Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 Next
Comments 29101 to 29150:
-
Jeffrey Davis at 01:50 AM on 27 May 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Tamino is skeptical about the reality of the "slowdown". Sketches of math.
-
ranyl at 01:03 AM on 27 May 2015Making sense of the slowdown in global surface warming
Thanks interesting article and video.
It is going to be interesting to see where 2014, 2015, 2016 put things as the current El-Nino plays out.
Do wonder whether the global temperatures might migrate towards the higher end of predictions again?
The last 12 months was the hottest to date again (April 2014, May 2015).
-
PhilippeChantreau at 00:39 AM on 27 May 2015There's no empirical evidence
Of course, there is also that pesky stubborn thing called physics. It always wins eventually.
-
dickgroff at 00:34 AM on 27 May 2015There is no consensus
I think your graphic and other references to the “97%” needs to be changed to emphasize that that figure represents climate scientists who opined on human warming in papers that were included in the study. Otherwise it incorrectly implies that 97% of ALL scientists are included. (Your graphic states this but not prominently.)
-
michael sweet at 23:59 PM on 26 May 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
The image of Florida shown above is produced using a satelite radar. This measures elevations to the tops of trees and buildings. I doubt Miami residents will stick around when they have to live on the roof of their houses. No area in or near Miami is higher than 8 meters above sea level. Sea level rise is much worse than the diagram. This map from Climate Central is probably more accurate. It is difficult to find accurate sea level rise maps.
-
KR at 23:38 PM on 26 May 2015The Big Picture (2010 version)
James C Wilson - You're quite correct that the satellite offset discrepencies are larger than the imbalance derived from ocean heat content. However, the observed spectral changes (Harries et al 2001 and later works) are entirely consistent with about 1 w/m2, and empirically support the radiative models that also give that imbalance value. So it's not without reason to include the satellite measures as consilient evidence.
-
Jim Hunt at 23:14 PM on 26 May 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Thanks for a most interesting article John, which covers many of my own highest hobby horses!
By some strange synchronicity I have mentioned the names of Amber Rudd and David Rose in my recent musings on assorted social media. My latest article on my Arctic themed blog even suggests a possible mechanism to explain where Bob Trueman gets his "scientific" ideas from:Why It’s So Hard to Convince Pseudo-Skeptics
Be sure to watch the video at the end. Here's a brief quotation from it:
In a new study that just came out a couple of months ago they showed a single digusting image, and one single digusting image and measuring the brain activity and how the person responded to that was sufficient to allow you to identify if somebody was conservative or liberal. With a single brain image. With 95% accuracy!
-
DSL at 23:11 PM on 26 May 2015There's no empirical evidence
By the way, da, did you click on the "intermediate" tab at the top of the article?
-
DSL at 23:10 PM on 26 May 2015There's no empirical evidence
da, what exactly is "natural temperature change"? What sort of mechanisms are involved?
The claim is based on the premise that CO2 absorbs/emits thermal infrared radiation. The evidence for that premise is abundant, and there's no challenge. Increase atmospheric CO2, and the surface-to-space path of thermal infrared lengthens in time/space. -
perseus at 22:19 PM on 26 May 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
The election result was a tragedy for climate science and victory for the politically vested interests of the press who partly orchestrated it (because advertising works).
Of any party the Conservatives are the least interested in the Green movement, even less than UKIP voters which really says something.
Moderator Response:[JH] Graphic width reduced to conform with website maximum of 500 pixels.
-
da at 21:04 PM on 26 May 2015There's no empirical evidence
Myth has not been addressed.
Yes, CO2 is increasing. Yes, temperature is rising. This is a correlation and does not mean causation. The cause could also be natural temperature changes. What arguments are there to show that it is the CO2 and not natural temperature change causing the warming? For example: is temperature rising faster now than in earths history? If it is then it is likely to be man-made.
