This week we have been advised by the 'experts' that this summer is already the hottest 'on record'; the last five years have also been the 'hottest' on record.

To me, this is evidence that all the shutting down of coal-powered generators, the madly expensive electricity, loss of competitiveness and jobs, undreliable generators, just isn't working. As sane people knew it would not.

I suppose the 'experts' will say we need to suffer even further hardship and deprivation the name of their god-like egos and big dollars.

WTF did you expect? Of course decreasing the rate at which we INCREASE atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is insufficient to prevent the hottest summer on record, nor the hottest years on record. But if we didn't, it would be hotter still.

No, we don't need to suffer hardship. We've already reached the stage where renewable energy (combined with batteries) is cheaper than coal fired. But until there's enough of it to prevent electricity generation companies from manipulating prices, our electricity prices are likely to remain high.

No. It would not be “hotter still” if CO2 (which has little to do with warming) had not been reduced. Emissions haven't dropped for the past 10 years, and it is getting hotter all the time, according to your fellow hysterics. You don't have a bloody clue what would have happened without the reduction of any CO2.

And, stop lying about unreliables being cheaper than coal, when they are obviously not.

CO2 has a lot to do with warming, and there's no credible alternative hypothesis to explain the warming we're experiencing. But global CO2 emissions are again increasing (after a slight drop in 2015).

I'm not "lying about unreliables being cheaper than coal". Indeed I'm not claiming unreliables are cheaper than coal; I'm truthfully claiming that RELIABLE RENEWABLES are now cheaper than coal, and that coal itself belongs firmly in the "unreliables" category because our coal fired power stations are frequently breaking down.

Not everything that seems obvious is true. Sometimes instead it's the result of making false assumptions.

So, you are not lying, but then you admit that you are lying by swapping 'unreliable' for 'reliable', a new lie in itself

Tell me Aidan, what bulldust wil you be spurting when, in the future, despite all the useless sacrifices, the climate just does what it was going to do anyway. Perhaps you think you will be gone from this mortal coil and will not have to dream up more stories.

hot hot hot. Only for snowflakes who weren't around before they started to manipulate the data. The US and Europe has been cold cold cold. Unfortunately the warmist charlatans have made heating and cooling far more expensive than it should be.

runner,

115 years ago Dorothea Mackellar wrote of “droughts and flooding rains”. Now, when we are still getting the same droughts and floods, wimpy Australians are squealing 'disaster’!

no, ttbn, I'm telling the truth.

It's just that you're too feeble minded to comprehend that renewables can be reliable, and too stupid to comprehend that "unreliables" is an accurate way to describe Australia's coal fired power stations (which cumulatively broke down every three days on average).

YEP a hotter day in Adelaide in the 1930's did not stop the manipulators claiming the hottest day in history. Of course they did not point out it was even hotter back then but the way of reporting changed. Aiden is just a puppet for fraudsters and charlatans. Are you on the renewable train Aiden?

The Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO we're told play
an important role in monitoring and analysing and
communicating observed changes in Australia's climate.
These changes affect many Australians, particularly
the changes associated with increases in the
frequency and intensity - be they heat, fire, storms,
rains, floods, or droughts. The following two
pages of the Bureau of Meteorology link giving us
the "State of the Climate 2018,"is worth a read as
is "Australia's changing climate,"found on page 2.

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/index.shtml

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/australias-changing-climate.shtml

Aidan,

More lies. I am not “feeble minded”, nor am I “stupid”. It looks as though you have got yourself so knotted up, so frustrated, that you have resorted to the abuse typical of people with your ideology and naïve beliefs in any old green, money-making scam that comes along.

I really don't understand why you feel the need to keep raving on. You don't need to even read my posts, let alone keep on trying to convince me that I'm wrong and you are right: particularly as your efforts are not having the slightest effect. Perhaps you are so used to getting your own way that you can't control yourself. I have told you once before that I am not really interested in what you have to say. Nobody is interested in being told they are wrong all the time. Perhaps you could try doing the same thing; you might feel better.

Ah, the good old BOM gets a mention. As one commentator said recently, the BOM is good at predicting rainfall 100 years hence. Not one of their predictions has been proved wrong. :)

Not so good in the shorter term; their predictions for the Townsville area were 'less than average rainfall'! Six weeks ago they predicted a dry month for Townsville! The area had only a 1 in 3 chance of exceeding the average rainfall in January, according to the Bureau geniuses. On Jan 17th they said that February in Townsville would only have a 45% chance of exceeding the average rainfall. The downpour started on Jan 27th.

There are numerous examples of the BOM's fudging of temperatures as part of their AGW urging, but I can't be bothered going into that, given the maniacal belief some people have in government information.

yeah ttbn and a hot summer was predicted for Perth. Instead it has been the mildest since 2007. They really aren't a lot better than soothsayers when predicting long term weather.

runner,
> Are you on the renewable train Aiden?
What does that even mean?
I you're asking if I'm financially involved then no; I don't have the money to spare at the moment.

And I find it quite ironic that YOU accuse ME of being a puppet for fraudsters and charlatans. After all, when the neocons (who care more about their own commercial interests than the future of the planet) claimed belief in anthropogenic global warming was a religion (to make it sound illogical to their fellow atheists and evil to Christians) you not only fell for the lie, but spread it and kept repeating it. WTF will it take for you to recognise the truth?

'TF will it take for you to recognise the truth?'

evidence Aiden. Same idiotic name calling by the warmist as the evolutionist. Usually devoid of integrity and can't face truth when it stares them in the face.

