An updated, high-voltage version of DC, called HVDC, is being touted as the transmission method of the future because of its ability to transmit current over very long distances with fewer losses than AC. And that trend may be accelerated by a new device called a hybrid HVDC breaker, which may make it possible to use DC on large power grids without the fear of catastrophic breakdown that stymied the technology in the past. (See related photos: “World’s Worst Power Outages.”)

Swiss-based power technology and automation giant ABB, which developed the breaker, says it may also prove critical to the 21st century’s transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, by tapping the full potential of massive wind farms and solar generating stations to provide electricity to distant cities.

So far, the device has been tested only in laboratories, but ABB’s chief executive, Joe Hogan, touts the hybrid HVDC breaker as “a new chapter in the history of electrical engineering,” and predicts that it will make possible the development of “the grid of the future”—that is, a massive, super-efficient network for distributing electricity that would interconnect not just nations but multiple continents. Outside experts aren’t quite as grandiose, but they still see the breaker as an important breakthrough.

“I’m quite struck by the potential of this invention,” says John Kassakian, an electrical engineering and computer science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “If it works on a large scale and is economical to use, it could be a substantial asset.”

..know how you feel,JR,I I set about too working last night, knowing I’d be a year older,when I finished..But I had a plan in place,and in-being found often so far a head of myself,as you do,I found my self in a secondhand bookstore yesterday,with enough doe to do a 360 an not worry about the tires,(I rode),I turned around and on a shelf,I spotted 0 to 260+,it was $3.50 but,properties in seven years..pushbike),pedals excited a book in wrapped,I thought there was so little to invest..how could I go wrong with this ,unwrapped,this,The must read sequel,..I remembered on the top of the front cover ,it say’s,”How to Thrive & Survive in a Property Downturn!…”..n now I’m faced with this Today,my special day,with this of Chris’s latest this,this vertical take on him and his mates lack of ability to pay no more than the RBA,with n ending all over my-knight levels,messaging..to be sure as a Santa..s going to arrive,a housing boom is on it’s way Homes..n Thanks Chris..that’s the only present i bought myself..n now I’m to scared to unwrap it…n I Blame You..JR

At the risk of igniting a discussion that will suffer from excessive warmth – does anyone know why the planet would not get mostly steamy and wet – like a big green house – if temperatures rise?

With the all the water on the planet I find myself imaging a rise in temperatures producing more evaporation, clouds, rain and a muggy steamy environment where the lawn grows too fast all year round.

Yet most of the ‘stories’ that describe what the future may look like make it sound like it will be, overall, more hot and dry than damp. They often mention more floods but the general impression is more arid than moist.

This may be a ‘touch’ simplistic but wasnt the earth hot and steamy and full of huge ferns and rainforests from top to bottom, and are not the fossile fuels essentially just the buried atmospheric carbon from that environment. So if we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere wont we be slowly recreating that steamy wet environment full of ferns and vegetation.

Dont get me wrong – I appreciate that if temperatures rise there will be a change in the environment. It is the prevailing description of what that change may look like ( overall) that seems to jar.

Its my understanding that global warming will result in more precipitation, but it will become more irregular and come in bursts of extreme rainfall events. More than ever, Australia will become a land of droughts and flooding rains. The past decade possibly gives us a taste of that — a prolonged drought, followed by a few very wet years.

” know of places where the downfall was so heavy that fences ON TOP of hills were flattened. ”

I saw that in a 20″ rainfall area in western Queensland in 1971. This business of taking isolated events, surrounding them with undue hyperbole, and casting it forward as solid proof really have to stop. It destroys the case and lessons support for the argument.

Global warming has led to a ~5-7% increase in water vapor in the atmosphere in the last 50 years.

