Every year, about half of the 10 billion tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from human activities remains temporarily stored, in about equal parts, in the oceans and plants.

My bolding for emphasis, and a point I was making sometime back in this thread 'trees' or more generally 'plants' are a poor solution to the carbon sequestration question. Pleased to note that NASA have finally noticed - now to just get international governments to notice... Also of note is that it's 'half' - that's not enough.

That was why I was pondering the fate of the Kangaroo Island SA 'carbon sink bluegum plantations' in 2020 when they burnt to the ground - what of the carbon that's already been counted for burnt and released into the atmosphere again? The plantations on K.I. were too difficult to process on the Island and ship to the mainland apparently - what's the long term strategy with carbon sinks...

And they've lost the 'temporary' word again, oh well, it was good of them to notice for one sentence at least.

So why not chop down and bury the trees in the carbon sinks to store the carbon? Serious question.

https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/SAG-16

Of interest is that it doesn't matter by what means the tree/plant dies - it's only a CO₂ sink whilst it is alive, afterward, it's about an 80% source.

Sure, we could 'preserve' every piece of plant ever and prevent it from decomposing, but that is an awful lot of cellulose to store AND we need to maintain room to continue growing enough plants...

I think we had a really unusually cool summer here in South Australia again this year - after last year's cool summer. My rainwater tanks are full right now which is really unusual for this time of year and I have to do weeding and mowing that I'd never normally have to do at this time in our normally cootch lawn -killing high summers here in The Festival State.

What's going on? Is it the dreaded CLIMATE CHANGE? Good, looks like Adelaide is getting cooler and wetter. I like it, I hate those summers we have that have lots of over-40 stonking hot dry, hot days that kills veggie gardens and pot plants (if you forget about them for a few days).

I for one welcome our new conditions from too much carbon dioxide...

I was almost going to give you a bit of credit - but you ruined it.

It will be interesting to see how the anti-renewables brigade spin this - if they've got the guts to do so, that is:

Australian power prices now 'among lowest in the world' as renewable energy drives costs down - ABC News

Actually, I take that back. It won't be interesting to see their reactions. It will be boring.

I don’t say that the report is inaccurate, but it is impossible to verify because they supply no data and disturbingly no sources of data - noted it’s come from the Aunty, frankly, they’re supposed to be better than that.

The AEC are a commercial organisation representing electrical and gas energy producing companies - it would be well within their interest to source the lowest possible numbers of energy, they’re hardly going to suggest their members are charging the highest prices in the world are they?

Find me the real data used by the AEC, or better yet a similar report from say the Ombudsman, AEMC, or AEMO, still preferably backed by stated data source.

In addition to noting their is no data in the ABC reporting of the AEC’s report, I also note that the AEC chose to use ‘purchasing power parity’ to arrive at their ‘lowest pricing’ conclusion - the use of PPP in itself requires an explanation of the assumptions and sourced data to arrive at the PPP position. None of these numbers are given, if you are happy to accept reports like this backed by nothing go right ahead, if you think reasoned response to an absence of data is boring go right ahead, but I know that articles of technical nature with no numbers are worthless, and hence, boring.

In other words, find you some data to support your narrative.

Do you seriously believe that the ABC made those figures up?

No, I find there’s no data to support either side of the narrative, I also know that reporting with the intent of full honesty and transparency generally includes supporting data - there is nothing to hide from.

What we have is the AEC (and organisation representing the energy producers) reporting their findings without the data and underlying assumptions they used to draw their conclusions. Needless to say they would hardly consider publishing a report finding their pricing was too high now would they?

For the record, and this shouldn’t need stating, but since you felt the need to ask, no, I do not for a moment think the ABC made those figures up - have you been smoking from the same pipe as Don? The ABC are REPORTING the paper (also without citing sources) published by the AEC, who I think might be erring on the side of just tipping the scales of balance slightly in their own favour through assumptions relating to figures. Again, in case you missed it, I don’t know for sure, because the AEC published no source data or assumptions used…

Fair enough, but don't accuse me of...well, you know. At least, even without supporting background evidence, I presented the article for what it was - a news story. In comparison to what some people do - provide a link to an opinion piece and pretend that it is evidence.