Funny to hear people like people like Aidan talking about the 'truth' is it not, runner? Particularly when they deny the truth that the climate itself is clearly showing them with it's refusal to do what they have been told it would do by shyster scientists and the Gores of the world who are putting out more emissions personally than small countries. Speaking of which, Tuvulu has been whinging again to our Foreign Minister about how Australia is not doing enough to reduce its emissions. She goes over there to offer help with their upcoming elections and sling our money around, and they bitch about our emissions. The Fijians pulled the same stunt with our PM, and he let them get away with it.

ttbn,
>More lies.
No, just more opinions based on your responses to my posts where you baselessly accused me of lying.

>I am not “feeble minded”,
My labelling you "feeble minded" was a response to your apparent failure to comprehend that renewables can be reliable. Can you comprehend it yet?

>nor am I “stupid”.
My labelling you "stupid" was a response to your failure to include coal power in the "unreliables" category despite its frequent breakdowns. If, as you say, you're not stupid, perhaps you can explain why you think its lack of reliability doesn't make it unreliable?

As for why I bother replying to you, it's mainly for the benefit of the other readers. You may want to ignore the truth when it doesn't suit your arguments, but I don't think many others, even on this board, are so pig headed.

__________________________________________________________________________________

runner,

What exactly is it you're asking me for evidence of?
And why do you say evolutionists have a lack of integrity? Do you think there's something dishonest about refusing to treat the first few chapters of Genesis as an eyewitness account?

Aidan, its almost impossible to debate with the forums 'Useful Idiots' Big Coal and Big Oil told them years ago that global warming was a communist conspiracy. These clowns fell for it hook, line and sinker. I find it hilarious that one clown uses Dorothea Mackellar's famous poem as evidence that climate change is a myth in 2019. Some time back another 'Useful Idiot', Hasbeen, declared global warming was bunk, because he had been taking temperatures in his backyard, or some such thing, and consulting with another old fart down the road.

runner, what about Moses and his ark, wasn't he a believer in climate change?

18 degrees and raining in Adelaide at the moment, the driest, hottest city in Australia.

Aidan,

You called me simple minded and an idiot for no reason other than I don't fall for your lies and lack of sensible argument, as well as the fact that you are a nasty person. Keep the abuse coming. It's all about you making a fool of yourself; no skin off my nose. Your self destruction is amusing; loads of fun.

Aidan said: “As for why I bother replying to you, it's mainly for the benefit of the other readers”.

I hope that 'other readers’ fully appreciate the 'bother’ that Aidan goes to for them, and that his efforts are not really because he is a querulous old fantasist who is never satisfied to just state his opinions and realise that other people might or might not agree with him, nor that constant nagging will not force compliance with his fantasies. I'll leave it there before something goes pop in his head.

Here we have severe changes in our weather
happening with such severity. All you have to do is
watch the news and look at the bodies of
dead cattle, the bushfires, the storms, the
flooding, the droughts, feel the heat and its effects - and
all this happening far more often and with greater
intensity - and yet we have posters on this
forum trying to tell us - all this is normal?
That the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO don't
know what they're talking about? The mind boggles - and
wonders how can this be rational? It's not logical.
And it should be of concern to us all.

Come on Foxy, please. Ever read the story of Kidmans empire, & how close to disaster it was, because of similar drought?

What would you be telling us if you lived in Chicago?

After a couple of weeks of record setting low, down to -32F you would be talking about the coming ice age. Include UK, Europe & Siberia, & there is a lot more record cold than there is heat.

Dear Hassie,

Tell that to the farmers whose cattle are dying,
and who don't have the feed for them or to the
cities that are flooded - like in the Parramatta
area, or those having their homes destroyed by
bushfires, and the list goes on. The frequency
and intensity has never been like this - and in
areas where there used not to be problems of this
kind. Ignoring things does not help those suffering.
Neither does denial. Something needs to be done -
and quickly.

If you think climate change bad, try living in Venezuela. Wealthiest nation in South America twenty years ago when Chavez came to power, now destitute and dilapidated with 300,000 people at immediate risk of starving to death. The socialist dictatorship are fine with their billions in loot safe in European bank accounts and their kids living very privileged lives. No sign of Maduro removing the blockade and letting in the humanitarian aid.

No conspiracy of the coal or oil industries. The truth is that socialism has been a miserable failure in all its manifestations, causing much death and tragedy. Despite this, the left maintain a bitter ideological hatred of capitalism. Climate catastrophe is all they have to support the view that capitalism will destroy the world. One fellow I follow regularly interviews the far left at their rallies. He regularly encounters this point of view.

I'd love an electric car and a solar powered home, but both are a long way from coal and oil in both cost and reliability. I don't see sense in making Australia destitute by implementing policy based on ideological fantasy.

Right - so we should just keep on doing what we're doing
and keep right on getting what we've got. However,
Newsflash - it's only going to get worse!

Foxy, put your research skills to work & check out the effect of low sun spot numbers.

Check out the Maunder minimum, & what low sunspot numbers did to the temperature, & how many the cold killed.

Anyone who still believes CO2 has anything but an insignificant effect on our temperature, has not done their homework, & is being duped by the elites.

Anyone who does still believe is going to want all the coal underground burned to increase CO2 to try to warm the place up.

Yes summer has been hot, up here because of no rain so far, but that is following the coldest, most frosty winter ever in my experience. We lost local natives to the consistent frosts all winter.

The weather bureau is now a proven incompetent or lying organisation, but the flora is telling us something, & dying to do it.

Please go do the research, then come back with your findings. Appeals to authority, when the authority has become untrustworthy, just won't hack it.

Foxy,

I have been following climate science long before it was hijacked by the left. I think we are more at risk from poor economic decisions than meaningless fifty year extrapolations. Which nation might be better able to find solutions to problems: a destitute Venezuela or the evil capitalist United States?

