Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
ghotib said:
Stronger, more frequent storms...
Click to expand...

FYI

global_running_freq_12.jpg
 
Wayne

On the graph, why is their a top (bue dot) and bottom point (grey dot) with a range in between. What does it represent?
 
knobby, I think the top marker represents the global total while the lower marker is the northern hemisphere total. Not sure why they have chosen to colour the area between the two?

As far as frequency goes it look pretty flat from those data, with 2010 very quiet. I wonder if that is associated with the la Nina phase? I had a very quick dig about and it is thought that the there was a bias toward including lower pressure systems in the 70's and 80's due to problems in estimated storm central pressures. The error is thought to be up to 20% for the 1970's data.
http://www.willisresearchnetwork.com/Lists/Publications/DispForm.aspx?ID=10 said:
It is shown that a bias towards lower intensities likely exists in earlier (mainly pre-1980) tropical cyclone central pressure deficit estimates of the order of at least 20 per cent in 1970, reducing to around ten per cent by 1980 and to five per cent by 1985. Inferred temporal trends in the estimated intensity from the original data-sets are therefore significantly reduced in the objectively reviewed data-set.
Click to expand...
Would be interesting to see if Maue's data includes or excludes these data. Also a representation of frequency and duration would be interesting to see too.


I had a quick look about for some historical data on intensity and frequency of intensities but didn't really find much. A longer search will likely find something (I'll whack it up if I find any). I did find a graph of total cyclone energy by Maue that was submitted in conjunction with the frequency image the wayne posted up. It definitely shows an increase in total energy from the 70's though to a peak in the late 90's or 2005, dependant on how much you smooth the data. You can see the peak in energies associated with the hot years of 1998 and 2005, the 1993 peak doesn't really correspond to an exceptionally hot year as far as I know. Since 2005 the drop-off in energy has been severe when compared to frequency, not what you would expect with 2010 being predicted at being one of the hot years. maybe it won't end up as hot as everyone thinks it will be or there are other factors that influence cyclone generation.

I'm sure there will be some write-ups about the data. We will have to see what comes of it.
global_running_ace.png
 

Attachments

  • global_running_ace.png
    global_running_ace.png
    211.1 KB · Views: 5
tothemax6 said:
Just thought I would throw in my :2twocents
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:
  1. Australia produces most of (I think most) of its energy by burning coal.
  2. Burning coal emits CO2 (the tax target)
  3. Taxing X reduces the profitability of X and the output of X. E.g. if you crank up the tax on bread, people will reduce their consumption of bread because they can't afford the same rate of consumption, this is a well known economic fact.
Now, of course, what Australia should be doing is building nuclear stations. To be generating ones electricity by burning cr@p-loads of coal nowadays is primitive, counter-productive, wasteful, and all-round stupid. The energy density of fission reactors makes combustion reactors look like friggin' AA batteries.
But alas, nuclear is not going to happen any time soon, AND the mad welsh woman even wants to CLAMP DOWN on what we have! :banghead:

Just sayin' this, if the carbon tax happens, and by happens I mean meaningful taxes, everyone here needs to be thinking of dumping all their longs and going short. And then probably buying gold and filling ones garage with canned goods (OK maybe that's a little extreme).
Click to expand...

Great post tothemax6

This is where the fallacy of decomposition truly kicks in.

Australia is the largest exporter of coal in the world.

Australia and other developed countries governments as well as elite think tanks, large corporates, banks etc.. will likely continue to push through the media, elite groups for a "carbon tax" on Co2.

It is currently being proposed under the semantically packaged definition of climate change. Prior to this it was semantically packaged as global warming. However, the definition prior to that was pollution.Of course I undoubtedly believe that pollution does exist and is a problem all over the world. Including of course the component parts of the world those being different countries with different economies. ;)

This tax will have to paid on the basis of consumption. Of course considering that a greater genus terminology has now been adopted that being "climate change". The rasoin detre or spin whatever you like to call it, is aimed at taxing a broader base so that everyone to can contribute taxes in order to enable governments to provide a solution.

Australia is part of the world. The world is composed of many parts. Some of those parts are exempt from emissions targets under frameworks like Kyoto. Also, certain people live in areas of the world where it is either bloody cold most of the year round or bloody hot. And also it is no conspiracy that certain communities have limited means and resources when it comes to exchange value and use value as strict economic defintions. Of course people like THE GREENS think they are synonyms. Which they certainly are not!!!!

Also, I noticed another great article by Terry McCrann today. I recommend everyone on this thread to read this article.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...chinas-coal-rush/story-e6frfig6-1225971769042

I had to laugh at one thing he said. It's great when some media players are frank and honest in their analysis.

