Get ready — for all the fears of extreme weather coming our way — studies of Queensland, Victoria, the whole of SE Australia, New Zealand, and Perth show that either nothing is changing (there have always been bad storms) or possibly, the weather is better now than it used to be. Where is the evidence to support the claims by alarmists that increasing CO2 will make “extreme weather” more common?
It’s less windy now across South East Australia than it was in the 1920’s. It’s less stormy on the southern coast of Victoria, and records that go back 7000 years in New Zealand and 5000 years in Queensland show repeated examples of monster storms that — should they hit today, would be described as being “likely” due to coal fired power stations and excessive use of SUV’s.
The Science and Public Policy Institute published Historical storm trends in Australia and New Zealand in June. This post builds on that publication.
…
It’s less windy across South East Australia
Alexander et al 2011 looked at locations from Port Lincoln (SA) to Goondiwindi (QLD), to Hobart (Tas) which pretty much covers everything anyone could call South East Australia. They used wind speeds from as far back as records could go (1890 onwards) and the results showed the wind speeds have declined across the whole region. Furthermore it doesn’t matter what season you study. The trends are the same.
For those who are old enough to say so, “yes” it really was stormier and windier back in the 1920’s in Australia.
Fig. 3 Southeast Australian region averages of seasonal P95 and P99 storm indices, along with Gaussian filtered curves and linear trends for the indicated seasons over the period of 1885–2008. (Alexander et al 2011)
But what about the long long trend? Say 5000 years?
Hayne and Chappell (2001) looked at deposits left from storm surges on Curacoa Island (one of the Palm Islands of far north Queensland). They found that large cyclones have been hitting the coast at a statistically constant rate for 5000 years. This includes the earliest times when the sea surface temperature appear to have been about 1°C warmer (Gagan et al 1998). At Palm Island, sea levels were apparently 70cm higher back in that warm Holocene era (Chappell et al 1983). Somehow the Great Barrier Reef survived.
Haynes writes: ” This suggests that cyclone frequency may not have been affected by sea surface temperatures in the region.”
Fig 6: Progradation plot: normalized distances of each dated SD (Storm Deposit) from the oldest ridge crest versus the age difference between each SD and the oldest ridge. Graph shows average normalized (dimensionless) distance for H1 and H2 combined; error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals for calibrated group-mean radiocarbon ages for each SD (from Table 1).
Nott and Hayne studied a 5000 year history of super-cyclones along a 1500 km stretch of North East Australia and concluded that the big nasty ones hit roughly every 200-300 years in all parts of the coastline from 13° – 24°S.
Storms in New Zealand? Not getting worse either in the last 130 years
Even before 1905 when the first car traveled all the way from Wellington to Auckland, bad storms were occurring in New Zealand at about the same rate as they do today (De Lange and Gibb 2000). New Zealand didn’t get it’s first major coal power station until as late as 1958 either. And after coal fired power came on line the New Zealand, the “extremes” of climate apparently kept doing what they had done before.
…
…
Likewise the dreaded storm surges and tidal rises in New Zealand remained stubbornly flat or are even falling in trend (De Lange and Gibb 2000)
…
A 7000 year record of storms in NZ
A study of lake sediments at Lake Tutira NE New Zealand show there have been many stormy periods in New Zealand on and off for 7000 years. The worst was about 2000 years ago. These stormy periods can appear abruptly, though during the warmest periods of the Holocene the years between storms is often larger.
From the abstract of Page et al 2010:
A storm event chronology, supported by twelve tephra and three 14C ages, indicates that storm magnitude and frequency has varied over the last 7200 yr. Twenty-five periods with an increased frequency of large storms occur, typically of decadal to centennial duration. Periods of major storm activity occur at about 500–700, 1100–1250, 1850–2100, 2850–3200, 3600–4000, 4300–4500, 4700–4900, 5700–5900, and 6850–6900 cal. yr BP. Several other local and regional climate proxies record conditions that are consistent with the timing and periodicity of major storms in the Tutira record. A period centred on 2000 yr ago has the highest incidence of storms, with a recurrence of 1storm/2.9 yr.
Fig. 6. Regional palaeoclimate proxy records for the mid to late Holocene. Lake Tutira storm frequency record as represented by sediment layers≥1 cm. Tephras (Δ) are marked on X axis. Major stormy periods are marked by grey shading. [The original graph also includes EPICA Dome Plateau, Remote South Georgia and Kaguna data mapped above the storm frequency.]
The West Coast of Australia
Since 1995 there has been no increase in storms around Perth. This seems like an terribly short record, but bear in mind that a third of all our human emissions have occurred since then. So all that CO2 has arrived and there is nothing to show for it.
…
Victoria is less stormy than it used to be
In Victoria, the number of severe storms affecting the south-west Victorian coast has decreased by around 40% over 1856–2006.
… Li et al 2011
NIPCC: “Storms”
SPPI: Historical storm trends in Australia and New Zealand
Strangely I can’t find any review or compilation of this Australasian data by the Australian government. Despite all the paid officials and scientists, no one appears to have simply collated the relevant studies. If you think these collections of papers and graphs are useful, especially in the current political climate, all contributions are gratefully received. Even a few dollars counts. 🙂 — Jo
Acknowledgement: Thanks especially to Mark at UWA for assistance.
Thanks to Bob at SPPI for the inspiration and info.
—————————
REFERENCES
Alexander, L.V. and Power, S. (2009) Severe storms inferred from 150 years of sub-daily pressure observations along Victoria’s ‘Shipwreck Coast.” Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal 58: 129-133. [PDF]
Alexander. L.V., Wang, X.L., Wan, H. and Trewin, B. (2011) Significant decline in storminess over southeast Australia since the late 19th century. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal 61: 23-30.[pdf link]
Chappell, J., Chivas, A., Wallensky, E., Polach, H.A., Aharon, P., (1983) Holovene palaeoenvironmental changes, central to north Great Barrier Reef, inner zone. Bureau of Mineral Resources Bulletin of Australian Geology & Geophysics, 8, 223-235.
De Lange, W.P. and Gibb, J.G. 2000. Seasonal, interannual, and decadal variability of storm surges at Tauranga, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 34: 419-434. [abstract & PDF]
Gagan, M.K., Ayliffe, L., Hopley, D., Cali, J., Mortimer, G., Chappell, J., McCulloch, M., Head, M.J., (1998) Temperature and surface water balance of the mid-Holocene tropical western Pacific. Science 279, 1014–1018
Hayne, M. and Chappell, J. (2001) Cyclone frequency during the last 5000 years at Curacoa Island, north Queensland, Australia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 168: 207-219. [Abstract] [Discussion Hayne and Chappell (2001) ]
Li, F., Roncevich, L., Bicknell, C., Lowry, R. and Ilich, K. (2011) Interannual variability and trends of storminess, Perth, 1994-2008. Journal of Coastal Research, 27: 738-745.
Nott, J. and Hayne, M. 2001. High frequency of ‘super-cyclones’ along the Great Barrier Reef over the past 5,000 years. Nature 413: 508-512. [abstract] [CO2Science discussion]
Thanks for this Jo. I get so sick of reading and hearing our Climate Commissioners, The BOM, the CSIRO and other warmist climate scientists and activists repeat the false statements about a link between increasing human greenhouse gas emissions and severe weather events. Climate Commissioner Will Steffen did that as recently as today’s Australian. They know it is untrue, but they hope if they repeat it often enough it will become an accepted fact.
Now I have the perfect reference to shoot back to politicians and to newspapers and magazines!
The IPCC had hoped it was true but even they couldn’t skew the evidence their way, admitting there was no evidence supporting any link in the latest IPCC Special Report released earlier this year in the WGP2 chapter on extreme weather events. For anyone interested there is a pretty good reference on that topic here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/29/newsbytes-the-srex-feeding-frenzy/ (though this doesn’t really cover our part of the world specifically).
I continue to be amazed at how prolific you are Jo and how much reading and work you must do to keep this site going. I don’t know how you do it with no funding and trying to raise two young children. It is a crime that the climate alarmists seem to get government money thrown at them yet even ‘big oil’ would be frightened to give you financial support for fear of having protesters on their doorstep. That’s why I’m happy to add something to your tip jar and would urge all other readers who can afford to give you some support to do so as well!
———————————————————————
Jo is more amazing than you think, she has three children! But you are correct, no Gov support, no fossil fuel pay and she works all hours! – Mod
10
yep, the tip jar. done !
I wish I could get some of that government money. It would go straight to Jo or similar web site support.
10
For those keeping score at home in the Eastern Australian Cyclone battle, it’s Elvis Era: 21, Obi-Wan Era: 3.
If there’s a cyclonically destructive side to CO2, you’re on the planet farthest from it.
00
Another good read Jo, when will they actually get it right?
I think I know what they’re going to say:
How’s that?
00
Jo seems to have overlooked that her 2nd reference was actually done by climate change researchers http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2011/alexander_hres.pdf
But if she had been a little more perceptive she might have asked why the reductions are occurring in SEA.
[I’m well aware of who Trewin et al are. So…? As for “reductions” — if you could construct a whole sentence, I’d guess you might be referring to the Alexander homage to the “reductions in rainfall” — aka known as the droughts-we-no-longer-have. Is that the best you can do Master/ Miss Watchy? — Jo ]
00
So, don’t expect a rational reply. For Watcher, like many (most) alarmists, it’s not about the data, obviously.
That Watcher thinks it has made an argument by pointing that out just shows how divorced from data and reality it really is.
00
You would like a rational reply to gibberish? Well seems strange not to do attribution to your best study. Courtesy. But hey don’t get distracted by the minor point – oh yea – I don’t expect and incisive reply. BTW don’t alarmist me mate.
[Speaking of jibberish….WTF?] ED
00
Is this where I can insert my random sentences?
[yes please! They’ll at least be grammatically correct.] ED
00
By random sentences you mean stochastic?
I bet watcher is about 20 years of age and VERY intense, possibly a vegetarian, certainly a green and is either a student, between jobs or otherwise engaged in one of the government stipend occupations.
00
You forgot to mention: probably on drugs.
00
You tell ’em watcher….you tell ’em
And don’t forget to tell ’em you know who they are and where they live too.
00
.
What do you mean? Does he work for ASIO?
00
No. The third initial stands for “Intelligence”, and they do so like to keep up appearances.
Other similar agencies have been known to suggest that the first two initials stand for “A Somewhat”, but of course, I couldn’t possibly comment. 🙂
00
My thumbs up was for ED by the way
00
Damn it let me try that again………..i gave Watcher a thumbs up in comment # 4.1.1, the thumbs up was for ED not the gibberer.
00
You seem to be confused — better wait longer after taking your meds to post.
She used their results, then referenced their study (as you noted). Are you using a different definition of “attribution” than everyone else?
00
“Variability”, “increases”, “extremes”: words for the new script. Lots of play, lots of each-way, still with plenty of emotional potential.
Wait for a really bad flood, a fire or a storm. Then say: “We know this kind of extreme event will be increasing – in fact this kind of event is already increasing, along with greater variability…”
Of course there’ll be plenty of “papers” and much “literature” to follow and flesh out the new script. The great thing is that Arctic Death Spirals and permanent drought can let you down. But who’s going to run out of “extreme events?” They’re always out there, and wider, closer reportage (along with obscuring of the past) will look after the frequency, severity and variability angles.