Freeman Dyson was interested in understanding how atmospheric carbon dioxide interacts with the biosphere, not inaccurate computer modelling. Tim Flannery proffered the idea of building offshore kelp farms fertilised with solar powered pumps used to circulate nutrient rich water from the deep ocean. Ideas like that might have economic benefit in addition to increasing biomass. I have read of profitable seaweed farming operations in China and the United States, so it is not an idea without precedent.

What is apparent is that wind and solar are not delivering what was claimed. That may change with technological improvement, but we live in the present with its technical and economic constraints.

ttbn,
>You called me simple minded and an idiot for no reason other than I don't fall for your
>lies and lack of sensible argument, as well as the fact that you are a nasty person.
On the contrary – I called you simple minded and an idiot because you were unable (or at the very least, unwilling) to comprehend that I was (or even just could be) telling the truth. Believe me, I'd much rather have a sensible argument, but I'm unaware of how to do so with someone who makes false accusations of lying every time they hear something that contradicts their prejudices.

I suggest you open your eyes up! Question everything, and take nobody's word for it. Failing that, at least try to be nice – you'll find that as a person I'm far from nasty.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Fester,
Venezuela was the wealthiest nation in South America once, but it ceased to be that way long before the socialists came to power. Decades of procyclical economic policy destroyed much of that nations wealth, impacting particularly hard on the poorest. Don't get me wrong – the Venezuelan socialists were worse, being peculiarly anti business. But the biggest problem is that they kept the Bolivar fixed against the US dollar even when oil prices halved. Interestingly an overvalued currency was the main factor that destroyed the Soviet economy a couple of decades earlier.

Socialism in Western Europe didn't result in death and tragedy. But very few on the left have a bitter ideological hatred of capitalism. Many more merely see disadvantages in capitalism that are worth addressing. The vast majority of those on the left want success, but not at the expense of the environment. So too do many of those on the right.

Australia's coal fired power stations are unreliable - on average there's a breakdown every three days. Meanwhile the economics have changed, and renewables (including the cost of firming) are now cheaper than using fossil fuels.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen, I suggest you read http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

'runner, what about Moses and his ark, wasn't he a believer in climate change?'

close Paul. Try Noah and the ark. And yes human activity similar to what god deniers promote today certainly moved God to destroy by flood. Thankfully for you and me He took mercy on Noah. What it showed was that perverse moral actions such as lying, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality , murder of unborn certainly resulted in far more catastrophe than people trying to cool or heat their homes at a reasonable price.

Dear Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock? Good?

You say to Foxy;

“Please go do the research, then come back with your findings. Appeals to authority, when the authority has become untrustworthy, just won't hack it.”

Interesting tactic you have got going there, basically claiming any authority which might be able to show you are full of hot air as usual is not trustworthy? Right.

You continued; “Yes summer has been hot, up here because of no rain so far, but that is following the coldest, most frosty winter ever in my experience. We lost local natives to the consistent frosts all winter.”

Well lets look at your local weather station shall we.

Most specifically the lowest average temperature for each month over the last 110 years. The lowest ever month of June was in 1946, the lowest for July was in 1972 and the lowest for August was in 1976.

So how close did you get. Well both June and July were not even in the bottom 10% so nothing special there. However August figure was indeed in the bottom 10 percentile although it was above 2008. Therefore it would follow you have lived there for less than 10 years or else we have to concede memory does funny things when you have ideology playing silly buggers with it.

The climate might very well get 'worse’ or, it might get ‘better’; people only imagine that we can pick and choose the climate we want. At the very best, all predictions are just hypotheses. As I've wondered before, what are the climate obsessives going to do in five, ten, twenty years time when the climate does what comes naturally despite the billions of dollars they have wasted, and the hardship they have caused, all in the name of playing God and deluding themselves that humans have supremacy over nature. My guess is that they will just turn their backs and deny that they ever believed the bullshite they are jabbering about now. Just like after previous insane brainstorms such as the millennium bug, sailing off the edge of the world, burning people alive, proving guilt or innocence by ducking stool, and several doses of world endings. Not to mention leeches and bleeding, sacrificing goats and virgins and lots of other savagery. The climate hysterics are as primitive and superstitious as some people were hundreds of years ago.

In the meantime, American atmospheric physicist, Robert Lindzen, says that the climate has changed little in the 30 years he has been teaching. The temperature has increased about 1% from 1800 to the year 2000, and there are many reasons for this. C02 is believed by some to play a small part, but even IPCC scientists acknowledge that the long term effects of carbon dioxide CANNOT be gauged.

Lindzen says that it is not scientists and sceptics, many of whom are also scientists, (who agree on certain things) who are making more noise the less the climate changes, but politicians, environmental activists, and the media, all of whom are misrepresenting the science to gain money, power, and for ideological reasons. However, nature will have the last say on the matter, not humans, no matter what anyone thinks or says.

Aidan,

You are right about Western socialism, but I suspect it was only so because they could be voted out.

Going by my changing electricity charges over the last few decades I have great difficulty understanding how you think renewables to be a cheaper option. You also say that Australian coal generation is less reliable. Is that true for each coal generator? Is it true for other countries? Then there is the matter of defining reliability. Is it the percentage of time a generator is operating or the number of times it needs repair? My understanding is that coal generators will have an average output of about 80% of capacity. Solar would be lucky to deliver 25% of capacity. Wind, I wouldn't know.

I am also concerned about the environment, but I think Bjorn Lomborg has presented good argument that strong economies are far better at environmental protection.

Congratulations on your rejection of radicalism.

