Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

This is only somewhat anecdotal, and the weather up here has always been subject to some pretty wild swings. It's been known to snow here at least once during December, and certainly I had a fire going all day Xmas & Boxing days in around 2012. Not uncommon in summer to have a hot day followed by a relatively very cold one (say 33° and then 18° the next day).

Today for example was forecast to be 36° and would have been that, preceded by yesterday at 18°. Tomorrow 19° and Sunday 15°(!). Nothing unusual about that (except for the 36°) although 15° is out there. Actually there is something pretty weird about cold - REALLY hot - cold - REALLY cold all within a 4 day stretch.

However, and this is the anecdotal part, what I'm noticing is that these wild fluctuations from one day to the next are becoming more frequent, and with wilder fluctuations.
We might usually have one or two instances in a summer.
We might usually have a small handful of days over 30°.
Just a week ago NYE was the hottest day ever here at 39.8°, which I'm going to call our first 40° day, and two days later it was 19°.
There have been at least two other fluctuations like that in the last 6 weeks:
21st Dec 39.5° (hottest ever day until last Satdy), then 13.7° the next damn day!

7 days in Dec of 33° or more, and 3 more in the first 10 days of Jan - that's pretty much unheard of here.
4 days over 30° in November which was out hottest Nov ever. No extreme swings for the month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

There was apparently one responsible person at Newscorp, but couldn't take their disinformation campaign and left.
News Corp employee lashes climate 'misinformation' in bushfire coverage with blistering email | Media | The Guardian

---

Putting my own personal opinions aside to look at this from a purely logical point of view, there are really two ways to look at this:

1. Newscorp is telling the truth, or

2. Newscorp is running an misinformation campaign.

If Newscorp IS running a misinformation campaign then why? What is the motivation and who stands to profit from it? Why would they be running a misinformation campaign if they or someone associated with them has nothing to gain by it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!

Nar. Just 'Climate Change' will do.

It doesn't matter 'who started it,' what does matter is A: recognising that it is, indeed, a matter of serious concern and B: pulling our fingers out and collectively doing something about it.

---

Yeah, I'd be happy with that but the problem is that it gives deniers the out that they keep using to do as little as possible: "always been going on - nothing to see here."

To be completely blunt, even if this is all naturally occurring ....somehow....we still have to do something to slow it down because vast areas of the planet will not be liveable, which will be costly in the extreme. Far far more costly than knocking out use of two fuels that we are running out of anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

If Newscorp IS running a misinformation campaign then why? What is the motivation and who stands to profit from it? Why would they be running a misinformation campaign if they or someone associated with them has nothing to gain by it?

---

Dunno why, but I'll bet precious things that it's purely for profit. It's probably got a great deal to do with taking the opportunity to feed off the fears of the deniers. Alan Jones is a master of talking crud that people like to believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Putting my own personal opinions aside to look at this from a purely logical point of view, there are really two ways to look at this:

1. Newscorp is telling the truth, or

2. Newscorp is running an misinformation campaign.

If Newscorp IS running a misinformation campaign then why? What is the motivation and who stands to profit from it? Why would they be running a misinformation campaign if they or someone associated with them has nothing to gain by it?

---

Doug

I think that money, greed and self interest are the underlying factors. People with vested interests do not want to see their cash cows run dry. So the coal companies, the oil companies and anybody else who sees their livelihood threatened orchestrates a campaign to protect their interests. This inevitably results in the major players jumping into bed with each other. Why would Murdock, for example, perpetuate a biased report rather than the truth?

Money.

Why is there such an ebullient business in Canberra centred around lobbying? It is to ensure the interests of influential players are represented and where possible swayed. Note I did not mention anything about "best interest." Why, as another example, does Gina Rinehart contribute millions to the Liberal party coffers? Call me cynical if you wish, but I am fairly certain it is on the understanding that the party does nothing that will lend any credence to climate change and adverse effects it may have on the mining of fossil fuels.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

If Newscorp IS running a misinformation campaign then why? What is the motivation and who stands to profit from it? Why would they be running a misinformation campaign if they or someone associated with them has nothing to gain by it?

---

This article by Michael Pascoe gives some possible explanation of Murdoch's reason.

Michael Pascoe: How Murdoch’s myrmidons murdered climate policy How Murdoch’s ink-stained imps killed climate sanity

Tony

I debated for a long time before positing this, I'll likely regret it.

