1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

So the people with the least resources to protect themselves would be sacrificed for a dubious and massively costly solution.

 

Not necessarily. You've heard of foreign aid, presumably. There are low lying areas where dams are not practical. Dykes then have to be constructed, as in Holland.

Let me remind you that the threat of flooding in low lying areas of the world doesn't only come from rivers. By your own admission rainfall will increase thanks to global warming. Massive downpours and the ensuing floods in low lying areas such as recently inundated Houston, won't be stopped by dams.

There's an issue of 'flash flooding' which usually occurs with heavy rain because the suburban environment has not been molded or shaped with appropriate drainage to ensure proper run-off. A combination of dams further up the river and proper contouring of the suburban landscape should prevent the flooding in most cases.

And as the current situation in the USA shows, even a massive dam system such as there is in the midwest, won't protect against flooding when precipitation levels are just too high for the system to cope with. In fact, while the disasters my be less frequent, the dams actually make them worse when the floodgates have to be opened.

Exactly! This is a result of inadequate planning. In order to save money we tend to build what we imagine should be adequate in most situations, and ignore the inevitability of the more rare and more extreme events.

For example, it often happens that flood mitigation dams are combined with normal water storage. During droughts, the dams become very low and restrictions on water use are applied. When the rainy period inevitably follows, sooner or later as it usually does, the dam operators are reluctant to release water because weather forecasts are usually unreliable and it is not known with any certainty if the rain will be sufficient to fill the dam. So, rather than release water from a half-empty dam to reduce the potential risk of flooding, the dam operators tend to allow the dam to fill. When the rains continue, the dam can no longer be used as a 'flood mitigation dam'. The water has to be released into an area which is already soaked, and is perhaps already experiencing flash flooding. Disaster is then inevitable.

The solution is to build more dams so that we can use some of the dams solely for the purpose of flood mitigation, and continually pump the water out, to desert areas if possible.

What I really don't understand though, is since you believe that the recent climate changes are just a matter of oscillation, why not just wait for the pendulum to swing back the other way instead of proposing huge expenditues on what should be a very temporary phenomenon. By your lights and what you've posited earlier, the odds are overwhelming that this is the case.

Periods of warming and cooling, flooding and droughts, often oscillate over short periods of a decade or two in particular regions, but globally can change gradually over several centuries. The Roman warm period ran from 250 BC to AD 400. The Medieval Warm Period ran from 950 AD to 1250 AD, followed the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850 AD. Those dates are very approximate and would have varied in different parts of the world at different rates and different periods of 'ups and downs'. 

It's impossible to predict how long the current average warming will last, but there seems to be an alternating pattern of roughly 300 to 500 years. We're only about 170 years into the current warming which has followed the Little Ice Age. Floods and droughts have occurred in the past, regardless of whether it was a warm or cold period. 

I'm not an advocate of doing nothing. There's no doubt that the destruction of property and the loss of life due to extreme weather events has increased during the last century, but that's not necessarily because the extreme weather events have got more extreme or become more frequent, but because there are more houses and more people who are vulnerable to the extreme weather events, because of the population explosion.

We have failed to learn from history in protecting ourselves from these normal and natural extreme weather events. Instead we'd prefer to kid ourselves that reducing CO2 emissions will solve the problem.
 

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But thanks anyway for bringing up the subject of mangroves:

 

Mangroves help protect against sea level rise

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150723083855.htm

 

Mangroves for Coastal Protection : Evidence from Hurricanes in Central America (English)

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/700941553603777645/Mangroves-for-Coastal-Protection-Evidence-from-Hurricanes-in-Central-America

Tsunami mitigation by mangroves and coastal forests

http://www.fao.org/forestry/tsunami/27285@69434/en/

That might be true, but mangroves don't exist along all coast lines and in all cities close to the beach. My solution reduces sea level rise everywhere. Protection from hurricanes is another issue which requires the construction of more robust dwellings designed to resist the forces of hurricanes.

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Who mentioned mangroves? Not me. I specifically cited cropland. Try to get this through your head: rising sea levels are a major threat to food security. 

Crikey! Rising sea levels are a major threat to everyone who lives or works in low-lying areas close to the sea. Isn't that bleeding obvious? 

I've provided in my previous post a solution to the problem. I mentioned mangroves as just an example of one of the negative consequences of building more dams to reduce river flow to the sea, which is often cited by environmentalists as a reason, among other reasons, to block the proposal for a new dam.