'As I've wondered before, what are the climate obsessives going to do in five, ten, twenty years time when the climate does what comes naturally despite the billions of dollars they have wasted, and the hardship they have caused, all in the name of playing God and deluding themselves that humans have supremacy over nature. '

ignore al their failed predictions and pig headedly move on to the next lot. Its been going on for 50 years. The Great Barrier Reef was facing impeachment since the 1970's. The money will continue to flow as the poorer will pay for much higher energy prices while the high priests continue to preach and hashtag.

I cannot but weigh in on this topic.
I have read all the comments.
I find some to be of value, others not.
One point I have been making since all this CC hoo haa began, is that there are too many factors, and variables involved in this topic to oversimplify the data by reading into it simply what is recorded.
My question has been, OK if we are to believe this info why are there anomaly.
The science says one thing, such as the BOM, but the environment is not complying by doing the exact opposite.
I can recall as a younger man, the 'heat waves' we used to endure, and they went on for days.
Day after day, it was debilitating, especially without air conditioning.
I am much older now, and still HATE the heat, yet I cannot recall any 'heat waves' for decades now.
A gentle correction to the person who was flippant and dismissive about the suggestion someone made about Dorothea Mackellar's poem; MY COUNTRY.
In it you will find a perfect description of Australia.
I can't be bothered writing it in, if you truly are interested in the truth, you will look it up.
So for that person who was so quick to dismiss this lady and her poem, because it compromised his stance on climate change, I say, bad luck Sir, you've been outed by history, and a poem at that.
So if you climate change folks want to know why there is so much skepticism around about CC one has only to read this poem and it is a wonderful rendition of Australia and it's weather and antics and how hard a place it was to live in.
So all that is happening around us, apparently, is nothing new.

A couple of weeks ago, Adelaide experienced its hottest day ever, 46.6 degrees.

In The Australian, Chris Kenny (an Adelaide boy, after all), went back to look at the previous record, back in 1939, officially half a degree cooler. But at the time, using different screens over the gauges, it seems that the 'unadjusted' recorded temperature then was half a degree hotter still.

In the meantime, Adelaide has grown from a country town of a couple of hundred thousand to 1.3 million. With air-conditioning. I know, I know, air-conditioning produces cooler air, so the temperature would have been higher now than then without it. Except that AC generates heat in. order to produce cooler air: stand next to the machine thing outside that does the work and you'll feel it. Across a bustling metropolis like Adelaide, the resulting urban heat island effect might be, I don't know, half a degree warmer ? A full degree ? Same with even bigger cities.

No, I didn't like that day, 46.6 degrees, but I'm even less convinced now about the effects of CO2 than before. Somebody prove me wrong :)

Even if the measuring was comparable, half a degree in eighty years doesn't seem like a descent into hell.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

So you seem to be accepting a boost in the 1932 temperature upwards while wanting a marking down of the current record temperature.

Anyway, while daily records are not without their noteworthiness it is far more instructive to use monthly, annual, or decade averages to get a feel for climate change.

For instance the annual average temperature for 1932 at the Torrens gauge was 21.4 C while for 2018 it was 23.2 C.

However it should be acknowledged that having such a large body of water in the prevailing weather direction means both Perth and Adelaide will not be impacted as much as the eastern seaboard capital cities.

Ultimately the global temperatures are the only real currency and they continue to head in just one direction.

Up!

Hi Steele,

No, just recognising the 1939 hottest for what it actually measured using a different screen from what what was used in the 2018 reading for what IT measured. As well, the 1939 rating was made at the West Terrace station in Adelaide, while the 2019 reading was taken at Kent Town, where temperatures are usually higher than at West Terrace, by as much as two degrees.

I wish there were many weather stations well away rom cities, which have not had much population rise in their environments since records began, so that we can compare apples with apples.

Cheers,

Joe

Steele,

Just one more thing: has anybody (surely, yes) done studies of the heat-island effects of cities over time, as they grew and used more energy. One would surely expect that a city of a million would have less of a heat-island effect than one of, say, five million, even the same city over time.

Joe

Aiden,

From this article I found cost comparisons for new supply:

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/renewables-to-be-cheaper-than-coal-even-without-climate-policy-csrio-says-20181221-p50nnq.html

Given the 80% vs 25% capacity advantage of coal over renewables (excluding the cost of batteries and integrating infrastructure), it is cheaper to build new coal fired power, but by far the the cheapest high capacity option is gas open cycle. New and untested technologies need to be tested and proven on a small scale before being adopted on a large scale. I see no sense in putting the welfare of Australians at risk with untested and unproven technology.

And here is an article discussing the problem of connecting infrastructure:

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/tyranny-of-distance-the-renewable-power-disconnect-20181214-p50mc4.html

Note in the article that a 2 gigawatt offshore wind farm was costed at eight billion dollars. If it works at 40% capacity you would need at least two of them, maybe even three or four, to match a coal fired power station at 80% capacity. Would it cost sixteen to thirty two billion dollars to build 2 gigawatts of coal or gas open cycle generation? Would the "When the wind blows" generation be as reliable? Maybe you could ask a sailor?

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43997/the-rime-of-the-ancient-mariner-text-of-1834

Dear Loudmouth,

You wrote,

"As well, the 1939 rating was made at the West Terrace station in Adelaide, while the 2019 reading was taken at Kent Town, where temperatures are usually higher than at West Terrace, by as much as two degrees."

No it wasn't. Both readings are from the same gauge. The West Terrace gauge 026000 was reinstated in 2017 after being closed since 1979.

"After being located at Kent Town for 40 years, the official observation and forecast location for the city of Adelaide will return to its original site at West Terrace on 14 June 2017."

