JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Himalayan glaciers on show

This is a glorious NASA image from The Earth Observatory. The Himalayan Mountains in Southern China on Christmas Day, 2009. If you’d like a large version, you can soak in 4Mb of detail. I’ve posted it just  because it’s captivating and we are so fortunate (for all NASA’s failings) that we can marvel at a view like this.

Note the scale (bottom right). These are rivers of ice one kilometer wide “unnamed”. Imagine what it would take to melt this ice?

Their description:

In southern China, just north of the border with Nepal, one unnamed Himalayan glacier flows from southwest to northeast, creeping down a valley to terminate in a glacial lake.

Mountains on either side of the glacier cast long shadows to the north. From a bowl-shaped cirque, the glacier flows downhill. Where the ice passes over especially steep terrain, ripple marks on the glacier surface indicate the icefall. Northeast of the icefall, the glacier’s surface is mostly smooth for several kilometers until a network of crevasses mark the surface.

At the end of the glacier’s deeply crevassed snout sits a glacial lake, coated with ice in this wintertime picture. Just as nearby mountains cast shadows to the north, the crevassed glacier casts a shadow onto the lake’s icy surface. This glacial lake is bound by the glacier snout on one end, and a moraine—a mound formed by the accumulation of sediments and rocks moved by the glacier—on the other.

NASA Earth Observatory image created by Jesse Allen, using EO-1 ALI data provided courtesy of the NASA EO-1 team. Caption by Michon Scott based on image interpretation by Bruce Raup, National Snow and Ice Data Center.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
Himalayan glaciers on show, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2457nvn

66 comments to Himalayan glaciers on show

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Most of the hype we receive about glaciers melting by a given date seems to be entirely based on calculations that shows a reduction of surface area.

    Now I am not glaciologist, but I presume that glaciers also have depth which is, to a large part, unknown and not measurable from satellite imagery.

    I would also presume that the flow rate is somewhat dependent on the weight of ice at the head of the glacier, which in turn will be dependent on the amount of snow that has fallen in the previous years, decades, or even centuries.

    By this argument, it is ridiculous to claim that variations in the area of a glacier is entirely due to one external factor or another. To make any meaningful statements we would need to measure and record variations in the volume of the glacier, and the degree of ice compaction, as well.

    Perhaps somebody who is more knowledgeable on this subject could help me here?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    With google earth we can check the glaciers they make claims about. It seems the warmists believe they can make any claim and they need not support it. Yesterday I looked at the grey water from glacier runoff. It is amazing how glaciers move. The deep blue ice also is a wonder.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    average joe

    More facts about the Himalayan glaciers;

    Maybe not so impressive, maybe not so glorious.

    I believe this is the report “The love guru from India” called voodoo science;

    (Observe, its a big pdf)

    http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Paper%20_him.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] glaciers continue to follow the climate cooling – no warming seen [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    I can say with great confidence that the total mass of water in equals the total mass of water out, over the long term. There is no process in a glacier that can create or destroy water. People describe the glaciers as a water source, but the glacier is merely storage, snowfall is the water source (and the people who can’t figure this out believe themselves to be experts in sustainability).

    Strangely we have hand waving explanations about how Global Warming is causing it to snow a whole lot more in the USA, but these don’t seem to apply to snowfall in the Himalayan Mountains — how convenient.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Just tragic. All that beauty. All that ice. And to think it will be gone by 2030, leaving only the erosion of a hateful sludge that will form a sort of pincer movement against the populations on all sides. For as it melts the seas will rise to one side. And the rolling gunge and sludge will engulf the unfortunate survivors on the other side.

    Of course the third part of this tripod of Gaia’s vengeance, will be the fact that small children will grow up, never knowing what a cup of fresh water looks like. None of these people will have any clothes, all available cloth being used to squeeze out dirty water from the endless rolling gunge. Kids skiting about having had a glass of transparent water will spark off the sort of arms-folded sneering that children and science workers are so good at, and thats only when such tall stories don’t spark off a playground fight.

    Here we are are talking about some relative small population of children. The survivors will be few, and their fertility will of course be horribly compromised by the drinking of what amounts to diluted gunge.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    A bit off topic by I have formed a new rule of science: ALWAYS ASSUME LOUIS HISSINK IS RIGHT.

    I’m finding my new investigations into the potential for deep drilling (there is only one phrase for it)immensely exciting. There is something very wrong about middle-aged males getting this excited. You know how some pre-school kids wind up jumping up and down and clapping their hands in a clumsy staccato fashion? Thats how excited I am about this possibility.

    The logic of the truncated version of peak oil will still be in force unless and until we can have the steady investment in deep drilling, of a type that would make this deep drilling more cost-effective each quarter. When I think of greater cost-effectiveness each quarter, I’m thinking of retained earnings, surplus fiscal budgets, monetary reform, no taxes on savings interest, this sort of thing.

    But bringing the cost down for deep drilling will take time. If we cannot repeal company tax on retained earnings immediately, we have to at least do it for such a critical undertaking as sussing out how to drill deeper and deeper for cheaper and cheaper. You want any Australian-based company, specialising in a stand-alone way in such undertakings as the really deep drilling, or seismic surveys, or a string of activities that relate to the exploitation of the deep stuff ……. you want them to be able to jump ahead of our plans to extend these simple courtesies to all companies. Also Australian subcontractors and suppliers who are paid by these outfits ….. well the money that they are paid could as well be tax exempt in some way. Because cost-effectiveness improvements aren’t a single-firm deal.

    But we have got to get away from this idea that efficiency consists of all firms being equally abused. Almost all distortion comes from the fact of the abuse, and not from some lack of equality of abuse. That we are not allowed to help a few slaves leave the plantation in this way, before we are able to get it together to set them all free …… is a peculiar bit of nutballery, which is held to with incredible fidelity, by the neoclassical school of bad-economics. Economically this idea is bad enough. But strategically the doctrine of the necessity of the equality of governmental abuse, is pure poison.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    average joe: @ #3:

    “I believe this is the report “The love guru from India” called voodoo science;”

    Quite a read and not quite the sort of equivocal, balanced consideration that would get anywhere near an IPCC Report.
    No sign of pins or dolls anywhere.

    Did that intemperate remark betray the whole ethos of the IPCC ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mia Nony

    http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/views/story/0,4574,380103,00.html?