11 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It sure is a good thing that coastal and low lying areas won't be subject to increased flooding thanks to increased precipitation because...well I can't think of a reason why that would be the case. Can you?

"More than 600 million people (around 10 per cent of the world’s population) live in coastal areas that are less than 10 meters above sea level.  Nearly 2.4 billion people (about 40 per cent of the world’s population) live within 100 km (60 miles) of the coast."

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Ocean-fact-sheet-package.pdf

And as for dams, they are themselves an environmental disaster:

 

You seem to have a very negative, one-sided view of this issue. Dams are not only necessary to provide a continuous water supply which is essential for our survival in this modern era with large populations inhabiting cities and suburbs, but are also necessary to reduce the disastrous consequences of periodic flooding and droughts which have occurred throughout history and will continue to occur regardless human contributions to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

However, whenever the environment changes, for whatever reason, such as changes in the flow of a river and the flow of sediments in the river, there will always be consequences. Change is unavoidable. That's a fundamental, universal truth that 'climate alarmists' seem to deny. Climate is always changing, weather patterns are always changing, volcanoes and earthquakes change the landscape and the flow of rivers. Some species become extinct due to the changing environment whilst other species flourish, and so on, and so on, for ever more.

What I find really absurd is that a proposal to build a dam to provide more water for agriculture and to mitigate the consequences of the next flood, is sometimes knocked on the head because of claims that a rare species of fish might become extinct and/or the wetlands near the ocean shore might become less fertile.

Please raise your hands, all those who are prepared to sacrifice their home and possibly some loved ones, during the next flood, in order to avoid the possible extinction of a rare species of fish. ????

If you are making the argument that all changes to the environment should be natural and not caused by the Homo Sapiens species, because we are an unnatural species, then the only solution is to return to a 'hunter/gatherer' type of lifestyle. 

My proposal is that we should try to be aware of both the negative and positive consequences of our development projects. If it is clear that the negative consequences outweigh the positive consequences and that such negative consequences cannot be addressed, or mitigated, or compensated for, in any way, then it is only sensible that such projects should be abandoned.

For example, if you want to stop sea levels rising in a warming climate, then a proposal to reduce the amount water flowing back to the oceans would clearly work. However, there will inevitably be some negative consequences, such as less fertile mangrove swamps near the sea shores. Can these negative consequences be compensated for? In Australia they certainly can. We have huge areas of arid and dry areas, including complete deserts. We could make those arid regions fertile and productive by using the excess water which otherwise would cause sea levels to rise, for irrigation purposes.

Climate change alarmists so often raise alarm about both rising sea levels and increasing desertification due to mankind's emissions of CO2. Both of these problems can be solved simultaneously. If you think rising CO2 levels is also a problem in itself, then all three problems can be solved simultaneously. As the deserts are irrigated with the water that would otherwise cause sea levels to rise, more CO2 is absorbed by the plant growth and is sequestered in the soil.

Towing icebergs to the shores of arid lands, and building desalination plants, will also help reduce sea level rise, but all this costs money or energy. We all make choices on how we spend our money or energy resources and must bear the consequences of foolish decisions.

I have no objection to governments spending money on research into alternative, renewable and additional sources of energy. Supplies of energy are vital for the prosperity of mankind. The more the better. Solar power is a fantastic source of energy. We should definitely exploit it to the full.

The inland lakes that we create to stop the water flowing back to the oceans could be covered with solar panels. The panels will also significantly reduce the evaporation. The great advantage of solar panels is that they don't necessarily have to take up land that could be used for other purposes. They can be situated in deserts where the sun shines usually all day long, and on roofs of buildings which are effectively free spaces.

What I object to is foolishly depriving ourselves of reliable energy from fossil fuel, which is reliable 24 hours a day, on the grounds of an unfounded scare about CO2 emissions.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sea ice is frozen sea water, so whether it is frozen or thawed, it is exactly the same amount of water.

 

Provided the sea ice doesn't have any snow on top, which it usually has. The snow can also compact and increase the thickness of the ice.

22 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Please note that sea ice makes no difference to ocean levels at all, whether frozen or melted.

Good point, which perhaps needs clarifying. I think you mean, when an iceberg breaks away and gradually melts as it drifts towards warmer water, it will not contribute to any sea level rise because 90% of the iceberg is already under the surface of the sea. There is basically just a change from a solid to a liquid.

However, the warming of the oceans which causes the icebergs to break away and melt, will also tend to cause the water in the oceans to expand (thermal expansion), contributing towards a rise in ocean levels. Likewise, a cooling of the oceans, which causes more icebergs to form, will cause the ocean water to contract or shrink in volume, which will contribute to a fall in sea levels.

