deep wounding in our community about what we’ve lost in terms of environment,” SERCA’s Julie Mills told the inquiry.
She said she was shocked to witness salvaging operations at Mogo State Forest after the 2019-20 summer bushfires.
“I saw an enormous logging truck loaded with burnt logs and I just couldn’t believe it, but when I contacted Forestry Corporation, they said they had a permit to do it,” she said.
“When you saw the forests in that area at that time, it was truly gobsmacking how little was left.” Forestry Corporation has faced five fines for breaching logging regulations over the last month.(ABC Illawarra: Jessica Clifford ) Questions of supplyRepresentatives from Pentarch Forestry, a company that provides harvesting services to Forestry Corporation, were questioned on the decline of their business from native forest logging.
“Have you had to increase the volumes of timber you’ve purchased from to try and offset, or have you just seen a downturn in your business as a result of reduced supply?” Independent Legislative Council Member Justin Field asked.
“Each year with what timber is available to us, we look at what we can market and then what opportunities there are to get other timber at the site,” Pentarch Forestry regional manager Charlie Fisher replied.
“But you’ve seen a downturn, then, as a result of the reduced supply on your contracts from Forestry Corporation?” Mr Field asked.
“Yes,” Mr Fisher said.
Despite this Pentarch Forestry said cutting down certain species of trees through salvage operations could be beneficial for forest regrowth.
“What we’re struggling against is the prescriptions and the rules that exist to protect individual habitat trees in more coastal areas being applied to an entire forest,” executive director Stephen Dadd said.
“We are seeing literally millions of tonnes of good quality logs off-limits to industry and those who would seek to restore forest health through forestry activity.”The inquiry will next move to the North Coast of NSW by the end of this month.
The final hearing in Sydney is due to take place in early May.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-06/native-forest-logging-in-nsw-not-profitable-inquiry-hears/100968802
roughbarked said:
Continuous breaches of native forest regulations by Forestry Corporation show a systemic pattern of noncompliance despite the lack of profits from the industry, a state inquiry hearing has heard.The hearing, held in Moruya on the New South Wales South Coast, is part of an ongoing state Legislative Council Inquiry investigating the long-term sustainability and future of timber production statewide.
It comes after Forestry Corporation was issued multiple fines amounting to $78,000 for breaching forestry rules, including destroying hollow-bearing trees and critical habitat for endangered wildlife.
The inquiry heard that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was under-resourced and unable to swiftly prosecute breaches.
“It can take months if not years before any action is taken, and in terms of wildlife it’s too little too late, as those trees are gone,” National Public Affairs Manager for Birdlife Australia, Sean Dooley said.
The habitats of threatened species on the South Coast such as Mogo, Bodalla and Brooman State Forests had been impacted, the inquiry heard.
South East Region Conservation Alliance Committee (SERCA) member Lisa Stone recommended that Section 69ZA of the Forestry Act, which prevents Forestry Corporation from being brought before a court, be repealed.
Only the state Environment Minister or the Department of Planning and Environment can take legal action against the corporation.
“No citizen can bring Forestry to court for breach of any law or any act, no matter how great the damage is,” she said.Hardwood profits highlighted
The economic viability of the native logging industry was also called into question at the hearing.
SERCA representatives told the inquiry Forestry Corporation’s hardwood profits, which came primarily from native forests, were significantly less than those from more sustainable softwood plantations.
The representatives cited a 2021 Frontier Economics report that revealed the industry generated $2.3 million from hardwood from 2015 to 2020, as opposed to $64m in the same period from softwood plantations.
The report argued that the significant gap suggested a poor return on the investment of taxpayers’ dollars.
“It’s not a highly visible or viable part of our community and yet this industry is sustained at a time when there is a deep wounding in our community about what we’ve lost in terms of environment,” SERCA’s Julie Mills told the inquiry.
She said she was shocked to witness salvaging operations at Mogo State Forest after the 2019-20 summer bushfires.
“I saw an enormous logging truck loaded with burnt logs and I just couldn’t believe it, but when I contacted Forestry Corporation, they said they had a permit to do it,” she said.
“When you saw the forests in that area at that time, it was truly gobsmacking how little was left.” Forestry Corporation has faced five fines for breaching logging regulations over the last month.(ABC Illawarra: Jessica Clifford ) Questions of supplyRepresentatives from Pentarch Forestry, a company that provides harvesting services to Forestry Corporation, were questioned on the decline of their business from native forest logging.
“Have you had to increase the volumes of timber you’ve purchased from to try and offset, or have you just seen a downturn in your business as a result of reduced supply?” Independent Legislative Council Member Justin Field asked.
“Each year with what timber is available to us, we look at what we can market and then what opportunities there are to get other timber at the site,” Pentarch Forestry regional manager Charlie Fisher replied.
“But you’ve seen a downturn, then, as a result of the reduced supply on your contracts from Forestry Corporation?” Mr Field asked.
“Yes,” Mr Fisher said.
Despite this Pentarch Forestry said cutting down certain species of trees through salvage operations could be beneficial for forest regrowth.
“What we’re struggling against is the prescriptions and the rules that exist to protect individual habitat trees in more coastal areas being applied to an entire forest,” executive director Stephen Dadd said.
“We are seeing literally millions of tonnes of good quality logs off-limits to industry and those who would seek to restore forest health through forestry activity.”The inquiry will next move to the North Coast of NSW by the end of this month.
The final hearing in Sydney is due to take place in early May.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-06/native-forest-logging-in-nsw-not-profitable-inquiry-hears/100968802
Throw them in Jail.
ChrispenEvan said:
Amen brother Evan.
Peak Warming Man said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Amen brother Evan.
One does wonder what humans have created to top nature for beauty
Cymek said:
Peak Warming Man said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Amen brother Evan.
One does wonder what humans have created to top nature for beauty
My Mum and dad created me. Does that count?
ChrispenEvan said:
Cymek said:
Peak Warming Man said:Amen brother Evan.
One does wonder what humans have created to top nature for beauty
My Mum and dad created me. Does that count?
I’ll allow it.
Cymek said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Cymek said:One does wonder what humans have created to top nature for beauty
My Mum and dad created me. Does that count?
I’ll allow it.
If I’d had any say I would have vetoed the idea.
Cymek said:
Peak Warming Man said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Amen brother Evan.
One does wonder what humans have created to top nature for beauty
It’s curious that humans find nature, landscapes, the universe, etc. aesthetically pleasing. It could just as easily be that we find it hideous. Perhaps it was naturally selected for…
furious said:
Cymek said:
Peak Warming Man said:Amen brother Evan.
One does wonder what humans have created to top nature for beauty
It’s curious that humans find nature, landscapes, the universe, etc. aesthetically pleasing. It could just as easily be that we find it hideous. Perhaps it was naturally selected for…
so you agree, COVID-19 really was a bioweapon developed for the purpose
furious said:
Cymek said:
Peak Warming Man said:Amen brother Evan.
One does wonder what humans have created to top nature for beauty
It’s curious that humans find nature, landscapes, the universe, etc. aesthetically pleasing. It could just as easily be that we find it hideous. Perhaps it was naturally selected for…
Could be
Peak Warming Man said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Amen brother Evan.
