The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > It aint gunna rain no more, no more,

It aint gunna rain no more, no more,

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All
It aint gunna rain no more said the global warming shrills.

We'll all die of thirst said the gravy train riders, wanting more money for more "research". Build desalination plants cried the shysters.

God I hope they keep their bulldust going. It appears the planet has a sense of humour, & likes making a fool of con men & stuffed shirts. Ever since they started their bulldust we've had good rain, about 5 inches above average year on year.

However yesterday was the best. Just on 5 inches, 122mm in 7 hours is almost 2 inches more than in any 24 hour period in the last 24 years here, or in memory according to a local with 55 years of records.

Excuse me now, I have to go do some white water canoeing.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 2 May 2015 2:47:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, stop the nonsense, your distortions of the climate change debate on the forum is legendary. Still living in a fools paradise I see.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 2 May 2015 6:13:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Hasbeen thinks that climate scientists reckon it's not going to rain if the planet warms?

I mean, is that what he thinks?

Really?

Duh!

"However yesterday was the best. Just on 5 inches, 122mm in 7 hours is almost 2 inches more than in any 24 hour period in the last 24 years here, or in memory according to a local with 55 years of records."

Well looky there....climate scientists have been saying for years that a warming planet will give rise to an increased frequency of unusual and extreme weather events.

But Hassy reckons it's not supposed to rain anymore.

Lol!
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 2 May 2015 6:37:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought I heard that too Poirot, that we will be seeing more 'adverse' weather conditions than ever before.

I can't imagine many worse adverse conditions than what New South Wales and parts of Queensland have been enduring over the past few weeks, that's for sure.

Maybe Hasbeen has been listening to other non-professional 'climate deniers' instead of actual real climate scientists?
Posted by Suseonline, Saturday, 2 May 2015 7:25:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wasting your time Hasbeen. The warmist religion will include every weather event in their idiotic narrative. They are pretty good to fudge figures also. The High Priests continue to line their pockets give many morally bankrupt something to rage about. Did not Rudd say that this nonsense was the most important moral issue of the century. Give me a bucket.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 2 May 2015 9:19:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep you are right Runner.

They don't even have the decency to be embarrassed by the lies & misinformation & stupidity of their heroes.

Just confirm for me, it was the warmist that said new dams would never fill, so we should build those desalination plants.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 2 May 2015 10:10:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Just confirm for me, it was the warmist that said new dams would never fill, so we should build those desalination plants.'

thats true Hasbeen and the sad part is that next time we have a drought they will again try and cash in on it. One of the prophets was given Australian of the year for his dud predictions. In his favour he is not alone.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 2 May 2015 10:38:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, I don't think anyone said new dams WOULD never fill. A few said they MAY never fill, but that certainly wasn't a consensus view.

Those desalination plants were built because the dams would empty, not because they'd never fill.
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 3 May 2015 12:07:11 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen: "Just confirm for me, it was the warmist that said new dams would never fill, so we should build those desalination plants."

runner: "thats true Hasbeen and the sad part is that next time we have a drought they will again try and cash in on it. One of the prophets was given Australian of the year for his dud predictions. In his favour he is not alone."

Lol! - things are looking up.

The two climate Einsteins of OLO appear to be peer-reviewing each others' material...and what's more - there's consensus!
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 3 May 2015 12:13:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems"

Tim Flannery, Interview with Sally Sara ABC landline, Transcript.

IPCC AR5 Report

In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 3 May 2015 6:55:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The IPCC AR5 notes the lack of warming since 1998:

AR5: Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 3 May 2015 7:29:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Runner,

Interesting you mentioned the High Priests:

When the temple in Jerusalem existed, on the holiest Day of Atonement, the Jewish High Priest when entering the Sanctum Sanctorum, used to include in his short prayer: "God, do not hearken to the prayers of travellers".

The high priest was trying to override their prayers because while farmers and ordinary people are praying for rain, travellers, being wet and miserable, pray for it to stop.

Today as we travel by car rather than by foot or on donkeys, rain is not as bad for travellers, but here comes a different group who for a different selfish reason pray for the rain to stop. Let us pray that God does not listen to their prayers.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 3 May 2015 7:35:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'The two climate Einsteins of OLO appear to be peer-reviewing each others' material...and what's more - there's consensus!;'

its called commonsense Poirot something that the regressives no little of.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 3 May 2015 2:28:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It took the medical profession from the 1960s to
the present era to get the public, and the
governments we elect, to act on the toxic,
life-taking efforts of tobacco. Eventually sanity
prevailed, although it took so many decades.

Given the interrelationship among technology,
ecology, and resources, can global industrialisation
continue indefinitely?

If world population continues to grow rapidly,
if industrialism spreads around the world, and if
pollution and resource depletion continues at an
increasing rate - where is human society headed?
Realistically the planet has a finite amount of
resources and it can tolerate only a limited amount
of pollution.

Isn't it - is time for economists,
and other experts, who are sitting on their collective
hands to use their power and influence in society and
government and ensure that we have a world within which a
reasonable number of humans and other animals can have a
good sustainable life.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 3 May 2015 3:26:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"its called commonsense Poirot something that the regressives no little of."

Let me fix that up for you, runner.

"It's (we'll add a capital to start the sentence - and an apostrophe) called commonsense, Poirot, (a couple of commas) something that the regressives 'know' (we'll insert the appropriate word:) little of."

You're welcome : )
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 3 May 2015 3:32:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,
Now you have posted something I can agree with. Your last post and especially the last paragraph. I also note you did not use the words global warming or climate change either.

The big problem is world population. We are overstocked with people and particularly in those countries that get famines.

It has been graphically shown that birthrates can be lowered to less than 2 per woman with government programs on family planning and the means to do it.

I am afraid if we do not act ourselves then nature will do the job for us by way of mass starvation. Then the blame game will start.

Millions of people now need to be taught about contraception and given the means to achieve that. Governments can do it and we should lead the way with tied overseas aid.

This is what the UN and western countries should be committing resources to.
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 3 May 2015 8:18:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For once, I agree with you Banjo.
However, I doubt all the missionaries over in those third world countries, sent to save their heathen souls, would agree with mass contraception.

I also doubt there would ever be enough money to provide education and contraceptive supplies in those poor countries. It seems it is hard enough to channel food and medical supplies to where they are drastically needed, let alone contraceptives.

Whether or not global warming is to blame for the terrible typhoons, floods and droughts experienced by third world countries, there is no doubt that world climates are always changing.
Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 4 May 2015 12:38:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The climate skeptics have painted themselves into a corner. No matter what evidence is presented to these people, simply to save face, they meet that evidence with derision and ridicule. Short of the Moon crashing into the Earth and altering the climate these die hard skeptics will never face the reality of what is a very serious problem for mankind.

Runner, how is Moses doing in his ark, or Noah in his whale. these believers accept these fantasies without a shred of evidence, yet when confronted with scientific fact they simply insult everyone elses intelligence with their own version of the truth.
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 4 May 2015 5:59:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy, trying to calm the argument ?
Yes, a major change to the way we run our economies is coming and it is
surprising how many people understand the problem.

One of the earliest on the scene was the Transition Town movement which
has now gone world wide. There are a number of groups in Australia.
The first one was formed in Totnes in Cornwall.
Transition Town tries to shift as much as possible to local businesses.
They have even made their own currency called the Totnes Pounds.
You can purchase them at the local bank and circulate in the district
and it tends to keep resources in the town.

There is a lot of discussion about co-ops and similar schemes and how
to adapt to the decline in growth. The decline in growth has massive
implications for the financial system which relies on credit to function.
Credit of course relies on growth to provide the funds to repay debt.

Government, both of them, do not accept that, publically, even though
they have been told by their own depts, and others, that the economy
cannot continue as is with a declining growth as a permanent condition.