Extreme is the new warm! You should able to kick that can for a bit.
00
“she might have asked why the reductions are occurring in SEA.”
Reductions in extreme weather are occuring throughout the real world.
Its one of the many many benefits of a warmer climate.
Weather is driven by differences in the atmosphere, a warmer climate reduces those differences.
00
Really. Well isn’t that handy to know. [Snip] Hope you’re relying on [some evidence for your claim of] SPPI propaganda [last warning to back your claims with some proof. Continue posting in this fashion and you’ll be rewarded with permanent sin-bin status] ED
00
Hi Watcher,
The sceptic community in distinction from the Alarmist community does not rely on arguments from authority.
We are interested in what the data demonstrates.
For the data to demonstrate anything the following elements (missing from the Alarmist methodology) must be present.
[1] All the data must be available to others (open and transparent)
[2] All the methods of gathering and analysing the data must be (1) available to others (open and transparent) and (2) robust in the face of detailed scrutiny.
[3] All the Results (drawn from the data and methods) must be independently repeatable and robust in the face of detailed scrutiny.
I could go on.
You appear to be assuming that the processes by which the artefacts of climate science supporting the CAGW hypothesis are generated: Are robust and objective.
Unfortunately they are not
Think of the analogy of a jury trial – if the evidence has been mishandled, then it is inadmissable and no conclusions can be drawn from it. Climate Science as it is practiced by Alarmists would result in a mistrial if this was a legal case.
00
Another argument that is used by the Warmists is that we, the non-specialists, are too thick and uneducated to possibly understand the complexities of the climate.
Well, that might well apply to me, but how will I know, if I don’t get a chance to see for myself.
00
Hi RW,
You don’t have to be a climate scientist to understand fraud, incompetance, malpractice, malfeasence, incompetance, and even more incompetance, politicisation, confirmation bias, rent-seeking, bullying, self-promotion, grandstanding, not rocking the boat, freeloading, agenda driven, and funding corrupted practices when you come across them – in any field of human endeavour.
00
Ah, so with those few, minor, eccentricities, climate scientists are generally jolly good chaps, wouldn’t you say?
/sarc
00
oh dear, it appears Watcher never listened in high school.
EVERY weather process is driven by differences in temperature and pressure. If you reduce that difference by, say, warming the Arctic relative to everywhere else, then on a Global basis there must be a lessening of potential differences to drive weather events. That doesn’t mean extreme won’t occur, the Earth’s climate is a pretty chaotic thing, just that on a Global basis, they MUST diminish.
This is actually A GOOD THING !!!!!!!!!!
See if you can think it through yourself, instead of relying on someone on the climate teat.
00
Typical discourtesy – it’s Alexander et al. (Trewin is 4th author). Reductions in storminess – the actual thread topic ?! You’re not seriously banging on about droughts we no longer have as some sort of insightful analysis are you? As I said the reasons for the reductions in storminess are most interesting in a wider context.
00
“You’re not seriously banging on about droughts we no longer have…”
Okay, we promise only to talk about current alarms that haven’t fizzled yet. And when the current ones fizzle, we won’t talk about them either.
00
Oh! I see … you are arguing that “reductions” in storms is a bad thing caused by CO2 (I would never have guessed) and you think I should have mentioned that there might be a causal link in SE Australia, even though that study only has 2 PDO cycles of data, there are 20 confounding factors, the region represents less than 0.5% of the worlds surface, and different climate models predicted different outcomes for that same region.
Ms/Mr anonymous fake email, who-can’t-write-whole-sentences and can’t provide evidence either, it’s time to lift your standards.
Yes I could draw attention (but couldn’t be bothered) to that study which worried about falling rainfall (and storminess) in an area which has since flooded repeatedly. There are not enough hours in the day to point out every error they make…
00
In regard to Alexander et al (2011), while the results show a reduction in storminess, the SPPI in their analysis, appear to have disregarded an important part of the conclusion which states:
“The results show strong evidence for a significant reduction in intense wind events across SE Australia over the last century, consistent with a southward movement of southern hemisphere storm tracks.”
In regard to Li et al (2011), while the study period is hardly long enough to draw any conclusions from, the SPPI are quick to claim “there is little reason to believe that CO2 induced global warming will lead to increases in the frequency and magnitude of storms.” Strangely enough it was in June that Perth was hit by one of the most severe storms on record.
Instead of just accepting the SPPI’s assessment, I would have thought any reputable scientist would follow up on Alexander’s conclusion and ask why has the southern hemisphere stormtrack moved southwards.
Do you have any ideas?
Cheers!
00
I didn’t just “accept SPPI’s analysis”, I went and read the references, cut out the extra graphs and built a case that was even stronger. Your apology is accepted.
Just because a scientist makes a statement in a paper that is not backed up with any statistical test doesn’t mean I have to mention that caveat. We all know believer scientists feel obliged to write their findings with the assumption that CO2 makes a difference, but I don’t have to point out how writing up that baseless speculation is pointless every time they do it.
So are you claiming the June storm in Perth was due to coal fired power? Any reputable commentator would not bother to mention baseless irrelevancies, surely?
00
All you did was cut and paste a few graphs from the reports in question and throw in a few other references for good measure, but it didn’t tell us anything new. The SPPI analysis would be one of the most amateurish third rate efforts I’ve ever seen, simply saying that “alarmist predictions are wrong”, without making any effort to explain why. Li’s study is next to useless at this stage and needs to be extended back as far as records allow in order to draw any reasonable conclusion. The June storms however seem to have upset the trend. In fact, as I stated above, the important point was Alexander’s statement regarding the southward movement of southern hemisphere storm tracks which explains the lack of storm activity, but no one here seems interested in seeking out an explanation.
My own view is that storm activity has decreased over the last forty years, so I agree with the conclusions of Alexander. As an active surfer over the last 45 years, the frequency of good solid winter ground swells hitting the Victorian is nowhere near what it used to be. From the late 60’s through to the early 80’s you could bank on virtually consistent surf over the winter period, but that consistency has declined substantially in recent times. The last twelve years has seen, with rare exception, relatively poor winter surf, with the last two winters being abysmal. Even our summers which used to be dominated by offshore northerly winds, now see onshore south to south east winds almost continuously. Other long term surfers have the same opinion. I’m curious to find out why the weather patterns have changed. The Roaring 40’s ain’t what they used to be.
From what I read, none of the reports mentioned CO2 as being the culprit, so I cannot see your comment regarding baseless speculation as justified.
As for the Perth storms of June, I made no claim whatsoever of any link with coal fired power stations. You are simply making that up. If you cared to look you will find the storms were the result of a trough, a rapidly deepening tropical low and a series of cold fronts. You can refer to the BOM site for detailed explanations.
It appears you’re consumed by CO2 paranoia, and your scepticism does not extend to amateurish reports from “political think tanks”. If your aim is to convert people to your cause, then your response to my post is not the way to go about it.
Again, I am interested to hear your opinion as to why the storm track has moved southwards?
Cheers!
00
” I’m curious to find out why the weather patterns have changed.”
I’m curious to know why you think they would stay the same?
00
You have presented evidence here of a reduction in storminess in SE Australia and I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. You have produced relevant data from various reports to support your argument but then, as the SPPI have done, you only tell us what is not causing it. I want you to tell me what is the cause of this decline in storminess, and resultant change in weather patterns.
You’re the one claiming expertise in this field, not me. I note you are a BSc. Did you achieve this qualification by telling your professors what things were not? My experience is you achieve a qualification by providing positive answers and a sound reasoning behind your conclusions. You have done none of this here.
Again, given you claim an expertise in all things climate, would you please provide an answer to the following question. I’m sure your merry band of followers would appreciate it as well.
Why has the southern hemisphere storm track moved southwards?
And finally answering a question with another question is really bad form.
Looking forward to your reply.
00
You’re being obtuse you idiot.
Go look up “NULL HYPOTHESES” and “BURDEN OF PROOF”
00
You won’t get it so I’ll make it really easy for even an idiot like you to understand. Now follow closely..
PROSECUTOR: We claim that the defendant murdered the deceased.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: My client didn’t do it your honor
PROSECUTOR: What, that’s all you got, you didn’t do it?
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, that’s all I need.
PROSECUTOR: Well if you didn’t do it, who did?
JUDGE: Get the F$%#^ out of my court.
00
I hope no skeptic tries to answer questions that don’t yet have answers. Climate has never not changed, never not shifted. In a brief period called the Enlightenment, people stopped claiming to understand and even control such evolutions and shifts.
There is mounting evidence that we are now passing out of the period called the Enlightenment, and entering an new era of fetishism, based on statistics – of all absurdities! It is even rumoured that there are scholars proposing to control climate by placing vast sums of money in the hands of known scoundrels, only four short years after most of their mentors and associates were locked up. Hard to believe, of course.
00
Bill.
You’ve yet to refute the following theory:
Hypothesis: Climate Science is all wrong!
Observations: Everything, it’s so obvious!
Conclusions: Those unwitting eco-nuts are simply doing the bidding of their masters at Goldman & Sachs!
00
One unhappy feature of the New Fetishism is the rise of the Hipster Ironists. Their chief aspiration is to exude boredom and pity in the presence of their perceived inferiors, commonly known as other human beings.
00
.
Hey Tristan
@ 4.4.2.1.8
Have you been on holidays from work for last 7 days?
00
Hi Tristan,
That’s easy.
Hypothesis: Argumentum ad nauseam
Observations: Logicum fellatium
Conclusion: Heartland, where’s my cheque.
And it looks like the Messiahette, is stumped for an answer.
But at least she sent in the clowns.
00
Jo – Your rabid cheer squad here don’t one feel that other contributions are valued or even worthwhile. I guess you all probably like your own little echo chamber. But the technique is a bit shrill don’t you think (of course you don’t – no answer needed). It’s simply ironic that possible AGW driven major changes in southern hemisphere circulation, well described from a number of studies in the decade or so, but overlaid and made complex with persistent climate variability, may have changed the game in southern Australia. So ironic that the storminess trends (incidentally for which hitherto serious climate change researchers make no significant claim)maybe a product of those changes. Now please don’t introduce nonsense about catastrophism, alarmism and “well it rained again so duh” – the studies are done, not over claimed and interesting for those who might really have a sceptical mind. (which ain’t you my dear – you’re “on campaign”). We could discuss them but there’s little point.
[“Your rabid cheer squad here don’t one feel that other contributions are valued or even worthwhile”. Well Watcher, first you have to contribute something worthwhile then it will be valued. So far, most of your posts have been snide swipes at Jo or filled with claims and no substantiation. Try harder.] ED
00
Watcher – I’m up for it – where is the evidence suggesting CO2 may be responsible for less storminess in SE Australia.
Let me guess, it’s:
1. The correlation that storminess has decreased in the short time we’ve been recording it and CO2 has increased?
2. Some climate models predicted it (but others didn’t).
Do let me know if there is something I have missed.