    Opinion
    Published April 7, 2010

    End of the IPCC: one mistake too many

    ‘Climategate’ suggests a conspiracy to commit fraud by a small gang of influential UN panel scientists

    By S FRED SINGER

    THE United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged they made a mistake in their projection of 2035 as the date when all the Himalayan glaciers would melt. But the Himalayan blunder is not a one-off mistake; it is only the latest of a long list of errors that have dogged the IPCC over the past 10 years. And by now, after the ‘Climategate’ flap of last November, ‘Glaciergate’ seems to have opened the floodgates with reports on ‘Amazongate’, ‘Natural-disaster-gate’, and many more.

    Was it necessary? A globe near a mall in Manila with its lights off during Earth Hour on March 27. The ‘climate establishment’, with a vested interest in maintaining climate scares and fanning fears, is desperately trying to save the IPCC and the myth of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. But the public is wiser now.
    In their 2001 report, the IPCC had claimed that the 20th century was ‘unusual’ and blamed it on human-released greenhouse gases. Their infamous temperature graph shown there, shaped like a hockey stick, did away with the well-established Medieval Warm Period (around 1000AD, when Vikings were able to settle in southern Greenland and grow crops there) and the following Little Ice Age (around 1400 to 1800AD). Two Canadians exposed the bad data used by the IPCC and the statistical errors in their analysis.

    Since then, the litany of IPCC errors continues to grow.

    In mid-August 2009, after repeated requests for such data under the Freedom of Information Act, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), one of the three international centres that publish global temperatures, announced that it discarded the raw data used to calculate global surface temperatures. The CRU action renders independent review and verification of the temperature trends published by the CRU impossible – a clear violation of principles of science.
    In October, at the 2009 annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, Dr Don Easterbrook presented graphs demonstrating how tree-ring data from Russia showing a cooling after 1961 was disguised in IPCC publications. The artful deceit so exposed indicates that the IPCC Assessment Report-4 (AR4) of 2007 contains deceptions rendering its conclusion that global warming is anthropogenic (human-caused) scientifically questionable.
    In November, emails from the CRU were leaked to the public, creating what became known as ‘Climategate’. These emails reveal efforts to suppress independent studies that are contrary to IPCC conclusions of AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Thus, the IPCC scientific review process has a systematic bias of an unknowable magnitude in favour of human-induced warming.
    In mid-December, the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) reported that the Hadley Centre for Climate Change of the British Meteorological Office (Met Office) had probably tampered with Russian climate data and that the Russian meteorological station data does not support human-caused global warming. Thus the reported global surface temperature trends are unreliable and probably have a strong warming bias of an unknown magnitude.
    In January this year, American researchers Joe D’Aleo and E Michael Smith reported that the US-National Climatic Data Center (NOAA-NCDC) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA-GISS) dropped many meteorological stations from their databases in recent years. The dropped stations, many of which continue to make appropriate reports, are generally in colder climates. Thus, all global surface temperatures and temperature trends announced by the three international reporting organisations probably have a warming bias of an unknown magnitude – rendering their announced temperature trends scientifically unreliable.
    On Jan 23 this year, the Sunday Times (London) reported that the AR4 wrongly linked natural disasters to global warming. The published report upon which this claim was based actually stated: ‘We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophic losses.’
    In January also, Dr Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the AR4′s chapter on Asia, stated that the IPCC deliberately exaggerated the possible melt of the Himalayan glaciers. ‘We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.’ This admission demonstrates that the AR4 is a political document and not a scientific one.
    More recently, additional reports reveal that the IPCC’s claims that warming will cause extensive adverse effects in the Amazon rainforests and on coral reefs came not from science studies but from publications by environmental advocacy groups, such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace. More scandalous even, the IPCC based their lurid predictions on anecdotal, non-peer-reviewed sources – not at all in accord with its solemnly announced principles and scientific standards.
    These events show not only a general sloppiness of IPCC procedures but also an extreme ideological bias – quite inappropriate to a supposedly impartial scientific survey. Yet all of these missteps pale in comparison to ‘Climategate’, which calls into question the very temperature data used by the IPCC’s main policy result. In my opinion, Climategate is a much more serious issue than simply sloppiness and ideological distortion; Climategate suggests a conspiracy to commit fraud by a small gang of influential IPCC scientists.

    In this enterprise, the group was aided not only by environmental zealots, anti-technology Luddites, utopian one-worlders and population control fanatics, but also by bureaucrats, businesses, brokers and bankers, who had learned how to game the system and profit from government grants and subsidies for exotic schemes to produce ‘carbon-free’ energy and from the trading of carbon permits. Hundreds of billions have already been wasted – most of this in transfers of tax revenues to a favoured few.

    These sums pale, however, in comparison to the trillions that would have been spent in future if some of the mitigation schemes had come to fruition. Fortunately for the world economy, these schemes all collapsed at the Copenhagen conference last December. Clearly, developing nations did not want to take on the sacrifices and restrictions on growth. There was little concern expressed about climate; Copenhagen was mostly about transfer of money.

    The ‘climate establishment’, with a vested interest in maintaining climate scares and fanning fears, is desperately trying to save the IPCC and the AGW myth. A number of ‘investigations’ have been started, mostly trying to excuse IPCC errors and ‘whitewash’ the frauds committed. The latest such effort involves national science academies, called on by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. But it’s too late: the public no longer trusts the UN, the IPCC, and its prophets of doom.

    The writer – an atmospheric physicist, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service – is the organiser of the NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) and co-author of its reports, ‘Nature, not Human Activity, Rules the Climate’ (2008) and ‘Climate Change’


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Veragio

    Oh it must be Spring, at last…

    In a year when their Winter has extended into April (!) just look how the BBC has had to spin this one to fit their warming agenda, by taking a 25 year average ( ! ) of first flowering dates to justify the patently false headline

    Flowers bloom earlier as UK warms

    Why do they still go to such trouble ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pete H

    Brrr! Just out the office heating back on!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Tel so is there any source of water you consider a source? Lakes, Groundwater, rainwater tanks? Storage = source deferred.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    MattB:
    My rainwater tanks are definitely NOT a water source when they run dry due to no rain and normal use. Luckily this hasn’t happened yet and isn’t likey to either. (We have 76,000 litres.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    In 25 years all these glaciers will be gone (melted) – believe me I know, I have tree ring product to prove it.
    Sincerely Phil


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Science Not Consensus

    Robyn Williams is determined to give his boss acid reflux…

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2859986.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Patagon

    You may be interested in contrasting this chart and this pair of images from te Baltoro Glacier, one of the largest glaciers in the Karakorum, the western flank of the Himalayan range. They show almost no change in 100 years.

    http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/511/baltoro.png
    The chart shows the distance from the glacier end to a easily identifiable boulder, as you see there is fluctuation, but no runaway disappearing glaciers, and there is indeed recovery in the last 50 years.

    http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/8377/baltoro19092004.png
    The pair of photographs shows the Baltoro Glacier in 1909 and in 2004. If you look for distinctive landmarks to compare the ice level, you will see that there is no discernible change. The snow cover is seasonal, and can change from one week to another, so that is not an indication. Look for the ice and moraine levels.

    You can be absolutely certain that any glaciologist related to the IPCC knew about this. Failing to point it out and criticize the final report (the 2035 end of glaciers) can only be described as scientific dishonesty, and that of the leading authors (Kaser et al) defies any qualification.

    Source: Mayer et al. 2006: Glaciological characteristics of the ablation zone of Baltoro glacier, Karakoram, Pakistan. Annals of Glaciology 43, pp 123-131

    You can see more images of the Karakorum glaciers in the book of Vittorio Sella, a magnificent photography essay from the first expedition to K2: http://tinyurl.com/yc7juwz


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Mia thanks for that link – and did other Aussies hear how the electricity prices are to rise over the next few years (as a result of the proposed CPRS); Qld is a bit behind in that so far; energy suppliers don’t want to invest in new coal fired power stations and looks like we’re going to have to try to rely on other sources; but what seeing as nuclear is on the nose?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Speaking of the Himalyas, here’s Rajendra Pachauri…

    If the ABC was Relevant, Part 10
    [It might sometimes sound like this…]

    KERRY: He’s won the Nobel Peace Prize, and now he’s aiming for Literature. Bryan and John are joined by IPCC Director Rajendra Pachauri to discuss his latest literary epic, “Lust in Translation”.

    BRYAN: An honour to have you on the programme Professor.

    JOHN: Yes, Bryan, it is.

    BRYAN: You certainly are a man of many talents, Dr Pachauri – scientist, engineer, saviour of the planet and now, in your latest incarnation, a published author.

    JOHN: Being wonderful just comes with the job Bryan.

    BRYAN: Do you think you could give us a brief précis of your book Professor?

    JOHN: Well Bryan, like all great literature, my book considers the nature of the Human Condition, in this case as seen through the eyes of a brilliant young 70-year old UN Climate Scientist.

    BRYAN: Care to give us a sample Professor?

    JOHN: As a treat for the viewers, Bryan. [Opens book, clears throat and licks lips].

    JOHN: “He could feel her hot, steamy breath mingle with his, and his heart sank as he instinctively calculated their combined greenhouse outputs. For, even though the IPCC did not consider water vapour as a greenhouse gas (despite it being responsible of over 90% of the infra-red absorption in the earth’s atmosphere), he knew, deep in his heart, that even now their combined CO2 emissions were insinuating themselves into the atmosphere and would very likely result in the death of a Himalayan glacier before the year 2035. (“Very Likely” being the term associated with a probability factor of 90 percent or higher.)

    “What a fool I’ve been,” he thought bitterly – “To compromise our global future for the sake of a sly nookie.” Slowly, he peeled the banana…”

    BRYAN: [Interrupting] Rajendra Pachauri, thank you!

    JOHN: You like?

    BRYAN: [Flustered] Fine!

    JOHN: You want toy? Candid picture? Home movie? Big willy pill? Ten dollar – ten dollar!

    BRYAN: [Falsetto] I’m fine!

    JOHN: Want to see me pole dance, Big Boy?

    BRYAN: [Considering career alternatives] Rajendra Pachauri, good night…

    JOHN: Available on-line and at all ABC shops…

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Tel so is there any source of water you consider a source? Lakes, Groundwater, rainwater tanks? Storage = source deferred.

    Rain is the source, rainwater tanks are the storage. If you build a bigger rainwater tank you can load-level by transporting the water from a short heavy rainfall into the future (possibly improving your usage efficiency), but you can’t increase your average water usage no matter how much storage you build.

    Suppose you buy a bigger petrol tank for your car, does that make your car cheaper to run? Suppose you buy a lot more dishes so you can stack them higher in the kitchen before you bother getting round to washing them, does that mean you don’t need to wash as many dishes?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    SNC
    Nice link I particular like Naomi Oreskes:

    the public are confused because they have a deficit of scientific knowledge, education and cognitive skills. That is to say that they’re scientifically illiterate.

    We are stupid.

    supply side models assume that people are confused because they’re ignorant, but we argue that people may be confused because in fact people have tried to confuse them.

    Wow we are not stupid, just gullible – I feel so much better now – but then again we prols may be both stupid and gullible, damn.

    Naomi of course has a solution – what we need is to be exposed to pro AGW PR. A fine idea but hardly novel after all we have been blitzed the UN, our politicans, various government departments and NGO’s, Green groups and PR orchestrated blogs such as RC, DeSmug, Exxon Secrets, Suzuki Foundation etc. How can you add to that.

    They could try empirical evidence – but wait – my stupid, they have none.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Straying off subject:

    Richard S Courtney:
    I have not long finished reading your exposé on ( Comments on the eighth report of sessions of 2009-10 of the UK Parliament’s House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology. )

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/comments_uk_p.pdf

    I congratulate you on a well written, and easy to read paper. As a layman and a person that is scientifically ignorant, I must concede to your vastly superior knowledge of the subject. That said, as an outsider I still find it hard to believe that one could not concede that both the Penn State and the recently concluded British investigations are either by design or incompetence whitewashes.

    From your paper

    These comments reject assertion of ‘whitewash’ and argue that both the completed investigations used the same flawed method to assess the affair. The problem is that the method used by the enquiries inevitably provides findings that seem to exonerate the Team. So, this method of enquiry inevitably provides a particular outcome, and it is not that the enquiries were a whitewash with a pre‐determined outcome.

    I acknowledge you covered a portion of this paper on a previous thread on this site, referring to an exchange between Roy Hogue and myself on the merits of upcoming court cases in both Australia and the U.S, where Industries are being sued over pollution and contributing to extreme weather events. You rightly pointed to James Hansen’s appearance in a British Court on behalf of a group of environmental vandals, I readily concur with your view that law courts may not be the ideal place to challenge the science, but ask in what form should the science be tested.

    Bob.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Science Not Consensus:

    I followed your link to “ABC”, it left me wondering to what MSM they repeatedly referred, where scepicts get better news coverage than the pre-eminent team, I think their all becoming paranoid.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bob Malloy:

    Thank you for your generous and kind words at #20.

    You ask me:

    I acknowledge you covered a portion of this paper on a previous thread on this site, referring to an exchange between Roy Hogue and myself on the merits of upcoming court cases in both Australia and the U.S, where Industries are being sued over pollution and contributing to extreme weather events. You rightly pointed to James Hansen’s appearance in a British Court on behalf of a group of environmental vandals, I readily concur with your view that law courts may not be the ideal place to challenge the science, but ask in what form should the science be tested.

    I answer that I do not know.

    In essence, you are asking,
    “How do we get to a proper conclusion?”,
    and I give the ‘Irish answer’ of
    “I would not start from here.

    In times past the obvious answer would be to commission an enquiry from an august scientific body such as the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or the UK Royal Society (RS). But now it could be expected that such bodies would provide a ‘cover up’; see
    http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762v1.pdf
    for Lindzen’s good explanation of why this can be expected.

    Sorry, but if I had an answer to your question then I would be proclaiming it.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    klem

    Glaciers which reside at altitudes where it always remains frozen are disappearing as well. The Antarctic glaciers are disappearing though 99% of it never gets above freezing temperatures. The climate alarmists claim they are melting and humans are at fault, but glaciers can’t melt if temperature does not rise above freezing. So what is happening? They are sublimating (evaporating). Just like ice cubes in your refrigerator will shrink without melting. Understand this is still a change in climate but it means that it has stopped snowing at the top and the glacier has stopped growing, so sublimation is reducing it, not melting. Glaciers rely on snow more than temperature, so if they are not growing it means that it has stopped snowing. The Antarctic is the largest desert on earth, this means that it stopped snowing there 1000’s of years ago. Ever wonder how a glacier can melt way up above 20,000 feet? Well it doesn’t, it shrinks though sublimation. Alarmists use comparo photos of high altitude glaciers just to fool people, it has nothing to do with humans. Climatologist and the UN IPCC are aware of this but they don’t talk about it. Odd don’t you think?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JPA Knowles

    Graeme B,
    Most glacial lakes hold enough of that gunge and sludge to give every Australian sub-urban block a ten kilo sackful. Spread wisely this would keep our soils in trace minerals till long after the coming “Peter Sawyer Cold Snap” and help feed the population. The peoples who eat crops grown on these glacial soils have remarkably good health despite apparent poverty. The drinking of “what amounts to diluted gunge” tends to give one the trots but is probably the best thing for fertility, both human and horticultural.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “I congratulate you on a well written, and easy to read paper. As a layman and a person that is scientifically ignorant, I must concede to your vastly superior knowledge of the subject. ”

    See Oreskes’ comments in post #19.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Ok then Tel – so in your terms every single “source” of water used practically by humans to maintain civilisation is in fact just “storage” with rainfall/snowfall being the “source”. So the glacier is storage. I then ask ask Ken in 12 if he would be happy with a 100L storage tank.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gordon Walker

    MattB; I think that the Himalaya glaciers are just one form of storage, amounting to about 3% of the total. Most storage is groundwater.
    I live in southern France, in the Aude valley. No rain falls here from between two to four months in the summer. There are no glaciers in the eastern pyrenees which feed the river Aude, but it does not run dry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    MattB:

    At #25 you say;

    See Oreskes’ comments in post #19.

    OK. I have seen them together with the comprehensive rebuttal that allen mcmahon there provides.

    So what?

    Incidentally, can you cite anything Naomi Oreskes has written that pertains to climate science which is right?

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Matt, surely you are being deliberately obtuse just for the sake of argument.

    For nearly every civilised person the “source” of water is a tap. If you turn the tap on, more water comes, if you turn it off, less water comes. Thus, by your logic we can solve any drought by merely turning the tap on harder…

    Except that it doesn’t really work like that, and I’ll leave you to puzzle over why.

    As for why a big water tank is more desirable than a small water tank, I already explained that the key term is “load leveling” which you might consider looking up. The rainfall is not a constant supply of exactly this much rain per day, you get more or less rain based on season or other random factors. Usage of water does tend to be mostly constant so storage is required to couple the source and the load efficiently. This is very standard engineering in all supply/demand situations.

    Yet another example that might help is that you are attempting to say the warehouse is the same as the factory… so that building a bigger warehouse should provide more goods… that one won’t work either. For what it’s worth, most manufacturers around the world have been working hard to shrink their warehouse space as much as possible and compensate by making the factory precisely matched to the demand. Admittedly, we can’t do this with rainfall (yet).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony Hansen

    From ‘World Glacier Monitoring Service’
    ‘The World Glacier Inventory (WGI) contains information for over 72’000 glaciers throughout the world….. The available detailed glacier information in the WGI is mainly based on aerial photographs and maps and corresponds to about 44% of the total number and 23% of the total area of all glaciers, as estimated by Dyurgerov and Meier (2005)’.

    So does this mean that more than half (56%) have no detailed information?
    And does this mean that 77% of the total area has no detailed information?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Tel your whole quibble about whether a glacier is storage or source is the source of the obtuseness, I’ve merely load-levelled it across the thread;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I see that Ellen Sandell is fanning the flames of ignorance over at the SMH:

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/where-is-the-fuss-over-the-un-climate-talks-20100408-rujo.html

    Her achievemnents paragraph reads as:

    “Ellen Sandell is the general manager of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. She is the 2009 Joint Young Environmentalist of the Year and was recently named as one of the Top 100 most influential Melburnians, by The Age (Melbourne) Magazine.”

    Jump in and enjoy the fun… the denier word popped up within a few posts!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    They are sublimating (evaporating). Just like ice cubes in your refrigerator will shrink without melting. Understand this is still a change in climate but it means that it has stopped snowing at the top and the glacier has stopped growing, so sublimation is reducing it, not melting. Glaciers rely on snow more than temperature, so if they are not growing it means that it has stopped snowing.

    klem,

    Exactly! But if they admit the truth they blow their entire AGW scam. Of course they might just try to say that the lack of snow was caused by global warming.

    This is something like the big flap over the north polar ice cap melting. It’s been doing that off and on for who knows how long but the warmers just noticed it and said, “Oh my god, it’s melting. Let’s panic.” But they never do a bit of homework to see if there’s any existing information they can use to avoid making fools of themselves.

    The ozone hole is the same way. It was first discovered in the 1950′s and has probably been there forever and means nothing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    FijiDave

    OT I know, but this is a taste of what we are in for:

    Who in the end is going to pay?

    http://business.scoop.co.nz/2010/04/09/agricultural-greenhouse-gas-research-heats-up/

    Who is paying for this propaganda?

    http://www.agresearch.co.nz/publications/now/agrnowMar08.pdf

    I want to puke.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Matt
    Oreskes’ reasoning and suggested solution is flawed because the problem isn’t a deficit of scientific knowledge, education and cognitive skills. Many of us without scientific qualifications have both the education and cognitive to analyze and assess the relative merits of both sides of the AGW debate. In any case the physics with regard to Co2 is quite easy for a layman to understand.

    While the scientists argue in minute details the smallest and most obtuse of points we science illiterates look at the big picture and what we see is a small but influential group of pro AGW climate scientists who are deceptive, evasive and desperately clinging to a failed hypothesis. Climate science is in its infancy yet these scientists presume a knowledge far beyond that which observation and evidence supports.

    There are many examples of this and one of the most recent example is Arctic ice. The minimum of 2007 was proof positive of AGW and that arctic ice was in a “death spiral”, NOAA went so far as to issue a press release suggesting the likelihood of an ice free pole by the next summer season. This of course proved incorrect as the cause was the natural, the effect of wind and currents. We were told that AGW would be most evident at the poles and neither the Arctic or the Antarctic supports the hypothesis.

    Despite a history of failure to provide evidence of AGW we are supposed to accept the future vision of climate catastrophe based on unproven models from scientists whose methods are at the best flawed and at the worst dishonest and yet they say that we skeptics are in denial.

    My advice to Oreskes’ and the AGW scientists would be to forget PR and conduct themselves in an ethical, honest and transparent manner.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Richard

    How is that copy of your 2005 paper which you said were going to get to Jo and myself coming along?

    It is still not available to academics outside the listed UK and (few) European institutions via the new web link you gave.

    FYI, I have about 65-odd peer reviewed papers (mostly in isotope geoscience). All are easily available to any academics searching for them via the usual channels.

    Thanks.

    Regards
    Steve


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “NOAA went so far as to issue a press release suggesting the likelihood of an ice free pole by the next summer season.”

    Did they? All I can find are predictions of ice-free in about 30 years, in from end of century as previously suggested.
    http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/sea_ice.html

    Ahh you mean the literal pole… well you can;t help bad reporting but yet again it seems the scientists were not so sure: http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/06/an_ice_free_north_pole.html

    FYI here is the actual sea ice extent so you don;t have to read incorrect media headlines: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    MattB:
    See Oreskes’ comments in post #19.

    I assume when I stated, as a layman and a person that is scientifically ignorant you read too much into it. So you feel I was confessing to be one of the “scientifically illiterate” that Naomi Oreskes, refers to. Matt I was only saying compared to “Richard S Courtney” I am not in his league. While I consider myself a newcomer to sites like these and only dipping my toe into debates on the subject I do not consider myself illiterate on the subject. I definitely was Illiterate on climate science less than two years ago, that was when I was on your side of the debate, accepted every new doomsday report on television and in the press, not taking the time or putting in the effort to check for opposing opinions. It didn’t take a lot of looking to raise doubts and eventually convince me I was being led down the garden path.

    Things that changed my mind include:
    Ice core history, five times in the last 10.000 years temperatures have been as hot or hotter as they currently are, three times in the last three to four thousand years. On none of those occasions did man contribute to the warming, why should I believe this time it’s any different. On each of those occasions temperature rose between six and eight hundred years before co2 followed, this is being simplistic but if history is to repeat itself and knowing the medieval warm period was between 900AD and 1200AD then regardless of mans contribution to co2 a rise should be expected now anyway.

    What is also interesting is the 2.2° temperature rise from 7.8° in 1696 to 10.0° in 1732. This is a 2.2° rise is 36 years. By comparison, the world has seen a 0.6° rise over the 100 years of the 20th century. “David Archibald”

    A trail of conflicting statements from the IPCC, In the 90’s they acknowledge the medieval warm period, then in 2001 Michael Mann presents his hockey stick. Let’s throw a party this will convince them. Between the two conflicting reports there was this little episode.
    In 1995 David Deming…a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma…reconstructed North America’s historical temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: ‘With the publication of my article in Science I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them…someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes.’ One of the more important players foolishly let his guard slip and sent Deming an email that said ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.’ So they did.

    The hockey stick is broken see:
    A 2000-YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTION
    BASED ON NON-TREERING PROXIES
    by
    Craig Loehle
    ENERGY &
    ENVIRONMENT
    VOLUME 18 No. 7+8 2007
    Historical data provide a baseline for judging how anomalous recent temperature
    changes are and for assessing the degree to which organisms are likely to be
    adversely affected by current or future warming. Climate histories are commonly
    reconstructed from a variety of sources, including ice cores, tree rings, and
    sediment. Tree-ring data, being the most abundant for recent centuries, tend to
    dominate reconstructions. There are reasons to believe that tree ring data may not
    properly capture long-term climate changes. In this study, eighteen 2000-year-long
    series were obtained that were not based on tree ring data. Data in each series were
    smoothed with a 30-year running mean. All data were then converted to anomalies
    by subtracting the mean of each series from that series. The overall mean series
    was then computed by simple averaging. The mean time series shows quite
    coherent structure. The mean series shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and
    Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C warmer than 20th century values at these eighteen sites.

    And if I didn’t already smell a rat, then came Climategate, despite all the spin, the emails are truncated (“Peter Pan”, here and at the ABC drum unleashed), it doesn’t weaken the science, move on nothing to see here. If I bought that you could sell me the Harbor Bridge and throw in the Opera House as a garage.

    Last night on TV they ran a story about this bloke placing large professional looking adds in national newspapers offering jobs across the country, signing applicants to contracts and relieving them of over $700 each as a uniform charge. I’ll send you an email with your start time and place. Guess what no jobs no $700. Then there’s the emails I’m always getting, some millionaire or is that billionaire keeps wanting to give me part of his fortune. Maybe it’s me but I think they’re all tared with the one brush, buyer beware.

    The emails spell out clearly how Phil Jones and more of the hockey team plotted to keep two papers out of the 2007 IPCC report, a report that disagreed with a paper by Jones himself. Just luck that Jones was the lead author on that chapter, no surprise Jones’s paper was the feature article, with only a disparaging reference to the other papers, see Response to David Henderson’s Governments and Climate Change Issues: The Flawed Consenses, by Ross McKitrick. for a fuller exposé on the workings within the IPCC.

    If you haven’t already read Climategate Analysis by John P Costella I recommend you do, keeping an open mind, if after reading it you wont concede theres at least a whiff of collusion and manipulation of Peer Review, then Matt you’d buy the Harbor Bridge and pay extra to have the Opera House as your garage.

    Ill close with a quote by Dr David Evans:

    When I started the job in 1999, the evidence that carbon emissions caused global
    warming seemed pretty conclusive. But since then new evidence has weakened the
    case. I am now skeptical. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I
    change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

    P.S. I have followed some of your previous ongoing joust with BaaHumbug and Eddy Aruda, and I do not intend participating in an ongoing war of words myself. I look forward to any reply you may post, but have no intention of reciprocating.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Hi Bob I was more referring to “we argue that people may be confused because in fact people have tried to confuse them” regarding your references to Richard S. Courtney.

    As for your being on my side of the debate once, well I’m not sure I’ve ever “accepted every new doomsday report on television and in the press” other than possibly my previously held anti-nuclear position.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Matt

    “NOAA went so far as to issue a press release suggesting the likelihood of an ice free pole by the next summer season.”

    Did they?

    Go back further to press release and a summary report both issued in 2008.

    Re NDIC

    This was 650,000 square kilometers (250,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for March, but 670,000 square kilometers (260,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in March 2006.

    Now which normal do we choose? NDIC at 15.75 million sq. kms. or NASEN normal is 15.25 million sq.kms. Regardless of the source it seems like good news considering the situation in 2007 and it is contrary to alarmist predictions for the past two years.

    As opposed to the dire predictions possible scenarios churned out by “team doom” GCMs I have seen the last few years as positive indicators for the future. Mind you if my professional standing and future was predicated by adherence to a flawed hypothesis I might view things differently.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Steve:

    At #36 you ask:

    How is that copy of your 2005 paper which you said were going to get to Jo and myself coming along?

    I thought it was the paper I published in E&E in 1999 that I said I would try to provide.

    I have now obtained permission to copy that 1999 paper and to provide copies to a limited number of people. So, I will scan it and send the scans to Ms Nova with a request that she forwards them to you.

    Hopefully, I will find time to do this today. If I do not get around to it for any reason, then please chivvy me tomorrow.

    If I have made a mistake and it is one of my 2005 E&E papers that you want then please clarify which and I will ask permission again.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Len

    I received an email today with the following link. It is about Prince Charles and the Cambridge University trying to get the failed Copenhagen agreements adopted. The Church of England and the BBC are in trouble over carbon trading investments.

    To find out more please visit http://www.copenhagencommunique.com


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike Davis

    We have satellite photos of glaciers and groups who claim to evaluate those images just like our NSIDC here in the states does with the poles and others do as well.
    I read somewhere that less than 5% of the surface glaciers have been surveyed on the ground. I also read that 2 more glaciers in the Glacier National Park no longer exist. The last was in the last few days so maybe the snow did not fall on those 2 glaciers this winter! I have to rely on second hand information but may be sceptical regarding the source.

    Of course the extent of current loss of ice from the glaciers would need to be related to past natural losses and if we are finding plants under the melting glaciers that date within the last 10,000 years then we are NOT experiencing abnormal climate no matter what Matt thinks.
    As for Naomi O she should take lessons from Ann McAffrey so her fantasy writing is easier to swallow.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “Rain is the source, rainwater tanks are the storage. If you build a bigger rainwater tank you can load-level by transporting the water from a short heavy rainfall into the future (possibly improving your usage efficiency), but you can’t increase your average water usage no matter how much storage you build.”

    Right but for practical purposes its still a capital investment issue. There is an artificial river next to where I work and its usually dry. Even a slight rain and its full and fast-flowing. The brown water doesn’t get used but it could do.

    In the desert in Taos New Mexico there is this hippy architect. He makes these houses out of junk and calls them “earthships.” They are pretty crappy looking on the outside but look pretty righteous and spacious on the inside. Well in any case its the desert. But he gets by because his water system winds up using every bit of water four times over. So its all about investment in getting more out of the water we have. As well nuclear power plants are natural desalinaters.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9jdIm7grCY

    His water system begins to be discussed just less than 3 minutes in.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “See Oreskes’ comments in post #19.”

    Why?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    MattB:

    Hi Matt, Just letting you know while we may disagree on climate, over the time I’ve been visiting this site I have always enjoyed your input. I may have jumped on the wrong horse earlier, and take you explanation on-board.

    P.S. The thumbs up is my way of showing gratitude for the courtesy of your reply.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Greame, here’s the sort of article going around:

    Scientists monitoring the glaciers high in the Andes mountains – a key source of water – say the ice is showing signs of shrinking faster than previously forecast.

    Faced with a booming population and a combination of glacial retreat and reduced rainfall, the governor of the La Paz region is even contemplating moving people to other parts of Bolivia. Water is already in short supply among the poorest communities and has become a cause of tension.

    http://tcktcktck.org/stories/human-impact/melting-glacier-threat-bolivia-capitals-water-supply

    And I’ll say it one more time: big glacier or small glacier makes no difference to the available water source. If the glacier is melting then they (temporarily) have more water than usual because it is coming out of storage. If the rainfall is genuinely reducing then that is a problem, but conflating this with melting glaciers is foolishness.

    In the desert in Taos New Mexico there is this hippy architect. He makes these houses out of junk and calls them “earthships.” They are pretty crappy looking on the outside but look pretty righteous and spacious on the inside. Well in any case its the desert. But he gets by because his water system winds up using every bit of water four times over. So its all about investment in getting more out of the water we have.

    I’m well aware of efficient water usage, which is nothing to do with glaciers melting, and applies equally well should you have big glaciers, small glaciers or no glacier at all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “Scientists monitoring the glaciers high in the Andes mountains – a key source of water – say the ice is showing signs of shrinking faster than previously forecast.”

    You ought to have stopped right there. That very first sentence is a scam. For starters who cares about the prior forecast. Secondly, by their own admission, they screwed up the first forecast. So they haven’t said anything. So the rest is just rubbish too.

    You get that sentence already you got lies. What did the former forecasts say? Are we supposed to audit the former forecast? Already we have lost any reality on the situation.

    As soon as you see that sentence you ought to think “liars.”

    What are we going to do? Relate one bad forecast to another and approach the problem at one stage removed?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “I’m well aware of efficient water usage, which is nothing to do with glaciers melting, and applies equally well should you have big glaciers, small glaciers or no glacier at all.”

    What has this got to do with CO2? CO2 is not some sort of drying agent. In fact if it works as advertised it will increase rainfall.

    So the key here is just like everything else, the problem is a capital goods problem.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    MattB,

    It’s quite clear that you believe AGW might just be possible if not likely. Even so, we all have a lot of respect for you because you argue your position and can disagree without being disagreeable.

    I don’t know what background you have in math, physics and chemistry. But I feel compelled to point out that The Skeptic’s Handbook contains a beautiful, scientifically correct and unassailable refutation of AGW. Simply put, the known physics of carbon dioxide makes it impossible for it to do what it’s being blamed for doing. The whole AGW theory (to me and others, a scam) hangs on this one little bit of hard science and the science says AGW is wrong.

    Please note that Joanne is not the only one to point this out. It’s been published across the internet by a number of people, all well qualified to know the facts involved.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    MattB,

    About an ice free north pole — perhaps you missed the pictures of U.S. nuclear subs surfaced at the North Pole in open water as long ago as the 1960′s. The polar ice cap goes through freeze and melt cycles and this is not taken into account by the alarmists. It’s a case of — they just discovered it so it must have just started, as I’ve said before. What arrogant nonsense!

    This is just theorizing but if the ice cap never melted the continuing year after year accumulation of snow over millions of years might well have pushed ice all the way to the bottom and no submarine could navigate under it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Graeme Bird

    But isn’t the damage done John? Lower prices must come from reinvestment. Not from complaining about the latest price rises. These lunatics have brought this to us but its at least ten years in the making. The discouragement from new investment in power capacity. Obstruction is pretty nasty. But discouragement is bad enough. Filling potential investors with boogie-men and lies. Thats really bad enough. Money is a coward. Discouragement can be devastating. Like banning or restricting the production of DDT is devastating. But the more subtle discouragement probably murdered equally as many. Same story here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    What has this got to do with CO2? CO2 is not some sort of drying agent.

    Nothing whatsoever to do with CO2. I was discussing a different matter entirely.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    But isn’t the damage done John? Lower prices must come from reinvestment.

    We are generating electricity for 3 cents per kilowatt hour, it is being sold to households at a 500% markup (that’s not a misprint, five hundred percent markup, which is more than eighty percent gross profit). There is absolutely no need for reinvestment and a huge need for streamlining the supply chain by eliminating the trouser stuffing happening in the middle.

    No wonder people are cranky. I’m cranky. If I were paying double or triple the cost of generation I’d deal with it (someone has to pay for distribution and billing overheads) but six times? If you go over quota it goes up to seven times! And more price increases on the horizon.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    FYI here is the actual sea ice extent so you don;t have to read incorrect media headlines: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    That’s a very interesting report, from a number of angles. Most significantly Figure 3 is misleading, and what twigged me was the heading “Average Monthly Sea Ice Extent, March 1979 to 2010″ but I looked at the figure and saw only one sample point per year, so it can’t be monthly because that would require 12 sample points per year.

    Actually, it isn’t monthly at all, it is yearly but only shows one month in the year so the correct title is “Annual March Average”. As usual I’m going to accused of nitpicking, but I don’t care because both the 1999 and the 2010 trace of sea ice comes to a peak after March, thus the real peak is carefully hidden from the curve in Figure 3 and the blue downward trend means precisely nothing at all.

    In the text, the do note a trend towards a late peak (what Engineers would call a phase shift) so whoever wrote this understood that showing only the March figures would pretend that a phase shift is really a change in magnitude (and I’d guess they can fool some of the people some of the time with such circus acts). Then when this is pointed out I’ll have no doubt the response will be, “We explained it in the text, so it was all perfectly honest.”

    If it was honest, then there would be an equivalent graph for Figure 3 for April, which would show a rising trend… hmmm, don’t expect that to be printed any time soon.

    I went a bit further and dug around for the GISS data (as downloaded JAN 2010 and yes the download date does change the data set). Interestingly, the year 1999 is hotter than the 3rd quartile for the 1979 to 2000 average (i.e. an unusually hot year by GISS standards even for that particular 20 year period). Strangely, this unusually hot year also has the most recent highest sea-ice extent (as documented in the above NSIDC page). If you think it might somehow relate to the previous year then be aware that 1998 was (according to GISS) the hottest year in the 1979 to 2000 bracket.

    So sea-ice peaked in an unusually hot year, following an exceptionally hot year but the sea ice is still going down (in March only) caused by Global Warming. Weirdest thing, huh?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “We are generating electricity for 3 cents per kilowatt hour, it is being sold to households at a 500% markup (that’s not a misprint, five hundred percent markup, which is more than eighty percent gross profit).”

    Good point. I did not know that.

    “There is absolutely no need for reinvestment and a huge need for streamlining the supply chain by eliminating the trouser stuffing happening in the middle.”

    Not a good point. The price reductions ought to come from surplus capacity and easier access into the industry. After all if people can easily make a 500% market, why cannot any bum pull a loan, buy some farmland, and go into competition with these guys?

    For starters our banking system is so untenable they are funneling resources into land asset inflation. Secondly there are three layers of government getting in the way. Thirdly there are these climate science lies discouraging investment.

    The free market is supposed to bring balance to all sectors of the economy by sending capital investment to where higher than normal profits are being made. The extra capital investment is supposed to reduce prices. The reduction in prices normalises profits in the industry to the national average. If there is a 500% markup going on why have these guys not paid all their debts off? Why is new finance going into low-yielding houses in Sydney and Adelaide, and not into high-yielding coal-electricity plants?

    Clearly the answer is more capacity. And we can see that the environmentalists have an immense amount of guilt for the price rises we are experiencing now. You can tell all kinds of lies and get in the way for years and nothing bad seems to happen. Now all the bad stuff is happening. And they are one of the parties most to blame.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I hate to point out the obvious but at least in the U.S. there is no free market in electricity. And from what I’m reading here it’s the same everywhere.

    I get mine from a publically owned utility that’s regulated heavily by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). They dictate price structure quite literally. Fortunately the PUC — so far at least — has no incentive to milk the utility for money even though the utilities they regulate are required to pay the cost of being regulated. But there is only one supplier that can’t control its own pricing so you have no free market.

    In Los Angeles where the city Department of Water and Power runs things the price is even higher than what I pay because they aren’t regulated by the PUC. And worse, they have no incentive whatsoever to be efficient or competitive with anyone else. There is currently a big flap because rates have gone up (again). The DWP is simply a cash cow that the city milks for money. So again, there’s no free market and they’re directly under political control.

    Ironically the DWP is buying power from the same sources as the public utility.

    California has promised more capacity for years but when it comes to actually doing it, good luck! What we’re paying is determined more by politics than anything else. Our limited electricity supply is not from lack of resources but from lack of will to use what we have available. The shortage is political and intentional.

    Whether it’s AGW or electricity, if we’re ever going to get out from under these problems we have to break the backbone of the political machinery that wants to run our lives. We’re getting nowhere debating the 3 cents/kWh to generate vs. 500% markup to the consumer or what excess capacity is supposed to do. All this angers me just as much as it angers you (believe me, my blood boils over) but it’s not attacking the real problem.

