Global climate strike day

I wad told by the installers of my system that storage batteries are not worth it yet and the same view from my electrician.It would also have made no sense to install the panels unless the govt hadn't subsidized it.
Hopefully it lasts and doesnt end up at the tip .

Select to expand quote

NotWal said..

kilo54 said..

log man said..

kilo54 said..

Mr Milk said..

kilo54 said..


I, like most, strongly for a good environment. Built an eco friendly house using recycled material. Stackwall, so no outside cladding or interior gyproc. Placed to the South of an evergreen windbreak. A passive solar conservatory on S. side with night curtain, silvered to reflect most of heat. Salad veggies/herbs year round..........analysed stomach parts of crabs from Liverpool bay, dissolving them with HF in solid GOLD crucibles. Found it took 15 years for HALF the pollution in the bay to clear. So in 30 years, 1/4 STILL there! Disgusting.
So, yes, for a clean planet, but this CO2 hysteria is rubbish. Best wishes!

So you're a pom troll. Must be desperate to spend your time shooting the breeze on an Oz windsport website.

Love porn! Do not understand why you call me a troll.
Passed my RSc in 2 years; Permanent Commission from HM the Queen - only 20 a year in GD(P); 5 languages including swahili; bribed my way thru frontier in Central America; spent night on the most active volcano in the Americas, Pacaya volcan; fought off Mau-mau terrs with 9mm when 7 years old; got laid in Guatemala for $3.20 - told I had been OVERCHARGED!
......visit Guatemala Jan, Feb, March - no rain; "Perpetual Spring", 68-75F; hotel $10, wifi, hot water, stove, fridge - beer 20c. Best place I have ever been...... $10/night in the dorm at Semuc Champey; infinity pool on top of hill; drone; STUFFED with Euro-totty!!!!
Built an aerobatic biplane - differential, Frieze ailerons; 2 place; like boats, planes cost a fortune. Silky smooth push -pull controls. Classy.

GW due to Synodic Resonance, the decrease in cloud cover 'cos of less AEROSOLS for cloud to nucleate. (Cosmic Rays too. )
CO2 effect was saturated back at 140ppm.....first 20ppm absorbed 60%; second 20ppm, 60% of 40, etc Getit? and so on.
So smarty, what do you know of Entropy? Whats the square root of minus 25? Feynman's double slit showing 4 times FASTER than light?
Quantum Mechanics baby.......why do plants NOT grow with heavy water?
I tilt my science knowledge against yours.
My family are Drapers who provided the British Sovereign with 500 armed men on 2 occasions. HM the Quenn and HRH Prince Charles (had dinner with him and Minister of UK Defence!) both Drapers and come to dinner with us at least once a year.
We largely funded the exploration of Canada, John Cabot and his sons, 1497-1520.
What you got, eh?

Is this "lord" Moncton?

No, Mark, Lord Balniel, Earl of Crawford, Earl of Belcarres, Chief of the clan Lindsay, Knight of the garter, Lord of the Queen's bedchamber, advisor to her Majesty.
No, not really, though he was/is a friend of the family. Super nice chap. MP for Hertford North at one time.

Julius Nyerere also a family friend, my Mother, British Council, helped him get started, sending him off to Uni in UK.
He is half way to becoming a Saint in the catholic church. "A servant of God." Humble decent man. In the 50s he, a black Nationalist, made my Mum Godmother to his new baby.............
.......after the ceremony, we stayed talking for a bit, then drove home, passing the future President and his family trudging along the road!
"Stop and pick him up" my Mother said. "No, would not do. I am a senior colonial servant and he a Nationalist." my Father..

It makes me weep to see money squandered. To power UK, HALF the country would have to be covered in windmills. Lovely. Or 1/4 with solar panels, and when not windy/dark, NO power.
This BS has to stop. At every level CO2 GW is rubbish.

Science disagrees with you, but Donald Trump agrees. He says wind generators cause cancer. It must be a comfort to have a very stable genius on your side.

Science DOES agree with me, and so does LOGIC and common sense........The Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were times of prosperity. Accepted by all but the badly brain damaged. WHY should our slight warming be any different? You cannot answer.
Warm is good. During the Little Ice Age, the sea at Marseilles in the Med froze. Millions died of cold. How many died from heat in the Warm times? Few.
What makes this particular temp SACRED? Presently about 0.7F warmer than 1850.
(Alarmists like to cheat by going from 1885 AFTER Krakatoa COOLED things for years.)
And CHEAT again by changing paint of temp stations AND cramming them with electronics that give off heat!!!
AND incorrectly siteing them 89% of the time in USA. (see website with photos of heat vents, blacktop etc)

Do you not understand LeChatelier's principle? Systems tend to correct themselves, NOT go runaway. Seawater rarely gets above 30C because the Latent Heat of Vaporisation is so large (540cals/gm).........know what this means? Takes 1 calorie to heat 1gm water 1C, UNTIL it evaporates when it takes 540calories!!!! Getit? Just a bit of a diff, eh?