“Moreover, because of climate change, heavy rainfalls are likely to become more common, according to the report. Over the last five decades, the number of very heavy rains has increased in the United States by more than 30 percent. This happens because warm air holds more water vapor, allowing for more intense rainfalls when it does rain, the report says. Health risks will likely increase as extreme rainfall events are projected to become more common in a warming world,” Perera said. Source

I discussed this with Prof David Karoly, he responded: “You are completely correct that the increase in atmospheric water vapour content associated with the increase in global mean temperature is a key factor in the increase in heavy precipitation events globally. That will be described in the longer and more detailed paper that is being prepared by the Climate Commission, as Matt England said. It was not mentioned in the shorter paper as we don’t have a ready record in Australia of high quality water vapour content observations over Australia, only for global data.”

“Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour of about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. Observations show the increase in water vapour is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The study described the research this way: Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint ‘‘match’’ is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our ﬁndings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth’s atmosphere.“

Note that more water vapour does not mean more rain, if the atmospheric temperatures go up. It means more humidity (Perth, which used to have very dry summers, now has dry (i.e. rainless), more humid summers).

Japan has a massively positive net international investment position, and a current account surplus despite their trade deficit. It’s because those overseas investments are paying them dividends, interest and rent. They were not as stupid as they seemed at the time.

The beginning of the end of the Goldman Technocrat Club running global economies? The push back may have started:” Monti loses backing as political standstill looms in Italy…. prospect of snap elections…. Berlusconi appeared likely to announce that he would run as a prime minister candidate…”

dne, this is a hypothetical speculative work of fiction masquerading as fact. Climate scientists and journalists supportive of GW theories would better serve ‘the cause’ by eliminating the speculative shock/horror/end-is-nigh hyperbole and concentrate on the PROVEN science, not the science fiction.

This article is part of round of pr by Global Carbon Project and Jorgen Randers (Limits of Growth) who has been preaching end of the world stuff for the past forty years and has just published another tome “2052, A Global Forecast for the Next 40 Years”, more of the same.

If you observe the language used in the climate reports it is very much in the “suggesting” “beginning to prove” “likely to support” vein indicating hypotheses in evolution not yet cemented in scientific fact. The fictional SMH article – the actual temperature increase ‘suggested’ ranged from 3.8 to 6.2 degrees – the collective opted for the more extreme end of the range – but hey this is climate science, extreme is what we do and what’s a couple of degrees between friends.

R2M, my understanding is that Karoly was notified by Rafael Neukom: Excerpt from email

“Hi Joelle and David,
As just discussed with joelle on skype, I found a mistake in our paper in journal of climate today . It is related to the proxy screening, so it is a delicate issue. In the paper we write that we do the correlation analysis for the screening based on detrended {instrumental and proxy) data, but in reality we did not use detrended data.”

Go back a generation and look for denialists on smoking and its links to lung cancer, mate.

The scientists, research institutes etc are invariably not there or funded by those with a pecuniary interest.

Its the same game plan as it was then for tobacco companies and smoking – fight the tide every inch of the way.

The same way the smokers believed you could pump loads of smoke into human lungs and have no effect, these guys assume we can pump billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere without any effect.

And for any effects observed you will get the same crowd pointing to any other factor they can lay their hands on – just like drowning punters clutching at straws. Invariably they wont be here to deal with the global warmed world we are heading to, and feel no responsibility for it.

Psychopaths are not all mass murderers, in fact only a small portion are. They are generally people who will do absolutely anything to get what they want, be it money or power, by lying, cheating, stealing, and feel absolutely no remorse (except irritation at being caught).

There have been a number of studies suggest that in any organisation larger than a handful of individuals the characteristics of those who rise above lower to middle management, or are most likely to lead to them rising above lower to middle management, are akin to those of a psychopath.

Psychopathy is all around us – on our TV and radio, conducting our performance appraisal, trying to sell us a new home, telling is there will never be a better time to buy, asking us to vote for it etc…

Mod: R2M, GSM, Lorax, 3d1k – take the weekend off fellahs and relax and see how nice it is outside. Have some fun with your family or whatnot. If all you want to do is voice your own opinions but add nothing to the discussion than go do something somewhere else ok?

