PDA

View Full Version : Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Patrick Byrom
24-07-2017, 01:02 PM
The Totalitarianism of the Environmentalists (https://fee.org/articles/environmentalism-is-totalitarian) Marian L. Tupy, FEE, 23 July 2017

While acknowledging that the available data suggests a “lukewarming (https://store.cato.org/book/lukewarming)” trend in global temperatures, I cautioned against excessive alarmism. Available resources, I said, should be spent on adaptation to climate change, not on preventing changes in global temperature – a task that I, along with many others (http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/expert), consider to be both ruinously expensive and, largely, futile.
…Another person who doesn't understand atmospheric physics - if we keep increasing the level of carbon dioxide, the temperature will keep increasing!

Ian Murray
24-07-2017, 01:32 PM
Another person who doesn't understand atmospheric physics - if we keep increasing the level of carbon dioxide, the temperature will keep increasing!

Quite so. The available data suggests a bit more than a "lukewarming" trend in global temperatures, e.g.:

3510
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

He writes, not with any climate science background, but as a libertarian political scientist (i.e. not someone who C-F would regard as a "real" scientist) who draws inspiration from the Cato Institute and Copenhagen Consensus Centre. He's entitled to his opinions, but no wonder he fell foul of an audience of university students (who could be expected to be better informed than average).

MichaelBaron
24-07-2017, 06:07 PM
Quite so. The available data suggests a bit more than a "lukewarming" trend in global temperatures, e.g.:

3510
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

He writes, not with any climate science background, but as a libertarian political scientist (i.e. not someone who C-F would regard as a "real" scientist) who draws inspiration from the Cato Institute and Copenhagen Consensus Centre. He's entitled to his opinions, but no wonder he fell foul of an audience of university students (who could be expected to be better informed than average).

But as I mentioned earlier - 1880's is no indicator of any process so looking at recent ''climate changes'' is no evidence. But even more importantly- if the ''global warming'' is our biggest concern - we must be lucky.

Patrick Byrom
24-07-2017, 06:22 PM
But as I mentioned earlier - 1880's is no indicator of any process so looking at recent ''climate changes'' is no evidence. But even more importantly- if the ''global warming'' is our biggest concern - we must be lucky.I'm not sure what your argument is exactly in your first sentence. But the slope is actually steeper if you ignore the older data - it's about 0.2 deg / decade over the past 50 years. And AGW isn't our "biggest concern" at present (nobody ever said that it was), but it will be if we ignore it. That's why all the world's governments (even the US) are taking steps to reduce the problem now.

Ian Murray
24-07-2017, 06:47 PM
But as I mentioned earlier - 1880's is no indicator of any process so looking at recent ''climate changes'' is no evidence. But even more importantly- if the ''global warming'' is our biggest concern - we must be lucky.

1880 is when air temperatures were first sytematically measured and recorded, so 1880-present is the known instrument temperature range. It also followed the advent of the industrial revolution and the coal-fired steam engine.

As a species we were lucky to have developed agriculture at the start of the Holocene interglacial period and its concomitant mild climate. If unchecked, anthropogenic global warming will bring that to an end, which is certainly the greatest challenge humankind has ever faced.

Desmond
25-07-2017, 06:59 PM
Quite so. The available data suggests a bit more than a "lukewarming" trend in global temperatures, e.g.:

3510
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

He writes, not with any climate science background, but as a libertarian political scientist (i.e. not someone who C-F would regard as a "real" scientist) who draws inspiration from the Cato Institute and Copenhagen Consensus Centre. He's entitled to his opinions, but no wonder he fell foul of an audience of university students (who could be expected to be better informed than average).

Have the "No warming since 2016" charts started yet?

Ian Murray
26-07-2017, 05:55 PM
Have the "No warming since 2016" charts started yet?

:lol:

Seriously though, 2017 is shaping up to be at least the second hottest year on record, which is really serious as there has been no El Nino boost this year.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2017/06/supplemental/page-1

Capablanca-Fan
02-08-2017, 12:52 PM
Al Gore can’t deny that his climate crusade involves great suffering (http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/al-gore-cant-deny-that-his-climate-crusade-involves-great-suffering/wcm/437f1ecb-cde9-41fc-abc7-a2484a1eaa00)
Alex Epstein: Gore has to make the case that climate dangers warrant so much human misery
Financial Post, 1 August 2017

Take the rising dominance of solar and wind, which is used to paint supporters of fossil fuels as troglodytes, fools, and shills for Big Oil. The combined share of world energy consumption from renewables is all of two per cent. And it’s an expensive, unreliable, and therefore difficult-to-scale two per cent.

Because solar and wind are “unreliables,” they need to be backed up by reliable sources of power, usually fossil fuels, or sometimes non-carbon sources including nuclear and large-scale hydro power (all of which Gore and other environmentalists refuse to support). This is why every grid that incorporates significant solar and wind has more expensive electricity. Germans, on the hook for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s self-righteous anti-carbon commitments, are already paying three times the rates for electricity that Americans do.

Stories about “100-per-cent renewable” locations like Georgetown, Tex. are not just anecdotal evidence, they are lies. The Texas grid from which Georgetown draws its electricity is comprised of 43.7 per cent natural gas, 28.8 per cent coal, 12 per cent nuclear, and only 15.6 per cent renewable. Using a virtue-signalling gimmick pioneered by Apple, Facebook, and Google, Georgetown pays its state utility to label its grid electricity “renewable” — even though it draws its power from that fossil-fuel heavy Texas grid — while tarring others on the grid as “non-renewable.”

Rincewind
02-08-2017, 02:47 PM
I always go to Alex Epstein when I want an unbiased opinion about the impact of fossil fuels.

Patrick Byrom
02-08-2017, 05:42 PM
I always go to Alex Epstein when I want an unbiased opinion about the impact of fossil fuels.Al Gore at least has a basic understanding of atmospheric physics, unlike Epstein and Capablanca-Fan. Of course, Capablanca-Fan claims he wants to discuss the science, but retreats to his 'safe space' whenever it is raised :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
03-08-2017, 12:44 AM
I always go to Alex Epstein when I want an unbiased opinion about the impact of fossil fuels.

AlGore is the epitome of objectivity.

Capablanca-Fan
03-08-2017, 12:46 AM
Al Gore at least has a basic understanding of atmospheric physics, unlike Epstein and Capablanca-Fan. Of course, Capablanca-Fan claims he wants to discuss the science, but retreats to his 'safe space' whenever it is raised :hmm:

Where is the evidence that alGore understands any science? And I don't know anyone who denies that CO2 absorbs IR; the question in that article is what to do about it, and whether the proposed remedy is worse than the disease.

MichaelBaron
03-08-2017, 01:03 AM
AlGore is the epitome of objectivity.

It is rather entertaining how someone who made ''fighting for the environment'' part of his political agenda (the case of AlGore) to be treated as a ''subject matter authority'' by some.

Ian Murray
03-08-2017, 08:34 AM
... the question in that article is what to do about it, and whether the proposed remedy is worse than the disease.

The article doesn't even pretend to be objective, It's an attack on Al Gore supported by misleading factoids, e.g.


The combined share of world energy consumption from renewables is all of two per cent.

It's now 4.2%, but that's energy across all sectors. Transportation will be dominated by oil for a few decades yet. The sector which produces most CO2 emissions is electricity generation, 23% of which is now sourced from renewables, and growing in leaps and bounds.


Germans, on the hook for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s self-righteous anti-carbon commitments, are already paying three times the rates for electricity that Americans do.

But Germans are much more efficient than Americans - American households use four times as much power (https://wec-indicators.enerdata.net/household-electricity-use.html) as German households.


The most significant cause of our radically reduced climate danger is industrial development, which takes a naturally dangerous climate and makes it unnaturally safe.

Anthropogenic climate change through industrial and land use global warming does not make the climate safer. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the climate is getting worse and will not get better for centuries. If we keep going as we have been, it would get much worse. Global action under the Paris Accord, ratcheted up after each five-year review, is humankind's best hope. Thankfully the global majority sees it that way.

Patrick Byrom
03-08-2017, 10:10 AM
It is rather entertaining how someone who made ''fighting for the environment'' part of his political agenda (the case of AlGore) to be treated as a ''subject matter authority'' by some.He understands atmospheric physics better than you or Capablanca-Fan do - that definitely doesn't make him an authority :(

And no one here who is concerned about AGW is relying on Al Gore as an authority - it's the deniers who obsess about him.

Patrick Byrom
03-08-2017, 10:16 AM
Where is the evidence that alGore understands any science? And I don't know anyone who denies that CO2 absorbs IR; the question in that article is what to do about it, and whether the proposed remedy is worse than the disease.Gore understands that increasing carbon dioxide leads to increasing temperatures, which you don't. If you ignore this fundamental reality, then obviously you can't make a correct decision about whether we should be reducing carbon pollution or adapting.

Ian Murray
03-08-2017, 04:37 PM
S.A. could dump gas plans if batteries, demand response deliver (http://reneweconomy.com.au/s-a-could-dump-gas-plans-if-batteries-demand-response-deliver-86208/)
ReNew Economy
3.8.17

...if demand response (DR) initiatives proposed by the Australian Energy Market Operator and the new Tesla battery storage installation prove their mettle this summer and next, and yet more DR and storage is brought to the market, then South Australia may decide that no government-owned gas generator is needed.

It certainly has that flexibility, and if the response to the expression of interest conducted by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency is any guide, there are plenty of demand response opportunities – where energy users are paid not to use electricity at certain times – ready to be exploited.

ARENA, in conjunction with AEMO and the relevant state governments, is seeking 100MW of demand response in Victoria and South Australia, and another 70MW in NSW.

But when it sought expressions of interest in May, ARENA was overwhelmed by the response, which came from 90 different organisations, and was as great as when South Australia and then Victoria pitched for battery storage proposals.

“We had a fantastic response from the market,” ARENA said in a letter to stakeholders, noting that a combined total of 693MW of demand response (excluding diesel) could be delivered by December 1 this year and a “whopping” 1,938MW (also excluding diesel) by December 1 next year.

Around one-third would be sourced from residential customers, another 30 per cent from industrial and 20 per cent from commercial. The technologies included industrial load curtailment (pumps, motors and other processing equipment), batteries, HVAC systems, distributed generation and residential appliances.

The proposals came from a mixture of energy retailers, networks, technology vendors, specialist aggregators, local councils and large energy users.

The response underlines the potential of a smarter way to deal with demand and pricing peaks than simply shovelling new fossil fuel generators into the system, and much of this could be brought to market if the Australian Energy Market Commission, the main rule maker, gets its act together....

Capablanca-Fan
04-08-2017, 06:20 AM
Gore understands that increasing carbon dioxide leads to increasing temperatures, which you don't.
Everyone knows that CO2 absorbs IR and re-radiates it, increasing temperatures. alGore probably hasn't a clue about what determines IR activity; I do, unlike most warm-mongers.


If you ignore this fundamental reality, then obviously you can't make a correct decision about whether we should be reducing carbon pollution or adapting.
Rather, the reality of what IR absorption does not entail alGore's leftard policies, which leftards have long been looking for an excuse to implement. And he himself acts as if he doesn't believe his own agitprop, since he flies around the world in private jets and has an energy-guzzling mansion, and in general has become a real global warm-mongering prophet/profit getting filthy rich off this.

Desmond
04-08-2017, 07:26 AM
Everyone knows that CO2 absorbs IR and re-radiates it, increasing temperatures. Nice to hear you say so.


Rather, the reality of what IR absorption does not entail alGore's leftard policies, which leftards have long been looking for an excuse to implement. And he himself acts as if he doesn't believe his own agitprop, since he flies around the world in private jets and has an energy-guzzling mansion, and in general has become a real global warm-mongering prophet/profit getting filthy rich off this.
The only person here relying on Gore is you, to try to have some strawman to knock down. I guess it's easier for you than trying to deal with the overwhelming majority of scientists and the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

Patrick Byrom
04-08-2017, 08:27 AM
Everyone knows that CO2 absorbs IR and re-radiates it, increasing temperatures. alGore probably hasn't a clue about what determines IR activity; I do, unlike most warm-mongers.Thank you for proving my point! Gore understands that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase temperatures - you don't, even though it is the inevitable consequence of what you just said!


Rather, the reality of what IR absorption does not entail alGore's leftard policies, ... [Irrelevant personal attacks snipped.] Gore understands the important science. You don't, which is why you have to resort to ad hominem attacks, instead of discussing the science.

Patrick Byrom
05-08-2017, 09:07 AM
Thank you for proving my point! Gore understands that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase temperatures - you don't, even though it is the inevitable consequence of what you just said!This is why understanding atmospheric physics is so important (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/04/extreme-heat-warnings-issued-europe-temperatures-pass-40c):

Writing in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the scientists said if a similar “mega-heatwave” to that of 2003 were to occur at the end of the century, when average temperatures are widely expected to be noticeably higher after decades of global warming, temperatures could pass 50C.
Increasing carbon dioxide means increasing temperatures - it's really simple!

Ian Murray
10-08-2017, 07:35 PM
AGL: The reasons for getting out of coal are all around us (https://content.agl.com.au/?utm_content=brand&https://content.agl.com.au/%3Futm_content%3Dbrand&keyword_k=%2Bagl%20%2Bcoal&gclid=Cj0KCQjwiLDMBRDFARIsACNmiX8fuAYyDA1DmW3YysTx Xzy1rPRTOw9kDUyMhwA2V0-cDxrOjBm2TesaAsVPEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds).

We’re getting out of coal

Starting in 2022 and ending by 2050, we are getting out of coal. We already run Australia’s largest solar and wind farms. We’ve also started a fund that will put up to $3 billion into making renewable energy for everyone. And this is just the beginning....

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2017, 03:39 AM
This is the Real Reason Your iPhone Cables Break (https://fee.org/articles/this-is-the-real-reason-your-iphone-cables-break)
David L Veksler, FEE, 11 August 2017

It’s common knowledge that Apple cables begin to disintegrate after about six months of regular use. This has been a constant across many different devices - MacBook, iPhones, and adapters, and over the course of many generations of product. My first generation iPhone had a cable that fell apart in 2009, and my iPhone 6 cable disintegrated less than a year later too.

This issue has created an entire industry of third party Apple cables, and another industry of hacks (see Sugru, Apple cable protectors) to keep cables from disintegrating.

Why can’t Apple use its billions to create a cable that won’t fall apart?

There are several explanations offered for Apple’s apparent incompetence in cable design, but one stands out: Greenpeace. In 2009, Greenpeace successfully lobbied Apple to remove PVC from their cables with their “Green My Apple” campaign. PVC is Polyvinyl chloride, or just vinyl, the world’s third most popular plastic polymer. Ever since, Apple has bragged on their Environment page that all their products are PVC free.

I am not a chemical or environmental engineer, so I cannot definitively tell you whether Apple’s decision is scientifically sound. What I do know is that PVC is one of the world’s most common chemical products. In the USA, it is used for 66% of drinking water delivery pipes, most electrical cable insulation, waterproofed clothing, vinyl flooring, and medical gloves. Not deadly-toxic stuff, in other words. Like any other plastic, I would not suggest eating it or breathing fumes from a fire, but it is otherwise safe.

Desmond
12-08-2017, 08:28 AM
This is the Real Reason Your iPhone Cables Break (https://fee.org/articles/this-is-the-real-reason-your-iphone-cables-break)
David L Veksler, FEE, 11 August 2017

It’s common knowledge that Apple cables begin to disintegrate after about six months of regular use. …

It's not a bug it's a feature. ;)

Designed to fail. Have you seen how much Apple charges for accessories? Solution: don't buy Apple.

Ian Murray
14-08-2017, 04:59 PM
Failed experiment: Now it’s retail arms gaming energy consumers (http://reneweconomy.com.au/failed-experiment-now-its-retail-arms-gaming-energy-consumers-88229/)
ReNew Economy
14.8.17

Less than one week after the Prime Minister summoned the heads of Australia’s major electricity retailers to Canberra to explain bloated profit margins and questionable billing practices, a new Victorian report has shown the extent to which retailers have been gouging consumers, and has brought into question their entire existence in the energy supply chain....

Ian Murray
14-08-2017, 05:11 PM
Solar thermal power plant announced for Port Augusta 'biggest of its kind in the world' (Solar thermal power plant announced for Port Augusta 'biggest of its kind in the world')
ABC News
14.8.17

A 150-megawatt solar thermal power plant has been secured for Port Augusta in South Australia, State Premier Jay Weatherill has announced.

Construction of the $650 million plant will start in 2018....

Aurora facts:

150-megawatt solar thermal power with eight hours of storage
Plant will deliver 495 gigawatt hours of power annually, or 5 per cent of SA's energy needs
Equivalent to powering more than 90,000 homes
Located 30 kilometres north of Port Augusta
Company says it is "completely emission free"


Mr Weatherill said the Aurora Solar Energy Project would be ready to go in 2020 and would supply 100 per cent of the State Government's needs.

The Government will pay a maximum of $78 per megawatt hour....

Ian Murray
15-08-2017, 05:07 PM
Australian coal-power pollution would be illegal in US, Europe and China – report (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/15/australian-coal-power-pollution-would-be-illegal-in-us-europe-and-china-report)
The Guardian
15.8.17

Australian coal-fired power stations produce levels of toxic air pollution that would be illegal in the US, Europe and China, and regularly exceed even the lax limits imposed on them with few or no consequences, according to an investigation by Environmental Justice Australia.

The report reveals evidence that operators of coal power plants in Australia have been gaming the systems that monitor the deadly pollution, while others have reported figures the federal government says are not reliable.

EJA’s investigation reveals further cases of allegedly misleading behaviour. In Victoria, regulators are investigating one case in which a representative of a coal power plant allegedly said it regularly “simplifies” reporting during periods of excessive pollution by just reporting the figure allowed by its licence, rather than the actual amount.

Pollution from coal power plants kills hundreds of people each year in Australia. In Sydney alone, about 130 premature deaths are thought to be caused each year by coal-fired power stations, with worse impacts in regions near the stations.

Nationally, the health effects from the pollution emitted by coal-fired power plants are estimated to cost $2.6bn – a figure that would amount to $13.20 a megawatt hour if it were added to power costs....

Capablanca-Fan
25-08-2017, 04:14 AM
No to Coal Subsidies, No to Corporate Welfare (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450496/corporate-welfare-say-no-coal-subsidies-west-virginia)
West Virginia’s governor asks Washington for billions of dollars to subsidize utility plants.
Michael Tanner, 16 Aug 2017

Conservatives have long been among the biggest critics of welfare programs for poor and low-income Americans, mostly with just cause. But such criticism would probably be received better if there was even half as much outrage directed at welfare for corporations.

The latest outrageous example of corporate welfare comes from West Virginia, where Republican-turned-Democrat-turned-Republican governor Jim Justice is asking for $4–5 billion in subsidies for coal-powered utility plants. The Trump administration is reported to be favorably inclined to the idea.

Trump, of course, made support for the coal industry a key part of his campaign, and that was undoubtedly a major reason he carried West Virginia by 45 percentage points. But Justice now admits that, even after Trump’s efforts at deregulation, the West Virginia coal industry is in trouble, challenged not just by alternative fuels but by bigger and cheaper sources of coal from Indiana and Wyoming. Like corporate welfare queens everywhere, Justice pitches his plea for taxpayer bailouts in terms of jobs. Yet Governor Justice’s proposal, for example, would simply prolong the dying of an industry that has been declining for years, because West Virginia coal is increasingly expensive and difficult to mine, in the face of national and international competition. Just over 12,000 West Virginians still work in the coal industry.