-
Firgoose at 20:39 PM on 26 May 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #21
So while I don't believe peer reviewed literature should die,
SkS is the way to go on top of it.
Yes, there are plenty of blogs and sites dedicated to various sciences and their specialities but SkepticalScience's format of Question and Basic+Intermediate+Advanced Answer is a wonderful model. Incorporating it would be a fine strategy for scaling the ladders of quality, accessibility and appeal.
-
jerusha at 20:20 PM on 26 May 2015Climate's changed before
This explains the climate changes in our county, i remember in my childhood weather was very predictable in seasons but nowadays this has changed completely.
Jerusha
-
uncletimrob at 17:13 PM on 26 May 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Slightly off topic but the Murdoch empire has done nothing for balanced reporting on global warming in Australia - I wonder if the papers mentioned are some of his. This is just one article that points to data cherry picking by Murdoch.
www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-12/rupert-murdoch-misleading-north-south-poles/5604656
So I have no doubt that his writers/editors are picked because they agree with him. There is also little doubt that his network on Australia influenced voters to "axe the tax' ie the carbon tax at the last election.
-
chriskoz at 15:11 PM on 26 May 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #21
Interesting article about peer reviewed articles from Singapore
Most memorable quotes from therein:
Up to 1.5 million peer-reviewed articles are published annually. However, many are ignored even within scientific communities - 82 per cent of articles published in humanities are not even cited once. No one ever refers to 32 per cent of the peer-reviewed articles in the social and 27 per cent in the natural sciences.
If a paper is cited, this does not imply it has actually been read. According to one estimate, only 20 per cent of papers cited have actually been read
If academics want to have an impact on policymakers and practitioners, they must consider popular media, which has been ignored by them.
So while I don't believe peer reviewed literature should die, SkS is the way to go on top of it.
-
bozzza at 15:08 PM on 26 May 2015The Big Picture (2010 version)
The uncertainty priniciple underpins everything including attacks on climate science...
-
James C Wilson at 14:55 PM on 26 May 2015The Big Picture (2010 version)
A small complaint about the discussion of the first figure:
If you click on the first figure it takes you to a discussion of that figure. That discussion states that "satellite measurements of energy imbalance (the difference between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere)," tell us about the energy imbalance. This is not correct. The discrepancies between the satellites are on the order of 6 w/m2 and the imbalance is about 1 w/m2. A key problem is that the measurement of the imbalance requires that the satellite be everywhere all at once and it can not. So the accuracy required is unobtainable. The estimates of the imbalance come from the measurement of the rate of increase in the heat stored in the oceans. (eg Keihl and Tremberth)
Chuck Wilson
Golden, CO, USA
-
TomR at 11:48 AM on 26 May 2015Seeds of Time - preserving food resources in a hot future climate
Scientists write very little on how many humans will die this century and the next due to global warming and its climate change. Much more is written on the impacts of global warming on animal and plant diversity and extinction.
World food stores are at the 70-90 days of consumption level, while basic food prices are down from their peak several years ago. UN population projections have increased to 11 billion humans living on Earth in the year 2200. But, the agricultural yield per acre has actually been decreasing since 1980 for most crops. Soil fertility is also decreasing, not increasing. Seas will certainly flood many fertile river deltas. Many current agricultural regions are projected to become desert or semi-desert this century.
Global warming gases are already at extremely high levels. While science has dramatically lowered the cost of renewable energy, fossil fuel consumption keeps breaking records year after year. Granted that human efforts to stem global warming emissions seem to be increasing, much greater progress was made way back in 1990 with the Kyoto Protocol only for emissions to get much worse instead of better.
I think it is time for scientists to start making reasonable projections on future food prices and on human deaths due to starvation. While Hansen long ago suggested that the Earth may only be able to sustain 1 billion living humans, I have seen no scientific articles in years on this issue. While fossil-funded deniers would attack any truly pessimistic scientist projecting billions of deaths, e.g., 25 million or more per year, year after year, it would help wake people up. That's killing more people than World War II year after year after year.
