Coal - Queensland's future
Jul 17th 2008, 10:59 am
#46
Account Open
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,298
Re: Coal - Queensland's future
At the risk of getting involved in a pathetic off topic squabble:
1. Not at one point on this thread did I say I spoke volumes.
2. Here is what wiki has to say about 'theory', in terms of it's scientific use.
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.
Of several competing theories, one theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of reality. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.
A difference in usage of the word "fact" contributes to confusion in regard to the meaning of "theory." An appreciation of the various meanings of "fact" and "knowledge" can help to clarify an understanding of the meanings of "theory."
Not sure what you're getting at.
3. You can't prove a hypothesis made using scientific predictive modelling that includes time, until of course, you arrive at or enter that time. It's not hard. You'll find very few scientists who will nail their colours to the mast 100%, as we all know that there are so many variables. Most scientist talk in terms of probability, which happens in the case of climate change. Again, what ave we got to lose?
4.?
5. Religion involves belief systems, science does not. Two entirely different things entrirely.
Now back to the subject. Show me the evidence that supports your claims that this episode of climate change is caused mainly by natural events.
1. Not at one point on this thread did I say I spoke volumes.
2. Here is what wiki has to say about 'theory', in terms of it's scientific use.
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.
Of several competing theories, one theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of reality. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.
A difference in usage of the word "fact" contributes to confusion in regard to the meaning of "theory." An appreciation of the various meanings of "fact" and "knowledge" can help to clarify an understanding of the meanings of "theory."
Not sure what you're getting at.
3. You can't prove a hypothesis made using scientific predictive modelling that includes time, until of course, you arrive at or enter that time. It's not hard. You'll find very few scientists who will nail their colours to the mast 100%, as we all know that there are so many variables. Most scientist talk in terms of probability, which happens in the case of climate change. Again, what ave we got to lose?
4.?
5. Religion involves belief systems, science does not. Two entirely different things entrirely.
Now back to the subject. Show me the evidence that supports your claims that this episode of climate change is caused mainly by natural events.
I am of the view that nothing out of the ordinary is happening. You are of the view that something IS happening.... Now I could be wrong, but I was taught that you are the one who needs to prove it to me, not the other way round.
Have a read of some of the comments at the bottom of this blog page. I think that they are very interesting and highlight a few problems with the idea of global warming being a man-made phenomenon...and also problems with the manner in which the idea of global warming is being debated.
edit : I forgot to paste the link ..! woops...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/clim...arm-period.htm
Jul 17th 2008, 11:05 am
#47
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Perth, Wait Awhile, Oz
Posts: 122
Re: Coal - Queensland's future
?! You are the one trying to prove a position, not me !!! hee hee...
I am of the view that nothing out of the ordinary is happening. You are of the view that something IS happening.... Now I could be wrong, but I was taught that you are the one who needs to prove it to me, not the other way round.
Have a read of some of the comments at the bottom of this blog page. I think that they are very interesting and highlight a few problems with the idea of global warming being a man-made phenomenon...and also problems with the manner in which the idea of global warming is being debated.
edit : I forgot to paste the link ..! woops...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/clim...arm-period.htm
I am of the view that nothing out of the ordinary is happening. You are of the view that something IS happening.... Now I could be wrong, but I was taught that you are the one who needs to prove it to me, not the other way round.
Have a read of some of the comments at the bottom of this blog page. I think that they are very interesting and highlight a few problems with the idea of global warming being a man-made phenomenon...and also problems with the manner in which the idea of global warming is being debated.
edit : I forgot to paste the link ..! woops...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/clim...arm-period.htm
Thanks for posting the link, I could have quite a disussion about it on there. So many facts that are wrong (with some valid points though).
I'll not bother you any more Mark, as clearly you still feel the need to put me and my views down with silly remarks like tee hee and daft smilies.
Any grown ups want to continue the discussion.....feel free.