Ian Murray
25-08-2017, 01:45 PM
New study finds that climate change costs will hit Trump country hardest (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/aug/24/new-study-finds-that-climate-change-costs-will-hit-trump-country-hardest)
The Guardian
24.8.17

Humans are causing Earth’s climate to change. We know that. We’ve known it for decades. Okay so what? The follow-up questions should be directed to what the effects of warming will be. What will the costs be to society, to the natural biosystem, and to human lives? Let’s be honest, if the consequences of warming are not large, then who cares? But, if the consequences are severe, then we should take action now to reduce the warming. This really comes down to costs and benefits. Are the benefits of reducing emissions greater or less than the costs?

But there is a nuance to the answer. The costs are not uniformly distributed. Some regions will suffer more and other regions will suffer less. In fact, some regions will actually benefit in a warming climate. We understand that the world is interconnected and costs will inevitably be shared to some extent. But it is clear we won’t all suffer the same. ...

Robert Kopp, one of the authors of the study stated in a press release:


In the absence of major efforts to reduce emissions and strengthen resilience, the Gulf Coast will take a massive hit. Its exposure to sea-level rise – made worse by potentially stronger hurricanes – poses a major risk to its communities. Increasingly extreme heat will drive up violent crime, slow down workers, amp up air conditioning costs, and threaten people’s lives.

This conclusion was echoed by Solomon Hsiang, the lead author:


Unmitigated climate change will be very expensive for huge regions of the United States. If we continue on the current path, our analysis indicates it may result in the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the country’s history.

In fact, the authors calculate that the end-of-century temperatures will lead to costs on par with the Great Recession (a recession that will be permanent).

But there is a silver lining that emerges from this study. It helps us plan. By identifying and quantifying the impacts, we can begin to create a social system and even biosystems that are more resilient....

Ian Murray
28-08-2017, 08:30 AM
Trump’s Climate-Change Sociopathy (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/sociopath-trump-paris-climate-agreement-by-jeffrey-d-sachs-2017-06?utm)
Jeffrey Sachs
Project Syndicate
7.6.17

President Donald Trump’s withdrawal of the United States from the Paris climate agreement is not just dangerous for the world; it is also sociopathic. Without remorse, Trump is willfully inflicting harm on others. The declaration by Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, that Trump believes in climate change makes matters worse, not better. Trump is knowingly and brazenly jeopardizing the planet.

Trump’s announcement was made with a bully’s bravado. A global agreement that is symmetric in all ways, across all countries of the world, is somehow a trick, he huffed, an anti-American plot. The rest of the world has been “laughing at us.”

These ravings are utterly delusional, deeply cynical, or profoundly ignorant. Probably all three. And they should be recognized as such. ...

Patrick Byrom
29-08-2017, 07:32 PM
Ignoring AGW could have serious practical consequences (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/08/28/right_before_harvey_trump_nixed_a_rule_designed_to _protect_cities_from_flood.html):

Ten days before Hurricane Harvey made landfall on the Texas coast, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to speed up the pipeline for federal infrastructure projects. One component of that Aug. 15 order? Eliminating an Obama-era rule called the federal flood risk management standard that asked agencies to account for climate change projections when they approved projects. That drew condemnation from an odd coalition of scientists, civil engineers, and fiscal conservatives concerned about reversion to the old ways: pouring money into projects that would soon be washed away. “This Executive Order is not fiscally conservative,” said Florida Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo in a press release. “It’s irresponsible, and it will lead to taxpayer dollars being wasted on projects that may not be built to endure the flooding we are already seeing and know is only going to get worse.” FEMA floodplain managers were “aghast,” E&E News reported.

Capablanca-Fan
01-09-2017, 01:16 PM
Ignoring AGW could have serious practical consequences (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2017/08/28/right_before_harvey_trump_nixed_a_rule_designed_to _protect_cities_from_flood.html):

Ten days before Hurricane Harvey made landfall on the Texas coast, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to speed up the pipeline for federal infrastructure projects. One component of that Aug. 15 order? Eliminating an Obama-era rule called the federal flood risk management standard that asked agencies to account for climate change projections when they approved projects. That drew condemnation from an odd coalition of scientists, civil engineers, and fiscal conservatives concerned about reversion to the old ways: pouring money into projects that would soon be washed away. “This Executive Order is not fiscally conservative,” said Florida Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo in a press release. “It’s irresponsible, and it will lead to taxpayer dollars being wasted on projects that may not be built to endure the flooding we are already seeing and know is only going to get worse.” FEMA floodplain managers were “aghast,” E&E News reported.

The überLeft Slate puts a slant on it, but the problem was with the pork associated with the warm-mongering. There is nothing wrong with measures "to improve the resilience of communities and Federal assets against the impacts of flooding". E.g. it would make sense to have underground power lines in hurricane-prone areas, although not elsewhere because the installation and maintenance costs are much higher.

Patrick Byrom
01-09-2017, 01:38 PM
The überLeft Slate puts a slant on it, but the problem was with the pork associated with the warm-mongering.Which has nothing to do with the order.


There is nothing wrong with measures "to improve the resilience of communities and Federal assets against the impacts of flooding". E.g. it would make sense to have underground power lines in hurricane-prone areas, although not elsewhere because the installation and maintenance costs are much higher.
And these measures should take into account the clear evidence that sea-levels are increasing - correct?

Ian Murray
01-09-2017, 06:11 PM
...Increasing carbon dioxide means increasing temperatures - it's really simple!

It's those higher temperatures we have already which supercharged Hurricane Harvey. Hotter air holds more water vapour. Basic physics - for each 1°C increase in temperature, water vapour capacity increases by 7%. Add seawater temperature in the Gulf 4°C above average, and you have a deluge

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2017, 03:18 PM
The cost of going green: taxpayers hit with a $60bn power bill (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/the-cost-of-going-green-taxpayers-hit-with-a-60bn-power-bill/news-story/ab391c41565a6429caff6e7c8eb947fc)
Adam Creighton, Australian, 1 Sept 2017

Taxpayers will have paid more than $60 billion through federal renewable energy subsidies by 2030, about twice what the crumbling car industry received over 15 years and enough to build about 10 large nuclear reactors.

The government’s large and small-scale renewable energy *targets, which will compel energy retailers to buy 33 terawatt hours of wind, solar and hydro energy by 2030, will deliver about $45bn of subsidies to renewable energy producers over 20 years, according to analysis by The Australian.

The chairman of the Coalition backbench committee for energy, Craig Kelly, described the costs of the subsidies as an “appalling waste” resulting from an “ideological rush to renewables”.

“No one will ever be able to compute the full opportunity cost of the alternate productive assets that this capital could have been invested in,” Mr Kelly said.

“We already have some of the highest electricity prices in the world. And what industry will we still have if we go down this track?”

Victorian Nationals MP Andrew Broad, chairman of the standing committee on the environment and energy, said the RET should be scrapped to allow renewables to compete on merit.

“To spend all that money and still have expensive power prices means the settings are all wrong,” Mr Broad said.

Capablanca-Fan
02-09-2017, 03:30 PM
It's those higher temperatures we have already which supercharged Hurricane Harvey. Hotter air holds more water vapour. Basic physics - for each 1°C increase in temperature, water vapour capacity increases by 7%.
Well, the Clausius–Clapeyron equation is basic to a physical chemist like me, but probably not to most global warm-mongering alarmists, e.g. the likes of alGore and Leonardo DiCaprio, or the usual suspects here.


Add seawater temperature in the Gulf 4°C above average, and you have a deluge
But even the leftist Wikipedia has a list of the deadliest floods in history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods), and we don't get one in the last 40 years until #31

Patrick Byrom
02-09-2017, 03:38 PM
The cost of going green: taxpayers hit with a $60bn power bill (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/the-cost-of-going-green-taxpayers-hit-with-a-60bn-power-bill/news-story/ab391c41565a6429caff6e7c8eb947fc)
Adam Creighton, Australian, 1 Sept 2017

Taxpayers will have paid more than $60 billion through federal renewable energy subsidies by 2030, about twice what the crumbling car industry received over 15 years and enough to build about 10 large nuclear reactors. …Only a tiny fraction of the subsidies for non-renewables, of course - assuming the figures are even accurate.

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2017, 03:39 PM
But even [..] Wikipedia has a list of the deadliest floods in history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods), and we don't get one in the last 40 years until #31

Improved forecasting methods could have a large amount to do with that.

Furthermore, given that the table goes back more than 1000 years, the proportion of floods in the last 20 years in the top 100 is extremely high. However, both recency bias in the table's compilation and population increase would contribute to that.

By the way I do believe #16 Vargas mudslide (1999) was in the last 40 years.

Patrick Byrom
02-09-2017, 03:47 PM
But even the leftist Wikipedia has a list of the deadliest floods in history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods), and we don't get one in the last 40 years until #31Floods have different causes to cyclones (breaking dams, for example). Here is Wikipedia's list of the most intense cyclones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_intense_tropical_cyclones) - most are in the last 40 years (I wonder why?). This is the point Ian was making.

Ian Murray
02-09-2017, 09:18 PM
But even the leftist Wikipedia has a list of the deadliest floods in history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods), and we don't get one in the last 40 years until #31

The declining trend in death tolls over time is more a refection of improving hydrology and flood planning than declining flood intensity. The 1998 Yangtze flood, for example, was one of the three worst flood events (http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/1932867/chinas-yangtze-river-face-massive-flooding-water-levels) of the 20th century - 15 million people lost their homes but only 3000 lives were lost. This was due in no small part to the rapid mobilisation of two million army personnel and their deployment in flood relief and rescue work. 1998 happened to be the year of the strongest El Nino event ever recorded, and was a cause of the flood event.

The final flood report (http://reliefweb.int/report/china/final-report-1998-floods-peoples-republic-china) concluded:

The cause of the disaster is excessive rainfall, which, according to Chinese meteorologists was ascribed to the worldwide El Niño phenomenon followed by La Niña; the melting of lasting and deep snow accumulated in the Qinghai-Tibet plateau in the south-west of China; a weak Asian monsoon; unusual sub-tropical high pressure systems on the West Pacific Ocean; and a decrease in the number of typhoons. According to Chinese government officials, the disaster was also due, in part, to rampant deforestation, causing serious soil erosion, and, in turn, silting. The fertile land surrounding the Yangtze river is densely populated and areas that previously were flood banks are now increasingly inhabited.

Ian Murray
02-09-2017, 09:31 PM
Well, the Clausius–Clapeyron equation is basic to a physical chemist like me, but probably not to most global warm-mongering alarmists, e.g. the likes of alGore and Leonardo DiCaprio, or the usual suspects here.

The 1°C:7% ratio is common knowledge in climate change circles

Capablanca-Fan
03-09-2017, 05:05 AM
Improved forecasting methods could have a large amount to do with that.
Indeed so. So better forecasting (and indrastructure) plays a much higher role than AGW in the seriousness of flooding. This is one of Lomborg's points about how to spend money most effectlvely to minimize damage, and he says explicitly that he thinks AGW is a problem.


Furthermore, given that the table goes back more than 1000 years, the proportion of floods in the last 20 years in the top 100 is extremely high. However, both recency bias in the table's compilation and population increase would contribute to that.
It could.


By the way I do believe #16 Vargas mudslide (1999) was in the last 40 years.
True that. Even so, AGW alarmists claims that floods are worse since the amount of CO2 has increased are not supported by the historical evidence.

Capablanca-Fan
03-09-2017, 05:08 AM
The declining trend in death tolls over time is more a refection of improving hydrology and flood planning than declining flood intensity. The 1998 Yangtze flood, for example, was one of the three worst flood events (http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/1932867/chinas-yangtze-river-face-massive-flooding-water-levels) of the 20th century - 15 million people lost their homes but only 3000 lives were lost. This was due in no small part to the rapid mobilisation of two million army personnel and their deployment in flood relief and rescue work. 1998 happened to be the year of the strongest El Nino event ever recorded, and was a cause of the flood event.
Again proves the point that improving hydrology and flood planning make more of a difference to damage and lives lost than AGQ alarmism. This was almost 20 years ago in a time of less CO2 than now. When where the other two worst flood events of the 20th century? Probably at a time with even less CO2.

Capablanca-Fan
03-09-2017, 05:10 AM
The 1°C:7% ratio is common knowledge in climate change circles

It makes sense.

Ian Murray
03-09-2017, 08:34 AM
Again proves the point that improving hydrology and flood planning make more of a difference to damage and lives lost than AGQ alarmism. This was almost 20 years ago in a time of less CO2 than now. When where the other two worst flood events of the 20th century? Probably at a time with even less CO2.

Climate scientists do not claim that extreme weather events are caused by AGW. But it does make them worse, e.g. higher sea levels mean higher storm surges and higher temperatures mean more rain.

Climate Change Isn't Responsible For Hurricane Harvey - The Truth Is Much More Complicated (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/climate-change-isnt-responsible-for-hurricane-harvey-the-truth-is-much-more-complicated/all/)

...Inevitably, climate change has been brought up – and right now, depending on where you look, the man-made phenomenon has either definitely caused Hurricane Harvey or it has nothing to do with it. As it so happens, there are a few things you can definitely say about climate change in this sense, and a few things you certainly cannot say.

So let’s start with what we definitely cannot say: namely, that climate change caused this natural disaster to occur, because it didn’t. No one can say with any confidence that this exact cause-and-effect relationship can be found here, and no climatologist worth their salt would ever do so....

Patrick Byrom
03-09-2017, 10:01 AM
Climate scientists do not claim that extreme weather events are caused by AGW. But it does make them worse, e.g. higher sea levels mean higher storm surges and higher temperatures mean more rain.Exactly. And as AGW gets worse, its contribution will increase, making these events worse also. Nobody who understands atmospheric physics argues that we shouldn't protect ourselves against the consequences of the inevitable warming; but they also argue that we should do what we can to stop that warming increasing to the point when that protection will become extremely expensive.

What the AGW experts are arguing is basically that it is better to stop smoking when you're young, rather than treat the likely consequences later in life (even if the effects of smoking may not be obvious for many years).

Ian Murray
03-09-2017, 01:15 PM
After Harvey, the Trump administration reconsiders flood rules it just rolled back (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/after-harvey-the-trump-administration-reconsiders-flood-rules-it-just-rolled-back/2017/09/01/c3a051ea-8e56-11e7-8df5-c2e5cf46c1e2_story.html?utm_term=.28643c501e85&wpisrc=nl_evening&wpmm=1)
Washington Post
1.9.17

A couple of weeks ago President Trump scrapped Obama-era rules, intended to reduce the risks posed by flooding, that established new construction standards for roads, housing and other infrastructure projects that receive federal dollars.

Trump derided these restrictions, which were written in response to growing concerns over the impact of climate change, and other federal rules as useless red tape holding back the economy.

“This overregulated permitting process is a massive, self*inflicted wound on our country — it’s disgraceful — denying our people much-needed investments in their community,” he said in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York during an event to tout his infrastructure policies.

But now, in the wake of the massive flooding and destruction caused by Hurricane Harvey along the Gulf Coast, the Trump administration is considering whether to issue similar requirements to build higher in flood-prone areas as the government prepares to spend billions of dollars in response to the storm.

This potential policy shift underscores the extent to which the reality of this week’s storm has collided with Trump officials’ push to upend President Barack Obama’s policies and represents a striking acknowledgment by an administration skeptical of climate change that the government must factor changing weather into some of its major infrastructure policies....

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2017, 02:02 PM
Texas, Thou Hast Sinned (https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-thou-hast-sinned-1504221194)
Progressives blame Houston’s success for the hurricane disaster.
The Editorial Board, WSJ, 31 Aug 2017

“Harvey, the Storm That Humans Helped Cause,” said a headline in one progressive bellwether as the storm raged. An overseas columnist was less subtle if more clichéd: “Houston, you have a problem, and some of it of your own making.” In this telling, Houston is the Sodom and Gomorrah of fossil fuels, which cause global warming, which is producing more hurricanes.

The problem is that this argument is fact-free. As Roger Pielke Jr. has noted, the link between global warming and recent hurricanes and extreme weather events is “unsupportable based on research and evidence.” Mr. Pielke, who is no climate-change denier, has shown with data that hurricanes hitting the U.S. have not increased in frequency or intensity since 1900, there is no notable trend up or down in global tropical cyclone landfalls since 1970, and floods have not increased in frequency or intensity in the U.S. since 1950.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently said that “it is premature to conclude that human activities—and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming—have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.”

Ian Murray
04-09-2017, 04:28 PM
Texas, Thou Hast Sinned (https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-thou-hast-sinned-1504221194)
Progressives blame Houston’s success for the hurricane disaster.
The Editorial Board, WSJ, 31 Aug 2017

“Harvey, the Storm That Humans Helped Cause,” said a headline in one progressive bellwether as the storm raged. An overseas columnist was less subtle if more clichéd: “Houston, you have a problem, and some of it of your own making.”

Unattributed 'quotes'. Who said, where?


....The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently said that “it is premature to conclude that human activities—and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming—have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.”…

Quite so - climate scientists make no such claim. See my Post #4045

Rincewind
04-09-2017, 05:41 PM
The issue is not so much global warming but Houston's Lassez-faire planning and the loss of prairie-land to urban developments which leaves waterways less able to soak up big downpours.

Ian Murray
10-09-2017, 08:54 PM
This is how your world could end (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/09/this-is-how-your-world-could-end-climate-change-global-warming?)
The Guardian
10.9.17

...Wet-bulb temperatures of 35C or higher are lethal to humanity. Above this limit, it is impossible for humans to dissipate the heat they generate indefinitely and they die of overheating in a matter of hours, no matter how hard they try to cool off.

“So we were trying to get across the point that physiology and adaptation and these other things will have nothing to do with this limit. It’s the easy-bake oven limit,” he said. “You cook yourself, very slowly.”

...7C of warming would begin to render large parts of the globe lethally hot to mammals. Continue warming past that and truly huge swaths of the planet currently inhabited by humans would exceed 35C wet-bulb temperatures and would have to be abandoned. Otherwise, the people who live there would be literally cooked to death....

Capablanca-Fan
11-09-2017, 12:07 PM
Solar farm burns money (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/adam-creighton/solar-farm-burns-money/news-story/a68e6a83b2fc63583b0d14430f60cf6d)
ADAM CREIGHTON, Australian Business Review, 8 Sept 2017


And it’s hard to see the cost of power falling or the level of reliability improving. Because of the RET, electricity retailers like Energy Australia are forced to buy power from renewable energy providers such as Abdul Latif Jameel when it is available. This year they are buying around 28 terawatts, rising to 33 terawatt hours a year by 2020.

For the massive sums Australians are forking out via their power bills and taxes to build solar and wind farms and provide juicy returns to foreign investors, we could have built multiple small nuclear reactors, which would, by the way, generate a lot more than 100 jobs each.

If we’re going to splurge on unreliable, emissions-free power, why not do it on reliable emissions-free power instead. A kilogram of coal can light 100 light bulbs for less than four days; a kilo of uranium would do the same for more than 1140 years.

Australia is the only country in the G20 to have banned nuclear energy, which is completely bizarre, rivalling the RET itself for stupidity.