No, you don't get off the hook that easily, news article maybe, but presenting no source data, it's merely an opinion piece from the AEC. What we have in your link is the Aunty 'reporting' 'news' of an opinion - standards at the Aunty used to be better, in respect to this 'article' we might as well just call them 'the government funded arm of Fox'...

ICYMI, I was referring to what some people do here, quoting (for example) an opinion made decades ago about there would be no polar ice caps by now, but there still is, therefore we now have evidence that climate change is not real. You can't pretend that you don't know what I mean. What I linked pales into insignificance.

Anyway, referring to what I linked, does this help?
International electricity prices: How does Australia compare? (energycouncil.com.au)

I guess it's up to you now to dispute the data.

I had already read that - still no assumptions stated for the PPP - that's a much bigger deal than you likely appreciate, they're saying they have a method of comparing and adjusting prices internationally - that requires explanation! There is no statement as to how they calculated average energy bill/cost, a few bars on a chart are not data, they're representative of data they're not showing.

I was almost going to give you a bit of credit - but you ruined it.

Ruined it how, by pointing out that increasing carbon is inevitable and we might as well resolve to enjoy it?

Two summers in a row with unseasonably cool weather in SA; not that two summer doth a climate change make.

I was almost going to give you a bit of credit - but you ruined it.

Ruined it how, by pointing out that increasing carbon is inevitable and we might as well resolve to enjoy it?

Two summers in a row with unseasonably cool weather in SA; not that two summer doth a climate change make.

The earth’s orbit is eccentric, right now, despite being summer, we are about 2 million kilometres further from our star than average. Since ALL radiation decreases with the square of distance this alone is why you detect the ‘unseasonably cool’ weather in SA, but it’s not just you, it’s international.

These are the kinds of years that used to see the northern hemisphere comprehensively buried in snow, when the US could be assured the Soviets were not going to war because they could not get their ships/submarines out through the arctic - instead, they’re just slightly higher snow than average, and Russia sailed a ‘fleet’ (surface vessels!) from Murmansk just a few days ago…

Compare the summer temperatures when this rock is 4 million kilometres (recall what an average is) closer to our star and see how you go.

So Aaron, are you saying that there is a possibility that the Earth's temperature varies by other means than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?   Oh no, I thought it was all about man.

So Aaron, are you saying that there is a possibility that the Earth's temperature varies by other means than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?   Oh no, I thought it was all about man.

Me too, I thought it was just a matter of shutting down the half dozen or so coal-fired power plants we had left running in Australia and the whole world would automatically start cooling... isn't that how it will work?

Aaron missed two other alternative non-anthropogenic explanations for the last few cool summers:

The Maunder Minimum: The sun actually moves within its own heating and cooling cycles and at the moment its theorised to be moving to a 'minimum' cycle. These cycles have been precisely measured through the tracing of carbon-14 in tree rings or ice cores and have been measured at 11-year intervals - but there's also speculation that those cycles are lengthening to 16 years right now. At the moment in 2022 we're supposed to be in a cooling cycle.

La Nina; from the Bureau of Meteorology:

La Niña occurs when equatorial trade winds become stronger, changing ocean surface currents and drawing cooler deep water up from below. This results in a cooling of the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. The enhanced trade winds also help to pile up warm surface waters in the western Pacific and to the north of Australia.

The warming of ocean temperatures in the western Pacific means the area becomes more favourable for rising air, cloud development and rainfall. As a result, heavy rainfall can occur to the north of Australia. Conversely, over the eastern and central tropical Pacific, air descends over the cooler waters, meaning the region is less favourable for cloud and rain. The air rising in the west and descending in the east enhances an atmospheric circulation – called the Walker circulation – which can result in changes to the climate felt across the globe.

We're supposed to be in the middle of one of those cycles too. So two additional things possibly causing the cool summers we've had in the last two years in addition to the wonky orbit of the earth around the sun.

So Aaron, are you saying that there is a possibility that the Earth's temperature varies by other means than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?   Oh no, I thought it was all about man.

This is why a reasonable conversation is difficult or impossible.
One simple question, do you think man’s burning of fossil fuels is affecting the planet?
It’s yes or no. Not by how much or but, but,,,,
If your response is no, any following discussion is irrelevant.

Simple answer - No.

There are a lot more reasons for climate variations than the one and only reason that is stuffed down our throats by climate castrophosists.

The planet as able to adjust to increases and decreases in CO2 as it has over billions of years.

I'm happy to keep the coal burning to keep warm in winter and cool in summer and not have to live in a yurt and hope the windmills keep turning.

By the way, what is the "perfect" climate for the planet?

Thank you for a comprehensive no. Many sit on the fence.
A perfect climate, how long is a piece of string.

By the way, what is the "perfect" climate for the planet?

A decent place to start would be considering an average patch of the planet receiving 6kWh/m² per day in solar insolation being able to successfully radiate 21.6MJ/m² per day when not seeing that insolation (ie. at night).

We can tweak the definition from there if you have any real input - or do you just want to keep it rhetorical?

So Aaron, are you saying that there is a possibility that the Earth's temperature varies by other means than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?   Oh no, I thought it was all about man.

Of course there is.

You have not for example heard of methane?

Is my mention of the earth being on an eccentric orbit really news to you?

It does genuinely astound me that with the exception of those whom have been to space for significant periods of time the rest of the population literally lives their entire life on earth and still steadfastly manages to know PRECISELY FA about it.

It does genuinely astound me that with the exception of those whom have been to space for significant periods of time the rest of the population literally lives their entire life on earth and still steadfastly manages to know PRECISELY FA about it.

How dare those residents of the planet be ignorant of the imperfect orbit! You should stand on street corners with a sign shouting about it at passers-by.

Meanwhile France has decided to go in a different direction to the rest of Europe and is building 14 (count 'em) new nuclear reactors - The Independent

President Emmanuel Macron has announced that France will build up to 14 new reactors as part of a “renaissance” for the French nuclear industry.

The new reactors are to be built as part of the country’s strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.

The French leader said the new plants would be built and operated by state-controlled energy provider EDF.

The French have already had such a smashing financial success in selling reliable nuclear electricity to hapless England and Germany that I'm guessing they're planning to power the whole of Northern Europe during wind and solar's down-times. The exception is Poland (as Aaron knows) because that's one place that's stubbornly held on to its coal fired power plants.

Poland is looking to progress in nuclear energy, I think Zarnowiec will go ahead and maybe Lubiatowo. I think the Polish government (well the Polish state power authority) have a stake in a plant in Lithuania. Sadly, they’re progressing very slowly, I will probably be able to retire and move to Poland and just be a consultant on those projects for a little extra money - that’s how slow the Polish government is moving today.

It would be more impressive if Australia moved toward nuclear energy today - alas we have to kowtow to the lowest denominator of uneducated voter in this country.

The ‘Friends of the Earth’ are about to made to like fools, for their years of ‘nuclear is uneconomic’ rhetoric, we are basically seeing today that uranium demand is outstripping supply. Sadly it seems instead of Australia riding the wave, we are going to allow Kazakstan and Brazil scoop up the cash.

Aaron, tongue firmly in cheek from me, having a go at the CO2 only followers.

Aaron, tongue firmly in cheek from me, having a go at the CO2 only followers.

If that is the case then I apologise, I missed your intent and took it as a genuine position.

Coal isn't exactly a cheap commodity these days:
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal

USD$245 per Tonne and climbing!

Crude Oil is about to bust through $100/bbl...

The biggest coal fired powerplant in the nation will close in 2025, 5-7 years earlier than originally scheduled:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/eraring-coal-plant-to-close-in-2025-as-origin-energy-accelerates-coal-exit/

And before Don comments about candles, lights going out etc, there'll be capacity to cover it by then (see the reply to Matt Canavan's ramblings):

The biggest coal fired powerplant in the nation will close in 2025, 5-7 years earlier than originally scheduled:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/eraring-coal-plant-to-close-in-2025-as-origin-energy-accelerates-coal-exit/

And before Don comments about candles, lights going out etc, there'll be capacity to cover it by then (see the reply to Matt Canavan's ramblings):

This is utter rubbish: They're relying on 'capacity' like the SA/NSW interconnector and the 'Snowy pumped hydro'.

As I've explained to you people many times before, if there's a large high pressure system sitting over the eastern half of Australia you have no wind and nothing to charge the 'battery' with - and no power to get FROM South Australia or send TO South Australia. We are giving up reliable, coal-fired power to put our fate in the hands of the weather.

Blackouts will result.

Hey Morrison STFU about China.

Hey Morrison STFU about China.

