Australia suffers most extreme warming

Thanks!

I try to post the facts and realities and I have absolutely no political agenda or ideology driving my posts.

Unfortunately you are right....some here do.

AboveAlpha

 

A bit at a time. We won't stop all of it - that it the problem but we CAN mitigate the worst. In fact the IPCC does address this - just that a very large percentage of denialists would rather listen to what Rupert Murdoch's press tells them is in the IPCC instead of reading it for themselves but given it is a governmental report reading the whole thing would be a guarantee of an insomnia cure

http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/assessment-reports/fourth-assessment-report/.files-ar4/TS.pdf

But two phrases stand out "mitigation" and "sustainable development"

A lot of this is about a) stop wasting electricity (and that will ultimately have benefits in reducing costs and B) overhauling an electrical infrastructure system that dates back - well too bloody far. We are using the same technology in many cases that our Grandparents used. Does THAT make sense? Does it make sense that our electrical system has no storage capacity? Does it make sense to have all of these copper wires strung out across the continent wasting electricity? Trouble is the power industry has been coasting on minimal upkeep and investment in technology with maximum profits for too many years

 

We could start using CO2 scrubbers installed on all smoke stacks and there are even ones that can be used on a cars exhaust and along with them is a CO2 storage unit....but although the scrubbers are cheap the storage units are not.

The only real way to deal with this issue is for the U.S. Military to release for Civilian Use what has been leaked out as their developed Low Temp. Micro-Fusion Reactors.

The problem is this tech has so many Military applications I have a hard time seeing them releasing it anytime soon.

Unlike a Nuclear Fission Reactor Fusion has no radioactive spent fuel by-product and is a clean and inexhaustible energy source.

AboveAlpha

 

Thorium reactors are more promising than conventional nuclear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

 

and can't be misused !!!!
Good idea for those ones with a nervous finger on a trigger....
Regards

 

After World War II, uranium-based nuclear reactors were built to produce electricity. These were similar to the reactor designs that produced material for nuclear weapons. During that period, the U.S. government also built an experimental molten salt reactor using U-233 fuel, the fertile material created by bombarding thorium with neutrons. The reactor, built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, operated critical for roughly 15000 hours from 1965 to 1969. In 1968, Nobel laureate and discoverer of Plutonium, Glenn Seaborg, publicly announced to the Atomic Energy Commission, of which he was chairman, that the thorium-based reactor had been successfully developed and tested:
So far the molten-salt reactor experiment has operated successfully and has earned a reputation for reliability. I think that some day the world will have commercial power reactors of both the uranium-plutonium and the thorium-uranium fuel cycle type.[7]
In 1973, however, the U.S. government shut down all thorium-related nuclear research—which had by then been ongoing for approximately twenty years at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The reasons were that uranium breeder reactors were more efficient, the research was proven, and byproducts could be used to make nuclear weapons. In Moir and Teller’s opinion, the decision to stop development of thorium reactors, at least as a backup option, “was an excusable mistake.”[4]
Science writer Richard Martin states that nuclear physicist Alvin Weinberg, who was director at Oak Ridge and primarily responsible for the new reactor, lost his job as director because he championed development of the safer thorium reactors.[8][9] Weinberg himself recalls this period:
[Congressman] Chet Holifield was clearly exasperated with me, and he finally blurted out, "Alvin, if you are concerned about the safety of reactors, then I think it may be time for you to leave nuclear energy." I was speechless. But it was apparent to me that my style, my attitude, and my perception of the future were no longer in tune with the powers within the AEC.[10]
Martin explains that Weinberg's unwillingness to sacrifice potentially safe nuclear power for the benefit of military uses forced him to retire:
Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. . . . his team built a working reactor . . . . and he spent the rest of his 18-year tenure trying to make thorium the heart of the nation’s atomic power effort. He failed. Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973.[11]
Despite the documented history of thorium nuclear power, many of today’s nuclear experts were nonetheless unaware of it. According to Chemical & Engineering News, "most people—including scientists—have hardly heard of the heavy-metal element and know little about it . . . ," noting a comment by a conference attendee that "it's possible to have a Ph.D. in nuclear reactor technology and not know about thorium energy."[12] Nuclear physicist Victor J. Stenger, for one, first learned of it in 2012:
It came as a surprise to me to learn recently that such an alternative has been available to us since World War II, but not pursued because it lacked weapons applications.[13]
Others, including former NASA scientist and thorium expert Kirk Sorensen, agree that “thorium was the alternative path that was not taken . . . "[14][15]:2 According to Sorensen, during a documentary interview, he states that if the U.S. had not discontinued its research in 1974 it could have "probably achieved energy independence by around 2000.

AboveAlpha

 

No, you did, you claim that we are wrong. Your argument that we are wrong is that we cannot produce incontrovertible evidence. You are asking us to produce incontrovertible evidence that we are correct. Firstly, for those that do not read my posts. I have NEVER claimed to be incontrovertibly correct, I actually stated many many times I am not sure I am right, just as I an not sure you are right. When I drive I do not put on a seat belt because I am going to have an accident, I put one on because I could have an accident. I know that a seat belt is not a guarantee that I won't get hurt. I know that in some instances the seat belt could do me harm. The seat belt adds to the cost of my car. Having an accident and not wearing a seat belt has a much higher risk of injury than having an accident and wearing a seat belt. So I wear a seat belt and hope that I am wasting my time putting it on.