"The official record of weather observations for Adelaide extends back to 1871, with a few breaks. It draws on observations from West Terrace (1871–1979) and Kent Town (1977–2017). However, urbanisation has become increasingly visible as the years have passed at Kent Town, with obstruction by nearby buildings potentially jeopardising the reliability of measurements."

"The West Terrace site now offers the best location for a meteorological weather station. The site allows the Bureau to take high-quality observations that meet the international observing standards of the World Meteorological Organization. The station is already providing observations of air temperature, wind speed and direction, air pressure, rainfall, and relative humidity. From 14 June 2017, these observations will be available on the Bureau's website at ten-minute intervals."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-14/bom-weather-station-returns-to-adelaide-parklands-west-tce/8616310

So mate which qualifier are you going with now? the screens or the heat island effect?.

Adelaide. Third day in a row, low 20s, misty rain. Forecast for the rest of the week: 18 with rain; 20; 23, 27.

February is the hottest month here, but not this year. Haven't seen or heard the media shouting this as they did with the high ones, only one of which was abnormal.

Believe the climate, not the hysterics.

As for what happens when all this nonsense is proved to be wrong- nothing! Look at the Y2K bug scam. Millions wasted and mostly harvested by the same shills pushing climate crap!
When my bills start going down I will believe renewables are cheaper no sign of that on the horizon.
The BOM have now changed from making a total mess of weather predictions to that of it taking second place to the climate change scam. They know they can keep doubling their numbers and costs if they back up the fraudulent renewable industry. I was doing a job in 1991 and was told Melbourne weather was consistently the same for one hundred years.
Before anyone starts on me, thank you Aiden. Prices have gone up with your renewables and the BOM are still unable to get more than fifty per cent of their predictions right. Famously, Winston Churchill in the second World War said that if the exact opposite of what the weathermen predicted was taken they would be safer. It's still right.

'Adelaide. Third day in a row, low 20s, misty rain. Forecast for the rest of the week: 18 with rain; 20; 23, 27.'

has to be because of climate change tttbn. Come on get with the program.

Dear JBowyer,

Geez mate you do talk out of your arse a lot don't you.

The BOM are extraordinarily accurate even compared to 10 years ago. Their understanding of long term weather patterns for this country are a credit to them.

This was their 3 month out modelling for our upcoming summer done in October.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/sco/archive/index.jsp?map=tmax&outlook=median&period=season1&year=2018&month=10&day=25&y=2018&m=10&d=25

Bloody well nailed it so far don't you think.

Steele put down the "The end of the world is nigh" sandwich board and actually go outside. Also watch the Weather on any TV. I think they do not get it right a lot of the time but never fail to point out how hot it is in, The Great Stony Desert, Gibson Desert you know local area.

JBowyer,

SR just wanted to type"arse". Some of us prefer to consult independent sources of information, not the site of of the incompetent BOM itself. I agree with you. On a value-for-money basis, the BOM fails. Their total balls up of the forecast for Townsville is only one of their many blues. Have a look ar Jo Nova's sight for a few examples their wild guesses.

Dear Jbowyer,

“go outside”?

What trite dribble!

Mate you are the one talking about the accuracy of the BOM. You can't just offer up absolutely no evidence and think you will not get challenged on it.

Here is a paper looking at the accuracy of weather forecasting in Melbourne, a city notorious for having four seasons in one day.
http://weather-climate.com/ForecastAccuracyMelbourne29June2007.pdf

If you go to the figure on page 9 showing the average error from the predicted daily maximum you will see how much the forecasting has improved for all time frames from 1 day out through to 7 days out.

In the 70s the average error margin for single day forecasts was over 2C now it is well under 1.5C. All other brackets have improved too with the 2, 3, and 4 day errors halving.

There you go mate, that is some evidence to back up my claim now where is yours, or are you just full of it?

Another BOM document reporting on itself.

Steel the BOM reporting on their own results, wow surprise surprise!
How about answering the critics on their temperature records? Oh yes slight errors but not to worry.
They are now totally politicised and should start having their funding reduced. We have spent billions on all their politics like the last lot of weather radar that failed to work and of course the idiots had destroyed the old system.
The man told me temperature in Melbourne had been stable for one hundred years then along comes, what is it this week Global warming? Suddenly the continent is coloured red and we are all dying? Pull the other one mate!

SteeleRedux Quote
"Dear Jbowyer,

“go outside”?

What trite dribble!"

** Interesting comment but When someone else made a more absurd statement you were silent, your bias is showing. **

Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 16 January 2019 11:38:02 AM
"No science needed here just walk out the door"

Fester,
My rejection of radicalism is not new, so it should be too mundane to b worthy of congratulation.

I mostly agree with Bjørn Lomborg's point about strong economic being better at environmental protection. But problems arise when politicians try to set up a false dichotomy between economic strength and environmental protection.

'Twas Bjørn Lomborg who predicted that renewables would become cheaper than fossil fuels. I think he was wrong on the driver of that change (he thought it was economic growth in general) and the results, but his central point has proven to be correct. Renewables are now cheaper at meeting our needs. See my link on the other thread to the CSIRO report about which you misinterpreted the SMH report.

So why, you ask, have electricity prices gone up? Firstly, electricity prices bear little relation to the cost of generation – that sets a minimum price (disregarding short therm fluctuations) but when demand is high, the generation companies set their charges much higher because it's more lucrative to do so.

Secondly, the additional supply of new renewables on the grid has not quite been enough to compensate for the closure of coal fired power stations. This was partly due to the political reluctance to increase the RET.

Thirdly, the price of fossil fuels has risen. Gas rose most as when it started to be exported from eastern Australia, the price rose to math the international price.