Enough commers there Poirot ?
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 4 May 2015 9:48:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz,

"Enough commers there Poirot ?"

That's "commas".

You're welcome : )
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 4 May 2015 10:01:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Flannery soon learn't his lesson, he then went on to retrospective predictions only. He would tell us that what happened (Only bad of course) was caused by Global Warming see. Brilliant!
I recently learned he is taking money, with Al Gore, from Richard Branson who can see a quid in environment action but from his executive jet plane of course.
You mugs might be happy to enrich these thieving frauds but I would like to see them all in the stocks!
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 4 May 2015 10:02:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All sorts of different experts have argued that
the promise of sustainability lies in the balance.
Do we fall downwards over the precipice or take
our boat onto the peaceful ocean?

As Tor Hundloe points out -

"That a few have overcome scarcity means little if the
majority live in poverty. The developing nations and the
poverty-stricken Third World have
to be lifted to a middle-class standard.
No steady-state economy for them until their
standards are dramatically lifted. This is imperative and
it is achievable; but, most importantly, it will not be
sustainable with an expected world-population of over nine
billion. We will overshoot - and probably seriously - the
globe's carrying capacity. We will then suffer for ages, as
will the natural world, until we can reduce the human
population and return our ecosystems to sustainable health."

Hundloe makes it quite clear that once the human population
peaks, the sooner we reduce the total numbers, via sensible birth
control (to probably half the nine billion), the less
environmental damage we will need to repair. We can do this.
Population decline is already occurring in the First World.
Lets not allow the pro-population growth advocates to talk us into
their nonsense.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 4 May 2015 2:52:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy
I have read in several places that the life style, there's that phrase
again, in the first and third worlds must merge together.
It is said it will be done by falling standards in the first world and
rising standards in the third together with lower longlivity and
lower birthrate which unfortunately will be brought about by lower
nutrition rates, if not starvation.

We have a 2nd world example to watch and see how it applies to Egypt.
They have a falling standard of living and must dispense with 45
million of their people. Will they do it with lower birthrate,
starvation or forced emigration.
If they chose emigration, then I can see the current situation in the
Mediterranean being repeated on a much larger scale.
It could cause a very bitter war for resources at a very fundamental level.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 4 May 2015 5:26:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,
I dare you to take your foolish assertions to the more remote regions of NSW and QLD where farmers have been waiting for years of what used to be "normal rain".

The time for debate with those who do not "get" climate change are history. Debate with such people serves no value.

The world is now concentrating on how to mitigate impacts, how to adapt to changing climate. Except for Australia, where ill informed and somewhat dumb leaders are taking us in the reverse direction.
Cheers
Posted by Tony153, Thursday, 7 May 2015 1:53:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'morning Paul153,

Who and where "in the World" is this "mitigating climate change" you are referring to going on?
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 7 May 2015 5:01:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy interesting post. Population does appear to be the big issue in this, I'm not confident we can continue to increase world food production to feed an expanding population.

I do have some hope that we will fair better at maintaining western lifestyles and making those lifestyles more accessible to people in developing nations through improved technology whilst reducing energy footprints. Recent developments I can think of include rapid advances in Led lighting which now makes it viable for the home. The work Tesla motors are doing both to make electric cars a realistic alternative to internal combustion and the recent announcement of battery packs for the home by Tesla are also worth paying attention to. None on their own are "problem solved" but they are big steps in the direction of changing energy use patterns while still maintaining lifestyle.

The tougher asks will be on the industrial front, powering smelters and other massive energy use production facilities and powering ships require some different solutions.

I get the impression that there is some good work also being done on ways of air conditioning commercial buildings that uses a lot less power than older approaches but don't have much of a grasp of the detail on that.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 7 May 2015 5:23:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"morning R0bert,

Would this be the same Tesla who's stocks are going out the back door, is under investigation by the MTA and has brought to market a battery storage system that costs 30c/kW/hour when the normal electricity tarif is 11c/kW / hour and can't get an average householder through the the night?

You are as big a dreamer as their Managing Director and his now reluctant shareholders.
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 7 May 2015 5:39:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Only the control freaks after big government & big government pay packets are still pushing the gravy train, & they are getting very desperate as more wheels fall off it every day. Parris is looming, & they have nothing to sell.

I have nothing against electric cars, provided they cost no more & perform as well as the internal combustion engine variety. This of course they don't come near doing. Without huge government, read taxpayer, subsidies, they are a total failure.

Don't put too much faith in announcements by companies like Tesla either. They are mostly pot boiling to keep the huge grants flowing, without which they are broke.

One of these days someone like Tesla will make a breakthrough, & the things will become economically viable, as will useful batteries, but don't hold your breath folks, it won't be Tesla, & it won't be any time soon.

Meanwhile the batteries we have now are very useful for powering remote control toys, pretty much like the cars actually.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 7 May 2015 6:42:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wish I was as bigger dreamer as Musk, someone who is working to make the world better rather than worse.

I've not been following stocks, given what I do know of where they are at stocks don't look quite as you portrayed them https://au.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=TSLA#symbol=TSLA;range=5y

You will need to provide some detail for your claims if you want serious comment. I went searching for an MTA investigation and found references to rumours of one but no clear indication that one was occuring or on what basis.

I did find that a safety investigation following 3 Model S fires had been conducted and had not identified a pattern.

Am I correct that the claim regarding costs is from http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2015/05/01/why-teslas-powerwall-is-just-another-toy-for-rich-green-people/ ? The US per KW prices don't reflect Australian prices (and I've not yet seen Australian costings on the battery packs). A report at http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=52040ade-8c93-4292-a50c-c8ce93c8236c

"In 2011/12 average household electricity prices in Australia (just under 25 cents/kWh) were 12% higher than average prices in Japan, 33% higher than the EU, 122% higher than the U.S. and 194% higher than Canada. "

Given its still early days I remain optimistic about the opportunities this kind of development gives for the future. Battery technology is improving rapidly and I don't have any reason to think Australia will have a long term levelling of electricity prices so those figures in the article become a lot less of an issue.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 7 May 2015 6:47:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'morning R0bert,
Another " Goremonomics" genius?

So you have this humongous solar array that will not only power your house during the day, well, some days or perhaps no days? But it also has to be big enough to charge your Tesla battery so that it might give you 2kw per hour for an optimum 5 hours overnight?

He he. You might as well rug up and sleep in your fridge each night!

Tesla Auto is facing record Q1 financial downgrades, creek meet paddle!

The world is full of "bunnies" like you, put some money into Tesla stocks if you dare.
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 7 May 2015 8:02:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In terms of cost versus potential benefits, I don't think that building the odd desal plant is such a bad idea. Cities are growing and rainfall can be unpredictable. If Perth had not built a couple of desalt plants, the place would be stuffed and a big city running out of water, would not be a pretty sight.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 7 May 2015 8:10:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc does it ever occur to you what a particularly unpleasant person you are. Insult for the hell of it rather than reasoned discussion and no evidence to back up your claims. Sad way to be I think.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 7 May 2015 9:06:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"World headed for an El Nino and it could be a big one...."

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/world-headed-for-an-el-nino-and-it-could-be-a-big-one-scientists-say-20150507-ggw8bo.html
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 7 May 2015 9:45:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
more soothsaying thanks Poirot
Posted by runner, Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:32:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, I had a drive for an hour of a Nissan Leaf and there is at
least one of your points that I can put your mind at ease.
The performance was outstanding.

