What Carbon

[RAM]

[h=1]Is this further proof of the success of the carbon tax and FITs in Australia?
Many US, Japanese, Australian (all actually) and EU solar panel makers have gone out of business since 2009, the carbon tax was introduced post the 2010 Election.

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/report_claims_50_of_chinese_solar_firms_have_ceased_production

Report claims 50% of Chinese solar firms have ceased production[/h] Approximately half of China’s PV manufacturing firms have ceased production, according to a report on the Chinese newspaper Guangzhou Daily and as cited by Digitimes. Chronic oversupply and massive price drops would appear to have nudged the lower-performing China-based manufacturers over the edge, with the solar energy division of CSG Holding’s research suggesting that half have stopped production, around 30% are at half their production capability and 20% are at pains to maintain their current levels of production.
Data collected by Digitimes Research imply that tier-1 solar companies are the only ones that are able to claim capacity utilization rates above 80% for the first half of 2011.

Furthermore, Chinese manufacturers are said to be facing high charges as a result of JinkoSolar’s recent fluoride spill. The charges are being implemented in an effort to prevent any such accidental environmental damage by Chinese manufacturers.

Can we afford such successes?

 

[cove]

Lifetime warranty is not something you can totally rely on when it comes to this industry.
There are many folks who are unhappy with their power bills but those who have done solar systems are not in that many group.
If you can afford it and the payback based on your quote gives you a 3 or 4 year payback then it could work well for you.

 

[medhead]

Oh look more peer-reviewed science that disproves the mis-information being spread.

Climate models on the mark, Australian-led research finds

La nina and el nino cause variation in heating and cooling. Models that take this into account are consistent with observed temperature trends. Temperature records are still being broken even during the current la nina cooling cycle. Natural temperature variability is being overwhelmed.

But do please keep polluting. Please do pretend it isn't happening. Seems the climate sceptics are the ones with no clothes.

A common refrain by climate sceptics that surface temperatures have not warmed over the past 17 years, implying climate models predicting otherwise are unreliable, has been refuted by new research led by James Risbey, a senior CSIRO researcher.

Setting aside the fact the equal hottest years on record - 2005 and 2010 - fall well within the past 17 years, Dr Risbey and fellow researchers examined claims - including by some members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - that models overestimated global warming.

In a study published in Nature Climate Change on Monday, the team found that models actually generate good estimates of recent and past trends provided they also took into account natural variability, particularly the key El Nino-La Nina phases in the Pacific.

In roughly 30-year cycles, the Pacific alternates between periods of more frequent El Ninos - when the ocean gives back heat to the atmosphere - to La Ninas, when it acts as a massive heat sink, setting in train relatively cool periods for surface temperatures.


By selecting climate models in phase with natural variability, the research found that model trends have been consistent with observed trends, even during the recent “slowdown” period for warming, Dr Risbey said.

While sceptics have lately relied on a naturally cool phase of the global cycle to fan doubts about climate change, the fact temperature records continue to fall even during a La-Nina dominated period is notable, Dr Risbey said.

The temperature forcing from the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere “is beginning to overwhelm the natural variability on even shorter decadal time scales”, he said.

Medhead you seem to have lost sight of the big picture.

Actually you and your mates have lost sight of the big picture. Do you want to reduce pollution? That is the key question. The carbon tax did reduce pollution. The FIT did encourage people to install solar panels, reducing pollution. amaroo is the prime example of that fact.

Once again the government does not pay the FIT, and trying to pretend that installers benefit from the FIT. Why do you lot spread such blatant mis-information? No doubt to further the pre-determined position given to you by Alan Jones. Talk about group think based on the wrong information to support your political biases. You can stop replying to me, I'm not interested in your political crusade.

 

[cove]

I think we were guided mostly by the ability to slow the hit on our pockets with the electricity bills that soared.
Inadvertently it made our global footprint just a little bit less polluting.

 

[drron]

So medhead from the paper you quote you now admit there has been a warming pause and the increase in warming is not accelerating.
I seem to remember I got pilloried for suggesting that.

 

[amaroo]

.........

The FIT did encourage people to install solar panels, reducing pollution. amaroo is the prime example of that fact.

Sorry to burst the green bubble. The only thing FIT did/do is make electricity a supplementary income earner. Yes, I was compelled to install a solar system because the economics made doing otherwise plain stupid! This is the outcome when you can sell something for more than twice what it's worth.

Like I mentioned up-thread, our grid generated consumption has increased under the FIT - why? Because I sell as much of the solar generation as I can by using as much of the grid supplied power after the sun goes down. Where did I get this idea from? Common sense + forums similar to this one that sprang up after the solar/FIT was unleashed on a population looking to game the system.

It was much worse in the early days. FIT were uncapped in kw size and Gross rather than Net I.E. you got to sell 100% of the generation regardless how much power you consumed during daylight hours - pure stupidity!

How did the community react - individuals and business installed huge systems on their homes, factories, warehouses, sheds, hangers, farms and started selling 100% of their generation at > 3 x the cost they were drawing from the grid - pure stupidity!

A policy that does nothing to reduce consumption and provides an economic windfall for doing so - is a shining example of voodoo green policy. The numnuts that decided it was great policy to have the majority in the community subsides the few with solar/FIT need to be removed far away from future policy decisions.

FWIW the removal of FIT is doing it's job.....

the rollback of state-based support for PV has triggered a drop of more than 20 per cent in installations in the June quarter – at 45,369 compared with 58,221 a year earlier, according to the Australian Solar Council.

 

[medhead]

So you took action, installed solar, because of the feed in tariff. Ok then. QED

So medhead from the paper you quote you now admit there has been a warming pause and the increase in warming is not accelerating.
I seem to remember I got pilloried for suggesting that.

The article says the warming has slowed down in line with natural events. You've claimed this is proof that there is no warming. Which is wrong. All it shows is the natural system still has influence. But it also says that warming by man made sources is overwhelming the natural system, that despite being in a cooling cycle temperature records are still being broken. The fact that the nature system is still able to influence temperatures does not mean warming isn't happening. What about the change over point where the natural variation is dominated? What happens when the pacific cooling cycle changes back to a heating cycle?

The problem was your denial of the need to take action and your claim that the models are wrong. Since you wish to use this paper, do you now accept that the modeling is correct and that man made warming is happening? Or are you sticking to the line that climate change is a load of cough?

 

[amaroo]

QED lol - I love shoving all that FIT quid in my pockets

 

[drron]

So you took action, installed solar, because of the feed in tariff. Ok then. QED



The article says the warming has slowed down in line with natural events. You've claimed this is proof that there is no warming. Which is wrong. All it shows is the natural system still has influence. But it also says that warming by man made sources is overwhelming the natural system, that despite being in a cooling cycle temperature records are still being broken. The fact that the nature system is still able to influence temperatures does not mean warming isn't happening. What about the change over point where the natural variation is dominated? What happens when the pacific cooling cycle changes back to a heating cycle?

The problem was your denial of the need to take action and your claim that the models are wrong. Since you wish to use this paper, do you now accept that the modeling is correct and that man made warming is happening? Or are you sticking to the line that climate change is a load of cough?

Trying to verbal me again?So here is my first post in this thread-

Originally Posted by opusman * and note, something that escapes most denialist's logic, is that the rate temperatures are rising is increasing.

Even the IPCC disagrees with that point.The rate of warming has decreased-ie the planet is still warming but at a slower rate than previously despite increasing CO2 levels.
The absolute temperatures are now at the lowest limit of those predicted by computer modeling-by the way which isn't proven science.

More climate scientists are now distancing themselves from the more vocal Doomsday promoters such as Al Gore.See here-
Richard Tol: IPCC again
This fellow is not a "denier".

I have been involved with the IPCC since 1994, fulfilling a variety of roles in all three working groups. After the debacle of AR4 – where the Himalayan glacier melt really was the least of the errors – I had criticized the IPCC for faulty quality control. Noblesse oblige – I am the 20th most-cited climate scholar in the world – so I volunteered for AR5.



In the earlier drafts of the SPM, there was a key message that was new, snappy and relevant: Many of the more worrying impacts of climate change really are symptoms of mismanagement and underdevelopment.This message does not support the political agenda for greenhouse gas emission reduction.

The highlights are by the author not me.

So there you go.I did not say there was no warming.

As for this paper saying the models are right is because they admit that there are natural factors at work.Even you admit it when you say this-

What happens when the pacific cooling cycle changes back to a heating cycle?

The Pacific heating and cooling cycles are nothing to do with CO2 release are they.So this paper does say that global warming is not just due to CO2.

And as to the models you now believe this paper is the definitive statement on climate modelling.Funny then that the IPCC in their report released earlier this year admitted they had no idea what has caused the pause and it wasn't explained by the models.

Please kindly note that in that original post I quoted someone who has worked and written for the IPCC who does not believe the evidence supports the political agenda for greenhouse gas reduction.You must excuse me but I give his opinion more weight than yours on this subject.

 

[medhead]

Trying to verbal me again?So here is my first post in this thread-

Even the IPCC disagrees with that point.The rate of warming has decreased-ie the planet is still warming but at a slower rate than previously despite increasing CO2 levels.
The absolute temperatures are now at the lowest limit of those predicted by computer modeling-by the way which isn't proven science.

More climate scientists are now distancing themselves from the more vocal Doomsday promoters such as Al Gore.See here-
Richard Tol: IPCC again
This fellow is not a "denier".


The highlights are by the author not me.

So there you go.I did not say there was no warming.

As for this paper saying the models are right is because they admit that there are natural factors at work.Even you admit it when you say this-


The Pacific heating and cooling cycles are nothing to do with CO2 release are they.So this paper does say that global warming is not just due to CO2.

And as to the models you now believe this paper is the definitive statement on climate modelling.Funny then that the IPCC in their report released earlier this year admitted they had no idea what has caused the pause and it wasn't explained by the models.

Please kindly note that in that original post I quoted someone who has worked and written for the IPCC who does not believe the evidence supports the political agenda for greenhouse gas reduction.You must excuse me but I give his opinion more weight than yours on this subject.

Beyond this thread you are clearly on the record backing the government position on climate change. In this thread you continue to deny that temperatures are increasing. The issue was not that you said temperatures aren't currently increasing but the conclusion you've drawn from that point. The paper you seem willing to accept concludes that temperatures are still increasing even within the La Niña cooling period.

 

[drron]

No I have backed the Government's position on the carbon tax.I see no reason to stress our economy when others aren't.
I have not backed Tony Abbott's Direct Action policies.
I have always said I believe in Climate Change.I don't believe it is ALL due to CO2.I also don't believe the Doomsday predictions of people like Al Gore,Tim Flannery and Christine Milne.In fact I believe they are science deniers as they attribute previous weather events to climate change and make predictions that are not endorsed in the IPCC reports.
And of course they don't believe in their own predictions such as sea level rise.Many have bought waterfront properties.
Tim Flannery-2
Al Gore-recently spent $US9.7 million on one.
Kevin Rudd-2
Julia Gillard-1
Cate Blanchett-2
Interestingly 1 of Cates is in Vanuatu.Her island hit the headlines in 2005 claiming the first climate change refugees-
The World Today - Vanuatu village relocated due to rising sea level
Only problem is that Vanuatu is on a subduction plate.Two volcanic eruptions 4 months before the villagers moved had increased the rate of subduction-ie the island is sinking.Hope Cate has flood insurance.

 

[Moody]

.... So there you go.I did not say there was no warming. .....

And is this warming completely natural or is there some amount that is due to human activities?

 

[medhead]

And their carbon tax position is based on their position about climate change. If your against the ETS and against direct action that sounds like a do nothing position. In any case, to get back on topic, the carbon tax did reduce Australia's pollution. It will be interesting to discover the effectiveness of direct action.

 

[SeatBackForward]

I doubt the "carbon tax" had any significant impact, purely because it wasn't allowed to continue as designed to the point where the economics of green energy would outweigh fossil fuels. It wasn't given the required time. The thresholds would be lowered, the carbon credit pricing wasn't increased or determined by the ETS, going long on carbon credits was going to be viable investment for some parties - perhaps not so anymore.

Wikipedia is pretty good on this matter on this page: Carbon pricing in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[drron]

Hasn't Clive ditched Direct Action?Or has he had another backflip?I just don't listen to him.
Ideally medhead I would like to see more nuclear power.Still the most proven of all alternative energy technologies except the science denying Greens are against it.
I would be encouraging more research into alternative technologies but wouldn't rely on Governments to do the picking.Their results are awful.More like policies to encourage R&D.
This encourages me-
Leading environmental campaigners support nuclear and GM - Telegraph

Their are also many practical things we have been advised to do.If you believe bushfires are more severe due to Climate Change we should be doing what the CSIRO bushfire reseach scientistrs said at the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission- at least 5% of the states bushfire prone areas should be subject to hazard reduction burns each year.No state is anywhere near that due in no small part to the Greens opposition to that policy.Our indigenous people were very successful at doing that.
And by the way there were facts missing in you paper about the reduction in CO2 emissions by the carbon tax.Electricity use fell 5% in that time.Most due to cutbacks in manufacturing eg the closure of the Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter.The other thing that happened was the flooding of the collieries in the Latrobe valley taking out the most CO2 intensive source of power production.And the elephant in the room-it is all estimations not proven science.

And Moody I guess you already know that the climate scientists whether warmists or sceptics believe each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the temperature 1.1C.The differences are in the amount of feedback.Warmists believe there is a x3 amplification.The sceptics x0.5C-that is they also believe the earth is warming due to increases in CO2 but the amount of warming is overestimated by the warmists models.

 

[RAM]

Oh look more peer-reviewed science that disproves the mis-information being spread.

Climate models on the mark, Australian-led research finds

La nina and el nino cause variation in heating and cooling. Models that take this into account are consistent with observed temperature trends. Temperature records are still being broken even during the current la nina cooling cycle. Natural temperature variability is being overwhelmed.

But do please keep polluting. Please do pretend it isn't happening. Seems the climate sceptics are the ones with no clothes.











