Well the alarmist use it when the temperature is extreme, so what is your gripe?
Come on noco - seriously, I mean do you really want us to believe that you think record low temperatures indicate that global warming is not occurring???
Oh dear Noco. You remind me strongly of conversations with my dear old dad, who was born in 1925 and who spent 20 years of my life driving me crackers with strenuous and condescending arguments against what I didn't say.ghotib, whether its extreme temperatures, extreme cold, drought, excess rainfail, flood or fire the 'ALARMIST' will blame Global Warming (aka climate change). I believe in Climate Change but I do not believe it is man made.
I am unaware of which era you have lived, but it would appear you may still have been in liquid form when I was in uinform. My memories of these extreme conditions go back to the 1930's and nothing has changed in 2000 and beyond. These so called experts who say they can predict what our conditions will be in 2100 can't even predict what our weather will be in 6 months. As I mentioned before, Tim Flannery, who a lot of politicians placed confidence in to proceed with desal 'WHITE ELEPHANTS', could not predict 3 years ahead.
I worked on sheep stations in South Western Queensland in the late 40's and earlt 50's for 3 years. I have been cut off by floods for two weeks at a time. I have witnessd the soil without a blade of grass for sheep to graze and plagues of locusts so thick that blotted out the sun. I've been through horrific storms in Brisbane with hail stones as big as cricket balls and iron ripped from roofs like a giant can opener.
I recall a report in the 40's where the Thames River in London was frozen. Extreme winter conditions was one of Hitler's down fall in the second world war.
Mark my words the Cancun Mexican conference will be glazed over as a success without any agreed resolution. Kyoto will die of natural death in 2012.
So ghotib, I don't need so called scientist to ram down my throat what extreme weather conditions can be like as I've been through it all before and no doubt even before these so called experts were born. Nothing has changed and nothing will. All it needs is plenty of commonsense and memories of the past to understand the future.
Oh dear Noco. You remind me strongly of conversations with my dear old dad, who was born in 1925 and who spent 20 years of my life driving me crackers with strenuous and condescending arguments against what I didn't say.
Look, I don't doubt you've seen extreme weather. Despite my relative youth, so have I. But your personal experience is of one place at a time, and different places throughout your life. It says less about the climate of the planet as a whole than one investor's unsuccessful investment in 1948 says about the pattern of stock markets from 1850 to 2010. It's not that your experience is irrelevant, just that your experience, like anyone else's, is a tiny part of the overall picture. Climatology is about the overall picture. It doesn't exist without the tiny parts, but to think the tiny parts are what climatology itself is about is, if I may borrow a comment from another post on this thread, to fall into the fallacy of decomposition.
Now I'm going to see my old mum and we'll very likely look at a picture of my old dad in his uniform and sing, "He was a real dirty dog, but So Handsome!!" (Actually he was a man of deep personal integrity, a good business man, and not a dirty dog at all, but she likes the song).
With respect,
Ghoti
<sigh>Yeah dad, whatever you say.This Cancun conference is all about DECEPTION AND POLITICAL manipulation at its best and quite frankly it is becoming very boring having to listen to so called scientist expressing their B**ls^#t. When a Sceptic expresses an opinion, he is branded a social outcast and every attempt is made to silence him/her by these rabble fanatics.
http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/166927.html
<sigh>Yeah dad, whatever you say.
BTW, have you ever read something written by a real scientist?
Ghoti
It's not the absence of a carbon price, but the uncertainty of a carbon price. The government is happily using the uncertainty it has created
Components of household electricity bills:
Generation = 40%
Distribution = 31%
Transmission = 17%
Retail = 8%
Other =3%
(Figures do not add to 100% due to rounding).
Combined increase in residential electricity prices 2007-08, 08-09, 09-10 (not compounded).
Vic (energy mostly from coal, gas, hydro in that order) = 53.6%
NSW (coal, hydro, gas) = 46.1%
Qld (coal, gas, hydro) = 45.6%
WA (gas, coal) = 42.5%
Tas (hydro, gas, coal, wind) = 41.9%
ACT (energy same as NSW - coal, hydro, gas) = 32.6%
NT (primarily from gas, rest mostly diesel) = 30.8%
SA (gas, coal, wind) = 29.6%
Now, amidst all of this, the major drivers of increasing prices are NOT related to power generation. New baseload generation 30 years ago cost about 4.2 cents / kWh from coal and about 1.4 cents from new hydro. In 2010 it's about 3.7 cents from gas and about the same from black coal.
The cost of generating baseload power hasn't increased at all over the past 30 years due to both technical and operational efficiency improvements combined with a fall in the real price of domestic fossil fuels.
So why the soaring bills? It's primarily related to distribution, transmission and all sorts of costs associated with being in a "competitive" electricity market (which has delivered higher prices...).
Note that both the smallest (SA) and highest (Vic) increases are in states with privately owned power supplies. Ownership makes little difference - it's how it's actually run (in a technical sense as well as management) that matters.
Average retail price at average household consumption:
SA = 22.8c / kWh
NSW = 22.8c / kWh
WA = 22.4c / kWh
NT = 20.9c / kWh
Qld = 20.1c / kWh
Tas = 20.1c / kWh
Vic = 20.1c / kWh
ACT = 16.3c / kWh
Retail price data sourced from the Tasmanian Economic Regulator and Aurora Energy (Tas) with some additional calculation by Smurf. www.economicregulator.tas.gov.au Wholesale generation cost (as distinct from actual pricing) data is my own.
