Jump to content
  • Welcome to Whats Up Austraila!

    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in

octave

Members
  • Content Count

    1,313
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    27

octave last won the day on December 27 2019

octave had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

453 Excellent

About octave

  • Rank
    Well-Known Member

Recent Profile Visitors

222 profile views
  1. OME i am not anti nuclear however I think the old model of nuclear power is not viable, look up Hinkley Point C. I do however believe that new nuclear will be an inevitable part of our energy mix. The most persuasive argument for nuclear is CO2 mitigation but the most enthusiastic supporters of nuclear power are those who deny the most powerful reason to adopt it. I have often posted links to Bill Gates who accepts climate change and renewables but also beleives we need new nuclear. Gates funds renewables and nuclear. Not in a position to post links but look up travelling wave reactor. The reasons Australia has not adopted nuclear power are not as simple as hysteria. My understanding is that the economics are questionable at this point in time.
  2. The cause of Australia’s bushfires – what the SCIENCE says
  3. The suggestion is that temperature measurements are being adjusted and this falsey shows an increase in temperature at least that is what I think is being said. There are many who claim a conspiracy such as Tony Heller as seen in the youtube clips that PM posts. What I find hard to understand is how multiple data sources such as our Bom and meteorological bodies from around the world come up with similar data. The point I am making is either they come up with similar data because they are measuring accurately or they are colluding to produce the same data if it is the latter then I would call it scientific fraud. Perhaps it would be better for the doubters to criticize the harmonisation process itself rather to suggest a haphazard process of changing data to suit a theory. There is plenty of information freely available about how and why the harmonisation is done as well as the negligible effect it has on the results. My use of the word fraud was also prompted by going back to the beginning of this thread and re reading it, here is a sample: "Yes and there is plenty of fraud going on. The facts are there in historical records. This is not the hottest, wettest, most turbulent time on record. Seek the facts, don’t drink the Koolaid."
  4. By the way PM here is an explanation of methods used and reasons for it. https://skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html It is certainly not done haphazardly
  5. So you are in fact alleging serious fraud if not by an organisation certainly by individuals and one would think that the Bom generally would be responsible for the quality of its data. The temperature data is not merely written down by some dishonest fellow and left at that , the data is audited. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/#tabs=Expert-review Your suggestion that the temperatures are only adjusted upwards surely would only work if you suppress the raw data, it is my understanding that you can download the raw data. Do you believe that the raw data would not show a warming trend? My understanding is that the raw data shows more warming. Or do you believe the raw dat has been altered. Presumably you believe that other meteorological organisations from around the world corrupt their data also. The case for climate change does not hinge on the temp data from one country but from many countries as well as satellite measurements. This kind of fraud would surely be easy to detect and would. It would also involve high level collusion not only within Bom but with other organisations. it would in fact be a conspiracy.
  6. By the warmists do you mean Bom and CSIRO?
  7. This is the often stated assertions made the the likes of Heller/Goddard Peter do you accept the following statements? If not do you believe that they are the product of bad science or are they being deliberately misleading and to what end? • Concentrations of all the major long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase, with carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rising above 400 ppm since 2016 and the CO2 equivalent (CO2-e) of all gases reaching 500 ppm for the first time in at least 800,000 years. • Emissions from fossil fuels continue to increase and are the main contributor to the observed growth in atmospheric CO2. • The world’s oceans, especially in the southern hemisphere, are taking up more than 90 per cent of the extra energy stored by the planet as a result of enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. • Global sea level has risen by over 20 cm since 1880, and the rate has been accelerating in recent decades. • Globally averaged air temperature has warmed by over 1 °C since records began in 1850, and each of the last four decades has been warmer than the previous one.
  8. oops I forgot to post the link https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391 I would suggest that anyone who thinks they have pinned down the factors involved in the early start to the fire season is being a bit premature. CSIRO has many studies on bushfires. I did post a link to a study from I think the late 80s which fairly accurately predicted the lengthening of the fire season and the severity. I think you rejected the validity of the study and you did present your own "findings" but not with an data. My understanding is that the fires season in California has also lengthened. The part of the above article that I thought was interesting with regards to the lack of El Nino which normally is associated with a bad fire season. Basically I accept this document although I am open to persuasive arguments that are presented with data. Arguments such as CSIRO and Bom are fraudsters who are trying to bring down the economic system or are just trying to scam research funds are not persuasive. http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/State-of-the-Climate-2018.pdf
  9. As an individual it is not possible to determine whether the average global temperature has risen or fallen., it is not a thing we can sense. The only way we can determine if the average global temperature has changed is by performing huge numbers of measurements from all around the world and then doing the maths. This is what NASA and Bom say the global temperature has increased https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/ I would need to lot of contradictory evidence to decide that these assertions were made up or poorly interpreted. As an individual all I can do is look at the evidence provided by those who have the means to measure and interpret and then try to look for other interpretations that either support or contradict. I view it the same as visiting the doctor. I may feel a particular medication may or may not work but the most rational answer is in the data. I could just go with my gut feeling but I prefer something more solid.
  10. Despite Australia's uptake of renewables our standard of living is not rapidly declining as the "renewables alarmist" claim.
  11. Perhaps you could address the issues in this article especially the quotes directly from CSIRO and Bom. So do you consider CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science Bom as alarmists?
  12. The problem is what you are saying is that you have expertise that is superior to and have spent more time examining data than the Australian Academy of Science and CSIRO et al. Perhaps you have done so much rigorous research that you have been able to come up with '"the answer". Surely though you must be able to understand that any thinking person would need more to go on than just "I think there seems to be no evidence" This needs hard data to be considered to be anything more than your opinion.
  13. Yes. I am always amused by the notion that anyone who accepts the science must want to bring down the economic system Everytime I get involved in a discussion with a denier I take an action, I have moved my banking, super, electricity company and tomorrow. My solar system gets installed tomorrow, all prompted by discussions with deniers. The other thing I do is invest tech. As a direct result of discussions on this forum I have bought shares in several new tech companies. Funny you should mention Tesla, I bought some shares 6 weeks for $297 US per share and it is now worth $535 per share around about an %80 profit or about $346 Au per share. Not bad, thanks deniers 😂
  14. Pretty well established that volcanoes contribute far less CO2 than industry. https://deepcarbon.net/scientists-quantify-global-volcanic-co2-venting-estimate-total-carbon-earth https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/#61ee2c4c5cbf https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/volcano-co2-humans-emissions-16102017/
  15. Just spent a few weeks in Wellington NZ talk about steep driveways!
×
×
  • Create New...