Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

[Joules MM1]

Alfred-Wegener-Institut, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung
Published on Jun 27, 2018


Lars Kaleschke‏ @seaice_de

ESA's Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) missions objective was not to measure the sea ice thickness but it worked out very well. Now data collected over 9 years clearly shows a trend in Arctic sea ice extent while the area covered with ice >1m has no significant trend.

 

[kahuna1]

April reached a new record Arctic low sea ice extent

2019
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

2018 Arctic summertime sea ice minimum extent tied for sixth lowest on record
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2811/...nimum-extent-tied-for-sixth-lowest-on-record/

NSIDC and NASA showed that, at 1.77 million square miles (4.59 million square kilometers), 2018 effectively tied with 2008 and 2010 for the sixth lowest summertime minimum extent in the satellite record.

One of the most unusual features of this year’s melt season has been the reopening of a polynya-like hole in the icepack north of Greenland, where the oldest and thickest sea ice of the Arctic typically resides.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
at 1.8 million sq miles verses the 1980-2018 ave of 2.4 million sq miles and all measured via satellite ... ALL OF IT ....

1.8 is 75% of 2.4 ...

in other words 25% IS GONE .... v the ave

Alarming ? Well its only been stable for around 800,000 years and the permafrost and frozen plant and matter below it ...

25% Gone, the thing keeping it frozen in 30 years .... hmmm

ONAY

 

[kahuna1]

DERRR >>>>>>>
The past four years (2015-18) have the four lowest maximums in the satellite record.


https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2018/ArtMID/7878/ArticleID/780/SeanbspIce

 

[Ann]

Do We Really Have a Decade Left to Solve Climate Change?

Wise alecks on social media noted with amusement how Beto O’Rourke recently claimed humans had only ten years to act on climate change, thus one-upping Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who had previously gone out on a limb by putting the deadline at twelve years. Snark aside, it’s important to point out that the “consensus science” as codified, for example, in the periodic reports from the United Nations do not support such a cliff-hanger mentality at all.


Our Political Figures Ignore the IPCC More...

 

[rederob]

Do We Really Have a Decade Left to Solve Climate Change?

Wise alecks on social media noted with amusement how Beto O’Rourke recently claimed humans had only ten years to act on climate change, thus one-upping Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who had previously gone out on a limb by putting the deadline at twelve years. Snark aside, it’s important to point out that the “consensus science” as codified, for example, in the periodic reports from the United Nations do not support such a cliff-hanger mentality at all.


Our Political Figures Ignore the IPCC More...

Unfortunately your quoted author got his facts wrong. He says "The beige cells in the adapted table above show the percentage increases in the total (undiscounted) mitigation costs necessary to achieve the far-left (white cells) atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases ...."
In fact the table is about putting a single price on carbon which produces a CO2 level in the years specified, and then looking at how that affects global economies.
The people presently quoting 2030 do so because it is regarded as a "tipping point."
In other words, if things are now well in place to mitigate GHG emissions by then, subsequent actions would need to be extreme to prevent the more dire scenarios of the IPCC playing out.
Some scientists reckon we already passed the tipping point.
No matter, we got Scomo at the helm again and he's going to "have a go."
Promise .

 

[kahuna1]

What a load ...

No one could be that stupid ... yet here we have it again !!

quoting the article by Robert P. Murphy, an economist with the Institute for Energy Research

Institute for Energy Research (IER)

IER's founder and CEO is Robert L. Bradley Jr., former Director of Policy Analysis at Enron. Bradley worked for over 16 years at Enron,

Charles Koch was directly involved with the IER at its formation

Call me fussy, but only a complete idiot or dotard would quote something from this source as any relevance to climate science !!

Congratulations.

 

[Sir Burr]

Have a chuckle every time I see this thread on the front page.

Reminds me of George "the planet is fine, the people are...."

 

[kahuna1]

I suppose ...

I don't worry .... but this is ridiculous !!

It Was A Record 84 Degrees Near The Arctic Ocean


Unseen for 3 million years !!

Whilst not worried about my next 40-60 years, well ... below the Artic lies 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 frozen and about 10 billion tons of frozen methane ... which is 85 times worse than CO2.

basically 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 permafrost when it melts, not if ... WHEN .. is everything we have emitted post 1850. As for say 10 billion tons of methane ... at 85 times the impact ... well that's ... 4 times that.

