Wallerawang Power Station is dead forever - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2018, 02:41:16 pm
content: I was out at Lithgow today, for tours of the Lithgow Small Arms factory & museum, and Wallerawang Power Station.Somehow I'd had the impression in recent years that though thehttps://www.google.com/maps/@-33.4021669,150.0819862,811m/data=!3m1!1e3Wallerawang station was closed, it was mothballed and could be brought back into service if needed. (And it WILL be needed.)Nope. It's been destroyed. Already far beyond any chance of refurbishment. Massively gutted. For eg all the boiler heat exchanger piping (a nickel-bronze alloy that was worth a lot as scrap), the steam condensers, etc.Typically, all the control systems had been modernized about a year before the place was shut down. All new big LCD screens, and computer systems. The control room is quite small and spacey looking. System still up. Pity it's all to be trashed.Sorry not many pics, and they are crap. It was a large tour group, moving rapidly so no chance to set up time exposures. And it was at night, so no outside shots, and many areas (eg boiler rooms) were quite dark. I've attached the least crap pics.Mount Piper power station nearby is still going, but is down to a single coal mine for supplies. So it's in a precarious position too.https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.3569469,150.032708,1622m/data=!3m1!1e3

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 03:17:02 am
content: Thanks for posting. What an eerie place!

author: Harb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 11:20:51 am
content: The fire they had sort of sealed its fate......bit of a shame really.....another one for the Urban explore list

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 11:59:27 am
content: It's a coal plant, those are politically end of life anyway.Would this make an interesting EEVdiscover?

author: Synthtech
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 12:08:38 pm
content: This will make the politicians and activists that are determined to de-industrialise Australia and put it into energy poverty very happy.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 12:10:36 pm
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on May 14, 2018, 11:59:27 amPolitically yes, but politics are fickle. What's completely undesirable one week could very well be the saving grace the next. Look at how Japan went from all-in nuclear to no nuclear power and back again in the name of the Paris agreement.

author: Harb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 12:21:39 pm
content: Our dumbarse politicians seem to think each country has its own independent atmosphere, so if we kill off our coal fired plants it will keep the air here in better nick for longer........

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 12:28:08 pm
content: Quote from: Harb on May 14, 2018, 12:21:39 pmThat was kind of the point of The Paris Agreement. Orange is a party and green a signatory.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 12:29:10 pm
content: Quote from: Jeroen3 on May 14, 2018, 11:59:27 amNot in Australia. Not by a long shot!

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 12:37:17 pm
content: You got it completely backwards. Coal is very politically popular (because it's cheap), and they are constantly building new coal power plants. The only energy source that is not politically popular is nuclear (and perhaps oil, but that is because we are running out of oil so it's just going to get more expensive).The problem is that science shows co2 emissions causes climate change (it's not politics, it's scientific fact), so we really should stop burning fossil coal. Sadly politicians/people are idiots and ignore it or are fooled to think science is some sort of conspiracy. Doesn't help that many politicians get their fortunes from coal, gas and oil (like Bush, Putin and King Salman for example).Picture source:https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/world/as-appetite-for-electricity-soars-the-world-keeps-turning-to-coal/1842/

