Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 52 replies
  • Subscribers 10 subscribers
  • Views 1836 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Australian Wildfires

Lisa Miles
Moving some posts re the Australian wildfires to a separate topic Luciano Bacco‍ 

Luciano Bacco:


Climate Crisis. The reason Australia is red. Australian wildfires have cloaked the country in a demonic red glow. As the new decade begins underneath a blood-red sky, the need for solutions is even more pressing. 
https://www.inverse.com/article/62058-why-do-wildfires-turn-the-sky-red?link_uid=9&utm_campaign=inverse-daily-2020-01-03&utm_medium=inverse&utm_source=newsletter 


And:
https://interestingengineering.com/a-magpie-in-australia-mimics-emergency-responder-sirens-because-things-are-that-bad?_source=newsletter&_campaign=a0bglamBn02qr&_uid=YQdJzWvdOG&_h=c5182a5a087e2b004ca4aca7c1e307f54e8a1507&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=mailing&utm_campaign=Newsletter-04-01-2020

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/australian-bushfires-new-south-wales-koalas-sydney-a4322071.html#spark_wn=1



  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Luciano Bacco:
    These "collateral casualties " are very little ( some hundreds perhaps thousands) compared with a staggering 1 billion animals tha tare now estimated dead in Australia's fires. The number of kangaroos, koalas, and others killed keeps skyrocketing.

    The one used is the only valid to feed them  quickly and so save most of the survivors ( some millions) by sure starvation.
    Man! Who really are you?!  I' m the one where the rationality goes hand in hand with the madness, is the answer!...


    More: Are 100 animal species at risk extinction in Australia?
    https://phys.org/news/2020-01-scientists-rare-species-survivors-australia.html
    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/1/9/21057375/australia-fire-wildlife-extinctions-ecology

     




     

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Luciano Bacco:



    European Green Deal: Brussels unveils €1 trillion plan to make EU carbon neutral by 2050


    https://www.euronews.com/2020/01/14/eu-commission-to-unveil-green-deal-to-make-europe-the-first-climate-neutral-continent
    https://www.euronews.com/2019/12/10/the-eu-s-green-dreams
    https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.casaeclima.com%2Fjpeg-fb.asp%3Fpath%3D%252Fpublic%252Fcasaeclima%252F1%255Fa%255Fb%255Fa%252Dgreen%252Ddeal%252Deuropeo%252Dmoney%252Ejpg%26size%3D200&t=1579106910&ymreqid=9a04b761-2c39-23f2-1c41-550000014200&sig=7jdF8bVSTwo7mwzWIUtr9g--~C,



  • 0

     




    Luciano Bacco:
               I'm personally fully in favour of climate change fighting, instead!

     




    Which climate change are you in favour of fighting, the real one or the hype promoted by XR, Attenborough, Thunberg et al?


    Try looking at the real data and judge for yourself what is actually happening and what is based on unvalidated computer models. Try looking at history to see what happened in the past, when did glaciers advance and when did they retreat, how often does Australia burn, how quickly does it recover.


    This was a quick review of the Greenland ice caps taken from the official website, three different outlooks, which one is real?

    https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/807/24813?post_id=125816#p125816



    This was an attempt to gather the best actual data I could find to judge is there an emergency or maybe just a problem.

    https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/807/24813?post_id=126994#p126994


    Is the world really burning up? Have we already passed a tipping point?

    We certainly need to reduce our impact on the planet and minimise our consumption of finite resources however panic building of low EROEI (Energy return on Energy Invested) 'renewable' energy sources is not the solution.

    I await the IPCC AR6 in 2021/22 to see how they deal with reality.


    Best regards


    Roger

     

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I quote your last words:  " We do need to check every "fact" presented by everyone, particularly pressure groups and the media very careful" And here I'm quite in agreement with you!

    But said this, if you are quite right, all EC Countries ( and not only them) are then fragrantly WRONG?! In other words, the EC countries are going to throw to the wind     1,000,000,000,000 euros?!
    More, there is now no doubt that almost the whole world (UK included) is going along this direction, that is, a strong contrast to the climate change!

    Sceptical people are always welcome not only on this all-importatnt matter but also in any other walks of life!

    More:
    https://www.inverse.com/innovation/amazon-employees-risk-firing-to-protest-companys-climate-policies

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    But also:

    Electric Revolution will take time, states an IMechE latest report.
    To decarbonise road transport rapidly, more needs to be done to reduce emissions from petrol and diesel vehicles

    This includes using renewable and low carbon fuels



    Read our new report


  • 0

    Luciano Bacco:


     

    I quote your last words:  " We do need to check every "fact" presented by everyone, particularly pressure groups and the media very careful" And here I'm quite in agreement with you!

    But said this, if you are quite right, all EC Countries ( and not only them) are then fragrantly WRONG?! In other words, the EC countries are going to throw to the wind     1,000,000,000,000 euros?!
    More, there is now no doubt that almost the whole world (UK included) is going along this direction, that is, a strong contrast to the climate change!

    Sceptical people are always welcome not only on this all-importatnt matter but also in any other walks of life!

    More:
    https://www.inverse.com/innovation/amazon-employees-risk-firing-to-protest-companys-climate-policies


     



    You need to follow the money in this one. Is the money actually being spent or is it just pledged at a climate conference? Where will it actually go? Will it mostly be spent installing heavily subsidised 'renewable' generation? Will it be spent on mitigation? Who will actually profit from this? Will there be any real benefit? Germany has probably invested the most per capita on 'renewables'. It has the highest electricity prices in Europe and it's emissions aren't dropping much.