Jul 17th 2008, 11:19 am
#48
Account Open
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,298
Re: Coal - Queensland's future
Thanks for posting the link, I could have quite a disussion about it on there. So many facts that are wrong (with some valid points though).
I'll not bother you any more Mark, as clearly you still feel the need to put me and my views down with silly remarks like tee hee and daft smilies.
Any grown ups want to continue the discussion.....feel free.
I'll not bother you any more Mark, as clearly you still feel the need to put me and my views down with silly remarks like tee hee and daft smilies.
Any grown ups want to continue the discussion.....feel free.
regards
Jul 17th 2008, 12:01 pm
#49
Forum Regular
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 187
Re: Coal - Queensland's future
Sniff, I smell hypocrisy............
Jul 17th 2008, 12:06 pm
#50
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: From SE Wales to SE Queensland.
Posts: 1,478
Re: Coal - Queensland's future
Thanks for posting the link, I could have quite a disussion about it on there. So many facts that are wrong (with some valid points though).
I'll not bother you any more Mark, as clearly you still feel the need to put me and my views down with silly remarks like tee hee and daft smilies.
Any grown ups want to continue the discussion.....feel free.
I'll not bother you any more Mark, as clearly you still feel the need to put me and my views down with silly remarks like tee hee and daft smilies.
Any grown ups want to continue the discussion.....feel free.
Jul 17th 2008, 12:26 pm
#51
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Ridgewood , Perth
Posts: 3,134
Jul 17th 2008, 1:18 pm
#52
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,526
Re: Coal - Queensland's future
I can listen to other opinions, but this just makes you look foolish.
The link doesn't prove anything. Have you thought of the amount of CO2 produced to burn the coal etc in the first place? This in itself makes the whole process nearly as bad as a conventional coal-fired power station.
I love the way you use the word 'swampies' ina derogatory sense, much as 'liberal' is used in the States.
I've been asked to produce evidence in this thread, so I'll challenge you to produce evidence to back up your claim that it is "almost certainly is a natural occurring event". Real papers please, not spurious articles backed by oil/gas/coal companies.
"If it's not a natural occurring event, the pray please tell me why the carbon levels on Mars have risen since they started measuring."
Do you know the full mineral content of Mars. Does ANYONE on this planet know how all of these minerals form systems and how these systems interact with each other? Does ANYONE on this planet know the geological history of Mars?
Your comparison with Mars is absolutely ridiclous, because as far as I'm aware, we're only just establishing whether there is ice on the planet.
Please stop just regurtating things that you've read/heard elsewhere.
The link doesn't prove anything. Have you thought of the amount of CO2 produced to burn the coal etc in the first place? This in itself makes the whole process nearly as bad as a conventional coal-fired power station.
I love the way you use the word 'swampies' ina derogatory sense, much as 'liberal' is used in the States.
I've been asked to produce evidence in this thread, so I'll challenge you to produce evidence to back up your claim that it is "almost certainly is a natural occurring event". Real papers please, not spurious articles backed by oil/gas/coal companies.
"If it's not a natural occurring event, the pray please tell me why the carbon levels on Mars have risen since they started measuring."
Do you know the full mineral content of Mars. Does ANYONE on this planet know how all of these minerals form systems and how these systems interact with each other? Does ANYONE on this planet know the geological history of Mars?
Your comparison with Mars is absolutely ridiclous, because as far as I'm aware, we're only just establishing whether there is ice on the planet.
Please stop just regurtating things that you've read/heard elsewhere.
I had written a nice response to your post, when I pressed send, the bleeding data base at bexpats had gone bung...
Anyway breifly, its ok for your regurtutation of facts but no mine eh.
Heres my counter, it always upsets the Carbon Crusaders, as much as being told santa isnt real.
The fact of the matter is Mars IS changing as much as earth... and there is no heavy industry to blame.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1720024.ece
Carl Sagen is one of the Solar beleivers by the way.
