Posts by Farmer Green
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Lilith __,
You haven’t been keeping up at all. FG has made no such statement. Climate is always changing. Farmers have always adapted. You can too.
What changes have you made since 1999? -
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Sacha,
Yes clearly there is no choice but to adapt. There will be no global treaty on emissions ; the carbon markets are a failure; and China is going to burn all the coal it can get. End of story; the science is now irrelevant. Whether or not it is desirable or necessary, or futile, there will be no attempt to influence climate
FG would quite enjoy another summer like the past one, but the odds are against it happening very often in the present climate . Two or three wet cool ( say rain every week) summers to build up feed reserves again would be ideal. Then a repeat of last summer. Nice.
Who found the past summer unbearable? -
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Sacha,
Well power demand is not going to shrink is it? If demand grows over the 75 years to the point where the 15% of our current use( by Comalco) is absorbed by the increased demand then no new generation is needed. We don’t have to use it in the meantime. The water has other uses. Like keeping our rivers full.
-
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Sacha,
If it means that we never dam another river , would that outcome be not good enough?
-
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Many have observed that NZ has one of the best renewable profiles in the world.
Our geo-thermal resources are still not fully developed. Our hydro is about where we want it. Wind is struggling with the present technology (high maintenance and failure rate).
The only questions are over the prices we pay. Reasonable? Not sure about that. -
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to George Darroch,
Let’s not. We all agree that it happens. The argument seems to be whether we should try to stop it , or simply adapt to it.
It seems very obvious with the number of new coal-fired generators being built in China that atmospheric CO 2 levels are going steadily upwards , but at a slower rate than emissions from fossil fuel combustion, tempered largely by absorption (perhaps temporary) by the biosphere. Hansen’s recent paper deals with this last development.
The train is not stopping. What to do? -
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to David Hood,
The quote from the IPCC is in quotation marks and is taken directly from the IPCC publication listed.
The IPCC report says:
“Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain”
This to answer your query as to whence came " the science which says that natural variability is far in excess of any anthropogenic climate signal? "
Perhaps you have an “interpretation”. Perhaps what the IPCC said was not science. Or perhaps they were simply wrong (if that is possible, in your view).
-
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Clearly hydro generation will be mostly concentrated , but there is no compelling reason why wind generation should not be distributed. Some energy storage would also be better distributed to household level either by advanced batteries or electric vehicles etc. i.e. the smart grid .
With new house construction, a sum of $50,000 for total energy independence with export of surplus does not seem excessive , provided the gear has a reasonable life and low maintenance. -
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to David Hood,
That point was made quite clearly.
Attributed to the IPCC here:
Press Release
London: For many decades to come, and probably longer, mankind’s influence on the frequency of extreme weather events will be insignificant.
According to a preliminary report released by the IPCC, there will be no detectable influence of mankind’s influence on the Earth’s weather systems for at least thirty years, and possibly not until the end of this century.
The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, is in stark contrast to other statements made by the IPCC. It shows that mankind’s influence on the weather is far smaller than natural factors.
If and when mankind’s influence becomes apparent it may be just as likely to reduce the number of extreme weather events as increase them.Surveying the state of scientific knowledge IPCC scientists say they cannot determine if mankind’s influence will result in more, or fewer, extreme weather events over the next thirty years or more.
The IPCC report says:
“Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain”
-
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Russell Brown,
that grossly misrepresents the science it’s purporting to report.
Do you mean the science which says that natural variability is far in excess of any anthropogenic climate signal? That point was made quite clearly.