8 thoughts on “Monday Message Board”

1. If possible, please send any spare good vibrations or prayers you have … we are going to try just having a heat pump. We are getting rid of the ancient gas furnace. (We still have a gas dryer and water heater though.)

   We are paying rather a lot for it so I really hope this is going to work out.

   I was trying to figure out how much electricity it will use per hour, however, apparently these things come with ranges – not an actual amount, such as you could put into a calculator. I don’t know why, I suppose it could be for a good reason.

   Everyone else in the world has probably been using these for ages. They are “new” here. Harrumph.

   Just whatever spare vibes you have – I know this isn’t really even an actual problem. More just something that makes me nervous. There are downsides to living in a less-smart country. Le sigh …

2. N: A good decision!

   It has two possible benefits. One is a reduction in your carbon footprint from burning less gas. This payoff will grow with time as the electricity grid decarbonises. Unless the heat pump fails to work at all – which will be covered by the guarantee – it is 99.9% certain. So feel better about yourself! Take home the gold star from teacher to show the family!

   Unfortunately gold stars don’t meet the bills, so you will also be thinking of the financial benefit. This is not as certain, but still pretty likely. A survey of German heat-pump households commissioned by the reputable French boiler manufacturer Vaillant found that 90% were satisfied with the purchase. https://www.vaillant-group.com/news-stories/survey-shows-that-heat-pump-owners-are-extremely-satisfied.html That is a very high number. The 10% probably includes people who didn’t save as much money as they had hoped or been led to believe. If that turns out to be your case, you still get to keep the gold star.

3. Following the war in Ukraine

   The war has two theatres. One is the conventional war of attrition along the line of contact in the east of the country. It is quite hard to follow the details of combat day to day, but there is little doubt about the location of the line of contact, give or take a few kilometres. The other is the strategic air war, almost entirely with long-range drones and missiles, with occasional use of tactical aircraft. This presents observers with difficulties of appreciation of a different order, and highly asymmetrical.

   Russia attacks civilians and the electrical grid. It is not clear if the former are targeted or random and in military terms, if not ethical ones, it does not matter much. Ukraine is a democracy, and reporters from both national and international media are free to cover the often tragic results of the attacks. I do get the impression that reporters are steered towards the civilian targets reinforcing the true narrative of Ukraine as victim of a lawless aggression. I don’t know if there is actual censorship of coverage of the attacks on energy infrastructure. or skilful deflection, but both would be legitimate. Reporters are free to cover civilian morale, and it is clearly still remarkably high. There are draft-dodgers, but no counterpart to the New York conscription riots of 1863, in the American Civil War, the Easter Rising in Dublin in 1916, or the mutiny in the French army in 1917 – serious challenges the respective governments rode out. A similar, and more surprising, picture seems to hold in Russia in spite of the million casualties.

   The situation in the converse Ukrainian air campaign against Russia is different. Ukraine has developed cheap long-range drones, based originally on light aircraft. They deliver small payloads in the tens of kilograms, but with high accuracy. These features limit the useful targets but they do include oil refineries and tank farms, which have been regularly attacked with some success. Better protected targets like command centres can be hit with American ATACMS and Anglo-French Storm Shadow missiles with payloads in the hundreds of kg, but are scarce, costly, have limited range and come with use restrictions imposed by the supplying countries. Within the last six months, Ukraine has deployed domestically produced cruise missiles, notably the Long Neptune – originally a naval weapon – and the Flamingo. Because they are cruise not ballistic missiles, successful attacks require cover from drones to saturate air defences, calling for many skilled operators. The 10x payloads can cause major damage to robust installations like power stations, or cause more serious damage to thinner-skinned ones like the fractionating columns of oil refineries.

   What data is there for assessing how this campaign is going? The refinery campaign has definitely impacted the Russian supply of oil products, with visible shortages of gasoline and diesel in many places and a nearly complete halt to exports, which are now limited to less valuable crude oil. The claim that refinery output has been cut by a third is credible. However, raising the bar from damage to war-winning (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II ) will call for much more.

   Cruise missile production us said to run at a hundred per month. Official Ukrainian sources make rather vague announcements of successful attacks every few days, suggesting a steady state . These claims are often corroborated by videos and photos taken by random Russians and posted on Telegram, and by statements by regional officials claiming that an attack was thwarted, with some unidentified facilities damaged by “falling debris”.

   The photos of blazing fires or great pillars of smoke prove that Russian officials are lying to save face. I suggest there no reason to believe the Ukrainian officials either. This is war, and deception is integral to it. The Ukrainian government needs to show its people that real damage is being done to the Russian economy and its infrastructure. A picture of a steady attritional campaign serves this purpose, and damps down expectations of victory that may well be disappointed. But what if the campaign is really on a much larger scale and the damage inflicted far greater than we have been led to think?

   Along with the fuel shortages, the published photos by Russian civilians are the only reality checks we have. Refineries are built near cities and towns as they need a fair number of skilled workers. It doesn’t seem likely that a successful Ukrainian strike on a refinery or rail junction could go unreported. This does not hold for electric grids, pipelines, and telecoms, all of which have large parts in the remote countryside where random passers-by with Telegram accounts are unlikely. A light drone hits an electricity substation with a 10 kg payload and knocks out a transformer: there isn’t necessarily a fire. But the stretch of rail line it served is out of action for a few weeks. Russian infrastructure may be much closer to collapse than we have been led by both sides to think.

   Or maybe not. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I would very much like the “imminent Russian collapse” theory to be true, but that does not make it so. What we can take home from my argument is that the range of possible outcomes over the coming winter is very wide. It includes disaster, for both Ukraine and Russia. IMHO it’s more likely for Russia.

4. Thank you, James – it is very helpful to hear the good wishes. Thanks!!!!

   I could really bore people here for quite a while about the fog of tech that happens here. I know I am a complainer in general, but this time I may actually point some of it at our pols. It’s ridiculous that we don’t have good guidelines to help people make these decisions.

   We are expecting our costs to definitely go up – the only issue is, by how much. (Maybe this will be wrong, which would be awesome.)

   Yet, we have a bunch of other ways we could cut our electric bills. I think we even have some old fluorescent bulbs going. I never turn off the surge protectors at night. (I think you’re supposed to.) Things like that. We might look into an attic fan. Our insulation is out of date. And so forth. Ha, the windows are ancient too – but I don’t like ones with tint. Anyway.

5. I would put in a flag emoji for Ukraine but I don’t remember how. (I can get the little Firefox window with it open, but then I don’t know how to get it on this page. Phoooo.) So please imagine a nice big one right here.

   Luckily, Ukrainians are better at tech than me. I hope things will get better for them soon.

6. How many bush fires and severe storms will it take before people realise some simple facts? Houses and trees don’t mix. Infrastructure and trees don’t mix. I mean they don’t mix in close proximity. I have realised this. I have changed my stance. Why can’t others realise this? Why can’t they change their stance? What needs to be done is as obvious as the nose on one’s face. It’s also becoming obvious that most people can’t realise simple things for some reason. The reason has to be the ascendancy of ideology over empiricism. I may come back to that.

   Of course, we need more trees. Of course, we need to protect native forests. Of course, we need large tracts of native forests properly protected, including by indigenous “fire stick farming” or cultural burning practices to promote biodiversity and manage fuel loads where this supported by empirical testing and evidence. What we should not do is mix large trees and houses and infrastructure. This simply does not work. By “trees” I mean “large trees”. I don’t, in the main, mean grass and shrubs. Although, even the wrong plantings of grass and shrubs can burn hot when dry and burn down houses.

   We can’t afford to build houses in the wrong places (on flood plains and next to or amongst large trees, especially large eucalypts which burn fiercely, fall or drop huge branches in differing conditions). We can’t afford to plant trees (and sometimes even shrubs) in the wrong places, that is to say next to houses and infrastructure.

   The green reflex of “plant a tree and tolerate a tree anywhere because trees are good” is as dopey as the neoliberal reflex “private enterprise good, public enterprise bad”.

7. ICYMI, James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Dylan Morgan and Jasen Vest published their latest communication on 18 Dec 2025 titled Global Temperature in 2025, 2026, 2027. It included:

   Abstract. Global temperature in 2025 declined 0.1°C from its El Nino-spurred maximum in 2024, making 2025 the second warmest year. The 2023-2025 mean is +1.5°C relative to 1880-1920. The 12-month running-mean temperature should decline for the next few months, reaching a minimum about +1.4°C. Later in 2026, we expect the 12-month running-mean temperature to begin to rise, as dynamical models show development of an El Nino. We project a global temperature record of +1.7°C in 2027, which will provide further confirmation of the recent global warming acceleration.

   Per Prof Eliot Jacobson, annual mean global surface air temperature anomalies (Copernicus ERA5 dataset, 1850-1900 baseline):

   2023: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +1.48 °C

   2024: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ +1.60 °C

   2025 (thru Dec 7): +1.47 °C

   Will year-2025 be the last calendar year with an annual mean global surface air temperature anomaly below the +1.50 °C threshold?

   Per the C3S global temperature trend monitor, global warming reached an estimated +1.41 °C in Nov 2025 (for a 30-year linear best fit), and extrapolating at current rate of warming the +1.50 °C threshold is estimated to be reached by Mar 2029.

   Barring major volcanic eruption and/or nuclear war events, at the current rate of warming, the longer-term +1.50 °C global mean surface temperature anomaly threshold, relative to the 1850-1900 baseline, is likely to be crossed within the next 3 years.

8. Here is the Google AI summary of evidence in relation to my question, “(Are) climate extremes already measurably worse at plus 1.5 C (global warming)?”

   AI Answer:

   “Yes, climate extremes are already measurably worse at the current level of warming (approximately 1.3°C to 1.4°C above pre-industrial levels), and the risks associated with them increase significantly with every additional fraction of a degree. While the long-term 1.5°C Paris Agreement limit has not been officially crossed yet (as it is measured over a multi-decadal average), a single calendar year (2024) and recent 12-month periods have temporarily surpassed this threshold, offering a “taste” of the accelerated impacts of a 1.5°C world. 

   Key Observations and Projections

   The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific bodies have provided strong evidence linking human-induced warming to an increase in weather and climate extremes. 

   • Increased Frequency and Intensity: There is high confidence that human-induced global warming has led to an increase in the frequency and intensity of heatwaves in most land regions, heavy precipitation events, and an increased risk of agricultural and ecological droughts in some areas.
   • Regional Disparities: While the global average temperature increase is around 1.3°C-1.4°C, many land regions, including Australia, have already experienced warming greater than 1.5°C on average. Extreme heat days in mid-latitudes, for example, are projected to warm by about 3°C when global warming reaches 1.5°C.
   • Measurable Impacts: The impacts are already evident, with extreme weather events in recent years causing widespread harm to people, economies, and nature. The number of weather-related disasters has increased five-fold since 1970, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
   • Future Risks: At 1.5°C of warming, the frequency of warm extremes is projected to jump significantly. Crossing the 1.5°C threshold also increases the risk of triggering climate tipping points, such as the irreversible collapse of major ice sheets or the die-off of coral reefs, which would lead to abrupt and irreversible changes.

     Every fraction of a degree of warming matters, and limiting global warming as much as possible significantly reduces the risks and adverse impacts of climate change.”

   Matters are going to get rapidly worse in Australia. I predict that damage from extreme events will soon exceed our national capacity to harden, repair, rebuild and re-site structures and infrastructures. The AI (as a survey of scientific and expert consensus) agrees.

   “Yes, numerous government and independent reports indicate that damage from climate change-driven extreme weather events and sea level rise is projected to exceed, or is already close to exceeding, Australia’s current national capacity to effectively harden, repair, rebuild, and re-site structures and infrastructure. The increasing frequency and severity of events is pushing infrastructure beyond its design limits. 

   Key findings from recent reports include:

   • Escalating Costs: The annual cost of natural disasters in Australia is projected to more than double from approximately A$18 billion per year to over A$39 billion by 2050. Without strong action, annual average risk costs to properties alone are projected to rise to A$91 billion per year by 2050.
   • Infrastructure at High Risk: By 2050, the climate risk to the infrastructure and built environment system is expected to increase to high or very high, leading to widespread disruption, damage, and potential destruction. Infrastructure Australia and other bodies highlight that the current construction and design practices are no longer adequate for the new climate landscape.
   • Insurance Crisis: Currently, over 650,000 properties are considered at high risk from climate hazards, where insurance is often already unaffordable or unavailable. The withdrawal of insurance from at-risk areas devalues property and poses a risk to the broader economy.
   • Capacity Limitations: Current data and analytical capacity at national and local scales are insufficient for effective, large-scale adaptation planning. The pace of climate impacts, such as accelerating sea level rise, is outstripping existing adaptation efforts.
   • Systemic Failure: Damage to one type of infrastructure (e.g., transport) causes cascading impacts across other essential services (e.g., energy, water, telecommunications, supply chains), potentially leading to systemic failure during extreme events. 

   While the Australian Government has initiated a National Climate Risk Assessment and a National Adaptation Plan to guide future actions, expert consensus is that significant, systemic change and urgent, carefully planned adaptation are required to manage the escalating risks and avoid the projected severe economic and social consequences.”

   We are probably cooked, especially here in Australia. Of course, we should still take what actions we can in an effort to decelerate climate change and ameliorate impacts wherever possible. We will know our governments do not understand the trends until if and when they declare a national climate emergency and devote all possible national efforts to attempted prevention, amelioration and adaptation.

   This would entail us becoming something else other than a shallow tourism and events nation, meaning specifically becoming a nation with production directed 100% to equality, sustainability and survival. Nothing less than total commitment to those goals will give any hope of long term survival.