Sea level is rising fast – and it seems to be speeding up
By Christopher Watson, John Church, and Matt King
Many observations have shown that sea level rose steadily over the 20th century – and at a faster rate than over the previous centuries. It is also clear from both satellite and coastal observations that seas have risen faster over the past two decades than they did for the bulk of the 20th century.
More recently, several studies have shown that the flow of ice and water into the oceans from Greenland and West Antarctica has increased since 1993. This raises an interesting question: has the rate of sea-level rise changed since 1993, when satellite observations began to give us a more complete picture of the global oceans?
Our new research tackles this question by comparing satellite observations of sea level with those measured at the coast by tide gauges. We use this comparison to determine small biases in the satellite data that have changed over time. Understanding how the land supporting the tide gauges is moving becomes an important part of these comparisons. We found three important results.
First, the seas really have risen faster since 1993, relative to the slower rate over previous decades as evident in the tide gauge data.
Second, comparison of the coastal and satellite measurements reveal small differences in the early part of the satellite record from 1993 to 1999. After allowing for land motion at the tide gauges, the first six years of the satellite record marginally overestimates the sea-level trend. Our revised estimate of global mean sea-level rise for the satellite era (1993 to mid-2014) is about 2.6-2.9 mm per year (the exact value depends on how we estimate land motion) – slightly less than the previous estimateof 3.2 mm per year.
Satellite altimeters measure sea level by measuring the time it takes a radar pulse to make a round-trip from the satellite to the sea surface and back. NOAA/STAR
Third, previous estimates of the rate of rise from satellite data that didn’t incorporate the careful comparison with coastal sea-level measurements, as we have done in our recent study, showed a slower rate of rise over the past decade relative to the one before. Our revised record is clearly different and suggests that the rate of rise has increased, consistent with other observations of the increased contributions of water and ice from Greenland and West Antarctica.
However, sea level varies from year to year, as water is exchanged between the land and oceans (for example during the Australian floods associated with the 2010-11 and 2011-12 La Niña events), and as a result the observed increase in the rate of rise over the short satellite record is not yet statistically significant.
Ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland (pictured here south of Illulisat) are providing accelerating contributions to sea level. Ian Joughin
Strikingly, our estimate of the increase in the rate of rise is consistent with the projections of future sea level published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Currently, these projections forecast a rise of up to 98 cm by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are allowed to continue unabated (and even more if parts of the Antarctic ice sheetcollapse). If the world makes strong cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, the rise by 2100 is projected to be significantly less, somewhere between 28 cm and 61 cm.
Coping with the impacts
The increasing rate of sea-level rise is not good news for our coastal population, nor for the natural and built environment in the coastal zone. The world is currently not on track to achieve the lower range of projected sea-level rise. And of course, sea-level rise will not stop in 2100 – as in the current century, the magnitude of future sea-level rise will be linked to our greenhouse gas emissions.
Increasing rates of sea-level rise will place increasing stress on the coastal margin. Extreme sea level events will become more frequent. Inundation and erosion will affect our infrastructure, affect ecosystems and, in some regions, displace populations. Adaption in the coastal zone will occur – this adaption can be either planned or forced upon us by the natural environment. Information on regional sea level changes and their projections are needed to underpin adaptation and mitigation strategies.
Coastal erosion near Winda Woppa resulting from extreme sea levels along the NSW coast during the April 2015 storms. Rick Wraight
It is important that agencies in Australia and worldwide consider the impact of accelerating sea levels and provide communities with advice and planning directions that are commensurate with the magnitude of the problem. Failure to consider these issues will mean painful and costly impacts, particularly during extreme events.
Continued monitoring of sea level is essential
Despite progress, our understanding of sea-level change is incomplete, particularly when it comes to forecasting contributions from the ice sheets. Currently, observed sea-level rise is consistent with the most recent projections. Continuing to know where sea level is tracking relative to projections is important for planning and early warning of any rate of rise that differs from current projections is vital.
