Base load power

[renormalised (Carl)]

Speaking of global warming and CO2, Mike. How come, during the late Ordovician Period....around 450-438Ma, the Earth's CO2 conc was around 4400ppm. Yet, it was one of the coolest periods in Earth's history (there was a major ice age). Can you explain that one

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Global warming causes the ice at the poles to melt and the fresh water stops the ocean conveyor belt circulating warm and cold water which causes the iceage because the warm water is not moved to the northern hemisphere something like that anyway I haven't explained it well but that is the general idea.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

Global warming causes the ice at the poles to melt and the fresh water stops the ocean conveyor belt circulating warm and cold water which causes the iceage because the warm water is not moved to the northern hemisphere something like that anyway I haven't explained it well but that is the general idea.

Nope.

That only works for the present. The continents were in different positions then, to what they are now. Many of them were around the south polar region of the planet, but that doesn't explain why the ice age was there. Given the high CO2 conc' and the prevalence of a world spanning ocean at the time, the temps should've been much higher, all things given. Ocean circulation patterns, wind patterns etc, were completely different to now.

Go here and have a look at the position of the continents during the Ordovician and Silurian Periods.

[Hagar (Doug)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

So...do you want to bury me under concrete now Doug

Mike

Not much point in arguing a mandate. But as elected (well nearly) representative the only mandate they have is to govern according to there election stance as promised during there election campaign. They have no right to take any stance outside this be it ethical or not.

As for the concrete...Na.... no point your strong enough to rise from the grave and would be just idolised by Julia.

I have always been a strong Labour supporter but find this current policy a total breach of trust, at least with what I voted for. Very dissappointed indeed and still very sceptical of the reasoning and result.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Speaking of global warming and CO2, Mike. How come, during the late Ordovician Period....around 450-438Ma, the Earth's CO2 conc was around 4400ppm. Yet, it was one of the coolest periods in Earth's history (there was a major ice age). Can you explain that one

I hear what you are saying Carl but at this stage waaaay down the track of this needless debate, I am affraid the evidence is unequivocal, goverments have been given the facts and findings, it is all there, the Australian goverment must listen to the IPCC and they have. They have come up with the best system (by far) of the two major parties to takle the issue and it will almost certainly become active legislation, for at least several years, lets hope anyway.

I know that wasn't what you wanted but I am a little tired of this now (no offense at all) I wish you and others who doubt the science best of luck in trying to decide - it isn't hard really.

Cheers

Mike

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Elected Governements have a mandate to run the country. To do what they believe is best for the country they need to take all circumstances into consideration when developing policy if you say they only have a mandate for what they say in an election campaign then if an unexpected problem came up then any event that was not mentioned in the election campaign would require the government of the day to go back to the electorate for a new mandate this would make for an unworkable system of government.

I am coming to the conclusion that no matter how much evidence is provided it will make no difference to some and therefor is a waste of time to explain the science I find it hard to believe on a scientific forum that taking the scientific facts as truth is so hard. I thought we were a science based community.

[Hagar (Doug)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

Elected Governements have a mandate to run the country. To do what they believe is best for the country they need to take all circumstances into consideration when developing policy if you say they only have a mandate for what they say in an election campaign then if an unexpected problem came up by then any event that was not mentioned in the election campaign would require the government of the day to go back to the electorate for a new mandate this would make for an unworkable system of government.

Come on Warren wake up and smell the roses this is far from an unexpected problem in fact this was a major part of their electral verbalising during the campaign. If a Government can lie openly like this perhaps an election is the best answer. If they can't be trusted with such an election promise how can they be trusted on the world front.
The mandate to govern is a mandate to represent their constituents and with the current approval rating they ain't doing to much of that.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Speaking of global warming and CO2, Mike. How come, during the late Ordovician Period....around 450-438Ma, the Earth's CO2 conc was around 4400ppm. Yet, it was one of the coolest periods in Earth's history (there was a major ice age). Can you explain that one

So how do you think you know the temperature and [CO2] during the Ordovician? We don't have direct measurements of either so what proxies are used, and how reliable are they? I notice the site you reference makes reference to climatic geomorphology. With all due respect to Herr Budel all I can say is .

