Global Warming

[TigerMasochist]

I think this is a good mirocosM of one of many issues.

Cheap energy means air conditioning means way more people living in places they couldn’t naturally live in without that technology.

Unwinding is difficult. People don’t want to relocate. People keep moving to flood plains and hot areas.

Poor people will suffer the most.

They had a separate episode on Florida and sea level rise that was also pretty interesting.

Maximum Temperature - 99% Invisible

The impacts of climate disasters are often measured in terms of property damage. But in places like Phoenix, Arizona, and in hot places all over the world, climate change is wreaking a very different kind of havoc – on living things. In the final episode of Not Built for This, we reckon with the...

99percentinvisible.org

8000 million people on the planet n rising. Once all the good spots for living are taken up the late comers get to hang out in all the raggedy not so good spots n then after that they start developing the seriously shitful terrible spots that no-one in their right mind would want to live in if they had half an idea how bad their fancy new development was just before it was developed.

 

[Willo]

1M views · 185K reactions | Tom VS the power bill ⚡️ | comedy.com.au | comedy_au · Original audio

Tom VS the power bill ⚡️. comedy_au · Original audio

www.facebook.com

 

[MB78]

Have you read the report ? I haven't but I did brave the Daily Mail article, which suggests reducing red meat intake and reducing petrol vehicles. Not sure what is impractical there.
Was there more?

https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2024-09/2024SectorPathwaysReview.pdf

Yes I have read parts of the report that interest me. By 2040 you can only buy electric vehicles. And by 2050 about 70% of our power will come from wind farms according to the report. And looking at the graphs this will be about 10 times more than 2025 levels.

These are not practical measures for many reasons.

Still days will mean lack of power.

Why Can't We Generate All Our Energy From Wind Power?

Why can't we generate all the electricity we need from the wind? Learn more about generating energy from wind power.

science.howstuffworks.com

 

[Brodders17]

https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2024-09/2024SectorPathwaysReview.pdf

Yes I have read parts of the report that interest me. By 2040 you can only buy electric vehicles. And by 2050 about 70% of our power will come from wind farms according to the report. And looking at the graphs this will be about 10 times more than 2025 levels.

These are not practical measures for many reasons.

Still days will mean lack of power.

Why Can't We Generate All Our Energy From Wind Power?

Why can't we generate all the electricity we need from the wind? Learn more about generating energy from wind power.

science.howstuffworks.com

Fair enough. I havent read it, but i think it is often good for reports like this to aim "high"- perfect world type stuff.

Ultimately government policy and consumer spending will dictate outcomes and neither of these will drive 100% electric vehicle, or overly ambitious energy supply plans.

 

[Willo]

https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2024-09/2024SectorPathwaysReview.pdf

Yes I have read parts of the report that interest me. By 2040 you can only buy electric vehicles. And by 2050 about 70% of our power will come from wind farms according to the report. And looking at the graphs this will be about 10 times more than 2025 levels.

These are not practical measures for many reasons.

Still days will mean lack of power.

Why Can't We Generate All Our Energy From Wind Power?

Why can't we generate all the electricity we need from the wind? Learn more about generating energy from wind power.

science.howstuffworks.com

Wind power is a furphy. Have a look at some the offshore and onshore wind farms and how many were at a standstill and the duration.
It’s ok when they’re generating, when the wind isn’t conducive, they’re just a big ornament.

There’s a couple of questions I’d like answered
1. if we (Australia) hit net zero in 25 years or so, what are the timelines for the big polluters? If we are going to be spending $billions or even $trillions are the big polluters compelled to act or is our money down the drain for bugger all?
2. If all countries, met net zero by 2050, how long will it take to see a major reversal of temperatures, tides, volatile climatic conditions, the ozone layer repaired (can it it be?) and all the other things that are laid at the door of climate change? Decades? Centuries? Can it actually be reversed or will it remain as it is now and not get worse?


Have there been any studies on this? And the timeline? I’m a bit cynical that there has been. What baseline would they use?

 

[tigersnake]

Wind power is a furphy. Have a look at some the offshore and onshore wind farms and how many were at a standstill and the duration.
It’s ok when they’re generating, when the wind isn’t conducive, they’re just a big ornament.

There’s a couple of questions I’d like answered
1. if we (Australia) hit net zero in 25 years or so, what are the timelines for the big polluters? If we are going to be spending $billions or even $trillions are the big polluters compelled to act or is our money down the drain for bugger all?
2. If all countries, met net zero by 2050, how long will it take to see a major reversal of temperatures, tides, volatile climatic conditions, the ozone layer repaired (can it it be?) and all the other things that are laid at the door of climate change? Decades? Centuries? Can it actually be reversed or will it remain as it is now and not get worse?


Have there been any studies on this? And the timeline? I’m a bit cynical that there has been. What baseline would they use?

Willo, a lot of this has been discussed, a lot, for years. I have a suspicion you have difficulty digesting info that supports a different view to yours. But anyway, to answer the questions you'd like answered:

1. The whole world is heading to net zero, it may take longer than expected, it might not. Some countries will take longer than others, but that is the way the world is heading. Its beyond debate. The smart money is on board early. The billions spent will generate economic growth. If you're not on board, you will be a pariah nation.
2. Seriously? For someone who does a lot of their own research, you didn't think to type "how long will net zero take to work?" into google?

I did that, this is a good summary. It will have an immediate and huge impact, but as you'd expect, will take decades to "solve" the problem, depending on your definition of solve. Key point, we need to act, and we have to start somewhere.

Explainer: Will global warming ‘stop’ as soon as net-zero emissions are reached? - Carbon Brief

Warming is likely to more or less stop once net-zero emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) is reached, meaning humans have the power to choose their climate future.

www.carbonbrief.org

 

[Willo]

Willo, a lot of this has been discussed, a lot, for years. I have a suspicion you have difficulty digesting info that supports a different view to yours. But anyway, to answer the questions you'd like answered:

Sure it’s been discussed. And as I said wind farms both onshore and offshore are a furphy that people announce they’ll power a hundred thousand homes here, half a million there etc etc.
BUT there was an article the other day that suggested how much output wind farms put out when the wind dropped. $Mega millions if not billions and the output wouldn’t have lit a 60w globe for a day. (I’ll see if I can find it and post it)

But no evidence to be had that all the big polluters are going to ever reach net zero..You’re entitled to suspect whatever you like. But I’ve yet to see proof.
And that’s the question I asked. Some countries will spend $billions and $trillions. Some will do sfa apart from some window dressing.

1. The whole world is heading to net zero, it may take longer than expected, it might not. Some countries will take longer than others, but that is the way the world is heading. Its beyond debate. The smart money is on board early. The billions spent will generate economic growth. If you're not on board, you will be a pariah nation.

The whole world isn’t, not at the same rate.Not in the same time frame. Which what I asked the question.
If countries like China, Russia and India for example continue to develop industries, built cities and infrastructure, there is not hope in hell of net zero by 2050 being achieved. None.
You say they resist becoming a pariah nation. Maybe maybe not. If it comes at the expensive of their own economies or people suffering hardship as a consequence. They’ll put their own country first. Nothing surer. Especially in totalitarian countries. Pariah nations now seem to have plenty of opportunities to buy and sell. So that’s a furphy.
Countries will always find customers, sellers or buyers.
That’s the whole point I’m making. If everyone isn’t committed 100% it’s a waste

2. Seriously? For someone who does a lot of their own research, you didn't think to type "how long will net zero take to work?" into google?

Well I’d be surprised if you read all of that article. Maybe be a glance.
I started to but it has a lot of disclaimers, what ifs, maybes or just guess work.
They can only get answers from what they input. They can do that because they don’t have all the data. A lot is guesswork modelling

I did that, this is a good summary. It will have an immediate and huge impact, but as you'd expect, will take decades to "solve" the problem, depending on your definition of solve. Key point, we need to act, and we have to start somewhere.

A good summary. It’s 10 yards of gobbledygook. Which I’m going to force myself to read seeing you were good enough to provide it. But I’m sure I know what the content will say. As above.
One section says global warming will halt immediately. Another says there will be a 20 year bump. “Results suggest” it sounds like an afl reporter “it is known” “ it is suggested” “experts say””sources confirm”.
The other day it read climate scientists taken by surprise by the 2023 record breaking heat. Then it’s something else.
So I take it with a grain of salt when even the “experts” are surprised. If they’re surprised by something happening now, how much faith can you have that their predictions will transpire in 5, 10 years let alone 25 or 30 years down the track.
Especially when you can’t factor in every country strongly supporting net zero by 2050 or 2060 or if they ever will.
So the reality is, scientists can’t establish whether or what the timeline for global warming to pause or stop.
Or if it ever will. It’s more Hope than science. It can’t be science because there are too many parameters that they can’t calculate..
That’s abundantly clear to anyone with an ounce of brain matter.

Explainer: Will global warming ‘stop’ as soon as net-zero emissions are reached? - Carbon Brief

Warming is likely to more or less stop once net-zero emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) is reached, meaning humans have the power to choose their climate future.

www.carbonbrief.org

I agree it has to start somewhere. But I believe there is no concerted plan. There are dates. But it seems there isn’t anything conclusive apart from shutdown the coal fired generators. Shut down the gas fired generators. We’ve been through all the arguments over and over.
Solar and wind won’t do it. There doesn’t seem to be a National plan, probably not even a state based plan. Surely something of this importance should take in the whole Commonwealth (in our case). It’s seems hickledepickledy.
Go rooftop solar, but then the power companies kick up about network reliability.
Onshore wind farms here there and everywhere. Solar farms the same, now offshore wind farms will save the day.
There needs a Commonwealth summit and plan the network. Safety, security, reliability, growth for population and industry.
What have we got? A dozen patchwork facecloths instead of a king sized blanket.
And it’s no point burying your head in the sand and letting these politicians design anything. Or saying we’ve “got to start somewhere”.
Or then if you raise the issue you’re a denier Me I prefer being a realist.

 

[Redford]

I don't know much about wind farms. Their effectiveness or whatever. What I do know though, is that if they are in sight, they're damn ugly to look at and a blight on the natural landscape when heaps of them are piled up together.

Can't we stick them in spoof's back paddock where nobody ever wants to go ? Or in Geelong ?

 

[Willo]

From the link above.
A temperature difference after reaching net zero could be -0.3 or +0.3 they’re not sure on that as yet.
Once net zero is reached sea levels could continue to rise for the next hundreds of years because glaciers and sheet ice are slow to react to temperature change.
Net zero will probably not be enough. Some researchers say net negative global emissions will be needed. I’m not sure what that entails if there is zero carbon dioxide, it must be aerosols, human activity and…
So the article and other researchers can’t agree on whether globa temperatures will actually stop, slow down or continue.
———————————————————-x
Excerpt
Finally, if all human emissions that affect climate change fall to zero – including GHGs and aerosols – then the IPCC results suggest there would be a short-term 20-year bump in warming followed by a longer-term decline. This reflects the opposing impacts of warming as aerosols drop out of the atmosphere versus cooling from falling methane levels.

Ultimately, the cooling from stopping non-CO2 GHG emissions more than cancels out the warming from stopping aerosol emissions, leading to around 0.2C of cooling by 2100.

These are, of course, simply best estimates. As discussed earlier, even under zero-CO2 alone, models project anywhere from 0.3C of cooling to 0.3C of warming (though this is in a world where emissions reach zero after around 2C warming; immediate zero emissions in today’s 1.3C warming world would likely have a slightly smaller uncertainly range). The large uncertainties in aerosol effects means that cutting all GHGs and aerosols to zero could result in anywhere between 0.25C additional cooling or warming.

Combining all of these uncertainties suggests that the best estimate of the effects of zero CO2 is around 0C +/- 0.3C for the century after emissions go to zero, while the effects of zero GHGs and aerosols would be around -0.2C +/- 0.5C.

There is also a potential for natural variability to play a role in future warming, even under a zero emissions future. A recent paper by Prof Chen Zhou and colleagues suggested that natural cycles in the eastern Pacific have masked some of the warming that would otherwise have occurred from historical emissions.

Zhou and colleagues suggest between 0.2-0.5C of additional warming could occur, even in a zero emissions world, once historical patterns of cold temperatures in this part of the ocean reverse – though only a portion of this warming would likely occur by 2100.

Some other researchers have been sceptical of these conclusions, suggesting that it is unclear if or when these historical patterns in the Pacific ocean might shift.

So, really the answer,is that researchers don’t really know. Too many variables at play.