Australia relies on other countries for launching and maintaining satellite missions such as those used in our study. We provide an important contribution to the long-term monitoring of altimeter data that spans several different missions and space agencies – this is why long-term government support via Australia’s Integrated Marine Observing System is so valued. //CHRISTOPHER WATSON, JOHN CHURCH & MATT KING
Christopher Watson: Senior Lecturer, Surveying and Spatial Sciences, School of Land and Food at University of Tasmania
John Church: CSIRO Fellow at CSIRO
Matt King: Professor, Surveying & Spatial Sciences, School of Land and Food at University of Tasmania
This article first appeared on The Conversation
Comments
Does this mean Shark island will become a Mal wave?
Seriously this is shit, its happening but we sit back and observe the event. World leaders need to put the environment before profit, otherwise they won't have anywhere to spend their money. Of course see walls and dredging....
Wouldn't renewably powered desalination be a help here. We have it in Sydney. We could pay for Carbon Credits before Tony/Joe.
It should be in use on the west coast of the USA now. How many gigalitres would that use?
It would harly be a drop in the ocean, and remember the water cycle, anything taken out of the ocean will eventually end up back there, unless you build up huge storage centres.
Also desal sees the brine mixed back into the ocean with twice the salinity, OK when added to a large open ocean basin but not good in gulfs.
We've got a desal plant but it isn't renewably powered. Desal running off wave power would be a complementary pairing as any desal plant has to be on the coast.
Also, don't think Carbon Credits have quite the selling power they did in 2005.
Agreed not powered on site. Perhaps inappropriate given there would be better places to install whatever method of generation.
But there is still big money internationally wanting to get involved in Carbon Credits. Don't give up on it.
Also desal is an alternative to nothing. We're running jet engines on algae derivative fuel now so hopefully the brine issues could be resolved with national will.
Greening changes climate.
can't get my head around carbon credits/certificates either.. I pay extra to my power company to get carbon neutral power, but it still comes from a coal fired station, they just get rewarded by people like me to invest more in renewables.. but I still don't feel any better about switching the heater on
oiley.
Your being screwed on Carbon, Natural Gas and Electricity production.
It's called "Gold Plating". It's all gunna end in tears for many in the business I think. Electricity companies just got it from the watchdog in NSW. Lowered the costs.
yep, we all need to pitch in and start drinking a share of seawater each...
I've been storing it in my sinuses for years.
Saving the world Braudulio... one wipeout at a time!
Glad to be of service!
If this El Nino happens I'm sure we will!
I remember quite clearly the scientist at the time saying sea water was rising because
of the polar ice melting.
Now just the other day I witnessed on the news the new scientist of today saying the
south pole has so much ice they may have to evacuate the people working on projects
down there because theyre so concerned they wont be able to get there ships in and out.
Its who has the media at the time im starting to believe.
G"Day evosurfer.
Ice surface area is increasing due to changing winds packing the new sea ice from the Glacial melt. Could the new winds be Gobal Cooling! "New wind" direction....worth thinking about...no? Coldest ever recorded day in Antarctica....2 years ago! Good argument for rapid CO2 reductions.
Ice levels in the Antarctic have little bearing on sea level as it's a large land mass. Pack ice in the Arctic is the better measurement.
OH..?
OK. and sorry for the "typos".
evo surfer - you are a victim of the blatant "selective bias" of the of the Murdoch press. Yes the headline said that the sea ice was expanding. However if you read the full article, then it admitted at the very bottom that the land based ice was melting at ever dramatic rates. Overall the total ice volume is less. Melting land based ice has an impact on sea levels - sea based ice does not have any impact on sea levels.
Its Ruperts climate change deniers at work trying to destroy the public confidence in the sceince.
But not just Rupert. Today I learned about the Galileo Movement - maybe you've already heard of them?. On their Twitter feed they boldly proclaim to wish to "see all sides of the man-made global warming debate aired."
Yet a quick read of their feed shows there's really only one side geting aired:
"Climate changers want to rob central banks"
"At least BS climate change wasn't mentioned in #Budget2015 Money is far better spent fighting real problems than imaginary Green ones"
"Climate alarmists are licking their lips at thought of natural El Niño increasing temps so they can blame it on AGW"
"Id rather listen to Maurice Newman than the likes of Maurice Strong who started this AGW Ponzi Scheme"
...and on and on in that histrionic, ranty style of prose favoured by emotionally fragile folk burdened by the Absolute Truth.