YouTube

I'm not interested in character assassinations and rhetoric, what I am interested in is both sides of a correct science based debate, without bias.

I want to hear from all scientists, especially when new findings become available, and not be shouted down by slogans because it goes against some peoples almost religious belief of the proven facts as they know them, IMHO this is an attempt to shut down all other scientific knowledge / debate as more science based knowledge becomes known and published.

We are poisoning our planet in so many way, we have polluted and virtually destroyed our oceans, forests, land, food and health, all forms of pollution have to be tackled and we need to be sure now that the decisions we cast in stone are 100% correct.

I've been looking at all scientific findings for a few years now and the above video brings some of the other data I've read together, it has in the past, and continues to raise some question (for me at least), so I try to keep an open mind. I'm not saying the current information realised by the media is flawed or misleading, but what if it's not 100% correct, is it wrong to take the time to look and listen to all science based data before attacking anyone who dares to ask a question, this seems to be the case, especially with the media gossip columnist programs now disguised as news reporting. On ALL news subjects and reporting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MandJ

YouTube

---

AT 97 minutes it may be a while before I have the time or the data allowance to look at that (data clicks over on the 19th). Are you able to distil it down into a summary? The comments underneath it seem to indicate it appears to be somewhat in favour of scepticism, but I haven't watched a second of it, so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MandJ

... not be shouted down by slogans because it goes against some peoples almost religious belief of the proven facts as they know them

---

There are certainly some groups that are of no use to anyone, and that includes that ridiculous notion that taking a caravan of protesters up to Cleremont was going to change the minds of locals who want the jobs that would be created by a coal mine. That was completely counter-productive, and IMO was the single biggest factor to SmoKo not losing the election (note I don't say he won it, because he didn't - it was handed to him). There's only one seat in it, and Qld deserted Shorten. I dunno how good or bad he would have been - we had a very similar choice of poor alternatives just like the Brits just had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MandJ

We are poisoning our planet in so many way, we have polluted and virtually destroyed our oceans, forests, land, food and health, all forms of pollution have to be tackled and we need to be sure now that the decisions we cast in stone are 100% correct.

---

There can surely be no disagreement anywhere that putting less of our man made crud into the atmosphere can only be a good thing. Would anyone disagree with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MandJ

I'm not saying the current information realised by the media is flawed or misleading, but what if it's not 100% correct, is it wrong to take the time to look and listen to all science based data

---

I very much doubt that it is ever 100% correct (or not for very long) because it's a developing situation. What was correct yesterday may not be as correct today or next week - not because it was wrong yesterday but because the situation has changed.

It's kinda like fighting a large bushfire - nobody knows where it will end up, but we know it's going to be bad. And therein lies the problem - we're out of time, according to the best science available to us, and the longer we wait, the more expensive and difficult it will be to make any kind of reasonable corrective action viable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MandJ

before attacking anyone who dares to ask a question

---

Challenging is very different to attacking. I don't believe there's been any attacking within this thread from anyone towards another poster. Nothing wrong with asking questions.


It still gets back to this:

Attachment 466679

and this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

...even if this is all naturally occurring ....somehow....we still have to do something to slow it down because vast areas of the planet will not be liveable, which will be costly in the extreme. Far far more costly than knocking out use of two fuels that we are running out of anyway.

---

Think about the ramifications of that. Think of the desert dwellers, just for a start.

Frankly I don't care whether people are scared or not of electric vehicles coming in with oil going out because it's going to happen whether the CCDs like it or not. Industry has largely made its choice there and the momentum is building fairly rapidly - probably rapidly enough I suspect. For a while - probably a fair while - electric vehicles won't be much use for longer distance offroad work, only because of not being able to recharge (the torque from elec is actually better).

In short I am personally quite satisfied with the progress of electric vehicles, but even quicker would be better. No real point arguing against it either - gunna happen. A HUGE benefit of electric vehicles will be no longer having to worry so much about the Middle East volatility. Once oil is history you can bet the Yanks will out of there like a shot.

The elephant in the room is power generation, and we have discussed that at great length in the other thread a year or so ago. Presumably what Australian CCDs are scared of is the loss of export revenue - but that decision will be made for us by the importers from overseas. We will have little to no control over the directions that other countries take regarding importing our coal.