 

[Willo]

The answer is blowin' in the wind – offshore, but still no windfarms in Australia, not one

Offshore wind farms are yet another contentious issue relating to energy generation, environment conservation and climate change in Australia. But this source of renewable is surrounded as much by mythology as fact. This column sets out what you need to know about offshore wind from an...

thefifthestate.com.au

One of Australia’s biggest and worst performing wind farms back on line after near two month outage

What was once Australia’s biggest wind farm is back on line after a transformer was repaired, but its overall performance has been poor.

reneweconomy.com.au

Australia has six years to clean up its power grid. But in one state, it's taking nearly 10 years to approve a wind farm

New South Wales is regarded as "the most difficult state" for clean energy developers, according to fresh analysis which found the state is taking roughly 3,488 days to rubber stamp a wind farm.

www.abc.net.au

In extreme conditions such as storms, strong wind gusts or tornados, wind turbines need to shut down for safety reasons. Under such conditions, the wind turbine is positioned in standstill by pitching the blades, and the rotor rotation is slow or stopped.


It was a dark and stormy night. And we didn’t have a *smile* light. Get your candles out.

 

[RoarEmotion]

I don’t see how we (humanity) wean ourselves off cheap reliable energy.

It’s how we dominate the whole world.

It’s going to be a *smile* show to give it up / won’t happen.

 

[tigersnake]

Sure it’s been discussed. And as I said wind farms both onshore and offshore are a furphy that people announce they’ll power a hundred thousand homes here, half a million there etc etc.
BUT there was an article the other day that suggested how much output wind farms put out when the wind dropped. $Mega millions if not billions and the output wouldn’t have lit a 60w globe for a day. (I’ll see if I can find it and post it)

But no evidence to be had that all the big polluters are going to ever reach net zero..You’re entitled to suspect whatever you like. But I’ve yet to see proof.
And that’s the question I asked. Some countries will spend $billions and $trillions. Some will do sfa apart from some window dressing.

The whole world isn’t, not at the same rate.Not in the same time frame. Which what I asked the question.
If countries like China, Russia and India for example continue to develop industries, built cities and infrastructure, there is not hope in hell of net zero by 2050 being achieved. None.
You say they resist becoming a pariah nation. Maybe maybe not. If it comes at the expensive of their own economies or people suffering hardship as a consequence. They’ll put their own country first. Nothing surer. Especially in totalitarian countries. Pariah nations now seem to have plenty of opportunities to buy and sell. So that’s a furphy.
Countries will always find customers, sellers or buyers.
That’s the whole point I’m making. If everyone isn’t committed 100% it’s a waste


Well I’d be surprised if you read all of that article. Maybe be a glance.
I started to but it has a lot of disclaimers, what ifs, maybes or just guess work.
They can only get answers from what they input. They can do that because they don’t have all the data. A lot is guesswork modelling

A good summary. It’s 10 yards of gobbledygook. Which I’m going to force myself to read seeing you were good enough to provide it. But I’m sure I know what the content will say. As above.
One section says global warming will halt immediately. Another says there will be a 20 year bump. “Results suggest” it sounds like an afl reporter “it is known” “ it is suggested” “experts say””sources confirm”.
The other day it read climate scientists taken by surprise by the 2023 record breaking heat. Then it’s something else.
So I take it with a grain of salt when even the “experts” are surprised. If they’re surprised by something happening now, how much faith can you have that their predictions will transpire in 5, 10 years let alone 25 or 30 years down the track.
Especially when you can’t factor in every country strongly supporting net zero by 2050 or 2060 or if they ever will.
So the reality is, scientists can’t establish whether or what the timeline for global warming to pause or stop.
Or if it ever will. It’s more Hope than science. It can’t be science because there are too many parameters that they can’t calculate..
That’s abundantly clear to anyone with an ounce of brain matter.



I agree it has to start somewhere. But I believe there is no concerted plan. There are dates. But it seems there isn’t anything conclusive apart from shutdown the coal fired generators. Shut down the gas fired generators. We’ve been through all the arguments over and over.
Solar and wind won’t do it. There doesn’t seem to be a National plan, probably not even a state based plan. Surely something of this importance should take in the whole Commonwealth (in our case). It’s seems hickledepickledy.
Go rooftop solar, but then the power companies kick up about network reliability.
Onshore wind farms here there and everywhere. Solar farms the same, now offshore wind farms will save the day.
There needs a Commonwealth summit and plan the network. Safety, security, reliability, growth for population and industry.
What have we got? A dozen patchwork facecloths instead of a king sized blanket.
And it’s no point burying your head in the sand and letting these politicians design anything. Or saying we’ve “got to start somewhere”.
Or then if you raise the issue you’re a denier Me I prefer being a realist.