I have had various Holdens, Toyotas, Mitsubishis and Volvos.
I am not a petrol head, but I have never driven a car with as great an
acceleration as that electric Nissan Leaf. Of course this is the
fundamental advantage of the electric motor.
The Tesls S does 3.4 sec for 100mph. Is that good ?
Of course none of the hot shot petrol cars can out perform the best
electric cars.
I realise you have been a dinasour racer and I guess you would miss the VROOOOMMM VVRROOOMM.
The Tesla S is of course another scale altogether whereas the Leaf is
a commuter car.
A friend has a Mitsubishi iMEV. Don't like the look of it much but it
goes very well indeed and he has had it two years now and drives it
to work every day and weekends and it costs him 0.13 cents per km to
run it and so far service charges are zero.

His wife drives their other car to work and if they want to make
a country trip they take that car.

So if we can get past the GARO, The Great Australian Ripoff, we may
be able to buy them at a sensible price. I notice the government is
changing the rules to enable private purchase of cars from overseas.
There is no government subsidy in Australia.
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 7 May 2015 11:25:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘morning R0bert,

<< spindoc does it ever occur to you what a particularly unpleasant person you are.>>

Of course it does R0bert. Those who crash the “green bubble world” with reality are conditioned to believe we are deniers, heretics, flat Earthers and mentally ill.

You ask for evidence to back up my claims, if you want a bit more reality try this;

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3132996-the-silliness-of-teslas-10kwh-back-up-battery

There are no “market ready” green solutions because they all rely on distorting that market. Tariffs, levies, green investment money, taxes, renewables certificates, government subsidies (public money), UN Green Climate Fund (GCF) and preferential legislation.

When such technologies can stand on their own they will be market ready and an effective alternative to fossil fuels.

Sadly, the global markets are now withdrawing tariffs, levies, tax breaks and government subsidies. Green investment money is now high risk and drying up. Three out of the worlds four emissions trading markets have closed, including Al Gores’ Chicago Exchange in 2012. The Last remaining market is the EU/UN market which has collapsed by 98% since 2008.

The Global Renewable Industry index RENNIX collapsed in March 2013, Europe’s largest energy provider EDF has sold off its loss making renewables division and the worlds larges Solar Panel company in China is now bankrupt.

The UN announced this week that donor nations had failed to meet there promises to the GCF. $100m a year promised, $4.0m actual, Oops!

Here’s the breakdown of how well green energy is actually doing in the USA:

Bankrupt Green Energy Companies that received substantial federal and/or state subsidies:

• Beacon Power Corp: Received $43 million in federal loan guaranteed in 2009 and also received $29 million in PA grants – Bankrupt in October 2011
• Ener1 (parent company of EnerDel): Received $118.5 million in federal loan guarantees — Bankrupt in January 2012 – has since exited bankruptcy
• Evergreen Solar: Received $58 million in MA loan guarantees (an undisclosed portion sourced from federal ARRA block grant) — Bankrupt in August 2011 with $485.6 million in debt.

Cont’d
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 8 May 2015 8:28:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont’d.

• Solyndra: Received $535 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 and $25.1 million in CA tax credit — Bankrupt in August 2011
• SpectraWatt: Received $500,000 in federal loan guarantees in 2009 — Bankrupt in August 2011
• Babcock and Brown: Received $178 million in federal grants in December 2009 (4 months after it went bust) – Bankrupt in early 2009
• Mountain Plaza Inc.: Received $424,000 in federal grants through TN Department of Transportation in 2009 — Bankrupt in 2003 and again in June 2010
• Solar Trust of America (parent company: Solar Millennium): Received $2.1 billion loan guarantee in April 2011 – Bankrupt in April 2012 (U$3.9 B)
Other Subsidized Green Energy Companies in decline:
• A123: Received $300 million in federal grants and $135 million in MI grants — Declining orders and have forced multiple layoffs
• Amonix, Inc.: Received $5.9 million in federal tax credits in 2009 through ARRA — Laid off 2/3 of work force
• First Solar: Received $3 billion in federal loan guarantees — Biggest S&P loser in 2011, CEO fired
• Fisker Automotive: $529 million in federal loan guarantees — Multiple 2012 sales prediction downgrades for first car release, delivery and cash flow troubles; Assembling cars in Finland
• Johnson Controls: Received $299 million in federal grants in 2009 — Low demand caused cancellation of a new factory, operating at half capacity
• Nevada Geothermal: Received $98.5 million in federal loan guarantees in 2009 — Defaulting on long-term debt obligations, 85% drop in stock value (U$6b)
• Sun Power: Received $1.2 billion in federal loan guarantees — Debt exceeds assets; French oil company took over last fall
• Abound Solar: Received $400 million in federal loans in 2012 — ˝ work force laid off
• BrightSource Energy: $1.6 billion federal loan approved in April 2012 – loan obtained through political connections with the administration; absent the loan, Brightsource’s solar power purchase would have fallen through.

In the face of these multiple “successes,” you want to throw more good money after bad.

So R0bert, tell me again about Tesla?
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 8 May 2015 8:32:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"When such technologies can stand on their own they will be market ready and an effective alternative to fossil fuels"

You mean like fossil fuels?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/12/renewables-are-replacing-coal-just-not-fast-enough-to-save-the-planet/

"The world is spending a stunning $ 550 billion per year on fossil fuel subsidies"

"Meanwhile, the IEA also projects a stunning growth in renewable sources of electricity -- wind, solar, and hydropower in particular. By 2040, it expects renewables to power 33 percent of global energy demand, as opposed to the current 21 percent, even as subsidies to strengthen the growth of renewables begin to subside"

"The report does note, however, that governments around the world are still subsidizing dirty fossil energy much more than they're subsidizing renewables. As of 2013, reports IEA, world fossil fuel subsidies totaled $550 billion, four times the amount devoted to clean energy."
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 8 May 2015 9:01:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘morning Poirot,

Mmm, Wahington Post 2014? Mmm, IEA report 2013?

Couldn’t you find anything more current at the ABC, Fairfax, Guardian, Green Weekly, Matilda or the Conversation? Must try harder.

Methinks you miss the point Poirot, conveniently.

Fossil fuels work
Renewable energy doesn’t work. See my list of failures above.

“Renewables Get 25 Times The Subsidy That Fossil Fuels Do”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/13/renewables-get-25-times-the-subsidy-that-fossil-fuels-do/

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17280&page=0

See where relying on your self referential network gets you?

OK, now you can do what you normally do, change the subject, point to a Unicorn, have a hissy fit, leave the thread or find another “appropriate” link. (oh sorry, one more, you could call me a denier).
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 8 May 2015 9:55:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Fossil fuels work"

I'd like to see see how well they "work" without being drip fed $550 billion dollars per year in subsidies.

Lol!

"OK, now you can do what you normally do, change the subject, point to a Unicorn, have a hissy fit, leave the thread or find another “appropriate” link. (oh sorry, one more, you could call me a denier)."

Of course, I know it gets up yer nose that you can't suck me into your narrow-minded junk-science "Oh-my-God-the-humanity!" conspiracy theories...but there you go.

(Sorry to disappoint you - but your scintillating rebuff turns out to be a tad underwhelming - not really worth the energy of a "hissy fit"....maybe next time:)
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 8 May 2015 10:21:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘morning Poirot,

I was fairly confident that you would not follow the links in the Washington Post article to the original source and would just adopt whatever the WP journo presented. Thus you went from looking silly, to looking really silly by trying to insist the $550 billion in fossil subsidies was somehow significant.

There are five key omissions in your post, these are;

1. Even the IEA accepts that , “Fossil fuels make up more than 80% of global energy, while modern green energy accounts for about 5%. This means that renewables still receive three times as much money per energy unit”.

2. That “fossil-fuel subsidies are almost exclusive to non-Western countries. Twelve such nations account for 75% of the world’s fossil-fuel subsidies. Iran tops the list with $82 billion a year, followed by Saudi Arabia at $61 billion. Russia, India and China spend between $30 billion and $40 billion, and Venezuela, Egypt, Iran, U.A.E., Indonesia, Mexico and Algeria make up the rest”.