author: sibeen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 01:05:37 pm
content: I started my own company back in 1991 and one of the first paying gigs I got was rebuilding two inverters at Wallerawang. They were 20 kVA 110VDC to 240 AC inverters, from memory. Someone had decided that they needed to be installed inside the switchboards - the reason for this is something I could never fathom. So the inverters turned up to site built in their standard box and then this box was placed inside a switchboard cubicle. Unfortunately the inverters were a ferro-reasonant design. These things run hot at the best of times and after being placed inside a box inside a box they just shut down on overtemperature.My task was to pull it out of the swithchboard, then pull it out of its own box an then rebuild it within the switchboard and ensure that it wouldn't overheat and shut down. So I added a lot of exhaust fans to the top of the switchboard cubicle, lots of air entry around the bottom sections of the board and then rebuilt the unit within the switchboard. I then had to add external alarms and all the requisite bells and whistles and indicators onto the front of the switchboard so that the operators could know what the unit was doing.That's where I made a serious mistake. I decided as I only needed a few hundred mA at 5 volts I'd just tap off the existing 5 volt rail - like what's an extra watt going to matter. Come the day when I had it all back together and ready to go. Went over and turned the 110 VDC circuit breaker on and watched in horror as a lot of my wiring caught fire and smoke was billowing from lots of places that smoke should not be billowing from. Checked over what had happened. The power supply in the unit was undoubatedly one of the worst, crappiest pieces of in-house design that I'd ever run across. It was basically a voltage divider into a zener reference, and when it blew it placed 110 volts onto the 5 volt rail. Every chip on every board was toast.After a night of very heavy drinking a few hour drive down to Sydney the next day for a trip to Farnell and buying three of every chip in the unit. Lots of soldering then ensured and eventually got the unit back up and running, albeit with a new 110 to 5 volt power supply. So the first one took about three or four days longer than it should have. Was back a week or so later to do the next unit and that went far easier. I left my business card tapped to the door of the units and never heard from the client again, so I have no idea how long they remianed in service.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 01:13:59 pm
content: Quote from: apis on May 14, 2018, 12:37:17 pmBetween population growth and resource depletion (fossil, mineral, land, anti-biotics, etc, etc) it's not even relevant. We're facing so much worse problems, electrical generation and EV is a fun diversion to think about to avoid thinking about the real shitshows taking place, but that's all it is ... a diversion.Fossil fuel consumption took flight around WW2, our tidal gauges have yet to give a shit, I think we'll have a bit of time to adapt to climate change. Population growth in Africa, Middle East and Asia has a much bigger impact on resources per capita than climate change. It's causing wars and mass migration right now, climate change is not.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 01:34:26 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 14, 2018, 01:13:59 pmWe're already seeing trouble and therefore migration caused by climate change.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 02:09:07 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on May 14, 2018, 01:34:26 pmName me a place where the impact of population growth hasn't had an order of magnitude more influence on arable land and renewable water resources per capita.Not Syriafor instance. When people put their minds and loins to it, they can double population every couple decades with ease. Sea level rise is sedentary by comparison ... also at our gauges it just stubbornly refuses to accelerate.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 02:45:18 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 14, 2018, 02:09:07 pmIt's the combination that's so lethal. Places will become less habitable and yields will decline, while demand still grows. That's not going to fly. Either one is already an issue.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 03:03:10 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 14, 2018, 01:13:59 pmI worried about overpopulation as well before, but the fact is that birthrates are not increasing anymore. As people get more educated and child mortality goes down the birthrate also goes down. The earths human population will continue to grow for a few more years (because the largest generations haven't gotten old enough to start die yet) but is believed to stabilise at around 12 billion. It's explained well in this TED lecture:Our tidal gaugesdoshow an acceleration in sea level rise:https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/impacts/causes-of-sea-level-rise.htmlAnd here is a animation by NOAA showing how the arctic sea ice is disappearing:It's now so little ice you can reliably ship goods on the arctic ocean (north of Russia) during summer, which is why Russia is retrofitting their old ports along the arctic ocean:https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2018/01/arctic-seaports-bustle-shipping-northern-sea-route-reaches-new-highThere is inertia in the climate system. Unfortunately the really bad effects will not be apparent to "joe average" until several years from now, but the chance to do something about it is today (or rather yesterday really). We should have stopped emitting co2 completely already, instead we are not only emitting more co2 than ever before, the rate at which the emissions are increasing is increasing (i.e. we areacceleratingwhen we should have stopped already).EDIT: sorry, looks like we got way off topic here.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 03:18:30 pm
content: Quote from: apis on May 14, 2018, 03:03:10 pmExcept they don't, it's the satellite data which is more sensitive which just happens to show a break from the trend which for pure gauge data is so faint that it disappears based on your choice of statistical tools ... I'll wait till I can see it on the actual gauge data, which I trust far more. Especially the ones read by my countrymen, I'm chauvinist like that.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 03:45:31 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on May 14, 2018, 02:45:18 pmNot just that. If the sea levels really rise than many places will have huge problems because they have no walls to keep the sea water out. When I visited Helsinki I noticed that the level of the water was only like 50 or 60 cm lower than the shore.