"As I say: go long coal mines, go short winter fashion. If, of course, you're a believer."

The only point of conjecture I have with Terry is I would only being going long if I was an investor domiciled in an carbon tax exempt developing country.

P.S. There is no "Taking one for the..." in the word TEAM. ;):D

Cheers guys
DYOR

Gumby
 
wayneL said:
FYI

global_running_freq_12.jpg
Click to expand...
Thank you for this pretty picture. What, if anything, do you suggest it means? Derty did a whole lot of digging on your behalf, but I'm sure you didn't just post a chart from some unidentified website without doing some investigation yourself.

One comment: All tropical cyclones are storms. Not all storms are tropical cyclones.

Cheers

Ghoti
 
nioka said:
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.
Click to expand...

Household electricity prices are dominated by non-generation costs. Heavy industrial prices are essentially generation only since the other costs are not incurred to supply those customers.

As with most things, retail prices are very much greater than the wholesale price of the bulk commodity. We've all heard about the $2 pair of jeans etc.

As for hydro, wind etc costs there may not increase but prices certainly would. If the market price of electricity rises due to the carbon tax then renewable energy generators will simply sell at the higher market price and reap an increased profit. Prices are set at the margin, and with a carbon tax coal will that margin.

A carbon tax applied to coal exports would also mean that global polluters would bear the cost of their pollution if using our coal. in that way the Australian contribution would be extended to a meaningful level.
Click to expand...
Would the tax not be paid in practice by the mining companies, in the form of reduced profit, since the coal will still have to compete on international markets with non-taxed coal?

The argument that those unable to pay for any increase in the cost of power is no different to the argument against the GST. That was compensated for in a rise in pension levels to offset the cost increase.

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.:2twocents
Click to expand...
A classic example as follows.

Rio Tinto and Hydro Tasmania have signed a deal for 322MW baseload that runs until 2025. This was publicly announced today.

In very rough terms, that is worth $100 million a year at present market prices.

Now, ignoring the point about the source of electricity in Tas since I'm making a point of relevance nationally, add a $40 per tonne carbon tax to that amount of coal-fired power and the cost doubles to over $200 million.

Now, how do you find savings to offset that $100 million cost increase? Being a global market with most production exported, they can't simply pass it onto consumers. And with total production at the plant worth $400 million a year, an extra $100 million for electricity is rather significant and likely results in the operation ceasing to be viable, at which point it would simply be relocated to somewhere without a carbon tax.

This is a real example for an industry which accounts for 13% Tasmania's overseas exports. Replicate that scenario nationally and I'd say we've got a rather large problem on our hands...
 
Smurf1976 said:
Household electricity prices are dominated by non-generation costs. Heavy industrial prices are essentially generation only since the other costs are not incurred to supply those customers.

As with most things, retail prices are very much greater than the wholesale price of the bulk commodity. We've all heard about the $2 pair of jeans etc.

As for hydro, wind etc costs there may not increase but prices certainly would. If the market price of electricity rises due to the carbon tax then renewable energy generators will simply sell at the higher market price and reap an increased profit. Prices are set at the margin, and with a carbon tax coal will that margin.


Would the tax not be paid in practice by the mining companies, in the form of reduced profit, since the coal will still have to compete on international markets with non-taxed coal?


A classic example as follows.

Rio Tinto and Hydro Tasmania have signed a deal for 322MW baseload that runs until 2025. This was publicly announced today.

In very rough terms, that is worth $100 million a year at present market prices.

Now, ignoring the point about the source of electricity in Tas since I'm making a point of relevance nationally, add a $40 per tonne carbon tax to that amount of coal-fired power and the cost doubles to over $200 million.

Now, how do you find savings to offset that $100 million cost increase? Being a global market with most production exported, they can't simply pass it onto consumers. And with total production at the plant worth $400 million a year, an extra $100 million for electricity is rather significant and likely results in the operation ceasing to be viable, at which point it would simply be relocated to somewhere without a carbon tax.

This is a real example for an industry which accounts for 13% Tasmania's overseas exports. Replicate that scenario nationally and I'd say we've got a rather large problem on our hands...
Click to expand...
Isn't this problem the basis for Garnaut's preferring a cap and trade scheme to a tax on carbon?

Ghoti
 
ghotib said:
Isn't this problem the basis for Garnaut's preferring a cap and trade scheme to a tax on carbon?

Ghoti
Click to expand...

Within Australia Ghoti your pricing sounds very generous.
I suspect prices will go UP. But that's just my opinion. They may go down, but I think they will go up, possibly double-digit within the next 3 years. I hope not.
 
derty said:
knobby, I think the top marker represents the global total while the lower marker is the northern hemisphere total. Not sure why they have chosen to colour the area between the two?
Click to expand...
No I got that bit wrong, the top marker represents total number of events classed as tropical storms or greater. The lower marker represents those of the previous set that were classified as cyclones.
 
the underlying principle to not forget is most of this stuff has no scientific foundation. Indeed, it's scientifically contrived rubbish.

The best thing to do in my opinion is minimize waste and recycle what is available. Considering most things are produced in the Far East these days.
 
ghotib said:
Thank you for this pretty picture. What, if anything, do you suggest it means? Derty did a whole lot of digging on your behalf, but I'm sure you didn't just post a chart from some unidentified website without doing some investigation yourself.

One comment: All tropical cyclones are storms. Not all storms are tropical cyclones.

Cheers

Ghoti
Click to expand...
It means the claim that storms are increasing is not correct.

Right click on the image for source. ;)
 
GumbyLearner said:
Also, I noticed another great article by Terry McCrann today. I recommend everyone on this thread to read this article.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...chinas-coal-rush/story-e6frfig6-1225971769042
Click to expand...
Cheers Gumby, you can't really fault what he says about the future of CO2 generation from China and India. Unfortunately. I think he is spot on when he says; "There is nothing, nothing the developed world can do to offset the CO2 that is going to be pumped by China and India. Short that is, of stopping the world..." To add to this not only is there nothing the developed world can do to stop China and India, there is nothing that they will significantly do to address their own contributions. There is also nothing that they can do to address their contributions that will not cause economic ruin. I guess why precipitate the ruin now, when the ruin we would be attempting to avert is probably a couple of generations away.

GumbyLearner said:
the underlying principle to not forget is most of this stuff has no scientific foundation. Indeed, it's scientifically contrived rubbish.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by stuff?


Here is another article that is worth the read:http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...e-cant-be-stopped-so-adapt-to-it-2149699.html
What do you think really clever people think – people who aren't climate scientists, and who aren't climate sceptics, but who need to know, purely pragmatically (as for multimillion-dollar investment decisions) where the truth really lies? You can find out by looking at last week's edition of The Economist, which some people probably consider Britain's cleverest magazine. (They certainly think so themselves.)

Last week The Economist ran a cover story entitled "Living With Climate Change" which struck me as one of the most notable things I have read about global warming all year. The magazine has no truck with climate scepticism – the future is far too important for nonsense. But neither does it embrace the old narrative, which is that it's real, but if we fight it we can stop it.

Instead, it sets out, quite coldly, a new, third position: it's real, but after Copenhagen, it can't be stopped. With all the world's efforts, here in Cancun, concentrating on halting the warming at a rise of two degrees, widely considered the danger threshold, the magazine quotes Britain's most distinguished climate scientist, Professor Bob Watson, former head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as saying that the two degree target is "a wishful dream". And then it sets out in detail how we should begin to adapt to what's now inevitably coming.
Click to expand...
 
ghotib said:
1. What claim?
2. What storms?
Click to expand...

Excuse me?

Further up, you regurgitated the Gorist catastrophe scenario, one point being that violent storms will be/are more frequent because of purported AGW.

The graph shows that the opposite trend is currently in place.
 
wayneL said:
Excuse me?

Further up, you regurgitated the Gorist catastrophe scenario, one point being that violent storms will be/are more frequent because of purported AGW.

The graph shows that the opposite trend is currently in place.
Click to expand...
The picture might show that to date there have been fewer tropical cyclones - we don't actually know because the captions don't explain the points or the coloured grey area or what definition of tropical cyclone was used for counting.

And, as I keep saying, not all storms are tropical cyclones, or even tropical anticyclones. There's nothing in the picture about "non-tropical" storms.

Did you think you were making a point Wayne? This wasn't a point; it was more like a feather duster. As it happens I did make a mis-statement and if you take a bit more care you could find it. I wish you would; I retain a stubborn belief that you have a clearer head than Watts does.

Ghoti
 
ghotib said:
Did you think you were making a point Wayne? This wasn't a point; it was more like a feather duster.
Click to expand...

A feather duster is fine. We are dealing in chaotic systems with climate... Butterflies flapping their wings in San Francisco etc.

A feather duster is well capable of bringing down a hypothesis. ;)
 

Similar threads

ducati916
August DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
18K
ducati916
ducati916
kahuna1
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
10K
divs4ever
divs4ever
D
September 2016 Federal Reserve Rate Hike
Replies
0
Views
2K
DeepLearning
D
basilio
Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?
220 221 222
Replies
4K
Views
298K
IFocus
IFocus
Knobby22
Business decisions related to climate change
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
IFocus
IFocus
Top