Actually you and your mates have lost sight of the big picture. Do you want to reduce pollution? That is the key question. The carbon tax did reduce pollution. The FIT did encourage people to install solar panels, reducing pollution. amaroo is the prime example of that fact.

Once again the government does not pay the FIT, and trying to pretend that installers benefit from the FIT. Why do you lot spread such blatant mis-information? No doubt to further the pre-determined position given to you by Alan Jones. Talk about group think based on the wrong information to support your political biases. You can stop replying to me, I'm not interested in your political crusade.

Dear Medhead, it is sad to see the discussion deteriorate to 'name calling' and 'playing the man not the ball'.

I have provided real world FACTs of the rorting, corruption, political influence peddling etc and pointed out the incorrect description of Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant.

Then clearly made the point that Pollution = BAD, spin doctoring = equally as bad and false claims even worse when they are at the expense of more deserving causes (such as properly funding child protection within Australia for example).

You neglected to comment/notice/read (I suspect) any of the linked articles, learned papers etc.

The facts do speak for themselves (unless doctored by the "Ends justifies the means extremeists such as in Climategate), poorly implemented and thought out knee-jerk schemes set back causes and cost valuable time and money so needed elsewhere.

Why for example are the Climate Change Conferences held at 5 Star resorts normally and at the peak of the tourist season for those locations?

So Medhead, please respond (and disprove if details are incorrect) but please don't mimic your obvious hero Alan Jones and not answer the question asked.

 

[medhead]

Whose playing the man? Pv-tech.org is not what I consider a learned article.

Ironic you claiming Jones is my hero after you've just written a post full of unsubstantiated allegations direct from Jones himself. You've clearly failed to back up you accusation of corruption with actual evidence. As such no response is required.

 

[drron]

Whose playing the man? Pv-tech.org is not what I consider a learned article.

Ironic you claiming Jones is my hero after you've just written a post full of unsubstantiated allegations direct from Jones himself. You've clearly failed to back up you accusation of corruption with actual evidence. As such no response is required.

At least I know Alan Jones is your anti-hero!:shock:

 

[RAM]

Whose playing the man? Pv-tech.org is not what I consider a learned article.

Ironic you claiming Jones is my hero after you've just written a post full of unsubstantiated allegations direct from Jones himself. You've clearly failed to back up you accusation of corruption with actual evidence. As such no response is required.

The quote "me-thinks he doth protest too much" does seem tailor-made.

You resort to the time-honoured AJ (Interesting Note: both individuals have a very high opinion of their abilities and like to be paid accordingly despite widespread public questioning of their true expertise?) tradition of misquoting, misdirecting and generally misleading.

In the factual articles, news releases, global institutions, etc I referenced - you chose to refer to one news article. If that is not one-eyed I would be surprised.

The imposition of the carbon tax in Australia and following years saw China INCREASE its coal-fired electricity generation capacity by more each year than Australia's total in-situ coal fired generation capacity - but you do not comment on that. Not what I would call a 'success' nor a recognition of Australia's world leading approach - although our steel production shutdowns over that period (and the many times greater increase in steel production in no=carbon-tax China) would also not fit my definition of success nor Wikipedia's apparently.

You do not comment on the report (quoted and linked) that 50% of China PV producers have gone broke over the same period, as have most manufacturers in every country in the rest of the world.

Then you seek to 'verbal' me by implying I called a news site a learned institution. It was you who apparently thought that incorrectly. Wikipedia can fill you in on what a 'learned institution' is if you remain unsure. Perhaps this may suffice instead:

Member of a learned institution - Crossword Solver

I would call the centuries old University of Essen - a learned institution. But you obviously have a different viewpoint - if you could point out where I err in my judgement please?

Origins; The University of Duisburg (1555) Its origins date back to the 1555 decision of Duke Wilhelm V von Jülich-Kleve-Berg to create a university for the unified duchies at the Lower Rhine. University of Duisburg-Essen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unfortunately photovoltaics are somewhat newer, as is the internet (btw) and providing links to news articles about solar manufacturers going bankrupt directly refutes your previous claims about why solar panel prices fell (not as a result of a broken promise!) nor Australia's demand increasing by 0.6% of global annual production of solar panels due to a variety of reasons.

BTW - The University of Essen knew the world wasn't flat despite the claims continuing to be made...

 

[Moody]

And Moody I guess you already know that the climate scientists whether warmists or sceptics believe each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the temperature 1.1C.The differences are in the amount of feedback.Warmists believe there is a x3 amplification.The sceptics x0.5C-that is they also believe the earth is warming due to increases in CO2 but the amount of warming is overestimated by the warmists models.

That doesn't answer my question, but I am going to assume that since you didn't quote the antichrist ("Climate change is cough") your answer is "Yes".

So now that we have moved past that point, my next question is :- Do you accept that the largest AGW impact is from the amount of CO2 now entering the atmosphere?