« profile & posts archive

This author has written 446 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

6 responses to “Climate clippings 15”

  1. John D

    Can the RET meet its mark?

    The crux of the problem is

    I note that the reports have different assumptions about the growth in electricity generation. One says 18%, the other 24%.

    The problem with the MRET is that it is trying to drive the % renewables to a target using tradeable credits. If investors over estimate future power demand the price of credits will drop dramatically. Too low and the price of credits will rise dramatically.
    Investor and consumer risk could be reduced if the government committed to keeping the price of credits within a band with a floor high enough to minimize investor risk. However, even with this MRET is still a clumsy way of driving investment in clean electricity compared with approaches such as setting up contracts for the supply of cleaner electricity.
    MRET is, of course still a much better approach than the carbon price approach because MRET slowly ramps up the average price of electricity and avoids the sudden jump that is required to make carbon price driven options work.

  2. Jess

    Brian

    Thought you might be interested in Cory Bernadi et al’s request to the Auditor General for an audit of BOM and CSIRO’s climate data. Much as it pains me to link to Jo Nova’s site it’s right here.

    I don’t think anyone I know at CSIRO or BOM will be loosing much sleep over this, and I”m not sure what the deniers think they’re going to get out of it.

    A similar audit of NiWAs climate data (thanks to ACT leader Rodney Hide) forced a re-examination which took two years and produced exactly the same results as the old synthesis done in the 80s. That hasn’t stopped Nova crowing:

    The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition found adjustments that were even more inexplicable (0.006 degrees was adjusted up to 0.9 degrees). They decided to push legally and the response was a litany of excuses — until finally The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) was forced to disavow it’s own National Temperature Records, and belatedly pretend that it had never been intended for public consumption.

  3. Jess

    Just to show I’m not pulling the wool over anyone’s eyes, here’s a link to the NIWA press release about the re-examined temperature series.

    Specifically:

    The key result of the re-analysis is that the New Zealand-wide warming trend from the seven-station series is almost the same in the 2010 revised series as in the previous series. That is, the previous NIWA result is robust. In terms of the detail for individual sites, the 100-year trend has increased at some sites, and decreased at others, but it is still within the margin of error, and confirms the temperature rise of about 0.9 degrees over the last 100 years.

  4. David Irving (no relation)

    Jess @ 2, the only thing I can see the denialists getting out of it is it’ll force a bunch of people to waste time on Bernadi’s request rather than get on with their day jobs.

    I suppose some of them would see that as a win.

  5. wilful

    Reconciling this:

    The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) was forced to disavow it’s own National Temperature Records,

    with this:

    The key result of the re-analysis is that the New Zealand-wide warming trend from the seven-station series is almost the same in the 2010 revised series as in the previous series. That is, the previous NIWA result is robust.

    isn’t really logically possible. Go Jo Nova, you’re really sticking it up em!

  6. Jess

    Yeah, you can really see why scientists get snarky about endless FOI and data audit requests from people who wouldn’t know good science if it ran them over in a tank.

    The AG will hopefully brush it off as a waste of time; he gave them a ‘we’ll look into it, if we have time’ reply.