What? Not the big bad western developed big oil after all?

3. The $550 million in fossil fuel subsidies are NOT subsidies to the producers of fossil fuels, they’re subsidies to the consumers of them to reduce energy costs, see 2. above.

4. The exact opposite is true with renewables subsidies, which are expressly designed to go to the producers to increase consumer costs as our price for emitting CO2? Green Energy subsidies to the producers are subsidized by directly and officially sanctioned over-charging the consumers.

5. The per billion BTU subsidies for fossil fuels is $68.72. The per billion BTU subsidies for renewables is $1,724, this represents a 25 fold increase!

Source: The original link I gave you!

You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you do say will be recorded and may be used as evidence against you.

So who is peddling “narrow-minded junk-science” now Madame Poirot?
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 8 May 2015 11:18:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc & Poirot are having an argument about subsidies.
That is the wrong argument.
Make no mistake I am very much in favour of our building a new energy system.
Solar/Wind can contribute during the changeover to a new energy system.
They cannot however be the end point of that transition.

The fundamental problem is that the ERoEI of both oil & coal is falling.
Oil is at the most difficult level and it is urgent to get to work on
whatever will replace them.
Because the transition will probably use a lot of steel, coal will be
essential just for that part, but such a huge project will require
great amounts of electricity.

To at this stage handicap the transition by trying to shut down coal
will be very counterproductive.
Oils ERoEI is around 10, some say lower, so very soon it will require
subsidies. ERoEI 0f 7 is said to be the point where we fall off the cliff.

So what are the alternatives, Rhosty has a list some of which may not
be viable because of too low an ERoEI and some would be goers.
My favourite non nuclear is geothermal. There is a lot of energy
down there and the half life of the reaction in the granite is
thousands of years. Geodynamics trial in Sth Australia looked
promising and I saw a video of steam coming back up in enormous
amounts, but there turned out to problems with corrosion and perhaps
other difficulties. Origin Energy pulled out of the project.

It is at this point that I believe governments should step into a
project like this. I would be happier for the government to have an
RET for geothermal than solar.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 8 May 2015 1:11:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately Bazz it takes between $15,000 & $25,000 per car to bring any of these electric horrors to market. As a taxpayer I resent my money being wasted on any of them. I have no objection however if people actually want them, provided it does not cost real people money for them to do so. If buyers had pay to pay the full cost of the things, they would disappear like the wahoo bird, only more quickly.

As for petroleum fuel subsidies, this is a typical con, from the typical green crusaders, who would never let the truth get in the way of one of their stories.

Not charging miners or farmers road tax on their fuel is justice, not a subsidise. It was a very sore point that those of us working boats in the tourist industry, carrying passengers or freight, were still paying road tax on our fuel. Of course greenies would have called it a subsidy if we had received justice, & had the road tax removed from our fuel.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 8 May 2015 1:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know why you call them horrors, the Leaf is a very nice car.
In the US the last I saw it was selling just under $30,000 and there
is no subsidy in that. They get a tax rebate of some sort, but the
price for that same car here is $57,500 !
They could not sell them at $51500 so they put the price up !
My friend's iMEV was $26,000. That was discounted, not sure what from.

I would definitely buy at around $30k.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 8 May 2015 4:02:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
anyone seen any waterfront properties going cheaply lately? Oh thats right the heat needs to come out of the sea before the gw high priests stop purchasing their properties on the coast.
Posted by runner, Friday, 8 May 2015 5:13:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Runner
here are a few properties you might be interested in:-

http://theconversation.com/scrapping-sea-level-protection-puts-australian-homes-at-risk-21271

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/06/east-coast-surge-wildlife-homes-pier-norfolk

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/06/east-coast-surge-wildlife-homes-pier-norfolk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2889898/Thousands-UK-homes-lost-rising-seas-erode-coastline-no-compensation-available-property-owners.html

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=southern+coast+of+england+house+falling+into+sea&rlz=1C1AVNC_enAU562AU562&es_sm=122&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=jZlMVfqvFI3r8AX994CICg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=681#tbm=isch&q=houses+falling+into+sea
Posted by warmair, Friday, 8 May 2015 9:25:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
warmair

typical gw religous scaremongaring. I was in Sufers last week (your first link). I guarantee none of the units in the article are going cheaply.

The second link compares the storms to that of 1953. Must have been a lot of emissions back then.

You name warmair is very appropriate. You are big on spin but totally lack substance.
Posted by runner, Friday, 8 May 2015 10:16:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,

". The $550 million in fossil fuel subsidies are NOT subsidies to the producers of fossil fuels, they’re subsidies to the consumers of them to reduce energy costs"

Oh really?

Here's a quick look at the history of the development of the oil industry in the US:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/oil-subsidies-energy-timeline

That's the development of the industry that heralded the era of motor transport...although if you'd been around and in charge, I'm sure you'd have protested that subsidies for "research and development" were not needed as the horse and cart were proven to "work".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

"A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI) estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period..."

"IEA position on subsidies

According to IEA (2011) energy subsidies artificially lower the price of energy paid by consumers, raise the price received by producers or lower the cost of production. "Fossil fuels subsidies costs generally outweigh the benefits. Subsidies to renewables and low-carbon energy technologies can bring long-term economic and environmental benefits"

runner,

".....You are big on spin but totally lack substance."

A wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle black....you're not even big on spin.

This from the poster whose primary mode of debate is to reach into his grab bag of barely punctuated and hackneyed comments which are affectionately known around here as "runner's run-by put-downs". Usually three lines or less, they are famous for the widely acknowledged fact that they contain almost no substance at all!
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 9 May 2015 8:39:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘morning Poirot,

I did ask the question, “So who is peddling “narrow-minded junk-science” now Madame Poirot?”

You have answered that question.

I do acknowledge that you have obviously spent since 11:00 am Friday 8th, swatting up on these junk links and your efforts are to be commended. Sad about the content.

motherjones? wikipedia? Rubbish Poirot, you can do better then this.

I made five points, all quotes from your original article and its links. If you don’t like what your own links had to say then it’s simple, read your own links FIRST.

Thanks, over and out.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 9 May 2015 9:57:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,

You're almost not worth bothering with...and boy-oh-boy you appear to think I've thought of nothing but replying to your blather since - when was it?...

"I do acknowledge that you have obviously spent since 11:00 am Friday 8th, swatting up on these junk links..."

Lol!...as if!

I woke up early this morning and noted runner's usual vacuous banter, so I thought I'd chuck a comment his way - and as an aside I spent ten minutes grabbing a little something to throw your way while I was at it.

Don't flatter yourself, matey, that I'm particularly bothered or interested in your "let's ignore the history of developmental subsidies to fossil fuel" outlook - I'm not.

It's obvious that you and your ilk can't digest that modern technologies will usurp the old fossil fuel technologies - and while the industry is of course concentrating on preserving the status quo and impeding the advance of more clever technology...you can't hold back the tide forever.

Luddites unite, eh....?
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 9 May 2015 10:19:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
you are really a joke Poirot. Just because you write pages of huff and puff to hide your hatreds does not equate to substance. Again nothing of substance let alone truth to write.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 9 May 2015 10:54:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, runner...for providing a classic example of one of your run-by specials.

Exhibit 1:

"you are really a joke Poirot. Just because you write pages of huff and puff to hide your hatreds does not equate to substance. Again nothing of substance let alone truth to write."
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 9 May 2015 11:06:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz I really have no feeling about methods of propulsion or power. I use batteries for torches, outdoor lighting, starting my cars, & to fly remote control aircrafts. If they ever do a reasonable job of propelling cars I will also happily also use them.

I have idly wondered why my ride on lawn mower has a 15 horsepower petrol engine, rather than electric power, & can only assume that without the ridiculous subsidies electric cars attract, petrol power is more economic to produce.