[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Admin/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/IMG]
Jul 17th 2008, 6:07 pm
#54
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Perth, Wait Awhile, Oz
Posts: 122
Re: Coal - Queensland's future
I think the term is 'no worries' Mark.
ozzieeagle - it's my term to apologise, I didn't mean to have a go at you.
I will however, refer to two of the more sensible comments posted underneath the article
"However, with regard to global warming, there is an empirically observed correlation: CO2 levels have risen by 30%+ in 250 years and global temperatures have risen. Both are continuing to rise. There is an Agent: CO2. There is a physically proven mechanism that retains heat: The Greenhouse Effect. It meets the standard of the scientific method that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton set the early standard for.
and a comment by the author of a very similar article in the The Nature journal.
"Our Nature article had some press coverage, and some who heard the news would like to attribute our modeled warming (of 0.65° C or 1.2° F) over the 20 year period to changes in the solar output, but our work doesn't involve any such changes. The warming we have modeled is caused by changes on the surface of Mars, rather than by any changes in the Sun. Furthermore, the climate forcing process we have identified is caused by the redistribution of bright dust over a darker surface, a process which does not occur on Earth (at least not to such a magnitude that it influences the global climate system). Earth does undergo albedo changes that impact the climate, but the controlling processes are quite different -- such as changes in cloud cover, sea ice, and vegetation. Thus the warming we have modeled is caused by a process that is unique to Mars, and nothing in our work can be used to make inferences about climate change on Earth. I hope this clears up any confusion to the layperson."
ozzieeagle - it's my term to apologise, I didn't mean to have a go at you.
I will however, refer to two of the more sensible comments posted underneath the article
"However, with regard to global warming, there is an empirically observed correlation: CO2 levels have risen by 30%+ in 250 years and global temperatures have risen. Both are continuing to rise. There is an Agent: CO2. There is a physically proven mechanism that retains heat: The Greenhouse Effect. It meets the standard of the scientific method that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton set the early standard for.
and a comment by the author of a very similar article in the The Nature journal.
"Our Nature article had some press coverage, and some who heard the news would like to attribute our modeled warming (of 0.65° C or 1.2° F) over the 20 year period to changes in the solar output, but our work doesn't involve any such changes. The warming we have modeled is caused by changes on the surface of Mars, rather than by any changes in the Sun. Furthermore, the climate forcing process we have identified is caused by the redistribution of bright dust over a darker surface, a process which does not occur on Earth (at least not to such a magnitude that it influences the global climate system). Earth does undergo albedo changes that impact the climate, but the controlling processes are quite different -- such as changes in cloud cover, sea ice, and vegetation. Thus the warming we have modeled is caused by a process that is unique to Mars, and nothing in our work can be used to make inferences about climate change on Earth. I hope this clears up any confusion to the layperson."
Jul 17th 2008, 10:17 pm
#55
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 15,526
Re: Coal - Queensland's future
I think the term is 'no worries' Mark.
ozzieeagle - it's my term to apologise, I didn't mean to have a go at you.
I will however, refer to two of the more sensible comments posted underneath the article
"However, with regard to global warming, there is an empirically observed correlation: CO2 levels have risen by 30%+ in 250 years and global temperatures have risen. Both are continuing to rise. There is an Agent: CO2. There is a physically proven mechanism that retains heat: The Greenhouse Effect. It meets the standard of the scientific method that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton set the early standard for.
and a comment by the author of a very similar article in the The Nature journal.
"Our Nature article had some press coverage, and some who heard the news would like to attribute our modeled warming (of 0.65° C or 1.2° F) over the 20 year period to changes in the solar output, but our work doesn't involve any such changes. The warming we have modeled is caused by changes on the surface of Mars, rather than by any changes in the Sun. Furthermore, the climate forcing process we have identified is caused by the redistribution of bright dust over a darker surface, a process which does not occur on Earth (at least not to such a magnitude that it influences the global climate system). Earth does undergo albedo changes that impact the climate, but the controlling processes are quite different -- such as changes in cloud cover, sea ice, and vegetation. Thus the warming we have modeled is caused by a process that is unique to Mars, and nothing in our work can be used to make inferences about climate change on Earth. I hope this clears up any confusion to the layperson."
ozzieeagle - it's my term to apologise, I didn't mean to have a go at you.