    Where is the man with the convictions of Ronald Reagan when we need him?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “I hate to point out the obvious but at least in the U.S. there is no free market in electricity. And from what I’m reading here it’s the same everywhere.”

    Exactly. There is a lot of reforming to do. There is no room for passive-libertarianism here. I’m not saying, “don’t do anything, the market will take care of it….”. There is no free market. I’m not saying “she’ll be right”. She won’t be right and its particularly galling to have a Prime Minister who likes to grandstand overseas, when what he needs to be doing is charging about locally, getting the other two levels of government to pre-approve all sorts of hypothetical projects for more sites then will ever be actually taken up for these purposes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Graeme,

    Your PM and our president, not to mention the governor of California, are all paying attention to everything but their real responsibility. So no, things will not be alright any time soon. But at least here the continuing hard times are beginning to anger and thus wake up more and more people.

    After I posted at 58 I sat down to read the local paper and what should I find but the DWP making news again. Seems the good citizens of LA are getting angry and so is the City Council. Maybe a little justice will happen.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Neither your bloke or ours has ever held a proper job. But I think your President is fundamentally a traitor and dictator-wannabe, whose main constituents are not Americans. We might be going through a period of heightened conspirational undertakings. I think our Prime Minister is merely a lunatic. An idiot. Someone living in a bubble world. Like Gordon Brittas from the show “The Brittas Empire”.

    That makes us Australians more fortunate then you Americans. Your guy appears to be actively trying to destroy you. Our fellow appears to be hurting us merely by accident. There is no real intention behind the idiocy of Kevin Rudd. Our guy appears to be a moronic talentless bumbler. Your fellow appears to be highly organized and successful in carrying out his malign intentions.

    I think you need to be taking real care of yourself. Thinking and planning. Covering your downside risks. Us too but that will become more readily apparent once your fellow succeeds in bringing full-blown chaos and disorder.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    We’re a little better off now that Republicans can filibuster in the Senate but it depends on all of them having the nerve to do it.

    November’s elections will see quite a few Democrats go down in flames without a doubt, so that will also help.

    But the big problem is that Obama thinks he’s a dictator and we don’t know what he’ll try to get around the legal niceties like elections and pesky little things like laws. He’s used intimidation to shut up his adversaries during the campaign, so who knows to what extent he or his minions might go.

    There is nothing open, honest or aboveboard in him.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Steve Short:

    There is a long saga concerning my failure to provide a copy of my 1999 paper (Ms Nova knows some of it).

    I have now scanned a borrowed copy of it and I shall email the scans to Ms Nova with a request that she forwards them to you.

    Sorry for the delay.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    In New South Wales there is a competitive market for electricity generation (i.e. the wholesale market), and you can (after a mountain of paperwork) setup a generator and sell power. Question is, who are you going to sell the power to? You can sell it to a few farmers and/or miners nearby, or you can sell it onto the grid. If you sell onto the grid then there is a floating price maintained by AEMO which shows what price the grid is buying at (and it changes with demand).

    However, once it gets into the grid the retail price is fixed by government (at least it is in NSW) and there is only one transmission system. If you wanted to bypass that, firstly you can’t because AEMO have legislation to back them up, but secondly you aren’t going to get access to any public land for distribution cabling, nor are your cables going to be able to cross any public land. Yes, householders can “choose” between a selection of energy retailers to have different letterhead across the top of their bills, but since the price is fixed the numbers on your bill won’t change.

    The license to be an electricity retailer is granted by IPART which is to all intents and purposes a government department with the word “Independent” in their name to make them sound non-government. Their website is http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/ and they are also the ones who get to decide the retail prices.

    How they figure out that 500% markup is required to cover transmission costs is beyond my comprehension, but there are loads of documents on their website, maybe some accounting genius can puzzle them out.

    They do also mention that there will substantial additional costs for householders if the CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) gets through federal parliament (but strangely it makes no effort to relate the CPRS costs back to the cost of generation or the average wholesale price shown by AEMO). In other words, no one can explain where the money is going and how, which is pretty much business as usual in New South Wales.

    To make things even more complex, there’s a federal regulator as well (how could they possibly keep their fingers out of this?) and this regulator also dabbles in setting retail prices. You can read about it here:

    http://www.aer.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/724248

    Again, if anyone can figure out where the money is actually going, I’d be fascinated to know.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    How they figure out that 500% markup is required to cover transmission costs is beyond my comprehension, but there are loads of documents on their website, maybe some accounting genius can puzzle them out.

    And it occurs to me that the electricity bill actually includes a daily grid connect and access fee which is supposedly covering transmission costs. This is on top of the large markup and unrelated to how much electricity you actually use.

    I believe the following web page explains were all the money actually is vanishing. Above I described two tiers of the energy system, but actually there are three tiers:

    * Wholesale (electricity generation)
    * Distribution (owns and runs the grid, does all real service)
    * Retail (does billing and first-level customer service)

    There are many players at the retail level but very few at the distribution level and the distributors are government owned and they have marked territories. The profits are all going into the distribution tier and these guys are an unavoidable bottleneck.

    Note well, the existing grid is already working, needs minimal investment and doesn’t actually need much money spent on maintenance (and they bill you anyhow on a daily basis to have a connection). Please read:

    http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/electricity/licensing_further_information_2.asp

    If you shop around you might find a deal that is more attractive. Before deciding to change, get as much information as you can from the retailer/marketer who is required to provide you with enough information to make an informed choice. Read any proposed contract carefully and if in doubt ask for clarification.

    If you decide to change, you will only be changing your retailer (the company that sells you energy and bills you for it). You will not be changing your network provider (the company that owns the pipes and/or wires that deliver your energy).

    And if you scan to the bottom of the page you can see how few distribution companies there are. Emphasis added by me.

    In conclusion, since the distribution companies are government owned and pulling in much more income than it could possibly cost to run their networks, we can conclude that between half and three quarters of the price NSW citizens pay for electricity is pure tax. Which makes perfect sense when the NSW government burned out it’s money hosting the Olympics, and having to Pope over for tea, they catch it up by using their gatekeeper position to whack a big tax on electricity and then fool some of the people into believing we are desperate for infrastructure investment on the power generation side.

    Now what time to drag this out into the open, seems to be an election coming up… scratious me! If only a real reporter wanted to report some real news, a little pie chart of where your electricity dollar goes would be a good start.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Major thankies for the post.Much thanks again. Will read on…


    Report this

    00