LDP Senator David Leyonhjelm comments:


This is the story of how a Saudi Arabian company bought an Australian solar farm built with taxpayer money.

This solar farm, about 10km from Moree was constructed with a $101.7m Australian Renewable Energy Agency grant and a $47m Clean Energy Finance grant (The Saudi company only chipped in $15.3m).

But what about the jobs created? For the 100 jobs, it has supposedly created, when you include government grants, it equates to around $1.5m of taxpayer money for each job.

But what about power prices? Nearby households will not enjoy lower power prices, because the RET forces energy retailers to subsidise renewable energy, causing coal plants to close down, creating huge supply shortages.

The point is this: every time we look to the Government to solve our problems, we encourage them to meddle. Each little tweak entrenches those capable of exploiting it, at the expense of everyday Australians.

Ian Murray
11-09-2017, 05:58 PM
Nationals demand “coal target” as energy politics spirals into loony fog (http://reneweconomy.com.au/nationals-demand-coal-target-energy-politics-spirals-loony-fog-37878/)
ReNew Economy
11.9.17

...Sanity, however, has no place in the Murdoch media, which is heaping pressure on the Coalition government to bend to conservative ideologues and fossil fuel vested interests, with relentless fact-free attacks on state-based initiatives and the federal contemplation of Finkel’s proposed CET.

Last week, The Australian claimed that the renewable energy target would cost taxpayers $60 billion – a figure seemingly plucked from their imagination – and suggested that 10 large nuclear power stations could be built for the same price.

The co-author of that report, economics writer Adam Creighton, continued the delirium on Monday, branding the renewable energy target as “bonkers” and proposing that all the problems could be solved by building nuclear power stations.

One assumes he didn’t read either of the AEMO reports, the Finkel Review, the CSIRO/ENA reports, Transgrid’s vision of a 100 per cent renewable energy grid, or talked seriously to anyone not completely invested in the fossil fuel industry.

One assumes also he didn’t notice the reason for new nuclear reactors being canned in the US – soaring costs ($A30 billion each) and endless delays – or the decision to close down Florida’s main nuclear supply when faced with wind gusts slightly less than those which hit South Australia last September.

The Courier-Mail also insisted on a new coal-fired generator in north Queensland – the pet project of Canavan – even though AEMO made it clear that no such project was needed....

Capablanca-Fan
13-09-2017, 02:08 AM
Calls to punish skeptics rise with links to climate change, hurricanes (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/11/climate-change-activists-want-punishment-for-skept)
Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times, 11 September 2017

Calls to punish global warming skepticism as a criminal offense have surged in the aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, but it hasn’t discouraged climate scientists like Judith Curry.

A retired Georgia Tech professor, she argued (https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/08/hurricane-irma-eyes-florida/#more-23347) on her Climate Etc. website that Irma, which hit Florida as a Category 4 hurricane on Saturday, was fueled in large part by “very weak” wind shear and that the hurricane intensified despite Atlantic Ocean temperatures that weren’t unusually warm.

That is the kind of talk that could get policymakers who heed her research hauled before the justice system, if some of those in the climate change movement have their way.

“Climate change denial should be a crime,” declared the Sept. 1 headline in the Outline. Mark Hertsgaard argued in a Sept. 7 article in the Nation, titled “Climate Denialism Is Literally Killing Us,” that “murder is murder” and “we should punish it as such.”

The suggestion that those who run afoul of the climate change consensus, in particular government officials, should face charges comes with temperatures flaring over the link between hurricanes and greenhouse gas emissions.

“In the wake of Harvey, it’s time to treat science denial as gross negligence — and hold those who do the denying accountable,” said the subhead in the Outline article, written by Brian Merchant.

Brad Johnson, executive director of Climate Hawks Vote, posted last week on Twitter a set of “climate disaster response rules,” the third of which was to “put officials who reject science in jail.”

Desmond
13-09-2017, 07:25 PM
Denial != scepticism.

Patrick Byrom
13-09-2017, 08:50 PM
Calls to punish skeptics rise with links to climate change, hurricanes (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/11/climate-change-activists-want-punishment-for-skept)Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times, 11 September 2017..."The suggestion that those who run afoul of the climate change consensus, in particular government officials, should face charges comes with temperatures flaring over the link between hurricanes and greenhouse gas emissions. ..."But they are not calling for a restriction on research or opinion. What they want is for policy makers to use the best science - the scientific consensus! - to make their decisions. Policy makers who ignore the scientific consensus in other areas are already at risk of being sued, or even facing charges of criminal negligence. Atmospheric physics should not be an exception.

Ian Murray
14-09-2017, 02:29 PM
Calls to punish skeptics rise with links to climate change, hurricanes (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/11/climate-change-activists-want-punishment-for-skept)
Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times, 11 September 2017

...Judith Curry. A retired Georgia Tech professor, she argued (https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/08/hurricane-irma-eyes-florida/#more-23347) on her Climate Etc. website that Irma, which hit Florida as a Category 4 hurricane on Saturday, was fueled in large part by “very weak” wind shear and that the hurricane intensified despite Atlantic Ocean temperatures that weren’t unusually warm.…

Irma formed and tracked along moderately warm sea surface temperatures, according to the National Hurricane Center (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2017/al11/al112017.discus.006.shtml?). By the time it reached the Caribbean, SSTs were above 30°C (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=90912&eocn=home&eoci=nh), warm enough to sustain a Category 5 hurricane. Warm oceans, along with low wind shear, are two key ingredients that fuel and sustain hurricanes.

Ian Murray
14-09-2017, 08:17 PM
Coal hard facts about power shore up AGL’s stance on Liddell (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/john-durie/coal-hard-facts-about-power-shore-up-agls-stance-on-liddell/news-story/fe88513444cfe3e89f4094e475f26cfc)
The Australian
12.9.17

The simple facts from where Andy Vesey [AGL CEO] sits are that wind power is now at least 38 per cent cheaper than coal, solar is 16 per cent cheaper and the gaps are getting wider by the day.

That explains why Vesey is holding the line against the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s push to extend the life of an ageing coal plant.

The market has long known AGL generates over 90 per cent of its power from coal but we are talking about future production not history.

AGL’s marketing the future because that is what its customers want to see and those customers also happen to be voters.

Right now, concerns number one, two and three are power prices and few care where it comes from so long as it’s cheaper.

The maths from AGL’s perspective work like this: a coal fired plant costs $110 a megawatt hour to run.

This compares to wind at $55 an hour plus another $25 an hour of so called firming power, which is the back-up provided by a gas-fired plant to cover the wind if there is none or if it is too strong for the turbines. A solar plant works out at $70 an hour plus $25 firming power.

These are the numbers....

Capablanca-Fan
14-09-2017, 11:59 PM
WE ARE MORE THAN A MATCH FOR HURRICANES (https://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-we-are-more-than-a-match-for-hurricanes/)
Whether or not tropical storms are becoming fiercer, our growing wealth and ingenuity helps us to survive them
Matt Ridley, The Times, 11 Sept 2017

Incidentally, as the climatologist Judith Curry said of Hurricane Irma last week: “The surprising thing about this development into a major hurricane was that it developed over relatively cool waters in the Atlantic, 26.5C, when the rule of thumb is 28.5C for a major hurricane”. So it was not exceptional warmth, but exceptionally low wind shear (high-altitude wind) that led to Irma’s birth.

Let’s assume that there is a trend towards slightly fewer but slightly more intense hurricanes. What does it mean for policy? Pause to notice one truly spectacular feature of Harvey and Irma: how few people they have killed so far. By stalling near the Texas coast, Harvey caused huge floods in Houston, not quite rivalling those of 1935 in the city but still devastating to many people. Yet they killed only about 60 people. Compare this relatively low number (given the huge population of Houston) with the 10,000 dead in Galveston in 1900, or the 138,000 who died in Cyclone Nargis in impoverished Burma in 2008.

It is a similar story with Irma. That Anguilla and Barbuda have been reduced to rubble with the death of only one person on each is astonishing. I am writing this before Irma fully strikes western Florida, but the state has had more warning than for Hurricane Andrew, which killed 65. People in countries or islands with sufficient prosperity and technology to warn, defend and protect each other are far less likely to die than in the past. Indeed the death rate from droughts, floods and storms globally is about 98 per cent lower than it was a century ago. Wealth is the best defence against storms.

Adaptation is and always will be the way to survive storms. Given that hurricanes were hitting Florida, Texas and the Caribbean long before the industrial revolution, let alone the 20th century, it would be absurd to suggest that they could somehow be prevented by any climate-change policy. It would be no more absurd to try to promote calm weather through climate policies. (To be clear, I said the same about the record cold December in 2010: it’s not global cooling; it’s weather.) Adapting to cope with possible future storms will be necessary whether they become more intense or not.

Patrick Byrom
15-09-2017, 01:40 PM
WE ARE MORE THAN A MATCH FOR HURRICANES (https://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-we-are-more-than-a-match-for-hurricanes/) Whether or not tropical storms are becoming fiercer, our growing wealth and ingenuity helps us to survive them
Matt Ridley, The Times, 11 Sept 2017 …But why not also reduce the threat of AGW by reducing carbon emissions? This doesn't affect growth, so his implied argument is a good example of a false dichotomy.

Rincewind
15-09-2017, 01:56 PM
But why not also reduce the threat of AGW by reducing carbon emissions? This doesn't affect growth, so his implied argument is a good example of a false dichotomy.

No I think Jono's point is that there is a certain number of people that ought to be killed by hurricanes every year.

Ian Murray
15-09-2017, 05:45 PM
...

Adaptation is and always will be the way to survive storms. Given that hurricanes were hitting Florida, Texas and the Caribbean long before the industrial revolution, let alone the 20th century, it would be absurd to suggest that they could somehow be prevented by any climate-change policy. It would be no more absurd to try to promote calm weather through climate policies. (To be clear, I said the same about the record cold December in 2010: it’s not global cooling; it’s weather.) Adapting to cope with possible future storms will be necessary whether they become more intense or not.…

Of course it would be absurd - no-one is seriously suggesting otherwise. There are three avenues of defence against global warming effects - carbon reduction, adaptation and mitigation. Adaptation is the only defence against extreme weather events.

It is government intervention, not prosperity, which implements the necessary adaptation, by way of mandatory building codes (http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/outdoor-projects/how-to/a5631/extreme-building-codes/). Until revoked by Trump (https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-reversed-obama-flooding-regulations-before-hurricane-harvey-2017-8?r=US&IR=T), the building codes covering federally-funded infrastructure were about to be strengthened to adapt to higher sea levels and increased flooding. Homes and evacuation centres built to code or better (the codes are minimum standards) become relatively safe havens during extreme events.

Ian Murray
16-09-2017, 12:38 PM
The great nutrient collapse (http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511)
Politico
13.9.17

...Within the category of plants known as “C3”―which includes approximately 95 percent of plant species on earth, including ones we eat like wheat, rice, barley and potatoes―elevated CO2 has been shown to drive down important minerals like calcium, potassium, zinc and iron. The data we have, which look at how plants would respond to the kind of CO2 concentrations we may see in our lifetimes, show these important minerals drop by 8 percent, on average. The same conditions have been shown to drive down the protein content of C3 crops, in some cases significantly, with wheat and rice dropping 6 percent and 8 percent, respectively.

Earlier this summer, a group of researchers published the first studies attempting to estimate what these shifts could mean for the global population. Plants are a crucial source of protein for people in the developing world, and by 2050, they estimate, 150 million people could be put at risk of protein deficiency, particularly in countries like India and Bangladesh. Researchers found a loss of zinc, which is particularly essential for maternal and infant health, could put 138 million people at risk. They also estimated that more than 1 billion mothers and 354 million children live in countries where dietary iron is projected to drop significantly, which could exacerbate the already widespread public health problem of anemia.

There aren’t any projections for the United States, where we for the most part enjoy a diverse diet with no shortage of protein, but some researchers look at the growing proportion of sugars in plants and hypothesize that a systemic shift in plants could further contribute to our already alarming rates of obesity and cardiovascular disease....

Ian Murray
17-09-2017, 05:01 PM
Something strange is happening at The Australian, The Murdoch media flagship. After Post #4058 below, financial adviser Alan Kohler wrote a climate change wake-up call:

Our energy policy still stuck in coal country (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/alan-kohler/our-energy-policy-still-stuck-in-coal-country/news-story/a5298fada8ade351e72ae43a470e0ff8)
The Australian
16.9.17

...So while the rest of the world prepares for the electrification of transport and the accompanying shift to renewable energy, all supported by battery technology, the national political discussion in this country is about how to extend the life of a 45-year-old coal-fired power station and how the policy recommended by the Chief Scientist to promote renewable energy might be twisted around to subsidise coal instead....

...if you thought, as most Coalition MPs apparently do, that global warming is a lie. Otherwise you would think that electric cars make it even more important to switch from coal to renewables.

This is the underlying reality of Australia’s energy debate: a majority of the government does not actually believe the science of climate change. Not really.

They might say they do for political reasons (that is, votes), but if they believed, or even heard, the predictions of almost all of the world’s scientists, there would be no question of keeping Liddell going, or building new coal power stations, or doing anything than whatever it takes to stop global temperatures rising.

Politicians are generally in it for the public good. If they all believed in global warming, there would be a bipartisan energy policy....

Ian Murray
18-09-2017, 04:26 PM
The idea that climate scientists are in it for the cash has deep ideological roots (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/sep/15/the-idea-that-climate-scientists-are-in-it-for-the-cash-has-deep-ideological-roots?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+AUS+v1+-+AUS+morning+mail+callout&utm_term=244051&subid=7665187&CMP=ema_632)
The Guardian
15.9.17

You’ll have heard that line of argument about cancer scientists, right?

The one where they’re just in it for the government grant money and that they don’t really want to find a cure, because if they did they’d be out of a job?

No, of course you haven’t. That’s because it’s ridiculous and a bit, well, vomit-inducing.

To make such an argument, you would need to be deeply cynical about people’s motives for consistently putting their own pay packets above the welfare of millions of people.

You would have to think that scientists were not motivated to help their fellow human beings, but instead were driven only by self-interest.

Suggesting that climate scientists are pushing a line about global warming because their salaries depend on it is a popular talking point that deniers love to throw around....

Ian Murray
19-09-2017, 08:47 PM
Murdoch misleads readers about renewable subsidies and Saudi playboys (http://reneweconomy.com.au/murdoch-misleads-readers-about-renewable-subsidies-and-saudi-playboys-69568/?utm_source=RE+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b640b22611-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_09_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_46a1943223-b640b22611-40329085)
ReNew Economy
19.9.17

...But a story in today’s Australian has provoked us into action. The so-called “exclusive” is their front page lead and is titled “Saudi solar tycoon wins $300 million handouts boost”. The story is written by political correspondent David Crowe, who is not usually the worst of the bunch when it comes to renewables, but he’s got it badly wrong here.

The Australian‘s confected outrage is based around the story that a very rich Saudi businessman (Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel) is making so much money out of Australian households from the Moree solar farm, and has a son (Hassan Jameel) who is dating Jamaican singer Rihanna at the same time.

What should we do in the face of this outrage and high-profile romance? Apparently we are supposed to agree to pay subsidies to extend the life of the ageing and unreliable Liddell coal-fired power station.

Except that the story is – like so much written about renewables in The Australian – a whole lot of cobblers.

The Australian has been going hammer and tongs against the RET in recent weeks, and broken out in full support of more coal. But like most ardent critics of the RET, including its columnists, it fails to understand the basics of how the RET works....

Ian Murray
20-09-2017, 02:40 PM
President Trump explains responsibility to the United Nations (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2017/09/19/president-trump-explains-responsibility-to-the-united-nations/?utm_term=.e9bf28b27d99&wpisrc=nl_popns&wpmm=1)
Washington Post
19.9.17

Patrick Byrom
21-09-2017, 03:31 PM
It's a shame that the hard-working experts at the BOM have to waste time dealing with relentless attacks (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/21/former-weather-bureau-chief-says-agency-debilitated-by-climate-deniers-attacks)by the IPA and The Australian newspaper, instead of actually being able to do their job:


Vertessy was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, who has since had to deal with a barrage of criticism led by the rightwing thinktank the Institute for Public Affairs and expressed mostly in the pages of the Australian newspaper. Earlier this week, the former Abbott government adviser Maurice Newman accused the bureau of “fabricating temperature records” and said it represented a “smoking gun that threatens the integrity of global temperature records”. Vertessy said these sorts of attacks were dangerous.

“From my perspective, people like this running interference on the national weather agency are unproductive and it’s actually dangerous,” he said. “Every minute a BoM executive spends on this nonsense is a minute lost to managing risk and protecting the community and it is a real problem.

Ian Murray
25-09-2017, 08:10 PM
Originally stepping back because the Accord was too weak, now Nicaragua is signing on. Syria is the only country not to have joined - its ongoing civil war is more pressing. And of course President Trump has exited the US.


Nicaragua Joins Paris Accord, Leaving Trump Alone With Syria (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-20/as-nicaragua-joins-paris-accord-trump-left-alone-with-syria)
Bloomberg
21.9.17

Nicaragua will reportedly join the Paris climate accord, leaving the U.S. and Syria as the only two nations left refusing to support the landmark deal to fight global warming.

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega told state media that his government planned to sign the agreement “soon,” according to a report from the Managua-based television station 100% Noticias. A call seeking comment to the Nicaraguan embassy in Washington wasn’t immediately returned Wednesday.

Ortega had initially refused to join the 2015 accord brokered in the French capital, saying the deal didn’t require enough sacrifice from wealthy nations. President Donald Trump said in June that he would pull the U.S. from the accord because it imposed too many restrictions on U.S. companies.

Capablanca-Fan
26-09-2017, 02:09 PM
Originally stepping back because the Accord was too weak, now Nicaragua is signing on. Syria is the only country not to have joined - its ongoing civil war is more pressing. And of course President Trump has exited the US.


Nicaragua Joins Paris Accord, Leaving Trump Alone With Syria (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-20/as-nicaragua-joins-paris-accord-trump-left-alone-with-syria)
Bloomberg
21.9.17

Nicaragua will reportedly join the Paris climate accord, leaving the U.S. and Syria as the only two nations left refusing to support the landmark deal to fight global warming.

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega told state media that his government planned to sign the agreement “soon,” according to a report from the Managua-based television station 100% Noticias. A call seeking comment to the Nicaraguan embassy in Washington wasn’t immediately returned Wednesday.

Ortega had initially refused to join the 2015 accord brokered in the French capital, saying the deal didn’t require enough sacrifice from wealthy nations. President Donald Trump said in June that he would pull the U.S. from the accord because it imposed too many restrictions on U.S. companies.

So we are supposed to be impressed by what a commie despot does?

Ian Murray
26-09-2017, 02:35 PM
So we are supposed to be impressed by what a commie despot does?

By what the whole world is doing, bar one megalomanic outlier

Ian Murray
26-09-2017, 08:52 PM
Keep them out

Adani Files 2.0 (https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/great-barrier-reef--3/adani-files-new-dirt-share/the-adani-files-2-0?t=J6WynszW4&utm_content=23491&utm_campaign=6_new_reasons_to_stop_Adani&utm_source=blast&utm_medium=email)

Massive fraud, crony capitalism and a pollution disaster right on the Great Barrier Reef coast.

It's business as usual for the world's dodgiest mining giant.

In February 2017, GetUp released The Adani Files — a summary of Adani's track record, based on research into hundreds of court documents by Environmental Justice Australia and Earthjustice. It exposed environmental destruction, corruption and criminal activity on a grand scale.

But in just six months, Adani have racked up so many fresh scandals and disasters that we've had to update their rap sheet.

The latest Adani Files reveal that Adani have already brought their shonky business practices and environmental destruction to Australia. It proves beyond a doubt that Adani can't be trusted to build the world's biggest new coal mine. And they definitely can't be trusted with a billion taxpayer dollars to do it. ...

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2017, 12:56 AM
Keep them out
And they definitely can't be trusted with a billion taxpayer dollars to do it. ...
You sold me on that alone! :clap::clap:

Ian Murray
27-09-2017, 08:18 AM
Remember Tony Abbott insisting that Indians needed 'clean' Australian coal to lift them out of poverty

India Aims to Electrify All Households by End of 2018 (http://e360.yale.edu/digest/india-aims-to-electrify-all-households-by-end-of-2018)
Yale Envireonment 360
26.9.17

India has launched a new $2.5 billion initiative to provide power to the 40 million households in the country that still don’t have electricity. The project aims to electrify the homes — which represent about a quarter of India’s households — by the end of 2018, Reuters reported.

The program will be funded mostly by the Indian federal government and administered by the state-run Rural Electrification Corp Ltd. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a speech on Monday that for low-income families, there will be no fee to get an electricity connection installed. The government will not subsidize electricity consumption, however.

One of the biggest challenges in the electrification of India is that about 300 million people are still not connected to the grid, and grid expansion into the country’s remote communities can be logistically and financially difficult. As a result, the new project will instead focus on installing distributed generation systems in rural areas, such as solar panels and battery banks....

Ian Murray
27-09-2017, 07:08 PM
The first month of Spring in western Queensland. Looking forward to Summer?

3541

Desmond
27-09-2017, 09:18 PM
Hottest month ever. Hottest day ever. Driest month ever. September in Sydney.

Capablanca-Fan
28-09-2017, 03:12 AM
How the Debate on Climate Change Is Cooling Down (https://fee.org/articles/how-the-debate-on-climate-change-is-cooling-down/)
The models predicting certain environmental doom were wrong, and they've been wrong for a while.
by Marian L. Tupy, FEE, 26 Sept 2017

The Models Were Wrong

In a new study that was published in the journal Nature Geoscience, leading climate scientists have adjusted their previous predictions about global warming and stated that the worst impacts of climate change are still avoidable. Professor Michael Grubb, an international energy and climate change scientist at University College London, said that previous scientific estimates were incorrect because they were based on computer models that were running “on the hot side.”

According to the new estimates, the world is more likely than previously thought to achieve the main goal of the 2015 Paris agreement and limit global warming to only 1.5°C higher than was the case in the pre-industrial era. Only two years ago, many scientists dismissed the 1.5°C goal as too optimistic and Professor Grubb went as far to say that “all the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5°C” is unattainable.

The Laws of Economics Still Apply

As Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine calculates, current global average income per capita is about $10,000. If the world grows at 3 percent per year over the next 80 years or so, global average income per capita will rise to $97,000. According to Nordhaus and Moffatt’s estimations, therefore, an increase in global temperature by 3°C would reduce global average income per capita by $2,000 to $95,000. A 6°C increase in global temperature would reduce global average income per capita by $8,000 to $89,000.

“We have a predicament,” Bailey concludes. “How much are we willing to spend in order to make those living in 2100, who will likely be at least nine times richer than us today, $2,000 better off?”

That is not a purely academic question. Thanks to the concerns over global warming, governments throughout the world have been busy imposing serious additional costs on economic development and reducing real living standards of ordinary people so as to facilitate the fastest possible transition away from fossil fuels. The above studies add to the complexity surrounding the subject of global warming and human response to it. They also strengthen the case of those who argue that any such transition should be driven by technological change, not government mandates.

Ian Murray
28-09-2017, 08:28 AM
How the Debate on Climate Change Is Cooling Down (https://fee.org/articles/how-the-debate-on-climate-change-is-cooling-down/)
The models predicting certain environmental doom were wrong, and they've been wrong for a while.
by Marian L. Tupy, FEE, 26 Sept 2017

The Models Were Wrong

In a new study that was published in the journal Nature Geoscience, leading climate scientists have adjusted their previous predictions about global warming and stated that the worst impacts of climate change are still avoidable. Professor Michael Grubb, an international energy and climate change scientist at University College London, said that previous scientific estimates were incorrect because they were based on computer models that were running “on the hot side.”

According to the new estimates, the world is more likely than previously thought to achieve the main goal of the 2015 Paris agreement and limit global warming to only 1.5°C higher than was the case in the pre-industrial era. Only two years ago, many scientists dismissed the 1.5°C goal as too optimistic and Professor Grubb went as far to say that “all the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5°C” is unattainable..

Prof Grubb went on to conclude:

New hope for limiting warming to 1.5 C (https://phys.org/news/2017-09-limiting.html)
PhysOrg
18.9.17


...Co-author Professor Michael Grubb of University College London, concludes: "This paper shows that the Paris goals are within reach, but clarifies what the commitment to 'pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C' really implies.

"Starting with the global review due next year, countries have to get out of coal and strengthen their existing targets so as to keep open the window to the Paris goals. The sooner global emissions start to fall, the lower the risk not only of major climatic disruption, but also of the economic disruption that could otherwise arise from the need for subsequent reductions at historically unprecedented rates, should near-term action remain inadequate."

From the abstract of the study (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html?foxtrotcallback=true):

"...Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible."


The Laws of Economics Still Apply

As Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine calculates, current global average income per capita is about $10,000. If the world grows at 3 percent per year over the next 80 years or so, global average income per capita will rise to $97,000. According to Nordhaus and Moffatt’s estimations, therefore, an increase in global temperature by 3°C would reduce global average income per capita by $2,000 to $95,000. A 6°C increase in global temperature would reduce global average income per capita by $8,000 to $89,000.

“We have a predicament,” Bailey concludes. “How much are we willing to spend in order to make those living in 2100, who will likely be at least nine times richer than us today, $2,000 better off?”

That is not a purely academic question. Thanks to the concerns over global warming, governments throughout the world have been busy imposing serious additional costs on economic development and reducing real living standards of ordinary people so as to facilitate the fastest possible transition away from fossil fuels. The above studies add to the complexity surrounding the subject of global warming and human response to it. They also strengthen the case of those who argue that any such transition should be driven by technological change, not government mandates.

A facile argument. As incomes rise, so does the cost of living. We will not all be nine times richer in 80 years, any more than we all have grown nine times richer over the last 80 years.

ER
28-09-2017, 08:57 PM
In the meantime and while I was away enjoying myself in the Mediterranean sun ...



HOGSBACK reckons PM Malcolm Turnbull had a terrible awakening while being driven to Parliament House on Wednesday.
He suddenly realised that all those wind farms and solar energy arrays he loves so much were not going to provide enough
power for Australia’s eastern states in five years.

he should let them suffer a bit longer so they could hopefully learn a lesson! :P



PM backs Liddell extension
With “coal is dead!” chants still ringing in his ears, the PM knew at that moment that the only real solution for the country’s energy woes was good old fashioned reliable coal.

Well we all know that don't we?




Turnbull is afraid the country could go down the same path of South Australia without energy security and he was not prepared
to do a deal over Twitter with Tesla founder Elon Musk to install batteries up and down the eastern seaboard.

Musk's batteries need money, time and of course coal!




The energy market operator’s annual report shows the national market is vulnerable, especially in South Australia and Victoria, and this situation would be worsened in 2022 when Liddell is due to close.
With limited options open to him, he switched into his all-too-familiar backflip mode and started talking up the virtues of an existing coal-fired power station fast approaching the end of its natural life.

better late than never, ask South Australia!



The Liddell power station in New South Wales’ Hunter Valley was due to be decommissioned when it turned 50 in 2022, unlike the rest of us worker-bees who are expected to be productive into our 60s.
Australian Energy Council figures show Liddell has a 2000 megawatt capacity, making it the third largest coal-fired station in Australia.
Turnbull saw his chance to avert full scale energy disaster in the next decade by coaxing the Liddell owners AGL Energy to keep it open for another five years.

It will take much more coaxing and many more 5-year periods Mr Turnbull, just don't tell the silly Greenies



high minded corporate anti-coal line is not going to cut it with Turnbull any more.

Neither it will with any serious government not pulled by the nose by silly greenies.



The PM might have given lovely speeches about the need to the save the planet and control global warming but he must now save his own neck.
Hogsback reckons the moral of the tale is: “Be careful what you wish for”.*



It might sound fine speaking to everyone about stopping climate change by going 100% into renewable energy
and banning all that dirty coal. However, when the time comes to switch on your lights at night, it is only coal that can be relied on.

Well some people never learn, do they?

Spare a few bucks and subscribe to Mining Monthly, it's a good read (it has to be it's got Hogsback's articles in it)and you learn quite
a few realities about the merits of good old Aussie resources that the silly greenies will never tell you!

3545

Rincewind
28-09-2017, 09:52 PM
It seems Butthurt thinks he might get some independent and reliable facts about energy from a publication called "Australia's Mining Monthly". This is more desperate than the good news stories he tries to dredge up on Maria Sharapova. No doubt next well get an except from Probably Former Drug Cheats Monthly. :)

ER
29-09-2017, 01:38 AM
3544



Adding a few important details


3543

1.2 Energy production
 Energy production rose by 4 per cent in 2014–15 to 16,711 petajoules, supported by growth in coal and gas production.
 Black coal production rose by 4 per cent in 2014–15 to 12,288 petajoules, supported by new capacity for export markets and increased domestic demand. Brown coal production also rose by more than 8 per cent.
 Natural gas production rose by 5 per cent, underpinned by increased coal seam gas (CSG) production. CSG production accounted for 18 per cent of national gas production and nearly half of eastern market gas production in 2014–15.

Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (2016), Australian energy update 2016, Canberra, September.

Further information

From 27 September 2016, responsibility for the Australian Energy Statistics transferred to the Department of the Environment and Energy.

For more information, please contact: Allison Ball Director,
Energy Statistics Department of the Environment and Energy GPO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601
Email: Australianenergystatistics@environment.gov.au; allison.ball@environment.gov.au
Web: www.environment.gov.au


Project Team Allison Ball Shamim Ahmad Caitlin McCluskey Pam Pham Inja Ahn Lauren Dawson Thuong Nguyen Davin Nowakowski

Capablanca-Fan
29-09-2017, 06:49 AM
A facile argument. As incomes rise, so does the cost of living. We will not all be nine times richer in 80 years, any more than we all have grown nine times richer over the last 80 years.
But that means that the $2,000 better off will also be less significant.

Desmond
29-09-2017, 03:10 PM
3543

1.2 Energy production
 Energy production rose by 4 per cent in 2014–15 to 16,711 petajoules, supported by growth in coal and gas production.
 Black coal production rose by 4 per cent in 2014–15 to 12,288 petajoules, supported by new capacity for export markets and increased domestic demand. Brown coal production also rose by more than 8 per cent.
 Natural gas production rose by 5 per cent, underpinned by increased coal seam gas (CSG) production. CSG production accounted for 18 per cent of national gas production and nearly half of eastern market gas production in 2014–15.

Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (2016), Australian energy update 2016, Canberra, September.

Further information

From 27 September 2016, responsibility for the Australian Energy Statistics transferred to the Department of the Environment and Energy.

For more information, please contact: Allison Ball Director,
Energy Statistics Department of the Environment and Energy GPO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601
Email: Australianenergystatistics@environment.gov.au; allison.ball@environment.gov.au
Web: www.environment.gov.au


Project Team Allison Ball Shamim Ahmad Caitlin McCluskey Pam Pham Inja Ahn Lauren Dawson Thuong Nguyen Davin Nowakowski
Thanks for the link, here is the 2017 report (http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/f02a388d-74eb-4200-96fb-fe2a9d0caf5b/files/energy-update-report-2017.pdf). In it (page 26) they outline Australian electricity generation, by fuel type - Fossil fuels being flat over 10 years (-0.1%), and renewables growing at 6.8%. Further breakdown sees Coal declining by ~1.5%, wind growing by 18.7%, and solar PV growing by 59%.


...
Hydro continues to be the largest contributor to renewable generation, with a 40 per cent share of renewable generation in 2015–16. This compares with 95 per cent in 2000–01, with the composition of renewable energy in Australia diversifying significantly as wind and to a lesser extent solar capacity has come online (Figure 4.5).

Wind was a close second behind hydro in its contribution to renewable generation in 2015–16, contributing 32 per cent of renewable electricity and 5 per cent of total electricity generation in Australia. Wind generation rose by 6 per cent in 2015–16. Wind generation continues to be particularly prevalent in South Australia, accounting for over one-third of the total generation mix in that state in 2015–16.

Solar generation also continued to grow strongly in 2015–16, by 24 per cent, and accounted for 3 per cent of total electricity generation in Australia. The largest growth occurred in large-scale solar installations that have come online in New South Wales, including the Broken Hill and Moree solar farms. However, this growth was from a small base, and rooftop solar PV installations continue to make up the vast majority of total solar generation in Australia.
...

Ian Murray
29-09-2017, 08:47 PM
But that means that the $2,000 better off will also be less significant.

The +$2000 is overstated. Bailey calculates global per capita income as ~$10,000, apparently using global GDP divided by global population. However GDP is not income; median global per capita income (http://news.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx) is measured at $2920 by Gallup (2013).

At $2920 per head, total global income is ~$22 trillion in today's US dollars, compared to GDP of $75 trillion. Nordhaus and Moffat estimate from published literature that global warming of 3°C will cause economic losses of -2.04% of global income, amounting in current dollars to ~$449 billion.

That looks very conservative, when looking only at the cost of hurricane landfalls on US territory this month, some $300 billion. The climate change component would be around 10-20%.

Still, Nordhaus is by no means definitive. As the survey says:


...We close with a note of urgency on the importance of greater attention to damage
estimates. This point was also emphasized in a recent report of a panel of the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) on the social cost of carbon: “In the longer term, the
Interagency Working Group [of the US government] should develop a damages module
that meets the overall criteria for scientific basis, transparency, and uncertainty
characterization: 1. It should disaggregate market and nonmarket climate damages by
region and sector, with results that are presented in both monetary and natural units and
that are consistent with empirical and structural economic studies of sectoral impacts
and damages. 2. It should include representation of important interactions and spillovers
among regions and sectors, as well as feedbacks to other modules. 3. It should explicitly
recognize and consider damages that affect welfare either directly or through changes to
consumption, capital stocks (physical, human, natural), or through other channels. 4. It
should include representation of adaptation to climate change and the costs of
adaptation. 5. It should include representation of non-gradual damages, such as those
associated with critical climatic or socioeconomic thresholds.” (National Research Council
2017, p. 147)
The present study is but a tiny step down the road recommended by the NAS
committee. It starts by compiling an accurate list of the global studies to date. Much more
work is needed to fulfill the ambitious agenda laid out by the report.....

General conclusion on impact studies
An additional warning is that the impact estimates are generally not
comprehensive. They often cover key sectors such as agriculture, sea-level rise, energy,
and forestry. Most do not include many non-market impacts, and the quantifications of
non-market impacts that do exist are generally just guesses. As examples, estimates of the
losses from ecosystems or damages from melting permafrost are omitted or unreliable.
This point suggests that the figures examined here are likely to be underestimates of true
damages....

A new study Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1362) (Hsiang et al) finds:


Abstract

Estimates of climate change damage are central to the design of climate policies. Here, we develop a flexible architecture for computing damages that integrates climate science, econometric analyses, and process models. We use this approach to construct spatially explicit, probabilistic, and empirically derived estimates of economic damage in the United States from climate change. The combined value of market and nonmarket damage across analyzed sectors—agriculture, crime, coastal storms, energy, human mortality, and labor—increases quadratically in global mean temperature, costing roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per +1°C on average. Importantly, risk is distributed unequally across locations, generating a large transfer of value northward and westward that increases economic inequality. By the late 21st century, the poorest third of counties are projected to experience damages between 2 and 20% of county income (90% chance) under business-as-usual emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5)....

Discussion
...We have focused on the U.S. economy, although
the bulk of the economic damage from climate
change will be borne outside of the United States,
and impacts outside the United States will
have indirect effects on the United States through
trade, migration, and possibly other channels. In
ongoing work, we are expanding SEAGLAS to
cover the global economy and to account for
additional sectors, such as social conflict, in
order to construct a global damage function that
is essential to estimating the global social cost
of carbon and designing rational global climate
policies


At 1.2% of GDP per degree of warming, that would give a comparison cost for +3°C of $668 billion for USA alone.

Ian Murray
29-09-2017, 08:59 PM
AGL plans its own “big battery” and renewables to replace Liddell (http://reneweconomy.com.au/agl-plans-its-own-big-battery-and-renewables-to-replace-liddell-39499/)
ReNewEconomy
27.9.17

AGL Energy is planning its very own big battery, considering a 250MW battery storage facility at the Liddell coal plant in the Hunter Valley as part of a suite of investments designed to replace the capacity and output of the ageing generator that is due to close in 2022.

The plan – yet to be finalised – was unveiled at the company’s annual general on Wednesday by CEO Andy Vesey, and came after chairman Jerry Maycock voiced his support for Vesey and outlined the reasons why trying to keep Liddell open for five more years was a bad idea.

AGL has come under huge pressure from the Coalition government and the conservative media to keep Liddell open, despite warning that it would become increasingly expensive to operate and increasingly unreliable. Maycock said it made sense to invest in new technologies....

Capablanca-Fan
30-09-2017, 06:38 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZNu3GRI3H4&t=1s

Ian Murray
30-09-2017, 08:26 AM
How to Debate Climate Change - Ben Shapiro

He just doesn't get it. Like when he asserts a claim that hundreds of millions of people will die because of sea level rise (where does he get that, I wonder?) and counters that affected people will simply sell their homes and move. Apart from the obvious difficulty of finding a buyer, there are quite a few people outside the US who will become refugees when their homes and land disappear.

Ian Murray
30-09-2017, 09:43 AM
It seems Butthurt thinks he might get some independent and reliable facts about energy from a publication called "Australia's Mining Monthly". This is more desperate than the good news stories he tries to dredge up on Maria Sharapova. No doubt next well get an except from Probably Former Drug Cheats Monthly. :)

Meanwhile, BHP joins AGL on the Coalition's pro-coal faction hit list.

Barnaby Joyce blames BHP for minerals council turmoil (http://www.afr.com/news/barnaby-joyce-blames-bhp-and-green-activism-for-minerals-turmoil-20170925-gyopdw)
AFR 26.9.17

Resources Minister Barnaby Joyce has vented his frustration at BHP in the belief it allowed itself to be hijacked by anti-coal activism, which forced the resignation of Brendan Pearson as chief of the Minerals Council of Australia.

Mr Pearson left on Friday following months of growing tension inside the peak lobby group between the core coal producers and BHP which, although it still mines coal, supports a transition to clean energy....

Ian Murray
30-09-2017, 11:21 AM
More talk about the end of the car as we know it

California Considers Following China With Combustion-Engine Car Ban (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-26/california-mulls-following-china-with-combustion-engine-car-ban?)
Bloomberg
26.9.17

The internal combustion engine’s days may be numbered in California, where officials are mulling whether a ban on sales of polluting autos is needed to achieve long-term targets for cleaner air.