I do however object to seeing our taxes thrown away subsidising some cause. The electric car, like the wind power & solar cell con job is a concept developed by the academic fraternity to feather their nest with research grants. It has since been picked up by the bureaucrats & the politicians. Thus we have the whole thing promoted by the most naďve, impractical people on earth.

When General Motors was in bankruptcy the US government made their agreement to build the things mandatory to giving them the assistance to stay afloat. Thus we have the Volt. Each one costs the US taxpayer & General motors combined more than a consumer pays for the stupid thing. I say stupid thing, because nothing that costs so much for so little can be anything else.

As for practicality, most people could use a golf cart for the jobs they use an electric car for quite happily. Not only cheaper to buy & run, they don't need heaps of exotic [& flammable] batteries, & would take much less road & parking lot space.

So Bazz I believe they are, at least in their present state of development, the most ridiculous waste of materials. The time to market them will come, when someone actually develops a truly practical, economic version, or inner city commuters embrace the golf cart, with a little embellishment perhaps, but still a golf cart.

Continued
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 9 May 2015 11:57:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued.

The Hybrid is not much, if at all better.

Toyota developed their thing to take advantage of a fool Californian forecast law to require lower fuel consumption from the combined fleet of any manufacturer if they wished to sell cars in the state. The idea was to produce one car with very low consumption to make their average better.

Like more than a few things Californian, the impractically when examined rationally meant the law was never introduced. However Toyota had spent so much money in development work, they had to try to recoup some of it. They developed a very good marketing strategy, [con job], & thus the Prius was born.

Granted they may actually be of some use as inner city taxis, & can be used in their petrol mode for normal people to travel far enough to get out of sight on a foggy night, but they never live up to that advertising, [con] job.

Neighbours of ours, [we are 25 kilometres from a supermarket] were horrified to find their new Prius actually used more fuel than the Ford Focus they had traded on the thing, or my ladies aging Mazda 2 she had at the time. They had spent a lot of money, & were suffering much greater depreciation, while burning more petrol.

I know for a fact nothing would ever induce them to buy another Toyota, such is their disgust at having been told a pile of lies.

So mate, do excuse me if I can't help laughing at those foolish enough to buy any of the current crop of electric or hybrid cars. When someone had produced a successful electric ride on lawn mower, I will look at them again, provided they no longer have to be subsidised by the long suffering taxpayer.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 9 May 2015 11:57:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner
The difference between you and me Runner is that I am only interested in the facts. In Australia we have a serious problem with storm surges and high rainfall events (also droughts but that’s another story). This becomes a huge issue if you live near sea level, just look at the losses that occurred in Brisbane during the 2010-11 floods, which caused some $2.38 billion damage. The problem is certainly not confined to Australia you only have to look at what happened to New Orleans in 2005 when hurricane Katrina hit or when Hurricane Sandy hit New York in 2012. The difference between a flood levie or sea wall being just high enough and just being overtoped can be catastrophic.

The relevant points are:-

1 Global warming plus pollution can dramatically increase the potential amount of rain that is likely to fall in any given time interval. Clouds need dust particles to form.

2 The difference between being slightly flooded and not flooded matters a great deal, so even a small sea level rise is important.

3 Storms derive much of their energy from the amount of water vapour available due to latent. A 1 deg C increase in temperature translates to the potential for the air to hold 17% more water vapour. So we now have the potential for higher rainfall events and stronger winds and in turn stronger storm surges.
Posted by warmair, Saturday, 9 May 2015 12:08:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'morning warmair,

Funny things facts are they not. You like facts but not those of the IPCC? The following from the AR5 report that make you look like person who can't deal with facts.

Funny that.

The IPCC AR5 notes the lack of warming since 1998:

AR5: Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.

IPCC AR5 Report

In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 9 May 2015 12:32:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Strange isn't it warmair that none of our recent floods in South East Queensland have approached those of the late eighteen hundreds.

The hunter has had nothing like those regular floods of the 1950s, & the Northern Territory rivers have not had a decent fresh in them for almost as long.

It is no longer any use you folk having these convenient losses of memory old chap. In this day & age, when we can no longer trust academics or bureaucrats to tell the truth, most of their past figures & pronouncements are carefully recorded by many who have learned. Tell lies & someone will have the facts of your previous statements & measurement records to show you up.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 9 May 2015 1:13:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen
In this case I agree with you the electric car is not practicable at this stage because of range and cost of batteries.

On the other hand the electric bicycle appears to be quite a useful mode of transport and affordable, but you still need to be aware of the potential problems.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/05/whatswrongwith-electric-bicycles/

The cordless electric mower comes in somewhat more expensive than the fuel fossil fuel alternative and if anyone is considering one they need to make sure new battery packs are available and affordable, also will it do the required area in on one charge. I think the idea of a robo mower which would do the whole job itself might be a goer.
Posted by warmair, Saturday, 9 May 2015 1:13:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good afternoon Spindoc

A few points:-

I did not make any claims about droughts.

Quote
“AR5: Confidence remains low for long-term (centennial) changes in tropical cyclone activity, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.”

I do not claim that their will be more cyclones, only that on average they will be stronger and produce higher rainfall. This based on straight forward physics and the way the atmosphere works. Temperature have risen since the 1970s and sea surface temperatures have also risen. That means a greater potential amount of water vapour in the air.

good afternoon Hasbeen

Since the floods of the late eighteen hundreds there has been work done to mitigate flooding such as the Wivenhoe Dam, but in any event rising sea levels are going to make the problem worse.
Posted by warmair, Saturday, 9 May 2015 1:38:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
morning warmair,

Sorry to be such a pest and I can see you’re really busy with your “Rear guard action”, but you did miss the IPCC’s bit about NO global warming. Which if I might put it kindly, is the whole basis for your case, since there is NO global warming you appear to have lost the core of your argument, but that’s just me.

You also missed the bit from the IPCC AR5 report that again contradicts you on rainfall, or as the IPCC puts it “drought or dryness (lack of rainfall)”. Whereas your science is telling us there will be “more cyclones that on average they will be stronger and produce higher rainfall”?

Look warmair, I know to you it’s just “straight forward physics and the way the atmosphere works” But I can’t help thinking that you might just want to write a letter of complaint to the IPCC.

If the IPCC contradicts you on these and other assertions, and also the number of cyclones has in fact decreased, it sort of, you know, how can I put this without causing offence?

Well to be quite frank warmair, it makes you look like right old tosser.

Can you copy us in on OLO when you write your complaint to the IPCC?

Much appreciated and the very best of luck.
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 9 May 2015 4:27:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Well to be quite frank warmair, it makes you look like right old tosser."

Talking of tossers, what do you reckon about this state of affairs, spindoc?

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2015/5/8/china/china-set-cut-more-coal-production

"China plans to shut down 1,254 coal mines in an effort to eliminate 77.79 million tonnes of outdated production capacity in 2015, as the country continues to clean up its high-polluting industries.

The move is aimed at promoting the use of renewable energy and curbing the expansion of the coal industry, according to a joint statement released by the National Energy Administration (NEA) and State Administration of Coal Mine Safety.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang has indicated that Beijing intends to move forward on a proposal to hold down coal consumption growth in "key areas".

Coal production in China declined 2.5 per cent last year, the first drop in 14 years, while coal consumption dropped 2.9 per cent, according to the country’s coal industry association.

In March, the China Coal Industry Association estimated that 90 per cent of all coal mines in the country were making losses, and official data indicates profit margins for the industry have fallen to a 10-year low."
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 9 May 2015 5:50:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Evenning Spindoc

If you take the time to carefully check what I wrote you will see that there is no contradiction between what I said and what the IPCC says.