Jo
00
Lots of “may” and “maybe” and “possible” in Watcher’s implied-but-never-stated catastrophism. Reminds me of a very “sciency” guy who recently opined that by 2300 sea level might rise by two metres, or might rise by five. Apparently, one takes one’s pick. The trick is to get those words “rise” and “metres” into the text, and let emotion do the rest.
Of course, Watcher also tries the old sulking princess routine of I-don’t-know-why-I-even-bother. Having spruiked certain “studies”, he concludes with: “We could discuss them but there’s little point.” To be fair, considering the state of the politicised mockery that passes for “climate science”, he might have an unintended point.
Jo, I get the idea this guy just doesn’t like you. He likes himself even less.
00
Tristan,
That’s easy.
Hypothesis: Argumentum ad nauseam
Observations: Logicum fellatium
Conclusion: Heartland, where’s my cheque.
And it looks like the Messiahette, is stumped for an answer.
But at least she sent in the clowns.
00
.
Two identical posts Bungalow!
Are you a bit of a
clownrepeat offender?00
~ @Watcher
July 25, 2012 at 8:26 am
Uhm, no one here has ever said we will no longer have droughts.
Watcher the warmer makes up lies.
The challenge for Watcher: Provide the evidence/thread/link where this was said.
Australia is OFFICIALLY drought free for the first time in over ten years, despite carbon dioxide levels being the highest in
650,000,2million years.Q: What will cause the next drought, Watcher, if highest carbon dioxide levels in 2 million years ‘tackled’ what was proclaimed in 2008 as our new “permanent drought” climate?
Watcher asks:
Look no further than Flannery, Steffen et al @ the Climate Commission (known as the Govt. Funded Group for Scaring the Gullible Witless) and their latest effort for this type of ‘insightful analysis’ using droughts as example.
Like your ‘Climate Commission’, Watcher, you a failure at all levels.
00
Well so much for any scientific thought. Take a complex system – correlate random variable with random thought. Make conclusion. Declare victory and world peace.
00
Hi Watcher,
A few points.
[1] All the references are by people who research climate.
[2] It looks like you are trying to imply the following…
[3] Is that what you meant?
[4] Do you believe that climate change researches are unable to produce evidence that is contrary to common alarmist notions such as CAGW is causing more extreme weather events?
[5] Do you understand what an assumption is?
[6] Do you understand what it means to hold an “unquestioned” assumption?
[7] Are you willing to rigourously (1) Identify, and (2) Challenge, your assumptions, in an effort to rid your own mind of falsehoods?
Watcher – I will be looking for you logic in the future. Please try to be precise in your comments.
00
Please let me second the comments made at the beginning of this thread Jo. I was home sick yesterday and got into a comment row on the Silly Mourning Harold. They threw this thing at me, in which the rag lashes out at David Evans. http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
Typical can’t differentiate correlation from causation stuff.
00
Well the Sodding Moaning Harold article must be right because the septical seance site has not one, but two hockysticks, Now twice the Mann they were.
00
Actually, there are Mann-y 😉
00
The growing extreme weather event prophesies, supposedly due to human influence on the Earth’s environment, have nothing much to do with accurate observation, past and present, but rather everything to do with a religious view of nature.
Whether the alarmists, scientists and lay, are aware of it or not their presuppositions about the nature of humans and the environment are essentially Pagan. Whether it be New Age or ancient it is the same religion where we have to suck up to the god called nature or else.
The Judeo-Christian presupposition, from writings at least up to 3,000 years old, is that we humans no longer live in a “Garden of Eden” but live in a “fallen world” in which nature is and always will be in conflict with us and make life difficult for us and thus is to be “subdued” by us. I’m sure a reasonable case can be made for that presupposition being instrumental in the application of science to modern technologies that have given us such a high standard of living in the Western world. A bit of the “subduing of nature” in action if you please.
Here it is straight from the horses mouth so to speak:
“Ask any Pagan or Wiccan how they feel about environmental issues, and you’ll probably get an earful. Because Paganism and Wicca are earth-based spiritual paths, there’s a strong movement in the Pagan community to get involved in ecofriendly issues.
Whether you’re looking at short-term solutions – recycling, Earth Day or neighborhood cleanup – or long-term projects, like the fight against global warming or a desire to prevent extinction of species, most Pagans try to stay abreast of issues that matter to the planet.”
http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/contemporaryissues/a/Environment.htm
00
That’s an interesting observation, Llew. I had not personally made that connection, but I think you are right.
I actually know very little about Pagan and Wiccan belief, but I do have this impression from my childhood that a lot of it is centred on appeasing the earth spirits.
The Maori have a concept of Taniwha (pronounced tannyfar), that is a spiritual guardian for the local tribe. Most Maori tribes have one, and sometimes more. They live in specific lairs, that are known to the elders of the tribe.
It has been known for roads to be diverted around the lair of a Taniwha, and for other public works to be delayed while discussions were held over the particular preferences of the local Taniwha. In some cases, it has been known for a Taniwha to “agree” to move its lair somewhere else, upon the presentation of sufficient compensation to the tribe, of course.
00
Rereke I’m pretty convinced that the the alarmist position does not have the backing of any known science, particularly that part that deals with how GHGs interact with IR.
I’m coming more and more to the conclusion that many if not most of the alarmists, including those who are climate scientists are motivated not by the voice of unadulterated science but essentially by their particular world view which I’ve noticed with some and as exemplified by James Lovelock’s Gaia concept, is nothing short of contemporary Paganism.
However I know my motivation is not only my understanding of the science involved but also concern that we do not allow an essentially religious world view destroy the high standard of living we in the West enjoy and which essentially is a result of exploiting nature’s resources.
What got me thinking about religious motivation, some years ago, was reading this comment by John Christy: “Without energy, life is brutal and short” He was arguing that we owe it to those living in poverty stricken nations to allow them the same lifestyle that we in the West enjoy. I realised that here is an eminent climate scientist who is obviously not a Pagan. I later discovered that he had Christian presuppositions that militate against the Pagan postulate, called in modern terminology, “the anthropocene” that dictates what limited “space” man has in Earth’ ecology.
Here is a bit more on Christy’s “world view”:
“Spectrum: Dr. Christy, you and I seem to be almost exact contemporaries, having graduated from college at the end of the sixties. But I see you only got your Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences in 1987. May I ask what you were doing in the intervening years?
JC: I was very much involved in missionary work, and I taught physics and chemistry for two years in Africa. That experience informed a lot of what I do and think today. I saw firsthand what it means to have energy and what it means to not have it. Without energy, life is brutal and short.
Spectrum: We often hear the religious-minded speak about our responsibility to be stewards of the earth. What do you think about that?
JC: It sounds like you’re on the side of the angels when you say you want to save the planet. But if you’re talking about preventing energy from expanding in the Third World, you’re condemning people to perpetual poverty. What’s more, it’s economic development that creates the cleanest environments we have. You don’t find clean rivers or clean air in the poorest countries.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/a-critical-perspective-on-climategate/0
I think that with most of us, alarmist or sceptic, it is “the science” plus our world view, whatever that means, that puts us in one or the other camp.
00
Contemporary Paganism advocates environmentalism, therefore those who accept the consensus of climate scientists do so because of their subconscious paganistic values.
You win.
00
I find this conversation fascinating. I think you have hit on it. Vaclav Klaus maintains that “climate change” is replacing or has replaced other religions the world over. (Actually I think this is a bit regional and at the moment applies only to Australia & NZ). But the concept that this is not NEW, but actually a reversion to the OLD is very interesting. Homo Sapiens has always had an affinity for explaining the unknown through association with “the Gods”. Since the Rennaisance, rational thought, logic, and science dug us out of that hole. However, of late, we appear to have been lured back into that trap of Pagans, Wiccans, Druids, etc. Is it akin to the “Golden Calf” reference in the Bible? The Plains Indians in North America were very spiritual prior to arrival of the Paleface, and worshiped one god called the “Great Spirit” or “Manitou”. Yet this identity was in fact the entire eco system so far as I am aware, akin to the Greek Gaia. Is the problem as simple as this: the “average Joe” is so lazy, ill-informed, obsessed with bread and circuses, confused by a biased media, that (s)he just gives up and decides to leave it to the high priests (Scientists)? Is this because Joe is so illogical that (s)he just can’t recognise that the hypothesis fails because the analysis doesn’t fit reality and therefore (s)he leaves it to someone else to decide for him (her)? Has the background noise made it so confusing that the answer must be in the realm of the unnatural?
00
This from twitter:
@ScotClimate: Scottish Government found to have lied on key figure. Is the Scottish Climate Bill dead?. Will the minister resign? http://bit.ly/OwkVl1
The Scottish government lied to politicians about key financial data which was central to the argument for the bill when they passed the Scottish Climate Change Bill. The government citing Stern said that the economic cost of a 2-3°C rise would be “between 5-20% of GDP”. In fact Stern suggests there may not be any net economic harm quoting figures of 0-3%
The figures are so key to justifying the bill, that it really is difficult to see how this bill could withstand a legal challenge.
… but the scandal gets worse. The Scottish paper (The Courier) which broke this story seems to have been lent on to remove the story. Presumably by someone in government.
This is about as bad as we can get. It appears the world’s most enthusiastic government for climate change is now embroiled in lies & cover-up.
00
Hey heads up. Adam Morton is a journalist for The Age. In fact, he is their Environment Editor. I see where he was asked what his credentials were. He tweeted that he had a Honours Degree in Science. https://twitter.com/adamlmorton/status/227386988960051200
It sounded ridgeydidge. Then this link came to light. http://upclose.unimelb.edu.au/host/adam-morton
I wonder if a Psychology Major is sufficient background for being Environment Editor?
00
Well, I dunno. Having had some acquaintance with a few psychologists, on the basis of this I think they’re all loopy. And very expensive.
00
This is off topic, sorry, but has anyone else looked at this yet?
Paper published in Science by geologist Dr. Gerard Bond et al
Bond as in “Bond Events”.
00
Solar sensitivity has even been admitted by NASA as far back as 2002, but note the AGW disclaimers in this otherwise interesting article by Shindell, a leading pro-AGW scientist.
00
Maybe I am a little biased, but evidence for catastrophe or “its worse than we thought” are based on short periods and/or a selective use of the data. When longer periods of data and/or a much broader range of data points becomes available then the problem disappears.
As well as this look up the Gergis paper; Himalayan glaciers; accelerating ice melt in Antarctica (compare Velicogna 2009 with more recent data); worsening hurricanes in UNIPCC AR4 with more recent data; worsening droughts in Australia 2-3 years ago with now; Arctic ice disappearing by 2012 (predicted in 2007) with now; accelerating global temperature rises predicted in 1989 or 1998 with current situation………..
Can anyone think of other examples?
00
illustrated by picture of drought!
24 July: Herald Sun: Jessica Marszalek: Australians have limited understanding of climate change, Climate Institute finds
A new survey by the Climate Institute on attitudes to climate change shows the majority are concerned for the environment, but confusion reigns supreme…
Sixty-nine per cent thought humans were causing it…
The survey of 1131 people found 52 per cent said they oppose the carbon tax with only 28 per cent supporting it.
But support jumped to 47 per cent and opposition tumbled to 29 per cent once it was explained the money raised goes to low and middle income households, to businesses and towards renewable energy…
JWS Research managing director John Scales interviewed focus groups in Brisbane, Sydney, Newcastle, Ballarat and Perth in late April, before the carbon tax July 1 start date.