Guess the name still fits, they just happen to be the Catholic Church of the early 1600s in the Galileo scenario...
Ok then they are talking about coastal erosion if anybody can remember the 1974
coastal erosion this current one is a flea on a elephants back in comparison.
The earth has been changing for millions of years its not going to stop now just because
we want it too.
evosurfer.
The Earth I believe tilts on it's axis around .5 of a degree every calender year or so. Has for eternity from my studies.
That's unchangable if it is indeed the case. And would lead to climate change.
So by my rough calculation steve, according to your data, in 1655 Australia was in a roughly equivalent position in the northern hemisphere. 0.5 degree per year = 180 degrees in 360 years.......which turns us upside down. I would check your data steve.
True enough. Apologies. But I do believe there isn't a constant in the angle of the axis of the Earth...e.g it is moving.
Sorry I've been at it all day here.
Don't miss my post in Politico.....
this is a good explanation
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sprecess.htm
A while ago ( not sure which thread ) ,
I raised Milankovich and his thesis , not sure if it was
Yourself , but the theory and it's influences were scoffed
at ,!?!
I'm pretty sure climate scientists need to listen more to astro
Physicists . Orbits , solar flares and even solar winds are imperitive
To any long term climate discussion . To date many with alternate views
Have been shouted down. .
Southey.
Thanks. A lot of these scientists you mentioned don't want to break the earnings potential in all of this given it's success in the past to feed people I'm sure.
So the Russians are spending billions on military bases in the Arctic because they have been fooled by scientists into thinking the ice is going to melt? Vlad won't like that so we can expect numerous Russian climate scientists to die in suspicious circumstances as their conspiracy unravels..
Oh and how silly of all those scientists to spend the last several decades studying climzte change without thinking to include the orbital variations and solar cycles in their calculations. I mean do you think that something so obvious that it can be Googled in a millisecond has been overlooked?
For my argument...let's remove the fear. Things are happening to improve the developed world.
And let some of the science shown in this blog get an airing. For God's sake whoever thought of erosion as a partial answer to rising sea levels? Hell not me!
Great work blindboy and thanks.
blindboy.
If your right and it's cyclical and there's a good chance there is something in it....poor Vlad maybe need to get into fur business!
Thanks blindboy. Lazer guidance in astronomy now is very advanced to.
what about the fact that aussie is moving north each year? where are our experts now when earthquakes hit nepal then japan in less than a month. has any one seen the pictures of the climb to everest, littered with rubbish as climbers leave shit behind, disgusting really, and the japanese, god bless them, what will it take for them to wake up, as well as all of us.
Not a greenie, or climate change fanatic, but honestly, we need to change how we live, we cut down our oxygen supply, rape our oceans, pollute our air and freshwater and think. believe/ delude ourselves that everything will be okay.
davetherave
Well done. As I said to barley....what's the closing of the ozone layer by up to 25% worth to the heating of the lungs of the world?
Acid rain in the Rhine...gone.
El Ninos that don't show up despite(unlike the present forecast) being predicted in the correct forecast window.
Yeah whatta bout eh?
earth tilting of axis already!remote eskimos claiming sunrise/set not the same?
check it out 4 yourself.we are moving North.
scientist say Earth is tilting on its side and we could end up just like Uranus!!
sounds bad,very very bad.....
yeah if it's anything like the shit that comes out of my anus, it is indeed very, very bad indeed!!!!! lol
Well if the Eskimos move any further north they will be fucking levitating!
And the ice is increasing in east Antartica - science is not complete, as article states.
Plenty of the easily influenced fools still on Earth... The seas have not risen. it's called tectonic plate shifting...
with a side of erosion.
As demonstrated by some of the contributions here!
Couldn't agree more blindboy, frightens the shit out of me!
Holy shit!
That's mad....!
Who is quantifying erosion and it's effects.....? No one that's who. We know all about him.
Bondisteve, do you believe everything you read?? As for quantifying erosion I think we've pretty much got that covered, in NSW at least. See for example:
http://www.wrl.unsw.edu.au/news/sydney-storm-damage-at-narrabeen
If you want to start making sweeping statements and expect to be taken seriously you need to check your facts mate.
The truth is out there.
Ahh oh?
I was agreeing with southie.
Still is there any Global notion of erosion contribution to sea level rising.
It's Mad.
In a word NO! Coastal erosion is generally a horizontal phenomenon dependent, amongst other things, on the vertical extent of the waves/run-up/tide. So, in fact the dependency is the other way around. The higher the mean sea level the more potential for coastal erosion.
Check out the "Sand Banks" thread in the forums.
Ta muchly braudulio. Will check.
NEWS JUST IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NEWSFLASH!!!!!!!!!!!
BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
Several grant reliant experts have just released a statement....... " More bad stuff is expected to happen..... We will definitely keep you posted"......
In other news, Soccer balls sick of being kicked...... The new diet fad - minje shakes - is this energy drink all it's cracked up to be? Shortens' forehead subdivided and sold, as property boom stagnates.........
So sheepdog me old china, is it all grant reliant fields of study that you've got a problem with or just the ones who study things (and produce results) that you disagree with?
Sea level is and will continue to rise, ocean currents such as the EAC are strengthening, ocean acidification is the elephant in the room, evidence points to storms intensifying. Deal with it.
You can discredit the messengers and their motives all you like but the message remains the same. I've said it before but I like repeating myself so, the best we (the inhabitants of this planet) can hope is that the changes occurring in the climate are being in some way caused by us. We then at least have a chance to mitigate, although I fear we're too late. If this is a 'natural' change in the climate due to sun spots, changes in the tilt of the earth's axis, the whim of our alien overlords etc. then not putting too fine a point on it, we are fucked!
braudulio's great grandfather, scaring the children of the day.....
NEWS JUST IN!!!!!!!!!
Sitting down is the new cancer.....
Minister for humour, Braudulio bans all satire... Declares fatwa on Shaun Micallef....
Single mums double dipped in chocolate gnash.... taste great!!!!!!!!
Aaah, humour ... I've heard of that. However nothing you've ever written resembles it.
Ohhh, ouch!!!! Ohh I'm devastated!!!!! That's the most incredible return fire since nagasaki.... Not even shaun, morris, uplift, boogie fever, or jelly flater could top that lol
"I could calculate your chance of survival, but you won't like it."
http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/7199/20140512/sea-level-rise-10-fe...
Regards.
I think Agent Smith sums up the whole situation quite clearly.
Agreed, you are a cancer.
When the cure comes don't say you weren't warned.
"In 1841, a mark was cut into the rocks of the Isle of the Dead at Port Arthur, in an attempt to record the height of the sea in the area, and to provide a benchmark for future studies of the movements of the Earth's crust, relative to sea-level. It was made at the instigation of Captain Sir James Clark Ross, with the support of Thomas Lempriere (Deputy Assistant Commissary General at the Port Arthur penal settlement). Records indicate Lempriere had studied the tidal levels in the area for several years before the mark was made.
The mark at Port Arthur is among the earliest benchmarks in the world against which to scientifically measure changes in sea-level."
This is quite a decent read:
http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/casestudy/4/
At end of the article it is mentioned that 13cm of rise have taken place; as doco I saw mentioning it previously quoted 1cm from memory. A rise in any case.
For my 2c, there's such vitriol in opposing views on the subject (AGW/Climate Change); I can not conclude one way or the other. I know from my lifetime that putting in groynes drastically alters coasts on a decadal time frame afterward (Freo, Kirra/Superbank, Bluff Pt after Geraldton harbour, Bunbury port) and can cause manifested erosion. As surfers we see amazing highs and lows of tides locally each year; going to be very difficult to landmark and observe over time, but this is what Thomas Lempriere did.
I'm looking forward to it - Meanos and Cyrils won't be so bloody shallow !
Todays SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/nasa-finds-antarctic-ic...
A new and terrifying threat to the planet.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/scientists-earth-endanger...
Very funny blindboy.
What can I say but thank you.
Very entertaining.
Sorry.
More - CO2 news.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/china-decides-big-st...
Has any scientific body explained the increase in ice on east Antartica ? Then the correlation to that in the west ?
There are a few hypotheses but nothing definitive, it may even be just normal variability. This is a good summary.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record...
The seas are rising?... come on now. didn't Archimedes proved this to be false 2,000 years ago?
Archimedes principle.
It applies to ice that is already in the water. Sea ice . Most of the planet's ice is on land if that melts sea levels rise, then there is the thermAl expansion of water so yes the sea has risen and will continue to do so into the future.
BB ... Your comment 'will continue to do so in the future' is hyperthetical. As the article states the causes are not clear.
tony the causes of the build up of sea ice around parts of Antarctica is the issue about which the causes are not clear. The causes of sea level rise are well described and, beyond any dispute, it will continmue for the forseeable future.
BB... I sense a contradiction here. The causes of sea ice changes is unknown, as you stated. Yet sea level which by most reputable bodies is linked to both ice Polars. Sea level rises in the future cannot be completely determined. Related to this, is the climate models are probabilistic.
No contradiction tony. You should probably just do a bit more reading on the subject. Climate models are probabilistic ....but so are many other things. It is only a probabi;ity that the cyclone is going to hit your stretch of coast but I'd bet if the bureau forecasts it to happen you will batten down and prepare.
BB...I am responding to your statement. There is a contradiction. At this we cannot say the 'probable' WILL happen. I suggest we need to be more optimistic.
Don't think the issue is optimism vs pessimism buddy
change, scares most people. We are all going to die anyway, but I believe that if we are somehow causing this biosphere to be less hospitable to future generations, we need to be aware of what it is, what it's doing and how we can change it. But arguing over it is just plain stupid. All civilisations that had a technological advancement without a spiritual awareness, have destroyed themselves, and that is humanities case today.
WE cant even treat each other with respect and fairly, how are we ever going to treat a biosphere with respect and fairness? All the technology in the world wont help us, if we don't honestly help each other!
More -CO2
Global energy subsidies have ballooned to $US5.3 trillion ($6.64 trillion), or 6.5 per cent of economic output this year, creating an inefficient market where consumer prices for energy are artificially low and diverting funds away from areas with greater welfare benefits.
If governments were to abandon subsidies, the fiscal gains would be equivalent to roughly half of what is spent on narrowing the gap between the global market price and the consumer price, the International Monetary Fund argues in new report.
Consumers would also be motivated to lower their energy consumption because the cost would increase. The IMF says that today's conditions, where the price of oil is still low and inflation is non-threatening, are the ideal time to consider reform.
The cost of annual subsidies exceeds estimates for global spending on public health and has not declined as economists would expect relative to the decrease in commodity prices.After-tax coal subsidies alone account for 3.9 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP), the IMF found. "The considerable size of coal subsidies reflects the substantial undercharging for its environmental impacts," the report said.
A slow removal of subsidies to reflect the true cost of energy would generate a fiscal pay-off equivalent to 3.5 per cent of GDP.
Economies which are already reforming include Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico and India. Compared with the last estimate of energy subsidies in 2011, their advances in liberalising prices have saved about $US190 billion over the past four years.
China is the biggest spender on subsidies, accounting for $US2.3 trillion. But the practice is widespread in both developing and advanced economies. The US, the second-biggest by value, spends $US699 billion.
The post-tax estimate quoted by the IMF includes figures to cover the cost of environmental damage and separately, consumption.
Point being cheap dirty energy is not being subsidised in the four of the world economies mentioned.
Good News.
Next!
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/energy-subsidies-top-66...
This will end.
Archimedes proved these bullshite theories were wrong over 2,000 years ago!
I don't know what you think is happening roller but Archimedes Principle only applies to floating ice. Most of the ice is on land and will therefore cause sea level rise when it melts.....as it is doing at an ever increasing rate. I will put the link in the next post.
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2015/may/ice-loss-in-antarctica.html
Blindboy.
Thank you.
The critical line in this valuable report is....that" more research is needed". More dynamic research please.
Well done Blindboy.
Sincere question - Who pays for these satellites ?
I can't imagine they're cheap.
Blowin
Same people that paid for the Pacific monitoring buoys that proved to be a few degrees inaccurate and no good.
We did!
So you're flowing coin to both the European Space Agency and NOAA are you bondisteve? Is that tax deductible? Interested to know who this 'we' is you speak of. Or is it the royal we?
Hell no.
I don't. Nor into Solar for God's sake.