Melting glaciers on land will also contribute to sea level rise by adding more water to the oceans. However, in a warmer climate, more evaporation will take place, more clouds will form, and more rain will fall, so at least a part of that increase in water volume will be shifted to the atmosphere and land through precipitation.

This provides a clue to the solution of the problem of rising sea levels, which can be expected to occur in a warming climate. Build more dams or inland lakes in order to reduce the amount of rain flowing back into the sea, and tow icebergs to the coast and pump the melting ice to the land.

The water from additional precipitation and the breaking away of icebergs, resulting from global warming, can be absorbed into the soil and underground water tables, and/or can be used for increased agriculture and reforestation. The increase in water supply, plus the increased warmth, plus the fertilization effect of increased CO2 levels, should be a great boon for the whole of mankind. ????

Sadly, with increased energy costs and the limited energy supply due to the expensive shift towards renewables, it could be too expensive to build lots of dams and long water pipes, and tow icebergs to the nearest continent, so I guess we're stuffed. ☹️

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Just more bloviating on your part.

 

Where did you publish the results of your research? The Journal of “Because I Said so”? You could mention it 100 times and it would still be a falsehood.  Yours is more of the usual nonsense we get from denialists.. At this point there is simply overwhelming evidence that global temperatures are on average increasing. The distinguished physicist and former climate change skeptic, Richard Mueller, was funded by denialists to set up a dream team of scientists to disprove global warming. .Using billions of data points. they sliced up the data statistically in every meaningful way possible to accommodate denialist objections, It ended up massively disproving their claims. The globe was warming at just as climatologists had been saying all along.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

 

 

What is just as damning to your allegation is the question of record breaking temperatures.  if in fact it was the case that the average of all temperature changes globally was zero then we would expect that records around the globe would be set equally for high and low temperatures,. In the first decade of the 20^th century heat records set outpaced cold records by a ratio of 2 to 1.

http://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-record-low-temps

 

 

And the ratio is getting higher. Massively higher.

 “What if you compile the past 8 years, from 2011 to 2018 worth of temperature records: 2,529 hottest versus 226 coldest temperatures on record. “https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/01/31/so-far-2019-has-set-33-hottest-and-0-coldest-temperature-records/#1a3d5800505e

Just to clear, that’s a ratio of 11-1!

Whatever I say or write about climate change is a result of my interpretation of other scientists' interpretation of the published evidence and data in the research carried out in the 30 or so different disciplines related to climatology.

I never expect anyone to believe what I say just because I say it, but because what I say makes sense and is supported by at least some research. If it doesn't make sense to you, I'll try to explain it in more detail. If you think what I say is not in accordance with the evidence, then by all means show me the flaws in the evidence.

For example, I write: "There is no uniform global warming.  It's a theoretical, mathematical average of temperatures." You seem to interpret this as meaning that I'm stating there is no 'average' global warming. You seem to have failed to distinguish between 'uniform global warming' and 'mathematically constructed average global warming'. Uniform global warming means that every region on the planet, over a given number of years, is warming simultaneously, and that no region is cooling. This is obviously not true.

Some regions of the planet might be warming to a greater degree than other parts are cooling. More glaciers might be melting (or retreating), than advancing, and in some regions most of the glaciers might be stable, neither advancing nor retreating.

Whilst the Arctic might be losing ice over a given period, the Antarctic might be gaining ice during that same period. However, if the Arctic is losing a greater amount of ice than the Antarctic is gaining, then that is a factor in the mathematically constructed average global temperature which will tend to show a gradual, average, global warming.

I have no concerns about the current rate of warming, nor do I deny it is occurring. My knowledge of history suggests to me that warm periods are more beneficial for mankind than cold periods. Chinese dynasties, the Vikings in Greenland, and the Romans in Europe, all thrived during warm periods, and the Chinese are flourishing again during the current warm period. ????

Attached are a few links for you to read, which support the point I'm making.
 

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-zealand-unusual-glaciers.html

"At least 58 New Zealand glaciers advanced between 1983 and 2008, with Franz Josef Glacier (Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere) advancing nearly continuously during this time."
 

https://www.thegwpf.com/himalayan-glaciers-have-been-melting-for-400-years-scientists-discover/

" ISRO in collaboration with MoEF conducted a study on a part of glaciated Himalayas.
• It was found that 87% of the glaciers have stable fronts.
• In fact, 18 of the glaciers are advancing.
• But alarming news is that 248 of the 2,018 glaciers are retreating or melting."
 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

"A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers."
 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/wintertime-arctic-sea-ice-growth-slows-long-term-decline-nasa
"But at the same time that sea ice is vanishing quicker than it has ever been observed in the satellite record, it is also thickening at a faster rate during winter. This increase in growth rate might last for decades, a new study accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters found."