It is most revealing to see the language used by those in this thread that clearly like their science fiction served up as fact. Is it merely a coincidence that hyperbole associated with climate sciences extends to adherents: language to attack a very modest discerning view – language such as pathetic, psychopaths, f’wits!

I haven’t used any emotive language at all. I believe in general, from your posts that you do not accept the science behind GW, all I have asked for is the origin of the science behind you refutal of GW!

I’m not talking about the odd piece of work that you call alarmist, but the world body of work from NASA, Academies of Science of the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia and the US.

I don’t claim to be able to refute or validate the science, I can only look at the world wide acceptance of the science from as far as I know every authoritative science body on the planet. For mr to reject that would be to believe in the conspiracy theory that they are “working” together to gain research funds etc, that’s a pretty sad line to take.

I know or guess you’re an engineer, beyond your engineering degree have you completed any further study and research in the fields that cover GW for you to decide off your own bat that the GW story is not just incorrect, but involves actual collusion from what must be some 20+ organisations worldwide and for what purpose?

Where were the authoritative monetary and economic bodies to warn of the rolling crisis we are in the middle of? “Official consensus” is hardly something I would take comfort in when forming my views. There doesn’t have to be collusion for the majority to take a particular stance.

Like you I am not in a position to refute or validate GW/CC (or the extent that human actions have impacted) and don’t really have the interest/time to wade through all the misinformation presented by both sides.

One thing I do find amusing about the debate is the black and white nature of those who choose to pick a side. It’s similar to the property debate. Often the discussion occurs based on the belief that all bears are expecting a crash and all bulls are expecting a boom. Reality is there are many shades of grey… there are skeptics who believe global warming/climate change is taking place, but that the impact of human activity on this is less so than the accepted science would have you believe.

First off are you comparing REAL science against a pseudo-science? From memory I think you have argued against that question when its been discussed here on more than a few occasions, I don’t think you can compared “Official Consensus” on “junk” science with real science!

As to misinformation, well I don’t know. I don’t generally pay a lot of attention to the types of articles that 2d was referring to, what usually grabs my attention are the reports on the rapidly melting Arctic ice over summer, that appears to the EXPERTS to be accelerating at an alarmingly increasing pace. Or the fact that GW appears to be affecting the Antarctic more than was appreciated before or evidence of the oceans becoming less alkaline (more acidic).

As to shades of grey, what shades of grey? As far as I know not one recognised institution has come out and refuted the science. I accept from what I’ve seen so far a collection of individuals and that is about it. I don’t see the vast majority of them as deluded or otherwise, just seriously overwhelmed by their peers support of GW.

Surely you are not going to compare the science and debate of GW with the debate on housing or investing in general.

I’m sorry, but anyone who believes that their high school maths, physics and chem has fitted them out to weed out the competing claims is seriously deluded.

You say you find the B/W nature of the debate amusing, what I find amusing is those with at best some science study at uni and and a large % whom have never used it since they completed their degree, while we have all these interacting fields such as oceanography, atmospheric physics, geology etc. Yet these “specialists” who have been researching their fields for decades with most holding doctorates, get together to pool their knowledge and some numpty (to use a common MB euphemism) comes along and says….nah, that’s not what I reckon that j curve should look like and I reckon they missed the main point. FFS.

2d, the above is not directed at you, but I’d still like you to answer my original question.

dne, I am not a denialist. I am agnostic. The point of my criticism of the article is two-fold: first, speculative fiction presented as fact; and secondly, my belief that climate change theorist’s that pursue the ‘armageddon’ path undermine their own cause.

I think the agnostic position has merit for a number of reasons. The climate change debate has become very divisive, to such an extent that even holding a fairly moderate ‘unconvinced or sitting on the fence’ view leaves one open to attack – curiously most often from climate change theorists themselves.