Fourthly, other charges such as that for poles and wires have risen. So, I think, has retail profit margin.

Fifthly, renewables have only recently become cheaper than coal. They could have been cheaper sooner if they'd had access to cheap credit, but the CEFC was hamstrung by the government. Also big batteries have only recently become available.

There's probably a few more reasons, but I'm too tired to think of them now.

Aidan, I welcome your enthusiasm for renewables, BUT, unfortunately it is mis-guided.
The whole concept is too fragile, from the point of generation to delivery to the joining into the grid.
Where you once had one single large source producing a single large amount of power, now with renewables you have say, 100 sources to produce the same amount of power.
Without going into detail, renewables are NOT up to the task.
We cannot introduce batteries into this discussion as it is a new component and therefore is not relevant.
Whether fossil, nuclear, or hydro, we are discussing the generation or creation of power, not the storage of it.
Batteries can apply to the old systems as well as the new, so therefore not relevant.
The only reason we are discussing batteries is because the renewables duty cycle is, unreliable.
We did not need batteries before so we do not need them now, unless renewables are already proven to be unreliable, which I believe they have.
Then there is the other problem of compatibility of integration of the new system to the old, at least for the foreseeable future.
The way I like to see it is to compare a 1000HP diesel engine to a 1000HP petrol engine.
Even though they both produce the same HP the latter is completely incapable of producing the same results 24/7, unlike the diesel powered counterpart.
Or another way is one 1000HP diesel compared to 1000, 1HP renewables.
It just does not feel right.
Now back to the batteries, the reason they are suddenly being considered is that renewables are unreliable, and because of this the use of batteries will mitigate the failures and really bad duty cycles of renewables.

Aiden you and your idiot mates will keep hanging in there saying renewables work, they don't.
When the main stream media and politicians catch up with common sense there will be an almighty reckoning of the realisation that you have cost us billions of dollars for nonsense.
You can rely on aforementioned media and politicos to then abandon you and lead the lynch mob. Roll on that day!
How many times do you have to be told they have cost us four times the price and the reliability that Monash gave us nearly one hundred years ago? You are beyond any common sense, you idiot!

For serious people to engage in discussions with fools like Aidan and SteeleReduxe is absurd, demeaning and utterly pointless.

Now the crackpot Greens in NSW want solar panels and storage to be compulsory on all new dwellings. (SMH).

ALTRAV,
Your argument is illogical. Relying on a hundred sources makes the network far more robust than relying on a single source.
Batteries being new doesn't make them any less relevant. Everything was new once!
The reason we're discussing batteries is because solar PV and wind power aren't dispatchable, so some sort of storage is needed if they're going to generate a high proportion of our power. I'm not saying we should rely on batteries exclusively, but our being able to put them anywhere is a big advantage, and Hornsdale has proven their worth and suitability.
The compatibility "problem" is trivial. Things you're not used to may make you feel uncomfortable, but economically and ecologically there's far more at stake than your feelings.

____________________________________________________________________________________

JBowyer, what makes you think renewables don't work? Haven't you realised the economics are totally different from a century ago?

False assumptions are not common sense; nor is anything that relies on them.

____________________________________________________________________________________

runner,
I notice a few days ago you've uncritically quoted ttbn saying:
...'all in the name of playing God and deluding themselves that humans have supremacy over nature. '
This surprises me. Don't you think humans have supremacy over nature (as it says in Genesis 1:28)?

____________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
"For serious people to engage in discussions with fools like Aidan and SteeleReduxe is absurd, demeaning and utterly pointless."
Only if they're unwilling to learn anything. But then you'd have to wonder how serious they really are!

Aidan, history, not assumptions prove you wrong.
The fact that there are more of something means there are more things to go wrong, as is shown historically.
I may be wrong about many things because we do not have time and motion study yet, worth the paper it is written on.
Sure in time things will improve, but I cannot help but wonder based on history.
Aidan, say what you mean, batteries, dispatchable?
What you mean is, renewables are UNRELIABLE, so to sell the idea, they have come up with another cost defective answer, 'let's add batteries'.
The MAIN reason for the introduction of batteries, at this late stage in this whole renewable push, is that they are UNRELIABLE, and batteries simply helps them sell the concept, without mention of the added cost and ongoing maintenance.
I further loathe the idea of renewables because they add another bad dimension to the mix.
Visual pollution.
It may not be considered dangerous to health as the others do but it is never-the-less, an unpleasant scar on an otherwise beautiful scenery.
I am, amongst other things, a pragmatist, and renewables, by their very design are unreliable.
You see Aidan, I do not take subjective views or stands.
My position has always been one of objectivity, so I am not influenced by emotion.
Being a technical person, I can say with confidence, and the information available today, that renewables are NOT the way to go.

Dear JBowyer,

So are you really that far down a loopy conspiracy path that you think that someone reviewing forecasting accuracy would go and take easily verifiable data and completely fudge the study?

Idiotic!

So what do you think they have manipulated? The forecasts which would have been printed in all the papers or the actual daily temperature records?

Look mate there are some here who are so irretrievably bias toward any body or authority who threatens their non-global warming world view that they are climbing up their own backsides. Ttbn and Hasbeen are two examples. However I wasn't sure you were fully in that boat. Looks like you might be.

Ultimately you put yourself in a logic lock, you can't prove global warming isn't an issue if you are unable to present any data with which you hadn't already trashed its providence.

As to the continent being coloured red in the graphic you do realise this prediction that virtually the whole country had an 80% chance of experiencing above average figures was spot on. The forecast was made in October and Australia went on to record its warmest month ever in January. It was good high standard work by the BOM which we would expect. However you seem to be determined to beat it up into something it wasn't.

