Electricity prices in New South Wales are set to rise by around 8 per cent a year under a draft determination by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART)...
IPART chief executive Jim Cox says the price increase is necessary to guarantee reliable supply and meet the costs of government renewable energy targets.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Universal Warming
A report from a journalist with gritted teeth:
Skeptics over global warming have jumped on news that Mars is heating up to back their skepticism that humans are causing global warming on Earth.
The research, coming from U.S. planetary scientists, suggests that Mars warmed by about 0.65C from the 1970s to the 1990s. This is similar to Earth’s 0.6C average temperature rise during the 20th century.
“It could be coincidental or it might be the needle in the haystack,” said climatologist William Kininmonth, former head of the National Climate Centre in Melbourne, Australia.
Kininmonth said that the research, which was published in the journal Nature, showed that there was enough natural climate variability to explain global warming on Earth.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Time Magazine's terrible biasness Part 1
Time’s most recent magazine is centered around global warming and 51 things you each of us can do to make a difference and help stem the obviously inevitable foreseeable global catastrophe. I took great pleasure in analyzing each of these 51 things and deciphering how much of a difference it will make. Interestingly, they have their own scale on these issues too. The have an impact, time horizon and feel good factor scale for each of the 51 steps. What is interesting is that they loudly applaud steps that make no impact whatsoever but feel good. More useless gestures. But nevertheless, before I delve into the steps, I want to analyse their prologue.
If droughts and wildfires, floods and crop failures, collapsing climate-sensitive species and the images of drowning polar bears didn't quiet most of the remaining global-warming doubters, the hurricane-driven destruction of New Orleans did.
Unfortunately no, I like many other people have not lost our case, no matter how biased and one sided this statement is. It makes it sound as though the critics have all finally lost their case after New Orleans, when there is ample evidence that global warming has no effect on hurricanes.
Dismissing a scientist's temperature chart is one thing. Dismissing the death of a major American city is something else entirely.
It seems now it's a moral issue, not a scientific one.
The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report on the state of planetary warming in February that was surprising only in its utter lack of hedging.
Damn, surely we are all going to fry and burn more than what the IPCC say?
Some lingering critics still found wiggle room in the U.N. panel's findings. "I think there is a healthy debate ongoing, even though the scientists who are in favor of doing something on greenhouse gases are in the majority," says Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin.
So it isn't a consensus then? I thought everyone was converted after Hurricane Katrina?
But when your last good position is to debate the difference between certain and extra certain, you're playing a losing hand.
How can one be more certain than certain? Perhaps the sentence should have said, debate the difference between most probable and certain, which you are obviously not always playing a losing hand.
"The science," says Christine Todd Whitman, former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (epa), "now is getting to the point where it's pretty hard to deny."
Ahh so it's still possible then?
Indeed it is.
Of course, I'm converted now.
Planting trees is great, but in some parts of the world, the light-absorbing color of the leaves causes them to retain heat and paradoxically increases warming.
Damn. Can we seriously cut these forests down. Evil forests.
Beneath the grass-roots action, larger tectonic plates are shifting.
Is this a subtle stab at blaiming earth quakes and tsunami's on global warming? I would hope not.
But alas, I'm looking forward to analysing each of the 51 steps so that we all won't fry. This is going to be fun indeed!
Bad Bad BBQ's
The government of Belgium's French-speaking region of Wallonia, which has a population of about 4 million, has approved a tax on barbequing, local media reported.
Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.
The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.
Scientists believe CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming.
Experts said that between 50 and 100 grams of CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas, is emitted during barbequing. Beginning June 2007, residents of Wallonia will have to pay 20 euros for a grilling session.
The local authorities plan to monitor compliance with the new tax legislation from helicopters, whose thermal sensors will detect burning grills.
Scientists believe CO2 emissions are a major cause of global warming.
Nothing to be concerned about
Melbourne’s Bureau of Meteorology National Operations Centre manager Mike Bergin, discussing post-tsunami effects with the ABC’s Alison Caldwell, sets our minds at ease about rising sea levels:
MIKE BERGIN: At this stage we’re reasonably sure of height increases in the ocean of around 30 centimetres on the North Queensland coast. No doubt over the next couple of days we’ll, as reports come in, we’ll be able to get a better handle on that, but at the moment we’re confident that we saw a height rises around 30 centimetres.
ALISON CALDWELL: Which is nothing really to be too concerned about.
MIKE BERGIN: No, not a great deal.
(Via Tim Blair)
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
All you need is faith - believe
Jeremiah Magan, managing editor of California’s Fullerton College Hornet, believes seafloor earthquakes are a sign of global warming:
Despite the fact that Fullerton set record high temperatures for the month of March, people still have a hard time believing that global warming is real. The weather patterns are rapidly changing and becoming more extreme all over.
