wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 26,012
- Reactions
- 13,350
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.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.
Fox News chief enforced climate change scepticism – leaked email
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/15/fox-news-climate-change-email
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:
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.
- Australia produces most of (I think most) of its energy by burning coal.
- Burning coal emits CO2 (the tax target)
- 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.
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!
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).
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.
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.
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 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.
A classic example as follows.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.
Isn't this problem the basis for Garnaut's preferring a cap and trade scheme to a tax on carbon?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...
Isn't this problem the basis for Garnaut's preferring a cap and trade scheme to a tax on carbon?
Ghoti
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.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?
It means the claim that storms are increasing is not correct.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
1. What claim?It means the claim that storms are increasing is not correct.
Right click on the image for source.
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.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
What do you mean by stuff?the underlying principle to not forget is most of this stuff has no scientific foundation. Indeed, it's scientifically contrived rubbish.
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.
1. What claim?
2. What storms?
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.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.
Did you think you were making a point Wayne? This wasn't a point; it was more like a feather duster.
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?