“There was very vague understanding, at best, of the science,” he said.
“There was basic illiteracy on the carbon pricing itself, how it worked, what it’s supposed to achieve.”
He said there was “an element” of Julia Gillard’s broken promise not to introduce a carbon tax in feedback, but that was mostly among Liberal-leaning voters.
And only 44 per cent of people believe the Coalition would repeal the carbon tax despite Tony Abbott’s repeated promises…
And they were overwhelmingly in support of renewable energy.
But they wanted more leadership from government and business, with 67 per cent of people nominating the Federal Government as the one that should take the lead role.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/australians-have-limited-understanding-of-climate-change-climate-institute-finds/story-e6frf7jo-1226434161510
so 67 percent want the govt to throw more good taxpayer money after bad? why don’t i believe this survey?
00
“John Scales interviewed focus groups ”
and feeds bulldust to the ignorant…
00
does this add up?
24 July: Sunshine Coast Daily: Aussies over political war: survey
About 69% of the 1131 people surveyed for the institute’s Climate of the Nation 2012 report believe climate change was, at least partly, caused by human activity.
But the report also found 66% of those surveyed thought there were too many conflicting opinions about climate changes to be sure about its causes…
Key findings:
64% agree climate change is real, while 19% unsure.
54% were concerned about climate change, while 10% see no need for action
28% support the carbon tax, while 52% oppose it.
66% think there are too many conflicting opinions to be sure
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/07/24/aussies-over-political-war-survey/
00
“pirated e-mails from climate scientists, which came to light in an incident known as Climate-gate”?
24 July: Washington Post: Juliet Eilperin: Environmentalists target 5 Republicans who question humans’ impact on climate
The League of Conservation Voters will launch a $1.5 million campaign Tuesday targeting five House Republicans who question the connection between human activity and climate change, in an effort to test whether the issue can sway voters.
Prominent conservative Republicans have challenged the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels and other sources are transforming the Earth’s climate…
The League of Conservation Voters, which has endorsed both Democrats and Republicans in the past, aims to unseat Reps. Ann Marie Buerkle (N.Y.), Dan Benishek (Mich.) and three other yet-to-be-named House Republicans — they’ve dubbed the group “the Flat Earth Five” — by attacking their global warming stance and ties to the fossil fuel industry.
“There’s still a debate about how to address these issues, but Americans expect their politicians to be informed and to accept basic science,” said Navin Nayak, the group’s senior vice president for campaigns. “Independents are with us. All of these members are in places where they have to win a majority of independent voters to win reelection.”…
During a televised campaign debate in 2010, Buerkle said that “a lot of the global warming myth has been exposed.” While she later explained that she was specifically referring to pirated e-mails from climate scientists, which came to light in an incident known as Climate-gate, she added that “the jury’s still out” on whether fossil fuel burning contributes to global warming…
Benishek dismissed the idea of climate change in a 2010 interview with the conservative candidate-tracking organization iCaucus. “I think it’s all baloney. It’s all baloney. I think it’s just some scheme,” he said. “I just don’t believe it, I just don’t believe it. You know, I’m a scientist, I’m a surgeon, I’ve done scientific research papers, there’s a lot of skepticism.”…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/environmentalists-target-5-republicans-who-question-humans-impact-on-climate/2012/07/23/gJQAHqJD5W_story.html
00
I don’t know about increased or decreased storms.
But if this isn’t the coldest July ever in Perth, I’ll be very surprised. Out cycling at 6:30am this morning when the temp was around 0.4C – bracing! Coffee at Beaches, sitting right next to the gas heater – heaven.
I think talk about increased storms, greater variability, and any predictions at the regional level are likely to be wrong. We just don’t understand climate that well. But the overall warming is pretty straightforward.
00
“But the overall warming is pretty straightforward.”
Yep, some sea level rise from or before early nineteenth century, some temp rise starting mid nineteenth century (with cooling mid twentieth century), lower arctic ice before and after 1970s…and nobody knows what’s coming!
00
Thank heavens for gas heaters.
Tony.
00
And premium aribica coffee beans flown in directly from South America…
00
… And roasted mere hours before it is used.
00
Coolest summer in my memory, here in coastal NSW? 2011-2012.
Means absolutely nothing, of course. Not a bloody thing.
00
That is not the real issue – we don’t understand memory that well, and so we always think the cause of our shivering today must be worse that it was last time we shivered, where ever and when ever that was.
00
Hi John,
You say…
Which is entirely non-controversial.
I would say that it is quite clear that the world has warmed from approximately 1820, as it exited the grip of the Little Ice Age.
The key questions are (1) what proportion of the warming since 1820 can be attributed to human emissions of greenhouse gasses (principally CO2) and (2) what impact will additional human emissions of greenhouse gases have on future warming (or cooling).
It is the quantitative part of those questions that seems so terribly hard to pin down, which goes to your other statement.
And given that, why is a broke world economy spending trillions trying to fix a very poorly understood problem?
00
24 July: Forbes: Larry Bell: Carbon Taxomania: Bipartisan Stupidity On Steroids
If it wasn’t bad enough to impose an Obamacare tax on the right to breathe, some, including certain very misguided conservatives, now propose a new tactic to tax the air. This isn’t the first time that contrived climate alarmism premised upon human CO2 causation has was attempted using a doomed cap-and-tax plan, followed by draconian EPA regulatory attacks on fossil energy under cover of its Clean Air Act. The latest gambit is to add a carbon tax to the anti-fossil assault arsenal. And this time, it isn’t only left-wing lunacy.
On July 11, the usually conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) co-hosted a hushed-up meeting with the liberal Climate Crisis Coalition (CCC) to discuss how to enact a carbon tax in a lame duck Congressional session either this fall or in the 113th Congress. That was the fifth meeting they have sponsored on this subject. While the most recent gathering, the “Price Carbon Campaign/Lame Duck Initiative: A Carbon Pollution Tax in Fiscal and Tax Reform”, was represented by Washington Examiner sources as simply some economists brainstorming, the meeting’s discussion topics suggest a very clear agenda. The first session addressed “Detoxifying climate policy for conservatives”. Session II was titled “Framing and selling a carbon pollution tax.”AEI’s director of economic policy studies, Kevin Hassett, a free-market economist and regular National Review contributor, defended his organization’s role in hosting the carbon tax meeting, stating: ”In recent years, AEI has been accused of being both in the pocket of energy companies and organizing to advocate a carbon tax. Neither is true. AEI has been, and will continue to be, an intellectually curious place where products aren’t influenced by interested parties, and ideas are welcome in seeking solutions for difficult public policy problems.”.
Yet the participation and messaging certainly wasn’t dominated by curious, idea-probing conservatives. Representatives were present from numerous liberal groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, Public Citizen, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Brookings Institute, the Climate Action Network and Clean Air-Cooled Planet…
Earlier that same week, former South Carolina GOP Congressman Bob Ingliss, launched a new organization to promote carbon taxes, the Energy and Enterprise Initiative. The non-profit was funded by the decidedly left-tilting Rockefeller Family Fund and the Energy Foundation. Ingliss, who no longer has anything to lose, had previously proposed a carbon tax bill in the last Congress. He was subsequently defeated in a primary contest by a stronger conservative, now-Representative Trey Gowdy…
First, there is no proven climate crisis, not one caused by human CO2 emissions…not by anything else we have influence over…not any pending catastrophe at all. At least not until the next in a regularly scheduled series of Ice Ages arrives. All the really scary stuff that gets dutifully trumpeted in the “mainstream media” is based totally upon theoretical general circulation computer models that have no predictive capability whatsoever.
As an e-mail comment expressed by one of the climate modelers in connection with the notorious ClimateGate scandal candidly observes: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.” Another admits: “…clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”.
Despite a lack of any empirical evidence that a global warming crisis exists, much less one caused by human carbon emissions, our government has pumped many billions of research dollars and has imposed many billions more in regulatory costs purportedly intended to address this “problem”…
The hard fact is that there is no viable alternative energy source which can even seriously begin to replace dependence upon fossil energy, either for electrical power or for automotive fuel. There are certainly none that can compete in free markets, not even with massive subsidies…
In light of these unjustifiable costs, arguments that a carbon tax makes more sense than any other device which imposes horrendously expensive restrictions upon a fundamental atmospheric agricultural nutrient are completely air-brained.
Penalizing free and natural plant food as a “pollutant” is blooming idiocy!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/24/carbon-taxomania-bipartisan-stupidity-on-steroids/
Larry Bell: About me
I am a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture. My background deals extensively with research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments on Earth. I have recently written a new book titled “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax”. It can be previewed and ordered at http://www.climateofcorruption.com.
00
24 July: UK Financial Times: Pilita Clark: Barclays sells its carbon trading business
Barclays has sold Tricorona, the Swedish carbon trading company it bought two years ago, back to the group’s management, in a step likely to be seen as a vote of no-confidence in the ailing carbon markets…
Brussels’ plans, due to be announced on Wednesday, are aimed at stemming the steady decline in prices caused by a glut in the number of allowances traded and fading demand prompted by European economic weakness.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/795e92fc-d5b7-11e1-a5f3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz21avgttRx
00
as if we don’t already know, Min Zhu:
25 July: Climate Spectator: Min Zhu: Why the IMF backs a price on carbon
Min Zhu is Deputy Managing Director, International Monetary Fund
While the International Monetary Fund is not an environmental organisation, we cannot ignore the extensive human suffering and the misallocation of resources that leads us down the wrong path…
One area where the IMF can help to promote sustainable development is by “getting the prices right.”
Getting appropriate pricing means, for example, making sure that companies and individuals pay the true cost of polluting our planet. The best way to come up with the true costs is through fiscal instruments, such as environmental taxes or emissions trading systems where governments sell pollution rights, to reflect environmental damages in the prices we pay for energy, food, driving our cars, and so on.
Getting the prices right should form the centerpiece of policies to promote green, or environmentally sustainable, development…
And, as discussed in an IMF-World Bank report for the G-20 last year, charges on international aviation and maritime emissions could meet about a quarter of the commitment developed countries have made to mobilise $100 billion a year for climate finance by 2020.
Second, appropriately targeted fiscal instruments are, by far, the most effective way to exploit opportunities to reduce environmental harm across all sectors of the economy. Environmental taxes also galvanise clean technology development and deployment by the private sector – such as investments in energy efficiency and renewables. Recent empirical work at the Fund has confirmed this…
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/why-imf-backs-price-carbon
23 July: Wall St Journal: Tarun Shukla & Neha Sethi: After aviation, India to oppose EU’s maritime carbon levies
The shipping ministry has already written to the EU opposing its proposed emissions levy on ships entering EU waters
Prodipto Ghosh, distinguished fellow with New Delhi-based non-profit The Energy and Resources Institute, said the EU is setting a bad precedent.