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

No CO2 means no life. Abundant CO2 equates to abundant life.

 

I think I should clarify this statement from my previous post, in case some of you get confused. ????

By 'abundant' I mean abundant within the context of Carbon Dioxide's role as a trace gas which is essential for photosynthesis to take place and plants to grow. Obviously too much of anything can be bad. A good analogy would be Vitamin C. A small quantity, such as 35 mg per day, is recommended to avoid health problems such as scurvy, but taking 10 times that amount every day, or even more than 350 mg per day, can be beneficial in other ways, according to many medical authorities and scientific research.

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

No mention of global warming or the lowering of the PH of the ocean.

I've mentioned it before, probably several times. There is no uniform global warming. It's a theoretical, mathematical average of temperatures. During any relatively short period of a few decades, some parts of the globe will get colder, whilst some parts will get warmer, and other parts will retain approximately the same average temperature, taking into consideration the normal variation in weather patterns.

All natural life adapts to such changes, moving to cooler regions when the temperature becomes too hot, or moving to hotter regions when the temperature becomes too cold, or moving to wetter regions when the climate becomes too dry. This is why humans migrated out of Africa tens of thousands of years ago, in search of greener pastures.

The problem with modern humans is they have a fixation on permanency. They build homes and cities which are stuck in one place. They tend to ignore the history of extreme weather events that have occurred in a particular region in the past, and mindlessly build their homes in flood plains and areas subject to hurricanes.

When the next extreme weather event occurs, the media almost automatically describes it as the worst event ever and even blames it on rising CO2 levels. Of course, sometimes it might be true that a particular event is the worst in living memory, which is just a few decades. However, those who are inquisitive and search the BOM records, or written narratives on previous disasters, will usually discover there was a worse flood, drought, hurricane or heat-wave, 50 or 100 or 150 or 200 years ago.

A similar situation applies to the pH of the oceans. There's an average pH of the ocean surfaces which is used. This average is estimated to have fallen from a pH of 8.2 to 8.1 during the past 150 years or so. A pH of 7 is neutral, and below 7 is acidic.

However, what is not mentioned by the alarmists, in case it causes people to think for themselves, is that the natural variation of the pH of the oceans is constantly changing according to the seasons of the year, the depth of the ocean, and the location of the ocean on the planet, and that this natural variation is far greater than the mathematical average of a change in surface pH from 8.2 to 8.1 during the past 150 years, just as the changes in temperature in any particular location, from day to night and from season to season, is far greater than the mathematically constructed average increase in global temperature of just 0.8 to 1 degree C  during the past 150 years.

Most sea creatures, unlike modern humans, are free to swim to whatever parts of the ocean suits them best. There are exceptions of course, such as reefs. They're stuck in one place, just like most of us humans. That's why we identify so much with the plight of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. Oh you poor darlings! You are stuck in one place just like we are in our cities. We feel for you, but don't worry, we've got a plan. We're going to reduce CO2 levels so everything will remain the same. No changes in climate; no changes in ocean pH; no extreme weather events; everything will be benign, and we will bring hordes of tourists to see you. ????

And even as far as plant life goes, why is more "beneficial?" The environment isn't a farm. And there is the little matter of increased stress on crop yields due to increasing heat. And not just on crops. Your assertions about deforestation are simply untrue. Forest In the western United States forests are being wiped out due to warming and other climate changes. And not just there.

The environment isn't a farm? Wow! You really do seem to be divorced from the natural environment. All living animals are absolutely dependent upon plant growth. Even predators such as lions and tigers are dependent on plant growth which feeds the animals they attack and kill for food. Biodiversity in general is dependent on plant growth. Whether plants are grown using modern farming practices or just naturally without human intervention, the fertilization effect of CO2 still applies. No CO2 means no life. Abundant CO2 equates to abundant life.

As for deforestation, it is estimated the planet now has half the area covered in forests that it had around 10,000 years ago, due to human intervention for farming and the use of timber.