As for your comment about no global warming since 1998. The IPCC says the rate of warming has not increased in a statistically significant way, which is totally different to saying temperatures have not increased. The chances are now very high, that we are going to see an El Nino event this summer which if it eventuates, will likely push the temperatures well over the 1998 El Nino year.

I see that when the going gets tough you like to resort to unkind personal comments which frankly does nothing for your case.
Posted by warmair, Saturday, 9 May 2015 9:49:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry warmair you've got your floods facts quite wrong.

The really bad recent Brisbane flood 2011 was not mitigated by Wivenhoe, but due to incompetent bureaucrats was actually augmented by the thing. They went home over the weekend, & discovered on Monday morning, they had a dam at 190%. Yes 190&. They had allowed the flood mitigation half of the dam to fill over the weekend, & had to go to massive water release, just as the rainfall reached it's peak.

Brisbane would have had much less flooding without the Wivenhoe, as it was operated. We now have a new operation manual for the dam, but as it is operated by bureaucrats, I doubt it will help much.

There is also considerable opinion that things like the riverside expressway, & the pylons for the gateway bridge have a strangling effect on the lower river, causing flood levels above them to be higher than previously. This was also hushed very quickly to avoid compensation claims.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 9 May 2015 10:48:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
+1 to Hasbeen's post

Also add the flash flooding and damage caused by lack of one-way control valves/gates on the large storm drains and other pipes on the Brisbane River. Particularly on bends in the river the sudden release from Wivenhoe rammed water up huge pipes and creeks to inundate areas that had never flooded before, for example in areas of Indooroopilly.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 9 May 2015 11:06:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If indeed global warming occurs, along with such effects as less rain, then the simple and straight-forward explanation to that is that the prayers of the AGW faithful are being answered.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 10 May 2015 12:40:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
China is a country run by the Public Service for the benefit of the communist government. They will do what is in their best interests. If they shut down their coal mines it is as likely so they can purchase cheap coal from other countries using the money they get from being the world's factory.
They are far more pragmatic and do not have to care about any others opinions. They will do what the like, savvy?
With these sea level rises I am a bit confused. The Seychelles in the 1970's said they would be inundated by the year 2000? I was taught that water finds its own level so whats going on?
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 10 May 2015 8:26:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Morning Hasbeen

The full capacity of the Wivenhoe dam is 225 per cent, with 100 per cent referring to storage of the region's drinking water supply and 125% set aside for flood storage. So when you say that they let the dam get to 190% it still had 35% to go before it was going to spill over the top.

Based on what I have read, I believe that without the dam the 2011 floods would have been worse, on the other hand I don't doubt that if the dam had been better managed the flood damage could have been further reduced. By the way the Somerset dam above it was also designed to mitigate flooding.

I agree that built up areas are more prone to flash flooding due to instant runoff and sometimes poor engineering.
Posted by warmair, Sunday, 10 May 2015 10:30:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Morning Yuyutsu

If I believed in prayers,then my prayers would be for the world to reduce it's dependance on fossil fuels, and for people have the courage to base their opinions on the facts rather ideology.
Posted by warmair, Sunday, 10 May 2015 10:42:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'morning warmair,

"If you take the time to carefully check what I wrote you will see that there is no contradiction between what I said and what the IPCC says."

Oh but I did check carefully warmair, which possibly explains why you have reached rock bottom and started digging.

You said "As for your comment about no global warming since 1998"

Wrong, this was NOT my comment it was a direct quote by the IPCC AR5 and SPM report which says "the AR5 report notes the lack of warming since 1998"

You "translated" this as, "The IPCC says the rate of warming has not increased in a statistically significant way, which is totally different to saying temperatures have not increased." Duh?

I will leave you to explain your way out of that one to OLOers?

Your comments that " that on average they will be stronger and produce higher rainfall".

You present as having some scientific/atmospheric background but your comments are unsupported by the IPCC, I'll stick with the IPCC on these issues thanks.

"There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”

I can't help you beyond this, you will have to take your argument up with the worlds premier climate authority, the IPCC.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 10 May 2015 10:48:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,

"You "translated" this as, "The IPCC says the rate of warming has not increased in a statistically significant way, which is totally different to saying temperatures have not increased." Duh?

I will leave you to explain your way out of that one to OLOers?"

Erm....just because you don't understand what the term "statistical significance" represents, doesn't mean that it's irrelevant.

Here's an explainer pertaining to Phil Jones and comments of his in answer to a question which were misrepresented by "skeptics".

http://www.skepticalscience.com/phil-jones-warming-since-1995-significant.html

(Yes, I know it's Skeptical Science, but it refers exactly to the point regarding "statistical significance".)

Eg:

"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

"Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

"Why choose 1995 as the starting point in this question? Well, that is the closest year for which the answer to this loaded question is "yes". From 1994 to 2009, the warming trend in the HadCRUT dataset was statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (CL). It's also worth noting that there's nothing magical about the 95% CL - it's simply the most commonly-used interval in scientific research, but it's also true that the HadCRUT 1995-2009 trend was statistically significant at a 93% confidence level."
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 10 May 2015 11:42:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'morning Poirot,

the AR5 report" notes the lack of warming since 1998",

I just wonder how silly and desperate you can get Poirot?

I quoted from the latest AR5 report, you quoted Phil Jones from 2010 and in a BBC interview in 2011, five years and two IPCC reports out of date, AR4 and AR5?

The IPCC notes "THE LACK OF WARMING SINCE 1998" Lack, absence, nil, zero, zilch, nothing.

All previous semantics are off the table because the IPCC says so.

Get over it Poirot
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 10 May 2015 12:06:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice one, spindoc.

You didn't "get" warmair's reference to statistical significance - and attempted instead to send him up.

I posted a little helpful info to assist your understanding.

Point being that "statistical significance' is usually referenced at being a "confidence level" [CL] of 95%.

The statistical significance of warming from 1995-2009 was 93%

The statistical significance of warming from 1994-2009 was 95%

Which was just to help you along since you don't appear to understand what you are talking about.

You're welcome : )
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 10 May 2015 12:52:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Warmair,

<<If I believed in prayers,then my prayers would be for the world to reduce it's dependance on fossil fuels>>

I should assume that you actually mean the dependence of PEOPLE on fossil fuels, because the world as such does not depend on them at all.

If so, then this goal is noble indeed. In fact this was also the goal of Margaret Thatcher when she invented global warming. Nevertheless, the ends do not justify the means, so nothing justifies her in inventing and faking this story which now victimises the innocent and life-building 6th atomic element.

<<and for people have the courage to base their opinions on the facts rather ideology.>>

Isn't atheism an ideology?
Isn't it a fact that our thoughts influence the universe around us?
Quantum theory tells us that phenomena cannot be determined without an observer.

Now even the most courageous person and greatest hero cannot base their opinions on facts! This is because facts do not say anything about good and evil - absolutely nothing. Facts do not contain any "should"s, "shouldn't"s, values or moral guidance - go ask any scientist: not a single "should", "shouldn't" or a value was ever discovered in nature, neither microscopic nor macroscopic, neither a particle, nor wave, nor a force, nor anything else physical.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 10 May 2015 2:06:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good afternoon Spindoc
I can not find where it says in AR5:-
"The IPCC AR5 notes the lack of warming since 1998"
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point me where I might find the exact quote.

I think you will find the quote below from the AR5 (Summary for Policymakers) page 3 more enlightening.

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed,
the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of
greenhouse gases have increased"

Also:-
"Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
preceding decade since 1850"

By the way I actually assume that most OLO readers are smart enough to understand the difference between a change in "rate" IE an acceleration and a linear increase.
Posted by warmair, Sunday, 10 May 2015 2:17:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheers Yuyutsu

I was using the term ideology primarily in the political sense. I was referring to the situation where a political party introduces a set of polices based on a set of beliefs which are not based on any hard facts. Economic policy on both sides of politics is full of examples which when checked against reality just don't stack up. In theory Marxism is a wonderful idea but in reality its a disaster.