“The EU-ETS has already been very strongly resisted. Thirtyfive countries have agreed on countermeasures to be taken and to put sanctions on the EU…. If we allow them to do this in these sectors, then EU can propose to do this in other sectors such as mining, power, land transport, steel, etc., which are all energy-intensive sectors,” he said…
http://www.livemint.com/2012/07/23231420/After-aviation-India-to-oppos.html
00
[I wasn’t going to approve this comment as it is so full of…well, you get it. But I thought I’d throw it in there for readers to have fun with, rather like a mother predator allowing her cubs to play with a captured prey. But please, don’t kill it too soon. mod oggi]
This is a pretty poor paper from SPPI. Even the graphs correctly read do SHOW TRENDS but there is a hell a lot of climate variability within those trends.
A really good paper on thorough examination of QLD’s climate and other parts of Australia can be found here:
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/about/publications/pdf/walker-report-summary-brochure.pdf
The Brisbane Flood (2011) and hydrological studies in better context on how much water from QLD rainfalls were dumped in 2011:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-0MqknEq0dqA/TXVwebsW_KI/AAAAAAAAABE/5T2n4BAC3YM/s1600/portofficelevels2011.png
Besides we are not really seeing a definitive clear cut in direction on climate extremes caused by AGW. The trends show up but the time spans are way too short and trend is weak but exists.
What SPPI has done is imply state the obvious REGIONAL historic extreme events but without proper correlation to such short time spans they should not declare with such statistical certainty that that is no definitive link to increasing greenhouse gases. Neither should Jo declare that the verdict is definitive.
This is not science but confirmation bias with strong opinion given.
I could clearly show from the data a trend – weak as it maybe of the AGW signal. And that is my point here: AGW will get stronger as the decades roll on.
The argument often by skeptics is based on historical precedents of greater intensity. This is not evidence/proof as a lack of cause.
You see folks as we enter new regimes of climate that maybe linked to AGW – we enter unexpected SHIFTS in winds, rainfall, cyclones etc for location. The historic evidence of regional events does not prove anything as the climate existed back then may have shifted in both longitude and latitude for those climate extreme events.
There is stunning proof backed up by climate models (QLD) of a tropical shift of the locations (Rockhampton Northward) to an increasing tropical belt drift of climate intensification of wind, rainfall and storm events moving more southward rather then northward. This is toward Sunshine Coastal regions/South East QLD to Northern NSW -North/West driven.
QLD’s rainfall is also greatly impacted by ENSO and how deeply entrenched the cooler La Nina and warmer El Nino develop. The signature then of AGW is not a DIRECT causative link but often two or three steps away from the extreme events. For example does everyone here realise that the most powerful La Nina (terminating in the Coral sea) since accurate records began was also the warmest!?
Ross J.
00
Oggi,
Yes the typos are terrible. You think this is fair game then?
You know it is sad in this day and age we cannot correct the bloopers in grammatical sentence construction after we post.
It is also a pathetic display of your attitude for an opposing viewpoint.
Then again it is lazy of you to attack with Ad hom like this, isn’t it?
Lazy, just plain lazy.
Ross J.
[Ross my sincere apologies about the misunderstanding. My comment wasn’t about the typos, it was about the inanity, the sheer stupidity of your post. Once again, I apologise for the confusion. Mod oggi]
00
Hi Ross,
I use the preview buttom to check what I am about to post. That helps alot.
Cheers ExWarmist
00
Hi Mods,
I’m with Ross on this one. I would much prefer to have Ross make a post that I can chew through than have him banned.
WRT inanity, sheer stupidity, etc – I think that it is best that it be put out there for all to see and to allow discourse.
After all, haven’t we all been at some or more points in time, inane, stupid, ignorant, etc – these are minor sins, compared to some of the egregious lies and personal attacks that some commentators make which are, to my mind, much worse.
While I certainly think that Ross is mistaken in fact, a poor user of logic, and somewhat pompous, he does come across as honest and sincere in his beliefs, and I would give him credit for that.
[hence his comment was published was it not? mod oggi]
00
Yes, I agree.
We need people like Ross, and some others I could mention, to comment on this site, if only to make some of us look more intelligent, and better informed, than would be the case if they weren’t here.
00
Then we are on the same page then.
Cheers ExWarmist
00
OK, I’ll bite, but only because Oggi is a mate of mine.
Go on then. Where is your trend? How strong will it get, and by when? Where are your assumptions about the trend? What are the math?
So if we had precedents of greater intensity, why did the positive feedbacks that are built into the models not caused a run-away temperature then. Perhaps the feedbacks are not positive, at all? But that would spoil the fun, not to mention the revenue stream.
So what is different about today, apart from it being fashionable, “for one to be seen to worry about the state of the world, when one is attending cocktail parties”? Not a lot, Ross, not a lot. We didn’t all die then, and we ain’t all gonna die now.
00
Ross’s “arguments” remind me of something Mark Twain said:
Too bad Ross can’t find that “stunning proof” that he’s lost on his desk somewhere and has to make due with a chart about the effect of dams on flood heights at Brisbane Port Office and a propaganda PowerPoint from the Queensland Office of Climate Change which ends its alarmist speil with this disclaimer:
We’d like to try to follow your arguments Ross, but none of us are stoned enough. Perhaps Watcher could translate (well, probably not).
00
Ha Ha Ha Ha! Sorry, but I don’t think I have ever read a sillier comment:
Even as I work through it to try to figure out what it is supposed to mean, and guess what you mean, it is simply silly. Proving correlation, proves nothing!
As for accusing Jo of confirmation bias – look in the mirror Ross!
I actually thought the paper you referenced wasn’t that bad:
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/about/publications/pdf/walker-report-summary-brochure.pdf
That is, the part where it states there is no real discernible trends. Where you and they go off the track is when they start talking about climate models which of course assume that CO2 is the main climate driver. Then of course the climate models will show a change in weather events. But as has been shown over and over again, climate models have less accuracy than random guessing.
But rather than post the many papers which show how inaccurate climate models have been, I’ll leave you the challenge of finding a reference which shows that climate models have been accurate, just like the ones which predicted the end of the droughts!
PS: Sorry about all the bolding – I tried to fix it up but couldn’t!
[fixed. mod oggi]
00
To Jaymez and Ex-warmist:
Yes thanks for your comment that paper was reasonable (Jaymez).
Here is a study that highlights a history La Nina intensities.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/La-Nina-2010-12.pdf
The intensity of a La Nina is not factored on how cool they are.
Ocean temperature and its continued sustained presence along with atmospheric effect determine their intensity.
To clarify a poorly written sentence:
“but without proper correlation to such short time spans they should not declare with such statistical certainty that [there] is no definitive link to increasing greenhouse gases. Neither should Jo declare that the verdict is definitive [from the SPPI paper]”
Historical correlation of past extremes of weather events (as natural occurring events) cannot be proven in the present regime of climate in total discounting of AGW as being some contributing cause. To show that AGW is of no consequence over such short time spans (1970 to now) with increased concentrations (extreme events) is not definitive either way. This is in reference as to whether CO2 can cause extreme weather events and the complete discounting of the link to CO2 due to greater historical extreme weather events. In attributing CO2 to greater extreme events we infer feedbacks. Referencing Linzden is a favourite of non-effective feedbacks on climate. I do not accept his credibility very highly and consider him somewhat of cowboy when to comes to empirical evidence of this science on positive feedbacks in particular.
Hence the present correlation to extreme weather is weak for AGW and is not a definite proven link due to short term highly accurate climate records from sources such as satellite records and superior oceanic temperature tracking. We will have to see a few more decades through whether such a correlation does exist and if any new regime of climatic cycles have in reality shifted, changed and become established. This is science honesty. As such I take issue that there is proven to be no causation and the link of CO2 to such extreme events based on any historical evidence of greater extreme in the past. Watts Up and others maintain rather incorrectly that such evidence proves no link or causation. To put it simply – its simply TOO early in the growth of CO2 emissions to tell either way. Anything else is being simply dishonest. That applies to both sides.
Comment about models – the QLD Climate Report of 2010 highlighted a potential tropical drift of very large TORRENTIAL rainfall events in certain models from the Northern regions of QLD to more Southern South/East) locations – centred around the NSW/QLD border – North/West.
It predicted the possibility of a TORRENTIAL rainfall event over QLD concentrated in the DAM catchment areas of which we had no control to effectively flood mitigate.
As for the breaking news on Watts Up: Is it carbon black on Greenland or global warming that caused the record melt in our present era? We will see. If this melt continues past and through the Northern Hemisphere’s Winter period like it has – we MAY HAVE – MAY HAVE the first signs of a regime shift in climate affecting an entire ice bound continent. I really hope it is not that soon.
Ross J.
00
Hi Ross,
This is a much improved comment and the thrust of your argument is much clearer.
I’m smashed for time over the next few days and will not be able to respond in a way that will do justice to your comment.
All I can say (in a brief comment) is that you are still attached to climate models – they really have nothing to say.
00
Ross I gave you a thumbs up on this comment because you are basically correct. That is, the general agreement is there is no proven link between human GHG emissions and severe weather events.
This is what the latest Special Report on Climate by the IPCC Report states and that is what just about every authoritative peer reviewed scientific paper which uses evidence concludes. However, what you implied (and I’m not going to go back and find exactly where you wrote it), was that wasn’t the case. I have certainly never implied and nor has Jo Nova, that it has been proven that there is no link between the two – it is that no link has been proven. Yet again and again we are told by climate scientists, climate commissioners, the Government, the Greens and the Media that there is a link between human GHG emissions and severe weather events. Until they have proof, they should stop saying it.
They should also not claim there is a link between Santa and severe weather events. And no, I can’t prove that there isn’t a link between Santa and severe weather event!
By the way, bad mouthing Rhichard Lindzen, who was invited to contribute to every IPCC report until he became too vocal about the difference between what the scientists were saying and what the politically motivated Summary for Policy Makers stated, has no credibility unless you want to tell us what qualifications you have in the area, and where Lindzen has been wrong in climate science.
As ExWarmist has pointed out, you, as do the Billion Dollar climate alarmist industry, love to rely on climate modelling to ‘prove’ their theories. Without the IPCC Climate modelling predicting catastrophic global warming we would have nothing to worry about and policy makers would have nothing to focus the public’s attention on.
If Policy makers focused on the past, we’d see that nothing that is happening today is unprecedented. It is only when climate modellers assume that the climate is sensitive to human GHG emissions that their models create dangerous global warming. But how well have those models performed? Well we all know the answer to that don’t we? Temperatures are nowhere near forecasts, the never ending droughts ended, children in the UK know what snow is after all etc, etc.
Nevertheless if you are interested you may like to read this paper which shows that naive extrapolations of historical temperature data provide better future temperature predictions than the IPCC temperature models which have had millions of dollars and hundreds of scientists contributing to them. http://kestencgreen.com/gas-improvements.pdf
There would be a lot of people out of work if this little secret gets out!
00
It would be nice if Ross James acknowledged just once that he was wrong rather than just going on to his next misguided and/or unsubstantiated statement! Though why should he? That’s exactly what our Climate Commissioners, Climate Scientists the Greens, Gillard, Combet, Wong, Garret et al do!
[It would be nice if Ross James acknowledged just once that he was wrong Yes it would wouldn’t it? I have doubts] ED
00
Indeed Ross – the 2010/11 regional vapor pressure and regional SSTs were at record level (yes for the period that records have been available). So aspects of the 2011 La Nina were “record breaking”. There is some consistency with an enhanced hydrological cycle. But you can’t overclaim a single event. And people will point out bigger floods before – although they are usually results of random cyclone tracks and so means what? You can be lucky or unlucky in the broad sweep of the seasonal La Nina event.
And interesting of course that there is some longer term evidence on an enhanced oceanic hydrological cycle. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/455
With changes in Walker circulation and tendency for central Pacific Modoki ENSO – what does it mean. Well who exactly knows but it is interesting in terms of a possible trend departure from the previous period.
00
Hi Ross,
You say…
And yet as discussed here and within this paper Koutsoyiannis et al 2008: On the credibility of climate predictions
From the abstract…
It can be seen that climate models are not proof of anything – let alone stunning proof of anything.
You need to realise that climate modelling is not empirical science, the fact that you believe that climate modelling can tell you something authoritive about the future state of the climate displays a level of naive trust that is amazing to behold.
Really astonishing.
00
Koutsoyiannis work is meaningless – GCMs can’t resolve at the level of his test. Maans nothing.
00
Wow! wow, Wow, all I can say is that Ross J’s nova account appears to have been hacked by someone with a lower IQ than Adam Smith (R.I.P.)
PS that would be the average IQ of all the Adumbs family.
PPS this is not an ad hom on Ross James. If this really is Ross posting, I retract the above and replace with the following.
Ross, you are becoming less coherent in your arguments. You think a propaganda brochure from Walker trumps the discussion from SPPI? Stunning really.
You also say:
Well then do what you and other warmists do constantly brush skeptics off with: Write a paper and get it published.
Then:
Well, It’s not proof that co2 caused any of it either. Besides, your side conveniently not mentioning historical precedents of greater intensity IS evidence that you are hiding facts. The MWP is a classic example of this.
Almost everything you have said is a guess with a mention of “backed up by climate models”. Clearly these events have happened prior to the bulk of Aco2.
00
Hi Ross,
You say…
By definition (from NOAA) the most powerful La Nina would be the Coldest, as they say…
You are entitled to have your own private meanings for how a powerful La Nina manifests – but don’t expect to be able to conduct a rational conversation with anyone else using your own terms.
Please note that the reference to NOAA above provides a useful, simple, FAQ on the ENSO which you might find useful to normalise your understanding of what ENSO is. A process of normalisation of the terms, to objective, shared definitions, that you use, will allow you to engage effectively in the conversations here.
After all – you have gone to the trouble of writing a comment, you must want to be heard and understood?
00
Hi Ross,
You say…
Ross – this is an unquestioned assumption of yours and alarmists in general. The climate system is goverened by feedbacks. The Alarmists assume that the feedbacks are net positive for CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. There is no physical evidence that the climate system is governed by net positive feedbacks to CO2 concentration, or by net positive feedbacks to any other constituent of the atmosphere. This is the classic piece of missing evidence in the alarmist concept of CAGW. Note that without net positive feedback, there can be no acceleration of any warming from anthropogenic sources of CO2, nor can there be any tipping points, or runaway warming.
REF: Richard Lindzen on Feedbacks
Bottomline: You have a major, core, unproven, unquestioned assumption on which you rely.
and you also say…
It’s a little clumsy – you seem to be saying that sceptical arguments that there have been extreme events in the past do not invalidate the idea that CAGW is occuring now and is causing extreme events in the present.
Assuming that is what you are saying – we need to draw your attention to three separate points.
[1] It is interesting that the UN IPCC disagrees with you as detailed in the SREX report discussed here by Roger Pielke Jr There is no clear signal of CAGW occuring and causing extreme weather events.
Bottomline: Which leaves you without any empirical evidence to backup the idea that CAGW is occurring and is causing extreme weather events.
[2] It has always been part of the CAGW concept that increasing CO2 concentrations cause warming, which “warming” then causes climate change impacts – such as extreme weather events. I.e. CO2 Increases -> Global Warming -> Extreme Weather (+ other catastrophies). i.e. The warming is the mechanism that transmits increasing CO2 to Extreme Weather. The problem that the Alarmists have is that warming has pretty much stalled since 1998 – so even if extreme weather events were occurring now – what is causing them? The alarmists have no answer as the mechanism (warming) is no longer occurring.
Bottomline: The CO2 Warming Mechanism is not operational.
[3] The fact that powerful, extreme weather events have occurred in the past, simply means that Alarmists have a challenge in front of them to prove that the current weather is “in fact” qualitatively, and quantitatively different from what has naturally occurred in the past. This no one has done – as the UN IPCC SREX report admits.
Bottomline: Even the official alarmist line is that CAGW induced extreme weather is not occuring.
I suspect that your confusion on this point arises from your assumption that the sceptics need to disprove that CAGW is occurring and that it is causing extreme weather events. When in fact the onus of proof is squarely on the alarmists to demonstrate that natural variation of the climate is no longer in operation and that a regime shift has occurred to where anthropogenic causes are now driving climate change.
Bottomline: You have misplaced the onus of proof – it belongs with the alarmists.
and you also say…
Given that the predictability of weather/climate is so low, doesn’t it follow that shifts in weather/climate will always be unexpected? The problem remains as articulated earlier in this comment that the onus of proof is on the alarmists to demonstrate that a regime change has in fact occurred, and that we now live in a climate that is driven by anthropogenic causes.
Bottomline: The Alarmists have not been able to demonstrate empirical evidence that the current weather/climate is in any way qualitatively or quantitatively different from what has occurred naturally in the past.
Cheers ExWarmist
00
Jo – these are evidence that it is far far worse than we thought. This decrease in every category is man-made, let us settle that damn science right now, and is an obvious perturbance in the fabric of our climate. It is not the fault of the alarmists that this is too difficult to predict, but the anthrojackboot nature spoiling signature is everywhere. My God, woman – think of the children!
/sarc
00
I am really, pleased that you included the /sarc at the end. I was about to declare war. 🙂
00
Ross,
you ‘talk the talk’ but that’s all you have until you start ‘walking the walk’. When your side starts doing something in the way of real action to support that talk, then Ross that talk is all you have. You tell us that the reason for your ‘perceived’ problem is the emissions of CO2, and some other minor trace gases. When your side shows the courage of their convictions and actually stops those emissions, considering you keep telling us they are so catastrophic, only then will people come to any realisation that there may be, just may be a proble, But no, all you do is send more money off for more ‘rent seekers’ to come up with more talk.
Coal fired power is the largest source of those emissions, 40% of man made emissions. When your side shuts them down, seeing as how the problem is so catastrophic, then and only then will there be an indicator.
Are they actually doing that?
No.
I used this other analogy recently with another commenter, but it applies equally here as well.
Until that time those coal fired power plants do close Ross, I hope you don’t have electricity connected to your home. I hope you do not drive on urban traffic controlled roads. I hope you have never driven on those same roads at night. I hope you have never travelled on an urban railway. I hope you have never been in any building taller than two levels. I hope you have never visited a shopping mall. I hope you have never shopped in Coles or Woolies. I hope you have never been in a hospital. I hope you are not using a computer. I hope you do not own a laptop or mobile phone that has batteries that require charging.
Because Ross, if you do any of the above, then you are a walking talking brightly glowing advertisement for that coal fired power you so despise.
Tony.
00
Tony,
I will be installing a 4.5 K/Watt solar system in November 2012. I wish all others luck with such installations.
My house is a strong North aspect (the long length) on the roof at 25 degree pitch. It is good in Summer and Winter without heating and air-conditioning.
I deliberately chose its location for sun exposure and greenbelt location. Even used a compass when surveying the land.
I have been walking the talk for some three years now. Was it expensive? You tell me.
Ross J.
00
Tell me Ross, before I come back here in a few hours and shred you. I have a life here, so it’ll be later tonight before I can get back to you.
Just one question though Ross.
Will you still be connected to the grid?
How simple is that.
Tony.
00
Oh! Thats right, if you think global warming is a problem, you are supposed to go an live in an eco-friendly tent somewhere.
00
As long as you bugger off somewhere we don’t care where you live….
00
John,
first up, here’s a bit of a shock.
I actually applaud Ross for having the courage of his convictions to stump up (a minimum of) $19,000 for a rooftop solar system. However, I am concerned that this was just a personal decision from the heart, and not based on economic reasons.
Because, if this system is one of the grid connect systems, he will still be a net consumer of power from the grid, as consumption is 33%/67% on a daylight, after hours basis, so two thirds of his residential power consumption is after the Sun sets.
A system of this grid connect nature has a large subsidy at the installation end, and a large subsidy for that Feed In Tariff.
This feed in tariff (FIT) ensures that this system is a revenue neutral system only, as the FIT is structured so that the unit pays for itself and the two thirds of power consumed from the grid, and only just covers that outlay.
I understand fully how this is actually difficult to believe, and in fact I’ll have more on that in a couple of days from now.
However, I do take my hat off to him for taking a step that not many people would, even though it is not really economically viable.
The correct way to proceed if you really wanted to distance yourself totally from any CO2 emitting grid power suppliers is to install a totally off grid system, and here you are looking at a starting cost of around $58,000.
That was the reason I asked that one question of Ross, that being if he was installing a grid connect system.
Tony.
00
Tony,
The cost of my system is $9,500 not $19,000.
The feed in tariff to the grid is 50 cents per hour of kilowatt. I am guaranteed 44 cents feed in till 2028.
For nine months of the year I will deriving a positive income from the feedback above and beyond that neutralising/zero out the electricity during daylight hours and offset by credits for night electricity.
Some of my savy Sydney friends are confirming the reality of this. Remembering Sydney is a more southern latitude to Brisbane. Sun is stronger in QLD over the 9 months window and not a seven window like Sydney.
When the real world experience starts in my home then we will surely know.
Ross J.
00
Ross you should also remember that the Government giveth, and the Government taketh away. Like the health insurance rebate to get everyone on board. No reason they can’t change the benefits in some way.
I don’t know whether it is an issue for you but have you checked whether it affects aged pension incomes test? Is it classed as taxable income? Not just the excess credit, but the entire amount you ‘earn’.
00
Ross,
thanks for that.
You are still a nett consumer of electricity from the grid.
You are still contributing to CO2 emissions in the amount of 66% of what you were prior to the fitment of the system.
Tell me, were you advised to turn of as much in the way of electrical power consuming items during the day ….. to maximise your return from the FIT, hence consuming more power from the grid after hours, hence greater emissions.
Tell me also Ross. Why is it acceptable for the grid to be forced to pay you 44 to 50 cents per KWH for the next 25 years, when power from other sources costs as little to the grid as 5 cents per KWH.
Tell me also Ross, if the retail price for electricity is 24 cents per KWH retail, and you are receiving 44 to 50 cents per KWH, is that acceptable to you.
Tell me also Ross, how much of a subsidy did you receive for the installation. From that, who pays for that subsidy Ross, and who also pays for that FIT of 44 to 50 cents per KWH.
Hint Ross. Every other consumer of electricity from the grid. That’s who is paying for your indulgence Ross.
I’m so glad that you are proud of living off the backs of people who cannot afford an indulgence like this.
Tony.
00
Hi Tony,
You seem to have a problem with subsidies.
Can you honestly say with one hand one your heart and the other on a stack of bibles you have never:
Claimed any tax rebates applicable to service personnel.
Claimed child endowment or any family tax benefit.
Claimed any medicare rebate on a doctors bill.
Paid the PBS rate for any prescribed medication.
Accepted any pension payments from the government.
Accepted free medical care at a public hospital.
Because if you have, you are living off the backs of people who would rather pay less tax and not have to fund your lifestyle.
Cheers!
00
Does the following give you confidence that Ross is informed about what it is he has just purchased.
Tony.
00
BB,
Nice strawman..
For a start, as far as I am aware, in the 20 odd years I have been a serviceman there hasn’t been any special tax rebates…
All the other things you mention I would consider more neccessities..
Pensions and medical services are required by everyone, not just the self indulgent seeking to pay less than everyone else for electricity or for BS ideological reasons…
00
Tony,
I’m sure Ross understands perfectly well what he is getting into.
I have only looked at it briefly, but in Victoria the FIT is 25c/kwh with AGL paying an extra 8c/kwh on top of that. I’m assuming the 25c is guaranteed for xxx years, while AGL’s payment may be for a shorter period. I’ll look into it a bit more later.
You have admitted you are a pensioner. So you have no problem accepting payments subsidised by the taxpayer, but you begrudge Ross accepting a generous subsidised FIT. That sounds a little hypocritical to me.
Also, were you aware the Victorian Government subsidises Alcoa’s electricity consumption to the tune of around $100 million a year. It has done so for many years and will do so for many years to come. You should send Ted Baillieu a letter.
Cheers!
00
Heywood,
It’s not a strawman, it’s a principal. Subsidies come in many forms: Tony seems happy to accept some but wants to deny Ross the same privilege.
I was thinking of Zone Rebates and Overseas Postings etc. Refer to the ATO website for details.
Is electricity not a necessity? Your entire argument for Coal Fired Electricity is based on cheap and abundant energy available to the masses: the more the merrier. Try living for a day without it.
No one is paying less for their electricity. Ross is becoming a producer of electricity and selling any surplus produced under a commercial arrangement. That’s not a BS ideological reason, that’s the way our economy works.
Also, I spent eight years out of the workforce. Never at any stage did I solicit any form of benefit or subsidy from the taxpayer. Call me stupid, but we managed as best we could. Thankfully things have changed.
Cheers!
00
Ross since you’ve been “walking the talk”, how do you feel about the amount of energy required to manufacture, transport and install your system?
Please let us all know what those numbers are.
00
Shocker: Solar panel manufacturing creates potent GHG’s
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/27/shocker-solar-panel-manufacturing-creates-potent-ghgs/
In China, the true cost of clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
00
Angry,
I hope your not “Angry Anderson”.
You just quoted two extreme viewpoints on Solar Panels.
You know – two to play the game of what’s bad.
Let me me find you some accounts of the polar negatives of Nuclear, Coal and Oil extraction and it SUBSIDISED cost then shall we.
Second thoughts – find it for yourself. I am not playing this game of negativity.
Neither am I sitting on my hands doing nothing about it. Are you?
We in Australia commit over 7 billion dollars a year to coal and oil subsidies in many forms.
The total subsides to renewable are a pittance by comparison.
Ross J.
00
Ross,
Apart from references where Greens, Tim Flannery and the like repeat this claim, can you find me any factual data to support this claim? I’ve read it a lot but have never been able to track it down myself apart from when applying imaginary carbon pricing.
00
Jaymez,
With a little inspiration from Tony, I actually looked into this some time ago and found the following…
Far from $7 Bil a year though, I also would like that figure to be backed up by Ross…
Let’s have a quick look at the coal subsidies…
I’ll even use Greenpeace data..
According to this…
Coal has been subsidised to the tune of A$1.7 billion and Renewables subsidised at $326 million.
Now that doesn’t seem fair does it?
Hang on, according to this,
In the same period, Coal provided 78.5% (192.1 TWh) of electricity, when Solar/Wind/Biomass only provided 1.55%. (3.8 TWh).
So, Coal is being subsidised at a rate of one dollar per 113 kWh where Solar/Wind/Biomass are at a rate of one dollar per 11.66 kWh.
Or another way of looking at it, Subsidy is 1.13c per kWh for Coal and 8.58c per kWh for Solar/Wind/Biomass.
Is this the real inconvenient truth??
00
“Was it expensive? You tell me.”
Of course it wasn’t expensive Ross. It was subsidised by the us, the productive members of society, so you can be a self-indulgent and holier than thou.
00
Heywood you “can do” as well.
I am not a “can’t do” person.
I am happy to see my electricity bill frozen for all time at a 25 year positive return estimate.
In my retirement I will be receiving an estimated benefit of over $3,000 per year for the 25 cycle in having solar.
I PLANNED for it. I DESIGNED my home along those lines. MY foresight and with renewable subsidy I “can do”.
I forward planned this over five years ago. I turn sixty next year. I even did research on foods, diet and implemented a health plan some five years earlier. I am also now reaping the benefits of dodging some of those very nasty ageing diseases through a reinforced diet and avoiding health fads that are in the main very questionable.
I think LONG TERM and am not short sighted. Had the subsidy in QLD stayed for feed in tariff – so many would have embraced solar as one of the solutions for rising energy costs that QLD would have AVOIDED building yet another coal fired power station by 2028.
The long term SAVING estimate would be in excess of 3 billion to the State whereas the cost of subsidy would be at 1.3 billion as estimate. That my friend is the COST of infrastructure for a growing population and NOT carbon pricing doing that.
This silly notion that our countries infrastructure is somehow magically funded from the private sector is downright lazy thinking. Blaming a carbon tax on all energy cost increases is also very lazy thinking and far too simplistic.
And no I would not be considered wealthy from an accounting perspective. From relativity where I stand I think I am rich to be living in such a good country with an excellent economy that will someday lead the world in renewables. I’m that optimistic.
Now go and get yourself a calculator, do some maths, get solar panels and save your money.
Ross J.
00
There is no doubt that Government subsidies can make it worthwhile to have solar panels. You have the best of both worlds. The security of the grid provided, fossil fuelled power available 24/7, and the taxpayer funded government subsidised, rare earth manufactured, high carbon footprint solar panels on your roof. It makes good personal economic sense. Whether the overall package – even if everyone did it, actually reduces CO2 emissions, I highly doubt it. Discussions about how much base load power is needed to cover solar have been made elsewhere. But I don’t think that matters. I just think it’s a waste of tax payers money!
00
Ross, list the things that government does that actually creates wealth.
I never am able to comprehend how anyone imagines that you can tax people into prosperity. Ross, you do not understand the downside of wealth redistribution by government. It is almost never fair, it is almost always to select groups to garner votes.
I could admit you are smart to take personal financial gains from a stupid government handout for solar.
Solar that will never produce an economic gain for the government that entices you to go ahead.
Solar that likely takes more energy to manufacture than the system will produce in it’s expected lifetime.
Solar that is foolishly placed where the infrastructure is already in place to ECONOMICALLY and efficiently deliver energy to your house.
Solar that will likely require maintenance costs that you have not factored.
Solar that delivers power at times of the day when it is not needed.
Solar that still requires back-up capacity at roughly the same amount as without the solar. (forcing the generation facilities into less efficient percentages of capacity).
Yes I could say you are smart but I think it is fundamentally stupid to have gone along with and supported the government getting into this crazy business. Your argument that government subsidies elsewhere is a red herring. That should be stopped too.
And finally, about those nice royalties paid to you for solar power, you know they tried it in Spain though and you do know what happened to the “gravy” don’t you? Get it while you can Ross, hopefully you’ll at least recover your $9500. investment before the Government realizes they can’t afford it.
00
I put a 3KW system on my roof because i live in SA and we have the highest electricty costs in the world so its like that old saying “if you cant beat them, join them”.
My system faces north with no shade, had it in since the middle of June and i predict this quarter bill would be halved. I did not do it for the environment (chuckle chuckle) i did it because i was slowly going broke. The best i have achieved so far is about 22KWH for a day and for a 3KW system this is money for jam.
These systems are designed for grid connected systems, when they first turn on they need to phase sync with the AC coming in so the inverter cannot be used for off grid applications. You will need to buy another inverter for that, if you lose mains power during the day you will lose solar power as well.
To you Ross,
Have you put your system in yet? Remember the formula for panel inclination is:
Summer = LAT – 10 degrees
Winter = LAT + 15 degrees
What is the angle of your roof top?
If you use a tracking system you will triple you output (but very expensive).
To those that say solar is too dear and its not fair that only “the rich” can afford such luxuries let me say this, great solar can provide you a 3KW system for about 6K of that you pay about 1,300 dollars and teh rest is payed off via certigy (sp) no interest charges are applied and you pay about 50 dollars a month or something and this is easily covered because you get more than that taken off your electricity bill.
So please no more whining about how some people cannot afford it, and the up shot is that if we all do it we will send the bastards broke and we get an early election.
00
crakar24,
You asked me about roof angle.
The roof is 25 degrees (tiled) with bearing 2 degrees off North Eastward. The major length of the home faces North.
There are no effects of shade by trees. By 7am all panels are in daylight and are exposed to direct sunlight until 5pm. Longer for Summer 6:30pm.
Ross J.
00
crakar24:
The summer peak angle is also the one which harvests the maximum total infeed for the year.
Optimum winter angle, btw, depends on cloudiness as well. But even when it’s cloudy, you’re not far off as long as the panels can “see” about 150 degrees of sky, centred over the perpendicular.
Pretty good PV supply can be achieved using without mechanical tracking, using static panels in two or 3 groups; two at about 30 degrees either side of North installed at a +30 angle and a third (if installed) at +20 due North. You need 2/3 power point trackers. The steeper, NE and NW panels provide more electricity during morning and afternoon peak periods. Those are the times when your potential infeed and offsets should be more valuable as they are when the less efficient peaking power plants are needed to fill demand.
When people “buy” the “affordable” PV systems, they are taxing others. I do not wish to tax others for my own benefit so I won’t take advantage of the PV systems being thrown onto the market or agree to connect to the grid with cogeneration unless I’ve fully paid for the system out of my own pocket, with my own effort. I’ve had solar hot water since I moved into this house more than 20 years ago and put in roof insulation years before the govenrment provided “free” insulation.
A “3kW” PV system is allocated about $3000 in RECS which was perhaps in the fine print as being part of the “discount” off the full price. By taking advantage of the RECS by “reselling” them to the people who supplied the PV system, you enetred into an implicit contract to supply an amount of electricity to “offset” CO2 emissions by other generating methods. The RECS are sold to the power companies, paid for by jacking up the electricity prices for everybody.
Power companies need to upgrade lines and switchgear for any substantial cogeneration, especially in the dormitory suburbs. Those extra costs have to be borne by everybody.
You’d better keep track of what the PV system generates for audits which will ensure that those supply contracts are fulfilled. 😉
00
Bernd,
The optimum winter angle is LAT + 15 degrees regardless of how cloudy it is, maybe you just misspoke.
Panels that face due north operate at 100% efficiency, panels that face NE are at 85% efficiency (ie at the trated wattage), panels that face NW are at 87% so if you have 2 or 3 groups you want them all facing north if possible.