Dear Philip S,

I think you will find Belly's remark was directed at the temperature but mine was directed at JBowyer's claim about the supposed inaccuracies of the BOM. Facing unprecedented temperatures when you walk out the front door is a point worth making. Having said that I have repeatedly pointed out that it is long term figures which show the climate pattern.

Australia is now being subjected to unreliable power faster than anywhere else in the world: more than twice as fast as Germany, and 4-5 time faster than the EU, USA, Japan and China. We have the most expensive electricity in the world, and unreliables are wreaking havoc on the grid. All thanks to cheats, liars, hysterics and dumb politicians.

'runner,
I notice a few days ago you've uncritically quoted ttbn saying:
...'all in the name of playing God and deluding themselves that humans have supremacy over nature. '
This surprises me. Don't you think humans have supremacy over nature (as it says in Genesis 1:28)?'

really Aiden. And where may I find my quote or are you justy making it up again. And as for 'supremacy over nature' you would need to define what you mean. Humans certainly seem to have very very little influence if any over the weather if that's what you mean.

ALTRAV,
Tell me how you think history proves me wrong, and I'll tell you the false assumptions you're relying on!

While it is true that the more of something we have, the more that can go wrong, it's also true that the consequences of it going wrong are far less. Resilience depends as much on redundancy as it does on reliability.

Also, the solar and wind power is much simper mechanically than the fossil fuel power. With less that can go wrong, it's unlikely the failure rate per generation unit will be so low.

>Aidan, say what you mean, batteries, dispatchable?
I do say what I mean, whereas it appears you aren't the technical person you think you are – you don't understand the technical terms so try and conflate them with other related concepts. The problem with solar PV and wind power is that they're not dispatchable. That means we do not control when they generate power. That does not make them unreliable (even if you shout it) but it does mean that to provide a reliable power supply you need backup (or, to use the technical term, firming). But as the CSIRO report shows, even including the cost of firming with batteries, solar still works out cheaper than coal.

You see ALTRAV, you are an ideologue not a pragmatist. You take subjective views and stands (such as loathing the idea of renewables on visual pollution grounds) while effectively ignoring far more serious objective problems (such as the air pollution from coal power).

If you took a truly objective stance, you'd know that (in Australia at least) renewables are the way to go.

____________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
You whinge about unreliable power, yet (in our state at least) reliability is increasing.
And the last thing that wreaked havoc on our grid was tornadoes in 2016.
High prices are a problem, but greater use of renewables will alleviate, not exacerbate, that problem.

runner,
>really Aiden. And where may I find my quote
This thread, Saturday, 9 February 2019 6:36:30 PM.
You were quoting what ttbn had written at 4:56:17 PM that day.

>or are you justy making it up again.
Again? What do you think I made up before?

>And as for 'supremacy over nature' you would need to define what you mean.
>Humans certainly seem to have very very little influence if any over the weather if that's what you mean.
It is the climate, not the weather, that humans have significant influence over. But you often seem to take the view that because we can't control the weather, we have no influence over the climate. You seem blind to evidence from observations or science, instead taking only a literalist biblical view. So I'm just wondering why you're not being consistent with that view?

'>or are you justy making it up again.
Again? What do you think I made up before?' so you did make it up Aidan. Its hard to believe people who make things up.

'It is the climate, not the weather, that humans have significant influence over. But you often seem to take the view that because we can't control the weather, we have no influence over the climate. '

no Aidan just not stupid enough to deny the tremendous improvements in life that reliable cheap electricity has done for this nation for over 100 years and the total lack of evidence of any effect on weather or climate. Also you don't need to many brains to see that the predictions from the scaremongers over the last 40 years (using pseudo science) has failed miserably.

'The literalist biblical view' as you call it says '(Gen 8:22) While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.'

This view is far more observable and sensible than your mad green marxist religion. IN short you are clueless.
'

Aidan, you deny the many outages and failures, 'on record' or even reported and photographed and exposed by media reports.
The old systems, like coal, had problems, but very few.
I don't subscribe to some new idea simply because it's a new idea.
If it does not perform the same or better than what it replaces, it is, by definition, a failure.
Now with the old system we never used stupid words like 'dispatchable', because there was no need to worry about reliability or continuity of supply.
The reason wind is a useless resource, apart from the obvious, is that they are a mechanical nightmare.
By comparison to any turbine whether, water, gas or coal, that have basically one central 'moving' part.
A friend told me years ago, if you're going to have a business, say a hire business, make sure you only hire things with NO moving parts, otherwise you will risk going broke.
He wasn't joking, the only renewables that fit that bill are solar, and the ratios of cost per return per reliability is like all renewables, way too expensive compared to the old tried and true.
So Aidan, give me a strong, reliable, continuous, cheap means of power, and I will welcome it with open arms.
But try to stick me with weak solar, wind, unreliable, expensive attempts of still underdeveloped mediums, and I will not accept them, under any circumstances.
You can predicate and promote renewables till the cows come home, because even the cows know, their duty cycles and reliability, have a long way to go, so when we can get all the factors such as we have with the 'old' systems, give me a call, until then, you keep waiting for those pigs to fly over.

ALTRAV,
I don't deny the many outages and failures, but I recognise that, in my state at least, they're less frequent and shorter than they used to be, and most of them are the result of transformer problems in the distribution system, not insufficient power being generated.

>Now with the old system we never used stupid words like 'dispatchable', because
>there was no need to worry about reliability or continuity of supply.
FALSE. There was as much need to worry about reliability or continuity of supply as there is today. And there's nothing stupid about words like 'dispatchable" - they have distinct specific meanings. Although of course when everything was dispatchable there was no need to use that word.