What more can be said?
ChrispenEvan said:
Cymek said:
Peak Warming Man said:Amen brother Evan.
One does wonder what humans have created to top nature for beauty
My Mum and dad created me. Does that count?
But that’s nature. ;)
roughbarked said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Cymek said:One does wonder what humans have created to top nature for beauty
My Mum and dad created me. Does that count?
But that’s nature. ;)
Even many beautiful artworks are of nature or inspired by it
Cymek said:
One does wonder what humans have created to top nature for beauty
Even many beautiful artworks are of nature or inspired by it
I have perhaps three comments on this. One is:
Beauty ≡ Deadly.
The more beautiful something is, the more deadly it is. And vice versa!
The more beautiful nature is, the deadlier it is. Very few human things top nature for deadliness. Antarctica for instance.
A second comment is that nature is often ugly. England mostly is, for example.
Australia isn’t as ugly as England. But Australia is definitely not beautiful, except very rarely.
You watch slow TV, did you see anything even remotely resembling beauty along the Ghan railway journey? I didn’t.
mollwollfumble said:
Cymek said:One does wonder what humans have created to top nature for beauty
Even many beautiful artworks are of nature or inspired by it
I have perhaps three comments on this. One is:
Beauty ≡ Deadly.
The more beautiful something is, the more deadly it is. And vice versa!
The more beautiful nature is, the deadlier it is. Very few human things top nature for deadliness. Antarctica for instance.
A second comment is that nature is often ugly. England mostly is, for example.
Australia isn’t as ugly as England. But Australia is definitely not beautiful, except very rarely.
You watch slow TV, did you see anything even remotely resembling beauty along the Ghan railway journey? I didn’t.
wow, another subject you are totally ignorant of.
ChrispenEvan said:
mollwollfumble said:
Cymek said:One does wonder what humans have created to top nature for beauty
Even many beautiful artworks are of nature or inspired by it
I have perhaps three comments on this. One is:
Beauty ≡ Deadly.
The more beautiful something is, the more deadly it is. And vice versa!
The more beautiful nature is, the deadlier it is. Very few human things top nature for deadliness. Antarctica for instance.
A second comment is that nature is often ugly. England mostly is, for example.
Australia isn’t as ugly as England. But Australia is definitely not beautiful, except very rarely.
You watch slow TV, did you see anything even remotely resembling beauty along the Ghan railway journey? I didn’t.
wow, another subject you are totally ignorant of.
We’ll be that as it may but I want to know where he got that crazy equal sign from?
Tau.Neutrino said:
roughbarked said:
Continuous breaches of native forest regulations by Forestry Corporation show a systemic pattern of noncompliance despite the lack of profits from the industry, a state inquiry hearing has heard.The hearing, held in Moruya on the New South Wales South Coast, is part of an ongoing state Legislative Council Inquiry investigating the long-term sustainability and future of timber production statewide.
It comes after Forestry Corporation was issued multiple fines amounting to $78,000 for breaching forestry rules, including destroying hollow-bearing trees and critical habitat for endangered wildlife.
The inquiry heard that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was under-resourced and unable to swiftly prosecute breaches.
“It can take months if not years before any action is taken, and in terms of wildlife it’s too little too late, as those trees are gone,” National Public Affairs Manager for Birdlife Australia, Sean Dooley said.
The habitats of threatened species on the South Coast such as Mogo, Bodalla and Brooman State Forests had been impacted, the inquiry heard.
South East Region Conservation Alliance Committee (SERCA) member Lisa Stone recommended that Section 69ZA of the Forestry Act, which prevents Forestry Corporation from being brought before a court, be repealed.
Only the state Environment Minister or the Department of Planning and Environment can take legal action against the corporation.
“No citizen can bring Forestry to court for breach of any law or any act, no matter how great the damage is,” she said.Hardwood profits highlighted
The economic viability of the native logging industry was also called into question at the hearing.
SERCA representatives told the inquiry Forestry Corporation’s hardwood profits, which came primarily from native forests, were significantly less than those from more sustainable softwood plantations.
The representatives cited a 2021 Frontier Economics report that revealed the industry generated $2.3 million from hardwood from 2015 to 2020, as opposed to $64m in the same period from softwood plantations.
The report argued that the significant gap suggested a poor return on the investment of taxpayers’ dollars.
“It’s not a highly visible or viable part of our community and yet this industry is sustained at a time when there is a deep wounding in our community about what we’ve lost in terms of environment,” SERCA’s Julie Mills told the inquiry.
She said she was shocked to witness salvaging operations at Mogo State Forest after the 2019-20 summer bushfires.
“I saw an enormous logging truck loaded with burnt logs and I just couldn’t believe it, but when I contacted Forestry Corporation, they said they had a permit to do it,” she said.
“When you saw the forests in that area at that time, it was truly gobsmacking how little was left.” Forestry Corporation has faced five fines for breaching logging regulations over the last month.(ABC Illawarra: Jessica Clifford ) Questions of supplyRepresentatives from Pentarch Forestry, a company that provides harvesting services to Forestry Corporation, were questioned on the decline of their business from native forest logging.
“Have you had to increase the volumes of timber you’ve purchased from to try and offset, or have you just seen a downturn in your business as a result of reduced supply?” Independent Legislative Council Member Justin Field asked.
“Each year with what timber is available to us, we look at what we can market and then what opportunities there are to get other timber at the site,” Pentarch Forestry regional manager Charlie Fisher replied.
“But you’ve seen a downturn, then, as a result of the reduced supply on your contracts from Forestry Corporation?” Mr Field asked.
“Yes,” Mr Fisher said.
Despite this Pentarch Forestry said cutting down certain species of trees through salvage operations could be beneficial for forest regrowth.
“What we’re struggling against is the prescriptions and the rules that exist to protect individual habitat trees in more coastal areas being applied to an entire forest,” executive director Stephen Dadd said.
“We are seeing literally millions of tonnes of good quality logs off-limits to industry and those who would seek to restore forest health through forestry activity.”The inquiry will next move to the North Coast of NSW by the end of this month.
The final hearing in Sydney is due to take place in early May.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-06/native-forest-logging-in-nsw-not-profitable-inquiry-hears/100968802
Throw them in Jail.
Painfully remove their gonads first.
Cymek said:
Peak Warming Man said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Amen brother Evan.
One does wonder what humans have created to top nature for beauty
Money of course.
Proposed changes to the management of South Australia’s outback — an area covering nearly half of the state — have been scrapped by the newly elected Labor government.
Labor is moving the government’s Pastoral Unit out of the Primary Industries portfolio and back to the Environment Department, promising more money to ensure sheep and cattle stations are not damaging the fragile country.
The former Liberal government had big plans for South Australia’s arid rangelands, that make up 42 per cent of the state, which is primarily leased for sheep and cattle grazing.
It was trying to pass a new Pastoral Act, updating the 1989 legislation, that would have granted graziers a lot more power, but did not get it through parliament before the election.
“The previous government, the Liberals, wanted to remove stocking rates, to have extremely long leases — up to 100-year leases — and also to not do on-ground assessment of the quality and condition of the land. All of that stops now,” new Environment Minister Susan Close told the ABC.