4 TIMES ... the impact .... added to the 1.8 trillion, well its like a train that's fallen off the rails on a bridge and stopping it is just sadly not possible.


I cant change the destructive human nature and the likely end of most of this species. Such is life. I will join them and embrace the time left.

So worrying ? No ..
Caring about my next generation ? Yep ... and the one following it into the post 2100 period it will be somewhat interesting if not devastating.

Take care

 

[Ann]

The people presently quoting 2030 do so because it is regarded as a "tipping point."
In other words, if things are now well in place to mitigate GHG emissions by then, subsequent actions would need to be extreme to prevent the more dire scenarios of the IPCC playing out.
Some scientists reckon we already passed the tipping point.

Folks, don't be too concerned by the term 'tipping point', it is merely a journalistic metaphor, not a scientific fact.
In 2000, Malcolm Gladwell published his first book, “The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference,” which examines the moment when an idea, product or behavior reaches the point where it tips, or spreads and gains critical mass. “The Tipping Point” used experts and academic studies to explain everything from the comeback of Hush Puppies shoes to the drop in crime in New York City in the early 1990s. Ref. He is a journalist using the term as a metaphor.

To put it simply it is a bit of descriptive journalese in an effort to create a 'tipping point' in the public belief of there actually being a threat using a computer generated projected 'dire' meteorological outcome in a hundred years or so.

I just wish they could get their weather projections right for the next few months, that would be great!

Anyhow, now that Australia has voted on the Climate Change issue and given it the bird, we can file it under cow dung which is where it deserves to be. Clearly at ASF we will likely still have the few die-hard Climate Hysterics, banging on until the next election, who are programmed into their belief system but I tend to think of ASF as being a delicious fruit cake, gotta have a few nuts in there for novelty!

Tipping Points and Climate Change: Metaphor Between Science and the Media

 

[rederob]

To put it simply it is a bit of descriptive journalese in an effort to create a 'tipping point' in the public belief of there actually being a threat using a computer generated projected 'dire' meteorological outcome in a hundred years or so.

Because you don't know science you also don't know that there is a threshold temperature above which natural feedback systems that currently keep the Earth cool will unravel. We only know when that is after the event because we will see a cascade of climate events which thrust the planet into what is termed a "hothouse" state.
Your ideas are the usual rubbish we have come to expect on this thread, but it was a great cartoon.

 

[kahuna1]

only a complete idiot or dotard would quote something from this source as any relevance to climate science !!

Congratulations.

Again Ann wins ... must be one of those bad days ....

Clearly at ASF we will likely still have the few die-hard Climate Hysterics, banging on until the next election, who are programmed into their belief system but I tend to think of ASF as being a delicious fruit cake, gotta have a few nuts in there for novelty!

Have you taken your pills today ?

Surely Arctic at 84 degrees v normal of 40 this time of year is alarming ?

Not for you ..... either in denial, delusional or just plain stupid ?

The sad thing is, you are that delusional that you believe it all ... earth ifs flat ... there is no issue ... not even when its 44 degrees F higher than normal ? Or are you still drilling ice cores at Cape Grim in Tasmania ?

 

[Wyatt]

I suppose ...

I don't worry .... but this is ridiculous !!

It Was A Record 84 Degrees Near The Arctic Ocean


Unseen for 3 million years !!

Whilst not worried about my next 40-60 years, well ... below the Artic lies 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 frozen and about 10 billion tons of frozen methane ... which is 85 times worse than CO2.

basically 1.8 trillion tons of CO2 permafrost when it melts, not if ... WHEN .. is everything we have emitted post 1850. As for say 10 billion tons of methane ... at 85 times the impact ... well that's ... 4 times that.

4 TIMES ... the impact .... added to the 1.8 trillion, well its like a train that's fallen off the rails on a bridge and stopping it is just sadly not possible.


I cant change the destructive human nature and the likely end of most of this species. Such is life. I will join them and embrace the time left.

So worrying ? No ..
Caring about my next generation ? Yep ... and the one following it into the post 2100 period it will be somewhat interesting if not devastating.