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 04:12:45 pm
content: Coal is dying for economic reasons anyway, cost to much to run compared to alternatives.Nothing new about equipment getting upgraded one year, then shut down for good the next.At some point the cost of repairing what did need major repairs, exceeds what money it could bring in as income.Compare solar to coalSolar produces power when pointed at the sun.Coal turbine produces power when feed tons of coal, and keep clean of ash.Solar maintenance is cleaning dust from panels, and the odd bit of electronics to replace.Coal turbine maintenance is not bothering to clean the black dust and rust off, heavy welding, pipework, electrical work etc.Solar power plant is still young in age.Coal Turbine is a from the 1950's to 1970s, with all the problems that come with it.Solar produces power where ever there is sunlightCoal Turbine produces power in places where coal exists, or a railroad.Solar is just far less work/expense to keep running, has almost no single points of failure, no need to keep shovelling black dirt into it.As for all this baseload nonsense, the terms you need to learn are "minimum load" and "demand curve"Solar isn't a problem as people tend to use most of their power when the sun is in the sky.Wind isn't a problem as the wind is always blowing somewhere in the country, site lots of turbines in areas with few wind free days, and switch off some if you get too much energy.From wikipedia: "EnergyAustralia began the process of removing useful equipment from the station in 2015"This didn't happen yesterday, the company are the ones that pulled the plug to lack of cheap coal.I don't see why politics needs to be involved, in what is honestly about modernising the power grid with modern technology.NSW does have a very heavy use of coal generated electricity, compared to all the other states, not sure why they are forcing their outdated thinking onto the rest of the country.I'm not going to shed a tear for a power station built in 1957, it's probably lasted far longer than the engineers that designed it ever intended.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 04:30:02 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 14, 2018, 03:18:30 pmLooks like your fellow countrymen also think there is a problem:https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/01/average-sea-level-rises-along-the-dutch-coast-hits-highest-level/https://www.uu.nl/en/news/total-range-of-sea-level-rise-greater-than-expectedIf you are only willing to believe in cherrypicked data from the Netherlands no amount of facts or science will change your mind so discussing it further is sort of meaningless.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 04:43:03 pm
content: The latter is prediction, the former doesn't even care about acceleration, just the steady rise. The gauge data is in the thread for anyone to see. Den Helder is representative, averaging our gauges with long term data just makes it even more of a straight line.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 04:53:40 pm
content: Quote from: station240 on May 14, 2018, 04:12:45 pmAutarky is worth a bit of money, paying a premium for native fossil fuel makes sense. It's not like we haven't had a systemic collapse of the global economy and trade before. Given the lower price of gas turbine plants, (underground) gasification might make more sense than pure coal for Australia though. Especially if it's just for backup for solar/wind.QuoteNot if they start using EVs.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 04:55:04 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 14, 2018, 04:43:03 pmThe problem is that measuring the exact sea level is next to impossible because the water surface on earth isn't shaped like a perfect sphere. There are not only the tides and winds but also gravitational effects caused by other planets and the uneally distributed land mass on the earth itself. So even without tidal effects from other planets and wind the water level still wouldn't be shaped like a sphere.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 04:56:09 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 14, 2018, 04:43:03 pmLet's assume you're right and it's a steady rise. We're still boned. There are plenty of countries where a small rise means swamping huge bits of land. People tend to concentrate near the coast. Massive amounts of people will be displaced. There are already inhabited islands disappearing under the sea. Whether it's an accelrated or steady increase is patato patato. It's very bad news either way.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 04:58:12 pm
content: As I said, we're fucked in so many ways ... climate change is just a funny little far off problem we can concentrate on to distract ourselves from the more intractable ones on our doorstep.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 05:03:44 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 14, 2018, 04:43:03 pmYes, the data show a straight linethat is pointing up: sea level is rising. The reason it is rising is because water expands when it gets warmer, and to a lesser extent because land based glaciers are melting. Glad we all agree.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 05:07:30 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 14, 2018, 04:58:12 pmClimate change multiplies other problems, it's already causing increasingly troublesome issues and that will only get worse and to stand any chance of dealing with it you have to start now. We're likely already much too late, but better late than never. Waiting until we get run over isn't viable. We simply can't risk making our only planet barely habitable. We need this rock.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 05:13:20 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on May 14, 2018, 04:53:40 pmEVs use batteries... batteries that can be charged when the sun is in the sky?Australia got to be close to ideal for solar power: it's close to the equator and has large dessert areas (lots of sun hours) that could be used for solar panel installations.QuoteAnd there are other options than coal/gas if you really need a backup source. Australia is currently exporting uranium fuel for example. They are sitting on 39% of the worlds uranium reserves. (http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/corporate/annual-reports/asno-annual-report-2016-17/html/section-2/australias-uranium-production-and-exports.html)Australia is a technically advanced peaceful country that is more than capable of operating a nuclear power plant safely if they wanted to.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 05:28:51 pm
content: Lets say you get renewable up to say 95% ... then using nuclear makes no sense. A gas turbine plant is cheap to build and expensive to fuel, a nuclear plant is expensive to build and cheap to fuel. You want the former for backup, not the latter.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 05:39:54 pm
content: You have to look at the whole picture: burning coal/gas not only produce green house gas emissions, it also produce air pollution which is really bad for peoples health, leads to ocean acidification and mercury poisoning. A nuclear plant might be a little bit more expensive to build, but as you said: it is worth paying a little extra for autarky, but also for peoples health, a habitable climate and a clean environment!