As far as views about right and wrong go religions constantly demonstrate a complete lack of humanity and morals so I see no practical difference between those who hold religious views and those that don't. In the current atmosphere there is no need for me to give examples. I happen to agree with much of the morals as promoted by Jesus, but that does not mean I agree with much of Christian theology. The simplest answer I can give is I believe in Ethics.

Mrs Thatcher did not invent global warming, but the fact that she was a qualified chemist meant, that she well understood the science and found no reason to doubt it. Accusing her of some sort of conspiracy over global warming is a good example of the triumph of ideology over facts.
Posted by warmair, Sunday, 10 May 2015 5:04:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'morning Poirot,

In Chapter 10 of the IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 Physical Science Basis report the IPCC confirms that increasing CO2 emissions are NOT associated with progressively increasing temperatures as they have predicted:

IPCC confirms, in the AR5 WG1 science report, that there has been a 15 year ‘hiatus’ in global warming, in spite of ‘anthropogenic’ emissions allegedly increasing at a record rate.

IPCC also confirm that this 15 year ‘hiatus’ has been caused predominantly by natural climate variability.

IPCC also conclude in the WG1 scientific report, that the inability to predict this natural variability and the resulting ‘hiatus’ is due to the failure or unreliability of climate models.

Then we have "The statistical significance of warming from 1994-2009 was 95%"?

How can we have 95% certainty for a period mostly covered by the hiatus (no statistically significant warming) that the IPCC acknowledges?

Like I said, if you don't like the contradictions in AR5, take it up with them. Why try to bully us with your bull dust?
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 10 May 2015 6:02:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would appear warmair, that you restricted your reading to the whitewash that was written to try to cover the Beattie governments desire to keep as much water in Wivenhoe as possible.

He had ripped off our councils, pinching their right to provide & sell water as part of their legitimate activities.

He even pinched water farmers were paying for to cool Swanbank power station, so he could sell Wivenhoe water to consumers. Of course the farmers still had to pay for the water they did not get.

Thanks to the ratbags green element demanding no dams be built in exchange for preferencing Beattie, & a long dry spell in the Somerset/Wivenhoe catchment we were low on water.

The fool Flannery, & his "it aint gunna rain no more" forecasts had panicked our idiot lefty governments into building desalination plants, & the even dumber Beattie into a 6 BILLION, yes billion water grid, designed to do nothing but pinch everyone else's water to supply Brisbane.

No wonder the fool bureaucrats wanted to keep Wivenhoe full.

That is why the 2011 flood was a beauty, & for no other reason.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 10 May 2015 6:07:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Warmair,

Let me assure you that party politics is the last thing I care about. What is it about "both sides of politics" anyway, why just two anyway and what has it got to do with you and me? I view them both as predators whose only purpose is to make our lives miserable.

Regarding religion, I readily agree with you that many so-called "religious institutions" are not (or mostly not) religious.

Regarding Margaret Thatcher, she was at the forefront of the climate-change movement and one of the founders of the IPCC:

http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/04/09/3732680.htm
http://www.masterresource.org/climate-exaggeration/thatcher-alarmist-to-skeptic

Her motive, whether you could identify with it or not, was the desire to break her opposition of coal-mining unions by introducing nuclear power instead.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 10 May 2015 6:27:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,

"Then we have "The statistical significance of warming from 1994-2009 was 95%"?

(Which is why Phil Jones was asked the loaded question pertaining to 1995-2009 as it registered 93%)

How can we have 95% certainty for a period mostly covered by the hiatus (no statistically significant warming) that the IPCC acknowledges?"

That question goes some way to explaining why Phil Jones is a climate scientist - and spindoc is not.

spindoc can't even get the jargon right...

"....in the AR5 WG1 science report, that there has been a 15 year ‘hiatus’ in global warming..."

The hiatus is in "surface air temperature". You won't find the term "no global warming" in the AR5.

"IPCC also confirm that this 15 year ‘hiatus’ has been caused predominantly by natural climate variability."

So?

Your point is...?

".... Why try to bully us with your bull dust?"

By "bully", you mean stand up and argue against your misrepresentation?

Well yes! How are I poke holes in your fictions - you have every right to be outraged!
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 10 May 2015 6:52:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"IPCC also confirm that this 15 year ‘hiatus’ has been caused predominantly by natural climate variability."

So?

So Poirot, everything before this non warming that isn't happening was due to MMGW that likewise is not happening, because natural variability counters the MMGW when it isn't happening ?

And you think the rest of us are nuts?

Have you thought of getting a spot on Australia's got Talent?
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 10 May 2015 7:11:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,

Considering you swagger around here as if you actually possess some nous, it's somewhat startling to find that as far as the actual science goes, you appear a tad light weight.

Now you appear to believe that natural climate variability can't possibly affect long-term trends of a warming planet.

Your parting taunts are light weight too - bit of wit please.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 10 May 2015 7:34:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Follow on from some of the previous comments about Government subsidies to green solutions. I don't like them either. A write up in Forbes on Tesla and the benefits it receives from green credits http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2015/02/16/tesla-should-turn-off-subsidies-wall-street-journal-europe-says/

I'm very sceptical of the political games that have been played with the Climate Change debate including the claims that prompted this thread and the apparent use of AGW/ACC as an excuse to pursue other objectives.

I do think there are some good reasons to work at cutting down our reliance on fossil fuels (starting with how much of the oil comes from the middle east and north Africa http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2003/03/okog.htm).

I also think that we are in a window at the moment where we have the resources required to develop far more sustainable solutions than have been available to get us to this point. That window may not always be available ACC or not.

The most likely solutions to the overpopulation issues other than catastrophe are in lifting the those parts of the world with very high reproduction rates out of poverty and low education. Preferably by not dragging the rest of us down. Technologies that make that easier to achieve are in my view exciting to see emerging.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 10 May 2015 9:05:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘morning Poirot,

You shouldn’t be startled to “find that as far as the actual science goes, you (I) appear a tad light weight”.

Light weight, that’s a compliment. I have absolutely no skills, qualifications or knowledge of atmospheric, climate or earth sciences, nil, zilch, zero. But on the other hand I have never stated I had.

Interesting therefore, that a complete idiot like me has had you and your friends running ragged in a frenzy all week trying to explain your, and the IPCC’s contradictions and back flips?

The release this month of the satellite data for the “lower global atmosphere” (which I think you refer to as "surface air temperature"), has been produced by RSS and UAH. These two methods have often produced differing results however, there would now appear to be “consensus” between the two?

“Since December 1996 there has been no global warming at all. This month’s RSS temperature – still unaffected by the most persistent el Nińo conditions of the current weak cycle – shows a new record length for the Pause: 18 years 5 months”.

“The new UAH version 6.0 beta and the RSS lower troposphere temperature anomaly data goes as far back in time as they could go while showing no warming based on their linear trends. The new UAH data show no warming for 219 months, and for the RSS data, it’s 220 months”.

The AR5 WG1 science report, that there has been “a 15 year ‘hiatus’ in global warming”, is belated acknowledgement of this by the IPCC.

In the end it doesn’t matter if this is a hiatus, a pause, no warming, an anomaly or is “easily explained” by statistical mumbo jumbo. That is because even the IPCC now admits that it does not have the ability to factor it into its models

In their own words, the IPCC concludes in the AR5 WG1 scientific report, “that the inability to predict this natural variability and the resulting ‘hiatus’ is due to the failure or unreliability of climate models”.

Again, “due to the failure or unreliability of the IPCC’s climate models”!