Environmentalism has become the new religion (or is it a form of Pantheism). ‘Climate change’ is eco-religion’s most fundamentalist arm. As a natural sceptic, I approach fundamentalism in all forms, with a cool eye, a calm brain and cautious scrutiny.

Climate science is a relatively new field often attracting scientists with strong environmental convictions. This field of study is evolving, hypotheses and methodologies employed, adapted and adjusted – and at this point scientific absolutes or proofs are impossible. Rather, in the language of climate science, thus far evidence of climate change is limited to ‘likely to support’ ‘suggests support’ ‘indicates support’ ‘may indicate’ ‘possibly indicates’. Which ‘indicates’ to me the evolutionary process of this field of study – hence reservation on my part. When climate scientists produce peer reviewed reports that ‘confirm’, ‘validate’ ‘prove’ I will reassess my position.

According to many scientists observational evidence exists which supports global warming theory. A cautionary word from Francis Bacon who said ‘that allowing one’s commitment to a theory to determine what one takes to be the epistemic bearing of observational evidence on that very theory is, if anything, even worse than ignoring the evidence altogether’. Scientists often ‘find ways to produce data that can’t be called observational without stretching the term to the point of vagueness’. Climate scientists now need move beyond the observational by adopting scientific analysis based on rigour, precision, statistical modelling etc, resulting in theories that are validated, capable of being replicated and possessing accurate predictive capacity.

1. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether the earth has warmed over say the last 150 years?

2. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether the earth has warmed over say the last 10 years?

3. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether the activities of the human race have a significant direct causal relationship with global warming (if you accept that there is some)?

4. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether the activities of the human race could continue AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE without having significant impact on global temperatures for (lets say) 100 years?

5. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether a 4 degree increase in global temperatures would have a significant impact on life on earth?

6. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether a 2 degree increase in global temperatures would have a significant impact on life on earth?

7. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether a 6 degree increase in global temperatures would have a significant impact on life on earth?

8. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether the human race should adopt measures to mitigate human activities which could affect temperatures?

9. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether any attempts to mitigate human activities which could have an impact on global warming should have a cost which would need to be borne?

10. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether the costs of any attempts to mitigate human activities which could have an impact on global warming should be borne by those most contributing to the activities which are seen to be contributing towards global warming?

11. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether any attempt to allocate costs for any attempts to mitigate human activities which may contribute to global warming should consider the impacts of past human activities which are believed to have contributed to global warming – and who undertook those – and balance these with those who will be undertaking like activities now or in future?

1. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether the earth has warmed over say the last 150 years?

‘The world has probably warmed about 0.7C since 1950, according to HadCRUT3 data. Prior to 1950 the amount of the Earth’s surface for which data are available falls away but it does seem likely that temperatures rose 1920-45, were flat 1946-1976, warmed 1977-97 and for the last 16 years have been flat.’

2. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether the earth has warmed over say the last 10 years?

See 1 above.

3. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether the activities of the human race have a significant direct causal relationship with global warming (if you accept that there is some)?

In doubt, unproven.

4. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether the activities of the human race could continue AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE without having significant impact on global temperatures for (lets say) 100 years?

Define ‘As they currently are’. On the assumption I calculate your answer, in doubt, unproven.

5. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether a 4 degree increase in global temperatures would have a significant impact on life on earth?

In doubt as to degree – both extent and assumed negative outcome. The biosphere is adaptable.

6. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether a 2 degree increase in global temperatures would have a significant impact on life on earth?

In doubt.

7. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether a 6 degree increase in global temperatures would have a significant impact on life on earth?

See 5 above. Speculation.

8. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether the human race should adopt measures to mitigate human activities which could affect temperatures?