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 14, 2018, 10:14:06 pm
content: Quote from: station240 on May 14, 2018, 04:12:45 pmBecause renewables aren't the answer to Australia's energy requirements, there needs to be another, economical solution and right now, it's coal (well, it's nuclear but until the laws change here, that's not going to happen). Renewable sources such as wind and solar are fine together with existing technologies, but you're a nut case if you think they can entirely replace what we have and power the country.But to say coal generation is the same as it was in the 1950's is ridiculous. It's like saying modern nuclear reactors are still based on Russia's RMBK design or that car engines are just as efficient as they were 20 years ago.Ultra-critical and supercritical coal fired technology exists today and is used around the world. It's not "clean" but it's a hell of a lot better than the old stuff they used to build power plants out of.As for cost, utilising Australias current coal fired plants, electricity generation from coal costs less than $40 per megawatt-hour. The newpumped hydro system being built will cost something like 5 times that figure.The other thing is the change in climate is undeniable, the science shows that it is happening, but we need to shift this thinking from Carbon Dioxide being this big invisible bogey man and concentrate on all the other crap we pump into our environment. Human-made CO2 is relatively insignificant.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2018, 01:13:53 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on May 14, 2018, 10:14:06 pmYou are right that climate change is a fact, butnotthat human made CO2is insignificant. CO2is not the only factor, but it is the largest:QuoteThat is from wikipedia, if anyone wants to check sources:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warmingCoal and gas need to go completely. Nuclear isn't the solution either but it could be part of the solution. Nuclear can only replace a few percent of coal the coming decades because it takes a long time to build new nuclear plants and there isn't enough competence or infrastructure in the world to do it quickly enough. I think it would be better if democratic industrialised nations like Australia use the available competence than yet another dictator though. (it's politically difficult here too, they are still trying to shut down reactors here when we should be building new ones.)Solar is the long term solution. Solar can produce more than enough power for anyone and Australia got to have the best preconditions for solar in the world. Although it only produce energy intermittently, that is still fine for many applications even today. With "smart" appliances that only power on when electricity is cheap (i.e. the sun is shining) and with other methods of energy effectivisation you can go a long way.With a combination of energy effectivisation, solar, nuclear and new energy storage techniques (like pumped hydro) it can be done, although it will not be easy. The alternative of not doing anything and hoping for the best is far worse though.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 15, 2018, 03:05:01 am
content: Quote from: apis on May 15, 2018, 01:13:53 amCows and sheep contribute about 20% of the world's CO2 emissions, shall we stop drinking milk and eating lamb? CO2 has been around since day dot, it's not a bad thing to have in the atmosphere, in fact, plants and trees love the stuff. This focus onjustCO2 is stupid, sure, everything is bad in large enough quantities, but as I said, we should be looking at reducing other pollutants before we look at Carbon Dioxide. Australia's CO2 output is less than 1% compared to the rest of the world, hardly a significant amount, I think focus and money can be better spent elsewhere, like installing a proper broadband network.Quote from: apis on May 15, 2018, 01:13:53 amWhat do you suggest a viable, efficient replacement is? Our current range of renewablescan'treplace our base load plants in order to keep up with energy demand. Personally, I don't fancy rubbing two sticks together at night just to provide heat and light.