I don't want a gravy train please. Just something more than negative CO2, we're all gunna be killed and pour money into endless related business ventures.
$14 billion in Commonwealth Solar subsidies and potentially $19 billion in expenditure...how pathetic.
As an Australian voter and this is devistating!
No I agreed before.. the money drain is incredible.
How stupid of me bondisteve, you're right of course! We should be spending taxpayers money on useful and productive stuff like; foreign wars, locking up people in offshore detention centres, propping up the mining industry, negative gearing, tax breaks for rich peoples super, protecting big multinationals, chasing internet pirates etc etc.
Bloody environment, whaddit ever do for us, doesn't turn a profit, just take take take! Who wants a clean future anyway? Bollocks to that!
Bravo bondisteve, you're an inspiration to us all!
'have a go' mate, have a go!
AGL said today it's targeting about $1 billion in asset sales and $200 million of cost cuts by the end of 2016-17.
There's plenty of money in fossil fuels and CO2 production.
Special offering to you Lord braudulio
Thanks for the heads up bondisteve but my portfolio's sweet for now. You go right ahead though mate.
Small change steve. Global,fossil fuel subsidies? $US5.3 trillion in 2015 according to that well known environmental lobby group the IMF
http://www.imf.org/external/np/fad/subsidies/
Cool.
Not mentioned anywhere in previous so I did.
Well surprise, surprise!
This today from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude exporter, could phase out the use of fossil fuels by the middle of this century, Ali al-Naimi, the kingdom's oil minister, said overnight.
The statement represents a stunning admission by a nation whose wealth, power and outsize influence in the world are predicated on its vast reserves of crude oil.
Mr Naimi, whose comments on oil supply routinely move markets, told a conference in Paris on business and climate change: "In Saudi Arabia, we recognise that eventually, one of these days, we are not going to need fossil fuels. I don't know when, in 2040, 2050 or thereafter."
For that reason, he said, the kingdom planned to become a "global power in solar and wind energy" and could start exporting electricity instead of fossil fuels in coming years.
There's some good marketing for ya!
This is outrageous!
The cost of installing and maintaining more than one million household solar power systems has outweighed their benefit by more than $9 billion, a new report has found.
And by the time generous federal and state government subsidies run out, households without solar will have subsidised those that have made the switch to the tune of $14 billion.
The Grattan Institute report, to be published Monday, says government incentives and rebates that have encouraged the uptake of household solar have "created a policy mess that should never be repeated".
It argues Australia could have reduced greenhouse gas emissions for much less money if governments had focused more on commercial and large-scale solar power, instead of household subsidies.
OH WELL DONE CANBERRA. WELL DONE ENVIROMENTAL LOBBY. Enjoy your trip to Europe this year punce!
It's all good!
.
AGL said today it's targeting about $1 billion in asset sales and $200 million of cost cuts by the end of 2016-17.
There's plenty of money in fossil fuels and CO2 production.
For those who missed it today.
The SOI is rising nearly vertically and cloud coupling with the sea has ended in the tropical Pacific. BOM shouldn't have gone early with their prediction and left the thresholds at numerical 8....oh well.
Also 1000 jobs will end at the Port Kembla Steel works soon......good news for limiting CO2 production.
OH SHIT!
This can't be right!
Until last week, government data on climate change indicated that the Earth has warmed over the last century, but that the warming slowed dramatically and even stopped at points over the last 17 years.
But a paper released May 28 by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has readjusted the data in a way that makes the reduction in warming disappear, indicating a steady increase in temperature instead. But the study’s readjusted data conflict with many other climate measurements, including data taken by satellites, and some climate scientists aren’t buying the new claim.
“While I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on,” Judith Curry, a climate science professor at Georgia Tech, wrote in a response to the study.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/10/climate-scientists-criticize-g...
WOW!
Quoting Fox News on climate! That's a new low Steve.
Oh sure. I know they are a Republican mouthpiece. What's new.
But they do have a nose for what's goin' on and that's why the Republicans didn't sign Kyoto 1 or 2.
CO2 costs lots of money and they were aware of the Global Debt build up and the subsequent fall in emissions because of it. They were also aware of the Technology being developed, much of it in the States.