Coupled with that, it seems to me that we have potentially enough renewable resource capabilities to go more or less coal free more or less fairly soon. Solar take-up is huge (and indeed causing its own set of somewhat temporary problems). Why? Because it's cost effective over a reasonable time, and getting better all the time.

This is where I would like to see massive investment from the Govt - in battery storage. Why? One reason is quite obvious, but we would also be able to export that technology. I don't know if it would replace the coal revenue, but if we don't do it someone else surely will and we'll be left on the shelf again with another missed opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

In short I am personally quite satisfied with the progress of electric vehicles, but even quicker would be better. No real point arguing against it either - gunna happen. A HUGE benefit of electric vehicles will be no longer having to worry so much about the Middle East volatility. Once oil is history you can bet the Yanks will out of there like a shot.

The elephant in the room is power generation, and we have discussed that at great length in the other thread a year or so ago. Presumably what Australian CCDs are scared of is the loss of export revenue - but that decision will be made for us by the importers from overseas. We will have little to no control over the directions that other countries take regarding importing our coal.

---

The trouble with electric cars is not the technology of the vehicles themselves. It is in generating and distributing the required electricity to where the vehicles are garaged so that they can be charged up. Also charging stations along highways for interstate trips are a challenge.

There would not be a single suburb in Melbourne where the electricity grid could support even one or two electric cars per STREET, when there are currently an average of 2-4 petrol/diesel cars per HOUSE. The grid cannot currently support all the air conditioners that people turn on in the hot weather resulting in load shedding/local blackouts.

Imagine the chaos when everyone has an electric car and the power goes off over three suburbs overnight and 20,000 cars are flat in the morning.

Not to mention that having all those electric cars before we have 100% renewable electricity in place will only result in burning coal for powering cars instead of petrol/diesel.

Already there are electric car charging stations setup powered by diesel generators.

We have a long way to go before the electric car will be commonplace.

That's exactly why we need to get battery storage happening quickly. Power sharing or sub-letting also needs to be explored.

I think most of those problems you described there can be overcome. "Teething problems" :D

Given that we know oil is gone in 50 years (yes or yes) and that electric vehicles are the most likely to succeed them, it only adds further weight to getting rid of (most) coal and having our electricity supply much more locally produced. Hydrogen power all sounds wonderful but a recent video I watched indicates that it is unlikely to win the race (cost).

As Joel Fitzgibbon said after the election "Coal WILL be part of the mix until at least 2050, so get used to it."
The point being that we don't have to eradicate coal-fired power - we just have to vastly reduce the crud going into the air, so either vastly reduce (but not necessarily eliminate) c-f power, or capture the nasties before the go up (prolly virtually impossible).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I think most of those problems you described there can be overcome. "Teething problems" :D

---

"Teething problems" :D is a bit of an understatement, but I suppose that's what you meant by adding the smilie.

Boosting up the entire national power grid to handle the increase and concurrently removing coal from the mix will make building the NBN look like a walk in the park.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Boosting up the entire national power grid to handle the increase and concurrently removing coal from the mix will make building the NBN look like a walk in the park.

---

Only coz Fizza dumbed it down - it should have been a much harder build! :D

Yes, that's why I'm suggesting that locally (i.e. rooftop) produced, shared and used power via better batteries will (to my inexpert mind) go a long way to charging our vehicles, and therefore largely keeping the grid out of the equation, or at least as much as possible. I dunno, maybe neighbourhood shared batteries or similar - I just think there are things we could think through. There are plenty of rooftops that are not suitable for panels - like the one here which we deeply suspect as asbestos tiles (which means nobody wants to work on it). We need an Energy Summit in the same style of Hawkey's Economic summit in 83. That was one of the best examples of Leadership I've witnessed

Just sticking my uneducated head,in.
Has anybody mentioned tree planting.?
For example ,we have 25 million people living here give or take a few.
If and yes I know it’s a long shot if , the government provided each individual with 4 trees at a cost to the government at say $1 a tree (assuming they get mega bulk discount rate)
We each plant our four trees (100 million trees planted)cost 100 million,
Of course assuming we have that many trees saplings available.
With a survival to maturity rate of say 50/60 percent
Surely ,this will help the dumb humans in more than one way.
An we like trees here in one way or another.
Just a thought.

Cheers Matt.

Absolutely Matt! We'll have run out of stuff to burn just as they are getting big enough to go off nicely.

Seriously though it's yet another thing we need to do, but carefully - no weed trees should be planted (right tree wrong location etc).