The tsunami in the South Pacific, Hurricane Katrina and the unseasonable heat in late winter and early spring are all signs that the weather is just going to continue changing.
Despite the fact that Fullerton set record high temperatures for the month of March, people still have a hard time believing that global warming is real. The weather patterns are rapidly changing and becoming more extreme all over.
The tsunami in the South Pacific, Hurricane Katrina and the unseasonable heat in late winter and early spring are all signs that the weather is just going to continue changing.
The poor polar bears!
As Andrew Bolt points out:
Monica Attard recently told the truth behind the above picture.
Said Attard:
Those stranded polar bears on the shrinking Arctic ice - victims of global warming - certainly tugged at the heart-strings…
All used it as evidence of global warming and the imminent demise of the polar bear.
Except that the picture, snapped by Australian marine biology student Amanda Byrd two and a half years ago, was in fact taken during:
Summer, when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.
And, as experts told Attard, this was neither unusual nor evidence that the bears were in danger.
But that hadn’t stopped one notoriously inaccurate scaremonger from seizing on them for his own mischievous purposes:
"Their habitat is melting… beautiful animals, literally being forced off the planet,” Mr. Gore said, with the photo on the screen behind him. “They’re in trouble, got nowhere else to go.”
Audience members let out gasps of sympathy.
I don’t know whether this is an aberration or signals a desperately needed change in direction for Media Watch under its new executive producer, but I’m both astonished and grateful.
Crops better off with global warming
As the world climate report suggests, crops around the world will be better off with global warming, not worse, as many doomdayers and media outlets report.
They did an internet search of “Global Warming and Agriculture” and found more than 5,000,000 websites, and as they began sampling the sites, we encountered an overwhelming amount of bad news. They continue to say:
literally thousands of experiments have been conducted showing that agricultural plants benefit enormously in environments of higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide – they increase their rate of photosynthesis, increase water use efficiency, and increase yields. Furthermore, hundreds of experiments have shown that many agricultural plants benefit from higher temperatures, particularly higher temperatures at night. Believe it or not, most agricultural plants benefit from less frost! With all the gloom and doom about increased drought in the future, we note that all climate models predict increased precipitation on a global scale with little ability to predict changes in precipitation at local or even regional scales. Finally, can you name any important agricultural crop that has seen a reduction in yield per unit area over the past century? You cannot, because years of agricultural research have improved both the plants and the farming practices. Our guess is that the research in the future will produce even greater increases in yields, despite any changes that occur to the climate.
and of course have scientific evidence to back them up, quoting a recent article in the journal Climatic Change, entitled “Historical effects of temperature and precipitation on California crop yields.”
• “Wine grape yields were favored by years with warm nighttime temperatures in April and higher rainfall in June. Warm April temperatures reflect decreased risk of frost damage during the vulnerable post-budbreak spring growing period, when frosts can severely depress yields by damaging rapidly developing vegetative and cluster tissues”
• “Lettuce yields appear aided by warm days in April (up to about 23°C), as well as the October prior to harvest year.”
• “Table grape yields were increased with October rains in the year preceding harvest, and with warm nighttime July temperatures.”
• “Orange yields were most correlated with ppt [precipitation] in May and tmin [minimum temperatures] in December prior to and March of the harvest year.”
• “The strongest climatic response variable for cotton was a positive effect on yield for warmer May tmax [maximum temperatures]”
• “Tomato yields increased with warm April tmax, and with June tmax up to 32°C”
• “No significant relationships with climate were identified for pistachios yields”
They did an internet search of “Global Warming and Agriculture” and found more than 5,000,000 websites, and as they began sampling the sites, we encountered an overwhelming amount of bad news. They continue to say:
literally thousands of experiments have been conducted showing that agricultural plants benefit enormously in environments of higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide – they increase their rate of photosynthesis, increase water use efficiency, and increase yields. Furthermore, hundreds of experiments have shown that many agricultural plants benefit from higher temperatures, particularly higher temperatures at night. Believe it or not, most agricultural plants benefit from less frost! With all the gloom and doom about increased drought in the future, we note that all climate models predict increased precipitation on a global scale with little ability to predict changes in precipitation at local or even regional scales. Finally, can you name any important agricultural crop that has seen a reduction in yield per unit area over the past century? You cannot, because years of agricultural research have improved both the plants and the farming practices. Our guess is that the research in the future will produce even greater increases in yields, despite any changes that occur to the climate.
and of course have scientific evidence to back them up, quoting a recent article in the journal Climatic Change, entitled “Historical effects of temperature and precipitation on California crop yields.”