Ms Close said an extra $1 million dollars would be allocated to make sure the Pastoral Unit could carry out overdue condition assessments of grazing land in a “timely way”.
“These are lands that are precious, they’re fragile and they are capable of primary production as long as they’re looked after,” she said.
“We’ll work with pastoralists to make sure that happen.”
The government will also confirm that pastoral land can be used for conservation purposes, something challenged under the Liberals.
“The last government raised a question mark about that. I don’t think it is an issue, but I will find out and, if necessary, make some tweaks to ensure that’s the case,” Ms Close said.
“Otherwise, we need to work with pastoralists. We need to support the land that pastoralists depend on.”Under the former state government’s plans, existing leases would have been changed from 42 years to 100 years and a legislated maximum rate of stock that could be run on each lease would have been removed.
It also wanted land to be inspected remotely, primarily by satellite, instead of in-person.
‘A really good start’: Conservation Council
Nature Conservation Society of South Australia president Patrick O“Connor welcomed the change in direction.
“The new government putting conservation first as the priority and sustainability of outback South Australia as the priority is really important,” he said.
“It’s only from that basis that setting the grazing rights, and the ability for community to use that land, can fit in over a long time, so it’s a really great result that the government wants to make that sustainability the priority.”
Mr O’Connor said the lapse in inspections had been a “real problem” for pastoralists and for conservation.
“The inspections are so important and making that relationship with the landholders around the condition of those assets is really important to sustain them, to give those landholders confidence about their investments,” he said.
Labor’s funding injection equates to a 25 per cent increase in the Pastoral Unit’s budget.
“The initial amount promised is a really good start to get back on track and then looking at the emerging technologies and the possibilities of what investment is required,” Mr O’Connor said.
“I think really looking at how the investment in information about the outback can actually pay off in other ways, in improving tourism, in improving the sustainability and improving access to emerging markets in biodiversity and carbon.”
Livestock industry wants grazing to remain the primary use of the land
President of Livestock SA Joe Keynes said it was crucial pastoralism was supported.
“We definitely feel that pastoralism is the key and dominant industry in the rangelands, and it will continue to be, even though we recognise there are other alternative uses,” he said.
“ needs to support a profitable and sustainable pastoral industry.”
Mr Keynes said the funding injection would help address the backlog of land assessments but called on the government to consider other ways of monitoring the condition of the leases.
“Can we modernise the whole system? Can we actually use remote sensing? Can we use some new technologies that weren’t even considered when the Pastoral Act was last reviewed?” Mr Keynes asked.“We could do it in a much more effective and efficient way.
“I think , if we spent some of that million dollars on looking at and investigating some of those opportunities, then … that would be welcomed by the pastoral industry.”
The government has promised to look at other monitoring methods in the future.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-09/proposed-pastoral-land-reforms-scrapped/100979582
roughbarked said:
Proposed changes to the management of South Australia’s outback — an area covering nearly half of the state — have been scrapped by the newly elected Labor government.
Labor is moving the government’s Pastoral Unit out of the Primary Industries portfolio and back to the Environment Department, promising more money to ensure sheep and cattle stations are not damaging the fragile country.
The former Liberal government had big plans for South Australia’s arid rangelands, that make up 42 per cent of the state, which is primarily leased for sheep and cattle grazing.
It was trying to pass a new Pastoral Act, updating the 1989 legislation, that would have granted graziers a lot more power, but did not get it through parliament before the election.
“The previous government, the Liberals, wanted to remove stocking rates, to have extremely long leases — up to 100-year leases — and also to not do on-ground assessment of the quality and condition of the land. All of that stops now,” new Environment Minister Susan Close told the ABC.
The government has promised to look at other monitoring methods in the future.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-09/proposed-pastoral-land-reforms-scrapped/100979582
so in summary, good, is that correct
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:Proposed changes to the management of South Australia’s outback — an area covering nearly half of the state — have been scrapped by the newly elected Labor government.
Labor is moving the government’s Pastoral Unit out of the Primary Industries portfolio and back to the Environment Department, promising more money to ensure sheep and cattle stations are not damaging the fragile country.
The former Liberal government had big plans for South Australia’s arid rangelands, that make up 42 per cent of the state, which is primarily leased for sheep and cattle grazing.
It was trying to pass a new Pastoral Act, updating the 1989 legislation, that would have granted graziers a lot more power, but did not get it through parliament before the election.
“The previous government, the Liberals, wanted to remove stocking rates, to have extremely long leases — up to 100-year leases — and also to not do on-ground assessment of the quality and condition of the land. All of that stops now,” new Environment Minister Susan Close told the ABC.
The government has promised to look at other monitoring methods in the future.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-09/proposed-pastoral-land-reforms-scrapped/100979582
so in summary, good, is that correct
On paper so far.
“I think a solar home could be built right now,” Professor Bockris told the ABC in early 1974.
“Heating, cooling, refrigeration, electricity, will be collected and run from the sun.
“In the case of individual houses, we’d store the electricity, probably in batteries.”
Within years, Professor Bockris would find himself at loggerheads with the Australian government, as he tried to convince it to invest heavily in solar energy research.
“What we want, clearly, is a kind of Snowy River project in solar energy research,” he told the ABC in 1977.
“We’ve got to get cracking!”https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-13/professor-john-bockris-predicted-a-climate-and-energy-crisis-dec/100949208
roughbarked said:
“I think a solar home could be built right now,” Professor Bockris told the ABC in early 1974.“Heating, cooling, refrigeration, electricity, will be collected and run from the sun.
“In the case of individual houses, we’d store the electricity, probably in batteries.”
Within years, Professor Bockris would find himself at loggerheads with the Australian government, as he tried to convince it to invest heavily in solar energy research.
“What we want, clearly, is a kind of Snowy River project in solar energy research,” he told the ABC in 1977.
“We’ve got to get cracking!”https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-13/professor-john-bockris-predicted-a-climate-and-energy-crisis-dec/100949208
Good on Prof. Bockris, but he certainly wasn’t the only one calling out for a move to more sustainable energy use in the mid 70’s.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
“I think a solar home could be built right now,” Professor Bockris told the ABC in early 1974.“Heating, cooling, refrigeration, electricity, will be collected and run from the sun.
“In the case of individual houses, we’d store the electricity, probably in batteries.”
Within years, Professor Bockris would find himself at loggerheads with the Australian government, as he tried to convince it to invest heavily in solar energy research.
“What we want, clearly, is a kind of Snowy River project in solar energy research,” he told the ABC in 1977.
“We’ve got to get cracking!”https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-13/professor-john-bockris-predicted-a-climate-and-energy-crisis-dec/100949208
Good on Prof. Bockris, but he certainly wasn’t the only one calling out for a move to more sustainable energy use in the mid 70’s.
No this be true. I was already convinced at the time and I wasn’t a ‘scientist’.
“Not every cattle producer likes it, but there’s a fair number of us that think it really is a wonder plant.”
Well what is wrong with the woody weeds you pulled out to plant an invasive pest? They were largely legumes too and they were native plants.
So many farmers are total dolts.
roughbarked said:
“Not every cattle producer likes it, but there’s a fair number of us that think it really is a wonder plant.”Well what is wrong with the woody weeds you pulled out to plant an invasive pest? They were largely legumes too and they were native plants.
