It's the [Climate Polcy] Stupid!

[TimG]

You completely misrepresented that article. Britain needs to invest in its energy structure because aging nuclear and coal plants are scheduled to come offline over the next few years.

The coal plants could have been replaced. But they weren't because of pandering to CO2 phobes. Nuclear power could have been expanded but that was blocked because of pandering to the enviros. Instead on investing in power sources that work, money was dumped in wind power projects that have trouble producing the power the promised. Even then the amount of power is not sufficient to make up for the losses caused by the coal plants.

The connection between anti-CO2 policies and the coming crisis pretty obvious.

Edited January 26, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

The coal plants could have been replaced. But they weren't because of pandering to CO2 phobes. Nuclear power could have been expanded but that was blocked because of pandering to the enviros. Instead on investing in power sources that work, money was dumped in wind power projects that have trouble producing the power the promised. Even then the amount of power is not sufficient to make up for the losses caused by the coal plants.

The connection between anti-CO2 policies and the coming crisis pretty obvious.

Just seems like plain old short-sightedness for the most part. Your going to see this all over the west over the next few decades as infrasture decays in the broke-ass west

[Guest TrueMetis]

North Sea oil has NOTHING to do with the 106 billion in damages that will result from an electrical network that has been prevented from investing in useful infrastructure. I am sure you know that but you thought you could avoid acknowledging the mess that anti-CO2 policies have created in the UK by bringing up a completely unrelated issue.

What the hell are you talking about? The headline reads energy crisis and you don't think a decrease in oil production has anything to do with it? Even when the article you brought up says precisely that? And where did this 106 billion number come from? The largest number the article cites is a 55 billion dollar investment that according to the article would secure both British energy supply and reduce CO2

Combining the need to secure Britain’s energy supply and reduce carbon emissions will require £55 billion in investment in the next few decades, according to Logica CMG.

What are you on and where can I get some?

The coal plants could have been replaced. But they weren't because of pandering to CO2 phobes. Nuclear power could have been expanded but that was blocked because of pandering to the enviros. Instead on investing in power sources that work, money was dumped in wind power projects that have trouble producing the power the promised. Even then the amount of power is not sufficient to make up for the losses caused by the coal plants.

The connection between anti-CO2 policies and the coming crisis pretty obvious.

Again read you own damn article. There is nothing preventing new reactors baring a new consultation process.

Already controversial, the government’s commitment to building new nuclear power stations became even more sensitive when the High Court agreed with the environ-mental lobby group Greenpeace that the consultation process was “seriously flawed”.

The white paper is expected to give guidance on how the government would like to see new reactors built, but will have to stress that any decision will depend on a new, more detailed, consultation round.

What the energy industry wants is clarity. Even so, energy companies, including RWE, Eon, Suez, EDF, General Electric and West-inghouse, have already held talks with British Energy about using the sites of its eight nuclear power stations to build new reactors.

Seriously get a damn clue.

Edited January 26, 2011 by TrueMetis

[waldo]

North Sea oil has NOTHING to do with the 106 billion in damages that will result from an electrical network that has been prevented from investing in useful infrastructure. I am sure you know that but you thought you could avoid acknowledging the mess that anti-CO2 policies have created in the UK by bringing up a completely unrelated issue.

You completely misrepresented that article. Britain needs to invest in its energy structure because aging nuclear and coal plants are scheduled to come offline over the next few years. This has fuck all to do with AGW policy besides the fact it will shape what they invest in to offset those generation losses. It sounds like the emissions regulations have created a bias towards nuclear energy away from coal. Probably not a bad idea. And the other major factor is that a bunch of energy projects have been scuttled for environmental reasons by local authorities... this has nothing to do with AGW either. They need to get to work and build some plants.

Pretty dishonest.

The coal plants could have been replaced. But they weren't because of pandering to CO2 phobes. Nuclear power could have been expanded but that was blocked because of pandering to the enviros. Instead on investing in power sources that work, money was dumped in wind power projects that have trouble producing the power the promised. Even then the amount of power is not sufficient to make up for the losses caused by the coal plants.

The connection between anti-CO2 policies and the coming crisis pretty obvious.

Just seems like plain old short-sightedness for the most part. Your going to see this all over the west over the next few decades as infrasture decays in the broke-ass west

TimG declares impending UK energy crisis - how... alarmist! Of course, a TimG dated article just might have a chance of being usurped by, uhhh... technology advances, or by, uhhh... government plans. So, ya, energy crisis postponed and short-sighted planning addressed; re: UK Government National Infrastructure Plan 2010. Of course, that described criteria for private sector investment presumes upon the UK government creating a clear and stable regulatory environment to reduce investors being exposed to policy change risks. But, hey now... it kinda looks like that there coalition government thingee kinda works over there - hey? Carry on!

4(a) Energy infrastructure

Programme

4.9 A step-change in energy efficiency

• home energy efficiency (ranging from loft insulation to new, more efficient boilers and radiators);

• commercial and industrial energy efficiency (through re-engineered processes right through to combined heat and power schemes); and

• more energy-efficient cars (described in the section on transport), synchronised with reductions in the carbon intensity of electricity generation.

4.10 A low carbon supply base of energy and long-term reduction in the dependence on imported hydrocarbons

• a new generation of nuclear power stations, built without public subsidy;

• a world-leading array of offshore wind turbines, to exploit the UK’s abundant offshore wind-resources, supported by major investment in DC cables and manufacturing facilities at port sites and private sector investment in onshore wind turbines;

• the development of critical low carbon technologies such as biomass and carbon capture and storage;

• less carbon intensive fuels, such as solid recovered fuels;

• the expansion of technologies such as anaerobic digestion to produce heating gas from sewage, industrial, commercial, residential and farm waste; and

• a full spectrum of domestic and community-based decentralised electricity generation and renewable heat installations in hundreds of thousands of homes.

4.11 Increased security of supply

• smart grid and smart meter technology, to make every home and every business an intelligent part of an electricity network, to help moderate demand at peak times and to preserve supply and demand balance despite increased amounts of intermittent, renewable electricity generation;

• greater energy interconnection with continental Europe and Ireland;

• further private sector investment in liquefied natural gas terminals and gas storage to provide the UK with highly resilient gas supplies; and

• a successful carbon capture and storage demonstration programme to ensure that the UK can generate electricity not only from nuclear and renewable sources but also from fossil fuels without compromising carbon emission targets.

Methods

4.12 The Government’s ambitious energy programme will be realised through a mixture of public and private sector investment, using public money, regulatory change and new incentives.

4.13 To enable investment in hugely improved energy efficiency, the Government will:

• legislate for the Green Deal so that households and businesses can invest in energy efficiency at no upfront cost, repaying through the savings they will make on their energy bills;

• maintain the incentives for large-scale industrial investment in energy efficiency through the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and reform of the Climate Change Levy to support the carbon price; and

• reform electricity markets to support enhanced energy efficiency.

4.14 To enable investment in low-carbon supply of energy, the Government will:

• establish a progressive, long-term carbon-price through the reform of the Climate Change Levy, to ensure that investors in low carbon technologies benefit from more predictable revenue streams;

• reform the electricity market, so that it attracts the private sector investment necessary to meet the UK’s energy security and climate change objectives, including the investment in nuclear, carbon capture and storage and renewable technology described above. In addition to supporting the carbon price, this will also assess the role that revenue support mechanisms (such as Feed-In Tariffs), capacity mechanisms and emission performance standards could play. The Government will assess proposals against the criteria of cost-effectiveness, affordability and security of supply;

• ensure that regulation of national electricity networks enables the investment needed in transmission infrastructure to connect new low-carbon generation, such as nuclear power stations and offshore and onshore wind turbines;

• alter the regulatory regime for the gas grid to make it possible for biomethane producers to earn a return on gas fed into the grid and to introduce a Renewable Heat Incentive to provide support while the technology is still immature;

• maintain the Feed-In-Tariffs to support investment in emerging small-scale generation technologies in electricity, saving £40 million over the Spending Review period by improving their efficiency, and complement this with the Renewable Heat Incentive to reward ground-source heat pumps and other renewable heat sources, while making efficiency savings of 20 per cent by 2014-15 compared with the

previous government’s plans; and

• provide for community renewable electricity to benefit from retention of business rates.

4.15 To enable investment in more security of supply, the Government will:

• ensure that the regulatory regime allows investment in smart grid technologies to increase the efficiency and reliability of the network and support integration of electric vehicles, demand management, and more local and wind-powered generation;

• ensure that the regulatory and planning regimes facilitate private sector investment in liquefied natural gas terminals and gas storage;

• reform the planning system through National Policy Statements that set out energy needs and that will help guide the planning process, so that if sound proposals come forward in sensible places, they will not face unnecessary hold-ups;

• provide £1bn of public sector investment for the first of four carbon capture and storage demonstration plants which the Government is committed to supporting to ensure that this technology is demonstrated in the UK at scale – providing the UK with major opportunities to export technologies and know-how, as well as providing the basis for a future domestic carbon dioxide grid; and

• as part of electricity market reform measures, examine whether additional incentives such as capacity payments or security obligations may be required to ensure long term security and resilience of energy supply for the UK.

Government Commitments

4.16 Despite the need to reduce the deficit, public sector investment has been prioritised in the infrastructure required for the low-carbon economy. The Spending Review commits the funds required to fulfill the Government’s part of the public/private investment partnership in energy infrastructure investment:

4.17 Support investment in energy efficiency by:

• enabling households to improve the energy efficiency of their homes at no upfront cost, repaying through the savings they make on their energy bills, through the Green Deal; and

• providing support for electric and other ultra-low emission vehicles through an incentive scheme that, from January 2011, will offer up to £5,000 towards the cost of a qualifying car, as well as providing support for electric vehicle re-charging infrastructure.

4.18 Support investment in low carbon energy supply by:

• providing more than £200 million for the development of low carbon technologies including offshore wind technology and manufacturing at port sites;

• committing to £1 billion of funding from Departmental Expenditure Limits and additional significant proceeds from asset sales to capitalise a UK wide Green Investment Bank, subject to a final design which meets the tests of effectiveness, affordability, and transparency. This will aim to provide financial interventions to unlock significant new private investment in green infrastructure projects, such as offshore wind farms;

• delivering £860 million of new support over the period to 2014-15 to support households and businesses investing in renewable heat measures through the introduction of a Renewable Heat Incentive from 2011-12, while making efficiency savings of 20 per cent by 2014-15 compared with the previous government’s plans;

• maintaining Feed-In Tariffs for small-scale generation, funded through an obligation on electricity suppliers equating to a levy of almost £900 million over the period to 2014-15. At the same time, the efficiency of Feed-In Tariffs will be improved at the next formal review, rebalancing them in favour of more cost effective carbon abatement technologies; and

• increasing expenditure through existing support mechanisms that are funded through obligations on energy companies, that will lead to a total of £5.6 billion of support for renewable electricity installations over the period to 2014-15.

4.19 Support investment in security of supply by:

• providing £1bn of funding for the first of four carbon capture and storage demonstration plants to which the Government is committed to supporting.

4.20 In November 2010, the Government will publish proposals for the reform of the Climate Change Levy to support a progressive, long-term carbon price.

4.21 To meet the investment challenge in energy, the Government will set a stable, clear, long term policy framework for energy sector investment and take action to remove unnecessary obstacles to project development and to address risks associated with low carbon technologies. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) will publish a consultation on electricity market reform by the end of 2010, with a view to introducing a White Paper in spring 2011.

4.22 DECC will also set the level of the fourth carbon budget (2022-27) in summer 2011 and will publish the next Annual Energy Statement in autumn 2011.

[Guest TrueMetis]

TimG declares impending UK energy crisis - how... alarmist! Of course, a TimG dated article just might have a chance of being usurped by, uhhh... technology advances, or by, uhhh... government plans. So, ya, energy crisis postponed and short-sighted planning addressed; re: UK Government National Infrastructure Plan 2010. Of course, that described criteria for private sector investment presumes upon the UK government creating a clear and stable regulatory environment to reduce investors being exposed to policy change risks. But, hey now... it kinda looks like that there coalition government thingee kinda works over there - hey? Carry on!

A new source of gas helps to postpone the crisis? Who would have thunk it? And oh my god they are even going to build new Nuclear plants...

Timmy as Waldo says on this forum you are the alarmist. While most of us here realize the most important thing we can do to cut CO2 is to invest in technologies we should be investing in anyway. see cause even if global warming was demonstrably false we still rely on finite fuels, so other source must be found or we have set our civilization up for a fall the likes of which has never been seen. Read that list of the UK's there Timmy, pretty much everything on it could be justified for other reasons, the CO2 reduction just icing on the cake.

[bloodyminded]

Future governments will have their hands tied, if Canada get sucked into a binding treaty that sucks wealth from Canadians an uses to to line the pockets of UN officals and third world despots.

Just as a point of order: benighted third world despots are not taking advantage of the Enlightened West. Rather, the West is in total and eager collusion with the despots, against the people who live in these countries. We help the tyrants, and they help us. The people are under the yoke of the dictators...and under our yoke as well.

Just to clarify that, since you seem to be operating on a false premise.

Edited January 26, 2011 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

Energy-crisis-is-postponed-as-new-gas-rescues-the-world.html

Are you serious? The discovery of a completely unexpected source of fossil fuel potentially recuses UK from its own self inflicted disaster and you want to claim this is evidence that anti-CO2 policies have not harmed the UK? Your logic is often fuzzy but this a new low for you.

UK Government National Infrastructure Plan 2010

This plan is nothing but more of the brain dead wishful thinking policies that have created the disaster in the UK. To avert a crisis the UK needs to build new coal or gas fired stations. Nukes cannot possibly be built fast enough. Wind and other renewables don't provide enough power to make a difference.

[Pliny]

No need to be worried. We are going to soon run out of fosssil fuels and that in itself will bring down the CO2 emissions. Global warming will be over! Whew!

Edited January 26, 2011 by Pliny

[waldo]

TimG declares impending UK energy crisis - how... alarmist! Of course, a TimG dated article just might have a chance of being usurped by, uhhh... technology advances, or by, uhhh... government plans. So, ya, energy crisis postponed and short-sighted planning addressed; re: UK Government National Infrastructure Plan 2010. Of course, that described criteria for private sector investment presumes upon the UK government creating a clear and stable regulatory environment to reduce investors being exposed to policy change risks. But, hey now... it kinda looks like that there coalition government thingee kinda works over there - hey? Carry on!

Are you serious? The discovery of a completely unexpected source of fossil fuel potentially recuses UK from its own self inflicted disaster and you want to claim this is evidence that anti-CO2 policies have not harmed the UK? Your logic is often fuzzy but this a new low for you.

what it is evidence of... is your willingness to grasp at alarmist straws... while you hypocritically bleat on with your continued and unfounded use of the CAGW acronym. Of course, you ignore all challenges to actually define who your target "alarmists" are... to substantiate the premise behind your use of the 'Catastrophic' label.

in this your latest reply, you continue with your alarmist bent by speaking of (again) a, "UK self-inflicted disaster"; one you'd presume to attribute to "anti-CO2" policies. Of course, dre most pointedly highlighted you've provided nothing to associate your proclaimed "disaster" to UK policy on CO2 emission targets... but don't let the "non-disaster" get in your alarmist way - hey? All you've provided is a dated 2007 reference newspaper link, one tied to a false disaster premise... an article that offers nothing to associate UK government policy on CO2 emission targets with the preparedness (or lack thereof) in dealing with your fervent alarmist bleat on an impending (false) energy crisis. And, of course, it doesn't help your alarmist bleat to have had the 2020/2050 emission target UK national goals post-date, by a year and a half, your dated 2007 article - hey?

This plan is nothing but more of the brain dead wishful thinking policies that have created the disaster in the UK. To avert a crisis the UK needs to build new coal or gas fired stations. Nukes cannot possibly be built fast enough. Wind and other renewables don't provide enough power to make a difference.

didn't you get the note... "disaster/crisis" postponed!!!

now... if you really wanted to address something other than your alarmist tendencies, you might actually come forward with something (separate from a false disaster premise) that actually speaks to the challenges the UK is faced with in presuming to meet it's national goals toward cutting emissions (from 1990 levels) by 34 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. You know... challenge the plan it's laid out... the one your fervent alarmist bent chooses to chastise as, "brain dead wishful thinking". Ya see, what responsible governments do, is work to implement plans/strategies that follow-up on their laws - UK Climate Change Act 2008... did I mention this was a plan delivered by a coalition UK government... apparently, much to the chagrin of Harper Conservatives, coalition governments appear to work just fine.

[dre]

Are you serious? The discovery of a completely unexpected source of fossil fuel potentially recuses UK from its own self inflicted disaster and you want to claim this is evidence that anti-CO2 policies have not harmed the UK? Your logic is often fuzzy but this a new low for you.

This plan is nothing but more of the brain dead wishful thinking policies that have created the disaster in the UK. To avert a crisis the UK needs to build new coal or gas fired stations. Nukes cannot possibly be built fast enough. Wind and other renewables don't provide enough power to make a difference.

This plan is nothing but more of the brain dead wishful thinking policies that have created the disaster in the UK. To avert a crisis the UK needs to build new coal or gas fired stations. Nukes cannot possibly be built fast enough. Wind and other renewables don't provide enough power to make a difference.

[WIP]

Yes. Because the 2degC is a bogus number plucked out the hat that has no basis in in sceince. We really have no idea whether the effects of warming will be good bad or a mixed bag. The idea that we are current times represent the 'perfect' climate is absurd given the natural changes that have taken place over earth's history.

Try educating yourself on the subject Tim, before you go tossing off bad advice. You may have no idea, but the experts in the field DO have an idea; and what they have been trying to tell the public and the politicians for years, is that if there are errors, they are on the side of minimizing the risks...not exaggerating them, like your disinformation sources would have us believe.

Paleoclimate data suggests CO2 "may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models"

World will not meet 2C warming target, climate change experts agree Guardian poll reveals almost nine out of 10 climate experts do not believe current political efforts will keep warming below 2C

I don't see the climate disinformation sites mention that IPCC reports are collected from data that is already three years old by the time it gets included. By the time they discover a new trend, it's already been going on for years.

The problem is none of those weather events has anything to do with climate change. People who insist there is a connection are grossly exagerrating the state of the science in order to create political propoganda.

This part isn't rocket science! Every degree increase in global average temperatures means 7% more water vapour is absorbed...so guess what happens when you increase the amount of heat energy retained by the atmosphere, while adding more moisture? Take a look at recent insurance underwriter reports that have been written about the increase in weather damage claims around the world in recent years. The cost of doing nothing is already greater than the costs of reducing energy demand and replacing carbon sources with alternative energy.

We can't do anything about CO2 levels so we will need to adapt.

I've seen the Lomborg Argument before. Now, if you don't believe rising CO2 levels increase global warming, and don't believe there is a connection between increasing extreme weather events and global warming, then why are you talking about "adapting" to rising CO2 levels? This looks more like throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, then it resembles actually developing a coherent argument.

Lomborg doesn't deny climate change, he just argues for doing nothing about it, and the plan falls apart as soon as we consider that this is not a hurricane, or some big storm to prepare for. We have no idea what we will have to adapt to. We already know we will have to adapt to climate change, because latest data indicates that even if we stop now, it will take 1000 years to reduce CO2 levels back to levels that would stop the worst effects, like melting ice caps etc. Can we adapt to 450 ppm of carbon? Or 500, 600 etc.? As long as we keep adding more than the natural cycles can absorb, CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels keep increasing. In a hundred years, our near-future descendents could be living a hellish existence as they desperately try to eek out a living near the poles, and have to deal with further greenhouse gas increases even after all significant economic activity has collapsed; oxygen levels decline, and the oceans die and become filled with anaerobic bacteria. It happened before, during the Permian-Triassic Extinction, by way of volcanism, and we could be sending our world into this scenario by "adapting" and doing exactly what we are doing right now! Under A Green Sky

The fact that these frausters are largely in poor countries means cap and trade is a leftist wet dream because it takes money from evil rich people and gives it to the poor.

Bullshit! The Third World has a similar situation as the guy living next to a chemical factory that's polluting his soil. They have every right to be pissed off at the Western industrialized nations who have the big carbon footprints, while the most destructive effects are being felt in the countries near the Equator, by way of increasingly severe droughts and floods. They also have the least resources to be able to adapt to climate change; so compensation is justified, and that's why the oil lobby is focusing on climate change reparations to influence the West to keep doing nothing.

But compensation implies you can quantify the damages. So far there is no evidence of any real economic harm caused by the CO2 portion of the recent warming. The claims of harm that have been made are purely speculative and would never stand up in a court of law.

Insurance claims are not speculation!

[GostHacked]

Insurance claims are not speculation!

Yeah because the Insurance companies will stop honoring their agreements to compensate for those who have been affected by 'climate change'.

They will eventually stop paying out to victims of natural disasters.

[WIP]

Yeah because the Insurance companies will stop honoring their agreements to compensate for those who have been affected by 'climate change'.

They will eventually stop paying out to victims of natural disasters.

You must have been anticipating this story from Australia: Tax To Pay For Floods-Cleanup In Australia Apparently the bill for the estimated 6 billion dollars in flood damage is going to be payed for by a "one-off" income tax....they better hope this doesn't become permanent! During the last ten years, Australia was dominated by Conservative governments that pandered to their Coal Industry, which was running the typical third party campaign of disinformation to make Australians more skeptical about climate change. Now, Australians have an up close example of the costs of not addressing the problem of increasing greenhouse gases.

[TimG]

Apparently the bill for the estimated 6 billion dollars in flood damage is going to be payed for by a "one-off" income tax.

6 billion that could have been reduced significantly if the people managing the dams had looked at history instead of listening to the AGW alarmists telling them that it would never rain again in Australia thanks to your evil CO2 emissions. It also could have been prevented if the enviro-nuts had not blocked the development of a new dam.

Bottom line: only an innumerate idiot attributes these flood costs to GHGs. They would have occurred anyways and the best way to deal with the hypothetical risk is building better infrastructure that can protect human settlements from the excesses of nature.

Edited January 27, 2011 by TimG

[WIP]

6 billion that could have been reduced significantly if the people managing the dams had looked at history instead of listening to the AGW alarmists telling them that it would never rain again in Australia thanks to your evil CO2 emissions.

SOURCE?

You don't get to make up your own facts. More heat in the atmosphere = more moisture available. For the last 20 years, climate modelers have been sure of one thing - that increased warming would lead to more extreme weather - worse floods and worse droughts. Find whoever said "it would never rain again in Australia."

[GostHacked]

You must have been anticipating this story from Australia: Tax To Pay For Floods-Cleanup In Australia Apparently the bill for the estimated 6 billion dollars in flood damage is going to be payed for by a "one-off" income tax....they better hope this doesn't become permanent! During the last ten years, Australia was dominated by Conservative governments that pandered to their Coal Industry, which was running the typical third party campaign of disinformation to make Australians more skeptical about climate change. Now, Australians have an up close example of the costs of not addressing the problem of increasing greenhouse gases.

This has little if anything to do with global warming. They have floods every year, but not like this. And the cause explained was an 'inland tsumani' .. think about that for a moment and what it means.

Growing up and spending many weekends at my grandparents cottage on the river, there was floods there every now and then. Well it is on a flood plain. However there is a power damn for INCO up the river. When they let it go for whatever reasons, the river has and can rise 20 feet above the normal water levels.

But back to the insurance stuff. Get into a couple accidents and either your rates go up, or the insurance company will drop you altogether. Insurance companies would go bust if they really had to honour the claims put in by people when affected by natural disasters.

Edited January 27, 2011 by GostHacked

[TimG]

More heat in the atmosphere = more moisture available.

A lovely platitude but meaningless. There are lots of true scientific effects that have zero impact in the real world because they are too small to be noticeable or are balanced by other factors. For example, the faster you drive the more your car will increase in mass. This means your fuel economy will go down. However, in real world, the effect of relativity is tiny compared to air resistance so it can be ignored.

If you want to make the case that CO2 affected the flood damages you would have to figure out what the damages would have been without CO2 emissions and calculate the difference. i.e. if the costs would have $5 billion without CO2 emissions then the cost attributable to CO2 is $1 billion = not $6 billion like you so dishonestly implied.

That said, the $1 billion figure I tossed out completely overstates the case because every study of insurance losses due to natural disasters shows that there is no identifiable trend in the data over the last 100 years once one factors in population and economic growth. This means there is NO empirical support for your claim that CO2 significantly increased the cost of the disaster. i.e. it would have been $6 billion with or without the extra CO2.

On the other hand, there are many other factors such as choices made by dam operators or government politicians that would have also affected the cost. The incremental costs of bad decisions far exceeds any hypothetical CO2 effect and obsessing about CO2 is a distraction.

Edited January 27, 2011 by TimG

[WIP]

This has little if anything to do with global warming. They have floods every year, but not like this. And the cause explained was an 'inland tsumani' .. think about that for a moment and what it means.

You do realize that the exception doesn't prove the rule, right? When the world's largest re-insurer - Munich RE says that 2010 is a record year for disaster claims, and sees climate change as the primary reasonfor the rising costs, not just random weather events, or population growth, then that has to be taken seriously, since Munich RE has been keeping track of claims data for more than 150 years. Munich Re June press release September press release

Growing up and spending many weekends at my grandparents cottage on the river, there was floods there every now and then. Well it is on a flood plain. However there is a power damn for INCO up the river. When they let it go for whatever reasons, the river has and can rise 20 feet above the normal water levels.

But back to the insurance stuff. Get into a couple accidents and either your rates go up, or the insurance company will drop you altogether. Insurance companies would go bust if they really had to honour the claims put in by people when affected by natural disasters.

Which is what has happened in Australia, where the number of claims have ended up with insurers telling the government to pick up the bill.

Edited January 28, 2011 by WIP

[WIP]

A lovely platitude but meaningless. There are lots of true scientific effects that have zero impact in the real world because they are too small to be noticeable or are balanced by other factors. For example, the faster you drive the more your car will increase in mass. This means your fuel economy will go down. However, in real world, the effect of relativity is tiny compared to air resistance so it can be ignored.

If you want to make the case that CO2 affected the flood damages you would have to figure out what the damages would have been without CO2 emissions and calculate the difference. i.e. if the costs would have $5 billion without CO2 emissions then the cost attributable to CO2 is $1 billion = not $6 billion like you so dishonestly implied.

That said, the $1 billion figure I tossed out completely overstates the case because every study of insurance losses due to natural disasters shows that there is no identifiable trend in the data over the last 100 years once one factors in population and economic growth. This means there is NO empirical support for your claim that CO2 significantly increased the cost of the disaster. i.e. it would have been $6 billion with or without the extra CO2.

On the other hand, there are many other factors such as choices made by dam operators or government politicians that would have also affected the cost. The incremental costs of bad decisions far exceeds any hypothetical CO2 effect and obsessing about CO2 is a distraction.

I'm still waiting for evidence for your claim that environmentalists said it would never rain in Australia again.

[TimG]

I'm still waiting for evidence for your claim that environmentalists said it would never rain in Australia again.

Of course. Instead of responding to the arguments that eviscerates your claim that the $6 billion is entirely the result of CO2, you harp of what was obviously colorful rhetoric (any idiot should understand that environmentalists did not say it would never rain again).

What they did do is claim that flooding would be much less of a risk because of reduced rainfall. From Tim Flannery, Australian alarmist, in 2007:

We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

There are many other sources that show the dam operators were told that they could ignore the flood risk because AGW was already impacting Australia and the rainfall patterns have permanently declined.

This misinformation was one of the reasons why the dam operators ignored history and kept the dam reservoirs full. This bad decisions greatly exacerbated the ensuring flood disaster.

What this is means is a portion of the $6 billion in damages can be attributed to "CO2 hysteria" and that portion is likely much larger than the portion caused by CO2 itself (which is likely not measurable).

Edited January 28, 2011 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

SOURCE?

You don't get to make up your own facts. More heat in the atmosphere = more moisture available. For the last 20 years, climate modelers have been sure of one thing - that increased warming would lead to more extreme weather - worse floods and worse droughts. Find whoever said "it would never rain again in Australia."

Don't bother, tim doesn't understand the basics of how weather works.

Edited January 29, 2011 by TrueMetis

[Pliny]

I'm still waiting for evidence for your claim that environmentalists said it would never rain in Australia again.

WIPped again. Poor fellow.

It is true! Evil man is destroying everything! Those prophetically making that claim endeavour to be as humanly right as possible and are thus compelled to destroy everything. It is just too difficult to be wrong.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Pliny

[WIP]

Of course. Instead of responding to the arguments that eviscerates your claim that the $6 billion is entirely the result of CO2, you harp of what was obviously colorful rhetoric (any idiot should understand that environmentalists did not say it would never rain again).

You tossed off that statement like it was commonly established fact, not hyperbole! And eviscerate! What exactly did you eviscerate? I didn't bother with your assertion that I need itemize how much of the Queensland flood damage can be attributed to rising CO2 levels, because it's a ridiculous question to begin with. One natural disaster cannot be broken down and itemized; the point is that increasingly unstable weather; more severe droughts and floods, have been long-standing predictions of what to expect from rising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. And I already dealt with the issue of proof in a response to Gosthack. As previously mentioned, if major insurance underwriters are identifying climate change as part of their rising costs of coverage, take it out with them! They get payed to keep actuarial tables for this stuff, I don't. The insurance carriers are bailing out of disaster insurance coverage in many locales, because the disasters are getting worse and more expensive to cover claims for.

What they did do is claim that flooding would be much less of a risk because of reduced rainfall. From Tim Flannery, Australian alarmist, in 2007:

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

I never heard of Tim Flannery before...I suppose he's important in Australia! Anyway, in the article you linked, he talks about increasing droughts in Southern Australia....which is not where Queensland is! Find some info on Australia, and their weather cycles, since the climate appears different in different regions of the country.

There are many other sources that show the dam operators were told that they could ignore the flood risk because AGW was already impacting Australia and the rainfall patterns have permanently declined.

This misinformation was one of the reasons why the dam operators ignored history and kept the dam reservoirs full. This bad decisions greatly exacerbated the ensuring flood disaster.

What this is means is a portion of the $6 billion in damages can be attributed to "CO2 hysteria" and that portion is likely much larger than the portion caused by CO2 itself (which is likely not measurable).

Would it be asking too much for you to provide a link to your "many other sources?" Okay, so I put Google to work on your search terms and do the heavy lifting for you. What I found were three articles similar to this one (the other two likely quoted from the same sources) Did Australia's obsession with global warming contribute to the Brisbane floods?

But might there be another, so far overlooked, contributing factor to the floods? Might the politics of environmentalism itself – the contemporary obsession with global warming as the greatest threat to mankind – have exacerbated the impact of the flooding in Brisbane? It seems possible that Aussie politicians’ and officials’ deeply held conviction that the main problem we face today is increased heat, droughts and a lack of rainfall caused them to take their eye off the ball in Brisbane, and to be unprepared for something as relatively normal as very heavy rainfall.

It is worth looking at a document called ClimateSmart 2050, which was published in 2007 by the Queensland government. It outlines Queensland’s priorities for the next four decades (up to 2050) and promises to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent during that timeframe. The most striking thing about the document is its assumption that the main problem facing this part of Australia, along with most of the rest of the world, is essentially dryness brought about by global warming. It argues that “the world is experiencing accelerating climate change as a result of human activities”, which is giving rise to “worse droughts, hotter temperatures and rising sea levels”. We are witnessing “a tendency for less rainfall with more droughts”, the document confidently asserted.

So this "Brendan O'Neil" says that the Queensland Government focused solely on droughts, rather than floods, because of bad advice from environmentalists who claimed that all of the emphasis in on dryness, not the risk of too much rain. Since I do not take the word of strangers I've never heard of, I did a little sourcing to check out his claims about this Government Report - Climate Smart 2050 On page 15 of the 48 page report, I find this heading: Climate change projections for Queensland....where I can check out whatever future climate projections they are expecting for the future. Right under the subheading, I find this first paragraph:

The world is experiencing accelerated climate change as a result of human activities, resulting in worse droughts,

hotter temperatures, increased cyclone and severe storm activity and intensity, and rising sea levels.

Now, do you notice something odd here? Compare the last sentence with the quote this Liveleaks article takes from the report. Notice that he included "worse droughts, "hotter temperatures", "rising sea levels", but omitted INCREASED CYCLONE AND SEVERE STORM ACTIVITY AND INTENSITY. The real story about the climate research selected for the report is that they forecast Australia's overall climate will get dryer, but as mentioned umpteen million times, increased volatility means that when there are storms and floods, they will come with much greater intensity....just like Queensland is experiencing this year. And that's why this dishonest AGW denier's conclusions about where the Goverment went wrong just fall apart:

The Queensland government’s belief that water conservation should be a key priority in this speedily warming world of ours appears to have led to the situation where local dams were allowed to get dangerously full. So in recent weeks, the Wivenhoe dam was running at 150 per cent to 180 per cent capacity, which means that the authorities had to start releasing water from the dam at the same time that the rain-caused flash floods were hitting Brisbane’s river system – effectively contributing to the deluge. It is surely worth asking, at least, whether Queensland officialdom’s embrace of the ideology of climate change, its fervent belief in future manmade drought and thus the need to store as much water as possible, made it unprepared for the current flooding of the Brisbane area.

Now, in light of the fact that adjusting to a warming world means trying to adjust to increasing volatility, the above conclusion isn't worth a roll of toilet paper. Up until this winter, the Government may have had good reason to be worried about droughts and compensating by storing more water. When things change and non-stop heavy rain hits for days on end, it's easy to use 20/20 hindsight; but that same writer would have been crapping about the Government's lack of preparation for a drought if there was no rain this winter! All this extra reading just informs me that climate change skeptic writers in Australia are the same lying sacks of shit as the ones here in Canada, the United States, England and elsewhere!

[Guest TrueMetis]

Just for fun let's check the number of droughts in Australia vs the number of floods. This is for the period 1900-2000 just because.

Droughts, by my count 7 in this period with one lasting a decade. With pretty much all of them affecting Queensland.

My link

Floods, 23 none of them lasting anywhere near as long as the droughts (obviously) and 3 happening in Queensland. This makes the 3 floods that have happened in Queensland since 2000 rather odd.

My link

Now from my reading of this the damage done by the droughts far exceeds the damage from floods, so it's unsurprising that Australians would be so worried about it. Flood has never killed 50000000 sheep to my knowledge, nor lasted a decade. Though it should be noted that the period of 1800-1900 saw more droughts than floods but none of the droughts lasted as long. (This could be an issue of recording them or they may not have been considered notable enough)

[TimG]

I didn't bother with your assertion that I need itemize how much of the Queensland flood damage can be attributed to rising CO2 levels, because it's a ridiculous question to begin with.

Actually, it is the ONLY question that matters. You run around spouting crap about more water vapour in the air as if that is supposed to prove your assertion that CO2 affected the flood damage. It does not. You are making the assertion here - the onus of proof is on you.

One natural disaster cannot be broken down and itemized; the point is that increasingly unstable weather;

Spoken like a true astrologist. Reject calls for specific evidence and instead wave your hands and insists that "unstable weather" must be bad and it must have a measureable effect on storm damages. Complete BS. The science of AGW could be 100% correct yet the real effect on disaster damages of "more unstable weather" could be near zero.

If you cannot demonstrate with empirical data that real disaster damages have increases as a result of AGW then you have nothing. Remember disaster damages increase for a lot of other reasons and those must be taken into account before any conclusions can be drawn (i.e. don't bother posting a chart that does not factor in population and asset growth).

BTW - the peer reviewed literature says in multiple papers that there is no observable trends in the disaster damages to date. This is the basis for my claim that you don't have one shred of scientific evidence supporting your assertion that CO2 had something to do with the floods.

Here is some data:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/01/updated-normalized-disaster-losses-in.html

Note how the recent flood damages were above average but about 1/4 of the 1974 flood damages. Such data tells me there is no measureable link between CO2 and storm damages.

As for the rest. I was careful to say that the CO2 obsession was one of many factors. The only claim I made was it was likely had a much larger effect on the damages than CO2 itself. A conclusion that is reasonable given the public statements of many of Austrialia's policy makers and the lack of any evidence supporting the claim that CO2 is having a measurable effect on disaster damages.

Edited January 29, 2011 by TimG