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2018, 06:03:34 am
content: Based onrecent happenings,aging energy distributionand more commonshort time shortages, I expect the energy grid to lose this high "base load" principle completely.Energy price will fluctuate, based on real-time demand. Even for consumers, and we will have to learn to live with it.Products like a powerwall will become more common, even on grid level, to stabilize the price.I'm not that worried about the rising sea level.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2018, 09:37:53 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on May 15, 2018, 03:05:01 amYou're way off. The problem with cows is methane, not CO2.Yes CO2has been around for a long time, but it was fine as the system was in balance: any CO2released by animals was taken up by plants, to make O2and biomass. Now we're burning fossilised carbon and releasing CO2at a faster rate than it's absorbed. What's worse is we've been cutting down trees which helped to soak up the extra CO2.QuoteNuclear, along with more renewables and investment in energy storage. In this case, Australia has more than enough potential solar power to meet its needs. The issue is storage.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2018, 10:37:45 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on May 14, 2018, 03:17:02 amIf you liked that, go watch "the proper people" videos on youtube.They explore abandoned buildings, power stations, hospitals, mental institutions etc.I got addicted and watched all their videos.Pro tip, watch them late at night for extra scarinessThere is some absolute gold in their videos.Coming across cool/scary stuff and exploring really sketchy places.(paraphrasing)"You know what, I dont think this floor is entirely safe, wood is a bit mushy"<opens door to next room to reveal floor in their has collapsed 2 stories down>"yep, not safe. shit"Here's a couple of videos to get you started

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2018, 01:14:32 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on May 15, 2018, 03:05:01 amAs Hero999 said, it's methane not CO2. Its from manure and ruminating animals. According to wikipedia:"Removing all U.S. agricultural animals would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2.6%."That is pretty insignificant, especially since the US is one of the biggest meat consumers iirc. The whole anti meat thing is new, I find it a bit odd to be honest, maybe the vegans are exaggerating it.The largest factors causing global warming are greenhouse gases, aerosols and soot, and land use change such as deforestation (in that order I believe).QuoteThere's no reason you can't do both, and no you are not insignificant, you are among the highest emitters per capita:https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?view=map&year=2014

author: Harb
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2018, 01:32:08 pm
content: I call that map BS

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2018, 01:37:48 pm
content: Quote from: Harb on May 15, 2018, 01:32:08 pmWhy?It's from here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita&oldid=47400906And it matches the map and data from the worldbank:https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?view=map&year=2014

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2018, 02:08:57 pm
content: Quote from: apis on May 15, 2018, 01:37:48 pmThat map is 20 years out of date!

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2018, 02:46:37 pm
content: It still looks the same, the worldbank map and data i linked is from 2014: (was just easier to copy/paste the wikipedia image)It still looks the same because nothing is happening