I hope you are right, I pray you are right, but I fear you are wrong. Either way, it is better to be safe than sorry. So if you want incontrovertible evidence that I am wrong. GO BLOODY FIND IT, not the propaganda of the wealthy, they don't think it will affect them, they are used to buying their way out of everything.

 

I quess that blows your claim of being a scientist out of the water. I am God. You disagree? Prove I am wrong.

 

Disagree. No I don't, not at all ...... I believe you think you are God.

 

Your answer is self contradictory. First you say that you do not disagree with the statement 'I am God' then you say that you do disagree by saying I only think I am God. Not very good for a scientist DV.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/01/07/weather-polar-vortex-cold/4354945/

http://wmo.asu.edu/australia-lowest-temperature

Interesting the lowest temperature in Australia occurred in 1994 after 150 years of warming!! har har har har! Go tell your warming theories to the Americans!

 

Damn!! Back to teaching basic maths

http://www.basic-mathematics.com/finding-the-average.html

Single figures mean nothing

local does not equate to global
Weather is not the same as climate

 

Attention ~

As a reminder to all, please keep focus on the thread topic.

Address the thread topic, keep your individual responses respectful, thus ensuring a civil discussion for those contributing, as well as members who are following the thread/reading.

Do not make things personal with veiled insults and/or senseless jabs.

Thanks

 

Haven't seen much that is off topic

 

Please define 'weather' and 'climate' for us.

 

Who is "us"! Oh, you mean like the royal "us"!

 

What did your last slave die of?

Ever heard of Google?

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

****snicker***** Guess someone thought they might have found something that would stump me -

 

Not at all, we are talking about weather and climate so we need definitions that we all agree to that can be applied to the discussion. I asked you for the definition so when I use it to shoot down some of your statements you won't be able to wriggle out of it because it will be your own definition I am using ****grin****

 

Still waiting for the evidence that co2 put into the atmosphere by mankind is CAUSING the slight warming over the last 150 years and that the warming is OUTSIDE normal warming and cooling over a significant geological time period.

 

Since I am using scientific definitions courtesy of NASA - ones that are used throughout the scientific literature - I have no need to "wiggle" out of anything - unlike those who misrepresent the science and make up "facts" or attempt to show that scientific texts show something that is not there

 

Yass masser!! No Masser!! What does mighty Masser want from poor little slave?
n
Sorry but I have been "played" like this before - presented with demand after demand, each time I satisfy a point the argument merely shifts to another usually with the opponent doing NO research but sneering at whatever research I have found (and it is usually plenty) so since this is yet another demand I am NOT going to present you with MY hard work but simply say - the answer lies in the uniqueness of the carbon isotopes - those from fossil fuels differ from those from other sources so we can easily determine man's impact

The impact is clearly seen on the IR signature of the planet - a phenomena yet to be explained by denialists

 

Weather and climate have different definitions therefore need to sort out which meaning we are going to base our discussion on? Am I reading that correctly?

 

One of the effects of a dramatic increase of energy into a system is causing system imbalance.

As far as the Earth's Atmosphere and Climate are concerned the increase in energy is being created by man made CO2 emissions holding in Heat which in turn causes more water evaporation and thus more water vapor in the atmosphere thus more clouds more storm activity as well as more water vapor in the atmosphere causes even more heat to be trapped which in turn causes Polar and Glacier Ice Melt and even MORE water evaporation causing more water vapor in the atmosphere....water vapor levels in the first half of the 20th century stayed consistently between 1% and 2%....by the 1970's water vapor levels stayed between 2% and 3%....and currently water vapor levels are consistently at 5% and at some times 6%.

This of course increased Global Temps. to the point that Gel Form CH4...Methane...stored in very large amounts at the bottom of all oceans and Arctic Lakes as well within Permafrost to bubble up into the Atmosphere as Methane Gas which holds in Atmospheric Heat at a rate 72 Times greater than CO2.

With so much energy currently in our atmosphere Climate Change goes far beyond just Temp. Increases as entire weather patterns, Gulf Stream, Ocean Currents and wild swinging hot to cold to storms events in areas that usually do not have rain get rain or worse even less rain.

AboveAlpha

 

Yes, yes we know mankind has added to the level of co2 in the atmosphere and we know that research has determined the IR escaping the earth has gone down by about 1% and we know co2 is a green house gas that can in theory cause an increase in temperature. What we don't know and what nobody can provide compelling evidence of, is whether anthropogenic co2 is the CAUSE of recent warming or whether it is caused by some other factors. What we don't know is how much, if any, warming is the result of anthropogenic co2. The geological historic record strongly suggests that recent warming is a natural phenomenon, perhaps with an anthropogenic component, that is well within historical cycles of warming and cooling. What we do know is that the climate and temperature have always been changing. What we do know is that the earth has been much warmer than present and the sky didn't fall! What we do know is that alarmist gurus have made numerous predictions that have turned out to be spectacularly wrong.

 

I think someone is stubbornly refusing to accept that the saturation effect is a real, proven phenomenon because their bible tells them it has been debunked. You shot yourself in the foot over that one by unwittingly providing the proof yourself!