Mike Berners-Lee in "How Bad Are Bananas" guesstimates that for every 150 tons of CO2 now put into the atmosphere, one more human will die this century. That means that the average American is killing one person every 10 years and that the average European and average Chinese is killing one person every 15-20 years. We need published research on this issue. We need to ourselves start living our lives as if our own pollution is actually killing other humans.
My person guide is that one mile driven in my Chevy Sonic emits 1# CO2 which deprives one other human somewhere this century of 1 hour of life. I have turned off my water heater, buy wind electricity, eat inexpensive vegan home cooked from scratch, given up flying, vacation locally, unheated bedroom, etc. As soon as I can buy a Nissan Leaf and install PV solar, I will. I have a moral duty to become carbon neutral as soon as humanly possible.
I think that evidence is clear that death is rushing at us. I think that scientists are afraid of being personally attacked for documenting the evidence for this. We need to wake up. Carbon neutral now, not in 2040!
-
michael sweet at 11:20 AM on 26 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
Ryland,
The Gratten report claims that the previous method of rewarding solar installations was overly beneficial to solar installers. That is why more systems were installed than expected. The tariff scheme has been adjusted already. They say future incentives should be adjusted to reflect costs and benefits. They also say the the utilities are over incentivised to build more infrastructure. Although they do not quantitate the amount it is probably a lot more than the amount invested in solar.
They expect distributed solar to be the cheapest method of generating new power in most of Australia by 2020. It may be more cost effective to put the solar on businesses since they have bigger roofs.
So the Aussie government was not perfect in their scheme for solar installation. Did you expect the government to be perfect? As Tom says, the Gratten report does not consider at all the social cost of the carbon saved. They also do not count the decrease in everyones utility bills since decrease in demand leads to lower electricity rates to generators (on page 18 they say it is zero sum to the economy since generators make less money). Most consumers think it is a benefit when their rates go down.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:26 AM on 26 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
ryland @17, your original claim @4 was that the article claimed "the cost to households of solar panels has outwibghed their benefits". I gave that its most natural interpretation which is that the costs of solar panels, on average, out weigh the benefits in households with solar panels - a claim that is not supported by the article and arguably misrepresents it. Even if we allow that the claim is that the cost of solar panels averaged across all australian households have outweighed the benefits, it still ignores appropriate context from the article in which the article points out that the equation on household solar is changing.
I will note that even on the more general interpretation, the Grattan Institute report does not make its case. In making its case it:
- Assumes that all government revenue comes from households so that the full value of direct subsidies for household solar to particular householders comes from all householders generally. The actual case is that a substantial portion of government revenue comes from taxes on business, which are not necessarilly passed on to householders in increased prices; and part of whose income comes from exports and hence is not a cost to householders under any interpretation. Costs to electricity suppliers from feed in tariffs could also be defrayed against businesses. Consequently, while on the issues the examine they can purport to have shown the costs of household solar exceed the benefits across the entire economy, they cannot accurately make that claim with regard to householders only.
- The report ignores the contribution of household solar to the Renewable Energy Target. They do make the case that non-household solar would have been a cheaper way to contribute to meeting that target; but that being the case the net cost of household solar to the economy is the difference between the cost of non-household solar and household solar. As the costs of meeting the RET are passed on to all electricity customers, that a portion of those costs are met by individual householders represents a saving for other customers not accounted for by the Grattan Institute.
- The report ignores the fact that new installers of household solar, and purchasers of houses with household solar already installed, and renters of houses with household solar already installed, do not get the high feed in tariffs that caused the initial poblems, but a price approximately equal to the wholesale cost of electricity. As renewable energy is sold at a premium value to householders, pricing household solar at the lower value wholesale value of non-renewable energy means that increasingly into the future, household solar will actually be providing a subsidy to purchasers of renewable energy from the grid.