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 15, 2018, 11:14:27 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on May 15, 2018, 10:37:45 amThanks for that! Amazing stuff. I love videos like this. The Chernobyl ones are particularly interesting.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2018, 11:46:14 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on May 15, 2018, 09:37:53 amMethane emissions an be attributed toallherbage consuming mammals.And BTW alternative herbage cultivars and selective animal breeding is being investigated to reduce emissions.....here anyway.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2018, 05:25:19 am
content: Up until around 2008 I believed the Anthropogenic Global Warming storyline: "Mankind is increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, (was around 300ppm @ 1800, is around 410ppm in 2018) and the CO2 acts to retain heat, so the Earth is warming dangerously."Then I happened to come across this graph.WTF? That... contradictseverythingin the AGW story. Obviously they cannot both be true. Curious, I started looking into this more carefully.Turns out the entire AGW story is a manufactured lie, made up by Globalists in the 1980s, as a wedge to use to achieve their ideological agenda. They just like the idea of a global population under 800 million, and want to de-industrialise human society and kill a lot of people (9/10ths) to achieve that. The core lie is that CO2 in the air is the major factor influencing Earth surface temp. Actually, it has a small effect, that saturates at less than the current (very low) CO2 level, but the major factors are: atmospheric water vapor, and Solar output. (The Sun is a variable star.)The key questions to ask yourself:1. What was the average level of atmospheric CO2 over the geological history of life on Earth?A: around 1000 to 3000ppm. Not a typo. Yes, far, far higher than now. And life on Earth was fine.This was what immediately stood out to me from that graph. Obviously someone is lying.2. When was the lowest-ever level of CO2?A: in the Carboniferous-Permian transition, and now.3. What is the lowest level of atmospheric CO2 that plants can survive?A: around 150 to 100 ppm. Below that they just die. CO2 is plant food. Earth was nearly down to plant-starvation in the recent epoch. Greenhouse growers pump in CO2, 1000+ ppm, to make the plants grow very vigorously.4. Anything else about plants and CO2?Yes. Plants use openings in their leaves, called stomata, to regulate gas transfer for photosynthesis. The less CO2 available, the more they open the stomata to increase diffusion. Problem: the more they open stomata, the more H2O diffuses OUT from the leaf. So, the less CO2 around, the faster plants lose water. The more CO2, the less water they need. With higher CO2 levels, plants can survive far lower average rainfall climate. Apart from the low availability of carbon to build plant structure, Earth's current near starvation level of CO2 ALSO results in arid areas remaining barren, because CO2-starved plants can't survive without lots of water. In short, Earth's land surface is mostly desert atm, because of low CO2 levels in the air. Compared to historical levels that were far higher.For a while I wondered if it was an honest mistake, a misunderstanding, just some bad science.Nope. It's flat out barefaced lying and fraud. There are many, many instances of this becoming clear.One good example - Michael Mann's 'hockey stick graph'. He's a climate scientist at CRU (Climate Research Unit, Univ of East Anglia - coincidentally an actual ivory-colored tower, which was the original locus of AGW theory dissemination) wrote a paper purporting to show a historically flat average Earth temp suddenly shooting up in recent decades , supposedly due to increasing CO2. This paper has been shown to be fraudulent, and there's an ongoing court battle to force Mann to show his raw data and statistical manipulations. He refuses. Because he falsified all of it.There was a famous leak of emails from the CRU, in which Mann and colleges (also Warmist fakers) discuss how to 'hide the decline, and eliminate the middle ages warm period. ie fake the data record to hide that Earth was warmer in the Middle Ages than now, and had a considerable decline in temp during the middle 1900s. The fakery involved applying unfounded statistical manipulations to the historical data record, to 'flatten' it (into the 'stick' of the hockey stick.)The Warmists NEVER show graphs of Earth's long term temperature variations, including the major ice ages and warm periods, because even with the faked temp data for the recent century, past variations dwarf current swings.Also CO2 levels LAG temperature swings, not the other way round.Here's a couple of longer term temperature records. See what I mean about putting current 'catastrophic warming' in perspective? That tiny bump at the right, that's what Warmists are wailing about. And what's more it isn't even doing that. Going on raw, unmanipulated surface temp data, there hasn't been any warming for the last 18 years. And in fact in the last year and half there's a sharp cooling becoming noticeable - more on that later.Why do you think they changed their slogan from AGW to 'Climate change'? It's because they have become aware in the last decade of having to struggle harder and harder to skew data to make it look like Earth is still warming, that this sham is going to collapse pretty soon.The hardest thing to grasp, is that so called scientists would actually outright lie. But they do. Even the Australian BOM (bureau of meterology) has been caught time and again faking - both current raw data (always drifted upwards by various means) and pushing historical records lower, again by multiple means. The entire BOM management should be sacked, and a judicial inquiry launched into their fraudulent behavior.The worst side effect, is that the Global Warming scandal has corrupted the process of science itself. It's insidious. Everything from peer review journals that reject papers contrary to the status quo, independence of scientists (as opposed to being forced to produce the politically commanded results or have their funding cut and careers ruined), fraudulent pretense of 'consensus conclusions' that never existed (witness opposing groups of thousands of scientists signing counter petitions, that never get mentioned in any mainstream media), and international bodies (eg the IPCC) that are nothing but Elitist tools pushing a Globalist agenda.Result: the public's faith in Science is seriously damaged. Conservationism and Environmentalism have been smeared by association with the Warmist liars. Science itself has lost the ability to fairly investigate real risks to Humankind and the Earth. The Scientific Method has become corrupted to a dysfunctional travesty. Like this:The final irony lies in how badly the Global Warming scam is blowing up in the faces of its proponents. Because, surprise surprise, the Sun is right now entering into another Minimum, that both new theories of Solar physics, and the actual measured characteristics of the Sun both agree, will be around the same scale as the Maunder Minimum. The mini ice age that occurred in the Middle ages, lasted a few hundred years, and caused incredible suffering, starvation and death globally.Little Ice Age, Big Chill (Climate Documentary)It's impossible and not even desirable to deeply discuss here the history of the disastrous scam known as Global Warming. There's something of a chronological history in the links list below. Articles about the coming ice age are in the last few years of the chronology, since awareness of it has been around for a while, but mostly ignored till recent severe winters have started to bite.http://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_quotes.txthttp://everist.org/archives/links/__AGW_links.txt