So many farmers are total dolts.
A real sod of a plant that will be almost impossible to control, let alone remove permanently.
https://keys.lucidcentral.org/keys/v3/eafrinet/weeds/key/weeds/Media/Html/Leucaena_leucocephala_(Leucaena).htm
PermeateFree said:
roughbarked said:“Not every cattle producer likes it, but there’s a fair number of us that think it really is a wonder plant.”Well what is wrong with the woody weeds you pulled out to plant an invasive pest? They were largely legumes too and they were native plants.
So many farmers are total dolts.
A real sod of a plant that will be almost impossible to control, let alone remove permanently.
https://keys.lucidcentral.org/keys/v3/eafrinet/weeds/key/weeds/Media/Html/Leucaena_leucocephala_(Leucaena).htm
They knew it would become a problem.
Yet they blindly went ahead and now are absconding from the reality of responsibility.
So much like Australia.
Australian values.
‘Canaries in the coal mine’: Frogs face an uncertain future, and that’s bad news for us as well
ABC Ballarat
/ By Gavin McGrath
As Australia comes to grips with mosquito-borne diseases like Japanese encephalitis, frogs help keep the mozzies under control — but they’re among the first species to show signs of stress when the environment deteriorates.
Native animals really do use road underpasses, new research reveals.
Glad to hear it. I’ve always campaigned to install them,
roughbarked said:
Native animals really do use road underpasses, new research reveals.Glad to hear it. I’ve always campaigned to install them,
Tamb said:
roughbarked said:
Native animals really do use road underpasses, new research reveals.Glad to hear it. I’ve always campaigned to install them,
There are some native animal overpasses on the Palmerston Highway.
Yes. Overpasses work too.
roughbarked said:
Tamb said:
roughbarked said:
Native animals really do use road underpasses, new research reveals.Glad to hear it. I’ve always campaigned to install them,
There are some native animal overpasses on the Palmerston Highway.Yes. Overpasses work too.
A few weeks back, i saw somewhere on the internet a video of a wildlife overpass somewhere in Asia being used by a tiger.
https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/central-mallee-reserves-plan-of-management
https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/-/media/OEH/Corporate-Site/Documents/Parks-reserves-and-protected-areas/Parks-plans-of-management/central-mallee-reserves-plan-of-management-210513.pdf
Aha it’s maybe inconveniencing privileged tourists, soon there’ll finally be some push to action against this global warming thing ¡
Passenger ferries have been forced to stop operating in parts of the Rhine.
yeah right
Good News, Never Before Seen In Your Lifetime Sights Uncovered By Prolonged Warm And Clear Weather, Buy Tickets Now ¡
SCIENCE said:
Aha it’s maybe inconveniencing privileged tourists, soon there’ll finally be some push to action against this global warming thing ¡
Passenger ferries have been forced to stop operating in parts of the Rhine.
yeah right
Good News, Never Before Seen In Your Lifetime Sights Uncovered By Prolonged Warm And Clear Weather, Buy Tickets Now ¡
Melbourne author Jeff Sparrow argues that, when it comes to environmental impacts, big corporations have engineered a sense of individual responsibility – to distract from their own. “One of the reasons why we feel so despairing about the situation that we’re in is that we are made to feel that we are the problem,” Sparrow tells ABC RN’s Big Ideas.
SCIENCE said:
Melbourne author Jeff Sparrow argues that, when it comes to environmental impacts, big corporations have engineered a sense of individual responsibility – to distract from their own. “One of the reasons why we feel so despairing about the situation that we’re in is that we are made to feel that we are the problem,” Sparrow tells ABC RN’s Big Ideas.
Haven’t read the article, but individual behaviour is certainly part of the problem.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:Melbourne author Jeff Sparrow argues that, when it comes to environmental impacts, big corporations have engineered a sense of individual responsibility – to distract from their own. “One of the reasons why we feel so despairing about the situation that we’re in is that we are made to feel that we are the problem,” Sparrow tells ABC RN’s Big Ideas.
Haven’t read the article, but individual behaviour is certainly part of the problem.
It is a fact that the ‘think globally, act locally’ mantra was a creation of BP, as a strategy to distract and to initiate guilt feelings among the general public, to make them feel that they’re, individually, just as responsible for the situation as is the wider fossil-fuel industry.
Possibly inspired by John 8:7
captain_spalding said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:Melbourne author Jeff Sparrow argues that, when it comes to environmental impacts, big corporations have engineered a sense of individual responsibility – to distract from their own. “One of the reasons why we feel so despairing about the situation that we’re in is that we are made to feel that we are the problem,” Sparrow tells ABC RN’s Big Ideas.
Haven’t read the article, but individual behaviour is certainly part of the problem.
It is a fact that the ‘think globally, act locally’ mantra was a creation of BP, as a strategy to distract and to initiate guilt feelings among the general public, to make them feel that they’re, individually, just as responsible for the situation as is the wider fossil-fuel industry.
Possibly inspired by John 8:7
“Jeff Sparrow is an Australian left-wing writer, editor and former socialist activist based in Melbourne, Victoria”
He’s a woke barking at the moon nutter, a perfect fit for Radio National, well all of the ABC really.
So how are conservative cartoonists going these days?
Cool cool cool
captain_spalding said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:Melbourne author Jeff Sparrow argues that, when it comes to environmental impacts, big corporations have engineered a sense of individual responsibility – to distract from their own. “One of the reasons why we feel so despairing about the situation that we’re in is that we are made to feel that we are the problem,” Sparrow tells ABC RN’s Big Ideas.
Haven’t read the article, but individual behaviour is certainly part of the problem.
It is a fact that the ‘think globally, act locally’ mantra was a creation of BP, as a strategy to distract and to initiate guilt feelings among the general public, to make them feel that they’re, individually, just as responsible for the situation as is the wider fossil-fuel industry.
Possibly inspired by John 8:7
Origins of the phrase
The first use of the phrase in an environmental context is disputed. Some say it was coined by David Brower as a slogan for Friends of the Earth when he founded it in 1971, although others attribute it to René Dubos in 1977. Canadian “futurist” Frank Feather also chaired a conference called “Thinking Globally, Acting Locally” in 1979 and has claimed the paternity of the expression. Other possible originators include French theologian Jacques Ellul
wiki.
captain_spalding said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:Melbourne author Jeff Sparrow argues that, when it comes to environmental impacts, big corporations have engineered a sense of individual responsibility – to distract from their own. “One of the reasons why we feel so despairing about the situation that we’re in is that we are made to feel that we are the problem,” Sparrow tells ABC RN’s Big Ideas.
Haven’t read the article, but individual behaviour is certainly part of the problem.
It is a fact that the ‘think globally, act locally’ mantra was a creation of BP, as a strategy to distract and to initiate guilt feelings among the general public, to make them feel that they’re, individually, just as responsible for the situation as is the wider fossil-fuel industry.
Possibly inspired by John 8:7
I’m not sure that BP existed in 1915:
Patrick Geddes
The Rev Dodgson said:
captain_spalding said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Haven’t read the article, but individual behaviour is certainly part of the problem.