Burning of forests is a natural cycle that's been occurring for millions of years. Forests always regenerate afterwards. Check out the following site: http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/rising-ashes-forest-fires-give-way-new-growth

"In fact, fire is a natural part of the forest’s regeneration system. Most forest trees need to be exposed to fire every 50 to 100 years to invigorate new growth. As we found out in Yellowstone National Park nearly 20 years ago, suppressing forest fires too long can actually be detrimental to forests. Extreme efforts to prevent forest fires there led to a huge consumption of trees when fire finally broke out."

Hope you children have learned something new. ????
 

4 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

And even a multi-vitamin is only necessary because of how nutritionally bankrupt foods have become that are produced by the food industry these days!  The diet of the average person these days is just atrocious!

At least I agree with this. ????

The reason why vitamin supplements are beneficial is because modern agricultural techniques mine the soil of a lot of minerals and micro-nutrients essential to human health. Farmers tend to fertilize the soil with just a few growth-enhancing chemicals such as phosphorus and Nitrogen, apply pesticides and weed killers which also kill micro-organisms in the soil, which would otherwise help the plants' roots take up micro-nutrients, and remove, or burn, the biomass waste after harvesting the crop so the soil gradually becomes depleted of carbon and micro-nutrients.

There's quite a bit of scientific research which shows that the food grown during the times of our grandfathers contained significantly higher quantities of vitamins and nutrients than modern food products. An orange grown a hundred years ago would probably have contained several times the quantity of Vitamin C as an orange harvested in modern times.

The problem is, most of us don't know specifically what nutrients our bodies are deficient in, and the general dietary recommendations of a serving or two of this food or that, every day, will supply a sufficient quantity of a specific vitamin or mineral, is very broad and imprecise.

For example, Brazil nuts are claimed to be good sources of Selenium. Some authorities claim that one Brazil nut per day is sufficient to meet the body's requirement for Selenium. Other authorities claim maybe 2 or 3 nuts. I did an internet search on the subject, and came across a serious scientific study which had tested in the laboratory the Selenium content of Brazil nuts grown in many different locations on the planet.
What they found was very revealing, but quite understandable. The Selenium content, per mass of Brazil nut, varied by a factor of 10. In other words, a deficiency of Selenium in the soil does not prevent the Brazil nut tree from growing, but it does result in the seed containing much less Selenium than other trees grown in a soil which is rich in Selenium.

This problem applies to all food crops to some degree, with regard to all vitamins and micro-nutrients. I take vitamin supplements on the basis that an excess in one particular vitamin is not nearly as bad as a deficiency in another particular vitamin or nutrient which is vital for good health.
 

1 hour ago, partington said:

Here is the author of this article in case you believe it has any scientific value:  in one case for example this (probably imaginary) author states that autophagy increases effectiveness of chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. She (?) then references a study that simply refers to cells in a dish and not any treatment of human beings, and fails to spot that the reference says that INHIBITION (that is prevention of) of autophagy makes these cells more susceptible to killing by chemotherapeutic drugs, ie she gets the study backwards!

Well, you'd better inform the author of her mistake. We all make mistakes or misunderstand something now and again. ????

When I did a search for scientific studies that had specifically addressed the detoxification effect of fasting, I couldn't find any, or at least I couldn't find any that included the word 'detoxification' in the title, but I came across Melinda's article which I thought summarized the over all benefits of fasting quite well, so that's why I quoted it.

From my own general understanding of fasting, I would be surprised if there is any reliable scientific evidence which shows that fasting does not contribute towards, or enhance the body's natural processes of detoxification.

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

With all respect I disagree.  Many people assign all sorts of lofty benefits to fasting that just don’t exist.  

Some will say fasting rids the body of environmental toxins.  Not true.  

I have no objection to your disagreeing. That's fine. However, for me, the issue is the quality of the evidence in support of your disagreement. I'm surprised you claim that fasting has no benefits for detoxification. Are you of this view because there are no scientific studies that have been carried out on this specific issue, or because there are specific scientific studies that debunk the claim?

The following general article includes detoxification as one of the benefits of fasting, with lots of references to scientific studies at the end. But I couldn't see any article which specifically addressed the detoxification issue in its title, and I haven't had time to wade through the articles, which might have a paywall.
https://www.libifit.com/autophagy-and-intermittent-fasting/

To quote:

"Are you struggling to detoxify your body naturally? Is a detox diet or a juice cleanse not working out for you? No need to worry. There is a proven process to help cleanse and detox your body. It involves autophagy and intermittent fasting and it helps to rid your body of harmful toxins, ignite weight loss, and renew your body."

Some people think of water fasting as a way to burn off excess fat.  Very few people succeed with that.

That water fasting is a way to burn off fat is surely indisputable. Nothing could be more certain. I've never come across any example of anyone not losing weight, or burning off excess fat after fasting. The longer you fast, the more weight or fat you lose. There's a documented case of an extremely obese person fasting for more than a whole year in order to get back to a normal weight, but under medical supervision of course, being prescribed vitamin supplements, or injections, now and again.

It's impossible not to lose weight if you fast. There are no failures. But there are people who fail to fast. There's the distinction.
 

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. The Chinese actually are very inefficient at investment and are massively subsidizing their coal industry. Anyone who knows anything about how the Chinese economy works knows that the government lavishes huge subsidies on state run businesses and their suppliers.

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/9458-China-coal-subsidies-undermining-renewables-investment

Really! What a strange comment. China has achieved, by far, the most rapid economic growth in recent decades, which is greater than any other country in the history of civilization, yet you think they are very inefficient at investment. I'm sorry. I just can't believe that. I would say that is real nonsense.

To quote from your linked article:
"A look at the numbers in China’s new plan for energy, passed on November 17, shows that its leaders will continue to prioritise both low and high carbon energy sources. Within five years the government wants roughly equal growth in coal capacity and non-fossil sources of energy."

This is why China is destined to become the world superpower. It's political system enables it to make rational decisions that are not blocked by groups of dissenting irrationalists, as happens in Australia.
China is prepared to consider the economic benefits and advantages of all sources of power, in the interests of economic development and raising people out of poverty.

It does subsidize coal power, but mainly to reduce harmful emissions, which again is very sensible. To quote again from your article:
 

"In practice, the state has promised to pay for less polluting coal-fired power while also helping renewables overcome price disadvantages.
Currently there are state subsidies for equipment to remove sulphur, nitrogen oxides and dust from coal-fired power plant emissions, worth 0.027 yuan [US$0.004] per kilowatt hour."

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

And as you fail to note, increased heat has a very deleterious effect on cereal  crops.

"Each degree Celsius increase in global mean temperature is estimated to reduce average global yields of wheat by six percent," said the report.

Rice yields would be cut by 3.2 percent, and maize by 7.4 percent for each degree of Celsius warming (almost two degrees Fahrenheit), it added.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-climate-crop-yields.html#jCp

That report doesn't mention that there are so many areas where wheat is grown at temperatures which are lower than ideal, and therefore a rise in average temperature of each degree Celsius in those areas will increase the yield, up to the point of an ideal temperature.

This highlights the main problem with climate change alarmism. Instead of looking for ways to adapt to a changing climate (and climate is always changing regardless of human CO2 emissions), so many people want things to remain the same, and in their ignorance, think that things should remain the same, and must be made to remain the same. 

Adaption is the key. Thinking we can keep the climate benign and stop it from changing, by simply reducing CO2 emissions, is crazy hubris.

Learn from the Buddha, for God's sake. Everything is impermanent and subject to change.

Imagine a farmer who lives on the same property his great, great grandfather used to farm at the end the Little Ice Age, say around 1850. Conditions were colder then. You can argue that they were not colder on a global scale, if you're a Michael Mann fan, but they were definitely colder in some parts of the planet.

There might be a tendency for the farmer to want to continue growing the same crops his great, great grandfather grew. He has an emotional attachment to growing those same crops. However, if the average temperature is no longer ideal for growing those crops, then for God's sake grow some other crop that suits the temperature. That's plain common sense.

And while CO2 will increase the yield of water stressed crops that only works up to a point. Rising global temperatures are already leading to large scale desertification. You can't grow soybeans in a desert.

I've already mentioned several times on several threads, with quotes, that the AR5 IPCC report, in its summary of the Physical sciences (not to be confused with the political summary), has confirmed that there is weak evidence (low confidence) that droughts have been increasing in recent decades, on a global scale.

However, they are confident that precipitation rates have been increasing in recent decades, which is quite understandable. As the average temperature warms, there must be increased evaporation. Where does that water vapor go? It forms clouds and comes back to earth in the form of rain, of course. It doesn't disappear into outer space. ????

How do we stop sea levels rising as the planet goes through a slight warming phase? Simple. We reduce the amount of precipitation that flows back to the oceans. We build more dams or inland lakes. In Australia we could build long pipelines and transport that increased precipitation to the desert areas. The increased CO2 levels, in conjunction with increased water supply, could make the desert productive.

Unfortunately, with increased energy prices, such large scale projects might not be politically feasible. We're stuffed, unless some rationality prevails, and I don't think large scale excavators will function well on batteries. ????