>The reason wind is a useless resource, apart from the obvious, is that they are a mechanical nightmare.
They're quite simple mechanically - where did you get the idea they're a nightmare?

>By comparison to any turbine whether, water, gas or coal, that have basically one central 'moving' part.
But there's a lot more to a coal fired power station than just the turbines!

You're living in the past; you've failed to notice how different the economics now are.

runner,

>no Aidan just not stupid enough to deny the tremendous improvements in life that
>reliable cheap electricity has done for this nation for over 100 years
Nor am I, and AFAIK nor is anyone on my side. I for one would like us to have reliable cheap electricity in the future - but I don't ignore the evidence about what sources are now cheapest.

>and the total lack of evidence of any effect on weather or climate.
There's very strong evidence of warming globally, irrefutable evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen by a third as a result of fossil fuel consumption. What more evidence do you need?

>Also you don't need to many brains to see that the predictions from the scaremongers
>over the last 40 years (using pseudo science) has failed miserably.
Never mind about what the scaremongers were saying; why don't you look at the predictions of actual scientists?

>'The literalist biblical view' as you call it says '(Gen 8:22) While the earth remaineth, seedtime
>and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.'
And none of the predictions from the scientists (nor even those of the scaremongers) contradicted that!

>This view is far more observable and sensible than your mad green marxist religion.
My religion is Christianity. You might think it mad, but there's no divine call to degrade the environment. And nor am I a marxist. Which indicates you have a bit of pronoun trouble when you say:
>IN short you are clueless.

How about looking at GW from another point ?. More available freshwater, more land available for agriculture, less coal needed for heating, more waterfront properties etc.
Hanger-on Scientists will need to find new excuse arguments to continue their "careers".

Individual,
What other point are you referring to? Extreme optimism? It may have escaped your attention, but the world doesn't work like that.

GW will not bring more AVAILABLE fresh water. It will bring more fresh water in total, but not in a useful way (look at Townsville if you want to know the difference).

GW will not make more land available for agriculture. It will have the opposite effect as some places will be too hot to farm effectively, and others will be flooded by rising sea levels.

What good is using less energy for heating if we're using more for cooling?
And how do you think it would create more waterfront properties?

Aidan,
Imagine Siberia & Greenland reverting back to the ice-free stage they were at millennia ago ?
Heaps of room for more breeding of useless humans.
Townsville isn't a natural disaster, it is man-or should I say bureaucrat-made by letting or forcing people to build on flood plains.

Indy has a point.
I look at the bigger picture.
I find that localised data and events, are just that, and not a true test for the whole world.
Even though readings have been taken from the same locations for many years, I note that the recording equipment is changed or updated periodically with new and more current technology and equipment.
In the past we find that even though the new equipment is more refined and can read much finer numbers than it's predecessor, in doing so has given a different level of readings, and therefore could not be relied upon as a progressive and continuous true and accurate graph or set of numbers.
It's possible that the variance was minimal, but there is never-the-less a variance.
It is no different than if a machine is serviced, in doing so adjustments may have to be made, more than likely small ones, but they high-light the fact that the machine was recording in-accurately.
This applies even to breath-a-liser machines the police use.
Constant and continuous readings are essential in any monitoring, for the final analysis to be considered valid and un-contaminated.

A point, or possibly a question I was hoping someone else would ask, is;
If GW or CC, whatever it is called today, is so serious, then why is it the largest countries (by population) in the world are 'gearing up' for the production of 'old' technology power generators,using fossil fuels, such as coal, and not renewables?
The question beckons a rethink.
Is it possible that this whole thing is a ruse to extract money from the system?
Those behind, and who control the POTUS, obviously have an agenda which is not in sync with those countries who are not allies.
No-one can give a clear pragmatic and scientific explanation to this very serious and compelling question.
I for one have laughed off the efforts of some in this inane folly when I see more than two billion people out of six odd, snubbing who?
Themselves?
Why would they want to commit suicide or genocide?
C'mon guys?
Really?
I certainly don't have the answers, but still as before, just more questions.
One has to admit this simple, yet, serious fact is too contentious to simply gloss over, so if anyone has an objective, (not subjective) and pragmatic answer to this conundrum,I would be most interested to hear it.

Does anyone know how climate change is affecting Aussie farmers? Any decent statistics?

colorbond,
Perhaps your question should be re-phrased to 'affecting farmers whose produce is grown in areas suitable to the climate & ecology".
I'm totally ignorant about farming west of the GDR but from what I see & hear in the media it looks as though some farmers are trying to grow produce in rather unpredictive ecology.
Cotton is alleged to be a very high water demanding industry so why is it grown in periodically arid area ? Is anything being done to store the present excess water ? Will the very recent floods top up any underground storage/aquifer or is it all running off into the sea ? is Lake Eyre filling ? I have seen the Flinders River in satellite photos being up to 60km wide in places. Is that water channelled towards any storage ?
Anyone have better info ?

popau4, WTF.
I must advise you forthwith, that OLO does allow advertising, and you clearly have violated this rule.
If the moderators don't 'pull' your advertisement, I am at least, informing you of this rule.
Please cease and desist, as it happens, the readers don't want to wade through pages of crappy adds.
If your business is struggling, I suggest you engage the more appropriate advertising mediums, NOT OLO!
Thank you.

Sorry, in my haste I erred in that the text should say the OLO 'doesn't' allow adverts........

"This week we have been advised by the 'experts' that this summer is already the hottest 'on record'; the last five years have also been the 'hottest' on record."

Well that's what our beaches are for.