Take care

Fear and greed. Every investor's nemesis, but this behavior is next level and opportunistic.

Imagine that squealing like a pig about what may happen in in your wildest dreams and get paid beyond your wildest dreams for it. Sounds compelling, doesn't it.
That's the problem, what is real and what is BS, is not that easy to decipher for the average punter, just cause someone says so, it is not a given. No matter what ideology they prescribe to.
Sure the world is in a warming phase due to number of factors. That is a given and by the sound of many, we're rooted anyway, no matter what we do. The cockroaches will reign supreme, apparently.
I personally think high % renewable energy capture and storage is inevitable, but we don't need be the dumb country to pay too much to get what we need. The electorate has spoken.
Informed people will have read about Gottliebsen's article about Germany and high electricity prices due to early wind energy uptake. The bloke across the road has a 1.0Kw solar system that was government sponsored to the tune of $10K 12 years or so ago, these days crap like that is unheard of and now would cost less than 10% of that price if installed now, not to mention the inefficiencies accepted at that time. Pathetic really. A friend recently installed 6.6KW of panels and inverter for less than $5K, that will produce on average 26KW/day for a long time. About 40% of the price the I paid nearly 7 years ago for something similar when the labour party were handing out big feed in tariffs, fortunately it pays for itself every 3.3 years. If you had the opportuntity, particularly in QLD and missed it, it due to procrastination, maybe you should give up DIY investing and hand it over to someone else who knows what their doing. Blind Freddy was onto that one.
I guess QLDers couldn't trust Bill to get it right and and not just figuratively.

Same bull**** different steerer

 

[rederob]

I personally think high % renewable energy capture and storage is inevitable, but we don't need be the dumb country to pay too much to get what we need. The electorate has spoken.

The reason we now have cheap solar panels is because governments around the world incentivised early uptake, and manufacturers we able to achieve economies of scale in production.
That's also happened in the wind market but, oddly enough, has not fed into the battery storage market.
The Labor policy for 1000000 home battery system rebates by 2025 would likely have mitigated the summer load shedding in Victoria that will again occur in 2020 and beyond due to failed government policies.

Informed people will have read about Gottliebsen's article about Germany and high electricity prices due to early wind energy uptake.

I was not amongst them.
However, I see these claims about Germany on a regular basis, and they are mostly poorly founded and promoted by those who are losing business to renewables.
Compare the price increases in Germany from the chart below with the increase in prices you have copped over the past 5 years. The clear winner is Germany because it moved early into renewables and now reaps the benefits.

 

[Struzball]

About 40% of the price the I paid nearly 7 years ago for something similar when the labour party were handing out big feed in tariffs, fortunately it pays for itself every 3.3 years. If you had the opportuntity, particularly in QLD and missed it, it due to procrastination, maybe you should give up DIY investing and hand it over to someone else who knows what their doing. Blind Freddy was onto that one.

I was opposed to the high feed in tarrifs.
It encouraged the smart people to sell high priced power during they day, and then use their appliances at night, using cheaper coal power. Thereby doing absolutely nothing to reduce peak demand and emissions - which should be the primary consideration of any renewable energy investments by government.

I felt that the increased demand from people chasing the high FiT would inflate solar panels, mainly collected by greedy installers. As you say Wyatt, panels today are 40% of the price today than 7 years ago. That's a $7500 saving in only 7 years, and todays investment isn't propped up by unsustainable government policies which do nothing but increase the cost of electricity.

You could have invested that $7500 saving in the stock market in 2012 and gained a 50%+ return. Not including dividends. Your $7500 could be worth $15000 if you reinvested your dividends.
So opportunity cost, You'd be paying $5000(todays value)+$15000(missed gains) = $20,000.

My power bill is about $1800 per year, so at that rate it would take 10 years to pay back, however still missing out on future opportunity cost, so potentially never recouping your investment.

That being said, solar panels are becoming cheap enough these days to use them smartly, by timing appliances to be used during the day etc, reducing emissions and peak demand, and ideally gaining some significant savings on your power bill for a relatively small investment.

I'm no accountant, please correct me if I'm wrong. Just sharing my opinion.