- Finally, and most importantly, the report ignores completely the social cost of carbon, and therefore ignores the benefit of emissions reductions from household solar.
-
michael sweet at 07:49 AM on 26 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
Ryland,
Your link is broken. Can you find a working link?
-
ryland at 06:33 AM on 26 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
Moderator the URL is http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/cost-of-house...ar-has-outweighed-benefits-grattan-institute-report-20150524-gh7
Skepticin Canada I quoted accurately and in turn you failed to mention
"it argues Australia could have reduced greenhouse gas emissions for much less money if governments had focused more on commercial and large-scale solar power, instead of household subsidies. "We've got the highest percentage of households in the world [with solar PV] because we've targeted our subsidies at households whereas other countries targeted the commercial sector," Grattan Institute energy program chief Tony Wood said. "We'd be better off if that was where we were going." The report calculates that the capital cost of installing and maintaining household solar systems since 2009 has been $18 billion, while their benefit in terms of greenhouse gas abatement and reduced conventional electricity generation has been $9 billion.
-
ubrew12 at 05:01 AM on 26 May 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
Also I'd point out to windpower detractors:
windmills = temporary
excess CO2 in atmosphere and nuclear waste = permanent
With the pace of technological development, the windmills are a useful stop-gap measure until we're all flying around in jet-packs and burning unobtanium in our levitating cars.
-
Frank._Mueller at 04:56 AM on 26 May 2015More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
I udnerstand the statement made in context is that CO2 cannot by itself give plants bulk. But in experiemnts that are reproducible one can see that the "bulk" is translated from the GHG gases particularly CO2. Taking a plant and measure the soil, and water used and substracting them from the plants wieght after it is grown one sees the bulk and the mass are not from the water and the soild as much as from the CO2. So to say "They get their bulk from more solid substances like water and organic matter. This organic matter comes from decomposing plants and animals or from man made fertilizers" is an incorrect statement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KZb2_vcNTg -
SkepticalinCanada at 02:47 AM on 26 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
@17. And from that same article that you have referenced:
"(The report) predicts it will soon become viable for households to install solar without government subsidies as the cost of panels falls and battery storage from companies like Tesla becomes more widely available in future."
So, to date the costs may have outweighed their benefits, but you failed to mention what is clearly in the quote, and not "tucked away out of sight." My original comment about significant misrepresentation stands.
-
ryland at 02:06 AM on 26 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
Skepticalin Canada @ 13. Your comment "
"I did find that particular article, and was still puzzled by ryland's claim about the cost if that article was the basis for his claim. Saying that their costs have outweighed their benefits is, in my opinon, significant misrepresentation of that article and in fact other articles at the SMH"
is both incorrect and unfair
The piece to which I was referring was the piece by Lisa Cox on May 24 the headline of which was "Cost of household solar has outweighed benefits: Grattan Institute report." Fair criticism is obviously perfectly correct but your comment is manifestly wrong. I fail to understand why your comment was made as you state you have read thre articleyou did read the article. The heasdlinde was not tucked away out odf sight.
Moderator Response:[JH] For future reference, please provide links to articles and other materials that you include in a comment.
-
DSL at 23:52 PM on 25 May 2015Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing
Actually, Cowpuncher, what Curry is doing--trying to turn uncertainty into a commodity--is feeding political action that seeks to end government-funded climate science. It's not really shooting herself in the foot, since she'll have plenty of private funding sources when she takes her early retirement.
-
Eric Grimsrud at 23:28 PM on 25 May 2015Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing
@26 and 28
Bozzza, Perhaps I was not clear enough. We know why sea levels have risen since 20,000 years ago - it is due to a transition from a glacial to an interglacial period.
My question is why Christy would claim that sea level would continue to rise today and into the future due to natural causes. We are now well out of an interglacial period and, I thought, in a stable interglacial period with no or very little change in sea levels. If any natural change would be in the works for the future I thought sea levels might actually be decreasing somewhat in the immediate future as we begin to head back towards the next glacial period.
So I still don't understand why Christy would claim that sea levels will be rising due to natural causes in the future. The only explanation I can think of is that Christy suspects that sea levels will indeed rise due to Man's effect on the GHGs and, therefore, is claiming natural forces will do the same - but has no good reason to make that claim.Thus, if there is such a reason for Christy's claim, perhaps someone could point out what that is. Otherwise, it would appear that he is misinforming the members of this congressional hearing.
-
Art Vandelay at 20:41 PM on 25 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
"In other words, those who don't embrace new solar/battery technogoly and stay behind, will continue to "fund" the dying FF infrastructure."
In the unlikely event of such an outcome, governments would simply raise taxes elsewhere to subsidize the grid.
Consider the plight of hundreds of thousands of poeple who are forced to rent properties because they're not earing enough to pay a million+ dallar mortgages in the big cities, and ask what percentage of landlords are going to fund expensive PV solar systems for them.
Also, the cost of housing is pushing more and more people into appartments and estates where PV solar and power storage would required strata approval and in many cases it may not be viable anyway due to insufficient surface area.
Personally, I would love to install a PV solar and storage system too but I'm currently unable to lawfully clear the trees (and a good thing too) that currently shade my entire foof area for much of the year.
It's my hope that future large scale solar and wind farms will be publically floated, affording mum and dad investors the oportunity to investment and share the rewards.
-
TonyW at 16:56 PM on 25 May 2015Seeds of Time - preserving food resources in a hot future climate
"Many of the seeds can be stored for thousands of years in this site."
Mmm, I think that's only if industrial civilisation lasts that long. The cooling does rely on chillers to get down to the temperatures required for that long term cooling. And will the seeds be accessible if some catastrophe does happen (which is why it was built, after all)?
-
chriskoz at 14:05 PM on 25 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
SkepticalinCanada@13,
I think ryland's claim is correct in noting the smh (in fact Grattan Institute) reported (among other things) wasted money:
"Lavish government subsidies plus the structure of electricity network tariffs means the cost of solar PV take-up has outweighed the benefits by more than $9 billion."
I, on the other hand, don't understand the very misleading headline of the article I quoted @13: "Billions wasted on solar subsidy, says report", which is vey inaccurate and does not repfect its contents and may have resulted ryland's misunderstanding of the complex issue of energy transition from FF to solar/renewables.
Further, I don't know how the benefits (presumabl $5 billions) of the subsidies in question have been calculated: what was for example the prize of the emissions saved, how the emission savings have been calculated, for the lifetime of the subsidised solar installations or for the perior 2008-2020 in question, etc. So what was the reason for "failed subsidies" that gave science deniers further ammunition? One more familiar with the Grattan Institute report might want to answer that question.
-
chriskoz at 13:09 PM on 25 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
Tom Curtis@11,
The braoder extent of the Grattan Institute report in question have been described in this smh article. It turns out, the report considered not only unfair feed-in tariffs and essentially flat charges at peak demand times and at low demand times. They have also looked at what may happen with over-invested, "gold-plated" power network once improved storage technology prompts people to move away from the networks:
Rising power charges is encouraging more users to consider "unplugging" from the power grid, which would then push up power prices for those staying on the grid. Unplugging may make sense only for some large users in remoter locations, the study found. [...]
As a result, fears that the tens of billions of dollars invested by state governments and superannuation funds in power networks would be hit by a "death spiral" as users desert from the power network will not occur. [...]
As part of this, government must also clarify who will pay to shut down the parts of the power network no longer needed as new technology and declining demand reduce network revenues.
Under present regulations, the networks can raise prices to offset revenue declines so that a declining number of users would be called upon to fund an unnecessary network, the report found.
In other words, those who don't embrace new solar/battery technogoly and stay behind, will continue to "fund" the dying FF infrastructure.