Governor Jerry Brown has expressed an interest in barring the sale of vehicles powered by internal-combustion engines, Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board, said in an interview Friday at Bloomberg headquarters in New York. The earliest such a ban is at least a decade away, she said.

Brown, one of the most outspoken elected official in the U.S. about the need for policies to combat climate change, would be replicating similar moves by China, France and the U.K....

Capablanca-Fan
30-09-2017, 01:08 PM
He just doesn't get it. Like when he asserts a claim that hundreds of millions of people will die because of sea level rise (where does he get that, I wonder?) and counters that affected people will simply sell their homes and move. Apart from the obvious difficulty of finding a buyer, there are quite a few people outside the US who will become refugees when their homes and land disappear.

You would probably agree with his blaming the USA government for petroleum subsidies in the past, which made petrol cheaper than the market price, so spoiling an incentive for fuel efficiency (I do anyway).

Patrick Byrom
01-10-2017, 02:15 PM
The +$2000 is overstated. Bailey calculates global per capita income as ~$10,000, apparently using global GDP divided by global population. However GDP is not income; median global per capita income (http://news.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx) is measured at $2920 by Gallup (2013). At $2920 per head, total global income is ~$22 trillion in today's US dollars, compared to GDP of $75 trillion. Nordhaus and Moffat estimate from published literature that global warming of 3°C will cause economic losses of -2.04% of global income, amounting in current dollars to ~$449 billion.The other problem, as we can see in Puerto Rico at present, is that growth is not equally distributed. It will be the poor who are most affected by climate change, and there is no guarantee that the growth in their incomes will match the average growth.

Ian Murray
02-10-2017, 08:00 AM
You would probably agree with his blaming the USA government for petroleum subsidies in the past, which made petrol cheaper than the market price, so spoiling an incentive for fuel efficiency (I do anyway).

When you say 'in the past', the fact is that the subsidies have never stopped. That's the problem. There is a good case for subsidising innovative industries in their start-up years (first 15 years or so), from which the fossil fuel industries benefited a century or more ago. But there is no rational case for maintaining the subsidies, when the surviving companies are hugely profitable. It's all politics. Raising petrol prices to real levels is not a vote winner, without a bipartisan hard sell.

What is the true price of gasoline? Should it cost $10 per gallon? (https://greentransportation.info/fossil-fuels/gasoline/true-price.html)

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2017, 10:29 AM
When you say 'in the past', the fact is that the subsidies have never stopped. That's the problem. There is a good case for subsidising innovative industries in their start-up years (first 15 years or so), from which the fossil fuel industries benefited a century or more ago. But there is no rational case for maintaining the subsidies, when the surviving companies are hugely profitable. It's all politics. Raising petrol prices to real levels is not a vote winner, without a bipartisan hard sell.
Here we agree on something.

Desmond
03-10-2017, 06:39 AM
Hottest month ever. Hottest day ever. Driest month ever. September in Sydney.

'It's staggering': Sydney has driest September on record (http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/09/30/10/29/sydney-weather-driest-september-on-record)
1:40pm Sep 30, 2017

Sydney has officially marked the driest September since weather recording began 159 years ago.

With only 0.2mm of rain recorded during the entire month, this September was the driest since 1882, when 2.1mm of rain fell.

"It's staggering and it's almost unbelievable," Weatherzone meteorologist Jacobus Cronjé told 9news.com.au. "It's a big record to break." "It's significant because Spring is when we expect heavier rainfall systems. "The average September rainfall in Sydney is 68.4mm. "But moisture was diverted due to a number of factors and climate influences."
...

Ian Murray
03-10-2017, 07:34 AM
General Motors Will Launch 20 All-Electric Cars by 2023 (https://futurism.com/general-motors-will-launch-20-all-electric-cars-by-2023/)
Futurism
2.10.17

Electric vehicles (EVs) are no longer just for hungry startups. A number of veteran car makers have joined the the EV race, launching various electric car concepts. Some are even promising to develop only all-electric vehicles from here on out. Now, General Motors (GM) announced on Monday its plans to launch at least 20 new EVs by 2023.

“General Motors believes in an all-electric future,” Mark Reuss, GM Product Development, Purchasing and Supply Chain EVP, said in a press release. “Although that future won’t happen overnight, GM is committed to driving increased usage and acceptance of electric vehicles through no-compromise solutions that meet our customers’ needs.”...

Capablanca-Fan
03-10-2017, 08:39 AM
A promising new hybrid is the Hyundai Ioniq (https://www.edmunds.com/hyundai/ioniq-electric/2017/review/), which comes in an all-electric variety (https://www.hyundaiusa.com/Ioniq/index.aspx) too. The hybrid gets 58 mpg (4 litres per 100 km).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2Tdgj6ff2c

Ian Murray
03-10-2017, 12:37 PM
A promising new hybrid is the Hyundai Ioniq (https://www.edmunds.com/hyundai/ioniq-electric/2017/review/), which comes in an all-electric variety (https://www.hyundaiusa.com/Ioniq/index.aspx) too. The hybrid gets 58 mpg (4 litres per 100 km).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2Tdgj6ff2c

I want that car!

I won't live to see it, but it won't be all that long before petrol and diesel cars go out of production.

Ian Murray
03-10-2017, 09:17 PM
Stark Evidence: A Warmer World Is Sparking More and Bigger Wildfires (http://e360.yale.edu/features/the-evidence-is-clear-a-warmer-world-means-more-wildfires)
Yale Environment 360
2.10.17

The increase in forest fires, seen this summer from North America to the Mediterranean to Siberia, is directly linked to climate change, scientists say. And as the world continues to warm, there will be greater risk for fires on nearly every continent. ...

Capablanca-Fan
04-10-2017, 03:26 AM
I want that car!
I think I would like it too, especially if they add a small amount of weight to make it more noise insulating. Insulating material doesn't have to be dense. It would be especially good if the price of gas were set by the market, free of both subsidies and taxes. Prius certainly has good competition with this new one. The SEL version (https://www.hyundaiusa.com/ioniq-hybrid/specifications.aspx) looks like the best value.


I won't live to see it, but it won't be all that long before petrol and diesel cars go out of production.
Will this be the case even in the lifetimes of, say, the current Aussie Olympiad team? Meanwhile, hybrids would do a lot to reduce CO<sub>2</sub>. It might be hard to do without petroleum-powered aeroplanes though.

Ian Murray
04-10-2017, 09:01 AM
I think I would like it too, especially if they add a small amount of weight to make it more noise insulating. Insulating material doesn't have to be dense. It would be especially good if the price of gas were set by the market, free of both subsidies and taxes. Prius certainly has good competition with this new one. The SEL version (https://www.hyundaiusa.com/ioniq-hybrid/specifications.aspx) looks like the best value.

There aren't many EVs available on the Australian market. The one I like is the BMW i3 (https://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/bmwi/i3.html), but its $66K price tag is a bit rich for my blood


Will this be the case even in the lifetimes of, say, the current Aussie Olympiad team? Meanwhile, hybrids would do a lot to reduce CO<sub>2</sub>. It might be hard to do without petroleum-powered aeroplanes though.

There are many countries/states/cities already talking about banning or ceasing production of petrol and diesel cars within 20-25 years. Nothing yet set in concrete. An interesting rundown here (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/13/16293258/ev-revolution).

There are serious R&D dollars going into electric aircraft. Short-haul transports carrying ~60 passengers are a decade away, according to Airbus, with long-hauls awaiting better/lighter batteries, the sort of development which could happen anytime soon..

Ian Murray
09-10-2017, 10:37 AM
A New Electric Car Battery Lasts for 200 Miles and Charges in Just 6 Minutes (https://futurism.com/a-new-electric-car-battery-lasts-for-200-miles-and-charges-in-just-6-minutes/)
Futurism
6.10.17

...Enter Toshiba.

In 2008, the Japanese company pioneered SCiB rechargeable battery cells, and now, they claim to have developed even better SCiB batteries that can give EVs a 320-kilometer (almost 200-mile) range after just six minutes of ultra-fast charging....

Samsung has developed EV batteries that have 600- to 700-kilometer (372- to 435-mile) ranges...

“We are very excited by the potential of the new titanium niobium oxide anode and the next-generation SCiB,” Osamu Hori, director of Toshiba’s Corporate Research & Development Center, said in the press release.

“Rather than an incremental improvement, this is a game-changing advance that will make a significant difference to the range and performance of EV,” he added. “We will continue to improve the battery’s performance and aim to put the next-generation SCiBTM into practical application in fiscal year 2019.”

Ian Murray
13-10-2017, 09:19 AM
3551

Capablanca-Fan
14-10-2017, 05:37 PM
Don’t Call Climate Skeptics ‘Deniers,’ Call Us ‘Correct’ (https://spectator.org/dont-call-climate-skeptics-deniers-call-us-correct/)
If it’s totalitarian and unresearched, it’s not a consensus.
CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY, American Spectator, 13 Oct 2017

Arturo Casadevall and Ferric Fang, two academic microbiologists with no special knowledge of climate, recently used their article in the Hill to commit the repellent but now commonplace hate-crime of describing researchers skeptical of the sillier exaggerations of the climate-change establishment as “denialists.”

This disfiguring hate-word, calculated to invite an invidious comparison between climate skeptics and those who say the Nazis did not murder six million Jews, is not fit to be uttered by any serious academic. Here, as always, its misuse by intellectual pygmies indicated more than a little nervousness on the part of the establishment, for the world continues to warm at a rate well below what was originally predicted, and, as it turns out, there is a good explanation for the discrepancy.

The two microbiologists have missed the point entirely. They talk of “virtually unanimous consensus” that Earth is facing a period of anthropogenic climate change. Yet the largest sample of academic papers on climate ever studied — an impressive 11,944 papers over the 21 years 1991–2011 — showed only 0.3 percent “consensus” explicitly supporting the proposition recent global warming was mostly manmade. The question whether the small warming that is to be expected will prove dangerous was not even asked; the “consensus” on that question is even smaller.

Even if there were a “virtually unanimous consensus,” science is not advanced by consensus but by informed dissent. The instances the microbiologists themselves cite make it quite clear that where there is a “consensus,” it is nearly always wrong, at least at the margins.

The microbiologists indulge in the rebarbative mantra of the hard left to the effect that “the Trump administration has repeatedly belittled the value of scientific expertise and eliminated scientists from panels that advise the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice.”

No, but the Trump administration has eliminated political activists posing as scientists, replacing them with scientists who are willing to put science first and totalitarian politics nowhere.

Don’t call us skeptics “deniers,” call us “correct.” It is official climatology’s party line that is more and more obviously false, as well as self-serving.

Nobody pays me to ask scientific questions where so many others, bullied and hectored by a handful of bossy conformists, fear to tread. I and those like me ask questions because, unlike the faithful who bang their heads on the floor and say “I believe!” when informed of the party line, our approach to the natural world is a holy marriage of the curiosity and awe that are embodied in the two words, followed by a question mark, that are the fons et origo of all true science: “I wonder?”

Rincewind
14-10-2017, 06:21 PM
Except of course that Monckton has no training in science and so it is a bit strange that he is putting himself forward as a judge of what is or isn't science.

Desmond
15-10-2017, 07:56 AM
Except of course that Monckton has no training in science and so it is a bit strange that he is putting himself forward as a judge of what is or isn't science.

Not to mention that he's dead wrong on the "facts" he presents. See for example


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozn3Ki7pBr4

Ian Murray
15-10-2017, 01:45 PM
Australia Debates: Does Warming Planet Really Need More Coal? (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/world/australia/australia-adani-carmichael-coal-mine.html)
New York Times
14.10.17

ABBOT POINT, Australia — In a desolate corner of northeastern Australia, about 100 miles from the nearest town, a grassy stretch of prime grazing land sits above a vein of coal so rich and deep that it could be mined for decades.

The Australian government is considering a proposal to build one of the world’s largest coal mines in this remote locale, known as the Galilee Basin, where acacia and eucalyptus trees grow wild between scattered creeks.

An Indian conglomerate, the Adani Group, has asked for a taxpayer-financed loan of as much as $800 million to make the enormous project viable, promising to create thousands of jobs in return.

But the plan has met intense opposition in Australia and abroad, focusing attention on a question with global resonance: Given the threat of climate change and the slowing global demand for coal, does the world really need another giant mine, especially at the public’s expense?...

Patrick Byrom
15-10-2017, 03:00 PM
[B]Don’t Call Climate Skeptics ‘Deniers,’ Call Us ‘Correct’[/B (https://spectator.org/dont-call-climate-skeptics-deniers-call-us-correct/) If it’s totalitarian and unresearched, it’s not a consensus.
CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY, American Spectator, 13 Oct 2017
... Even if there were a “virtually unanimous consensus,” science is not advanced by consensus but by informed dissent. The instances the microbiologists themselves cite make it quite clear that where there is a “consensus,” it is nearly always wrong, at least at the margins.Why does Capablanca-Fan keep trying to undermine the consensus on vaccine science?

Capablanca-Fan
18-10-2017, 01:10 PM
Cory Bernardi:

The RET subsidy will be abolished after 2020, calling the bluff of the rent seekers who insist solar and wind power are cheaper than coal and gas base load power. The government have also conceded that renewables must provide the equivalence of base load power rather than intermittent power.

These are small but significant concessions from politicians who have been drinking the climate Kool-Aid for years.

It’s another reminder why the Australian Conservatives are important in shaping political debate. Those who get too cosy in their chambers of political groupthink are rarely willing to take the tougher path. Our nation needs leaders who are prepared to hack away clearing the path less travelled to make it easier for others to follow.

Both the major parties have demonstrated they will not lead but are willing to follow. They need a conservative guide to lead them in the right direction.

Australian Conservatives provide that considered and principled leadership. Others may seek to grab the headlines after the hard work has been done but instead of personality cults our nation needs leadership built around predictability, principle and values. That’s what Australian Conservatives are all about.

Capablanca-Fan
18-10-2017, 01:11 PM
Why does Capablanca-Fan keep trying to undermine the consensus on vaccine science?
You're the one doing that, tying experimentally supported medical science to the delusions of climate alarmism.

Desmond
18-10-2017, 04:07 PM
They need a conservative guide to lead them in the right direction.Surely conservative means to retain the status quo, so no direction or leadership or ideas required. Corey sounds the man for the job.

Patrick Byrom
18-10-2017, 06:38 PM
You're the one doing that, tying experimentally supported medical science to the delusions of climate alarmism.Don't blame me if the article you posted states that the "consensus" is (almost) always wrong: "where there is a “consensus,” it is nearly always wrong, at least at the margins" - which is exactly what opponents of the consensus about vaccination claim.

Patrick Byrom
18-10-2017, 06:49 PM
Cory Bernardi: The RET subsidy will be abolished after 2020, calling the bluff of the rent seekers who insist solar and wind power are cheaper than coal and gas base load power. The government have also conceded that renewables must provide the equivalence of base load power rather than intermittent power.
...There'll be at least one election before 2020, of course - assuming Turnbull's plan makes it past the states and the Senate.

Ian Murray
19-10-2017, 07:11 AM
Cory Bernardi:

The RET subsidy will be abolished after 2020, calling the bluff of the rent seekers who insist solar and wind power are cheaper than coal and gas base load power. The government have also conceded that renewables must provide the equivalence of base load power rather than intermittent power.

The idea of "baseload power" has been dismissed, with the emphasis now on dispatchable power. Something coal-fired generators don't do very well, whereas demand response schemes and battery storage can respond immediately to demand spikes, with gas-fired plants responding quickly (but a lot more expensively).

Ian Murray
19-10-2017, 07:18 AM
“Australia’s electricity sector can cut emissions more”

Anna Skarbek, Chief Executive, ClimateWorks Australia, Monash University

The key question is whether the emissions guarantee will be strong enough for Australia to meet its current and future climate obligations under the Paris Agreement.

Electricity creates more than one-third of Australia’s total emissions. If we don’t reduce the emissions in our electricity, then we don’t unlock other emissions reduction opportunities such as electric vehicles.

If the National Energy Guarantee aims at cutting emissions by only 26% by 2030 then other sectors across the economy would have to make greater emissions reductions sooner.

But our research shows that Australia’s electricity sector can cut emissions by 60% below 2005 levels by 2030. Harnessing this potential will help us to reach future targets that progressively increase under the Paris Agreement.

If you don’t achieve deep emissions reductions in the electricity sector, a major strengthening of policy will be needed for the other sectors where there is less momentum currently. For example, stronger action would be needed in transport, buildings, industry and land.

Australia’s climate policy, which is being reviewed before the end of the year, will need to cover more than just the electricity sector. Other measures should include the introduction of vehicle emissions standards, a more stringent national building code, a dramatic improvement in the uptake of energy efficiency measures across industry and stronger incentives for reforestation.

https://theconversation.com/federal-government-unveils-national-energy-guarantee-experts-react-85823

Capablanca-Fan
24-10-2017, 03:16 AM
Listen to the scientists (http://www.nyunggablack.com/green)
By Nyunggai Warren Mundine AO
24 October 2017

Listen to the scientists. We hear this phrase in discussions on climate change. But the Green-left only listen to scientists if it suits their politics.

The Green-left denies the science on nuclear power, peddling fear and hysteria that nuclear is toxic and unsafe while ignoring scientific facts.

Everything, even water, is poisonous at a high enough dose, while harmless at lower doses. Radiation is no different. The lowest dose with a clear link to increased cancer risk is 100 milliSieverts (mSv) in a year; 1000mSv causes radiation sickness; 4000 mSv usually fatal; 8000mSv definitely fatal. The maximum allowable annual dose for US radiation workers is 50mSv.

Nuclear power produces zero CO2 emissions. Properly regulated it’s safe and reliable. Nuclear power has operated for over sixty years in over thirty countries, with 449 nuclear plants today producing more than 10% of electricity globally without incident. The Green-left ignores this. They’d rather talk about the Fukushima plant failure during the 2011 tsunami.

Fukushima was caused by incompetence and mismanagement. The accident was preventable. The plant’s owner failed to prepare for known risks. No other Japanese nuclear plant failed during the tsunami. Nuclear plants are designed to safely withstand earthquakes and other disasters; they’ve done so for decades, including the devastating 1995 Kobe and 1999 Taiwan earthquakes.

Fukushima shouldn’t have happened. But with an immediate response, most harm was mitigated. No Fukushima plant workers died or experienced radiation poisoning. Of more than 20,000 workers, 167 were exposed to over 100 mSv. And of more than 150,000 evacuees a small number may have received dosages above 100mSv.

Nuclear is one of the most highly regulated industries in the world, with safety precautions disproportionate to actual risk. The Green-left exploits this for alarmist purposes. Evacuations and people in plastic coveralls with Geiger counters means it must be bad, right? Actually it’s extreme precautions.

The Green-left also ignores scientists on gas extraction, making exaggerated and false claims about fracking or “unconventional” gas. They should listen to scientists.

A study by the Australian Council of Learned Academies in 2013 said: “provided appropriate monitoring programs are undertaken and a robust and transparent regulatory regime put in place (and enforced), there will be a low risk that shale gas production will result in contamination of aquifers, surface waters or the air, or that damaging induced seismicity will occur.” Australia’s Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, said “there is a lot of evidence that fracking is safe. … The evidence is not there that it’s dangerous. In fact, the evidence is that, if properly regulated, it’s completely safe.”