It is a fact that the ‘think globally, act locally’ mantra was a creation of BP, as a strategy to distract and to initiate guilt feelings among the general public, to make them feel that they’re, individually, just as responsible for the situation as is the wider fossil-fuel industry.
Possibly inspired by John 8:7
I’m not sure that BP existed in 1915:
Patrick Geddes
although Pat didn’t exactly say that phrase.
Bogsnorkler said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
captain_spalding said:It is a fact that the ‘think globally, act locally’ mantra was a creation of BP, as a strategy to distract and to initiate guilt feelings among the general public, to make them feel that they’re, individually, just as responsible for the situation as is the wider fossil-fuel industry.
Possibly inspired by John 8:7
I’m not sure that BP existed in 1915:
Patrick Geddes
although Pat didn’t exactly say that phrase.
It’s the vibe.
The Rev Dodgson said:
captain_spalding said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Haven’t read the article, but individual behaviour is certainly part of the problem.
It is a fact that the ‘think globally, act locally’ mantra was a creation of BP, as a strategy to distract and to initiate guilt feelings among the general public, to make them feel that they’re, individually, just as responsible for the situation as is the wider fossil-fuel industry.
Possibly inspired by John 8:7
I’m not sure that BP existed in 1915:
Patrick Geddes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP
Not far off though.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bogsnorkler said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I’m not sure that BP existed in 1915:
Patrick Geddes
although Pat didn’t exactly say that phrase.
It’s the vibe.
it was.
Bogsnorkler said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
captain_spalding said:It is a fact that the ‘think globally, act locally’ mantra was a creation of BP, as a strategy to distract and to initiate guilt feelings among the general public, to make them feel that they’re, individually, just as responsible for the situation as is the wider fossil-fuel industry.
Possibly inspired by John 8:7
I’m not sure that BP existed in 1915:
Patrick Geddes
although Pat didn’t exactly say that phrase.
I worded my statement poorly. Perhaps i should have described it as ‘BP’s adoption of and promotion of ‘think globally, act locally’…’
Bogsnorkler said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
captain_spalding said:It is a fact that the ‘think globally, act locally’ mantra was a creation of BP, as a strategy to distract and to initiate guilt feelings among the general public, to make them feel that they’re, individually, just as responsible for the situation as is the wider fossil-fuel industry.
Possibly inspired by John 8:7
I’m not sure that BP existed in 1915:
Patrick Geddes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP
Not far off though.
OK, so the company that became BP originated in 1908.
Fair enough then.
And thaks for doing our own research for us.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bogsnorkler said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I’m not sure that BP existed in 1915:
Patrick Geddes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP
Not far off though.
OK, so the company that became BP originated in 1908.
Fair enough then.
And thaks for doing our own research for us.
No worries. Would you like me to correct your typo whilst I’m here?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bogsnorkler said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I’m not sure that BP existed in 1915:
Patrick Geddes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP
Not far off though.
OK, so the company that became BP originated in 1908.
Fair enough then.
And thaks for doing our own research for us.
captain_spalding said:
Bogsnorkler said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I’m not sure that BP existed in 1915:
Patrick Geddes
although Pat didn’t exactly say that phrase.
I worded my statement poorly. Perhaps i should have described it as ‘BP’s adoption of and promotion of ‘think globally, act locally’…’
Well if BP choose to encourage people to use public transport and buy electric cars, I really don’t have an objection to that.
Bogsnorkler said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bogsnorkler said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP
Not far off though.
OK, so the company that became BP originated in 1908.
Fair enough then.
And thaks for doing our own research for us.
No worries. Would you like me to correct your typo whilst I’m here?
Maybe it was a deliberate typo, so I could appear to be thanking you whilst actually doing nothing of the sort.
The Rev Dodgson said:
captain_spalding said:
Bogsnorkler said:although Pat didn’t exactly say that phrase.
I worded my statement poorly. Perhaps i should have described it as ‘BP’s adoption of and promotion of ‘think globally, act locally’…’
Well if BP choose to encourage people to use public transport and buy electric cars, I really don’t have an objection to that.
The major changes will be because of collective action, through protest or voting, rather than individually, and that’s why the expression is considered objectionable when coming from that source. There would be little progress if it just dependent on individual consumption decisions.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
captain_spalding said:I worded my statement poorly. Perhaps i should have described it as ‘BP’s adoption of and promotion of ‘think globally, act locally’…’
Well if BP choose to encourage people to use public transport and buy electric cars, I really don’t have an objection to that.
The major changes will be because of collective action, through protest or voting, rather than individually, and that’s why the expression is considered objectionable when coming from that source. There would be little progress if it just dependent on individual consumption decisions.
But protest is typically a local activity, and voting always is.
But either way, I don’t see portraying large corporations as inherently evil as a particularly useful activity.
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Well if BP choose to encourage people to use public transport and buy electric cars, I really don’t have an objection to that.
The major changes will be because of collective action, through protest or voting, rather than individually, and that’s why the expression is considered objectionable when coming from that source. There would be little progress if it just dependent on individual consumption decisions.
But protest is typically a local activity, and voting always is.
But either way, I don’t see portraying large corporations as inherently evil as a particularly useful activity.
Evil is rarely a useful concept.
It has been a sad year for residents and longtime visitors to Peterborough, where the Curdies River spills into an estuary under the Great Ocean Road, a place often teeming with vibrant birdlife and aquatic life.
Warning: The following story contains details and images some readers may find distressing.
roughbarked said:
you know how they then show a chart of the next N sequential tipping points, and then you realise that actually the tipping idea is actually a corruption of the SCIENCE because there’s always the next one and the next one and turns out it’s actually just another denier minimiser délayer sleight to convince people that no action is needed before the tip while all action is futile after the tip, the only tipping is the footy kind of tipping yeah
LOL
Recent studies have estimated more than half-a-million jobs will be created through what’s called the “clean energy transition”.
SCIENCE said:
LOL
Recent studies have estimated more than half-a-million jobs will be created through what’s called the “clean energy transition”.
It has always seemed a little strange to me that in a world where very many people have to work excessive hours to make a reasonable income, “making work” or “creating jobs” is commonly seen as a good thing.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:LOL
Recent studies have estimated more than half-a-million jobs will be created through what’s called the “clean energy transition”.
It has always seemed a little strange to me that in a world where very many people have to work excessive hours to make a reasonable income, “making work” or “creating jobs” is commonly seen as a good thing.
Not long ago, it was mainly third world countries where you had the extremely rich living next to the extremely poor, but now it is creeping into most countries where some live in luxury, whilst others cannot even find a home. There are many changes happening affecting society, with few if any being good for all. The world has become the ultimate Monopoly game of winners and losers.
The impacts of climate change are “heading into uncharted territories of destruction”, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has warned after the release of a multi-agency scientific report.
Key points:
The report led by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), warned the world is “going in the wrong direction” on climate change.
SCIENCE said:
Where is that?
Michael V said:
SCIENCE said:
Where is that?
well, https://tokyo3.org/uploads/5c34fe35-ecff-4bbf-89e4-12e329d78442.png is the address
kidding, apparently actually
Queulat National Park
dv said:
so a better strategy would be to cease all road travel and instead simply burn the oil fields directly
Without looking anything up that park looks like it’s in Chili, possibly in the Aysén del General Carlos Ibáñez del Campo Region.
dv said:
Not impressed by that one.
SCIENCE said:
Michael V said:
SCIENCE said:
Where is that?
well, https://tokyo3.org/uploads/5c34fe35-ecff-4bbf-89e4-12e329d78442.png is the address
kidding, apparently actually
Queulat National Park
Thanks.
Ah, Chile.
dv said:
Heh!
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
Not impressed by that one.
It’s pretty much correct though.
Spiny Norman said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
dv said:
Not impressed by that one.
It’s pretty much correct though.
The implication that moving to electric vehicles as quickly as possible is a waste of time and money is just wrong.
The implication that people who advocate moving to electric vehicles think that cars have no other adverse environmental effects is also wrong.
In at least one case anyway.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Spiny Norman said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Not impressed by that one.
It’s pretty much correct though.
The implication that moving to electric vehicles as quickly as possible is a waste of time and money is just wrong.
The implication that people who advocate moving to electric vehicles think that cars have no other adverse environmental effects is also wrong.
In at least one case anyway.
https://www.artwallgallery.cz/en/exhibition/andy-singer-cartoons
interesting
The Rev Dodgson said:
Spiny Norman said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Not impressed by that one.
It’s pretty much correct though.
The implication that moving to electric vehicles as quickly as possible is a waste of time and money is just wrong.
The implication that people who advocate moving to electric vehicles think that cars have no other adverse environmental effects is also wrong.
In at least one case anyway.
I mean I think the point of it is to advocate for other changes to transportation as well.
ChrispenEvan said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Spiny Norman said:
It’s pretty much correct though.
The implication that moving to electric vehicles as quickly as possible is a waste of time and money is just wrong.
The implication that people who advocate moving to electric vehicles think that cars have no other adverse environmental effects is also wrong.
In at least one case anyway.
https://www.artwallgallery.cz/en/exhibition/andy-singer-cartoons
interesting
fortunately bicycles don’t require hard surfaces, have no tyres, never need to brake, kill and injure no animals including humans, and don’t need to be manufactured
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Spiny Norman said:
It’s pretty much correct though.
The implication that moving to electric vehicles as quickly as possible is a waste of time and money is just wrong.
The implication that people who advocate moving to electric vehicles think that cars have no other adverse environmental effects is also wrong.
In at least one case anyway.
I mean I think the point of it is to advocate for other changes to transportation as well.
like ceasing it, since we have this wonderful new invention called “the internet” anyway
SCIENCE said:
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
The implication that moving to electric vehicles as quickly as possible is a waste of time and money is just wrong.
The implication that people who advocate moving to electric vehicles think that cars have no other adverse environmental effects is also wrong.
In at least one case anyway.
I mean I think the point of it is to advocate for other changes to transportation as well.
like ceasing it, since we have this wonderful new invention called “the internet” anyway
Well quite. I’m sure 80% of commuting is unnecessary now.
Michael V said:
SCIENCE said:Michael V said:
Where is that?
Queulat National Park
Thanks.
Ah, Chile.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-14/mountain-glacier-patagonia-collapses-/101439498
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-14/dead-coral-bay-ningaloo-reef-spawning/101431222
exactly
“This is just one rat and there’s been no further rats detected,” Ms Yuen said.
why not just fkn let the ship do its business and unload everything and Let It Rip who cares
not like having a rat on the island kills more people than the ‘flu’ or even RSV now does it
Termites are likely to begin expanding their range southwards as the planet’s temperature rises.
The findings of a new global study published in the journal Science show the insects may then accelerate the emission of carbon into the atmosphere as that spread takes place.
Scientists analysed the roles of termites and microbes in the decomposition of deadwood.
They found microbes behaved according to well-established trends, but the role of termites in breaking down wood became disproportionately higher as the temperature increased.
“We saw an increase in decomposition by termites of up to seven times ,” Alex Cheesman, a senior research fellow at James Cook University in Cairns, said.
“They have this really quite high response to temperature which we weren’t expecting.”
The federal government will reserve 30 per cent of land for conservation to improve biodiversity and set a goal of no new extinctions in an overhaul of its threatened species action plan.
Last push for gas could threaten world’s ‘greatest desert river system’
7.30
/
Rio Tinto on Monday publicly called for Energy Resources of Australia’s (ERA) chairman Peter Mansell to resign, four days after an independent report commissioned by the company suggested it could consider developing a second uranium mine next to Kakadu National Park.
Mirarr traditional owners have long objected to the potential mining of the ERA-owned Jabiluka uranium deposit — a position which Rio Tinto supports — and fiercely rejected the suggestion they might allow it to be mined.
roughbarked said:
Last push for gas could threaten world’s ‘greatest desert river system’
7.30
/
The things greedy people will do for money. It is activities like this that will destroy the world as we know it, and worse still we let it happen.
PermeateFree said:
roughbarked said:
Last push for gas could threaten world’s ‘greatest desert river system’
7.30
/The things greedy people will do for money. It is activities like this that will destroy the world as we know it, and worse still we let it happen.
Do you think people in general let it happen or are many of us powerless to stop big business and government.
I personally wonder if mass civil disobedience is perhaps the only way things will change.
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
roughbarked said:
Last push for gas could threaten world’s ‘greatest desert river system’
7.30
/The things greedy people will do for money. It is activities like this that will destroy the world as we know it, and worse still we let it happen.
Do you think people in general let it happen or are many of us powerless to stop big business and government.
I personally wonder if mass civil disobedience is perhaps the only way things will change.
communists
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
roughbarked said:
Last push for gas could threaten world’s ‘greatest desert river system’
7.30
/The things greedy people will do for money. It is activities like this that will destroy the world as we know it, and worse still we let it happen.
Do you think people in general let it happen or are many of us powerless to stop big business and government.
I personally wonder if mass civil disobedience is perhaps the only way things will change.
If we cared, we would use our vote more carefully.
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:The things greedy people will do for money. It is activities like this that will destroy the world as we know it, and worse still we let it happen.
Do you think people in general let it happen or are many of us powerless to stop big business and government.
I personally wonder if mass civil disobedience is perhaps the only way things will change.
If we cared, we would use our vote more carefully.
STEMocracy
PermeateFree said:
roughbarked said:
Last push for gas could threaten world’s ‘greatest desert river system’
7.30
/The things greedy people will do for money. It is activities like this that will destroy the world as we know it, and worse still we let it happen.
On this issue, I stand up and ask, why dost thou forsake me.
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:
roughbarked said:
Last push for gas could threaten world’s ‘greatest desert river system’
7.30
/The things greedy people will do for money. It is activities like this that will destroy the world as we know it, and worse still we let it happen.
Do you think people in general let it happen or are many of us powerless to stop big business and government.
I personally wonder if mass civil disobedience is perhaps the only way things will change.
That’s Trump’s motto. Probably not best to go there.
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:
PermeateFree said:The things greedy people will do for money. It is activities like this that will destroy the world as we know it, and worse still we let it happen.
Do you think people in general let it happen or are many of us powerless to stop big business and government.
I personally wonder if mass civil disobedience is perhaps the only way things will change.
If we cared, we would use our vote more carefully.
If we could sort through who stood for what.
If you like, I might try a poll.
roughbarked said:
If you like, I might try a poll.
If you take this into account:
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
Cymek said:Do you think people in general let it happen or are many of us powerless to stop big business and government.
I personally wonder if mass civil disobedience is perhaps the only way things will change.
If we cared, we would use our vote more carefully.
If we could sort through who stood for what.
OK. Are we getting anywhere?
roughbarked said:
Global warming is responsible for increasingly large fires in Siberia, and in the decades ahead the blazes could release huge amounts of carbon currently trapped in the soil, according to a new report.
Worrisome is an understatement, like so many other new revelations.
Are we underestimating extreme rainfall in a changing climate?
ABC Weather
/ By Kate Doyle
New research finds we’re not taking climate change into account when considering current and future rainfall extremes.
roughbarked said:
Are we underestimating extreme rainfall in a changing climate?
ABC Weather
/ By Kate Doyle
New research finds we’re not taking climate change into account when considering current and future rainfall extremes.
so less dry spell good
roughbarked said:
Results, culling ferals
They look so attractive, and my heart goes out to them, but they must be removed for the sake of the environment. Doing these things is what makes being an environmentalist so hard, which means those who scornfully sneer at greenies the real weaklings.
Carl Sagan testifying before Congress in 1985 on climate change.
An independent review into the government’s carbon credit scheme has rejected suggestions it is fundamentally flawed, but has made a series of recommendations to improve its transparency and integrity.
The review panel, chaired by former chief scientist Ian Chubb, noted the integrity of the scheme had been called into question.
“It has been argued that the level of abatement has been overstated, that ACCUs are therefore not what they are meant to be, so the policy is not effective,” the report said.
“The Panel does not share this view”.
“Notwithstanding the criticisms advanced, the Panel concludes that the ACCU scheme was fundamentally well designed when introduced.”
They really should have dropped the idea of the only good snake is a dead snake years before.
They also should not need to be so greedy that they remove all the native habitat to grow crops.
sugar cane farmers infested with native rats
because SCIENCE isn’t about data what the fuck
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-09/are-some-canberra-suburbs-wetter-than-others/101947620
SCIENCE said:
because SCIENCE isn’t about data what the fuck
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-09/are-some-canberra-suburbs-wetter-than-others/101947620
I’m not a weather scientist, but it does sort of sound like she’s treating the simplified models of reality that are used to make predictions as being more reliable than actual measurements of actual reality.
ABC Mildura-Swan Hill
/ By Lucy Bain and Debra Pearce
Authorities are blaming algae and last year’s floods after thousands of fish — some up to a metre long — are discovered floating dead in the state’s north-west.
Good News ¡ Tipping Point Reached ¡
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/6d9fcb0709f64904aee371eac09afbdf/print
roughbarked said:
CSIRO has found greenhouse gas emissions have likely been making El Niño and La Niña events more frequent and extreme since the 1960s. Up until now little was known about the role it played.
It is a lot more than simply emissions. We were getting away with this for far longer than we thought because there used to be more trees.
A new study reaffirming that global climate change is human-made also found the upper atmosphere is cooling dramatically because of rising CO2 levels. Scientists are worried about the effect this cooling could have on orbiting satellites, the ozone layer, and Earth’s weather.
roughbarked said:
A new study reaffirming that global climate change is human-made also found the upper atmosphere is cooling dramatically because of rising CO2 levels. Scientists are worried about the effect this cooling could have on orbiting satellites, the ozone layer, and Earth’s weather.
From the article:
>>But the new discoveries about the scale of cooling aloft are leaving atmospheric physicists with new worries — about the safety of orbiting satellites, about the fate of the ozone layer, and about the potential of these rapid changes aloft to visit sudden and unanticipated turmoil on our weather below.<<
>>In the spring of 2020, the Arctic had its first full-blown ozone hole with more than half the ozone layer lost in places, which von der Gathen blames on rising CO2 concentrations. It could be the first of many. In a recent paper in Nature Communications, he warned that the continued cooling means current expectations that the ozone layer should be fully healed by mid-century are almost certainly overly optimistic.<<
>>Chemistry is not the only issue. Atmospheric physicists are also growing concerned that cooling could change air movements aloft in ways that impinge on weather and climate at ground level. One of the most turbulent of these phenomena is known as sudden stratospheric warming. Westerly winds in the stratosphere periodically reverse, resulting in big temperatures swings during which parts of the stratosphere can warm by as much as 90 degrees F (50 degrees C) in a couple of days.
This is typically accompanied by a rapid sinking of air that pushes onto the Atlantic jet stream at the top of the troposphere. The jet stream, which drives weather systems widely across the Northern Hemisphere, begins to snake. This disturbance can cause a variety of extreme weather, from persistent intense rains to summer droughts and “blocking highs” that can cause weeks of intense cold winter weather from eastern North America to Europe and parts of Asia.<<
>>Most of the satellites that have supplied information from the upper atmosphere over the past three decades — delivering his and others’ forecasts of cooling and contraction — are reaching the ends of their lives. Of six NASA satellites on the case, one failed in December, another was decommissioned in March, and three more are set to shut down soon. “There is as yet no new mission planned or in development,” he says.<<
Children of today sure have a great future.
I don’t know if others have thought about it but it is becoming of increasing concern to me about the rampant expansion of broadacre clearing and lax rules that allow the expansion of cotton and other agriculture in the Northern Territory. Australia already has the worst extinction record and soil erosion history. Not to mention overuse of water from aquifers.
roughbarked said:
I don’t know if others have thought about it but it is becoming of increasing concern to me about the rampant expansion of broadacre clearing and lax rules that allow the expansion of cotton and other agriculture in the Northern Territory. Australia already has the worst extinction record and soil erosion history. Not to mention overuse of water from aquifers.
The NT government’s strategy proposes changing laws to allow pastoral leases be used for growing crops, as environmental groups accuse the government of again acting recklessly to grow the economy.
The Northern Territory government is proposing to slash approval times for land clearing and water licences, build new cotton gins and scale up the cropping industry in what is hoped to spur a $700 million sector increase within a decade.
Among the raft of proposals within the new strategy, which the government has developed with the NT Farmers Association, is a proposal to change the laws around pastoral leases so they can be used to grow crops.
“Major infrastructure establishment such as cotton gins … coupled with the availability of suitable land and access to water … are leading to a growing broadacre cropping industry in the Territory,” the strategy states.
“Growing dryland cotton has been identified as a high-value broadacre cropping option for expanding agriculture in the NT.”
One of the major targets set out is the expansion of the cropping industry – of which cotton is currently the most lucrative – to 100,000 hectares.
Northern Territory Agriculture Minister Paul Kirby said he hoped the $1.3 billion industry would grow to $2 billion by 2030.
They are at first talking about dry area cotton and then about irrigating cotton. They should be more clear about what they mean.
Link
roughbarked said:
They are at first talking about dry area cotton and then about irrigating cotton. They should be more clear about what they mean.
Link
This is what overpopulation brings with vast numbers of people making their way through life, all trying to make their fortune and to leave their mark on it. Just too bad the environment once again picks up the bill.