 

[Wyatt]

Hi Struzball,
The high feed in tariffs, while arguably not thought out that well by the pollies, did create a massive wave of solar uptake, which gathers speed today, despite the rapidly changing landscape. It also gave recipients of subsidies the incentive to become as efficient as possible.

A 6.6KW system will generate around 25Kwh/day, if you used 5Kwh/day of that generation @.30 and exported the rest 20 @0.10Kwh is say $3.50/day = around $1250/yr This means a 4 year payback or less depending on initial cost. Not overly exciting, but a good return on a small outlay. These are Qld calculations, could be better or worse elsewhere.

Once batteries go through a similar growth phase where usage goes exponentially higher and prices do the exact opposite, the math gets a whole lot better and systems will get a lot bigger to make sure that peak demand on any given household will be covered by those batteries. Time of use tariffs (reflecting cost of supply) even high feed in rates from private/ commercial batteries could also help curb demand or get peeps to replace those old electricity guzzling box a/c for something far more efficient and maybe install fans. Fans can do a lot to help you keep your cool (we're not talking the half busted pedestal in the cupboard) and they are cheap to run. Lets go with free ceiling fans for you southerners.

As far as being a better investment by putting cash in stock market rather than solar?
Solar is highly predictable over the medium term, the other is not. The ultimate goal in this arena would be to have individuals spend their own money, which generates decent returns and in the process reducing peak demand, hopefully stabilizing the grid and as a by product reducing carbon emissions.

 

[Struzball]

Can't disagree with you on any of your points.

Was just pointing out that roof top solar wasn't necessarily the only or best investment choice for your hard earned dollars that you could have made in 2012.

I agree a recent solar panel purchases would be a good investment (4 year payback).
Unlike 2012 when prices were still falling rapidly, it is hard to imagine delaying the purchase of solar panels a further 7 years would be a wise choice.
At best they would probably halve in cost by 2026. The potential gain from investing the difference of $2500 today isn't as significant when compared to the gains of not having to pay a power bill.

 

[rederob]

Was just pointing out that roof top solar wasn't necessarily the only or best investment choice for your hard earned dollars that you could have made in 2012.

We installed in May 2012.
All up it cost about $12k.
We have never had to pay a cent in power since then.
We average an annual payment back from AGL at around $1000 - last quarter it was about $390.
Our pool gobbles most electricity.
Payback was under 4 years.
That $12k investment now guarantees us a minimum return of $3000 per annum up to 2028.
I would think long and hard about your maths.

Our friends get a FIT of 8cents/Kw on their 3.5Kw system installed under 5 years ago. They run as many appliances as possible during sunshine hours. They pay less than $200/quarter (small pool pump helps). They reckon they are in the "free" zone now, despite such a small FIT, because installed system prices had dropped a lot after the 44cent FIT disappeared. They estimate on average that their system saves them somewhere between $1500 and $2000 each year and they are pretty happy about that.

When I see 6.6Kw systems advertised at $3999 I go oh F#@h, wondering why I didn't wait a while longer. And then I realise that is only $1000 more than we save each year, and smile .

 

[Struzball]

I tried to do the maths properly just now, but it's hard to come up with a meaningful answer because it assumes power prices will stay constant.. which is unlikely, IMO.

In 2028 you're guaranteed a certain FiT, but there's no guarantee that power prices won't be more than that by then, which would erode your "guaranteed" $3000 per year return.

I still think buying a system today and using the energy conservatively such as your friends with the 8c/Kw do is the better deal in the long run. Particularly because it's resistant to future electricity price rises.

 

[rederob]

In 2028 you're guaranteed a certain FiT, but there's no guarantee that power prices won't be more than that by then, which would erode your "guaranteed" $3000 per year return.

Our FIT is presently around 52cents/Kw from AGL and we are guaranteed at least 44cents until 2028.
We could optimise our FIT by doing some things when the sun is not shining, but we prefer to be lazier at night.
If power prices went up, then our theoretical savings actually increase.
Our FIT should decline because panels lose about 1% efficiency each year.
We should have added a few more panels anyways, because we seldom crank out the 5Kw/h which our inverter can manage.

 

[qldfrog]

And because it is not subject to a market crash, even better in an economic collapse, you can keep your light on after loosing your job
Your call