3 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Stuff grows better when its warm. Thats how come we have Chompoo, Watermelon, Lychee and Pineapples in Thailand, while Eskimos eat hunks of Muktuk dipped in Seal Oil while wearing furs.

Yes. I wish I could grow Durian on my property in SE Queensland, Australia, but it's not warm enough. ????

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. The figures for soybean reduction are in the neighborhood of 5 percent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04978

The increases aren't all that great and since most of the world's soybean and corn production become animal feed. at worst, people would eat someone less meat.

 

What are you talking about? Here's a quote from your linked article.

"We found large increases in soybean yields over the past 27 years due to the CO2 fertilization effect. The average effect of elevated atmospheric [CO2] on soybean yield during the last quarter century (i.e., the difference between the average yield for 2002–2006 estimated using historical CO2 levels and the average yield for 2002–2006 estimated using 1980 CO2 levels) was 0.13 t/ha. This shows that soybean yields during 2002–2006 have increased by 5.84% on average as a result of corresponding increases in atmospheric [CO2] from 1980."

In other words, as a result of an increase in CO2 of just 39 parts per million, from 1980 levels which were 338 ppm, to 2006 levels which were 377 ppm, Soybean yields are estimated to have increased by 5.84% on average, due to the CO2 fertilizer effect. This increase covers a mere 27 years.

If you compare current levels of CO2, which are about 408 ppm, with pre-industrial levels, which were 286 ppm (in 1860), the increase in CO2 is 122 ppm, so the increase in Soybean yield during the past 150 years or so, due entirely to increased CO2 levels, would be significantly higher than 5.84%, but perhaps not quite as high as the 25% I quoted as an average figure applying to most crops. Do the maths.

However, another point mentioned in the article, which I was already aware of, is as follows:

"In addition, McGrath and Lobell (2011)10 suggested that the CO2 fertilization effect can more than double under conditions of water stress relative to that in the absence of water stress."

In other words, when growing crops during dry conditions without good irrigation, the benefits of increased CO2 levels are much more dramatic. This is because the increased levels of CO2 cause the stomata or pores on the surface of leaves to shrink in size. This results in less evaporation and the plant can thrive on less water.

I wonder if anyone is teaching such important information to the school kids. They should be. When deserts bloom after a rare downpour of rain, they bloom much more magnificently nowadays than they would have done 150 years ago. We should be exploiting the benefits of increased CO2 levels.
 

9 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As anybody who actually knows anything about renewable energy can tell you, solar energy has already made coal power economically uncompetetive. And it's not just by a small margin either:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/11/new-year-same-story-cost-of-wind-and-solar-fall-below-cost-of-coal-and-gas/

 

And the cost of solar keeps plunging.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plunging-prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-coal/#1bf5ddae31f3

Really! You'd better inform China about this fact. ????

The Chinese are very wise regarding economic matters and have been producing lots of cheap solar panels for many years, exporting some of them to Australia.

Why is China still currently building, and approving the future construction of, new coal-fired power plants in their own country, if solar is more economic? Very puzzling!

"Carbon Brief reported last summer that China quietly has 210,000 MW of new coal capacity in the works, or nearly a 25% expansion.
The good news is that these plants will be supercritical or even ultra-superciticial, deploying higher efficiency to generate more power using less coal."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2019/01/23/coal-is-not-dead-china-proves-it/#24d524f865fa

As I've mentioned before, it's not solar energy itself that has made coal power economically uncompetitive, but government policy in allowing the electricity from subsidised solar panels to freely piggyback on the infrastructure and transmission lines paid for by the coal companies.

If you were to remove the subsidies for solar and wind, add the real costs of transmission lines and battery storage, then you would find that solar and wind would still currently be more expensive than coal. I'm sure the Chinese understand this.

To quote from your linked article.

"LCOE calculations compare generation technologies on an apples-to-apples basis by evaluating the total costs to build and operate power plants over their assumed lifetimes.  However, the analysis does not attempt to quantify aspects such as reliability, meaning it does not capture the full values of different energy sources."

"This year’s LCOE analysis reported new onshore wind costs $29-$56 per megawatt hour (MWh) to build without subsidies and $14-$47/MWh to build with subsidies.  New utility solar PV costs $36-$44/MWh to build without subsidies and $32-$41/MWh to build with subsidies.  Comparatively, marginal costs—the cost to operate existing plants—are $27-$45/MWh for coal and $24-$31/MWh for nuclear."