Well arent you a noble sire, do you have kids? If so then i am sure you tear up your part A and part B cheques every fortnight. Got a HECS debt? Got kids on AUS/AB study? Time to climb down from that ivory tower you have built for yourself.
I entered into no such contract i simply bought a solar system and the RECS i received i gave them to the installer and they reduced the price of my panels. If the sun dont shine the company does not come around and jack boot in my front door for breach of contract, try another stupid argument.
This is utter tripe they may need to adjust the taps on the transformers (i suspect you dont know what this means) but anyway that is about it, poles and wires my arse.
To Ross,
I only ask because you should spend a few extra bucks and get the panels mounted in a way where you can increase the angle during winter (LAT + 15 degrees) and then go back to your 25 degrees during summer.
00
crakar24:
Found it. Finally. Well, it saves me writing up the proof myself. A new methodology to optimise solar energy extraction under cloudy conditions (PDF)
In order to collect maximum diffuse insolation under e.g. a cloud-covered sky, previously also referrred to as white-sky radiation (back in the early 1980’s when I studied Solar Engineering), one orientates the collector to be exposed to the maximum amount of sky. For a fixed panel, considerations include when such conditions occur and the sort of load that the system is supposed to fill.
Around Perth for example, if the panel is orientated for traditional maximum direct insolation, the panel is at about 45 to 50 degrees which means it will collect only about three-quarters of the potential white-sky radiation when it’s cloudy. i.e. periods when total insolation is already low. Adjusting the angle to optimise collection in mid-winter yields the optimum angle for a correctly-sized collector; one which fills the domestic demand under “average” or even one standard deviation worse than average conditions.
The paper above goes further in analysis of skies that are not perfect, analysing the influence of partly-cloudy skies.
00
Tony – your only job now is to stop breathing. Leave a note. The rest of us will follow and on that you have my word. God bless, will see you on the other side. Hugs from America, your friend in arms.
00
But who would be left to pay taxes???
00
Hydrologists in Queensland may be starting to question the predictions of the “permanent drought”.
See comments at a recent conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfW4CUdtIYs&feature=player_embedded
[link fixed]
00
For anyone Interested in past climate around the World, here are a couple of eye-opening links.
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/wxevents.htm
Do we really want to go back to those Dark Days?
00
Hi Ross,
Your faith in models is touching, but misplaced.
Actual observations trump models every time and if you don’t believe me, ask any punter who used their own money who has also used modelled results to predict the share market or horse racing.
00
Alexander K, the share market is a good example. While it appears to be random in the short term (a lot like weather), in the long term it goes up. It goes up because hidden underneath the daily financial sunshine or storms, there is a gently push always in one direction – up. That push is improved productivity. Over time, we have become better and better at doing stuff, and so the world has become wealthier.
Think of CO2 in the atmosphere as productivity – the more you put up there the warmer we get (even though the day to day weather jumps around like crazy – now giving Perth the most July days with minima under 5C ever).
00
John, you are about as good a climate scientist as you are financial analyst. Just like the climate scientists who disregard so many climate drivers in their climate models, you have forgotten so many factors in your share market growth model including:
– Population growth which grows the market for the listed companies.
– Public listing of private or Government enterprises which were not originally listed on the stock exchange
– Increased global wealth, leads to increased consumption and increased corporations
– an expansion of the money supply
– globalisation of financial markets which allow people from other countries to invest across borders
– establishment of new share markets such as in China which only started in the 80’s.
00
Details, details! Basic idea and analogy thoroughly sound.
00
.
Reply – a different example!
John Brooks, POO is a good example. While it appears to be random in the short term (a lot like climate scientists), in the long term it adds up. It goes up because hidden underneath the daily ritual, there is a gentle push always in one direction – down the sewer. That push is improved by payment & graft. Over time, we have become better and better at paying them more & more, and so Australia has become nearly full of POO.
Think of Climate Scientists in the Australia as POO – the more you pay – the more POO we get! (even though the day to day volume jumps around like crazy – but now gives You, Tristan et.al., the most July days with huge amounts of POO coming out at random).
00
Dave, I think you are full of it…
00
.
John Brookes,
Less than 1% which is usual John!
Climate Scientists and yourself I can’t comment on!
00
Australia’s fuel and Coal subsidies:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/energy/great-energy-challenge/global-energy-subsidies-map/
Roll over the world map to see those subsidies. It will shock you.
We are clearly addicted to energy needs based on technologies of fossil fuels.
Clearly whatever your understanding of Climate and how it is affected by increasing greenhouse gases this is UNSUSTAINABLE.
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/energy/great-energy-challenge/about/
Ross J.
00
Ross, you are so dedicated. Good on you. Did you know that Fossil Fuels subsidize Australia? The government gets $15bn a year in taxes and excise (GST, company tax, PRRT and excise.). That’s more than any of those “subsidies” your map shows. Indeed all the subsidies simply amount to saying the government could have taxed them even more, but didn’t. The government is not giving them a cent. It’s money that the government didn’t take from them but in theory “could have”. By your economic reasoning, why don’t the government just take the lot and nationalize those naughty profit seeking corporations?
If Gillard had to explore, find, develop and market oil the price of fuel would double, and vast resources would be left underground. Solar powered offshore platforms anyone?
00
I only just noticed that someone has hijacked the acronym SPPI. Perhpas your were aware of it, but there is a that certainly isn’t the Science and public policy institute!
00
http://ww5.sppi.net/
00
http://ww5.sppi.net/
00
Jo,
This is a very novel way of looking at it.
How about this: We as fellow Australian OWN the resources that those mining companies – well mine.
For this they get huge dollar returns by their mining entrepreneurial efforts.
We then tax them and SUBSIDISE them at the same time.
That is something you cannot get away from. The mining tax returns this wealth to you in part.
A foolish government would only plan increased infrastructure to other parts of the country and mining as well from just the non-mining sector.
Would that be fair?
Ross J.
00
Ross,
even with your Rooftop Solar system, you are still a nett consumer of electricity from the grid, and if you live in Sydney as you say, then almost 90% of your power is derived from sources that emit CO2.
Even with your rooftop system, between 60 and 65% of all the power your residence will consume is coming FROM the grid, and that power has to be generated somewhere.
You may rationalise it by saying you have a system that generates only what your residence consumes, but, as you say yourself, that will not include any heating in Winter (mainly after hours) and without cooling in Summer.
Again, you may say that you are generating what you consume, but the Grid is not your personal battery that stores the excess you generate during the day, and you can then ‘call that back’ during the after hours period of your highest consumption, and anyway, you have sold that power to the Grid anyway, so you can’t sell it, and then just claim it back.
The only reason a grid connected system like this is ‘revenue neutral’ is that the excess you generate is being sold to the grid at more than double the retail cost, and the rest of us are paying for that with increasing costs for the electricity we all consume.
I applaud you for doing what you are doing, but even you can see that all your after hours power is coming from the sources you so despise.Go the full distance, and get a system that is not connected to the grid at all. Then we will see that you have started to ‘walk the walk’.
This is decision made for what you see are good reasons, but if you were to really want to distance yourself completely from the problem you perceive, then do it correctly, and not off the backs of the rest of us.
Tony.
00
Also, and I’m just waiting for the obvious here, you have a problem with daylight saving in those Southern States and that ubiquitous extra hour of daylight, and do I really need to insert the ‘sarc off’ here.
However, bear with me for one minute.
This is mainly in Summer, the period of highest power generation from these Solar Systems. As I have mentioned often before that Load Curve of consumption shows that the main Peaking Power period is from 4.30/5PM until 11PM/Midnight.
So with daylight saving extending that period of daylight now into that peaking power period by an extra one hour, those who have rooftop systems will be coming home from work at their normal time, and doing what they always have, doing the washing, drying, cooking etc and all those things that cause that spike in power consumption.
So now, instead of selling that power to the grid for the FIT, the residence is actually consuming it, so that power they are using from the rooftop system is costing them 44 to 50 cents per KWH (money they will not be getting) instead of the retail cost of the electricity that would normally be used at this time FROM the grid, at that retail price of 23 cents per KWH.
Again I hear the voices saying that what they lose in the evenings they gain in the mornings. Not true as in Summer, it is still basically the same, and that power spike in the AM is considerably smaller than that evening spike.
So, see, there actually is a disadvantage now with rooftop solar, not because of the system itself, but form lifestyle.
That is why most suppliers advise you to change the way you consume power to have as little as possible running during daylight hours, not to consume less power, but to maximise the return from that high FIT, and that effectively means you are consuming more power from the grid outside of daylight hours, and hey, it’s only me saying this, but doesn’t that sort of defeat the whole purpose.
Tony.
00
“…but doesn’t that sort of defeat the whole purpose.”
Not necessarily, Tony. I remember when the great cellist Paul Tortellier was asked why he made certain bow-movements and tossed his head, he explained that it was theatre, pure theatre. Some people like and expect that stuff.
In view of what Jo has said above at 25.1, it’s safe to say that every “sustainable” energy scheme is pure theatre for our Green Betters. With the rooftop scheme, they get a walk-on part.
00
Tony,
You are sharing pretty good logic here. I am aware of most of it.
I’ll have too see how I go with end game results. BTW – I live in QLD.
In reference to Sydney they are getting good results but those systems are around 5 K/Watt.
Many are reporting halved electricity costs.
There some major considerations you may have overlooked:
Many industries fire up in the day time. The biggest loading is Summer time when Air-conditioning costs sky rocket.
This is not myself personally but the retail sectors and industries in general that use power.
The peak of cooking time is at around 6pm to 8pm though as you say.
My estimates of return are based on 5 hour days not 8 hours of sunlight.
For QLD’ers that is an added bonus come Summer as sunset at Summer peak can be around 6:45pm.
I will also altering our lifestyle to suit the loading.
Yes there is some skewing due to high feed grid returns.
AS a QLD person Anna Bligh (former State Premier) guaranteed in legislation feed in of 44 cents. The further 6 cents is from Origin Energy. Making up 50 cents. Premier Campbell Newman has honoured this tariff but only for those signed with the infra-structure body – and this had to be before July 9th 2012. Otherwise it drops to 8 cents. So there rather insane changes to how you calculate a return.
Still the nett saving to state would have been 3 billion on estimates even if the tariffs had been maintained for all as the the uptake for Solar in QLD was running at an Australian record. I derive this saving not increasing cost to electricity with required infrastructure by 2028. Had the uptake of Solar continued it would mean one less coal fired power station by 2028. The cost of the scheme in total had it continued was at 1.3 billion.
A typical 1 GW coal plants costs about $1B based on TODAYS construction costs.
I am aware that all Solar is supplement the grid – it can NEVER replace coal.
However as I am AGW to DAGW of the science which can be backed up based on estimates of empirical data. The effective emission cut could be high as 40% in my case. That is where we should be headed to cut emissions by 40% over the next 50 years. If the world followed suite we would head off dangerous trends in CO2 levels becoming unmanageable. Now is NOT the worry but it is the empirical trends that carry serious consequence.
Ross J.
00
[…] other words, long trends don’t matter, ignore decadal averages, the current drought in hurricanes, forget global […]
00