Many state/territory governments have banned unconventional gas extraction. Bizarrely, Victoria even banned onshore conventional gas extraction. Meanwhile Australia faces gas shortages.
The Green-left says Australia must reduce emissions to avoid the consequences of climate change. Listen to scientists and you’d know we’ll face those consequences anyway.

The Paris targets won’t stop global average temperature rising by over 2 degrees Celcius, the critical threshold. Paris is just a start, with meaningful reductions to be achieved through far more ambitious targets to be agreed … in the future … by other people.

So Australia’s approach is spend billions; move to more expensive, less reliable electricity; and suffer climate change anyway. A more apt analogy would be paying to vote for Candidate A with Candidate B well on track to win.

It’s madness. We should listen to the scientists, embrace nuclear power and gas extraction and ignore the Green-left science deniers.

Ian Murray
24-10-2017, 07:48 AM
Listen to the scientists (http://www.nyunggablack.com/green)
By Nyunggai Warren Mundine AO
24 October 2017
​​

Nuclear power is uneconomic (https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/unviable-economics-of-nuclear-power-catches-up-with-cameco,10275). Coal seam gas (coal bed methane) is a fossil fuel contributing to climate change. And fracking is nowhere near adequately regulated, and is not safe.

Fracking Is Dangerous To Your Health -- Here's Why (https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2017/02/23/fracking-is-dangerous-to-your-health-heres-why/#581796d25945)
Forbes (public health op-ed)
23.2.17


Fracking, or drilling for gas by hydraulic fracturing, has been associated with a growing number of health risks....

This post looks in greater depth at the health problems linked to fracking. These are not hypothetical concerns—there are now more than 700 studies looking at risks—and more than 80% of the health studies document risks or actual harms.

It’s also important to note that these risks are likely to be seriously underestimated, because the environmental agencies have been downplaying the risks to the public. A new in-depth exposé from investigative journalists at Public Herald looks in-depth at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) misconduct and negligence, as the DEP studiously ignored citizens’ complaints, sometimes not even testing water samples. Earlier studies from ProPublica and others showed similar EPA failures in the western U.S....

ER
24-10-2017, 03:15 PM
Meanwhile ...

Whitehaven Coal is confident of a positive outlook for the company in the global coal market.

The Sydney-based company, in its September quarter update, reported a 14 per cent rise in coal production against the same period of 2016 to 5.88 million tonnes.

Whitehaven benefitted from strong demand in Asia and better-than-expected coal prices during the quarter, with its equity coal sales rising by 23 per cent to 4.7 million tonnes.

https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/whitehaven-backs-strength-coal-market-output-surges/

The Standard

The following actually fits more appropriately in the Money Matters thread but hey!

Whitehaven Coal (WHITF) Shares Move 6.30%
October 23, 2017 Standard Staff Writer*****


Shares of Whitehaven Coal (WHITF) have been trending up over the past five bars, revealing solid bullish momentum
for the shares, as they ran 6.30% for the week. *
Looking further out we note that the shares have moved 46.43% over the past 4-weeks, 889.66%
over the past half year and 215.38% over the past full year.

https://6milestandard.com/whitehaven-coal-whitf-shares-move-6-30/256229/

Ian Murray
24-10-2017, 05:33 PM
CBA commits to go with the flow

Reaffirming our commitment to addressing climate change (https://www.commbank.com.au/guidance/newsroom/our-climate-commitment-201708.html)
CBA media release

Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) has released its first Climate Policy Position Statement (https://www.commbank.com.au/content/dam/commbank/assets/about/opportunity-initiatives/CBA-Climate-Policy-Position-Statement.pdf), reaffirming our support for a responsible global transition to a net zero emissions economy by 2050.

Our commitment is two-fold:

Decrease the emissions intensity of our business lending; and

Reduce our own emissions.

The statement provides a framework for how we are responding to the challenge of climate change and outlines a number of immediate targets:

Finance $15 billion of low carbon projects by 2025

Source renewable energy for 25% of our power needs by 2020

Reduce emissions per full time employee to 2.0tCO2-e by 2020

Use our high environmental, social and governance standards as a threshold across all lending decisions

Complete a scenario analysis by the end of 2018...

Capablanca-Fan
25-10-2017, 07:21 AM
Black butterfly wings offer a model for better solar cells (https://phys.org/news/2017-10-black-butterfly-wings-solar-cells.html)
Bob Yirka, phys.org, 19 October 2017

Abstract
The wings of the black butterfly, Pachliopta aristolochiae, are covered by micro- and nanostructured scales that harvest sunlight over a wide spectral and angular range. Considering that these properties are particularly attractive for photovoltaic applications, we analyze the contribution of these micro- and nanostructures, focusing on the structural disorder observed in the wing scales. In addition to microspectroscopy experiments, we conduct three-dimensional optical simulations of the exact scale structure. On the basis of these results, we design nanostructured thin photovoltaic absorbers of disordered nanoholes, which combine efficient light in-coupling and light-trapping properties together with a high angular robustness. Finally, inspired by the phase separation mechanism of self-assembled biophotonic nanostructures, we fabricate these bioinspired absorbers using a scalable, self-assembly patterning technique based on the phase separation of binary polymer mixture. The nanopatterned absorbers achieve a relative integrated absorption increase of 90% at a normal incident angle of light to as high as 200% at large incident angles, demonstrating the potential of black butterfly structures for light-harvesting purposes in thin-film solar cells.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-black-butterfly-wings-solar-cells.html#jCp

Rincewind
25-10-2017, 10:01 AM
There are probably some efficiencies to be gained by employing these guides but motion hardware will not be obsolete because there is still the issue that the total amount of incident radiation is maximised by aligning the cell perpendicular to the sun's rays. The butterflies also know this.

Ian Murray
25-10-2017, 12:21 PM
Black butterfly wings offer a model for better solar cells
Bob Yirka, phys.org, 19 October 2017

Another promising direction being followed by the weight of clean energy research nowadays

Ian Murray
25-10-2017, 03:18 PM
BBC apologises over interview with climate denier Lord Lawson (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/24/bbc-apologises-over-interview-climate-sceptic-lord-nigel-lawson)
The Guardian
25.10.17

The BBC has apologised for an interview with the climate change denier Lord Lawson after admitting it had breached its own editorial guidelines for allowing him to claim that global temperatures have not risen in the past decade.

BBC Radio 4’s flagship news programme Today ran the item in August in which Lawson, interviewed by presenter Justin Webb, made the claim. The last three years have in fact seen successive global heat records broken.

The Today programme rejected initial complaints from listeners, arguing that Lawson’s stance was “reflected by the current US administration” and that offering space to “dissenting voices” was an important aspect of impartiality.

However, some listeners escalated their complaint and, in a letter seen by the Guardian, the BBC’s executive complaints unit now accepts the interview breached its guidelines on accuracy and impartiality....

Ian Murray
26-10-2017, 07:21 AM
Queensland opens rooftop solar market to low-income and rental households (https://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/queensland-labor-ups-ante-solar-opening-market-low-income-rental-households/)
One Step off the Grid
25.10.17

Queensland’s Labor government has unveiled a suite of new policies that will open the way for thousands more homes in the Sunshine State – including the largely untapped rental market – to gain access to rooftop solar and battery storage and cut their electricity bills.

The new policies, launched on Tuesday as part of the Palaszczuk government’s $2 billion Affordable Energy Plan, will offer no-interest loans to consumers wishing to invest in rooftop solar and battery storage, but lacking the up-front capital to do so.

They will also work to give landlords and renters equal access to solar, through a trial initially involving 1000 rental households. Queensland energy minister Mark Bailey said the rental solar scheme had the potential to save tenants up to 10 per cent off their annual bill, or up to $150 a year, while landlords could get a rebate of up to $520 per year.

“Under this trial program we will offer financial incentives to landlords to install solar systems and pass on savings to their tenants,” Bailey said. “(It) will embrace the falling costs of solar technology and offer clean energy to renters – which has been an inaccessible market segment.”...

Both the solar loan and rental schemes are expected to help the Palaszczuk government to reach its 2020 target of 1 million solar rooftops, or 3,000 megawatts (3GW) of installed capacity. Currently, they sit at around 1.8GW, which makes combined solar installations bigger by capacity than the state’s biggest coal plant, the 1780MW Gladstone Power Station....

ER
26-10-2017, 08:42 AM
Meanwhile ...

Whitehaven Coal is confident of a positive outlook for the company in the global coal market.

The Sydney-based company, in its September quarter update, reported a 14 per cent rise in coal production against the same period of 2016 to 5.88 million tonnes.

Whitehaven benefitted from strong demand in Asia and better-than-expected coal prices during the quarter, with its equity coal sales rising by 23 per cent to 4.7 million tonnes.

https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/whitehaven-backs-strength-coal-market-output-surges/

The Standard

The following actually fits more appropriately in the Money Matters thread but hey!

Whitehaven Coal (WHITF) Shares Move 6.30%
October 23, 2017 Standard Staff Writer*****


Shares of Whitehaven Coal (WHITF) have been trending up over the past five bars, revealing solid bullish momentum
for the shares, as they ran 6.30% for the week. *
Looking further out we note that the shares have moved 46.43% over the past 4-weeks, 889.66%
over the past half year and 215.38% over the past full year.

https://6milestandard.com/whitehaven-coal-whitf-shares-move-6-30/256229/

And lest we forget

Adani will begin construction of its Carmichael coal mine
INDIAN mining giant Adani has announced it will break ground on its Carmichael coal mine in Queensland.


http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/mining/adani-will-begin-construction-of-its-carmichael-coal-mine-in-october/news-story/87691aee29ee43681323503aef1f7a70

More developments of the giant project here

and surprise - surprise

Green campaigners’ allegations baseless and far from facts, says CEO of Australian arm

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/adani-group-to-begin-work-on-rail-link-to-carmichael-coal-mine-in-australia/article9924155.ece

Ian Murray
26-10-2017, 11:44 AM
And lest we forget

Adani will begin construction of its Carmichael coal mine
INDIAN mining giant Adani has announced it will break ground on its Carmichael coal mine in Queensland.

Only one small problem - they don't have the money to pay for it.


...The Adani statement gave no hint as to how it would secure finance, with all four of the big Australian banks having declined to loan money to the project...
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/adani-announces-green-light-for-carmichael-mega-coal-mine-20170606-gwl7h1.html

...Despite the confidence of the announcement, Adani Group is yet to raise the required funding, with many Australian banks pulling out of the project for fear of public backlash. The commercial viability of the project has also been questioned, with the coal market already well supplied.

Julien Vincent, CEO of Market Forces, an environmental investment group, described the announcement as a PR stunt: “Announcing an intention to invest is a far cry from having the finance to do so.”
https://www.worldfinance.com/markets/adani-group-to-push-ahead-with-12-4bn-australian-coal-mine-despite-protests

It doesn’t even have finance approved, not least not from the NAIF (not that we know about, some dirty deal could well have bee done).

Prepare to close other NSW and VIC coal mines to accommodate it.

That is if it can survive the coming civil war to be built at all.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/08/adani-gives-go-ahead-october-civil-war/


Green campaigners’ allegations baseless and far from facts, says CEO of Australian arm...

Well, they would hardly admit their guilt, would they. But Adani is under investigation by the Indian Govt revenue service for multiple instances of tax fraud and money laundering.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-22/adani-companies-facing-multiple-corruption-probes/8140100

Ian Murray
26-10-2017, 02:53 PM
How climate change affects the building blocks for health (https://theconversation.com/how-climate-change-affects-the-building-blocks-for-health-86202)
The Conversation NZ
26.10.17

...It turns out that the Goldilocks rule - “not too hot, not too cold” - applies to more than porridge. There have been many reports, such as those published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Lancet Commission on Climate Change, that detail how aspects of human physical and mental are effected by a changing climate.

There is an optimum climate, related usually to what is most common or familiar. Deviations, especially if substantial and rapid, are risky.

The RSNZ report is organised around eight prerequisites for good health, including community, shelter, water and food - all of which are threatened by climate change...

Ian Murray
30-10-2017, 05:44 PM
New coal plants wouldn’t be clean, and would cost billions in taxpayer subsidies (https://theconversation.com/new-coal-plants-wouldnt-be-clean-and-would-cost-billions-in-taxpayer-subsidies-72362)
The Conversation
2.2.17

Following a campaign by the coal industry, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has argued for new coal-fired power stations in Australia. But these plants would be more expensive than renewables and carry a huge liability through the carbon emissions they produce.

Major Australian energy companies have ruled out building new coal plants. The Australian Energy Council sees them as “uninvestable”. Banks and investment funds would not touch them with a barge pole. Only government subsidies could do it.

It may seem absurd to spend large amounts of taxpayers’ money on last century’s technology that will be more costly than renewable power and would lock Australia into a high-carbon trajectory.

But the government is raising the possibility of government funding for new coal plants, with statements by Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, Treasurer Scott Morrison and Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg. The suggestion is to use funding from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. For this to happen, presumably the CEFC’s investment mandate would need to be changed, or the meaning of “low-emissions technologies” interpreted in a radical way. ...

Desmond
31-10-2017, 04:07 PM
OoooohI wouldn't necessarily say thaaaat


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxtfPEWwpI

Ian Murray
03-11-2017, 02:06 PM
Rising temperatures sucking water out of the Colorado River (http://www.scpr.org/news/2017/10/31/77194/rising-temperatures-sucking-water-out-of-the-color/)
KPCC
31.10.17

Rising temperatures are undermining the source of one third of Southern California’s drinking water: the Colorado River.

A new study by the US Geological Survey finds the river’s flow has shrunk by about seven percent over the past 30 years. As air temperature rises due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, more water is sucked into the atmosphere from the snowpack and the river itself instead of flowing downstream. The amount that has evaporated is equal to approximately 24 percent of the total amount of California’s annual Colorado River allocation.

“These are pretty significant amounts that are being lost as temperatures have gone up,” said lead author Gregory McCabe, a climate scientist with USGS in Denver....

Capablanca-Fan
04-11-2017, 03:09 AM
'We'll work harder': Elon Musk brought to tears by how much Australians pay for power and admits he was 'disheartened' when his world's biggest battery was mockingly compared to the Big Banana (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5028887/Elon-Musk-shocked-Australians-pay-power.html)


Elon Musk started to tear up when confronted with Australia's power crisis
He is building the world's biggest lithium ion battery in South Australia
Plan was mocked by Federal Government after the state's blackout
Scott Morrison said it was as useful for energy as the Big Banana attraction
Mr Musk admitted he didn't expect the reaction and was 'disheartened'


By NIC WHITE FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA, 29 October 2017

Billionaire energy mogul Elon Musk was almost brought to tears by Australia's deepening electricity crisis that has prices soaring out of control.

The Tesla boss was confronted with figures showing record numbers of people were disconnected because they couldn't pay their bills.

'Wow, really?' he said in disbelief when told by 60 Minutes that power was becoming a 'luxury item' for many families.

'I didn't realise it was that expensive. Australia has so many natural resources that even if you go the fossil fuel route, electricity should be very cheap.'

His shock turned to sadness when he was told many people were worried they wouldn't be able to turn on their lights or cook food.

Ian Murray
04-11-2017, 07:24 AM
‘Green energy’ makes electricity too costly—thanks, Labor and Talkbull's Labor-Lite

What garbage. It's the lack of a government cohesive energy policy that is stifling investment and driving up prices



'We'll work harder': Elon Musk brought to tears by how much Australians pay for power and admits he was 'disheartened' when his world's biggest battery was mockingly compared to the Big Banana (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5028887/Elon-Musk-shocked-Australians-pay-power.html)

Read the article:


...Batteries on a much smaller scale were already available and helping Australian families slash their power bills.

Michael and Melissa Powney installed a Tesla lithium battery and connected it to their solar panels, which can charge it up in a few hours of sunshine.

Instead of huge power bills, the family even made $32 in power sent back to the grid in the past month - and had the only house on the street with power during the blackout.

'We were seeing electricity bills of over $1,000 before we put the solar in, so I can only imagine what they would be like now if we didn't,' Mr Powney said.

Ian Murray
04-11-2017, 08:15 AM
Palaszczuk says she will veto federal Adani loan as she accuses LNP of 'smear' (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/03/palaszczuk-says-she-will-veto-federal-adani-loan-as-she-accuses-lnp-of-smear)
The Guardian
3.11.17


The Queensland government will veto Adani’s application for a $1bn commonwealth loan to build a rail line for its massive Carmichael mine, Annastacia Palaszczuk has said....

An election-winner for Labor, with 71% of Queenslanders opposed to the $1 billion NAIF loan. And also making life very difficult for Adani Mining, the Carmichael mine developer, with no finance yet and now with no government-supported claim to entice lenders. Very difficult also for the Federal Coalition and in particular Matt Canavan, the 'Minister for Adani", now unable to channel a loan through NAIF.

The legal situation is that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility's Investment Mandate stipulates


13. Consultation

(1) The Facility must commence consultation with the relevant jurisdiction as soon as practicable after receiving an Investment Proposal.

(2) The relevant jurisdiction is:

(a) the State or Territory the infrastructure Project is located in for single jurisdiction Investment Proposals...

(4) The Facility must not make an Investment Decision if at any time the relevant jurisdiction provides written notification that financial assistance should not be provided to a Project

Desmond
04-11-2017, 08:34 AM
'We'll work harder': Elon Musk brought to tears by how much Australians pay for power and admits he was 'disheartened' when his world's biggest battery was mockingly compared to the Big Banana (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5028887/Elon-Musk-shocked-Australians-pay-power.html)


Elon Musk started to tear up when confronted with Australia's power crisis
He is building the world's biggest lithium ion battery in South Australia
Plan was mocked by Federal Government after the state's blackout
Scott Morrison said it was as useful for energy as the Big Banana attraction
Mr Musk admitted he didn't expect the reaction and was 'disheartened'


By NIC WHITE FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA, 29 October 2017

Billionaire energy mogul Elon Musk was almost brought to tears by Australia's deepening electricity crisis that has prices soaring out of control.

The Tesla boss was confronted with figures showing record numbers of people were disconnected because they couldn't pay their bills.

'Wow, really?' he said in disbelief when told by 60 Minutes that power was becoming a 'luxury item' for many families.

'I didn't realise it was that expensive. Australia has so many natural resources that even if you go the fossil fuel route, electricity should be very cheap.'

His shock turned to sadness when he was told many people were worried they wouldn't be able to turn on their lights or cook food.


Yes when confronted with the surprising revelation that people in Australia don't use their power because it costs too much, his response is "we will work harder".

Not they should work harder.

It's not his jurisdiction. Not his fault. Not his problem. But he will do the work.

Much respect for this man.

Capablanca-Fan
04-11-2017, 08:36 AM
Yes when confronted with the surprising revelation that people in Australia don't use their power because it costs too much, his response is "we will work harder".

Not they should work harder.

It's not his jurisdiction. Not his fault. Not his problem. But he will do the work.

Much respect for this man.
What are you on about? How exactly should "they" work harder when power has become expensive? Except maybe to stop voting in the politicians who make the power far more expensive than it needs to be.

Desmond
04-11-2017, 08:50 AM
What are you on about? How exactly should "they" work harder when power has become expensive?