    I suggest that you look at a range of sources/views:-


    Judith Curry offer a balanced scientific view point as she is well qualified to do:
    https://judithcurry.com/

    Skeptical Science supports the strong AGW camp:
    https://skepticalscience.com/

    Jo Nova looks mostly at Australia and so is appropriate to this thread:
    http://joannenova.com.au/

    Not a lot of people know that is UK based:
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/

    No Tricks Zone is more German/European:
    https://notrickszone.com/


    As ever don't take them at face value, follow the sources, compare their views on different subjects, try to find collaboration elsewhere.

    Best regards

    Roger
     

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Your objections are much appreciated but i cannot, for a series of reasons, give a valid answer for each of these, the only further thing I can add in support of my " Thesis" is that all the UK Engineering Institutions ( even the RIBA!... ) accept as a fact the Climate Change alert and are all working along this direction, starting with this:
    https://www.istructe.org/resources/blog/decarbonate/
    https://www.architecture.com/about/policy/climate-action/2030-climate-challenge

    Is it possible that all these highly learned people be so naive to not understand that the climate change alert is all a "deceit" (or partially such) ?!...
  • 0
    This is more a cynical response than a skeptical response.


    If you compare the amount of talk to the amount of action I don't think many, if any, of the 'stop climate change' proponents really believe in what they are saying. The high profile ones still fly around the world and buy beach houses. Governments and Councils declare 'Climate Emergencies' but don't actually do anything. They all say we must be 'Carbon Neutral' (whatever that actually means) by 2030 or 2050 or some when. Where is the real work behind this? Where are the feasibility studies? Where are the action plans with dates and costs? The technical and scientific institutes produce 'position statements' but don't come up with anything more. The paper from the I Mech E that you linked in a previous posting just says 'it's difficult'.


    I think that once you study what is the problem and what are the solutions you realise that 'Carbon Neutral' by 2050 is not possible and also not necessary. Reducing our consumption of fossil fuels by 2100 is sensible and feasible.

    Who in the current media climate is going to stand up a say that? Ms Thunberg will send them off for forced labour in the battery factory (to quote OMS ? ).


    For my views on why all this is happening have a look at the 1984 thread:
    https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/807/24015


    Best regards


    Roger


    P.S. When I spell checked this it tried to change Thunberg to Thinker, maybe not.
  • 0

    Roger Bryant:

    This is more a cynical response than a skeptical response.


    If you compare the amount of talk to the amount of action I don't think many, if any, of the 'stop climate change' proponents really believe in what they are saying. The high profile ones still fly around the world and buy beach houses. Governments and Councils declare 'Climate Emergencies' but don't actually do anything. They all say we must be 'Carbon Neutral' (whatever that actually means) by 2030 or 2050 or some when. Where is the real work behind this? Where are the feasibility studies? Where are the action plans with dates and costs? The technical and scientific institutes produce 'position statements' but don't come up with anything more. The paper from the I Mech E that you linked in a previous posting just says 'it's difficult'.


    I think that once you study what is the problem and what are the solutions you realise that 'Carbon Neutral' by 2050 is not possible and also not necessary. Reducing our consumption of fossil fuels by 2100 is sensible and feasible.

    Who in the current media climate is going to stand up a say that? Ms Thunberg will send them off for forced labour in the battery factory (to quote OMS ? ).


    For my views on why all this is happening have a look at the 1984 thread:
    https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/807/24015


    Best regards


    Roger


    P.S. When I spell checked this it tried to change Thunberg to Thinker, maybe not.




     

    Everything is "too difficult" for someone who doesn't want to do it.  I don't believe that carbon neutral by 2030 is realistically possible.  2050 should be. 2100 is too late, and is basically saying "don't bother doing anything until I'm long dead".
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Simon Barker:




    Roger Bryant:

    This is more a cynical response than a skeptical response.


    If you compare the amount of talk to the amount of action I don't think many, if any, of the 'stop climate change' proponents really believe in what they are saying. The high profile ones still fly around the world and buy beach houses. Governments and Councils declare 'Climate Emergencies' but don't actually do anything. They all say we must be 'Carbon Neutral' (whatever that actually means) by 2030 or 2050 or some when. Where is the real work behind this? Where are the feasibility studies? Where are the action plans with dates and costs? The technical and scientific institutes produce 'position statements' but don't come up with anything more. The paper from the I Mech E that you linked in a previous posting just says 'it's difficult'.


    I think that once you study what is the problem and what are the solutions you realise that 'Carbon Neutral' by 2050 is not possible and also not necessary. Reducing our consumption of fossil fuels by 2100 is sensible and feasible.

    Who in the current media climate is going to stand up a say that? Ms Thunberg will send them off for forced labour in the battery factory (to quote OMS ? ).


    For my views on why all this is happening have a look at the 1984 thread:
    https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/807/24015


    Best regards


    Roger


    P.S. When I spell checked this it tried to change Thunberg to Thinker, maybe not.




     

    Everything is "too difficult" for someone who doesn't want to do it.  I don't believe that carbon neutral by 2030 is realistically possible.  2050 should be. 2100 is too late, and is basically saying "don't bother doing anything until I'm long dead".

    Dear Roger,


    Did you know that...:




    https://www.npr.org/2019/09/30/763844598/how-big-oil-of-the-past-helped-launch-the-solar-industry-of-today?t=1580374156158

    I myself as an Electrical and Electronics Engineer, started on those years ( 1970s) to design and build some solar energy devices but some years later I abandoned this route because of the then very low efficiency (4%) and very high prices of solar cells compared with the today's ones:
    https://www.solar.com/learn/solar-panel-efficiency/

    And here is George Orwell  1984. Have a good reading ( for everyone):
    https://www.planetebook.com/free-ebooks/1984.pdf


     

     




     

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines