Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t JoNova – South Australians have finally tired of economic misery and expensive, unreliable green electricity; the government which created the mess has just been crushed at the ballot box, 25 seats to 18.
Jay Weatherill quits as leader after losing South Australian election
Outgoing premier says he will stay on the backbench and is not interested in going to Canberra
The ousted South Australian premier, Jay Weatherill, has said he will stand down as Labor leader and ruled out a switch to federal politics after losing Saturday’s state election.
“The Labor party has plenty of fantastic choices as leader, I won’t be one of them,” he told reporters on Sunday.
Weatherill would not put a timeline on the leadership change but said it would be “sooner rather than later” once the final results of the election were known.
…
The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who spoke to Marshall on Sunday morning, is claiming the Liberal win in South Australia is an endorsement of his energy policy.
“Jay Weatherill said this was a referendum on energy policy,” Turnbull said in Sydney. “The people have spoken and spoken in favour of our policies, which is to support affordable and reliable energy to ensure that we can meet our Paris commitment, and at the same time ensure that we can keep the lights on and indeed afford to keep the lights on.”
But Labor’s climate and energy spokesman, Mark Butler, said the result was because the “time for change force” proved too strong.
“It was a campaign in which I think Labor can hold its head up high,” he said.
…
South Australia isn’t completely out of the woods – Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull might be crowing about the defeat of the South Australian climate extremists, but he has carbon on his hands.
Turnbull’s “affordable energy policy” includes an operational, low profile carbon market, which in my opinion looks set to extract an increasingly painful climate tithe from the pockets of ordinary Australians.
People get the government they deserve.
Grow a pair.
For those that think that this election was about the price of energy I must remind you that this is the state that went from one of the lowest costs of electricity in the world to the most expensive. This occurred over several election cycles.
The winning party’s policies are not much better. They will NOT lower the cost of electricity anytime soon. They still support the Parisis agreement. A classic pyramid scheme.
Prices will continue to rise, perhaps at a lower rate, but increase they will and if you already have the most expensive electricity in the world, any rise can only hurt anyone who needs electricity from the grid, eg. industry.
South Australia is a very small state (under 1.8 million people). It is not growing. Young people leave it. It is the one of the driest states on Earth. Almost nothing has been done to increase its water supply for a very long time. South Australia’s largest employment sector is health care and social assistance. It is an excellent place to go to university, wait to die or visit.
Progressives are the problem. They took over most parties in the west whatever colour. Voting in most countries these days changes NOTHING.
Does it matter if they hit you with the left hand or with the right one?
Not so much the high price of energy as the long-term consequences of high energy prices. It takes a while for people to wake up and realize how important cheap plentiful energy is to a healthy economy. Cheap fossil energy gave us the industrial revolution, which transformed the world. Deny that at your peril.
Geoff, you are right when you say they will NOT lower the cost of electricity any time soon. Turnbull’s own words tell us that (my bold):
There are too many contradictions in that statement to make any of it true. what is needed is a Trumpian axe to the Paris ‘commitment’. I’d wager that if the people were asked if they wanted to support the Paris ‘commitment’ they would give Turnbull a big fat NO!
“Progressives are the problem. They took over most parties in the west whatever colour. Voting in most countries these days changes NOTHING.”
Excellent, accurate observation, Robertvd.
Most of the political parties in Western governments seem to be just different flavors of socialism. There doesn’t seem to be the equivalent of the American Republican party (small government, free enterprise, free speech, and individual freedoms) anywhere. That doesn’t leave one with much choice.
You’re right. As long as any country stays in the Paris agreement or pledges to set aside 17% of it’s land base which is off limits to human activity, the only thing which will be achieved is driving the people off the land and into the cities. Here in Alberta, that is exactly what is happening to us at the hands of a government that couldn’t care less what happens to peoples livelihoods. Our province is being run like a Nazi death camp as far as rural people are concerned. We have the cheapest electricity prices in the world at about 15 cents a KWH, which includes taxes, and just as cheap natural gas prices as anywhere else, until the government put their carbon tax on it which they jack up every year by ten dollars a ton on CO2 emissions What used to be the number one jurisdiction for investment in all of north America only a few short years ago, is now third or fourth from the bottom, as billions of dollars of investment have fled the province. They are shutting down all of our coal fired power plants, and replacing them with windmills or and converting some to natural gas, which will make the electricity unavoidable like heating your home is becoming. If it’s not stopped, it’s going to make Mao’s murderous genocidal disaster, the great leap forward, look small and orderly in comparison.
It is amusing to me when people quote ‘Paris Agreement’ ‘pledges’. Reading the agreement shows they are ‘self-established’ and were not established at the signing of the agreement, they are strictly voluntary (aside from the fact that there are only a handful of countries – mostly Western Nations – that are actually expected to reduce their CO2 output over the term of the agreement). There is no penalty for failure to meet ‘voluntary’ reduction goals and all participants actually agreed to do was file a report every 5 years showing what ‘progress’ they have made to meet their ‘self-established’ reduction targets.
Mark Pawelek March 18, 2018 at 3:27 am wrote “… Cheap fossil energy gave us the industrial revolution, which transformed the world. Deny that at your peril.”
Those without historical perspective (most progressives) don’t understand how the industrial revolution lifted the world out of abject poverty. They see only sweatshops and pollution spewing smoke stacks. In their ignorance they think they wouldn’t mind rolling back the industrial revolution. Until it happens in some measure and they get smacked by Reality. But lacking historic perspective they still might not get a clue.
“It is an excellent place to go to university, wait to die or visit.”
There are two continents where photovoltaics should rule (within a few decades at most): Australia and Africa.
https://mozaw.com/solar-insolation-world-map/
Rob: cheapest electricity in the world, including taxes, at $.15/kwh>
Rob, I do not enjoy bursting your bubble but that is not the cheapest per kilowatt hour charge, including taxes, in the world. Mine is FAR less than that in NE Illinois at $.08/kwh, including taxes. I have my electric bill right in front of me. There is a breakdown on the bill, line by line, of all charges.
Sorry to disillusion anyone, but my rate is far lower than that in Rob’s area.
But, but… Agenda 21 isn’t real that’s just Tinfoil hat stuff. Seriously, this is [tied] in with the Georgia guide stones. These people are forcing this on is from the top down to eliminate human population down to 500 million. Full stop.
@ Mark Bahner March 18, 2018 at 11:50 am
At a cost of how many hundreds of square miles? What about transmission losses?
Parisis [sic] I think you mean
noun (plural pareses | -sēz | ) Medicine
a condition of muscular weakness caused by nerve damage or disease; partial paralysis.
• (also general paresis) inflammation of the brain in the later stages of syphilis, causing progressive dementia and paralysis.
I’m sure you meant this.
Here in Lafayette, Louisiana USA we created our own city power utility over 100 years ago. We created another city utility, LUSFiber, which completed a two year fiber to the home project in 2010.
We were opposed by major corporations and we won.
We are blessed with an abundance of natural gas and profits that benefit us directly.
Foolishness about unworkable technology is not tolerated.
“@ Mark Bahner March 18, 2018 at 11:50 am
At a cost of how many hundreds of square miles? What about transmission losses?”
Let’s see…
Annual average South Australia electrical consumption in 2015-2016 was about 13,000 GWh per year.
http://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/SA_Advisory/2016/2016_SAER.pdf
Per wonderful Wikipedia, the Topaz Solar Farm in the U.S. produces about 1,300 GWh per year. Also per that site, the total area of the Topaz Solar Farm is 24.6 square kilometers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_stations
Very conveniently for our calculations, it would take approximately 10 Topaz Solar Farms to provide electrical energy equal to the total amount consumed by South Australia in a year. Therefore, the area would also be 10 times the area of the Topaz Solar Farm. Therefore, the total area of 10 Topaz Solar Farms equals 246 square kilometers, or 95 square miles.
So the answer is “a little less than 100 square miles.” That’s obviously a trivial amount of land considering the population density and size of South Australia. (South Australia has an area of about 380,000 square miles.)
Regarding transmission losses…in fact, a great deal of electrical consumption could be provided by rooftop panels. Per page 2 of the first report I sited, presently about 30 percent of homes in South Australia currently have rooftop photovoltaic panels.
@Mark Bahner
You cannot use only GWh (average power) in your calculation. You must provide peak power, not just average power. Basically double your figures.
And you must provide power at night, too.
So you need backup. But once you have back-up, what’s the point of letting it idle at day? Why don’t just spare the hassle to have photovoltaic in the first place?
Or you need storage. But storage is just another producing unit, that in fact cannot produce without consuming first a little more than it will produce, and which need some consuming unit added (so: added cost). Basically cost double of a regular producing unit. And, then again, why don’t you just buy a regular producing unit in the first place?
Note that TSF costed ~2.4 $billions, for its ~1,200 GWh/year (2$ per kWh/y) and was financed by 5.75% bonds, that is, $0.115 per kWh for the interest rate, and you must add $0.06 for the capital amortization on a 30 year service (let’s hope this provide for all maintenance, insurance etc.).
Total cost $0.175 /kWh production cost. The consumer will have to pay transport (grid), taxes, work and profit for selling company but also the backup-storage company, etc. He will only spare on the fuel cost, that is, basically zilch, nada
So, basically, you add $0.2 to current kWh price, and you are close to what this will cost the consumer
Max,
That might be better stated…
People who take the time to vote may or may not get the government they elect but people who don’t vote will always get the government they deserve
the same issue exists everywhere in the western world outside the united states. no matter who you vote for it comes with a huge slice of virtue signalling pie paid for with other peoples money.
It needs to be understood that the incoming govt have inherited this mismanagement of the power situation from 16 years of ‘progressive’ power policy. The cost of using coal due to govt royalties is now unaffordable to think about building a new coal fired power station. Along with the myriad of new banks who wont support coal……….total virtue signalling idiots.
It was fortunate that the SE part of Australia had a low temp summer, as the power issues would be more stark if there were brown outs and black outs due to the lack of base load power that only coal & gas can bring. Next summer it may hit home.
It wont dawn on Joe Public until it adversely effects them. When it does, there should be a lot of vitriol thrown at politicians of all sides.
Thank goodness, but South Australia is still not out of the woods yet. The Liberals have largely inherited the warmist policies of the Greens/Labor cabal. I see little chance of avoiding mass blackouts next year.
I read somewhere that the Liberals promised 40,000 homes with solar/batteries, versus a promise from Labor for … 50,000.
Yep.
And guess who will pay for them – the fairies (again).
Toorightmate: you shouldn’t call em that
Don’t be too sure. South Australians (SA) kept voting for ALP for 16 years, four straight terms, and the ALP held power in the state for the most of the last 25 years. And don’t forget, SA is home to the person who caused the biggest IT disaster in Australian history. Seems SA is going to show the rest of Australia and the world how not to do alt-energy.
Actually the ALP should have been smashed last election 4 years ago because the vote has hardly changed, `54% Libs – 46% ALP except for a gerrymandered seat distribution. Had that not been the case much of the energy lunacy of the past few years would not have occurred.
The other reality check is that it looks like the fringe/’independent’ outfits look like they have been found out bu the electorate not just isn SA but also in Victoria (Batman by-election), Tasmania (Greens lost a seat and the Lambie hillbillies flopped just like NXT in SA..)
You say that the Liberals got 54% of the votes and Labour got 46%. The only way that’s possible is if no other party took part in the election. Maybe you meant 54% of the two-party vote. In 2014, the Liberals got 22 seats for their 44.8% of the votes while Labour got 23 seats for only 35.8% of the votes. What a weird result. In 2018 the Labour vote went down by only 1.9 percentage points while the Liberal vote went down by 7.4 percentage points. Yet the Liberals win. Seems they have a weird electoral system in South Australia. But for the headline to say that a party which wins 18 seats out of 47 has been ‘obliterated’ seems a bit of an exaggeration.
Alba, your are correct, its the 2PP Vote I was referring to which is how we do things in Oz, preferential volting that all registered voters must attend*, i.e. the adult way. The disparity between 2014 and 2018 is almost entirely down to electoralte distribution.
* You can attend and vote for no one, for who you want or just write obscenties on your ballot but that’s the secret bit. In one referendum I wrote NO F&^%$#@ DAMS and our truly independent electoral office counted it and all the other No Dams ‘protest votes’ who actually won the most votes as I recall. The damned dam was not built.
Queensland keeps voting labor and the debt and wallet and bank account raiding continues unabated. The LNP are hopeless so the green-weirdings and Labor get a free-pass every election.
“The voters always get it right” – Turnbull
Bovine scat
The voter’s ‘mandate’ is meaningless.
Patrick, the last time I was in Adelaide to work, I’d have had to do it by candlelight… gladly I stayed at a nice inner-city hotel and drank their warming beers instead…
We can’t be assured, about the biggest IT disaster, but shirely that can be ascertained with research!
Germany is way ahead of these amateurs in both the time and the scale of pointless waste. Not sure who has the most stupidly and avoidably high energy prices. S.Oz, Berserkskrauten, Californian Fruits and Nuts or the genetically bonkers Danes. Krauts have already flushed the odd Trillion Euros down the pan, for no reduction in CO2, while progressively destroying their farming with mono culture lowest energy density of all “bio enrgy”. But they just don’t care. It’s that old irrational anti nuclear green religion, no one tries to understand electrical engineering anymore, or wants to. Belief in, or social conformity with, electrical energy science denial is cosier, whatever the cost.
?dl=0
When you pledge to a phoney premise who cares if the stated goals are not met as long as the virtue-signalling parasites keep getting paid for doing busywork and propagandizing?
I care, which is whi I wite wherever I see actual energy and probable climate BS presented as science fact for regressive profit or social gain of the cynical, shallow or delusional proposer.
The German case is a perfect example of corrupt incentives producing what should have been fully anticipated results. The economic impact of “green” sources forced the reserve coal plants to shift to cheaper I.e dirty coal to keep rates within target. The increased CO2 produced by the low quality coal more than offset the illusion of savings from the green sources. You would think these luminaries could get beyond linear thinking.
I would expect them to start understanding, instead of believing, the exact opposite. If you defy the laws of physics with laws ofmen only men can lose, Sadly those on the inside of the renewable energy climate change protection racket profit at the expense of all the people they supposedly represent, by laws they pass. Western Democratic politics at work. State organised crime.
Germany has the rest of the European grid to balance out it’s lunacy.
Apparently the Poles now have switchable asymetric connections to the German grid so that they can supply Germany form their coal plants but can stop unwanted wind power going onto the Polish grid. Thyristor tech. UK needs this on the Scottish border. The States bordering S.Oz should do the same, and simply block S.Oz overpriced wind and solar energy when they don’t need it. Let them fail through their own stupidity, greed and ignorance of the people of S.Oz who voted for this obviously pre failed nonsense to anyone with HIgh school physics. Charge the idiots crippling rates for reliable fossil generation. Make them pay for their stupidity, and make sure the fools who made the decisions are called out for what they are as part of baling them out, and who has profitted at the expense of others. Being nice and allowing progress and your country to be led by false ignorant beliefs is no way to run a modern technologically dependent country.
On a per capita basis South Australia wins this race to the abyss. The latest round of asset purchases; Tesla’s big battery with Samsung cells; the diesel fuelled GTs and the diesel fuelled ICE’s all had to be debt funded from general revenue as the consumer can no longer bear the pain. The lower cost option for detached residential premises is now rooftop and battery.
The new Liberal premier has promised a heavy duty link to NSW so South Australia can destroy the economics of the NSW network in the same way all their wind generators used the 600MW link to Victoria to destroy the economics of the network in Victoria. The wind generators get handsome transfer payments courtesy of the RET while making slow response, low cost coal generators uneconomic.
South Australia has sufficient wind capacity already installed, and more planned, to destroy the economy across Australia. Germany’s neighbours are putting measures in place to limit the economic damage caused by all the wind generators in Germany.
There was an electoral redistribution which undid the incumbent’s fake majority.
Electrical redistribution?
Sort of. The renewable gerrymander battery went flat just when the winds of change tripped out Labor’s wishlist windmill.
You can already see that the leftists in Australia and particularly the state of South Australia will absolutely refuse to recognize that the loss in SA by the Labour Party has anything to do with climate policy or any of the other nutty economic policies that they have followed. I predict they will learn nothing from the defeat. That does not make them unelectable. Labour will only have to wait until the Liberals inevitably fail the test of government. Not much of a choice really. Labour and Labour-lite.
No.Headline MSM stories so far is that Nick Xenophon resigning his Senate seat and losing in the SA by-election. They don’t mention the ALP LOST THE WHOLE STATE!
This also may have something to do with what Charles Ortel, a financial investigator has been/is still exposing with Jason Goodman on ‘Crowdsource the Truth’. Some are finally realizing the financial corruption.
Check out ‘Sunday with Charles’.
Here’s the link to today’s airing. The story has major ramifications for many different countries.
Just like the UK – Red Labour or Blue Labour.
As long as people want Big Government (free stuff) it can only be Labour and Labour-lite.
“Two cheeks of the same arse.”
PLEASE SEE POINT 4, WHICH SUGGESTS THAT ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS THE PARIS ACCORD, CARBON TAXES AND CO2 REDUCTION IS AN IMBECILE.
“4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.”
Presentation of Evidence Suggesting Temperature Drives Atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 Drives Temperature
Allan MacRae. P.Eng. / June 13, 2015
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015
________________________________________________________________________
RE POINT #1 ABOVE:
Humlum et al reached similar conclusions in 2013 here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
“Highlights:
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
– Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
– Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.”
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1551019291642294&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
I suggest that the global warming alarmists could not be more wrong. These are the true facts, which are opposite to their alarmist claims:
1. CO2 is plant food, and greater atmospheric CO2 is good for natural plants and also for agriculture.
2. Earth’s atmosphere is clearly CO2-deficient and the current increase in CO2 (whatever the causes) is beneficial.
3. Increased atmospheric CO2 does not cause significant global warming – regrettable because the world is too cold and about to get colder, imo.
Regards to all, Allan
RE POINT #1 ABOVE,
“1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record.”
In 2008 when I first published this close relationship between dCO2/dt and atmospheric temperature, there were several specious attempts to discredit it – probably because it effectively proved that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is very low – probably much less than 1C/(2xCO2), and that should have ended the fractious debate about the false global warming crisis.
The dCO2 vs. temperature relationship was called “spurious correlation”, which is obvious nonsense. Does this look like “spurious correlation” to any rational person?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1556510707759819&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
Then the warmist camp tried to dismiss it as a “feedback effect” – their circular illogic is classic: They “KNOW” that CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature; so therefore “it MUST BE a feedback effect”. Only a true warmist fanatic could look at himself in the mirror and make this argument.
Some parties have probably taken my argument “a bridge too far”, by insisting that temperature is the only (or the primary) driver of increasing atmospheric CO2. This step is simply unnecessary, since it is possible that increasing atmospheric CO2 is driven by many causes, such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc., but whatever the causes of the “base increase” in CO2, the clear signal of dCO2/dt vs. temperature remains, and the resulting ~9-month lag of the CO2 trend AFTER temperature remains as well.
The fact that this irrefutable evidence has been largely ignored for ten years suggests that either both sides of this fractious debate are just having too much fun kicking around this political football, or more likely there is just too much easy money to be made by perpetuating this costly global warming myth.
Politicians love a great big boondoggle, because that is where they can skim the most graft. Businesses apparently love it too, which suggests that their ethics are as deficient as those of the politicians. Am I being too harsh? Perhaps – no one wants to be compared to a corrupt politician, but that is the odious bed that the warmists have chosen to lie in.
Regards to all, Allan
Moderator – when posts go into moderation, it is common for the vertical spacing to get messed up and the plots to not appear as figures, but only as url’s. Please try to ensure this message displays properly.
Thank you.
Quite right, but how can you convince the elitists in the establishment?
Yes Phillip.
It is very difficult to persuade politicians and other elitists that they are wrong when maintaining their incomes, both over-and-under-the table, necessitates that they defend their false positions.
Keep it simple, Allan – an increase in temperate CAUSES an increase in CO2, not the other way around. Ergo, there is NO scientific basis for policies that REDUCE CO2 in order to attempt to prevent future temperate change. Just keep repeating this simple fact!
Hi Tottenham,
“Keeping it simple” as you suggest is “easier said than done”.
If you can locate them, look up the debates on wattsup between Ferdinand Engelbeen and Richard S Courtney on this very subject. Ferdinand is adamant that the primary driver of increasing atmospheric CO2 is fossil fuel combustion, based on the “mass balance argument”, while Richard is agnostic.
While scientifically interesting, it is technically risky and simply NOT necessary to ascribe ALL atmospheric CO2 increase to warming global temperatures – other causes of increasing CO2 could indeed be present and could in fact be larger than the temperature-driven component – good candidates are fossil fuel combustion and tropical deforestation.
However, the survival of the temperature-driven “signal” dCO2/dt atop the “base CO2 increase” (whatever the cause) proves my point. IF as the warmists falsely allege, “CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature”, then this clear signal WOULD NOT EXIST.
In summary, the global warming alarmists are alleging that the future is causing the past, which falsifies their hypothesis.
Regards, Allan
@ ALLAN MACRAE – March 18, 2018 at 12:13 am
So, ALLAN MACRAE, …… iffen the lag in CO2 is always somewhere between nine (9) and twelve (12) months BEHIND changes in … (a) global sea surface temperature, … (b) global air surface temperature ….. and/or … (c) global lower troposphere temperature, ….. then how in the world does one explain the fact that global atmospheric CO2, …. as per the Keeling Curve Graph, ….. always lags slightly behind the biyearly or seasonal (6 month) changing of the equinoxes, …… with a lag of a few days after the Fall equinox and a lag of <2 months after the Spring equinox, to wit, the Keeling Curve w/equinox lines:
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif
And to wit, there doesn‘t appear to be any correlation whatsoever, … let alone a 9 month lag, … of the atmospheric CO2 behind the 1979-2013 UAH satellite global lower atmosphere temperatures:
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/1979-2013UAHsatelliteglobalaveragetemperatures.png
I am really confused because the "claims" don't agree with the factual "data".
Cheers, Sam C
Hello Samuel. You wrote:
“I am really confused [.TRUE.] because the “claims” don’t agree with the factual “data” [.FALSE.].
Kindly read what I actually wrote, not what you wrote. You have created your own “strawman” argument – and you’ve done this before, but probably forgot that you did so.
Atmospheric CO2 ALSO lags temperature seasonally as per the Keeling curve, but my 2008 analysis examines the lag of CO2 after temperature in multi-year and multi-decadal periods, not seasonal periods.
Let’s stop this now – it is tiresome to repeat the same discussion with you when you fail to read what I wrote.
Regards, Allan
In a post at Climate Etc. I asked, and got no reply, how to reconcile statements that there is “NO correlation with CO2 and temperature” with statements that there is an 800 year or 9 month (or some other number) lag between temperature and CO2. Gas laws (is it Charles Law?) would explain CO2 outgassing from the oceans in 9 or so months with increasing ocean temperature. I can’t conceive of a process that would explain 800 years. To a EE like myself…yea it is confusing. Consider this a general question and not parsing someone else’s comments.
pmhinsc and Sam C,
Taking the 9 month (or similar) lag first, it is between the rate of growth of atmospheric CO2 (from one year to the next, not the seasonal cycle variation) and temperature – the higher the temperature the faster the growth in CO2. The excellent correlation can be seen in Allan’s referenced woodfortrees plot above. It can even be seen in Sam’s second graph, though it is less clear. The crosses are the CO2 levels as at mid-May each year. The general increasing trend is obvious, but you need to look at the changes in rate of growth by comparing adjacent crosses and the deviation from the general trend. See, for example, the increase from 1987 to 1988 and from 1997 to 1999, both of which are above the average rate of growth and correspond to El Niño events. On the other hand look at the reduced rate of growth from 1991 to 1993 (Pinatubo eruption) and from 1999 to 2000 (La Niña). The relationship between rate of growth of atmospheric CO2 and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) has been known for a long time. The relationship also shows up very clearly here:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
The 800 year lag is from ice core data about which I know too little to comment meaningfully.
pmhinsc asked:
“how to reconcile statements that there is “NO correlation with CO2 and temperature” with statements that there is an 800 year or 9 month (or some other number) lag between temperature and CO2.”
1. The statements that there is “NO correlation with CO2 and temperature” is false. The 9-month correlation is obvious and incontrovertible, as shown here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1556510707759819&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
The integral of this close dCO2/dt vs temperature relationship gives the ~9-month delay of CO2 after temperature. The warmists simply have the time sequence backwards, as noted further below (aka “cart before horse”).
2. The ~~800-year delay of CO2 after temperature is derived from the ice core record. You can search and find plots of that relationship.
I suggest that both these delays of CO2-after-temperature have both a physical and a biological component – ocean solution/exsolution of CO2, which is temperature-dependent, and photosynthesis/decay, which is also driven by temperature.
Global warming fanatics have alleged that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature, which is nonsense because they are saying that the future is the primary driver of the past. Perhaps this could be the case on some parallel dimension with a reversed space-time continuum, but NOT in this universe. 🙂
I hope this answers your question.
If someone wants to comment, please try to first read what I have written and respond to that – not to some strawman argument that is inconsistent with my position – that tactic is getting quite tiresome.
Regards, Allan
Good comments Jim Ross, thank you – see also the similar atmospheric cooling impact (similar to Pinatubo but smaller) circa 1982 from the eruption of El Chichon.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/18/overheated-claims-on-global-temperature-records/comment-page-1/#comment-2746714
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1527601687317388&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
ALLAN MACRAE – March 18, 2018 at 5:45 am
Allan, quit acting stupid, …. I am not dyslectic nor do I have a reading comprehension problem. And how in hell is it possible for me to have …… “created your own “strawman” argument” ….. iffen I quoted you verbatim and then questioned the “CO2 lag times” you claimed were actual, factual scientific evidence?
Allan, I agree with most everything you say about “atmospheric CO2 and temperatures”, but I sure as ell don’t agree with your stated “lag time in months”.
Iffen CO2 lags temperature, which we know for a fact that it does, ….. then how is it possible for CO2 to lag the increase/decrease in temperatures by 9 months or greater, ….. unless the temperatures themselves are cycling (increasing/decreasing) at a 9 months or greater frequency, …… especially given the fact that is NO known scientific reason for them to be doing said.
March 18, 2018 at 5:45 am
Allan, let’s STOP IT after you point out your afore stated “9 months or greater” signature in the following actual, factual “(modern) multi-year and/or multi-decadal” ……. yearly atmospheric CO2 PPM increases/decreases, to wit:
Maximum to Minimum yearly CO2 ppm data – 1979 thru 2016
Source: NOAA’s Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2 data base
@ ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
CO2 “Max” ppm Fiscal Year – mid-May to mid-May
year mth “Max” _ yearly increase ____ mth “Min” ppm
1979 _ 6 _ 339.20 …. + …… __________ 9 … 333.93
1980 _ 5 _ 341.47 …. +2.27 _________ 10 … 336.05
1981 _ 5 _ 343.01 …. +1.54 __________ 9 … 336.92
1982 _ 5 _ 344.67 …. +1.66 __________ 9 … 338.32
1983 _ 5 _ 345.96 …. +1.29 El Niño __ 9 … 340.17
1984 _ 5 _ 347.55 …. +1.59 __________ 9 … 341.35
1985 _ 5 _ 348.92 …. +1.37 _________ 10 … 343.08
1986 _ 5 _ 350.53 …. +1.61 _________ 10 … 344.47
1987 _ 5 _ 352.14 …. +1.61 __________ 9 … 346.52
1988 _ 5 _ 354.18 …. +2.04 __________ 9 … 349.03
1989 _ 5 _ 355.89 …. +1.71 La Nina __ 9 … 350.02
1990 _ 5 _ 357.29 …. +1.40 __________ 9 … 351.28
1991 _ 5 _ 359.09 …. +1.80 __________ 9 … 352.30
1992 _ 5 _ 359.55 …. +0.46 Pinatubo _ 9 … 352.93
1993 _ 5 _ 360.19 …. +0.64 __________ 9 … 354.10
1994 _ 5 _ 361.68 …. +1.49 __________ 9 … 355.63
1995 _ 5 _ 363.77 …. +2.09 _________ 10 … 357.97
1996 _ 5 _ 365.16 …. +1.39 _________ 10 … 359.54
1997 _ 5 _ 366.69 …. +1.53 __________ 9 … 360.31
1998 _ 5 _ 369.49 …. +2.80 El Niño __ 9 … 364.01
1999 _ 4 _ 370.96 …. +1.47 La Nina ___ 9 … 364.94
2000 _ 4 _ 371.82 …. +0.86 La Nina ___ 9 … 366.91
2001 _ 5 _ 373.82 …. +2.00 __________ 9 … 368.16
2002 _ 5 _ 375.65 …. +1.83 _________ 10 … 370.51
2003 _ 5 _ 378.50 …. +2.85 _________ 10 … 373.10
2004 _ 5 _ 380.63 …. +2.13 __________ 9 … 374.11
2005 _ 5 _ 382.47 …. +1.84 __________ 9 … 376.66
2006 _ 5 _ 384.98 …. +2.51 __________ 9 … 378.92
2007 _ 5 _ 386.58 …. +1.60 __________ 9 … 380.90
2008 _ 5 _ 388.50 …. +1.92 La Nina _ 10 … 382.99
2009 _ 5 _ 390.19 …. +1.65 _________ 10 … 384.39
2010 _ 5 _ 393.04 …. +2.85 El Niño __ 9 … 386.83
2011 _ 5 _ 394.21 …. +1.17 La Nina _ 10 … 388.96
2012 _ 5 _ 396.78 …. +2.58 _________ 10 … 391.01
2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98 __________ 9 … 393.51
2014 _ 5 _ 401.88 …. +2.12 __________ 9 … 395.35
2015 _ 5 _ 403.94 …. +2.06 __________ 9 … 397.63
2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 El Niño __ 9 … 401.03
2017 _ 5 _ 409.65 …. +1.95 __________ 9 … 403.38
Even without the yearly temperature data included in the above, I still can not see or visualize a “9 months signature” in the yearly ppm increases.
Nor can I see a “human (anthropogenic) signature” anywhere within the above CO2 data.
Jim Ross – March 18, 2018 at 9:52 am
Jim Ross, thanks for your response, ….. but I do not think there is a “general trend” in/of the number of days, months or years associated with the occurrence or happening of an El Nino, La Nina or a major volcanic event, therefore I seriously doubt there is any such thing as a “general trend” associated with “rate of growth” in/of atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.
The average temperature of the ocean waters (ESPECIALLY the Southern Hemisphere water) are gradually “warming” and have been gradually “warming” ever since the per se “end” of the LIA ….. and that is exactly the reason that the atmospheric CO2 ppm has been gradually “increasing” ever since the per se “end” of the LIA. And the aforesaid El Ninos, La Ninas and major volcanic events have a direct effect on the aforesaid “warming” of the ocean waters. See Henry’s Law.
Samuel,
This whole discussion is really OT, so I tried to keep my response as succinct as possible. Perhaps as a consequence of this, you seem to have misunderstood what I meant by “general trend”. No big deal.
Personally, I am much more interested in the δ13C-CO2 behaviour.
March 19, 2018 at 1:02 am
Jim R, as the ole fellow says, …….. “Whatever turns your crank.”
But personally, me thinks you and the Dutchman are grabbing at elusive “straws” via your all’s fascination with a “δ13C-CO2” connection.
You’ll don’t have a clue as to what or how many “sinks & sources” there are for atmospheric δ13C ….. yet it appears you’ll are “bettin-your-farm” that the primary and/or ONLY culprit is the “oxidation” of fossil fuels.
Jim, ……. just for “starters”, ….. consider the following, to wit:
Oh dear, Samuel, you seem to have jumped rather a long way to a completely incorrect conclusion about my views. You also appear to have missed some of my challenges to the position of “the Dutchman” in the recent past. For the most part I avoid getting into discussion of hypotheses and focus on the data. In this way, I am able to see that the actual δ13C-CO2 behaviour is inconsistent with the usual argument that it supports the hypothesis that growth in atmospheric CO2 is entirely due to anthropogenic emissions. It does not.
[Excerpts}
“Stephen Hawking had completed a final theory, explaining how man might detect parallel universes, just two weeks before he died, it has emerged.”
National Post, March 19, 2018
http://nationalpost.com/news/world/stephen-hawkings-intriguing-final-theory-finished-just-two-weeks-before-he-died
**********************
The integral of this close dCO2/dt vs temperature relationship gives the ~9-month delay of CO2 after temperature. The warmists simply have the time sequence backwards, as noted further below (aka “cart before horse”).
…
Global warming fanatics have alleged that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature, which is nonsense because they are saying that the future is the primary driver of the past. Perhaps this could be the case on some parallel dimension with a reversed space-time continuum, but NOT in this universe. 🙂
Allan MacRae, March 18, 2018
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/17/ruling-climate-fanatics-obliterated-in-aussie-state-election/comment-page-1/#comment-2767864
[end of excerpts]
OK – I think we have located one of Hawking’s “parallel universes”, herein labelled “U2”. Parallel universe U2 exists in the fevered minds of global warming extremists, who believe that increasing atmospheric CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature – that “the future is causing the past”. The space-time continuum in U2 is indeed reversed – the future happens first, and is followed by the past – time marches backwards, to provide bilateral symmetry with the existing universe which the rest of us inhabit – herein labelled “U1”.
In parallel universe U2, CO2 can indeed cause global warming – it just does not happen in universe U1 that the rest of us mere mortals choose to inhabit. All sorts of follies make sense in U2, such as the global warming hypothesis, intermittent wind and solar power, ocean acidification, climate hysteria and other nonsense that fails in U1.
[Do I really need to say “sarc /off?” ] 🙂
Jim Ross – March 19, 2018 at 5:01 am
Well now, Jim, when you make a definitive statement like so, to wit: “Personally, I am much more interested in the δ13C-CO2 behaviour.”, …… just which way do you think I should have jumped and what conclusion should I have made, ….. considering the fact that your statement implies that you actually believe there is a “behaviour” [involving, relating to] association between atmospheric δ13C and fossil fuel oxidation.
Jim, do you keep track of my “challenges” of the wild accusations being touted by “the Dutchman”?
“DUH”, I do not recall you ever agreeing with or defending any science based commentary that I have posted.
Such as, for example, my per se Refrigerator-Freezer Law that negates and discredits the AGW/CAGW claim that the “increasing” part of the biyearly (seasonal) cycling of atmospheric CO2 ppm (as defined on the Keeling Curve Graph) is a direct result of biological decomposition of dead biomass in the Northern Hemisphere, …… when in fact, said “claim” is a biological impossibility, …… therefore it is silly and asinine to even be discussing the evil effects of fossil fuel oxidation or the atmospheric quantity of the δ13C isotope.
And then there was this, to wit:
Jim R, the science of the natural world is neither associated with nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with rank or file or the military, …….. therefore there is no general, colonel, major or lieutenant “trend” associated with climate, weather, etc., Now iffen it t’were Political Science, you could claim all sorts and colors of “trends”, iffen you wanted too.
Cheers
Allan – what would generate a temperature cycle, every two years instead if annually, as per your graph? Not really seen that before.
R
“a temperature cycle, every two years instead if annually, as per your graph”
Which graph please Ralf?
The following paragraph is pure speculation – treat it with “a ton of salt”:
There is an apparent natural oscillation in Pacific equatorial sea surface temperatures which is (I think) about 3 years (36 months) rather than 2 years, and that is probably related to the ~9-month delay of CO2 after temperature (i,e. a 1/4 cycle delay). Frankly I haven;t given this much thought, so this paragraph is purely speculative.
Hah hah hah. That’s not a crush … THAT’S a crush.
I’m not convinced that South Australians really really hate ‘green’ energy policies based on this election.
Yes. In fact Labor and the Greens together got more votes than the Liberals.
So, basically, South Australia stays a shithole infested with dickheads of every persuasion, is that what you are saying Nick?
The Green vote in SA was down almost 30%.
A step in the right direction for Australia, but not for Nick Stokes.
Well put Craig, you may have metioned also that their football supporters are bogan dickheads.
No matter, Nick. when it comes down to it South Australia is nothing more, population-wise, than a large District Council in the UK (OK, there is a larger infrastructure because of the size of the State), but hell’s bells, this is like not being able to organise a p*ss-up in a brewery. How the hell can such a small population allow so many crooks to totally b*gger up their electrical supply? And you can always bank on Greens for doing just that.
“In fact Labor and the Greens together got more votes than the Liberals.”
But then, if ranked-choice voting is in place, shouldn’t Labor have won the majority of seats? Or isn’t instant-runoff voting in place at the State level in Australia?
We were burying another aunt a while ago and the cemetery is on a fairly bleak cypress pine sand hill. A cousin looked around and observed
“You know this is the only growth area in town”
which is true for many small towns in western Qld.
I was just looking at one of the photos at
http://pickeringpost.com/story/a-race-where-all-three-no-hopers-get-a-place/8121
captioned ” Emblematic Adelaide scene”, was reminded of that comment and wondered if that had spread to SA?
(repeated from Jo Nova)
“Or isn’t instant-runoff voting in place at the State level in Australia?”
Preferential voting is universal in Australia. The main wild card here is Xenophon’s Best party, which got 13.7%. Liberals probably got a majority of those preferences. Best positioned itself as a center party.
Is there no sensible party at all in SA? Where are the populists and deplorables? Do Australians not observe what has been going on in the rest of the Western World?
Philip best I can guess is it’s a brilliant brainwashing job or the people don’t want to admit they’ve made a horrible mistake for the last 16 years ,the choice the people of SA had was dumb , dumber or dumbest .
Last election the leader of the opposition actually told the people to vote for the other guy who was in power and I know that was a slip of the tongue and a good one but both sides are offering home battery systems for 40,000 – 50,000 homes .
Only way to fix this state is for a non green aligned premier to build a nuclear power station or build a coal fired power station to replace the ones blown up by the previous govt .
And fund the new power station by extra taxation on MP’s salaries and pensions.
They have already left.
The polar bears are fine, Antarctica isn’t melting, multi-meter sea level rise isn’t happening, forest fires are less frequent, floods and droughts aren’t occurring more often nor are hurricanes or extreme tornadoes. Heavy industry and the world’s economy aren’t ever going to be powered by wind mills or solar panels and contrary to popular belief an increase in CO2 is mostly beneficial.
Steve, the meme is subtly changing: notice how plastic and pollution is now the new demon? And, typically, they don’t demonise plastic waste, but plastic itself; and pollution is in the frame because they moved the goal-posts – from 25 to 10 PM.
Good summary.
+10
Yup. +10 Steve.
Hate to say it but massive changes are taking place on Planet Earth, none of which have anything to do with C02. Have a nice day.
Massive change in hype about massive changes, what are these massive changes?
Taxes.
What are the “massive changes”?
All that is known for sure is that they are caused by Man and that only certain men and women and males and females and femailmen can deliver on the solution to Ma’ Gaia’s Menopause … or so they’d have us believe.
While we can hope the result is Liberal Party 25 to Australian Labor Party 18 (note the curious misspelling unique to South Australia) this is not certain. There are large numbers of pre-poll votes to be counted, plus out of area votes and postal votes, which could conceivably add more seats to the ALP total, or even elect one or two of the SA Best Party.
As of latest close of counting the figures were 22 to 18 certain results, with none for the other partiers, and plus two independents.
The figure of 25 is probably based on commentators’ best estimates, and should be taken with a pinch of salt. Still, Jay Weatherill has admitted the aLP lost and has congratulated the Liberals on their win.
“curious misspelling unique to South Australia”
No, the spelling is standard and ancient.
No, Nick, the Australian Labour Party changed its name a few years ago to the ‘Australian Labor Party’ (probably because most of its members were not ‘labourers’ but public servants). Try to get your facts right, please.
Try to get your facts right, please.”
I do. I check, and I cite references. And you?
Though I have to say that in my memory, it was Gough Whitlam who pushed for the orthodox use. Here is the Canberra Times reporting on the election, 1972.
Nick, the Wikipedia page you linked to states:
“The ALP adopted the formal name “Australian Labour Party” in 1908, but changed the spelling to “Labor” in 1912.”
Not exactly “ancient” Although it does state that the spelling ‘Labor’ was commonly used in Australia at the time Wikipedia also states:
“The change also made it easier to distinguish references to the party from the labour movement in general.”
Also. on the Australian English page Wikipedia states: “Australian spelling is closer to British than American spelling. As with British spelling, the u is retained in words such as colour, honour, labour and favour” and further “A notable exception to this rule is the Australian Labor Party, which adopted the American spelling in 1912 as a result of -or spellings’ comparative popularity at that time”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_English#Spelling,_style_and_keyboards
Nick, old mate.
Most Labor voters in Australia are adverse to labour. It implies work.
toorightmate, you’ve made my day. And SA too.
“Not exactly “ancient””
With non-U spelling, it is by far the oldest party name in Australia.
That is the ALP’s iron clad guarantee to take “u” out of work
Labor was the way it was written first, by the Romans. It’s also the way its pronounced, so what’s not to like?
“The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who spoke to Marshall on Sunday morning, is claiming the Liberal win in South Australia is an endorsement of his energy policy.”
He way all over Barnaby Joyce in the same way and look what Turnbull did to him.
The best thing Malcolm Turnbull can do for his country and his party is to acknowledge that carbon dioxide and global warming has proven to be a false scientific prognosis, and to state to his nation that he has decided to follow the Trump decision of withdrawing from the Paris agreement and pursue a policy that will make his country a great nation again.
Jay Weatherill gets the heave-ho from voters
Oh dear, how sad …. never mind
Could happen to a nicer man.
CO2 is 400 parts out of 1 million, that means for every one CO2 molecule, there are 2500 air molecules. If CO2 is warming the air continuously, it must be at a minimum 2500 X warmer than the surrounding air. For example, for carbon dioxide molecule to warm the surrounding air 1° For a couple of seconds, the carbon dioxide molecule must be 2500° (CO2 cannot withstand more than 2000° temperature)
That is not how it works.
Just focus on the ridiculius policy demands, the failed predictions, the crazy expenses, and the totalitarian behaviors.
Making up new science that is based on faulty metaphors will not help.
The only long term hope for both s.a. & the western world is for the lights & heating to start to go out.
The greens also hate both hydro & nuclear, so its not co2.
They want to destroy our way of life, then they will offer to ” save us” their way.
Mje
Well said.
It’s a state election, so the issue have little to do with federal politics….. but what tends to happen is the states end up opposite to what is incumbent in Canberra…. So it looks like the states are turning early.
Malcolm Turnbull is election poison… Unless the Liberal Party dumps Malcolm Turnbull, the federal Liberal Party is in for a election loss of historic proportions to the Labor Party… When you think Malcolm Turnbull, just think of an older slimier Justin Trudeau.
The global warmists will only temporarily reduce their screeching volume. It has been so successful that they’ll simply shift their rhetoric by using different words. For example, “mitigation” of changes. It’s in the realm of good versus evil in that there are many battles but the war just continues on through eternity thus the need for the eternal skeptic.
The rest of Australia will still end up bailing our useless cousin out of the self induced energy poverty….with an interconnect from New South Wales. So we will end up with an overloaded grid here whenever it gets hot over there. Its bad enough that the federal government had to bail them out by ordering submarines to be built there after they destroyed their own car industry through rediculous wage demands. Luckily they make good wine because the rest of the state is just a hole into which we throw money.
Check out the involvement of the United Nations in the auto sector and reduction of greenhouse gases.
This is under the category “Transport” in UN publications and shift to green energy. Has had impact on the North American auto sector as well.
Please please give us in Iceland and even north of Newfoundland heat we suffer from cold.
It has never been about the climate but has always been about how make government bigger (give away our freedom) in a way We The People do it voluntary. The federal reserve (private bank) is really in power financing all parties.
Turnbull, do not forget, took over by way of a party coup that removed the best hope for a rational energy and climate policy.
His party was elected to end the climate madness and he fought against that.
The climate ideology is as pernicious as any ither totalitarian ideology.
Someone, please send these links to the politicians in Australia:
High School Climate Change Term Paper for Those Who Don’t Want to Follow the Herd
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/17/high-school-climate-change-term-paper-for-those-who-dont-want-to-follow-the-herd/
Climate Change Global Warming Homework to Piss Off Your Teacher
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/climate-change-global-warming-homework-to-piss-off-your-teacher/
Climate Change Science Fair Project; CO2 and Global Warming
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/11/global-warming-science-fair-project-co2-and-global-warming/
Thanks!
Offering young skeptical minds tools to challenge the climatocracy is a great idea.
Thanks. Be sure to share.
Australia has less than 4/10ths of 1% of the world’s population; South Australia less than 1/10th of Australia’s small share. Nothing they can do will show on the world’s carbon needle. Committing economic seppuku towards that end is not a sign of morality. It’s a sign of derangement.
Yup Tom,
South Australians are stupid pompous idiots. They have no natural advantages and no advantaged industries, especially after their car industry died.
Following mad green energy policies is truly an economic seppuku. The sooner it slides into rustbelt obscurity, the better.
“They have no natural advantages …” Olympic Dam is one of the world’s great orebodies , containing massive amounts of copper, gold, silver and rare earth elements. The limits of this body of mineralization have yet to be defined.
Ooops … forgot the uranium
Bob, there are considerably more resources if energy isn’t too expensive. Astro energy prices increase the cut-off grade of ores (you have to mine higher grade, leaving massive tonnages behind in the ground). Also the owners are on the lookout for alternative projects around the world. Let me predict mine and smelter closures with added unemployment.
The incoming lot in South Australia are just as bad as the outgoing bunch of global warming alarmist politicians. Nothing is going to change for South Australia. All these politicians have been indoctrinated with UN IPCC nonsense. Elon Musk’s batteries are being kept. Subsidies for houses to have batteries is being kept. Yep… it’s going to be a case of “same as it ever was”!!!
Turnbull, my man, this is a rejection of those policies! A smarter man would read this clear message. Your “Our poison is not as strong as your poison” is an idiot’s interpretation. I’m predicting the thus far minority right wing opposition will put Turnbull in retirement. To not notice what is going on elsewhere in the world is a failing of insular dolts.
A political domino fell. Will it cause others to tip over as well?
Like dCO2/dt, only time will tell…
Up here in Canada our failed prime minister 2.0 pretty socks Trudeau is pushing for a country wide carbon tax. Our taxpayer funded CBC, think ABC, BBC, a PR machine for Trudeau and the liberals has been ramping up reporting of dire (climate change) missinformation in support of the carbon tax.
Trudeau has a thing for socks.
Hasn’t fear been a factor in the present situation in Canada? Speak-up can lead to being put down or even a subpoena?
Hooray for moving towards a balance. Ignorance and greed create human made misery!
Trudeau is a low-IQ child, there are no adults in the PMO which makes the country vulnerable to ambitious bureaucrats, academics, and journalists. The state will continue to expand and intrude in everyone’s life.
Time for a popular uprising.
How do you do that without guns?
At the ballot box every election cycle. Make sure your kids vote when they grow up, and make sure their minds don’t get kidnapped by marxist/leftist progressive philosophy.
Is there any evidence that Green policies had any impact on this election?
Green policies normally come bottom of any poll about what people care about.
It’s always about the economy
Unless a foreign power has just used a WMD on your territory.
😎
I suspect “green policies” are just a symptom of the political philosophy more and more people are getting fed up with.
I think this has been said quite often, but it’s worth repeating. When something fails, and fail repeatedly, to deliver, it gets dumped – or word to that effect.
I think that we had a near miss with Trump being elected instead of his opposition, which could have driven us all into bankruptcy in a heartbeat. I don’t know what’s coming down the road, aside from Spring and the robins inspecting the tree outside my window for a nesting site. If this was an indicator that the shift is toward a more sensible attitude, that’s good news.
Every cycle has a life span, and fortunately, this crazypants stuff seems to be reaching the end of its span. I hope so. I hope that smarter heads prevail from now on, and that common sense will take up the slack where it was dumped.
I don’t think anyone wants to find himself living in the dystopic world of Mad Max.
Hello Sara,
Perhaps due to my cynicism, I don’t hold quite as hopeful a viewpoint as you. I had a professor of economics in college who observed (paraphrasing), “Isn’t it interesting that every major national or international event shifts the moral compass of people everywhere?” What she meant is that the “new norm” is slowly rolling down the incline, like warm molasses, to something more senseless and depraved. I tend to agree with her assessment based solely on my experience and observation– and climate change is shining example of something that was a golden branch of science depraved by the “ruling idiocy”, whose esteemed members include the likes Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and all citizens blind enough to follow. Sure, here in America, we may have elected someone a few steps in the more sensible direction than Obama, Clinton, and Bush, but Trump’s Andrew Jackson style fire will only be a brief four or eight-year reprieve before the depravity of sensibility continues its journey downward into self-destruction.
And clearly it’s far worse elsewhere around the world, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and Germany being some of the worst places. The elections in SA are just another story in a novel still being written, so to speak.
Oh, I understand your take completely, Leowaj, but the reality of dystopia is that it fails completely (Pol Pot-Cambodia, 1970s, North Korea since 1940s under the Kims) and while dictators may rule for a while, they all end up dead.
Stalin, in fact, had given orders that he was not to be disturbed and his bedroom NOT entered, period, until he emerged from it. on pain of death. As a result, when he suffered a fatal cerebral hemorrhage and died, it was because no one would go into his room, period, until some brave soul finally took the chance. After that, things started oozing slowly away from communism.
When Hong Kong was returned to mainland Chinese government by the British Crown in 1999, the eyes of the Chinese government were finally opened. They may still be strict, but they don’t give a crap about Greenbean this and that. Idealism is great, isn’t it? But idealism and inclusiveness won’t pay the bills and put food on the table, or keep clothes on your back.
Please do try to find something positive. Trump is the door that is slowly opening in this country to end the silly nonsense that has been going on.
I wouldn’t call the election results “obliterated” by any stretch of the imagination … the new government’s 38% primary vote is worrisome, downright disgraceful, given they were fighting Australia’s very own Gerry ‘Moonbeam’ Brown, in Jay Weatherill.
Weatherill should now be called to account for the wilful destruction public property in demolishing power station assets.
The new Premier’s first announcement after being sworn in has not encouraged any expectation that he will reject his predecessor’s obsession with unreliable energy. He still imagines that batteries can usefully contribute to a grid. And of course we have the imminent threat from the Turnbull fantasy that pumped hydro can cost-effectively transform unreliable energy into reliable energy. Pumped hydro has a role, which is increasing the effectiveness of reliable energy as in the Wivenhoe Dam -Splitter’s Creek Dam arrangement.
The new Australian Conservatives party could have done ok in the SA election.
I predicted they wouldn’t because they abandoned real policies:
– New coal power-station (guaranteed for operation in 2019) .
– Nuclear wast storage industry.
– Non Gov anti-corruption website with full public access.
Cory Bernardi (their leader) had great promise but he’s now spineless.
Forget the Australian Conservatives they’re another breed of swamp creature in the making.
They’ll be gone inside 5-years (remember this).
AGW legislation has a lot of six-figure-plus supporters.
The new SA government is just as looney re renewables as the outgoing. They believe the answer is more storage and a new interconnector to NSW so they can balance their wildly swinging grid. Of course they want the Feds to at for it. They want to borrow $100 million and give means tested grants to households which install batteries.
Of course the “”cheaper electricity prices” doesn’t factor in the $100 million. The state has the highest electricity prices in the industrialised world, the highest unemployment in Australua, massive drug problems and industry is living the state. But there is a total refusal to consider that the massive change from coal to renewables has caused the problem.
It’s time to bring in the climate psychology experts to explain the voter illness. It may have a lot to do with rooftop solar injecting enough selfish interests into the original political policy design and its eventual unwinding. Perhaps California and some other developed solar rooftop (selfish) markets are next.
People are conditioned to believe that the end of slavery was a political success. It was not. It was a mining and engineering one as low energy costs made slaves no longer an economic necessity. Ultimately high energy costs will result in the return of slavery in reality if not in name.
History teaches us very little as it is written by those at the top of the social and academic tree.