The “environmentalists’ arguments about climate change” are being accepted across Australia: embraced by everyone from Mel and Kochie, presenters of popular TV program Sunrise, to the Prime Minister John Howard.
That was the message from Ben Oquist, political consultant and former Bob Brown adviser, writing yesterday in Australia’s tabloid e-news journal Crikey.
Oquist went on to caution that ” the war” will only really be won when, there is a legislative commitment to guarantee emissions will be reduced 60-90% by mid century and a commitment to address coal exports which are by far Australia’s biggest contribution to global greenhouse emissions.
In the same paragraph Oquist states that if we get emissions down by 60-90% we can stop dangerous climate change. Now that is some false claim, particularly given Australia is responsible for such a small percent of global emissions and falling!
But I doubt anyone noticed the ridiculousness of Oquist’s claim amongst the many other fashionable but false pronouncements being made yesterday in Australia.
Columnist Paul Sheehan writing in the Sydney Morning Herald in a piece entitled ‘We fiddle as the continent turns to dust’ insisted that the word drought be replaced by the word climate change: “Most people still talk about the “drought”. It is not a drought. It is climate change. We changed the landscape. We cut, stripped, gouged, channelled and laid it bare. And thus changed the climate. How can we solve a problem when we can’t even name it, and thus still can’t even face it?”
I am surprised Sheehan didn’t include carbon dioxide in that paragraph!
Glen Milne writing in The Australia explained the Prime Minister “today goes to the South Pacific Forum,where the islands are sinking into the sea. When he gets back, he will go straight on another drought tour to inspect our once mighty rivers, now disappearing though the parched maw of the earth. There are no more flooding plains. Apparently there is nothing left but drought.”
The article was entitled ‘Liberals musts catch up on climate change’.
Milne went on to explain that: “In another sign of the rising temperature of the climate change debate (if you’ll excuse the pun), Al Gore is to return to Australia. But this time he won’t be spruiking his global warming film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. Instead, under the auspices of the Climate Project and the Australian Conservation Foundation, Gore will train 75 volunteer ‘climate changers’ to replicate here his famous PowerPoint presentation on which An Inconvenient Truth was based. Each volunteer will guarantee to deliver at least 10 seminars over the next 12 months. That’s 750 sessions across the country, minimum. And given the passion of these advocates, it’s likely to be at least twice that. That’s a lot of increasingly convinced minds, with an election looming”.
All of this on top of Australia’s Climate Institute stepping up their campaign to “educate us” including with advertisements on rural television explaining that “we can control climate change”.
Maybe this is where Oquist got the idea that we can some how stop climate change?
Add to all of this hysteria, consideration of the activities of celebrity scientists like Tim Flannery and David Suzuki. Suzuki was in Australia last week and I heard him on ABC radio explaining that we can stop climate change by signing Kyoto. Another porkie!
Add to this the relentless self-interested advice that comes from the professional scientific and bureaucratic groups involved in greenhouse studies in Australia.
And, of course, don’t forget the quick start to the current bushfire season and El Nino, which promise to deliver both a long, hard summer and a reinforced climate alarmism in Australia.
Finally, reflect that the Stern Report (which will boost the economic alarmism) is to be released in London shortly, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report (which will boost the science alarmism) is scheduled for release in February, 2007.
Yes, I think Ben Oquist is right… it’s a win, win, win for environmentalists!
——————————
This post is based on an email from Cathy.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Can I suggest you read George Monbiots book titled “Heat, how to stop the planet burning” and see if that helps change your opinion.
It probably won’t as the “greenies” you openly criticise will never convince you there is a problem.
Anyway, this is one the best books we have seen on the problem. It’s available in Borders and all other book stores.
As you seem to be a climate expert. How much carbon can the atmosphere take before ecosystems start to crash? I’d really be interested to know how many parts per million you think the atmosphere should contain of human made carbon.
I’m certainly not a greeny lefty but I think from your writings you have a hidden agenda too!
Martin
If the science is truly settled, and there is “evidence” that the drought is due to man made climate change, environmental groups should take more effective action than just rattling on about signing Kyoto.
Given that Australia produces only about 1.6% of greenhouse emissions, and we now know that Australia will be one of the earliest affected by climate change, surely there is enough evidence to mount a lawsuit against the biggest emitters, China, India, USA, EC etc to compensate for our drought?
This site is so cute!
At first I thought it was a parody. I mean someone on the board of a supposed ‘environment’ group who refers to environmentalists in the third person must be having a laugh, right? And said group wants ‘real science’ to be the basis of the environmental debate. Hmmm, all i seem to be able to read as facts from the ACF, FOE etc green groups ARE scientific facts. Facts signed by two thirds of the worlds living nobel prize winning scientists, and over 2000 international climate scientists.
Maybe AEF should amend their motto to having ‘real economics’ to be the basis of the environmental debate. An environment group who accuses established green groups (funded largely by public donations) of being rich and having too much power, while themselves giving out misleading and downright false information being sponsored by the timber industry, and multinational agri-industrialist giants Monsanto et al – now that’s ‘rediculous’ (sic)!
Have fun with your blog Jennifer, youre not fooling anyone with more than two braincells to rub together.
Paul Sheehan’s view that the word “drought” should be replaced by “climate change” comes several days after the release by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) at Boulder, Colorado of “one of the first analyses to draw on extensive and sophisticated computer modeling recently carried out for the … IPCC’s next assessment report [to be] released early in 2007.”
Basing their work on simulations created on supercomputers at research centres in France, Japan, Russia and the US and using nine different models, Claudia Tebaldi and colleagues concluded inter alia that “Depictions of a wetter world and greater precipitation intensity emerge unequivocally in the global average of most of the precipitation indexes.”
Perhaps they shouldn’t have mentioned “a wetter world”: they should just say “climate change.”
One point of particular interest was that three emissions scenarios were fed into all of the models: the IPCC’s A1B, A2 and B1 scenarios. The NCAR press release explained that “These three scenarios were used to account for uncertainty over how fast society may act to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases over coming decades.”
This is of course quite wrong. The IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios states that “As required by the Terms of Reference …, NONE of the scenarios in the set includes any future policies that explicitly address additional climate change initiatives” (EMPHASIS in original), and specifically notes that “No scenarios are included that explicitly assume implementation of the emissions targets in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto protocol.”
So these scenarios DON’T account for how fast society may act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because the experts that produced them were specifically precluded from assuming that society would take ANY action, fast or slow, to reduce GHG emissions. It says a lot about the IPCC that the research centre that houses the Technical Support Unit for the Panel’s key Working Group doesn’t know this.
Ian; if we assume this blog represents any positive response to the basic concept of man made AGW then the IPCC was right to exclude all global reaction.
Gavin: I’m not questioning the IPCC’s decision to require the SRES team to exclude all global reaction. What surprises me is that, ten years after the report was commissioned, the NCAR scientists don’t understand the basis of the input assumptions they’ve fed into their models? (Alternatively, the text of the news release wasn’t cleared with the scientists, but I’d find that hard to believe).
Martin,
As you presumably know, carbon dioxide emitted by humans is in due course not just absorbed by the atmosphere, but also by the biosphere, lithosphere and oceans.
You ask, effectively, “how much carbon can the natural system absorb”.
The answer is “all that humans are likely to throw at it, and more”.
Geological evidence is quite clear that (i) even during the Holocene, atmospheric CO2 levels have attained values as high as today’s (measurements on fossil plant stomata); and (ii) atmospheric CO2 levels are today at rather low levels compared with times in earlier earth history, when figures of over 1000 ppm occurred commonly without any known adverse affects, and with the probably positive effects of mildly warmer temperatures and increased efficiency of plant growth.
In addition to that, it is widely accepted that the logarithmic relationship between increasing carbon dioxide and warming means that the planet has already experienced 75% of the effect of the much vaunted but actually quite unexceptional doubling of CO2. Given that the last 100 years have seen a warming of a bit less than 1 deg. C, even if assume that all that is a result of human emissions (which it certainly isn’t), the amount of warming left in the system as we move to doubling is just a fraction of a degree.
Just like Kyoto, which will have no measurable effect on temperature, the “doubled CO2” scare is a furphy. Alarmism at its greenest and best, which results in the futile squandering of taxpayer money.
And if you are not a “greeny lefty” (whatever that might be) then why are you recommending that people read Monbiot’s book? For, typically for this and other similar writers, it encompasses a farrago of ad hominem innuendo, and completely fails to address any of the substantive science issues with rigour.
Why is it, do you think, that writers like Monbiot
and his American clone Gelbspan always prefer mud-slinging against climate sceptics, rather than discussing the science issues that they raise?
In science, an idea is not responsible to the person who raised it, but is testable only against its truth. It is an utter irrelevancy who might or might not have paid the scientist who advances it. Monbiot’s writings are largely sustained by such irrelevancies.
Cathy
Jen’s got her dander up – but don’t worry. Johnnie’s got your back. He knows as soon as it rains we’ll all forget about it for a while. Just humour the loopies until the drought breaks. Betcha Downer isn’t coming round for din dins anymore.
Jeez I thought I did my bit for the environment when I got my yellow wheelie bin and dolphin free tuna. You want me to do more ?
Just zen out for a while and things will return to normal after a bit of rain and when we all realise that we might have to change the way we do things. And we won’t be having any of that will we?
Had thought about arguing with Cathy but why bother. She’s probably a very nice lady and she’ll like me better if I leave her be.
Anyway more importantly what’s your tip for the Cup?
Cathy, you make some strange assertions. During the early Holocene CO2 levels maximised around 330 ppmv according to the stomatal method and at 280 ppmv according to the more reliable ice-core method. Today’s levels are around 380 ppmv. Holocene levels were never as high as today’s (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/286/5446/1815a).
Secondly, what evidence do you have that 1000 ppmv caused no adverse effects? Very strange claim to make as it’s been quite some time since we’ve had 1000 ppmv.
Finally, you don’t seem to understand positive feed-backs. Scientists do not claim that all future warming will be solely caused by increasing CO2. Increasing CO2 is a forcing agent that is proposed to lead to positive feed-backs which, in turn, further increase the temperature (For example, melting ice leading to open seawater reflecting less sunlight). To claim that there is only a fraction of a degree of warming left in the system is difficult to support.
Then again, maybe I’m just a green alarmist.
Luke, but it’s all going your way mate. Everyone is worried. No. Let me rephrase that… Everyone is very, very, very worried indeed!
You can pop that champagne whether your horse wins the Melbourne cup or not. 🙂
Jen – have an indulgent flight of fancy for a moment while I drink pink champagne from Pinxi’s glass slipper.
If it was all true and say droughts were more likely in southern Aussie, city water catchments still dry, more bushfires, the odd additional stifling heatwave, some fast cyclones whizzing about, the eastern Australian current had moved, and those nice species on Bartle Frere finding it a tad hard to get higher up the hill.
What would you do next ? Domestically and internationally. And assuming you were PM of course. Now that’s a very interesting call.
P.S. Given we’re mercenary scientists on the gravy train as someone put it – we can come over and give you contrarian dudes a hand if you like – I mean we don’t wantg to see you go under. It wouldn’t be that much of a sell-out as obviously contrarians have more fun (well except for Schillsy). Is God a contrarian? For a price we can tell you where to put the tyre lever and start reefing. And only too if we get to schmooze with Ian as he looks like a serious guy with contacts (but only if he’s limited to 3 paras).
Jen, I’m interested in why you think the Stern report will be “economic alarmism”. Generally it’s the skeptics who are the economic alarmists. It is they who proclaim economic collapse if restrictive measures are taken to reduce CO2 emissions. I wouldn’t have put Stern in the skeptic box though. What gives?
Hey Luke,
We welcome all sorts on this side of the tracks, but you know, chances are you will have to take a pay cut (I did) or work for nothing.
Also, your mates might tell you its not a good career move … that your severely limiting your future employment options.
But, hey, just maybe, we are on the side of the angels?
Far from alarmist I’m finding (some of) the debate interesting, mainly because we haven’t got to deal with the denalists so much any more and we’ve moved on to the ‘what to do’ discussion. I hoping to see some discussion about Lord Ron Oxburgh and his apperance on Lateline last night.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1771769.htm
Nexus6, Yes, good point, it is likely to be the many so-called skeptics who are also economists, who will be alarmed by the Stern report. … and I guess this will be more puff to keep the issue sailing along?
The report is due out next Monday: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm
Sorry folks: I will believe it when I see some cutbacks across the board
Up front we had this statement ”In the same paragraph Oquist states that if we get emissions down by 60-90% we can stop dangerous climate change. Now that is some false claim, particularly given Australia is responsible for such a small percent of global emissions and falling!
I bet That small percent does not include the coal or gas we export.
Sir Oxburgh says on ABC “And I suppose the work of the last five years is really now telling us that we have probably got to make some pretty major decisions which will have profound effects on the earth’s climate for many decades, and we’ve got about ten years in which to do it”
But I reckon in ten years the Cold Coast and a few other places will be looking pretty silly.
Yes Jen,we are certainly in a period of Envirionmental McCarthyism. And even worse, scientific doubters like you, and even the likes of me are now going to face’Nurenburg type trials’ for ‘crimes against humanity’ by opposing ‘man made global warming’. Got it!. This is according to Grist Magazine, that US Bible of green fanatics, including Al Gore. Apparently the ‘Nurenburg’ suggestion came from an Australian journalist! Does anyone know who?
The ‘global warming” campaign has now reached hysterical proportions,based more on hype then fact and aided and abbeted by a compliant media. However a study of factual data, freely available to anyone, will show it to be the nonsense that it is.
It is depressing Jennifer, but keep up the good work, you belong to a substantial and growing group of climate scientists and experts, worldwide who oppose this hysterical madness which is wasting billions of taxpayers money. Undoubtably the whole global warming thing will soon implode. I am happy to go on the record saying that I have no doubt that “man made global warming will go down in history as the greatest scientific fraud of all time.
Well anyway the medja have done a good job shifting the debate from IR onto something they know even less about, the weather. Even my ancient Mum is having conniptions over the upcoming revolution as the peoples of the earth rise up and reclaim their planet from the grasp of the greedy corporates. I keep telling her to take up a hobby and to stop reading those wacky fairfax rags but I think she’s addicted to the drama.
“Envirionmental McCarthyism” “hysterical madness” hee hee hee.
More champagne for my friends.
“Envirionmental McCarthyism”, “Nurenburg”, “the greatest scientific fraud of all time”
Mmmm now who’s hysterical again?
Again, doubling CO2 from 280ppmv to 560ppmv can only raise global temperatures by 1C by, say, 2100. We can be generous to the current IPCC perspective and calculate that 0.16C of the 0.6C rise is due to the radiative forcing of increased atmospheric CO2. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades.
Hysteria, alarmism, and Canutian climate control via CO2 has no basis.
So, let me get this right:
Those who believe that human-induced climate change is happening (and that it’s not a particularly good thing) are ideologues who don’t understand science.
Those who don’t believe aren’t ideologues at all and have the objective, ‘factual’ science behind them… ?
I think history WILL judge the current climate hysteria to be one of the greatest scientific frauds of all time. Probably one of the most expensive, as well.
It depends what the temperature does over the next few years.
I hope you’re right. I’d be very happy to wear the egg on my face.
Lord Oxburgh should read Treasurer Costello’s speech to the Lowy Institute last September at http://www.treasurer.gov.au/tsr/content/speeches/2005/013.asp : he’d find that China’s GDP was already $US5500 a head per year in 2004, not “significantly under $2000 a year.”
And yes the Chinese are actually putting in a gigawatt sized coal fired power station every five days: all power to them (literally), and it’s great that India’s economy (and power demands) are now growing rapidly as well.
What his Lordship apparently doesn’t realise is that all of this “prodigious rate of power development” is already factored into the International Energy Agency’s projections of energy supply to 2030 – and into its projections of CO2 emissions which however still show lower growth than the lowest of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios (B1). In fact, the IPCC’s B1 scenario assumes that the increase in global electricity use between 2000 and 2030 will be well over twice the rate projected by the IEA.
Yet James Hansen and 45 climate modellers from 12 different research institutions estimate that the B1 scenario will lead to a temperature increase of 1.13 deg. C by 2100 (go to http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~www/ , and download the “dangerous_small” pdf).
The CSIRO have “very high confidence” (i.e., 95% probability or greater) that the IPCC’s lower warming limit – which is above the Hansen et al projection for B1 – will be exceeded (see “Climate change scenarios for initial assessment of risk in accordance with risk management guidance”, Australian Greenhouse Office, May 2006, p. 31).
Who is wrong – CSIRO? Hansen et al? The IEA?
Nexus,
Only you know whether you are a green alarmist or not.
But (referring to your later question to Jen) all the signs are that Nick Stern is an economic alarmist. Press leaks to date suggest that his report will simply reinforce the orthodox British wail that global warming is going to be both damaging and expensive (doubtless using models to “substantiate” this), so we have to stop it before it harms us.
It’s all a bit like the advice given to teenage boys, really, and about as likely to be useful.
You raise three other points.
1. Holocene CO2 levels.
The known Holocene measurements peaked at 360 +/- 20 ppm in 1300 AD. Within error, that is the same as today’s value.
As a matter of interest, though in passing, there are also measurements of historic CO2 values in the refereed scientific literature as high as 500 ppm. Some scientists dismiss these values as obviously “wrong”, as they do similarly high outlier measurements from the ice cores. Perhaps they’re right to do so; and perhaps they’re not. As with so much else in climate science, no-one knows.
The ice core data that conflict with the stomatal and other determinations are grossly averaged, and unreliable as indicators of instantaneous carbon dioxide levels.
(Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles Kouwenberg et al., 2005, Geology 33, 33-36).
2. Geological CO2 levels being harmful
If you look at the recent paper in Science by Lowenstein & Demicco (vol. 313, p. 1928)
you will find here an excellent summary graph of CO2 through the last 60 My.
You will see that, short term fluctuation aside, carbon dioxide has been gently declining over that period of time.
Of course, no-one can prove that levels above 380 ppm in the past were not harmful. First, because you can’t prove a negative. Second, because you weren’t there to see it. And third, because “harm” is a judgemental and not an absolute concept.
That acknowledged, it would be a fairly absurd ecological argument to speculate that the carbon dioxide levels that have characterised most of this planet’s history were in fact “harmful” to life.
And palaeontologists know that the Cretaceous – during which carbon dioxide levels reached well above a thousand ppm – was a particularly green and clean time (that is, until a meteorite impact re-arranged the scenery somewhat).
3. Climate feedbacks
Climate feedbacks are many and varied. You cite a positive feedback that might result from warming. A much larger negative feedback will result from the increased albedo associated with more clouds resulting from more evaporation resulting from a higher temperature.
Not only do we not know all the feedbacks, but in most cases we have only crude estimates of the relative magnitudes of those that we know about (see IPCC TAR).
And, guess what? The only way that we can estimate the effect of all the feedbacks is to put the subset that we know about into a deterministic computer model (as IPCC scientists do), and tweak it until it gives us numbers that we think intuitively are about right.
This activity, which is great fun and called computer games playing, should not be confused with science.
Cathy.
This is hilarious. Keep going guys. Classic old fashioned porkies.
But anyway surely the glaciers melting, ocean warming, Antarctica cooling, Greenland thickening and faster and many many more cyclones are absolute proof of AGW. Surely Kilimanjaro cinches it. And how do you explain the loss of frog species. If Australia alone complied with Kyoto that would stop the inundation of Tuvalau and prevent 1000s of environmental refugees.
And have you all considered the new pollutant diazium trioxide and what effect that will have as a CO2 photolysing surfactant?
Observational Estimates of Radiative Forcing due to Land Use Change in Southwest Australia
http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-291.pdf
The abstract of the paper reads,
“Radiative forcing associated with land use change is largely derived from Global Circulation Models (GCM), and the accuracy of these estimates depends on the robustness of the vegetation characterization used in the GCMs. In this study, we use observations from the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instrument onboard the Terra satellite to report top-of –the-atmosphere radiative forcing values associated with clearing of native vegetation for agricultural purposes in southwest Australia. Over agricultural areas, observations show consistently higher shortwave fluxes at the top-of-the atmosphere (TOA) compared to native vegetation, especially during the time period between harvest and planting. Estimates using CERES observations show that, over a specific area originally covered by native vegetation, replacement of half the area by croplands results in a diurnally averaged shortwave radiative forcing of approximately -7 Wm-2. GCM-derived estimates for areas with 30% or more croplands range from -1 to -2 Wm-2 compared to observational estimate of -4.2 Wm-2, thus significantly underestimating radiative forcing due to land use change by a factor of 2 or more. Two potential reasons for this underestimation are incorrect specification of the multi-year land use change scenario and the inaccurate prescription of seasonal cycles of crops in GCM’s.”
One excerpt from the paper reads,
“Betts (2001) and Hansen et al. (1997) both report that the radiative forcing due to land use change is most significant in the mid-latitude agricultural areas that experience snowfall, which accentuates the albedo effect associated conversion of forests to farm lands. The present analysis suggests that shortwave radiative forcing associated with agricultural land use may be significant even in areas without frequent snow cover.”
“And how do you explain the loss of frog species.”
Same as the loss of marsupials in Australia: by introduction of non-native species to the region. In the case of the frogs it was a fungus that was introduced by researchers and eco-tourists. Nothing to do with climate change.
Dear friends, take a look at
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1769056.htm
http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/2/448
and much more. Try keywords such as ‘terra+preta+charcoal’ and draw your own conclusions.
Mine are that by deliberately burning the bush more often, in mild conditions, we will sequester enormous amounts of carbon as charcoal. In some forest soils there will be enhanced nitrogen cycling. We can kiss goodbye to dangerous, destructive bushfires, sell all the helitacs and water bombers, retire Phil Koperberg (perhaps give him another medal and a life supply of silver braid). Water catchments will be safe, and they may yield more, due to less dead litter soaking up whatever rain falls. The Aborigines will be happy that the bush is not ‘dirty’ or ‘closed up’ any more. ‘Fire sensitive plants’ will be safe in their unburnt refuges from roaring holocausts, wildflowers will bloom, and possums will frolic, without burning their paws off. Asthmatics will breathe freely. The planet will be saved. Alleluia… what do you think?
Luke is in his element now, trotting out the same old apocalyptic scenarios whilst sipping pink champagne. He loves his brut.
The loss of frogs is a combination of temperature increase and additional deadly CO2. I’ve been told that the fungus ruse is an Exxon story.
Just like deadly CO2 caused the extinction of half the species in Cathy’s Cretaceous period.
It’s deadly stuff.
I think Australia should take only 1.6% of climate change refugees, that being our contribution to cooking the planet. In fact, we Australians could become climate change refugees ourselves, most of our cities are coastal.
I wonder if cancer/virus thats afflicting the Tassie Tigers will be put down to climate change?
For those who are interested, Micheal McKernan, well know Canberran historian, has a book out by the title of ‘Drought the red marauder’
.
I know it is only recent history, 200 years, but it does discribe the current conditions as being recorded by early european settlers.
Canberra would invest at least $230m … to develop … cleaner energy from renewable power sources, Mr Howard said.
Perhaps consumers of coalfire generated electricity will be charged to recover these development costs and offered the affirmative-action choice of renewable electricity at one-thirtieth the price, rather than the reciprocal arrangement that currently applies
Cathy,
1. Your basing all your Holocene CO2 assumptions on a single type of proxy measurement from a single species of conifer. You don’t see the problems with that? SI index studies from other plant species are rough in agreeance with ice core measurements. You said in your original post that Holocene levels were quite clearly as high as current levels. Your statement is incorrect – it’s not “quite clear” and it’s unlikely (though not impossible, of course).
2. Quite obviously increased CO2 or temperature is not harmful to all species, though to speculate that it’s beneficial to all species (as it appears you have done) is preposterous. Ecological change always has winners and losers, with those best able to adapt out-competing those that can’t. There is plenty of evidence that rapid change will not be beneficial to many agronomic plant varieties, with changing weed, pest and disease ranges and infestation severity offsetting the small gains from higher temperature and CO2. Uptake of GMO technology could certainly help with this problem though.
3. So you know about climate feed-backs. Why make the statement you made in your first post about the tiny amount of temperature change left in the system then?
Also, the science behind your example has been well and truly discredited. Water vapour forms a positive feedback, not a negative. (Links and discussion at http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/more-on-water-vapor-feedback.html) and (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)
Can’t win ’em all, I guess.
Allan: “I wonder if cancer/virus thats afflicting the Tassie Tigers will be put down to climate change?” could be clutching at straws here.
Allan. Folks in the city will pay a lot more for the privilege of being smug. I hope I’m wrong but it’s likely the IMF etc will note the latest handout on “exceptional” drought relief. Interest rates and food prices will surely rise regardless of the question of science about AGW being settled to everyone’s satisfaction.
Hey, I reckon Sid above has some money planted somewhere along the Gold Coast. Course he wouldn’t want it exposed would he while Cathy is still massaging feedbacks?
A ‘new’ anthropogenic GHG with an atmosphric lifetime of around 1000 years:
http://www.deans.bham.ac.uk/lectures/tuckett.htm
INAUGURAL LECTURE
Professor Richard Tuckett
Professor of Chemical Physics
HOW CHEMICAL PHYSICS CAN HELP OUR UNDERSTANDING OF GREENHOUSE GASES AND GLOBAL WARMING
5:15 pm Tuesday 14 November 2006
in Haworth Lecture Theatre 203
Haworth Building, School of Chemistry
and afterwards for a Reception in Room 209
With contradicting statements being made by scientists and politicians of different countries, there are many misunderstandings in the public arena about the greenhouse effect ; this is hardly surprising ! This first part of the talk will describe what the speaker understands the greenhouse effect to be, the properties of a molecule that cause it to be a significant greenhouse gas, and therefore the contributions that a chemical physicist can make to an improved understanding of the effect. The second part of the talk will take as a case study the chemistry of trifluoromethylsulphur pentafluoride, SF5CF3, an adduct of the SF5× and CF3× free radicals, and an anthropogenic pollutant that was first ‘discovered’ in the Earth’s atmosphere in 2000. SF5CF3 has nearly the largest global warming potential on a per-molecule basis of all pollutants in the earth’s atmosphere. Experiments using tunable vacuum-UV radiation from a synchrotron source and coincidence techniques have determined some of the relevant physical properties of this molecule, including the strength of the S-C bond. The main sink route of SF5CF3 from the earth’s atmosphere is low-energy electron attachment in the mesosphere. The third part of the talk will describe how such data are important inputs to determine the lifetime of this pollutant, ca. 1000 years, in the Earth’s atmosphere. Finally, generic lessons that can be learnt from the study of this new greenhouse gas will be made.
The earth’s atmosphere is a thin film of gas enveloping a massive planet. This thin film of gas is in dynamic thermal equilibrium with the earth.
Any thermal burps the earth may have had, over whatever geological time period one might propose, remains withing scientific spculation.
AGW’ers believe that a flea situated on the tail of an elephant can cause the elephant to move as commanded.
Otherwise known as lefty hubris.
SF5CF3 The mystery gas; Science is always catching up, so are a few followers.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Sci…289..611S
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2000/157654.htm?health
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2000/2000-07-31-02.asp
http://www.factbites.com/topics/Greenhouse-gas
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pollution/1331.html
So what maintains the equilibrium?
SF5CF3 The mystery gas; Science is always catching up, so are a few followers.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Sci…289..611S
jen’s software defeated my other links
“I’ve been told that the fungus ruse is an Exxon story.”
No the story is from Pat Michaels, but he is “paid by Exxon” so it must be wrong. However, in case you want to read the scientific refutation of the climate extinction claim, its here:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/11/jumping-to-conclusions-frogs-global-warming-and-nature
Well Luke, while you’re breaking out the champagne, you might explain to me why this year isn’t likely to be the hottest on record, and why no-one’s been commenting on this?
In the stockmarket they say that no-one rings a bell at the top, but the time to sell is when the bellhop starts giving you tips. Stockmarkets rise and fall for slightly different reasons than temperatures, but if John Howard comes on board, then you’ve got the bellhop.
Might be time to check when temperatures start to diverge significantly from the models. If some of the sceptics are right, then temperature is due to turn down, either because there is a reverse trend, or because it’s really all random fluctuations anyway. (And what’s a trend anyway other than a random fluctuation large enough to make an impression on a graph?)
Nexus,
You say:
“1. You are basing all your Holocene CO2 assumptions on a single type of proxy measurement from a single species of conifer. You don’t see the problems with that?”
Nonsense. I am merely paying attention to relevant facts, all of them – not to mention stating the obvious. I’m interested that you seem to see a problem with that.
You say:
“2. Quite obviously increased CO2 or temperature is not harmful to all species, though to speculate that it’s beneficial to all species (as it appears you have done) is preposterous. Ecological change always has winners and losers.”
Of course. We live on a dynamic planet. That is the whole point. To assume that a particular (say 1900 AD) moment in geological time should be “frozen” as the ideal ecological state of the planet – even if we had the capability to do that, which we don’t – is beyond naive, it’s absurd.
You say:
“3. So you know about climate feed-backs. Why make the statement you made in your first post about the tiny amount of temperature change left in the system then?”
Because it is (i) true as stated (i.e. without feedbacks), and (ii) relevant.
You also say:
“The science behind your example has been well and truly discredited. Water vapour forms a positive feedback, not a negative. (Links and discussion at http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/more-on-water-vapor-feedback.html) and (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)”
Finally reduced to clutching at straws, I see. Most Realclimate discussions demonstrate well the Kelvin Fallacy: which is the assumption that the physics of the climate system is so well understood and constrained that numerical models can predict future climate trends. It isn’t and they can’t. Like many other discussions on Realclimate, their treatment of water vapour as a feedback contains self-interested arguments. You may view this unrefereed, partial website as authoritative, but others don’t.
Cathy
Hans – you can’t trust herpetologists – they’re on the gravy train with big research grants like climate scientists. They’ll say anything.
Graham – yes I think you’re right – as I said at the outset to Jen – fret not – Johnnie’s on the case now – it will all blow over. You may be onto something – the world is probably about to start cooling. Could be back to 1940 before you know it. And Bob did tell us that it started cooling in 1998 too. And Fosbob reckons the solar torque’s about to kick in – so this is probably it !
Oh yea – the AGW answer to your question is “why would it be”. Each year hasn’t been a record so far but the trend is up up up long term. Just because somewhere is warm or cold on any day doesn’t mean much. Despite AGW we will still have “weather”. Trends matter. But that’s just what AGW dudes would say – the trend should be straight up.
Actually if CO2 was any good the world would be 3 degrees C warmer by now.
Incidentally I wonder why the eastern Australian current is moving position – probably nothing.
Cathy – amazing analysis – I don’t think Nexus will be able to come back from that rebuttal. Thank heavens for quality sites like CO2 Science. Those guys at RC know nothing. And they’re on the gravy train too.
Further to my earlier post on:
Observational Estimates of Radiative Forcing due to Land Use Change in Southwest Australia
The radiative forcing for CO2 is 1.4 WM-2, all GHG’s is 2.4 WM-2. Compare that with the observational estimate for croplands of -4.2 WM-2.
Ok, last time, Cathy.
1. No point arguing that one. I value reproducibility. You pick a result which says what you want it to say. Never the twain shall meet.
2. I also place quite a high value on human existence and quality of life (guess I’m not really a greenie after all!). The planet may well be dynamic and those lucky thermophiles will make the most of the good times. I just don’t necessarily see that as a good thing. Again, maybe that’s just me.
3. Perhaps look at the first (non-RC) link I provided and then explain why only Richard Lindzen supports your hypothesis (or did anyway) and all other climate scientists don’t. Maybe your correct, but most probably your not.
Regarding the matter of ” alarmism ” and environmental millenarianism generally, I have to say that its emtional roots are deep and elemental. Lord byron was in geneva in 1816, the year after the great Tambora eruption of Bali, which caused the failure of crops in the northern hemisphere some years. He captures the elemental human ear of the terra being not so firma in ” Darkness ”
” I had a dream, which was not all a dream.
The bright star was extinguished and the stars
did wander darkling in the eternal space,
Rayless and pathless,and the icy earth
Swung blind and blackening in the moonless air;
Morn came and went-and came,and brought no day, And men forgot their passions in the dread
Of this their desolation; and all hearts
Were chilled into a selfish prayer for light.”
Good stuff jen…and sid and paul and cathy and all..dr ian!
On the matter of positive feedbacks….I was talking to an honours student the other day who was worried about them kicking in, causing some sort of catastrophe ( naturally ). I said that if positive feedbacks do occur they will be overwhelmed eventually by negative feedbacks.
He asked, ” how do you know that? ” I said you’e doing the degree, you tell me why it must be so!”
Stumped him.
Each year, global average temperature rises by 3.5C from January to July – where are the catastrophic positive feedbacks?
You spell Heysen with an “E” nexus 6!
Surprisingly no one has mentioned the GetUp climate change map
Now that’s good campaigning
Phil: on lack of positive feedback, catastrophe and other stuff-
I noticed the local CWA lady on 666 this morning saying there is one suicide every four days in the bush
The source of the comment “one suicide every four days in the bush” is from the Page and Fragar 2002 study which found that during the period 1988-1997 farm suicides (families, workers, managers) occurred at a rate of 92 per year or one suicide every four days.
From a report titled “Wisdom from the Drought” from the The Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health
http://www.crrmh.com.au/pages/pdf/drought_report.pdf
“..The physical and mental effects of stress may be more severe in rural and remote areas, and people living in these areas may also have difficulty gaining access to health services. A Canadian study (Wang, 2004), for example, found that people living in rural areas have less access to mental health services; and in Australia, people living in rural and remote areas have lower access to health care services of any kind than their metropolitan counterparts (AIHW 1998). Suicide rates for males were found to be significantly higher in large rural centres and remote locations (AIHW 1998), and the authors of that report suggest that this indicates higher rates of depression in those areas, although no comparative data yet exists.
Page and Fragar (2002) found that suicide rates among male farm managers and agricultural labourers for the period 1988-1997 were higher even than the male national rates and those for the rural population generally, and are roughly equivalent to deaths from farm work-related injuries. The authors suggest that these increased rates of suicide may be attributable to an interplay of factors such as the rural economy, family and social issues, isolation and lack of access to services, and the stresses and strains of farm life. Many of the factors identified as contributing to poorer physical health in rural areas may also have a negative effect on mental health: geographic isolation, socioeconomic disadvantage, and poor health-related behaviours (Judd, Jackson, Komiti, Murray, Hodgins, & Fraser, 2002). In this study, place of residence was less of a risk factor for mental ill-health than were factors such as (among others) poverty, unemployment, poor social networks, significant life event in previous 12 months, and low perceived social support. All of these risk factors could potentially operate in depressed rural communities in times of extended drought; the extent to which they did operate in the current drought was discussed by the participants in this conference.
2.2 The role of community Drought places stress on the entire rural community, not only on the primary producers directly affected. It is associated with family strain and dislocation: interrupted schooling, family members moving into town or to larger towns to find work, increased anger, substance abuse and possibly violence. Rural and remote postcodes dominate measures of general community disadvantage (Vinson, 2004). Frequent and extended drought may perhaps be one cause of community disadvantage; if, on the other hand, the disadvantage pre-dates drought it can only be worsened by it…”
Thanks rog. I’m part of the spell-check generation. Names are a problem!
rog: thanks for posting that study in “Wisdom from the drought” its sad enough stuff about our rural environment going back. However our good lady today with some twenty odd years with the CWA side of business was referring to here now issues like arranging counselling for groups beyond farmers with their extra Govt. funds. It seems truck drivers who haven’t been paid also can’t talk about it.
“This post is based on an email from Cathy.”
But does the post reflect your own point of view, Jen?
Yes, rural suicide rates are increasing, tragically. In this present time of drought, farmers not only have to contend with the ‘black dog’ on their backs, but they also have the ‘green taliban’ to deal with as well. Not to mention the dire forcasts of ‘global frying’ coming from those highly politicised and green infiltrated government agencies, the CSIRO, and the BoM. However, on this last point, farmers should take heart, the BoM can’t even give us an accurate three day forecast, so how can we believe this ridiculous longer term stuff!
And, yes, I am a farmer, and have been around long enough, to have seen it all before. And yes present weather/climate conditions are nothing new.
On a related matter, since the rise of Green Fundamentalism in this country, there has not been one major dam or power station constructed,(remember the Franklyn dam?). A series of governments around the nation have abrogated their responsibilities here, in their pursuit of the green vote. Because of this,today, we face extreme water shortages, not only in country areas, but in our major cities as well. Tomorrow, major power shedding blackouts in peak winter and summer demand periods! Governments must be held accountable for failing their responsibilities, and no doubt will be punished at the ballot box. However the blame must also be sheeted home to extremist green groups. Perhaps their well heeled city supporters will then put the cheque books away!
Sid – what a load of utter rot. So we have the old can’t forecast the weather so can’t do climate caqlp-trap. Green Fundamentalism in caps. Yadda yadda yadda. What bolsh.
No dams – nothing to do with greenies – more like penny pinching – all infrastructure is run down ports, roads, electricity, water supply. You all want low taxes so stop whinging. I don’t think the throng filling the town halls in Maryborough were greenies actually. It’s called NIMBYism. You peope are clueless. If you analysed your climate circumstances you might learn a few things. But that would require your ability to read.
If you have seen it all before you’re over 100 !
And maybe well heeled city slickers are sick of forking out billions in drought aid to people who like berating us. Cuts both ways (mate).
Kogan Creek Coal-Fired Power Station, Queensland, Australia
An international Siemens-led consortium is building a 750MW supercritical-steam coal-fired power station at Kogan Creek, near Chinchilla in Queensland, Australia. The AU$1.1 billion project is planned to come on line in 2007, when it will be the largest single-block power station in Australia.
ALSTOM completes 450MW Braemar Power Station on time to meet 2006/7 summer peak demand
24 August 2006
Queensland Premier, the Hon Peter Beattie today officially commissioned Queensland’s newest power station, the state of the art, 450MW gas fired Braemar Power Project, in time to meet the states expected increased summer peak electricity demands.
Alcoa Gas-Fired Cogeneration Facility, Australia
Alinta is building a natural-gas-fired cogeneration facility at Alcoa’s Pinjarra Alumina Refinery in Western Australia. The $300 million facility will be built in two stages, each with a gas turbine generator (GT), heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and auxiliary equipment. The first cogeneration unit will generate up to 140MW of sent out electricity and 240t/h of high-pressure steam. The second, similar, unit will depend on electricity sales and refinery steam demand.
Laverton North Natural Gas Power Station, Australia
The 320MW Laverton North natural gas power station is under construction in Victoria, Australia. The station is being constructed for Snowy Hydro Limited by Siemens. It will be located on an industrial site approximately 15km west of the Melbourne Central Business District.
The construction of the Kirar Weir (formerly known as Eidsvold Weir) was officially completed in July 2005. Construction took approximately 15 months, and the project now represents a major piece of water infrastructure for the region.
Practical completion of the Paradise Dam was also achieved on schedule at the end of November 2005 and the Dam is now ready for operational delivery of water to the Burnett region.
Moranbah Pipeline Projects — Explosive growth in demand for Queensland coking coal has seen a number of mine developments in the Bowen Basin region. In the midst of three failed wet seasons, securing a reliable water supply for the region’s coal mines is crucial. SunWater is working in partnership with six foundation users to construct a 220km pipeline worth $270M from the Burdekin Falls Dam near Charters Towers to Moranbah in the northern Bowen Basin. The project is due for completion in early 2007.
Sid: how can we be sure that you have nothing planted down the Gold Coast? It’s been my experience fundamentalism starts with self made men from redneck country wanting to move on all kinds of property.
Some of rest of us have been around for a while too. Power station building and other forms of public grandstanding went out of fashion under Liberal governments as I recall. BTW they also ran out of easy places to build both big power stations and dams long before they flogged them as assets we could not afford to keep in public hands.
Note how the feds had to go back this week and fund the update of Hazelwood, one of the largest and most advanced coal burning projects around the country at the time the SECV built it. Building infrastructure like that behind alumina refining etc at public expense had to stop. I got to deal with remnants of SECV engineering left after Kennett’s carve up on behalf of the Federal Gov for their communications overhaul during our A to D transition. They had no staff then but we avoided brownouts despite various bundles of policy.
Brownouts versus blackouts is another big subject; lets say its about demand and supply versus maintenance besides I’m rusty on phase shift and grid feedback. After also working around water and sewage infrastructure at various times I can say Sid has no idea on how it all works, but he is certainly not alone here which is why I bother
With about two billion aimed at rural recovery now I suspect the Libs are spending their war chest early. Note; it’s presently almost all out in the bush including the extra for Hazelwood and Mildura. Kim must be scratching his head in dismay.
For that we want some return, just for starters 10% of all cleared farms must be returned to proper woodland with net gain in Kyoto terms. Sid may appreciate some new shade and other prospects as we go on.
Luke, OK some, but note the word ‘major’, I used.
No, not 100, not even 70! And yes, maybe the same well heeled city slickers will also tire of forking out billions to the global warming industry, not to mention the billions to the Murray Darling Basin Commission to fix a ‘green’ promoted problem that wasn’t there!
But back to power stations; I suggest you read the front page cover story in today’s Sydney Morning Herald! Living in the bush, I only received my paper at lunchtime, after I posted my bit on this site. Won’t say ‘told you so’!
But Luke, mate and Gavin also, your denial of fact and reality reminds me of Rene’ in ‘Allo ‘Allo, who when caught by his wife Ede in the arms of Yvette, confronted the reality with “You stupid woman.”!
So we’re forking out billions on GW are we ?
As far as Murray Darling is concerned you’ve got a result with the investment made but don’t crow until you get some more time and wetter seasons under your belt.
Kogan Ck and Paradise Dam aren’t sizeable enough?
cheers for cutting through the fluff like that Luke.
AGW contrarians claim economic rack n ruin if we cut down on emissions. Is this based on models or solid analysis? Where is the supporting evidence?
Australia is falling behind (as usual) the international trend to develop clean energy sources. Better keep those sheep alive through the drought as the national economy needs to ride on something! Even China has mandated 15(?)% renewable energy.
Jen/Cathy’s post started with a piece from Crikey. Here’s a later article from Crikey:
>>Balancing the books on climate change<<
(Sophie Black)
This morning the Treasurer trumpeted economically viable, technological solutions to the climate change problem off the back of the government’s announcement of $75 million towards a major solar power station in northern Victoria.
According to the government, to be eligible for support under their Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, “technologies will have to demonstrate a potential to be commercially available by 2020 to 2030 and able to reduce the energy sector’s greenhouse gas signature by at least 2% per annum from 2030.”
Doesn’t exactly have a sense of urgency to it, but at least it means the government is putting climate change firmly on the agenda — or does it?
Not necessarily, says Corin Millais, Chief Executive of The Climate Institute. “There’s no new money and no new policy… it’s a reannouncement. We’re all waiting for a new policy announcement from the government — this is not it, ” Millais told Crikey. “The $125 million announced today is a pittance compared to the scale of the climate change problem. The 2002 drought alone cost Australia $6.6 billion so we need a more immediate intervention.”
And according to Millais, while the Government promises the equivalent of a “cup of water on a bushfire”, there’s an international boom in clean energy – in 2005 the market was worth $74 billion. So why, according to the Climate Institute, has the government effectively killed off what was a good government policy — the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target scheme (MRET)?
In 2005, there was a 229% growth in commissioned clean energy projects compared with 2004, which means the 2010 MRET target for renewables has been met – and now there’s no incentive for continued growth and investment. Under current policy, the “renewables industry is firing not hiring, going offshore and abandoning future investments” and the “proportion of energy that Australia generates from renewables is in decline, in contrast to global trends.”
“The loss of income from the government’s decision to end the renewable energies scheme is billions,” says Millais, “…a $230 million wind farm in Tasmania has been cancelled… and wind farm manufacturer, Vestas is closing its Tasmanian factory citing regulatory uncertainty.”
The government is big on crunching numbers when it comes to climate change, but the books don’t seem to be balancing on this issue. Shadow Minister for Public Accountability Kelvin Thompson has done a bit of his own accounting. By his calculations, the government has underspent on climate change in the years from 1998-2006 by $362,475,000.
So are the Treasurer’s economic credentials in question when it comes to climate change? “The cheapest method to approach the greenhouse problem would be to have a carbon price, the most expensive way is to subsidise a lot of technologies — this isn’t the market friendly way,” says Millais.
“One would expect the government to be more market friendly than they actually are; they’ve taken a very subsidised non-commercial approach to the issue,” says Millais. “Clear regulation that sets a price on carbon and rewards all companies, that’s a pretty mainstream economic and business view that’s quite prevalent.”
Except within the halls of government. A U-turn on climate change? Maybe not.
One of the most interesting lessons one learns from history is that humanity only learns by making mistakes. It is apposite that a culture which believes in the Resurrection (essentially a belief and not a physical fact) has little problem is believing other myths such as AGW.
Equally the adoption of Keynesian economic principles and the belief in socialism, or as Professor Quiggin euphemises it, social democracy, remains a potent force in human culture.
It is necessary to point out that the fundamental principle of AGW has never been verified experimentally, and hence remains a speculation.
This happens when the technicians gain control of science.
P.S.
I should have mentioned that it took 6 years during the last century to work out the mistake of adopting (National) Socialism in Germany.
Socialism has now morphed into AGW.
We enter another Dark Age.
Vader has spoken
That’s right Sinksy – put us in charge and we’ll nationalise your drilling rig and tax your diamonds.
re “the fundamental principle of AGW has never been verified experimentally” – have to ! But the problem is you have to be prepared to read. A challenge perhaps for the elderly or bigoted.
Yes Luke, Paradise is sizable, and I compliment the Qld. govt. for building it. But Kogan Creek, at750 MW, and the others you quoted are less. I’m talking about the need for MAJOR base load power stations like Bayswater, at 2640 MW, or larger which are needed here in NSW to avoid a major power failure disaster. Such a disaster we will have if the greenies get their way and stop construction of these badly needed cleaner burning coal fired power stations which provide the cheapest electricity available. And my, Pinxi, Millais and the Climate Institute; arn’t these the pink/green loopy apostles who are setting out in two by two’s with their magic lantern shows to re-educate us and convert us all to the new green fundamentalist religion/
OK so it’s a willy size thing then. But we’ve got more Syd Harbs in storage. And we sell our surplu power down to you lot anyway. Sounds like you better move on up here then Sid. We’re putting in some infrasructure while being clean green and attractive. Scrubbing that CO2 out of the system. Looking at geosequestration of CO2. Ethanol for your car. And superb natural assets which we want to keep that way. Even Qld greenies say g’day when they’re having a demo or sit-in.
Crap Luke and you know it. Marginalise him, cut him off from the funds, change the government and really give him a headache.
As for CO2, where is it all going in QLD? Under whoz farm? You haven’t got a hope of stuffing it anywhere besides up yours or his nose if he is silly enough. Besides; who is going to do it? Someone from Asia I bet if we are quick. That’s before they are ALL swimming round the Pole or the South China Sea.
Bunkum Luke.
Have you noticed a certain fed minister other than the PM has never mentioned climate change or AGW? Johnny come lately is just part of the cover up. We are getting more and more coal if it kills us.
Rosslyn Beeby wrote an interesting article in opinion (CT) today “Climate shift too little, if not too late” putting renewables funding in the same boat as sport. She raises the question of what they have done to Lowe and Pearman again, not that I followed their drift but they have featured here in the past. Another thing; Beeby questions the make up of the Wentworth Group and its current cosy relationship with the Libs. So do I.
It’s time to root them all out. I was neutral until I saw the damage to CSIRO and the loss of people and patents etc. That will cost your average Jo dearly in the long run. Recall I wrote about Vestas and their little manufacturing plant on the beach? This was about my country!
There is no plan and no teamwork; so who ever can come up with a fresh package quickly gets the nod across the board IMHO
Winner takes all folks.
I forgot to mention the other pollies er; parrots
Weeks ago there was another funny thing about wind farms and birds.
Orange bellied parrots indeed and about 50 mill for someone.
This blog missed all that for what its worth. Only Ender was onto it bless him but rog in his wisdom went after him with zeal.
I wondered why then but it’s the obvious job for some on the blog to scuttle up and running alternatives till coal is truly costed.
Vestas only needed a signal to remain a stop gap. That’s why blogging a private agenda behind our backs becomes insidious.
Declare yourself or be dammed.
Vestas relocated to China because it is cheaper, responsibly they made a commecial decision, the rest is all hot air.
rog: we can also expect that Vestas found another wind farm
Not denying it anymore, instead the latest politik line is that it’s too late to arrest climate change, the horse has bolted
Is the concern about increased CO2 leading to ocean acidification another nasty piece of environmental alarmism, Jen?
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19125631.200-ocean-acidification-the-iotheri-cosub2sub-problem.html
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=3249
Even if the skeptics are right on climate change, which seems less likely with each passing day, ocean acidification has the potential to cause massive environmental destruction and the disruption of a valuable food source and consequently the death of millions.
A penny for your thoughts.
Is the concern about increased CO2 leading to ocean acidification another nasty piece of environmental alarmism, Jen?
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19125631.200-ocean-acidification-the-iotheri-cosub2sub-problem.html
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?id=3249
Even if the skeptics are right on climate change- which seems less likely with each passing day- ocean acidification has the potential to cause massive environmental destruction and the disruption of a valuable food source and consequently the death of millions.
A penny for your thoughts.
Moonbat from the Guardian has just figured something out;
“Small is Useless: Micro generation can’t solve climate change.
By George Monbiot. Published in New Scientist, 3rd October 2006
In seeking to work out how a 90% cut in carbon emissions could be achieved in the rich nations by 2030, I have made many surprising findings. But none has shocked me as much as the discovery that renewable micro generation has been grossly overhyped. Those who maintain that our own homes can produce all the renewable electricity and heat they need have harmed the campaign to stop climate chaos, by sowing complacency and misdirecting our efforts.
Bill Dunster, who designed the famous BedZed zero-carbon development outside London, published a brochure claiming that “up to half of your annual electric needs can be met by a near silent micro wind turbine.”…To provide the 50% Bill Dunster advertises, you would need a machine 4 metres in diameter. The lateral thrust it exerted would rip your house to bits.
(Converting to rooftop solar) would be staggeringly and pointlessly expensive – there are far better ways of spending the same money. The International Energy Agency’s MARKAL model gives a cost per tonne of carbon saved by solar electricity in 2020 of between £2200 and £3300. Onshore macro wind power, by contrast, varies between a saving of £40 and a cost of £130 a tonne.
Similar constraints affect all micro renewables: a report by a team at Imperial College shows that if 50% of our homes were fitted with solar water heaters, they would produce 0.056 exajoules of heat, or 2.3% of our total demand; while AEA Technology suggests that domestic heat pumps could supply only 0.022 eJ of the UK’s current heat consumption, or under 1%. This doesn’t mean they are not worth installing, just that they can’t solve the problem by themselves.
Far from shutting down the national grid, as the Green MEP Caroline Lucas has suggested, we should be greatly expanding it, in order to produce electricity where renewable energy is most abundant. This means, above all, a massive investment in offshore windfarms. A recent government report suggests there is a potential offshore wind resource off the coast of England and Wales of 3,200TWh. High voltage direct current cables, which lose much less electricity in transmission than an AC network, would allow us to make use of a larger area of the continental shelf than before. This means we can generate more electricity more reliably, avoid any visual impact from the land and keep out of the routes taken by migratory birds. Much bigger turbines would realise economies of scale hitherto unavailable.”
“Some campaigners accept that micro generators can make only a small contribution, but argue that they are still useful, as they wake people up to green issues. It seems more likely that these overhyped devices will have the opposite effect, as their owners discover how badly they have been ripped off and their neighbours are driven insane by the constant yawing and stalling of a windmill on a turbulent roof.”
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/10/06/small-is-useless/#more-1018
and the lesson for Australia is…?