BTW I think that the Earth's temperature record will be rewritten in the next couple of decades, this time with real numbers, not inferences.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by Hagar

Come on Warren wake up and smell the roses this is far from an unexpected problem in fact this was a major part of their electral verbalising during the campaign. If a Government can lie openly like this perhaps an election is the best answer. If they can't be trusted with such an election promise how can they be trusted on the world front.
The mandate to govern is a mandate to represent their constituents and with the current approval rating they ain't doing to much of that.

I assume you were as keen on an election when the previous government threw the truth overboard?? And don't say they didn't know. If the truth reached me before the election it reached anyone who wanted to know.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Hagar

Not much point in arguing a mandate. But as elected (well nearly) representative the only mandate they have is to govern according to there election stance as promised during there election campaign. They have no right to take any stance outside this be it ethical or not.

I have always been a strong Labour supporter but find this current policy a total breach of trust, at least with what I voted for. Very dissappointed indeed and still very sceptical of the reasoning and result.

Hmmm? perhaps you weren't listening well enough then Doug, or you were not listening to everything ...the anti Labor media will try and have you believe anything if it is contoversial and sells air time

On August 20th, 2010, The Australian, not exactly the current bastion of left-wing politics, wrote the following in an article titled "Julia Gillard's carbon price promise" and subtitled "Julia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term" -
"In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step."
"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax."
This is the strongest message Ms Gillard has sent about action on carbon pricing.

While any carbon price would not be triggered until after the 2013 election, Ms Gillard would have two potential legislative partners next term - the Coalition or the Greens. She would legislate the carbon price next term if sufficient consensus existed.
Full article here -


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-carbon-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983

So... she certainly announced that the election was a mandate to legislate a market based carbon price and as we know the market-based ETS plan that they wanted would come into play in three years.


Apart from a few sematics on the actual words used nobody could say that this was not a direct admission that there would certainly be action on climate change and a price put on carbon ...so all those Juliar bumper sticker sporters, Adrew Bolt desiples and vitriolic crapback radio listeners actually have it a little skewed...for their own purposes of course .

Re the concrete, I would make for non typical Greeny reo bar

Cheers

Mike

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by Hagar

Come on Warren wake up and smell the roses this is far from an unexpected problem in fact this was a major part of their electral verbalising during the campaign. If a Government can lie openly like this perhaps an election is the best answer. If they can't be trusted with such an election promise how can they be trusted on the world front.
The mandate to govern is a mandate to represent their constituents and with the current approval rating they ain't doing to much of that.

This is a mistaken belief they are elected for 3 years not to follow polls which are not democratic in nature the participents are usually chosen by newspapers or polsters hardly a democratic representation. If past governments had listened to poll numbers we would probably still not have the right for women to vote as one example.

I have wasted enough time on this thread see you all around other parts of the forum

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

I hear what you are saying Carl but at this stage waaaay down the track of this needless debate, I am affraid the evidence is unequivocal, goverments have been given the facts and findings, it is all there, the Australian goverment must listen to the IPCC and they have. They have come up with the best system (by far) of the two major parties to takle the issue and it will almost certainly become active legislation, for at least several years, lets hope anyway.

I know that wasn't what you wanted but I am a little tired of this now (no offense at all) I wish you and others who doubt the science best of luck in trying to decide - it isn't hard really.

Cheers

Mike

I'm not saying that the CO2 isn't causing a rise a temps at present. Just that you have to be careful about making that attribution because there are many other factors which influence the climate and we've really only barely scratched the surface of the subject with our observational data and computer models. The evidence we have is not the be all and end all of the argument. And governments, despite any evidence either way, will do only what's best for themselves and their support base (and I don't mean the ordinary voters). None of the politicians, Labor, Liberal or Green, knows what they're talking about. It's the general populace that needs to drive the agenda, not the pollies or big business. Only they can do it because ultimately it's the public that hold the power and the purse strings. They need to be given the facts in an unbiased and concise manner, so they can then tell the pollies what needs to be done and big business what they must do.

I don't doubt the science. I understand it probably as well, if not better than anyone here. But what I do doubt is the way in which they're going about trying to make the necessary changes and how they're going to implement them.

In my own opinion, we would be wise to be better safe than sorry and actually make the effort to reduce the emissions.