PermeateFree said:
roughbarked said:
They are at first talking about dry area cotton and then about irrigating cotton. They should be more clear about what they mean.
Link
This is what overpopulation brings with vast numbers of people making their way through life, all trying to make their fortune and to leave their mark on it. Just too bad the environment once again picks up the bill.
Too true unfortunately.
Hopes gas leases ‘don’t see light of day’ again after Origin surrenders them to Queensland government
ABC Rural
/
Australia’s largest energy company has surrendered 10 out of its 11 gas licenses in Queensland’s fragile Channel Country, but some are concerned the government could sell them on to another bidder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LmV94WSkmc
When he found out logging had begun recently, Mr Blakers travelled to the coupe to protest with about 20 other BBF volunteers.
“It’s shocking. I was furious when I heard that they started logging there. It shouldn’t be happening,” he said.
“Where they began logging is precisely where all the swift parrot sightings were, where records were made through this last summer.”
Photographer arrested after protest over logging in endangered swift parrot habitat
The ice deficit, compared to normal, has been growing for months and is now more than 2.5 million square kilometres below average.
That is roughly the size of Western Australia.
Illustrating how unusual the size of the missing ice is, the deficit is more than 1.5 million square kilometres below the previous record for July.
As the race to find new ways of sequestering oxygen from trees intensifies, Wollongong City Council – with the help of students from Dapto High School – is spearheading the creation of tiny forests.
Though I do believe that they should and I hope they are, doing good research on how to make the fertiliser just right for the job at hand.
roughbarked said:
As the race to find new ways of sequestering oxygen from trees intensifies, Wollongong City Council – with the help of students from Dapto High School – is spearheading the creation of tiny forests.Though I do believe that they should and I hope they are, doing good research on how to make the fertiliser just right for the job at hand.
Sequestering oxygen?
I think they have a carbon di missing there.
I have a tiny forest in my garden.
Haven’t worked out how to get my carbon credits yet.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
As the race to find new ways of sequestering oxygen from trees intensifies, Wollongong City Council – with the help of students from Dapto High School – is spearheading the creation of tiny forests.Though I do believe that they should and I hope they are, doing good research on how to make the fertiliser just right for the job at hand.
Sequestering oxygen?
I think they have a carbon di missing there.
I have a tiny forest in my garden.
Haven’t worked out how to get my carbon credits yet.
I have quite a larger mini forest and I haven’t looked at carbon credits. Maybe I should but it is on Crown land outside my piece of dirt. I’ve been doing it for forty years and the birds lizards and everything that goes with that is working along without much help at all these days. My only job now is keep controlling outbreaks of weed infestation. The rest will fill itself in.
The Rev Dodgson said:
roughbarked said:
As the race to find new ways of sequestering oxygen from trees intensifies, Wollongong City Council – with the help of students from Dapto High School – is spearheading the creation of tiny forests.Though I do believe that they should and I hope they are, doing good research on how to make the fertiliser just right for the job at hand.
Sequestering oxygen?
I think they have a carbon di missing there.
I have a tiny forest in my garden.
Haven’t worked out how to get my carbon credits yet.
I mean this is a nice little school project.
Ballpark, a trillion new trees would just about balance current CO2 emissions. Once they reach maturity you’d have to chop them down and replant because for obv reasons their seq powers slow down, so we might aim to do this on a 20 year cycle, planting 50 billion trees a year. Which is not so bad really, it’s like 6 per person per year though the hard part I suppose would be finding the territory, managing the seedlings and saplings etc. Also I can hear the Greens complaining that this is just a diversion from reducing emissions.
I take the piss out of some Middle Eastern megaprojects but this one is nice…
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2277406/saudi-arabia
What this study shows, Dr Noble says, is we’ve already got the conditions for the Greenland ice sheet to melt, but the time frame is the million dollar question.
“Basically, the ice sheets haven’t had time to catch up with the amount of warming that’s present in the atmosphere and the oceans,” she said.
“And that’s what I guess is hard for people to comprehend, that we’ve actually locked ourselves in for thousands of years of warming and sea level rise.
“Even if humans make sacrifices and societies change rapidly, there’s still this inertia in the whole Earth system.”
If the entire Greenland ice sheet went, enough water would be released to put most of the world’s major cities underwater, she said.
The only thing that could buy us more time, Professor Bierman added, was to get greenhouse gas emissions down.
“There’s a fantastic paper that came out of Oregon about 10 years ago, that basically said the next hundred years of policy is going to decide the next 10,000 years of Earth’s history,” he said.
“Basically what it means is if we don’t get our act together and not only cut carbon emissions, but bring the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide back down, these ice sheets are in trouble.”
See the whole article: Ice core from secret US Army base reveals dramatic historical Greenland ice-sheet melting
Perched on a remote mountain top and surrounded by lowlands, Mabu is what’s known as a “sky island” and is the largest rainforest in southern Africa. BBC environment correspondent Jonah Fisher went to Mabu with a team of scientists who have discovered dozens of new species there, helping to convince Mozambique to protect it.
“Let me get my magic spoon,” Dr Gimo Daniel says with a smile.
It’s hard to imagine anyone taking more delight in their work than the 36-year-old Mozambican beetle expert.
We’re crouched around a small hole in the dirt not far from our camp in the centre of Mabu forest. Dr Daniel’s mission, like that of almost everyone on our expedition, is to find things that science has not seen before.
Dung beetles are Dr Daniel’s speciality and he chuckles as he pulls out a big plastic tub of bait – his own faeces.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51ylgr1zpxo
Link
After the closure of VicForests, senior staff have joined a new forest venture. Greenwashing
Just a cover to continue logging.
roughbarked said:
Carbon Budget predicts the world falls ‘frustratingly’ short as emissions rise in 2024
so how much is locked in
¿
+2 K ¿
+4 K ¿
+6 K ¿
will dirty CHINA save the world again
¿
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:
Carbon Budget predicts the world falls ‘frustratingly’ short as emissions rise in 2024
so how much is locked in
¿
+2 K ¿
+4 K ¿
+6 K ¿
will dirty CHINA save the world again
¿
Someone has to reduce population levels greater than a pandemic or a war or both.
Otherwise, Trump will build more big block petrol engines and dig up more coal oil and gas.
roughbarked said:
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:
Carbon Budget predicts the world falls ‘frustratingly’ short as emissions rise in 2024
so how much is locked in
¿
+2 K ¿
+4 K ¿
+6 K ¿
will dirty CHINA save the world again
¿
Someone has to reduce population levels greater than a pandemic or a war or both.
Otherwise, Trump will build more big block petrol engines and dig up more coal oil and gas.
So they want to reduce the population of weak ASIANS, and let the great master race breed.
Guess it’s pandemic and war then.
SCIENCE said:
roughbarked said:
SCIENCE said:
so how much is locked in
¿
+2 K ¿
+4 K ¿
+6 K ¿
will dirty CHINA save the world again
¿
Someone has to reduce population levels greater than a pandemic or a war or both.
Otherwise, Trump will build more big block petrol engines and dig up more coal oil and gas.
So they want to reduce the population of weak ASIANS, and let the great master race breed.
Guess it’s pandemic and war then.
Or an ice age.