It's not clear in the article if this analysis has included the cost of transmission lines and their maintenance, and/or battery storage and the battery replacement after a period of time.

We should teach are school kids the facts about CO2. Increased levels of CO2 increase the growth of most food crops, and most plants in general. This can be established with certainty, in real time, without relying upon computer models. Greenhouse farmers have exploited this benefit for decades, pumping CO2 from gas bottles, into their greenhouses.

If we were able to magically reduce current CO2 levels to pre-industrial levels, in a very short period of time, due to some amazing technology, we would definitely suffer famine. Without compensatory measures such as increased water supply and increased fertilization, world-wide crop production would decline by around 25%. Forest growth would also decline.

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I know what the ipcc is. 

 

I also know that the sources I quoted show how climate change is affecting the weather. 

 

Did you read them?

 

Also here is the latest ipcc findings summary. 

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

 

And a review of them

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

Some of us are able to distinguish between summaries for policy makers and summaries of the scientific evidence. The two can be quite different. Politicians require certainty for action, and certainty in order to continue funding the climate research. The scientists are smart enough to understand this.

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Increased drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, more frequent wild fire disasters, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, more frequent flooding, famine, polluted oceans and fresh water sources, all equate catastrophe for me. 

There's no doubt that pollution of the atmosphere, oceans, and the general environment, is a major problem that should be addressed. However, reducing CO2 emissions in the hope that that will stop the climate changing, will not have any effect on plastic bags in the oceans, and little effect on the unhealthy smog that residents of Thailand experience for several months each year in cities such Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Mae Hong Son, and many other areas, due to burn-off. However, these problems can be fixed by other methods, if there's a will.

The claim that increased droughts, floods and hurricanes will result from the current, slight degree of warming, is often repeated in the media, and has probably influenced these kids who are protesting. However, the so-called great authority on Climate Change, the IPCC, in their Summary of the Physical Sciences (Working Group 1), has expressed uncertainty that any increase in these extreme weather events has occurred, as at 2013.

What is also interesting is that they express 'high confidence' that droughts during the past thousand years have been of greater magnitude and longer duration than any droughts observed during the 20th century, and that larger floods have occurred during the previous 500 years than any recorded in the 20th century in specific regions such as northern and central Europe, the western Mediterranean and eastern Asia.

Below are the quotes from page 50 of the summary.

"There is low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall), owing to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice and geographical inconsistencies in the trends. However, this masks important regional changes and, for example, the frequency and intensity of drought have likely increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and likely decreased in central North America and northwest Australia since 1950. {2.6.2;"

"There is high confidence for droughts during the last millennium of greater magnitude and longer duration than those observed since the beginning of the 20th century in many regions. There is medium confidence that more megadroughts occurred in monsoon Asia and wetter conditions prevailed in arid Central Asia and the South American monsoon region during the Little Ice Age (1450–1850) compared to the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950–1250)." 

"Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. However, for the years since the 1970s, it is virtually certain that the frequency and intensity of storms in the North Atlantic have increased although the reasons for this increase are debated." 

"There is low confidence of large-scale trends in storminess over the last century and there is still insufficient evidence to determine whether robust trends exist in small-scale severe weather events such as hail or thunderstorms."

"With high confidence, floods larger than recorded since the 20th century occurred during the past five centuries in northern and central Europe, the western Mediterranean region and eastern Asia. There is medium confidence that in the Near East, India and central North America, modern large floods are comparable or surpass historical floods in magnitude and/or frequency. "

1 hour ago, theonetrueaussie said:

Wow we have a smart one here, why would it be bad for another vote..Ok say they vote and overturn brexit then according to you it seems unfair to not let them have a say on the decision so in another 2 years they can have another referendum and they decide to go ahead with brexit but 2 years becomes too long so every year they have a referendum on brexit then every 6 months...where does it end?? Flipping and flopping between brexit and no brexit!!

Two years is too short. You have a 5 year parliamentary term in the UK, don't you? Flipping and flopping between one party and another is normal democracy.

If, after returning to the EU, things became worse rather than better over a period of several years, then at the next elections in the UK, a particular party could campaign on the grounds that they would hold another referendum. If the majority of the public wanted another referendum, then presumably that party would get in power and hold another referendum. That's democracy.

However, it would be very foolish to have another referendum, say 5 or 10 years down the track, without sorting out the problems that are causing so much confusion and indecision at present, with regard to the Irish border. I'm rather puzzled that Irish border problem was not addressed at the time of the first referendum.