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 16, 2018, 07:23:31 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on May 16, 2018, 05:25:19 amDidn't the studies of the Vostok ice cores reveal evidence that the increase in atmospheric CO2 occurredafternotable increase in temperatures?

author: Synthtech
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2018, 08:49:23 am
content: The Earth is due for another ice age. Where it starts snowing and doesn’t stop until Northern Europe is under kilometres of ice for 90,000 years. If the hippies and greenies are whining about things getting warmer just wait to see how much they will blubber when things start getting colder. A lot colder. They will of course blame the ice age on global warming.

author: Synthtech
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2018, 08:51:32 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on May 16, 2018, 07:23:31 amYes, CO2 levels lag climate change by about 800 years.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2018, 11:28:24 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on May 16, 2018, 05:25:19 amNo it does not contradict AGW. There are many other things that influence temperature. For example, look at the scale in that graph:500 millionsof years ago the sun was 4% less bright! The sun is the most important factor for earths climate, that is basically the only source of heat/energy earth has. Less sunlight, less heat. But there are other factors like volcanic activity, etc.Also look at the temperature scale: if we act now, the hope is we only get a rise in average temperature of 2 °C, at most 4 °C. That graph shows it could get as much as 15 °C warmeron average!. That would makehumanlife on earth very very difficult, maybe plants can deal with it, but we can't.QuoteNo one is saying that!It's the first thing you learn if you open a textbook about these things. The sun is the major driver of earths climate. But we have been keeping track of solar output for a long time (since medieval period via sunspot records), and it is clear that change in solar output can't explain the current warming trend. In fact it should be getting colder!And yes, water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. But because the earth is 70% oceans the atmosphere and the oceans is in a sort of equilibrium. We don't influence the amount of water vapour directly. However if the earth gets just a little bit warmer, more water will evaporate from oceans and the water vapour content in the atmosphere rises. That in turn leads to more greenhouse effect and it gets even warmer... which makes more water evaporate... That is an example ofpositive feedback. It's the reason why a small change in CO2causes a large change in temperature; the water vapour feedback amplifies the effect.QuoteNow you are sounding a lot like a flat earther, i.e. like a conspiracy theorist. There are no doubt globalists and others who would like we all lived like the Amish, etc. And they probably will try to take advantage of global warming to suit their interests, just like many other groups. But that doesn't make AGW any less real or dangerous. There are literally many thousands of scientists from all over the world who all agree that AGW is real, there is no chance they are all part of some huge globalist conspiracy.If you don't want globalisation then it is in your best interest to show that the world doesn't need it, that we can solve problems (like global warming) together as individual nations. If the world doesn't manage to cooperate and solve problems like these then in a hundred years from now people will be screaming for a global undemocratic government to come and rescue them. It's just another reason why we have to solve this problem now!