To afford power...
You know, the whole user pays paradigm - if you want things, pay for them. If you can't afford them, earn money. You know, trade and stuff.

Ian Murray
08-11-2017, 08:24 AM
If Trump's decision to withdraw proceeds to finalisation, the US will be the only nation on earth outside the pale

Syria signs Paris climate agreement and leaves U.S. isolated (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/syria-signs-paris-climate-agreement-and-leaves-us-isolated/ar-AAuyfys)
MSN News
7.11.17

Syria has decided to sign the Paris agreement on climate change, the world’s final functioning state to do so. The surprise decision, taken amid a brutal civil war in the country, will leave the U.S. as the only country outside the agreement if it follows through on President Donald Trump’s vow to leave.

The landmark 2015 agreement requires global governments to limit temperature rises to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, which scientists say is the threshold of safety, beyond which the ravages of global warming are likely to become catastrophic and irreversible....

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2017, 04:53 PM
To afford power...
You know, the whole user pays paradigm - if you want things, pay for them. If you can't afford them, earn money. You know, trade and stuff.

Yes, pay for things without the government telling you that you can't have them unless you give them a huge cut as well.

Capablanca-Fan
11-11-2017, 04:54 PM
If Trump's decision to withdraw proceeds to finalisation, the US will be the only nation on earth outside the pale

Syria signs Paris climate agreement and leaves U.S. isolated (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/syria-signs-paris-climate-agreement-and-leaves-us-isolated/ar-AAuyfys)
MSN News
7.11.17

Syria has decided to sign the Paris agreement on climate change, the world’s final functioning state to do so. The surprise decision, taken amid a brutal civil war in the country, will leave the U.S. as the only country outside the agreement if it follows through on President Donald Trump’s vow to leave.
So the USA should follow Syria and other kakistocracies?

Desmond
11-11-2017, 07:35 PM
Yes, pay for things without the government telling you that you can't have them unless you give them a huge cut as well.If you are referring to taxes then I think most of us recognise that we need to pay taxes in order to run a stable society as opposed to an anarchy.

In any case Musk is no stranger to paying taxes, reportedly paying at least $US593 million ($784 million) in income taxes last year

Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/policy/tax/teslas-elon-musk-paid-at-least-us593-million-in-income-taxes-in-2016-20170423-gvqww0#ixzz4y78odRVG

Ian Murray
11-11-2017, 08:55 PM
So the USA should follow Syria and other kakistocracies?

The international score is 196-1

Ian Murray
12-11-2017, 02:10 PM
27 Ways a Heat Wave Can Kill You — A Dire Warning for a Warming Planet (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10112017/heat-wave-deaths-climate-change-misdiagnosed-health-lancet?utm_source=InsideClimate+News&utm_campaign=eac1092b1e-Weekly+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-eac1092b1e-327835277)
Inside Climate News
10.11.17

More people are projected to die from extreme heat in coming years, and new research is beginning to understand how. The findings suggest that heat may often be overlooked as a cause of death, giving the public a skewed picture of the risks they face in a warming world.

Scientists at the University of Hawaii at Manoa reviewed medical literature to identify ways in which the body responds to heat and how organs are affected. They calculated that there are 27 ways, physiologically speaking, for a person to die from extreme heat.

Their findings, the researchers say, suggest that more people are susceptible to heat-related deaths than previously thought, going beyond traditionally vulnerable populations such as the elderly and people without air conditioning. They believe the findings, released this week as the UN climate conference got underway, should trigger greater concerns over the immediate physical threats from climate change.

"What we're understanding is that the human body is actually very sensitive to heat, and that suggests pretty much everybody's at risk," said Camilo Mora, the paper's lead author. "It's not just the elderly. It's not just the poor. It's everybody."

Mora believes this could motivate faster action on climate policy. "The attitude is: If it's killing someone else, I'll deal with it tomorrow," he said. "This is coming at our doors right now."...

Ian Murray
13-11-2017, 08:49 PM
Qld Labor ups ante on renewables – more ambition, new technology (http://reneweconomy.com.au/qld-labor-ups-ante-on-renewables-more-ambition-new-technology-59459/?utm_source=RE+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a77f22ab7f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_11_12&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_46a1943223-a77f22ab7f-40329085)
ReNew Economy
13.11.17

Queensland Labor has announced a significant new commitment to its renewable energy, unveiling an updated policy paper that aims for at least 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030, and committing new funding to the state’s first solar thermal with storage project.

The new policy push appears deliberately designed to contrast with the back-ward thinking of the LNP Coalition, which vows to scrap renewable incentives and targets, and wants to build a new coal fired power station.,,,

The new strategy outlined on Sunday, during a visit to the nearly-completed Clare solar farm, includes $50 million to “kick-start” the construction of a solar tower and storage facility in the state, similar to the one that South Australia has contracted near Port Augusta.

“We are committed to establishing a solar thermal baseload generator, which can power Queensland even at night,” said premier Anastasia Palaszczuk....

Ian Murray
02-12-2017, 09:56 AM
The screws keep tightening on Adani

China Construction Bank rules out Adani coal! (https://www.marketforces.org.au/china-construction-bank-rules-out-adani-coal/)

One of the world's biggest banks, the China Construction Bank, has become the 25th to rule out finance for Adani!

In a statement received by Market Forces, a spokesperson for China Construction Bank said:

"China Construction Bank is not involved with, nor considering involvement with, the Adani Carmichael Mine project."

They elaborated to confirm that the bank:

"...are not considering involvement now, nor will they be considering involvement in the future."

This is the biggest blow yet to Adani and their hopes to build Australia's biggest coal mine while humanity faces dangerous climate change.

China Construction Bank is the 2nd largest in the world, behind only the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. With Adani having failed to secure finance from banks in Europe, the US and Australia, China is the last chance to find banks willing to back their mega mine....

Ian Murray
12-12-2017, 09:25 AM
Macron awards US scientists grants to move to France in defiance of Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/11/macron-awards-grants-to-us-scientists-to-move-to-france-in-defiance-of-trump)
The Guardian
12.12.17

Eighteen climate scientists from the US and elsewhere have hit the jackpot as France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, awarded them millions of euros in grants to relocate to France for the rest of Donald Trump’s presidential term.

The “Make Our Planet Great Again” grants – a nod to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign slogan – are part of Macron’s efforts to counter Trump on the climate change front. Macron announced a contest for the projects in June, hours after Trump declared he would withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord....

Monday’s event is a prelude to a bigger climate summit Tuesday aimed at giving new impetus to the Paris accord and finding new funding to help governments and businesses meet its goals.

More than 50 world leaders are expected in Paris for the One Planet Summit, co-hosted by the UN and the World Bank. Trump was not invited....

Ian Murray
19-12-2017, 07:17 AM
Newcastle: world's biggest coal export port announces shift away from coal (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/18/newcastle-worlds-biggest-coal-export-port-announces-shift-away-from-coal?CMP=share_btn_fb)
The Guardian
18.12.17

Newcastle, the world’s largest coal export port, must “urgently” diversify its traffic, the port’s incoming chairman has said, warning that the “long-term outlook for coal is a threat to the port”.

The move has been received as a significant sign of the transition away from fossil fuels.

Coal makes up about 90% of the New South Wales port’s throughput, including some of the world’s highest quality coal for steel production and electricity generation.

The pragmatic stance of Newcastle Ports is in stark contrast to the Australian government’s rhetoric on coal, which has sought to subsidise Adani Group’s plans to develop a new coalmining basin in Queensland, and an associated expansion of the Abbot Point coal export terminal on the Great Barrier Reef....

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2017, 04:03 AM
“I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.”—Nancy Pelosi


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8At2Lch-m5c

Patrick Byrom
21-12-2017, 11:41 AM
“I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.”—Nancy PelosiHow is a slip of the tongue from ten years ago important now?

The irony here is that many creationists actually believe that natural gas is not a fossil fuel!

Capablanca-Fan
21-12-2017, 12:25 PM
How is a slip of the tongue from ten years ago important now?
Goes to the stupidity of über-leftist politicians.


The irony here is that many creationists actually believe that natural gas is not a fossil fuel!
They don't?

Ian Murray
21-12-2017, 04:59 PM
Of course, natural gas IS a fossil fuel, you maroon! ...

Is she a Queensland supporter?

Desmond
21-12-2017, 08:50 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yIHxOui9nQ

Patrick Byrom
21-12-2017, 11:05 PM
They don't?This one doesn't:

I have called it the “theobaric” model, meaning made by God. The oil existed in pristine state before the Flood, and moved during the Flood into the reservoirs where we now find it. (https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oila-creationist-answer/)

Capablanca-Fan
22-12-2017, 08:51 AM
I've never heard of that guy or that model before. I had heard of abiotic oil (http://www.petroleum.co.uk/abiotic-oil-formation) before, and it was not a creationist idea, but by atheist astronomer Thomas Gold.

Ian Murray
23-12-2017, 07:27 AM
The Climate for Coal Just Got Even Chillier (http://ieefa.org/climate-coal-just-got-even-chillier/)
Wall Street Journal
19.12.17

...BHP, the world’s largest mining company, announced it is reconsidering it’s membership in the U.S. Chamber of Congress, a skeptic on the latest global climate deal brokered in Paris, and may quit the World Coal Association, the industry’s lobby group. BHP cited the WCA’s support for abandoning Australia’s proposed Clean Energy Target as one reason for its preliminary decision to bow out.

BHP’s action is largely symbolic but it still smarts coming from one of the grande dames of the mining world. It also comes as Rio Tinto, BHP’s big rival down under, is rapidly selling down its coal assets....

Thermal coal, on the other hand, must compete for power-sector market share in a world awash in cheap natural gas and ever cheaper renewables.

Ian Murray
28-12-2017, 03:08 PM
Electricity target so weak it would require 'taking every car away' to meet Paris deal – Greens (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/21/coalition-emissions-targets-would-require-taking-every-cow-out-of-every-farm-say-greens?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+AUS+v1+-+AUS+morning+mail+callout&utm_term=258333&subid=7665187&CMP=ema_632)
The Guardian
21.12.17

...This week the government released projections for Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions to 2030. They showed that based on existing policies, far from any cuts being made, the country’s rising greenhouse gas pollution would continue to increase to 2030 and beyond. It revealed Australia needed to find ways to abate 868m tonnes of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions between 2021 and 2030....

Australia has committed to reduce its overall greenhouse gas emissions by 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2030 and it is widely accepted the majority of cuts would need to be made in the electricity sector, as it is the easiest and most cost-effective place to make large emissions cuts.

But the government has refused to consider emissions cuts in the national electricity market greater than 26%.

Independent analysis conducted by the Greens shows that reducing emissions in the electricity sector by that much would still leave at least 583m tonnes of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas to be abated by 2030, through the rest of the economy.

“The government’s own data shows the cost of caving in to the climate deniers on the backbench,” said Adam Bandt, Greens climate change and energy spokesman. “Because the government’s energy policy is now so coal-focused, it places an impossible burden on agriculture, transport and industry....

Capablanca-Fan
30-12-2017, 07:25 AM
Turn out the lights on the Paris Accord (https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/david-leyonhjelm-turn-out-the-lights-on-the-paris-accord/news-story/554f8083b1bf6e5baaa73edd7776e98e)
David Leyonhjelm, The Daily Telegraph
28 December 2017

THE media often reports that Trump has let the world down by withdrawing from the Paris Accord.

We also hear that countries such as China are leading the way in tackling climate change, while Australia dithers.

I was sceptical of these reports, so I asked the Commonwealth Environment Department about contributions to global emission reductions. The answers I received indicate the media is reporting “fake news”.

Yes, every country in the world other than the US has committed to the Paris Accord.

But there’s a simple reason for this: The Paris Accord allows every country to do what they want.

Only Canada, Australia, the 28-country EU and the US (before its withdrawal) had committed to significant emission cuts. These countries account for a little more than one quarter of global emissions. Only 20 other countries have committed to even piecemeal emission cuts.


President Trump can be, and is, accused of many things but he has never been described as an elitist leader who apologises to China for the legacy of the West. So it was no surprise Trump withdrew the US from the guilt-soaked Paris Accord.

Other countries of the West, including Australia, should do the same. Only proponents of the Dastyari school of diplomacy believe it is in our interests to do whatever the Chinese Communist Party wants us to do.

And global emissions will never fall while Chinese emissions increase.

If our government were to act in the best interests of Australia it would do a Trump and withdraw from the Paris Accord, and take firm steps to lower the cost of energy. Instead, our emissions reduction policies are contributing to record energy prices, a loss of investment, the export of jobs and a reliance on imports.

We are, quite literally, transferring our prosperity to other countries.

Australia’s industry and prosperity are something to be proud of, rather than ashamed of.

We should defend them, not tear them down.

Ian Murray
30-12-2017, 04:44 PM
THE media often reports that Trump has let the world down by withdrawing from the Paris Accord.

We also hear that countries such as China are leading the way in tackling climate change, while Australia dithers.

I was sceptical of these reports, so I asked the Commonwealth Environment Department about contributions to global emission reductions. The answers I received indicate the media is reporting “fake news”.

Yes, every country in the world other than the US has committed to the Paris Accord.

But there’s a simple reason for this: The Paris Accord allows every country to do what they want.

Only Canada, Australia, the 28-country EU and the US (before its withdrawal) had committed to significant emission cuts. These countries account for a little more than one quarter of global emissions. Only 20 other countries have committed to even piecemeal emission cuts.

The Department of the Environment and Energy says nothing of the sort. From its web site (http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/international/paris-agreement):


The Paris Agreement sets in place a durable and dynamic framework for all countries to take climate action from 2020, building on existing international efforts in the period up to 2020. Key outcomes include:

A global goal to hold average temperature increase to well below 2°C and pursue efforts to keep warming below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
All countries to set mitigation targets from 2020 and review targets every 5 years to build ambition over time, informed by a global stocktake.
Robust transparency and accountability rules to provide confidence in countries’ actions and track progress towards targets.
Promoting action to adapt and build resilience to climate impacts.
Financial, technological and capacity building support to help developing countries implement the Agreement.

Ahead of the Paris Conference, countries were invited to submit indicative post-2020 targets, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). Targets have been set by almost all Parties to the UNFCCC, including all G20 countries. These targets represent over 96 per cent of global emissions, over 99 per cent of global GDP and 99.8 per cent of Australia’s two-way trade. These targets cover significantly more than the Cancun Agreements (2010), under which around 100 countries made pledges to reduce or limit greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Leyonhjelm is making it up as he goes.

Ian Murray
31-12-2017, 08:35 PM
A great year for clean energy in Australia ends, while bad news for coal continues (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/31/a-great-year-for-clean-energy-in-australia-ends-while-bad-news-for-coal-continues)
The Guardian
31.12.17

In 20 years we’ll look back on 2017 as a turning point for the climate challenge. It hasn’t been all good news – carbon emissions increased globally and in Australia – but the mission to avoid dangerous climate change no longer appears completely hopeless.

Until recently few in the mainstream were calling time on coal – yet numbers out of China and India showed that the coal building spree is fast winding down and the International Energy Agency, who are traditionally coal boosters, reported that coal is facing a “decade of stagnation” after global demand peaked in 2014. In May, the head of infrastructure investment at BlackRock, the world’s largest investment manager, announced that “coal is dead”.

Meanwhile renewable energy broke new records — China installed seven solar panels a second and India’s energy minister now expects to install 200GW of renewables by 2022....

Ian Murray
02-01-2018, 03:01 PM
Solar power crushes its own record for cheapest electricity ‘ever, anywhere, by any technology’ (https://thinkprogress.org/stunner-lowest-price-solar-power-f3b620d04010/)
ThinkProgress
30.10.17

Prices for new solar power projects are falling so fast that the cheapest prices from 2016 have become the ceiling price for solar today.

In April 2016, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) reported that the record low unsubsidized solar energy price was 3.6 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), in a March 2016 contract in Mexico.

This month, every single bid that Saudi Arabia received for its 300-Megawatt (MW) Sakaka solar project was cheaper than that.

The lowest bid price was 1.79 cents/kWh. For context, the average residential price for electricity in the United States is more than six times that, 12 cents/kWh [in Australia the range is around 21-34 c/kWh in AUD]....

Ian Murray
03-01-2018, 07:05 AM
Elon Musk's massive backup battery took just 140 milliseconds to respond to crisis at power plant (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/elon-musks-massive-backup-battery-took-just-140-milliseconds-respond-crisis-power-plant-1652736)
International Business Times
25.12.17

Elon Musk's massive backup battery installed in South Australia now holds another record – one for coming into action within a matter of milliseconds.

Last week, when the coal-fired Loy Yang power plant in Victoria failed leading to a power cut, Musk's behemoth of a battery kicked in and delivered as much as 100 megawatts of juice into the national electricity grid in just 140 milliseconds.

"That's a record and the national operators were shocked at how quickly and efficiently the battery was able to deliver this type of energy into the market," State Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis told 5AA radio.

The quick response time of the battery exceeded expectations and shows how easily Tesla outperforms other sources of backup power, Koutsantonis added.

"Torrens Island power station would take half an hour to an hour to energise and synchronise into the market; the battery can do it in milliseconds."

The record feat comes just a few weeks after the lithium-ion battery, which is also the world's largest, was switched on. This was the first power failure since the battery was installed....

Ian Murray
04-01-2018, 11:54 AM
Charge of the batteries: Pressure on NSW as Victoria joins line for large-scale battery (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/charge-of-the-batteries-pressure-on-nsw-as-victoria-joins-line-for-largescale-battery-20180103-h0cux7.html?logout=true)
SMH
4.1.18

Victoria has joined South Australia in lining up a new large-scale battery to support the electricity grid, adding pressure on NSW to follow suit.

The reliability of the National Electricity Market, a major political and economic issue in 2017, may be tested in coming days as a large heatwave sweeps across southern Australia. The electricity market operator has issued an alert....

A 100-megawatt battery supplied by Tesla is already providing support for the grid in South Australia. Its joint owner, France's Neoen, announced on Wednesday it had now signed a "support agreement" with the Victorian government for a 20-megawatt battery for its Bulgana Green Power Hub located near Stawell in western Victoria.

The battery's agreement opens the way for construction of a 204-MW wind farm, and will support a 40-hectare Nectar Farms glasshouse nearby. The farm would not have proceeded without the renewable energy project and battery - together costing more than $270 million - Neoen said....

Ian Murray
06-01-2018, 06:10 PM
One More Strike Against Adani’s Plans in Australia—India’s Two Largest Import-Coal Plants are in Severe Financial Distress (http://ieefa.org/one-strike-adanis-plans-australia-indias-two-largest-import-coal-plants-severe-financial-distress/)
Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis
3.1.18

New developments in both the political and energy scene in India are increasing the possibility that Adani would be unable to export coal to India if it builds its proposed Carmichael mine in Australia’s Galilee Basin.

India’s two largest import-coal power plants – Adani Power’s 4.6 GW Mundra plant and Tata Power’s own 4.0 GW Mundra plant — are both struggling financially, losing money with every unit of electricity produced. Remarkably, management at both companies put the equity of these two power plants up for sale at just 1 rupee (1.6 U.S. cents) each back in May 2017, but nothing has progressed on this proposal since then....

Ian Murray
07-01-2018, 07:02 AM
Ice Loss and the Polar Vortex: How a Warming Arctic Fuels Cold Snaps (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27092017/polar-vortex-cold-snap-arctic-ice-loss-global-warming-climate-change)
Inside Climate News
28.9.17

The loss of sea ice may be weakening the polar vortex, allowing cold blasts to dip south from the Arctic, across North America, Europe and Russia, a new study says.