A new low? Pardon? $19 billion on a government subsidised Solar programme in Australia that achieved 5% on year 2000 targets....isn't that a new low(Gratten Report) . Who's fault was that!
Mr. blinboy you have to recognise no matter what your political persuasion items with some relavence.
No?
The figure is actually $9billion Steve stretching until 2028. Wasteful? Poorly targeted? You'll get no argument from me there but if you are going to boost middle class welfare you might as well get some benefit from it.
Split ya the difference which comes to the grand total of $14billion which was also mentioned the the report......deal?
Social benefits such as the Norwegian royalties paid by "Brent Oil" to the tune of $136k per Norwegian skull including yet to be born perhaps?
Hmmm.....not in Australia and probably not in my lifetime.....
But that is.....Off Topic.
Back to the issue.....the solar proposal was based on a German Village who were receiving a payment for electricity generated into their system pushed by a well known programme(tick tick) as being economically viable and enviromentally sensible. Not mentioned was that the subsidies only applied to 10KW or more. Now was that into the system or total capacity. Because if it was into the system the total capacity had to be huge for the era. Smart dudes....the power of the media...selective exclusion of the facts...ooopppps
Oh let's not forgot the special word.....conspiracy.
Love to know how much money was made there.
Thank God for the Gratten Report which also by the way mentioned most units now are obselete and need replacing....giving Mr. blindboy our agreed $14 billion.....no?
It's a wonderful world.....Ha!
You might like to have a look at this since you are such an admirer.
http://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Davids-slides.pdf
No thanks!
I'm busying myself with aforementioned Republican propoganda trying to stay ahead of the curve as our illustrious intelligentsia put it.
Perhaps you could look into the SOLAR CORP story in the US and draw comparisons with this mess!
Industrial size base load solutions were always the preferred as said report stated.... of course.......no...?
And maybe it's not what was written but what is inferred. A fiasco driven by Enviromentalists with an agenda(Greens) and very friendly with the current PM who they(now) gave authority for the borrowing of $600 billion.Maybe our agreed $14bill wasn't enough?
No doubt with the inferrence some would come their way.....no....?
Of course.....no.....?
Put up a link steve and I will have a look.
Mr. blindboy.
God love your cotton socks. Thank you.
I'm gunna leave the search up to you. Lazy thing that I am.
But I'm sure you will enjoy the whole story.
Major pain for our latest left handed American President....Barack Obama. God love him to!
Search SOLAR CORP controversy and you should get a coupla days worth there.
Ta!
C Ya!
Not much interested in the politics Steve
Oh! OK!
Just remember your toe taping song from the "Stones"..... "better learn politics or I'll your soul to waste".
Check "Solar" you'll enjoy it....OK?
Oh!
More good news on the -CO2 front.
Oh joy!
Alinta Energy has decided to close its two coal-fired power stations in Port August in South Australia with the loss of about 440 jobs after suffering about $100 million of operating losses amid a glut in power supply exacerbated by growth in renewable energy.
The Northern and Playford B power plants, as well as the Leigh Creek coal mine that supplies them, will close by March 2018 and possibly earlier, Alinta said on Thursday, noting the plants had become "increasingly uneconomic."
The power plants were widely seen by analysts as potentially vulnerable to closure in a market plagued by oversupply and weak wholesale power prices, a situation that is expected to continue for several years as the Renewable Energy Target forces more wind energy into production. The plants, that have historically provided up to 40 per cent of South Australia's baseload generation, had already been operating less regularly in recent years.
Alinta chief executive Jeff Dimery said blamed the closure on the decline in demand for energy as households became more efficient and the number of industrial customers shrank, combined with policies to drive growth in renewable energy.
Keep your bunkers full of food and water and make sure your batteries are fully charged!
"Duck and cover"!
The slump in power demand would be because all and sundry are selling Australia to the Chinese....would it?
C Ya!
Oh!
More good news on the -CO2 front.
Oh joy!
IEA projects oil consumption to drop by 200,000 barrels a day!
Seems lower oil consumption due to technological advances is the 4th highest reason for lower investor returns globally...!
Yes good news for -CO2 production.
Of course last time we had this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sea levels were 6 metres higher. Hope you don't live anywhere near sea level Steve.
Hey...that's 73 million barrels less a year....whoppie! Right?