-
scaddenp at 12:12 PM on 25 May 2015Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing
What Curry actually publishes in the scientific realm may be of value but her misinformation in the public arena is not. What information sources are you trusting in your evaluation of what is an "extreme position". Do you regard the IPCC position (the scientific consensus) of ECS in range 1.5 to 4.5 extreme?
-
bozzza at 11:38 AM on 25 May 2015Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing
Cowpuncher: how about doing some reading so you can bring something to the table?!!?
-
Cowpuncher at 11:25 AM on 25 May 2015Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing
scaddenp - there is far too much personal denigration and ad hominem attacking in the wider AGW debate fro me to add to it. Curry is a highly accomplished scientist with a wealth of published material and she seems to via away from any extreme positions. I am also sure she will be wrong on some issues but she is making a contribution to the search for a fuller understanding of climate.
-
bozzza at 10:44 AM on 25 May 2015Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing
@ 26, the answer is because we are coming out of an ice-age!
-
Tom Curtis at 10:43 AM on 25 May 2015Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing
Cowpuncher @24, Judith Curry's question is not so much interesting, as poorly framed. Specifically, it tacitly assumes that there are not costs from AGW after 2050. As it happens, because of the slow response rate to forcing, a reduction in emissions now will not appreciably effect temperatures until about 10 years later. Further, because we must decrease emissions gradually, an 80% reduction will not be fully implimented (if it is) until 2050. Consequently most of the temperature effect of such a reduction will occur after 2050.
As it happens, RCP2.6 shows an approximate 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050:
We can therefore use its temperature predictions to look at the claim:
At 2050 it only amoutns to 0.75 C between RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 (no mitigation). By 2100 that difference increases to 3.2 C, and by 2200 to 6 C. With costs increasing more than linearly with increased temperature, Curry is attempting to exclude more than 90% of the cost differential from the equation. Indeed, with RCP8.5 tempertures rising to levels where parts of the tropics may be seasonally uninhabitable by 2050, ignoring long term costs amounts to tackling climate change by putting your head in the sand.
-
Eric Grimsrud at 10:33 AM on 25 May 2015Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing
In his testimony, Christy says that sea levels have risen for the last 20,000 years (OK) but the says that sea levels will continue to rise in the future.
I don't understand what he is trying to say and am wondering if someone did.
If man is not overpoweriing the natural Milinkovitch cycles (as he claims), why would he think sea levels will continue to rise? They will be rising, of course, due to Man's effects, and without man's effects they would be going down, right?
Is Christy simply trying to avoid the use of sea level directional change as a proof of Man's effect? If so why might sea levels possibly rise due to natural causes. Don't understand where he is going with that one.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 10:32 AM on 25 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
@12 Thank, Tom. I did find that particular article, and was still puzzled by ryland's claim about the cost if that article was the basis for his claim. Saying that their costs have outweighed their benefits is, in my opinon, significant misrepresentation of that article and in fact other articles at the SMH.
-
bozzza at 10:07 AM on 25 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
@9, still interesting information so cheers!
-
Tom Curtis at 09:46 AM on 25 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
SkepticalinCanada @5, with reference to solar panels, Ryland is probably refering to this article, which does say:
"Feed-in tariffs had to be paid for. The businesses that run the networks were allowed to pass on these costs to other electricity consumers through their energy bills. Essentially, governments arranged it so that money went from people without solar to people with solar.
By the time premium feed-in tariffs end - Queensland's scheme runs until 2028 - Australians without solar will have paid about $5 billion extra on their electricity bills. They have paid a further $5 billion as a result of federal government subsidies to solar from the Renewable Energy Target. Add a third subsidy that is embedded in the structure of network tariffs, and people without solar PV have spent $14 billion subsidising those who have."
That is 14 billion over twenty years. The excessively high feed in tariffs do in fact represent a problem, not least because they encourage people using solar panels to shape their energy use so that their peak energy use is at night when they are drawing energy from the grid, and hence primarilly CO2 emitting sources.