• “Wine grape yields were favored by years with warm nighttime temperatures in April and higher rainfall in June. Warm April temperatures reflect decreased risk of frost damage during the vulnerable post-budbreak spring growing period, when frosts can severely depress yields by damaging rapidly developing vegetative and cluster tissues”
• “Lettuce yields appear aided by warm days in April (up to about 23°C), as well as the October prior to harvest year.”
• “Table grape yields were increased with October rains in the year preceding harvest, and with warm nighttime July temperatures.”
• “Orange yields were most correlated with ppt [precipitation] in May and tmin [minimum temperatures] in December prior to and March of the harvest year.”
• “The strongest climatic response variable for cotton was a positive effect on yield for warmer May tmax [maximum temperatures]”
• “Tomato yields increased with warm April tmax, and with June tmax up to 32°C”
• “No significant relationships with climate were identified for pistachios yields”
Sydney's earth hour scam
On March 31st at 7.30pm, Sydney had an "earth hour" in which lights were turned off in for 60 minutes in order to save electricity and gain awareness to global warming.
Of course I don't have to do the sums to actually determine what a saving in temperature this would create. Oh no.
However, interestingly Tim Blair has reported fraud in the Age's analysis of earth hour, showing their over exposed picture of Sydney and what Sydney really should look like at night as shown below.
When really Sydney looks like this at night:
So why do we have to lie to prove a point? Isn't that an oxymoron?
But in new news, Sydney's Earth Hour could have actually caused an increase in electricity use as shown here
For me, I'm just suck and tired of these useless gestures.
Of course I don't have to do the sums to actually determine what a saving in temperature this would create. Oh no.
However, interestingly Tim Blair has reported fraud in the Age's analysis of earth hour, showing their over exposed picture of Sydney and what Sydney really should look like at night as shown below.
When really Sydney looks like this at night:
So why do we have to lie to prove a point? Isn't that an oxymoron?
But in new news, Sydney's Earth Hour could have actually caused an increase in electricity use as shown here
For me, I'm just suck and tired of these useless gestures.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Britain Plans To Cut Emissions By Cutting Down Trees
Britain hopes to slash carbon emissions by burning more home-grown wood under a new government plan announced on Wednesday. The Forestry Commission's Woodfuel Strategy for England aims to make 2 million tonnes a year more wood available for fuel by 2020 through better forest management and support. Burning this much wood, equal to about 3.6 million barrels of oil a year, should avoid an estimated 400,000 tonnes of carbon annually, biodiversity minister Barry Gardiner said. "Using wood instead of fossil fuels means that sustainably managed woodland can be a significant resource for a low-carbon economy," Gardiner said in a statement.
Wood production in England will have to increase by 60 percent to achieve the target and current wood supply chains are not capable of getting that much material to market, the Forestry Commission said in its report. The carbon released into the atmosphere by burning wood is partially absorbed by growing more trees, which means lowering emissions from the energy sector compared to coal, gas or oil.
Rather than importing other biofuels, which can come from environmentally-questionable sources, Britain should use its own woodland areas in an environmentally sustainable way, the plan's backers say. The Forestry Commission, which manages more than a million hectares of UK woodland, says more investment is needed to get the woodfuel market working more efficiently.
The government has set a domestic target to reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2010 and 60 percent by 2050 and the biggest contribution biomass can make to that goal is through heat generation, the Commission said. Unlike some European countries where communal heating systems are widely used, making the switch to biomass fairly cheap and easy, British homes are nearly all heated individually with gas, coal or oil. This is a major obstacle to the growth of biomass heating and support from government is needed to ensure dirty fossil fuel boilers are replaced with wood-burning ones quickly enough to establish effective supply chains, the Commission said. Currently, biomass provides 3 percent of UK energy needs.
Wood production in England will have to increase by 60 percent to achieve the target and current wood supply chains are not capable of getting that much material to market, the Forestry Commission said in its report. The carbon released into the atmosphere by burning wood is partially absorbed by growing more trees, which means lowering emissions from the energy sector compared to coal, gas or oil.
Rather than importing other biofuels, which can come from environmentally-questionable sources, Britain should use its own woodland areas in an environmentally sustainable way, the plan's backers say. The Forestry Commission, which manages more than a million hectares of UK woodland, says more investment is needed to get the woodfuel market working more efficiently.
The government has set a domestic target to reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2010 and 60 percent by 2050 and the biggest contribution biomass can make to that goal is through heat generation, the Commission said. Unlike some European countries where communal heating systems are widely used, making the switch to biomass fairly cheap and easy, British homes are nearly all heated individually with gas, coal or oil. This is a major obstacle to the growth of biomass heating and support from government is needed to ensure dirty fossil fuel boilers are replaced with wood-burning ones quickly enough to establish effective supply chains, the Commission said. Currently, biomass provides 3 percent of UK energy needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)