Mitigation is irrelevant if thesis remains unproved. “Could”? A range of human activity has had a range of impacts on the ecology/biosphere of the planet. I am more concerned that measures remain in place to ensure clean waterways, reduction of de-forestation, monitoring ideally prohibition of hazardous airborne chemical particulates, monitoring ideally prohibition of hazardous particulates absorbed by the biomass, protection of arable lands, reduction of human reliance on animal/amphibian food sources.

9. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether any attempts to mitigate human activities which could have an impact on global warming should have a cost which would need to be borne?

See above.

10. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether the costs of any attempts to mitigate human activities which could have an impact on global warming should be borne by those most contributing to the activities which are seen to be contributing towards global warming?

Irrelevant. See above.

11. Do you accept, not accept, or remain in doubt about whether any attempt to allocate costs for any attempts to mitigate human activities which may contribute to global warming should consider the impacts of past human activities which are believed to have contributed to global warming – and who undertook those – and balance these with those who will be undertaking like activities now or in future?

‘are believed to have contributed to global warming’? Believed? Not sufficient to constitute proof.

And not at all.

Thanks el Inquisidor. That was fun – many questions predicated on variation of Pascal’s wager.

Climate scientists now need move beyond the observational by adopting scientific analysis based on rigour, precision, statistical modelling etc, resulting in theories that are validated, capable of being replicated and possessing accurate predictive capacity.

How can you possibly claim to be “agnostic” on human-induced climate change when you deliberately attempt to smear a respected climate scientist?

As we all know the opinions you express here are paid for by the resources sector. Your opinion can be, and has been, bought.

By contrast, any climate scientist that called into doubt the accuracy of the science, or indeed, exposed deliberate fraud within the climate science community, could expect financial rewards beyond their dreams. The global fossil fuel industry would literally throw money at them.

The fact that climate scientists have not broken ranks, despite many years of relentless attacks on their credibility, suggests to me their opinions cannot be bought.

Psychopaths
There’s one living next door to me.
Interacting with someone like that is unsettling.
They seem normal (and in fact come across as ‘nicer’ than the average, these days not particularly sociable, neighbour).
I’m quite good at reading subtle cues, body language etc.. Generally I can suss when someone tells me a lie. Not with this person.
I cope by avoiding her completely. I can’t be bothered wasting energy on trying to decipher whether I just heard the truth or lies.

Library eResources
Libraries provide access to newspapers from all over the world via eResources.
I access PressDisplay using my City of Burnside Library membership. You’ll see the link on this page:http://www.burnside.sa.gov.au/Discover/Community_Venues/Library/Resources/Online_Databases_Resources#.UMLtfRwXfq1)
I also have membership for the State Library of SA and have registered for home use of SLSA eResources, but I haven’t figured how to sign in to SLSA (I just sent a message to ask them how – hope it’s not a “ddddeerrrr” experience when the answer arrives.) SLSA uses onlinenewspapers.com (there might be some papers that are available at one facility but not the other).

More debt our saving grace?
This morning I read the article in Weekend Australian Inquirer section page 17 (Saving grace amid the doom and gloom).
I don’t understand how long-term low interest rate + high AUD, with permanently higher household consumption, is going to produce a rosy future for Aus (but the article seems to suggest it will). Didn’t the “torrent of savings from the world’s savers … to profligate Western consumers” get those profligate-Western-consumer countries into the GFC mess they are currently mired in?
Govt and business borrowing during a low interest rate environment to improve infrastructure and equipment should be advantageous (provided there are no nasty shocks such as unexpected sharp downgrade of Australia’s credit rating), but selling more and more assets to o/s savers + Govt borrowing to increase welfare payments + the private sector borrowing more to spend on toys, experiences, gadgets (and houses?)? Sustainable??

I have to say, 31dk’s attempts to smear a respected climate scientist this weekend were truly abhorrent. I believe this is a new low for someone who is no stranger to gutter tactics.

I remind everyone (again) that 3d1k is paid by the resources sector to post comments on this blog. It hardly needs saying that Australian mining companies have a huge vested interest in defeating attempts to reduce fossil fuel usage.