I will however, refer to two of the more sensible comments posted underneath the article
"However, with regard to global warming, there is an empirically observed correlation: CO2 levels have risen by 30%+ in 250 years and global temperatures have risen. Both are continuing to rise. There is an Agent: CO2. There is a physically proven mechanism that retains heat: The Greenhouse Effect. It meets the standard of the scientific method that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton set the early standard for.
and a comment by the author of a very similar article in the The Nature journal.
"Our Nature article had some press coverage, and some who heard the news would like to attribute our modeled warming (of 0.65° C or 1.2° F) over the 20 year period to changes in the solar output, but our work doesn't involve any such changes. The warming we have modeled is caused by changes on the surface of Mars, rather than by any changes in the Sun. Furthermore, the climate forcing process we have identified is caused by the redistribution of bright dust over a darker surface, a process which does not occur on Earth (at least not to such a magnitude that it influences the global climate system). Earth does undergo albedo changes that impact the climate, but the controlling processes are quite different -- such as changes in cloud cover, sea ice, and vegetation. Thus the warming we have modeled is caused by a process that is unique to Mars, and nothing in our work can be used to make inferences about climate change on Earth. I hope this clears up any confusion to the layperson."
Thanks for the Apology, its appreciated.
I just hope people on both sides of the argument keep an open mind, there is nothing to be gained by maintaining an entrenched position.
I am personally going to install solar panels on my new build, mostly because I'm hoping to save money, also because it really is good for the planet. All the same I'm not buying Industry being the sole cause of our current spate of global warming.
Jul 18th 2008, 12:02 am
#56
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2007
Location: Singleton, NSW
Posts: 160
Re: Coal - Queensland's future
I think the thread header should read "Coal - Australia's Future .. for now".
I think coal generates about 90% of all Aussie electricity. Only in Tasmania with the hydro will it be significantly lower. As someone who works indirectly for BMA coal pays my wages. But Australia is shooting itself in the foot by not trying nuclear or solar or other alternative options. The Greens have also pretty much shut down the Tasmanian hydro expansion.
The country also is importing increasing quantities of oil yet they sell LNG from WA too cheaply to China on long term contracts. Here in Gladstone the Greens shut down the shale oil project.
Realistically coal is the only way to go short term because the country has shut off its other options at the moment.
Apparently a 30 x 30km patch of the desert could power the whole country if solar power stations were built on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_E...rating_Systems
I think coal generates about 90% of all Aussie electricity. Only in Tasmania with the hydro will it be significantly lower. As someone who works indirectly for BMA coal pays my wages. But Australia is shooting itself in the foot by not trying nuclear or solar or other alternative options. The Greens have also pretty much shut down the Tasmanian hydro expansion.
The country also is importing increasing quantities of oil yet they sell LNG from WA too cheaply to China on long term contracts. Here in Gladstone the Greens shut down the shale oil project.
Realistically coal is the only way to go short term because the country has shut off its other options at the moment.
Apparently a 30 x 30km patch of the desert could power the whole country if solar power stations were built on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_E...rating_Systems
Jul 22nd 2008, 11:13 am
#57
Joined: Apr 2004
Location: High up in Joondalup.
Posts: 4,228
Re: Coal - Queensland's future
I dont think that if Australia stopped using/ selling coal that global warming would end.
I think golbal warming is here and instead of trying to prevent something that is already occuring we need to learn how to live with it.
I think golbal warming is here and instead of trying to prevent something that is already occuring we need to learn how to live with it.