And, inter alia, NOAA et al say a temp is the average of min and max daily temps. So a day at 10C with 5 minutes of Sun coming out, 25C is warmer to THEM than a day at 16C all day. Is barmy!!! They should continuously record temp, plot graph v time, then INTEGRATE algorithm. (Gives you the area UNDER the graph) ie how much heat in that day.

Never heard Trump say that about wind turbines, but they DO cause health harm and are killing millions of birds and bats every year - the white tailed Hawk (Scandinavia and Germany) will be EXTINCT in 5 years at present rate. well done eco boyos!
AND the FACT is that to change to wind would take Britain to be HALF covered in turbines.

LOOK! Google, for several years studied alt. energy, and concluded that you CANNOT transition to it. Alt, energy supplies so LITTLE extra power - has to make itself AND its replacement before NET producing power..
"Insulating 500 roofs the same cost as a windmill, and saves MORE energy in 2 years than the turbine will in its 25 year life." Wanna build them OR insulate roofs? Hm?
Is dog chasing tail - need lots of energy to make these things; you can never catch up...........In USA, a coal power worker produces 70 TIMES the power an alt. power guy does.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

kilo54 said..>>> My family are Drapers who provided the British Sovereign with 500 armed men on 2 occasions. HM the Quenn and HRH Prince Charles (had dinner with him and Minister of UK Defence!) both Drapers and come to dinner with us at least once a year.
We largely funded the exploration of Canada, John Cabot and his sons, 1497-1520.
What you got, eh?

A family history, you're no doubt proud of, BUT -------------

O Boy kilo, that's probably the biggest faux pas you could make on an Aussie forum.

You've now lost all credibility and will be written off as a total wanker. No matter how good your science is.

I find it funny when people are proud of 'what their family have done'. What have you personally done, or is it your family that you cling to to achieve anything?

I wish I were born into wealth. I would be much more prosperous and provide much more to the world than just typing stuff on an internet forum.

If he mistook porn for pom, I wonder what he will think of when he reads wanker?

Select to expand quote

Ian K said.. >>>>I don't know about the cost of a windmill or insulation but the average house runs on 30kw/hr per day. insulation can save 30 to 40% of your energy usage. That's 10 kWhr a day. A big wind turbine generates 3 MW when the wind is blowing. 3MW times say 6 hrs a day the wind's blowing = 18MWhr = 18,000kWhr 18,000/10 = 1,800 houses. A few more than 500 by my calculation but in the ballpark and an interesting point. Properly insulate the houses in a typical australian suburb and you can save a wind turbine's worth of power..

This is a passive solar house and well insulated, we run on about a tenth of that, We had 4.5 kw/hrs from the solar panels yesterday and pumped 1kw/hr back into the grid.
Admittedly this is a very mild micro climate here and we don't have a pool or air conditioning. The climate sensible design takes care of any heating or cooling needed.
But all the same it's possible to reduce the amount of electricity used by a very large amount.

Kilo's points make sense, only if you don't take the extra CO2 produced by humans into account, that's the game changer. the ordinary negative feedback loops that stabilise things are no longer strong enough, and the positive feedback loops start taking over. What happened before the industrial revolution is not all that relevant.
The ice fields weren't melting then, reducing the reflection of heat back into space, and the permafrost melting releasing ever more stored greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

Paid actors.

needtoknow.news/2019/10/extinction-rebellion-climate-activists-paid-over-500-per-week-by-george-soros-to-shut-down-britain/

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
Wrong, #####
Positive feedback does not have to be exponential.
A simple example, based on what you have been telling us about how rich you are, would be that some commoner gives you better gifts than they would give somebody poorer because of your status. So you get a bit richer. Positive feedback.

In your example the positive feedback loop will be interrupted by the majority jacking up and not wanting to give anything.

Better example needed, A positive feedback in isolation that doesn't go off exponentially?

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
OK
Say I plant a tree on the footpath. Neighbourhood dogs come along and piss on it, watering and fertilising it and leaving a scent that gets other neighbourhood dogs to do the same. There's your positive feedback
The tree grows a bit better than otherwise, but is still size limited by its species and capillarity. I think the hard limit is about 100m
And also the dogs don't piss so much that the ground turns boggy, which is what our pommy troll friend would probably extrapolate to.

But once the dogs have depleted prey in the area they thin out. Earth has no doubt been perturbed by all sorts of "positive feedbacks" in the past but it always seems to pull through with a countering negative feedback springing into action. ( Though snowball earth was a bit out there). Venus not so. It just got hotter and hotter. The negative feedback that eventually pulled its greenhouse effect up at 462 degrees is probably just re-radiation into space.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

Select to expand quote

kilo54 said..>>>You obviously do not understand what positive feedback is. It is RUNAWAY. Faster and faster. Would mean all the oceans would have evaporated.

Agreed it is runaway, faster and faster, BUT the acceleration depends on the gain in the system. in this case it's very low, The process will take decades, and there is always a saturation point that ends the process.
It's you that doesn't understand feedback

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..



Agreed it is runaway, faster and faster, BUT the acceleration depends on the gain in the system. in this case it's very low, The process will take decades, and there is always a saturation point that ends the process.

So have the climate scientists figured out the what, where, how and whys of this saturation point? The northern ice cap might go before we control our greenhouse gases but for most of earth's history it has been ice free and still remained conducive to life. In fact the glaciers had retreated during the Cambrian explosion so we could assume that an ice free earth is more conducive to life that our current ice age.

As Kilo54 asked "why is the current temperature considered the sweet spot?"

www.livescience.com/28098-cambrian-period.html

Yes once all the ice has gone and all the gases under the perma frost released, that's the end of the cycle, and with any luck the negative feed back loops will take over.
I don't think anybody is saying that will create an unlivable world. But it will be hugely disruptive for human civilisation.
Ocean levels have been 20m higher than they are today.
How much flooding of essentials can we cope with?
Think the Worlds Ports, they will all either need to be relocated or have locks built around them. And that's not all the infrastructure that will be affected, there's much more very important stuff less than 20m above sealevel.

Agriculture will also have a huge amount of adapting to do.

The global financial situation isn't all that stable either, who knows what this added pressure could do to it.

Like wise the global political situation is also fragile, political refugees are already flooding the system, add in even more climate refugees, who knows what could happen.

Nobody can predict what the outcome will be, but the potential for disaster looks very high from where I'm standing.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..>>> Ocean levels have been 20m higher than they are today.

On rethinking where that came from, I think that's the figure for all the Greenland ice melting.

According to Wikipedia, for the last warm period 130,000 years ago, when temps were around 2deg warmer, sealevel was about 10m higher.
Also according to wikipedia past sealevels have been 300m higher. but that's going back into geological time when continents were also different. So is not all that relevant, but if all the ice does melt, sea level rise could be more than 20m, but that's a long way off, something for great great great grand kids to worry about

OK more thoughts on feedback, (yes eppo more incessant gibbering).
I think most will agree the classic master of feedback was Jimi Hendricks.
the gain of his system was the amps volume control and the distance from guitar to speaker. saturation happened when maxpower of the amp was reached. So if the guitar was a long way from the speaker, no feedback. Positive feed back started when the guitar and speaker were close enough for a slight reverb to begin, a note was extended a bit longer than normal. I think this is about where we are at the moment with climate change, the gain isn't high enough to be self sustaining. As the guitar moves slowly closer to the speaker, the reverb gets more pronounced, until it is self sustaining and cannot be stopped with out reducing the gain.
This I think is the "tipping point" when positive feed back becomes self sustaining.

Another different form of feed back was that interesting thread a while ago about a prop driven buggy going downwind faster than the wind.
If the prop was driving the wheels downwind, the faster it went the less apparent wind it had so couldn't go very fast. this is negative feedback, stabilising the speed.
If however it was geared the opposite way to try and drive the buggy up wind, 2 different scenarios become possible.
If it's geared low enough to overcome the wind pressure it will move upwind. but if the gearing is too high for the torque to overcome the push down wind, that's where it will go, reluctantly at first, becaue it really wants to go the other way. but slowly as it goes downwind, the wheels spin the prop in the other direction driving it downwind, the faster it goes, the faster it goes. This is positive feedback of a sort.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
OK more thoughts on feedback, (yes eppo more incessant gibbering).
I think most will agree the classic master of feedback was Jimi Hendricks.
the gain of his system was the amps volume control and the distance from guitar to speaker. saturation happened when maxpower of the amp was reached. So if the guitar was a long way from the speaker, no feedback. Positive feed back started when the guitar and speaker were close enough for a slight reverb to begin, a note was extended a bit longer than normal. I think this is about where we are at the moment with climate change, the gain isn't high enough to be self sustaining. As the guitar moves slowly closer to the speaker, the reverb gets more pronounced, until it is self sustaining and cannot be stopped with out reducing the gain.
This I think is the "tipping point" when positive feed back becomes self sustaining.

Another different form of feed back was that interesting thread a while ago about a prop driven buggy going downwind faster than the wind.
If the prop was driving the wheels downwind, the faster it went the less apparent wind it had so couldn't go very fast. this is negative feedback, stabilising the speed.
If however it was geared the opposite way to try and drive the buggy up wind, 2 different scenarios become possible.
If it's geared low enough to overcome the wind pressure it will move upwind. but if the gearing is too high for the torque to overcome the push down wind, that's where it will go, reluctantly at first, becaue it really wants to go the other way. but slowly as it goes downwind, the wheels spin the prop in the other direction driving it downwind, the faster it goes, the faster it goes. This is positive feedback of a sort.

Hendrix had it turned up to 11.

www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/rainfall/
Can any scientists on here come to any conclusions on drought ?
Looks highly variable to me.

Select to expand quote

Foghorn said..
www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/rainfall/
Can any scientists on here come to any conclusions on drought ?
Looks highly variable to me.

Do you think that looking at 100 pictures of rainfall gives you the information to conclude anything?