There you go again, So Cynical! Someone expresses an opinion which doesn't support your own, and you feel obliged to make pejorative personal remarks. It's an indication of lack of faith in your own capacity to present your own view that you feel compelled to insult others.The uncertainty it created :alcohol: are you drunk?
You're saying the government has not created uncertainty???? Where have you been for the last couple of years? They decided we had to have an ETS to meet 'the greatest moral challenge of our time', didn't they?amazing that the Coalition dosen't pass the legislation and yet by some bizarre logic only understood by the ASF right and other deniers, its the Govt that created the uncertainty.
You'd think not, wouldn't you. But if you're naive enough to believe the energy companies will not take advantage of consumer bewilderment, and powerlessness, and price gouge as they are doing already, then you lack the wisdom I've previously given you credit for.Smurf,
Do I read into your post that the electricity price is dominated by factors other than the cost of generation. if so then there is no reason fot that part of the cost to increase in the event of a carbon tax being applied to "dirty" generation. Also the tax would not be applied heavily if at all to the hydro generation, only lightly to wind powered or solar generation, not too hard on gas fired generation but harder on coal fired power.
In that case the cost increase in the overall electricity generation should not increase as much as the "alarmists" would have us believe.
Your response is based on an out of context slip on the delete key when quoting my post.The uncertainty it created :alcohol: are you drunk? amazing that the Coalition dosen't pass the legislation and yet by some bizarre logic only understood by the ASF right and other deniers, its the Govt that created the uncertainty.
I have seen no valid argument on this forum to convince me that a carbon tax is not necessary or that it is an unfair tax.
...a little sloppy in places...
Well, not that clever. Of course, as I am sure you know, the anti-AGW crew exist for the same reason the AGW exist. It is not about the science - one crew wants to use it as an excuse to control peoples lives, the other crew is resisting those who desire this control.A clever little comic on Climate Change.
Both sides are about control and money.Well, not that clever. Of course, as I am sure you know, the anti-AGW crew exist for the same reason the AGW exist. It is not about the science - one crew wants to use it as an excuse to control peoples lives, the other crew is resisting those who desire this control.
Both sides are about control and money.
(numbers at end of sentences are references in linked document)In conclusion - what does the geological record tell us about the potential effect of continued emissions of CO2?
Over at least the last 200 million years the fossil and sedimentary record shows that the Earth has undergone many fluctuations in climate, from warmer than the present climate to much colder, on many different timescales. Several warming events can be associated with increases in the ‘greenhouse gas’ CO2. There is evidence for sudden major injections of carbon to the atmosphere occurring at 55, 120 and 183 million years ago, perhaps from the sudden breakdown of methane hydrates beneath the seabed. At those times the associated warming would have increased the evaporation of water vapour from the ocean, making CO2 the trigger rather than the sole agent for change. During the Ice Age of the past two and a half million years or so, periodic warming of the Earth through changes in its position in relation to the sun also heated the oceans, releasing both CO2 and water vapour, which amplified the ongoing warming into warm interglacial periods. That process was magnified by the melting of sea ice and land ice, darkening the Earth’s surface and reducing the reflection of the Sun’s energy back into space.
While these past climatic changes can be related to geological events, it is not possible to relate the Earth’s warming since 1970 to anything recognisable as having a geological cause (such as volcanic activity, continental displacement, or changes in the energy received from the sun)43. This recent warming is accompanied by an increase in CO2 and a decrease in Arctic sea ice, both of which – based on physical theory and geological analogues - would be expected to warm the climate44. Various lines of evidence, reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change clearly show that a large part of the modern increase in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels, with some contribution from cement manufacture and some from deforestation44. In total, human activities have emitted over 500 billion tonnes of carbon (hence over 1850 billion tons of CO2) to the atmosphere since around 1750, some 65% of that being from the burning of fossil fuels18,45,46,47,48. Some of the carbon input to the atmosphere comes from volcanoes49,50, but carbon from that source is equivalent to only about 1% of what human activities add annually and is not contributing to a net increase.
In the coming centuries, continued emissions of carbon from burning oil, gas and coal at close to or higher than today’s levels, and from related human activities, could increase the total to close to the amounts added during the 55 million year warming event – some 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes. Further contributions from ‘natural’ sources (wetlands, tundra, methane hydrates, etc.) may come as the Earth warms22. The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5-6 ºC, and possibly more, and that recovery of the Earth’s climate in the absence of any mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the climate system support such an interpretation44. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.
Just thought I would throw in my
Really, if I actually wanted to smash someone's economy, one of the first targets I would want to hit is their energy supply. In a hi-tech, high-capital economy, energy is the FUNDAMENTAL resource. It is required at all points in every part of the economy - from the movement of persons and materials to the places of work, to the operation of machines, to the powering of computation devices, I'll leave the list at that but I could go on.
Indeed, there has been research done on this (although I failed to bookmark the links, damn), which shows the high correlation between GDP and 'energy burn rates' if you will. And this stands to reason. The more energy expended the more minerals dug from the ground, the more materials that are processed, the more materials that are transported etc etc.
Now, given that this is the case, and I see little room for arguing that it is not, 'taxing carbon' needs to be understood as what it is:
- Australia produces most of (I think most) of its energy by burning coal.
Well, not that clever. Of course, as I am sure you know, the anti-AGW crew exist for the same reason the AGW exist. It is not about the science - one crew wants to use it as an excuse to control peoples lives, the other crew is resisting those who desire this control.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?