However, if that is the article to which he refers, he has again misrepresented its contents. The article is primarilly about the potential revolution in solar power from the introduction of relatively cheap, convenient batteries:
"Yet change is on the way and if it is managed properly, solar PV will finally become a major player in Australia's power system. In concert with home batteries, solar panels will change people's relationship with the grid, giving them the ability to store and manage the electricity their solar panels produce, and reducing their electricity costs.
These changes will benefit not only solar PV owners but everyone. Battery owners will use the grid less at peak times, placing less strain on the network and reducing the need for costly investment in new infrastructure. Reducing network costs will push down electricity prices."
-
Tom Curtis at 09:31 AM on 25 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
ryland @4, on January 11th, 2011 I described the Queensland floods saying:
"Of course, and even larger perspective is needed. In March, 2010, Queensland experienced record breaking floods, with many towns experiencing record flood depths, and the greatest area flooded ever reported for Queensland. It was reported that the flood effected area in March was larger than Victoria (area: 240,000 square kilometers, or 92,000 square miles). In the week after Christmas, that record was broken, with a reported flooded extent greater in area than New South Wales (810,000 square kilometers or 313,000 square miles). That is an area about the size of the five largest contiguous US states either under water or cut off, or with crops rotting in the ground two weeks before harvest.
In the last week of December, the floods were mostly confined to the interior behind Rockhampton and Bundaberg (also flooded) and to the Darling Downs and interior. There was minor flooding in Brisbane, and in the north of the state (where at least one woman lost her life). Since then the floods have moved south, flooding Gympie, Maryborough, and of course, Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley (and soon to be Ipswich and Brisbane). Dalby deserves a special mention, having experience five flood peaks in two weeks."
The post was in connection to the Toowoomba floods, described at the time as an "inland tsunami":
The Toowoomba floods were astonishing in that Toowoomba is literally at the crest of the Great Dividing Range west of Brisbane. Toowoomba's catchment area lies entirely inside the city limits.
Shortly after the Toowoomba flood, Murphy's Creek was hit by a wall of water, with the water level rising "... about 12 metres in 12 minutes" (Source).
(Source)
That was less surprising in that Murphy's Creek lies at the bottom of the range, hard up against the edge of the Lockyer Valley. Any flash flood coming down the range would have had no time to disperse before hitting Murhpy's Creek.
Further downstream from Murhpy's Creek (and downstream of the confluence of Murhpy's and Lockyer Creek, on which Helidon sits), at Helidon, the water level rose 8 meters in thirty minutes, with 4 meters of that rise being in ten minutes. Helidon is downstream of three other streams in addition to Murhpy's Creek. The rapidity of the water rise at Helidon is astonishing given the relative distance from the valley walls (and hence time and distance for the flood peak to disperse).
Downstream of Helidon (and of Flagstone Creek) lies Grantham. Further downstream again is Gatton where flood levels 20 meters above Davey's Bridge were recorded:
(Source, see here for video of after flood levels at the same location)
I run through all this to illustrate just how deceptive is your comment @4 that "it is heartening to read in the SMH (May 24 2015) pieces noting the 2011 floods in Queensland were not due to climate change but to human error". It is deceptive because the 2011 Queensland floods were not restricted to a flood in Grantham. Nor is the SMH report about the "Queensland floods", but the rather about the floods in "Grantham, Queensland", something made very clear in the article. It is further deceptive because Grantham certainly would have flooded in any event on January 10th, as is made clear from the generalized flooding both upstream and downstream of Grantham. Indeed, Grantham had already flooded on Jan 9th, and would do so again in a further flood on Jan 11th when the Grantham water gauge ceased operating at 14 meters (source).