Debating you is pointless. I say the road will be bumpy, but we have to go down the road. You say the road is bumpy, so why would anyone bother?

Anything that challenges your view is a furphy apparently. Why bother debating?

 

[tigersnake]

I don’t see how we (humanity) wean ourselves off cheap reliable energy.

It’s how we dominate the whole world.

It’s going to be a *smile* show to give it up / won’t happen.

I don't disagree. But I think it can be more doable than you do, for various reasons already discussed, but yeah, it could well be that it's not possible due to the baser instincts of humanity.

To put it another way, yes if our system doesn't change, yes it will be a shitshow. But if it changes, it doesn't have to be a shitshow.

 

[RoarEmotion]

I don't disagree. But I think it can be more doable than you do, for various reasons already discussed, but yeah, it could well be that it's not possible due to the baser instincts of humanity.

To put it another way, yes if our system doesn't change, yes it will be a shitshow. But if it changes, it doesn't have to be a shitshow.

Halve global population and use one third the energy per person as a start. Sounds like a *smile* show to me. Unconstrained growth just eventually fails.

 

[DavidSSS]

I don't know much about wind farms. Their effectiveness or whatever. What I do know though, is that if they are in sight, they're damn ugly to look at and a blight on the natural landscape when heaps of them are piled up together.

Can't we stick them in spoof's back paddock where nobody ever wants to go ? Or in Geelong ?

Yep, those wind farms, real ugly:

The reality is that industrialisation happened on the back of energy. The energy we have been using has been fossil fuels. We can no longer keep using fossil fuels.

Either we work out how to make renewables work or the economy looks nothing like the energy-dependent economy we currently have.

DS

 

[Willo]

Debating you is pointless. I say the road will be bumpy, but we have to go down the road. You say the road is bumpy, so why would anyone bother?

I didn’t realise there was a debate.
Where did I say that?
I asked some questions. You referenced an article with a headline. But then even those researchers couldn’t agree with each other and had a difference of opinion.

Anything that challenges your view is a furphy apparently. Why bother debating?

Is it the linked article you’re referring to?
If so, it’s obvious you didn’t read the whole article. Probably only the headline. Otherwise you would have read the same as me.

Debating is having a difference of opinion and putting forward your pov.
Debating isn’t agreeing with your opinion only.

 

[Willo]

Yep, those wind farms, real ugly:

The reality is that industrialisation happened on the back of energy. The energy we have been using has been fossil fuels. We can no longer keep using fossil fuels.

Either we work out how to make renewables work or the economy looks nothing like the energy-dependent economy we currently have.

DS

Hey David. I bet you’re still using fossil fuels now. Like the rest of the millions who tell us how bad it all is, but can’t live without allthe benefits it brings

 

[Redford]

Yep, those wind farms, real ugly:

The reality is that industrialisation happened on the back of energy. The energy we have been using has been fossil fuels. We can no longer keep using fossil fuels.

Either we work out how to make renewables work or the economy looks nothing like the energy-dependent economy we currently have.

DS

Agree. Very ugly.

 

[DavidSSS]

Hey David. I bet you’re still using fossil fuels now. Like the rest of the millions who tell us how bad it all is, but can’t live without allthe benefits it brings

Like we have control over this.

I do what I can, but everyone knows this needs a whole of society response, the attempts to shove the blame on to individuals is a distraction. A good distraction in that it sucks a lot of people in, but it is not the main game.

DS

 

[RoarEmotion]

Like we have control over this.

I do what I can, but everyone knows this needs a whole of society response, the attempts to shove the blame on to individuals is a distraction. A good distraction in that it sucks a lot of people in, but it is not the main game.

DS

It is and it isn’t.

Everyone’s actions add up to what we have. The way we all live our lives = the outcome.

But yes just one person changing is irrelevant.

I’m pretty sure I can’t but I’d imagine most people really understand the full implications of much more expensive energy.

Absolutely everything we take for granted could well become unaffordable for most in a net zero society.

Many of those things don’t really matter though.