author: Synthtech
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2018, 11:58:57 am
content: There is no “correct” global temperature. The “global warming” proponents have no baseline for their claims because they have no idea what global temperatures should be in the first place. Based on the history of the last 1000 years an average temperature somewhat higher than the current one seems to be preferable based on historical records.It’s all about money, power and control and there is no scientific consensus, that idea is repeaated constantly by activists but it’s false.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2018, 12:15:44 pm
content: Quote from: Synthtech on May 16, 2018, 11:58:57 amYou are right, there is no "correct" temperature, but there are temperatures that are more or less suitable for human life on earth. The current thinking is that if we manage to stay below a 4 °C increase we should be able to cope.Quote from: Synthtech on May 16, 2018, 11:58:57 amNo it's true. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agree, it means most scientist agree on the most important facts. There have been several studies showing there is a consensus on AGW, look at this for example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

author: Synthtech
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2018, 12:29:40 pm
content: I never understood the often repeated “Most scientists agree” statement. Where does that come from? Most of the worlds scientists have no more understanding of climate than a checkout operator at a supermarket. What relevance does the opinion of someone with a degree in polymer structure have about the Earth’s climate?

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2018, 12:59:57 pm
content: I was referring to "scientific consensus" in general there, but otherwise I completely agree. What I really meant in this case was "mostclimatescientists agree", as would be obvious if one looks at the link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_changeThe problem is that natural language is vague and ambiguous. The only ones that tries to be perfectly logically precise are mathematicians (in proofs at least), but those are more or less unreadable by ordinary mortals because of that.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2018, 04:31:23 pm
content: There are other factors which determine the global temperature than solar output and the atmosphere. The distribution of land is one of them. In the northern hemisphere, the north pole is surrounded by ocean, which helps transfer energy from the equator. Look at how cold Antarctica is, compared to the same latitudes in the Arctic. For example, where I live, just north of 52° latitude, the average annual temperature is just under 10°C, compare this to the kind of climate found at 52°S, which is nearly 4°C cooler.The downside to this is, in the northern hemisphere the cold air occasionally travels south and unless there are mountains in the way to block it. Vulnerable areas, in the north, are more prone to extreme cold, than those on similar latitudes in the southern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere, the cold generally stays in Antarctica, trapped by a very strong polar vortex.If Antarctica were further north, allowing the sea to circulate round the south pole, like it was millions of years ago, the planet would be warmer than it is today, which is shown by the above charts. There would be less sea ice, more efficient energy transfer to the south pole, from the equator and more thermal absorption, leading to a warmer global climate.Those charts also don't show sea level rise, which would be disastrous.Plants can also be killed by too much CO2. There's an optimum and plants on earth now, have evolved to cope with the current levels. Increasing CO2levels could cause some plants to die out.The medieval warm period affected the northern hemisphere, more than the southern hemisphere and the above charts don't show the global temperature, so are misleading.The problem with the current temperature rise is the rate of change. The earth has been warmer in the past, than it is today, but the change was more gradual, so fauna and flora evolved to cope.One problem with climate change is, no one can predict what will happen to the climate, in any one location. For example there's the theory it will lead to hotter, dryer summers and milder winters, over north-western Europe. I doubt this. It might make heat and drought more common and generally temperatures will increase, but higher temperatures generally lead to a wetter climate and changes in ocean currents could make us more vulnerable to severe cold snaps in winter.One thing to note about cold snaps in the northern hemisphere is, they generally result in milder weather elsewhere. Warm air travelling up from the tropics, pushes cold air into the middle latitudes. The most recent cold spell was caused by a sudden stratospheric warming event, which caused temperatures in the Arctic to be much warmer, than usual, whist Europe froze. Another thing to note is that the UK winter just gone was not exceptionally cold: average UK temperatures from December to February were only 0.2°C, below the 1981 to 2010 average, which is still warmer than the average winter before 1981.https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/2018/winter