What is at issue in the SMH is whether the collapse of an earth wall in a local quarry made the flood worse in Grantham than it would otherwise have been. It has no bearing at all on the causes of the flood. Further, the story is known to be inaccurate (and essentially a beat up by Channel Nine). The Channel Nine Chopper did not record the "wall of water" through Grantham. It did not even record the peak of flooding in Grantham, video of which did not emerge until March 18th. Rather, it responded to reports of the flood which had already peaked by the time it was airbourne. The "new evidence" on the Sixty Minutes report was not relevant evidence at all.
Even the reports account of what the prior inquiry said is inaccurate. Channel Nine claims the inquiry "...determined the flood hit the town at 3.15pm". The SMH reports that as:
"The commission concluded that a wall of flood water hit Grantham between 3.15 and 3.30pm, which fit the timeline of events that suggested the overflowing river upstream was the cause of the devastation."
The inquiry actually found that:
"While it accepts the submitters’ contention that the road from Gatton to Grantham was clear shortly after 3.00 pm (a conclusion consistent with the Commission’s finding in its interim report that the Grantham flooding occurred between 3.20 pm and 4.00 pm), it does not consider that there is any basis to reject the SES controller’s account as given in his statement referred to in the interim report. It is supported by statements from the group leader of the Gatton SES unit and members of the SES group which set out to perform the doorknocking task, as well as by the contemporary record in the form of the Gatton SES attendance log."
IMO it is very difficult to mistake 3:20 to 4:00 for 3:15 to 3:30; so Channel Nine and the SMH have directly misrepresented the Commission to beat up a story. So the "missing hour" is manufactured by dishonest reporting by Channel Nine (and possibly lazy reporting by the SMH).
-
scaddenp at 09:20 AM on 25 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
Not my area of expertize, but you can find levelized cost for different energy production in US here. None of this includes accounting for externalities (ie damage to environment from use of fossil fuel). This is much more difficult calculation. I understand that internally, Shell uses a $40 per ton costing which I guess is what they think a carbon tax might be.
-
bozzza at 08:55 AM on 25 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
What would the economics of fossil fuels be if you payed full price for it?
-
scaddenp at 08:13 AM on 25 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
Ryland, I should also say that if you want to primarily discuss political comment around climate change, then have a look at thinkprogress. This SkepSci site is primarily about the science of climate change and debunking pseudo-skeptic nonsense associated with it.
-
scaddenp at 07:43 AM on 25 May 2015Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing
Cowpuncher, the IPCC WG1 show results for different carbon pathways (RCPs). I see you worried about reduction costs but have you also looked at future costs if you dont? I am reasonably amazed at your "level headed" assessment of JC given these statements and her (non) standing in the research community. How did you make that assessment?
-
scaddenp at 07:37 AM on 25 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
Ryland, what would the economics of solar power be if you actually paid the full price for it? Even removing the subsidies on fossil fuel makes a big difference to the cost equation. How skeptical have you been of the claims made by the opinion piece compared to the skepticism you have expressed here about peer-reviewed science?
-
Cowpuncher at 07:29 AM on 25 May 2015Congress manufactures doubt and denial in climate change hearing
Judith Curry who seems to be quite level-headed raises an interesting question about the Congress hearings and Presient Obama's speech. She questions what the anticipated reduction in temperature will be against the climate models assessments as a result of an 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050. I am struggling to find information on this. It is an important issue given the costs involved of an 80% reduction. Can someone help, please?
Moderator Response:[JH] Suggest that you pose your question directly to Judith Curry on her website.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 06:41 AM on 25 May 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #21B
@4. Where exactly does the article note precisely that the floods were not due to climate change? And please provide the link to the solar panel item, as I can't seem to find it. Thanks.
-
HowardW at 05:46 AM on 25 May 2015Upcoming MOOC makes sense of climate science denial
Does this course discuss the value of presenting solutions to climate change such as Cap & Trade or Fee and Dividend (as proposed here www.ccl.org.au) when describing the problem?
Prev 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 Next