[Trixie (Carey)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Speaking of global warming and CO2, Mike. How come, during the late Ordovician Period....around 450-438Ma, the Earth's CO2 conc was around 4400ppm. Yet, it was one of the coolest periods in Earth's history (there was a major ice age). Can you explain that one

I dont want to get in trouble for going off topic again so will post a response in a new thread.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

So how do you think you know the temperature and [CO2] during the Ordovician? We don't have direct measurements of either so what proxies are used, and how reliable are they? I notice the site you reference makes reference to climatic geomorphology. With all due respect to Herr Budel all I can say is .

BTW I think that the Earth's temperature record will be rewritten in the next couple of decades, this time with real numbers, not inferences.

You know as well as I do what they use to determine general trends in palaeoclimates. You've done enough geology at uni to have learnt what they use and you should know of their accuracy.

Isotopic analysis of fossils (and don't go on about the diagenetic/metamorphic processes altering the isotopic ratios, because they've found reasonably good preservation of shelly fossils in unaltered sediments from the various periods that have allowed them to get good ratios of isotopes such as oxygen, strontium etc), mineral chemistry from sediments and the fossils within, the physical structures present in the sedimentary rocks, the fossils assemblages present in the sediments etc etc.

How accurate are they?? Accurate enough to be able to give general trends in temperature and atmospheric chemistry for geological time periods. You obviously can't pick specific periods (like yearly records....unless you're very lucky enough to find them preserved in the geological record, like glacial varves, freshwater lake sediments etc) and give accurate measurements. You maybe lucky enough to see growth ring patterns in fossil plants such as true trees, lycopods, gymnosperms, lepidodendrales, cordaitales, ferns and cycads etc, to be able to see yearly patterns and then make inferences from those patterns and the provinence in which the fossils were found.

And there's no way you can get direct measurements, unless you somehow build a time machine. So how are you going to get real numbers in the next few decades, as you say.

My reference to that site was only for the continent position reconstruction maps. As for your reference to Herr Budel...I think you better go lay down. That was Chris Scotese's site. He's a geologist at UT Arlington.

[Hagar (Doug)]

Where can you get one of those bumper stickers? I thought bumper stickers were supposed to be funny.

[TrevorW]

Still no one has answered my question, what will force the polluters to change their ways to reduce my power cost and reduce CO2 ??

I do not believe the tax will make that happen

$23 a ton

950 grams of CO2 is evolved for every KWh of coal fire electricity produced. Note that for natural gas it is more like 600 g per KWh for natural gas powered plants.

so thats 1 ton per every 1000kwh

so an average household uses 10000kwh per year thats $230 annually per household or in my case $40 extra each power bill which is an addiotnal 70 cents per day roughly

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

We tried to answer the hip pocket always makes me change my ways and I think it will work with buisness they always look for ways to reduce costs it is standard operating precedure to minimise costs. The hip pocket is why I gave up smoking not my health which is stupid I know but it was the tax on smokes that made me give up

[Hagar (Doug)]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

Still no one has answered my question, what will force the polluters to change their ways ??

I do not believe the tax will make that happen

It won't Trevor, the tax will only be paid by you and me. The polluters will pass on any cost. The only hope in all this is that the collected tax will be funneled into R&D if of course there is any left after advertising costs and management cost are calculated.

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

buy products the right products, hopefully the ax will make them cheaper. Just like buying Australian made it's up to us in the end.

[Peter Ward]

Well hasn't this turned into a bag of worms. I suspect Mike has been extremely patient and let it meander in to predictable areas to punish me.

As they said in Star Wars " stay on target "

Alternative base power.

Specifically Thorium. Cheaper than coal. Very little waste, and what there is, is easily handled. Safer than coal ( google the stats for number of coal workers killed each year). Scalable. 200mW in the back of a truck, but way more if you need it. No emissions. The technology was proven in the 1950's.
I suspect vested interests don't like it.

Rather than redistribute wealth via a lame "carbon tax" and wast millions to create rooms full of bureaucrats.... Please, someone, explain it to me, why the country is not investing directly in this base load enery future?

Oh..damm... Yes, the greens...opposed to all things nuclear.

BTW.... Has anyone told them what powers the Sun?