Back when the PRC was "our friend" because it was easy money.  

Naivety cuts across multiple political parties and persuasions.  The NSW Opposition leader is somewhat 'tainted' too:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-12/alp-invoice-reveals-expenses-payment-to-chris-minns/11191042

The biggest coal fired powerplant in the nation will close in 2025, 5-7 years earlier than originally scheduled:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/eraring-coal-plant-to-close-in-2025-as-origin-energy-accelerates-coal-exit/

And before Don comments about candles, lights going out etc, there'll be capacity to cover it by then (see the reply to Matt Canavan's ramblings):

This is utter rubbish: They're relying on 'capacity' like the SA/NSW interconnector and the 'Snowy pumped hydro'.

As I've explained to you people many times before, if there's a large high pressure system sitting over the eastern half of Australia you have no wind and nothing to charge the 'battery' with - and no power to get FROM South Australia or send TO South Australia. We are giving up reliable, coal-fired power to put our fate in the hands of the weather.

Blackouts will result.

Plenty of water in the Snowy River system at present, and when the wind isn't blowing in NSW, it usually is in SA.

I don't think they'll run into problems.

Plenty of water in the Snowy River system at present, and when the wind isn't blowing in NSW, it usually is in SA.

I don't think they'll run into problems.

No offence but you are really quite ignorant about the problems of renewable energy and you need to educate yourself more on the topic.

I'd suggest you read two critiques of the 'Snowy battery' system being constructed - this one from The Conversation and this one from the Solar Quotes blog.

Snowy Pumped Hydro is a dud even before its completed. The capacity it actually puts out is tiny - as I've pointed out before we'd need at least 25 or 30 Snowy Pumped Hydro projects to power the NEM at times of low wind output and even if it was possible to build that many we'd find that after about 36 hours they'd fail because they actually need energy INPUT in order to keep going. The existing battery being constructed will likely have very small output - perhaps as low as 40 GWh (which is a tenth of the 'plated capacity') - and it loses 40% of the energy put into it because it has to be pumped up a 27km tunnel to the top of the system.

Pumped hydro is in no way the solution, in fact its probably creating a false sense of security because of its promises but in reality it just won't deliver.

And I'd also suggest that you do what I do from time to time and look at the 'data dashboard' for the National Electricity Market here. It clearly tells you where power is coming from at times of demand and where it's being dispatched to - but more importantly - the huge price spikes that occur at times when wind and solar aren't up to the task - which is very frequent.

The most interesting thing to watch is when we have a large high pressure system move over the nation and/or early evening when solar has gone to bed - wind fails nearly everywhere and there's no solar at all. There's no point whatsoever in having a large system of interconnected wind turbines and solar panels if nearly all of them fail to produce energy at the same time - that's a recipe for disaster as they found out in the UK last year when they had an unusually mild summer with a lack of wind.

But as I've explained before, the UK has redundancy in their system in the form of huge HV cables connected to France's nuclear reactors. We have no such redundancy here on our island continent. No redundancy or back-up power = blackouts.

Mr Average Australian might not be aware of the elliptical nature of the earth’s orbit and its varying degrees of eccentricity, nor much care, but climate change scientists are:

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/


Given the current situation, a nuclear winter might be your best ‘hope’.

Mr Average Australian might not be aware of the elliptical nature of the earth’s orbit and its varying degrees of eccentricity, nor much care, but climate change scientists are:

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/


Given the current situation, a nuclear winter might be your best ‘hope’.

I seriously don't think we're going to run into any problems. If you look at the history of this planet we've had much, much higher concentrations of carbon dioxide without life ceasing to exist. The usual concentration of carbon dioxide is more like 2,000 ppm through the Jurassic and Cretaceous eras; 400+ ppm might change some ways the weather systems operate but its not catastrophic, life as we know it will not be exterminated.

The 'carbon crisis' is just a way for billionaires to get richer - look at the way that Twiggy Forrest cleverly talked the Commonwealth and Queensland governments into giving him hundred of millions of dollars to build a huge hydrogen plant in Gladstone even though such plants have never worked where they've been tried before (ie Japan). Taxpayers bear all the risk, billionaires get all the profits.

Obscene.

renewable energy. is there a system that frack Hydrogen and oxygen out of water by excessive solar inthe day and can use the hydrogen to generated power at night ?

Regards,
David Head