Cont’d.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 11 May 2015 12:53:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont’d

Poirot, I particularly enjoyed your dissertation on “statistical significance” and the link to the Professor Phil Jones interview.

“The statistical significance of warming from 1994-2009 was 95%"?

There are two key words here, the first is the word “was” and the second is “95%” This is because since the IPCC/Phil Jones made this statement in 2010, they have now acknowledged the “hiatus or pause” back to a period that pre-dates their 95% certainty by ten years!

So presumably the p-value for this was 5% which means that the warming 1994-2009 carried a 95% certainty that this was “caused” and not random factors, yes?

So in 2010 there was a 95% certainty, statistically proven?

Yet by the time the AR5 report was later published with the statement that there has been “a 15 year ‘hiatus’ in global warming”, that 95% certainty suddenly went poof?

The 95% certainty for that period is wiped out by a 15 year hiatus covering that same period for which there was previously a 95% certainty? Well that didn’t last very long did it?

Poirot says That I “appear to believe that natural climate variability can't possibly affect long-term trends of a warming planet”.

Since I don’t have a clue what “climate variability” actually is, I cannot and do not have any “belief “ about it.

What I do know is that even if Poirot does know and understand, the IPCC cannot and does not have the ability to “predict” any influence.

Poirot, you asked for a bit of humor. I am truly sorry but I no longer find anything funny in dealing with alarmists. You listen to nothing challenging, you borrow only opinion from those who feed your alarmism and you reject anything that remotely conflicts with your adopted ideology. That’s not funny, but is it truly alarming.

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance”.
George Bernard Shaw

Ya’all have a great day now.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 11 May 2015 12:54:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,

I'm not exactly sure what the point of all that was...but when all is said and done, neither of us is likely to agree.

"Poirot, you asked for a bit of humor. I am truly sorry but I no longer find anything funny in dealing with alarmists. You listen to nothing challenging, you borrow only opinion from those who feed your alarmism and you reject anything that remotely conflicts with your adopted ideology. That’s not funny, but is it truly alarming."

Yup...I tend to get my info from people qualified in the field - not their "opinion", but their evaluation of their data. Just as in the same way that my mum recently took note of the evaluation of the data from her "heart specialist" - and not her local bus driver.

You also might like to reflect on the fact that you reject anything that remotely conflicts with "your" adopted ideology - except you're more likely to take your cues from people who don't have any climate expertise and who misrepresent the information available from those who do.

So be it.

Cheerio
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 11 May 2015 6:48:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, Madam Poirot,

Indeed you know exactly what my post was all about, it was about you being shown to be totally wrong, as evidenced by the IPCC.

As always, you divert to a Unicorn, like your mother, her heart condition and a bus driver. You divert from the fact that it was not about my opinion, but about the fact that the IPCC totally disagrees with you. You divert by failing to acknowledge your own lack of scientific qualifications and the fact that you don't actually have the foggiest idea what MMGW is about or what The IPCC has to say about it. Not a lot going for you really, just another ideological smarty pants.

When you can acknowledge that you were completely wrong, as determined by the IPCC, then you will reconcile your self hatred with your nonsense on OLO.

We are well tuned to your reluctance to admit you were wrong, and your inability to engage in the content of debate.

Hypocrisy is not a good look under any circumstances, but In your case you have taken it to a new level.

Tell me where the IPCC is wrong about you and OLO readers may begin to cut you some slack.

My regards to your Mum and her heart condition, you might also ask her where she might have gone wrong in conditioning your distorted values and self loathing?

It is noted that you focused only on the last paragraph about humour, but totally ignored all the contrary evidence from the IPCC, your purported skills in statistical significance, the latest satellite data, the IPCC's capitulation and your superior scientific education compared with the IPCC.

Your parting comment about only getting your information from those qualified is an absolute beauty. The IPCC, with whom you passionately but selectively agree/disagree, was until recently run by former railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri, who lead a team that had not one single scientist on his IPCC committee?

Bus driver meets railway engineer?

You have degenerated into an utter joke, thrashing for relevance, conflicted and transparently lacking self awareness. A typical progressive really.
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 11 May 2015 7:54:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
spindoc,

"You have degenerated into an utter joke, thrashing for relevance, conflicted and transparently lacking self awareness. A typical progressive really."

Lol!....should've known better than to agree to disagree with good old spinny - and he fell over himself to put the boot in one last time.

spindoc has shown himself to be utterly barren on this subject - his only talent is to "spin" and "misrepresent" - while simultaneously riding a unicyle and juggling his aunty's tea set - all the whie shouting "THE IPCC SAID SO".

"....The IPCC, with whom you passionately but selectively agree/disagree, was until recently run by former railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri, who lead a team that had not one single scientist on his IPCC committee?"

Lol! - yes I believe that all those physicists and sciency types who submitted the bulk of the substance of AR5 were subsequently revealed to be florists.

Strange old world, eh?

We'd do much better to get our climate science from the likes of Lord Monckton who at least has a degree in Classical Architecture.

"My regards to your Mum and her heart condition, you might also ask her where she might have gone wrong in conditioning your distorted values and self loathing?"

There we have it....wonderful stuff!

spindoc the vacuous, who's only recourse (in lieu of actual substance) is to resort to ad hom.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 11 May 2015 10:45:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Morning Spindoc

First lets us look at the complete quote from AR5 that you referred to previously.
It comes from the IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report pages 2 and 3.

“In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, the globally averaged surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (Figure SPM.1a). Due to this natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Nińo, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). {1.1.1, Box 1.1}”

In other works cherry picking proves nothing.
The important words are :-
"Due to this natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends"

Now note that the end date is 2012 if you take it up to the present i.e. 2014 you find that a positive trend exist no matter what starting date you pick between 1990 and 2000 . In other words there is no hiatus if you choose a long enough period.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/3/1880-2015

The short term difference in global surface temperatures between years is related to whether the year is la Nina, El Nino or just neutral.


http://americablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/El-Nino_chart_thru-2012_800px-Enso-global-temp-anomalies-688x500.png
Posted by warmair, Tuesday, 12 May 2015 9:35:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘morning warmie,

Well, it’s about time one of you stepped up to help Poirot out of the hole she dug for herself?

It might have been prudent to read my previous double post as that is what we are discussing. Instead you have not only missed the key issues, you have failed to respond to them. So to assist you I’ll cover them again.

It is pointless to keep quoting stuff from the IPCC’s AR5 report and miscellaneous links that are already contradicted by the IPCC themselves.

A 15 year hiatus;

The AR5 WG1 science report states, that there has been “a 15 year ‘hiatus’ in global warming”.

So all you have to do is acknowledge what the IPCC says and to explain, in your own words, what you think is meant by Hiatus, Pause, Lack of Warming, No warming, an Anomaly and what is meant by “statistical significance”?

“The statistical significance of warming from 1994-2009 was 95%";

Can you please explain how this statement of 95% certainty can possibly be true if the IPCC has acknowledged this “hiatus” which pre-dates and overlaps the 95% certainty by ten years? IMHO, their own “95% statistically proven probability” has been trashed by the IPCC. But you might tell us differently?

“In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, the globally averaged surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and inter-annual variability (Figure SPM.1a). Due to this natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends”;

Can you please explain the validity of this statement given that the IPCC cannot factor in natural variability because they admit “that their inability to predict this ‘natural variability’ and the resulting ‘hiatus’ is due to the failure or unreliability of climate models”.

Read it again warmie, “due to the failure or unreliability of the IPCC’s climate models”!

Three very simple points warmie. A 15 year hiatus? Statistical significance? And the validity of any IPCC statements on “natural variability” that they cannot and have not factored because their models don’t work?
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 12 May 2015 4:38:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are killing the earth. It won't last much longer.
Posted by Luca, Thursday, 14 May 2015 7:24:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy