do the greens need a lesson in economics? news.com.au article

[Shadow]

it is the major contributor to the rapid climate change that has occurred at least since the 1980s

So greater than 50% then? Do you have some evidence to back this up, or is it just your opinion?

In what way has the climate actually changed since the 1980s? Please be as specific as possible and include all the climatic elements that have changed (rain patterns, storms, cloud cover, humidity etc).

captains of industry are implementing risk management to deal with the issue

What exactly is the issue with the current climate?

 

[HiEquity]

Is BHP reducing coal mining and moving into solar panels, water pipelines and wind farms?

Is Kodak a leader in smart phones? What has this got to do with anything?

Is the coal industry in trouble? Undoubtedly yes - anyone familiar with the coal miners lately knows that the trend is down. Coking coal export values (if not tonnes) have dropped in line with iron ore (for obvious reasons) and global thermal coal use is, to put it bluntly, collapsing.

For example - http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/10/china-coal-shenhua-idUSL4N0VK4S920150210

Not to mention the same thing is happening in Australia as electricity demand keeps dropping because of the loss of some major loads, more efficient appliances and production processes and of course, solar panels on around 15% of rooftops and still growing fast. These are global trends - even China is not immune from reducing electricity demand now.

Even the continued electrification of rural areas is in much doubt now, as WA's Energy Minister discussed this week. New rural power lines cost around $150k/km these days and they would be lucky to pass 1 customer in that km. For that, customers get the ability to pay power bills for the rest of their life. Alternatively, a Stand Alone Power System (SAPS) with solar and batteries on a farmer's roof can be had for around $50k, for which they will enjoy 20 years of free power. But only one of these options is a regulated monopoly... although that won't last much longer now - the economic case is just getting too obvious now and the existing power lines are falling over from old age, albeit while being replaced one pole at a time... at horrendous cost.

Meanwhile, you guys keep arguing about the weather...

 

[Chooke]

Is BHP reducing coal mining and moving into solar panels, water pipelines and wind farms?

No, but institutional investors are reducing their exposure to companies that are dependent on the former and increasing it in those focusing on the latter.

 

[Chooke]

So greater than 50% then? Do you have some evidence to back this up, or is it just your opinion?

Like I said, I don't have a precise figure nor do the far more qualified scientists working in this field. Its a bit like saying you will only accept that constantly bending a sheet of steel will break it if you are provided a figure on the exact amount of bends.

As for the rest, all the information is out there in the public domain in peer reviewed papers and summarised in various publications from the most respected bodies. But if you are asking me to provide all these to you then you are cracking jokes - do it yourself.

 

[Shadow]

Like I said, I don't have a precise figure

You said 'the major contributor' which means you think it's greater than 50%, right?

But if you are asking me to provide all these to you then you are cracking jokes - do it yourself.

I just asked if you could tell me in what way the climate has actually changed since the 1980s, and what exactly is the problem with the climate right now?

If you can't, that's fine. I didn't really expect you to be able to do it anyway.

None of the alarmists are ever able to actually identify any of the specific negative climatic changes that have supposedly happened.

But apparently we'll all be rooned by them (whatever they are).

 

[topcropper]

Not to mention the same thing is happening in Australia as electricity demand keeps dropping because of the loss of some major loads, more efficient appliances and production processes and of course, solar panels on around 15% of rooftops and still growing fast. These are global trends - even China is not immune from reducing electricity demand now.

Even the continued electrification of rural areas is in much doubt now, as WA's Energy Minister discussed this week. New rural power lines cost around $150k/km these days and they would be lucky to pass 1 customer in that km. For that, customers get the ability to pay power bills for the rest of their life. Alternatively, a Stand Alone Power System (SAPS) with solar and batteries on a farmer's roof can be had for around $50k, for which they will enjoy 20 years of free power. But only one of these options is a regulated monopoly... although that won't last much longer now - the economic case is just getting too obvious now and the existing power lines are falling over from old age, albeit while being replaced one pole at a time... at horrendous cost.
...

I'm really getting excited about what's coming HE. What you've mentioned here could end up as a real game changer for where people want to live? I've got a relatively sunny spot, out in the backblocks, unlimited space to put solar panels, batterys, plenty of water from roof runoff and underground sources. It could one day be seen as a disadvantage to live in a dense inner city unit due to the difficulty in collecting enough sunlight for so many people packed into tiny spaces, areas big enough for battery storage, etc? Add to that the problems of getting water and everything else in?

I've already heard of people in rural areas who are right next to power lines, electing to go off grid purely as its beginning to make sense. I also love wood heating. Considering getting a wood heater that will also heat my hot water, as solar struggles in winter. Of course wood heating in big cities is a big problem and should be banned due to smoke pollution, but no probs in sparcely populated rural areas.

All sounds good.


See ya's.

 

[HiEquity]

I've already heard of people in rural areas who are right next to power lines, electing to go off grid purely as its beginning to make sense. I also love wood heating. Considering getting a wood heater that will also heat my hot water, as solar struggles in winter. Of course wood heating in big cities is a big problem and should be banned due to smoke pollution, but no probs in sparcely populated rural areas.

All sounds good.

My in-laws have had a free standing JOTUL enamel cast iron wood heater with wet back connected to the solar HWS tank for the last thirty years or so in SW WA. It gets left on all winter. Wood cutting comes via a custom made table saw driven off a tractor's PTO. The blade looks to be at least 1m in diameter so you only need a few hours to cut enough wood for winter - and then some! The wet back in the heater has been problematic due to the high heat so I would probably swap that for a coil in the flue. But the JOTUL is still in amazing condition. They're not cheap but you get what you pay for.

But if you want the most efficient wood heating, you need one of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_mass_heater

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonry_heater

Conventional slow combustion wood heaters burn wood very inefficiently at low temperatures - the smoke is an indicator of that. Far better to burn a small amount of wood really hot and fast and heat up a heap of thermal mass that then radiates that heat to the house for the next 24 hours or so. You get a much more even heat and need much less wood. But you need to find a suitable thermal mass... water would be good but you need a lot of it and you need to stop it boiling!

But that stuff only really makes sense in cold climates - overkill where you are...

Apologies for the sidetrack - back to the thread now!

 

[BayView]

None of the alarmists are ever able to actually identify any of the specific negative climatic changes that have supposedly happened.

But apparently we'll all be rooned by them (whatever they are).

Of course they do; TF came out the other day and commented on te floods up in NSW, and on an interview with Tony Jones - who asked him if these recent floods could be attributed to CC, he responded with a yes...

This is after his statement a decade ago that the drought and empty dams (where he said we'd run out of water in 2 years or so) was a result of CC, or was it GW?

My sides hurt.

I don't think anyone has denied climate change.

The question is the extent to which humans contribute to it.

What proportion of climate change do you personally believe is caused by humans? 1%? 50%? 99%?

Try; zero.
__________________

 

[topcropper]

Flannery was a palaeontologist. I wonder how he became mixed up in the warming debate with a massive government wage? I think anything he says these days would get laughed off?


See ya's.

 

[Perp]

Flannery was a palaeontologist. I wonder how he became mixed up in the warming debate with a massive government wage? I think anything he says these days would get laughed off?

Um, no, Professor Tim Flannery is Chief Commissioner of the Climate Council, and Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, one of the leading international bodies.

His research interests have always embraced the environment. What do you think a palaeontologist is, that wouldn't be directly relevant to climate change?

 

[topcropper]

Um, no, Professor Tim Flannery is Chief Commissioner of the Climate Council, and Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, one of the leading international bodies.

His research interests have always embraced the environment. What do you think a palaeontologist is, that wouldn't be directly relevant to climate change?

The simplest definition of paleontology I could find is "the study of ancient life". I'd have thought to be an expert on global warming you'd need to have studied climatology?

Anyway, too bad he didn't learn how to interpret information from historical charts. He wouldn't have got it all so wrong?


See ya's.

 

[Perp]

The simplest definition of paleontology I could find is "the study of ancient life". I'd have thought to be an expert on global warming you'd need to have studied climatology?

Animal extinction events due to climate change... see the link now?

Anyway, too bad he didn't learn how to interpret information from historical charts. He wouldn't have got it all so wrong?

The scientific consensus is that he did learn how to interpret data, and didn't get it wrong.

 

[topcropper]

The scientific consensus is that he did learn how to interpret data, and didn't get it wrong.

He claimed rainfall in eastern Australia had dropped by 20% and that drought was the new norm. When in fact rainfall is actually increasing so very slightly. He was no where near correct.


See yas

 

[Perp]

He claimed rainfall in eastern Australia had dropped by 20% and that drought was the new norm. When in fact rainfall is actually increasing so very slightly. He was no where near correct.

There's been nowhere near enough time elapsed for his statement to have been proved true or false; it's the long-term trend that's important, not what happens this year or next.

 

[topcropper]

He claimed it had already dropped. There is no need to wait and see, anyone can look at historical rainfall information and see that it hasn't.

See yas

 

[Perp]

He claimed it had already dropped. There is no need to wait and see, anyone can look at historical rainfall information and see that it hasn't.

BOM disagrees with you. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a010-southern-rainfall-decline.shtml

Is there anybody whose interpretation of the climate data you agree with, that you can cite?

Or just Andrew Bolt?

 

[topcropper]

BOM disagrees with you. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a010-southern-rainfall-decline.shtml

Is there anybody whose interpretation of the climate data you agree with, that you can cite?

Or just Andrew Bolt?

Perp, that article just proves to me how desperate BOM are getting to show they are not wrong. Look at the rainfall maps? The dates have been carefully cherry picked to get the map to look the way they want. To 2009 LOL. What happened after 2009? Two of the wettest years in Australia's history, that's what! I could change the dates a little on those maps and I'd be able to show a completely different scenario. It's a joke!



They say.

These deficiencies re-emerge against a background of significant longer-term rainfall decline over southern Australia which has now persisted for decades. The southwest of Western Australia has experienced a 10 to 20 per cent drop in winter rainfall since around 1970
?

They love to put up charts comparing rainfall since the 70's, as the 70's was a particularly wet decade in most of Australia, and January 1974 the wettest month in recorded history.

But how do BOM justify saying there has been a rainfall decline for decades? The only way they can do that is to compare to the 70's. If they look at overall rainfall over 150 years there is no decline. I didn't think someone as cluey as you Perp would fall for that?


The info on BOM's website show that rainfall is not in a decline. It's increasing significantly in northern Australia, which we all know. Rainfall has increased significantly on my farm since 1938. It's definitely not decreasing in southern Australia either,







Human caused CO2 has been spewing into the atmosphere for 150 years. Surely anyone serious about whats going on should look at info over the same time period, not cherry pick like BOM and Flannery did?


See ya's.

 

[Perp]

The info on BOM's website show that rainfall is not in a decline. It's increasing significantly in northern Australia, which we all know. Rainfall has increased significantly on my farm since 1938. It's definitely not decreasing in southern Australia either

I can't find either of the images you included on the Bureau of Meteorology's website; I can only find them - via a google images search - on climate deniers' blogs.

Can you please provide a link to the source data backing those up?

 

[topcropper]

I can't find either of the images you included on the Bureau of Meteorology's website; I can only find them - via a google images search - on climate deniers' blogs.

Can you please provide a link to the source data backing those up?

Wow! You think I'm making it up and am a photoshop expert?


For the first map,

BOM website. http://www.bom.gov.au/
Click on "agriculture" below
Click on "rainfall" at left
Click on "Rainfall trends" at left

You then get a whole heap of options. You can have just summer rain, or winter rain in Southeast Australia or whatever you want. You can put any length running average in there if you want.


For the next map,

BOM website. http://www.bom.gov.au/
Click on "Climate and past weather", below
Click on "Climate Change" at left
Click on "Trend Maps" at left
Change variable to "Rainfall Total"
Ha ha, this one is funny.
Change period to "1900 to present" From the old BOM favourite "1970 to present" As I said, they love all their maps to compare with 1970, sneeky buggers.


Cheers and have fun.


See ya's.

 

[Perp]

Wow! You think I'm making it up and am a photoshop expert?

No, I didn't think that at all, I genuinely wanted to know where the source data was.

Reading the BOM's report I linked earlier suggested to me that it was worthwhile looking at the data by season. When you do that, you see that there has been a gradual decline in winter rainfall over the decades (15yo running average), and a similar-sized gradual increase in summer rainfall.

Kind of like what you'd expect if the temperate areas of the country were beginning to experience more tropical weather, don't you think?

But I'm not a climate scientist, by any stretch. I trust the people who are, though.