When winter sets in, "polar vortex" becomes one of the most dreaded phrases in the Northern Hemisphere. It's enough to send shivers even before the first blast of bitter cold arrives.

New research shows that some northern regions have been getting hit with these extreme cold spells more frequently over the past four decades, even as the planet as a whole has warmed. While it may seem counterintuitive, the scientists believe these bitter cold snaps are connected to the warming of the Arctic and the effects that that warming is having on the winds of the stratospheric polar vortex, high above the Earth's surface.

Here's what scientists involved in the research think is happening: The evidence is clear that the Arctic has been warming faster than the rest of the planet. That warming is reducing the amount of Arctic sea ice, allowing more heat to escape from the ocean. The scientists think that the ocean energy that is being released is causing a weakening of the polar vortex winds over the Arctic, which normally keep cold air centered over the polar region. That weakening is then allowing cold polar air to slip southward more often....

Desmond
07-01-2018, 10:17 AM
Forecast issued (http://www.bom.gov.au/nsw/forecasts/sydney.shtml) at 4:45 am EDT on Sunday 7 January 2018.

Forecast for the rest of Sunday
Summary
Max 40
Very hot and mostly sunny.
Possible rainfall: 0 to 0.4 mm
Chance of any rain: 30%
Sydney area
Very hot. Mostly sunny day. Slight (30%) chance of a shower or thunderstorm in the late afternoon and evening. Winds northeast to northwesterly 20 to 30 km/h shifting south to southeasterly in the late afternoon and evening. Air Quality Forecast alert of POOR for the Sydney region has been issued by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, as OZONE levels are forecast to exceed national air quality standards.

Fire Danger - Severe

Sun protection recommended from 8:30 am to 5:10 pm, UV Index predicted to reach 14 [Extreme]

Patrick Byrom
07-01-2018, 03:36 PM
When I was on holiday in north-west Queensland over Christmas, it was 40 degrees (or just under) every single day!

Although I see that Penrith reached 47 degrees today! Fortunately a cooler change is on the way.

Ian Murray
08-01-2018, 09:17 AM
When I was on holiday in north-west Queensland over Christmas, it was 40 degrees (or just under) every single day!

Although I see that Penrith reached 47 degrees today! Fortunately a cooler change is on the way.

A foretaste of what's ahead. Swathes of the planet will become too hot for human habitation.

Patrick Byrom
22-01-2018, 01:34 PM
There are serious R&D dollars going into electric aircraft. Short-haul transports carrying ~60 passengers are a decade away, according to Airbus, with long-hauls awaiting better/lighter batteries, the sort of development which could happen anytime soon..Electric aircraft are already in Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-04/first-electric-plane-passenger-flights-in-australia-to-rottnest/9304424), although on a very small scale:

Australia's first electric aircraft has begun test flights at Perth's Jandakot Airport, amid hopes the plane will be flying to nearby Rottnest Island within months. The two-seater single-engine Alpha Electro — designed and manufactured by European company Pipistrel — has two batteries that can keep the plane in the air for an hour, with an extra 30 minutes in reserve.

Ian Murray
23-01-2018, 07:11 AM
Electric aircraft are already in Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-04/first-electric-plane-passenger-flights-in-australia-to-rottnest/9304424), although on a very small scale:

Australia's first electric aircraft has begun test flights ...

Electric light aircraft have been flying in Europe and USA for some time

Ian Murray
24-01-2018, 08:38 AM
The Oz running an anti-coal story! Wonders will never cease

Ageing coal-fired power plants can’t take the heat (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/ageing-coalfired-power-plants-cant-take-the-heat/news-story/05f133768c669c2aee9b208f3d36bb45?csp=bbd8bb8192d2e 5856a483c092181e745)
The Australian
23.1.18

Victoria’s ageing coal-fired power plants had 14 equipment failures in six weeks as the state grappled with surging demand in intense summer heat.

The Australian Energy Market Operator has urged Victorian and South Australian power generators to dial up supply ahead of *expected temperatures close to 40C across the two states on Thursday and Friday.

But energy experts say it may not be enough to stave off outages in the two states because coal-fired generators were becoming less reliable in heat, as they deal with demand from a growing population and more intermittent energy supply....

Ian Murray
25-01-2018, 07:28 AM
How Much Warmer Was Your City in 2017? (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/21/world/year-in-weather.html#abbn)

Brisbane was 1.1°C above normal

Ian Murray
14-04-2018, 07:53 AM
Our coal lobby, desperately trying to keep Liddell power station open beyond its use-by date, has a US counterpart

Push to Keep Navajo Generating Station Alive in Deal With Arizona Water Distributor Is Fraught With Risk (http://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-push-to-keep-navajo-generating-station-alive-in-deal-with-arizona-water-distributor-is-fraught-with-risk/)
IEEFA
11.4.18

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis published a research brief today that finds the financial outlook for coal-fired Navajo Generating Station is bleaker than it was when the plant’s utility owners announced last year it would be retired in 2019.

The plant’s owners—Arizona Public Service Company, the Salt River Project, Nevada Power and Tucson Electric—are closing NGS because the power it produces is considerably more expensive than power sold on the market. The federal Bureau of Reclamation also owns a portion of the plant, which is in northeast Arizona on land owned by the Navajo Nation.

IEEFA’s research note—“Economic Picture Worsens for Navajo Generating Station”—comes as Peabody Energy and other interests escalate a campaign to keep the plant open past 2019. IEEFA’s research refutes assertions by Lazard, a firm hired by Peabody Energy, that the plant’s largest customer, Central Arizona Project (CAP), could save money if it were to buy power from the plant from 2020 to 2030....

Damodevo
19-05-2018, 11:09 AM
Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling


Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?

Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius." That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.

"The 2016-2018 Big Chill," he writes, "was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/

Desmond
19-05-2018, 11:45 AM
Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling



https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/

Coming off the hottest year ever! :lol: pretty desperate stuff. By the way did you bother to read Brown's article (https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you_know_the_greatest_two-year_global_cooling_event_just_took_place_103243.h tml)?


...None of this argues against global warming. The 1950s was the last decade cooler than the previous decade, the next five decades were all warmer on average than the decade before. Two year cooling cycles, even if they set records, are statistical noise compared to the long-term trend. Moreover, the case for global warming does not rely primarily on observed warming; it has models, historical studies and other science behind it. Another point is both February 1998 and February 2016 were peak El Niño months so the record declines are starting from high peaks—but it's also true that there have been many other peak El Niño months in the past century and none were followed by such dramatic cooling. ...

Ian Murray
19-05-2018, 01:24 PM
It's easy to use a spike as one data point and demonstrate a decline to a lower data point, but scientifically absurd to call the line between the two a trend. See monthly mean global surface temperature data (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/) (click the link to Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change)

A truer picture is gained by looking at mean annual surface temperatures (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/), flattening out seasonal variations.

Ian Murray
18-06-2018, 08:16 AM
When planetary catastrophe is your day job (https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2018/june/1527775200/lesley-hughes/when-planetary-catastrophe-your-day-job?)
The Monthly
June 2018

...We’re a funny lot, really, us climate-change scientists. Like the rest of the scientific profession, we get up each morning and go to our offices and laboratories and field sites. We collect and analyse our data and write papers for learned journals. But here’s where we go off the rails: we’re the only members of the scientific profession who also hope every day that we’re wrong.

Hope we’re wrong about the rate of sea-level rise accelerating so fast that the homes of perhaps a billion people could be inundated by the end of the century. Hope we’re wrong about the demise of our most precious natural icon, the once magnificent Great Barrier Reef. Hope we’re wrong that the rate of glacier melt in the Andes and the Tibetan Plateau threatens the freshwater supplies of more than one sixth of the world’s population. Hope we’re wrong that displacement of people across the globe by increasing weather-related disasters could eventually make the current refugee crisis look like small beer. Hope, hope, hope …

antichrist
21-06-2018, 09:05 AM
I have been high up in the Tibertan mountains in Yuunan province, China, and the snow caps slowly melt to supply rivers for town high on those slopes - when the snow melts prematurely those towns will be gone. We already know that John Howard has barred global warming victims from coming to Oz as refugees - because they are not from Norway.

antichrist
27-06-2018, 07:24 AM
New [25-06, 11:34] littlesprout85: this record is growing for there isnt any rain on da horizon for long tmez to come (Sprouty wilted long time ago on da 156..Eeeky)
New [25-06, 11:33] littlesprout85: its been a new record set here...220 days without a drop of rain... old record was 142 days Help Meh Plz !!!!
New [25-06, 11:31] littlesprout85: ahhh...AC shortest day be Sproutys Longest day here in Arizona AUGH !!! only 110f here n forevers sunning n dry

This is unbelievable and would cause so much suffering. Also suffering is the wildlife who have no connection with causing the drought.

Ian Murray
06-07-2018, 07:02 PM
The Audit - July electricity update (http://www.tai.org.au/content/audit-july-electricity-update)
The latest electricity update from the National Energy Emissions Audit has been released today by The Australia Institute’s Climate & Energy Program.

The Audit shows current policies will reduce National Electricity Market (NEM) emissions to 22% below 2005 levels in 2019-20, effectively meaning the electricity sector has an emissions reduction target of only 4% to 2030.

Key findings include:

To June 2018, the NEM has already reduced emissions by 12% of 2005 levels
On current policy settings, the 26% target will be achieved in 2021-22
The emissions reduction mechanism proposed for the National Energy Guarantee will make little or no contribution to reducing emissions in the NEM
...

Ian Murray
07-07-2018, 07:37 PM
Doing business is getting tougher for thermal coal

Swiss Re steps away from coal insurance business (http://ieefa.org/swiss-re-steps-away-from-coal-insurance-business/)
IEEFA
6.7.18

Swiss Re took a step forward this week in its commitment to manage carbon-related sustainability risks and support the transition to a low-carbon economy. As of Monday, the Zurich-based firm no longer provides insurance or reinsurance to businesses with more than 30 percent exposure to thermal coal....

Swiss Re isn’t the only insurance firm to restrict its participation in the coal sector in recent months. In May, Germany’s Allianz stopped insuring single coal-fired power plants and coal mines, in response to criticism from environmental groups. Dai-ichi Life Insurance recently became the first Japanese institution to stop financing coal-fired power plants overseas, and Nippon Life Insurance is considering limits on coal plant financing.

Ian Murray
08-07-2018, 10:23 AM
The changing shape of wind and solar in Australia’s grid (https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-changing-shape-of-wind-and-solar-in-australias-grid-25455/)
ReNew Economy
5.7.18

Australia is currently experiencing an unprecedented boom in solar and wind energy investments, both in terms of capacity and dollars. It will likely take the country to a 33 per cent share of renewables as early as 2020.

But there is another fascinating development taking place – as more and more wind and solar is added to the grid, the shape of their output is also changing, and in a way that should give confidence about a clean energy future based around a high level of variable renewable energy sources.

Two significant trends that are emerging: the first is the offering of “firming contracts” to those looking to source a significant amount of their supply from wind and solar, but wary of wholesale price risks when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow.

The second is the development of projects that do much the same thing but this time by the physical combination of wind, solar and some form of storage at the one site, or nearby. Proposals and projects are now emerging across the country.

...Like the other wind-solar combinations, wind generation is inversely correlated with the solar resources, the pumped hydro compensated for the variability of wind and solar, and Genex executive director Simon Kidston describes it as the world’s “first baseload renewable energy project.”

Except, these are not really “baseload” plants in the true sense, or in what the coal boosters imagine they are, because they don’t need to be.

But they are fully dispatchable, which is what is important in a modern grid. It is dispatchable renewable energy on demand 24/7,.... That includes overnight, and in periods of peak demand. The clean energy transition marches on.

antichrist
11-07-2018, 06:56 AM
It should be compulsory that an air con cannot be sold unless it is solar powered - because one would not expect them to be used much when there is no sun so fit in beautifully.

Desmond
30-07-2018, 05:05 PM
June 2018 ties for third warmest June on record (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2766/june-2018-ties-for-third-warmest-june-on-record/)
NASA GISS, July 17, 2018

June 2018 continued the warming trend of the past 40 years. According to the monthly analysis of global temperatures by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, the past month surpassed the 1951-1980 June mean by +0.77°C. It tied with June 1998 as the third warmest June in 138 years of modern record-keeping, with only June 2015 and 2016 (+0.80°C and +0.79°C) being warmer.

The mean temperature anomalies of +0.77°C for both June 1998 and June 2018 cannot be distinguished from each other given the uncertainty of the measurement. However, June 1998 was exceptionally warm at the time due to the then prevailing strong El Niño conditions — about 0.33°C above the trend line of the late 1990s. In contrast, the current El Niño phase is considered neutral. The temperature anomaly for June 2018 is similar to other recent monthly mean temperature anomalies, and lies within the expected range of +0.75±0.05°C.
...

Patrick Byrom
05-08-2018, 02:28 PM
How do people who believe man-made global warming isn't a problem think we're going to survive in these temperatures (https://www.theguardian.com/weather/2018/aug/04/europe-heatwave-portugal-spain-extreme-temperatures): "In 2003, when Amareleja set the record for the country’s hottest temperature – 47.4C on 1 August – more than 2,000 people died as a direct result of the heat."? And as more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, the temperatures will continue to inexorably increase. The really sad thing is that all this was correctly predicted almost thirty years ago by James Hansen, and yet there are still idiots who reject the basic physics!

Ian Murray
07-08-2018, 01:58 PM
Climate change is not a future threat anymore. It's happening now, and will only get worse the longer we delay abatement action

Wildfires continue to char California, but one is in a destructive league of its own (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/08/06/wildfires-continue-to-char-california-but-one-fire-is-in-a-destructive-league-of-its-own/?utm_term=.7306995beb11&wpisrc=al_news__alert-national&wpmk=1)
Washington Post
6.8.18

Two small blazes burning through Northern California have grown at breathtaking speed to form a massive inferno, quickly becoming the state’s largest active wildfire and setting a new mark for destruction....

As wildfires ravaged the Golden State, President Trump weighed in with tweets that puzzled fire experts and seemed to point fingers, not at the toll of climate change, but at California’s environmental laws and use of water resources....

Typically, temperatures dip and humidity rises overnight, giving crews a window to slow the fires’ spread. But ... these have not happened in the affected areas....

“Extreme droughts and high winds are increasing as climate is warming,” said Monica Turner, an ecologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison who has spent three decades researching fires at Yellowstone National Park. “That’s the ultimate driver behind what’s happening in California.”

A 2016 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that climate change was responsible for more than half of the documented increases in fuel aridity in western forests and had doubled the amount of land burned since 1984....

Responding to the president’s tweets, Cal Fire spokesman Mike Mohler said the state has plenty of water to fight wildfires.

“Let’s be clear: It’s our changing climate that is leading to more severe and destructive fires,” he said....

Kevin Bonham
07-08-2018, 02:10 PM
There is indeed a general trend in the US that bushfires (or as they call them wildfires) are getting bigger. See https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wildfires-in-the-u-s-are-getting-bigger/

idledim
09-08-2018, 05:00 PM
There is indeed a general trend in the US that bushfires (or as they call them wildfires) are getting bigger. See https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wildfires-in-the-u-s-are-getting-bigger/

https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/photos/a.221758208967.168468.146605843967/10157044699208968/?type=3&theater

Patrick Byrom
09-08-2018, 06:38 PM
https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/photos/a.221758208967.168468.146605843967/10157044699208968/?type=3&theaterThis is actually consistent with what Kevin posted, as can be seen in the trend from 1980 onwards. The much earlier data which Lomborg includes may be unreliable (as he acknowledges), but even if it isn't, the declining trend it shows has obviously stopped, and the recent trend in burnt area is upwards.

Kevin Bonham
09-08-2018, 09:08 PM
https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/photos/a.221758208967.168468.146605843967/10157044699208968/?type=3&theater

The difference being different time scales. Lomborg's own graph shows the same thing, ie increase over the last few decades. Indeed, increase over the last few decades compared to the few decades before them too.

As I can't find any refutation of Lomborg's stats for the 1920s through 1960 I'll assume them correct. Lomborg states:


As is evident, US burnt forest area has dramatically *declined* since the 1920s, 1930s and 1940, after which widespread fire suppression was introduced. As more burnable mass is piling up, fire is going up slightly.

Now, it appears probable that global warming will lead to somewhat more forest fires.

[my emphasis]

Incidentally, can't speak for the US, but in south-east Australian wet forests, more burnable mass doesn't necessarily equal more fires. Rather, up to a point, more fires equals more fires - early successional forests burn well. I went to one talk by resident pyrodramatist Dave Bowman where he talked about the amount of control burning necessary to get around this problem and protect Hobart from the next "big one". It sounded such an extreme solution that I think a lot of people would rather just put up with the risk of the city going up in flames.

Ian Murray
15-08-2018, 05:32 PM
Gupta launches 1GW renewable plan at Cultana solar project (https://reneweconomy.com.au/gupta-launches-1gw-renewable-plan-at-cultana-solar-project-67819)
Renew Economy
15.8.18

UK steel billionaire Sanjeev Gupta has officially launched his plans to build more than 1 gigawatt (1,000MW) of dispatchable renewable energy at a ground-breaking ceremony for the first of those projects – the 280MW Cultana solar project near Whyalla.

Gupta was joined by South Australia Premier Steven Marshall and Whyalla mayor Lyn Breuer for the ceremony, where Gupta reinforced his goal to expand Australia’s manufacturing and heavy industry around a supply of cheap and reliable renewable energy.

The contrast with the policy debate in Canberra, where the Coalition on Tuesday endorsed a National Energy Guarantee policy designed to ensure no new renewable energy is built over most of the next decade, could not have been more marked....

Hydro, wind and solar output rises as gas generation slumps (https://reneweconomy.com.au/hydro-wind-and-solar-output-rises-as-gas-generation-slumps-32595)

Australia experienced a significant jump in output from hydro power, and wind and solar farms in the second quarter of 2018, mostly at the expense of gas generation and some black coal output.

The latest Quarterly Energy Dynamics report from the Australian Energy Market Operator shows that in the second quarter the average output of hydro increased by 663MW, wind by 546MW (thanks to new generation and better wind conditions), and solar by 157MW (new generation).

This was offset by a big fall in the average output of gas generation (down 697MW) and from black coal generation (down 53MW). Both of these technologies reported major outages – planned and unplanned – and came despite an overall rise in demand mostly due to the record high temperatures in April....

Ian Murray
16-08-2018, 03:29 PM
It's still winter, and the bushfire season is well under way. Longer fire seasons are one of the outcomes we can expect as the climate changes

http://myfirewatch.landgate.wa.gov.au/index.html

Authorities on alert as fire threat continues (https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/mutdapilly-ballandean-residents-urged-to-prepare-to-leave/news-story/1d22d3228889fb0f808b232638c91d2f)
FIRES have ripped through farmland west of Brisbane, blackening hectares of land and ruining what little stock feed there was left....

NSW bushfires: very high fire danger as damaging winds forecast (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/16/nsw-bushfires-very-high-fire-danger-as-damaging-winds-forecast)
South coast residents say being under threat from fires in winter is unheard of...

Sydney's bushfire season starts in winter: 'We may have to rethink how we live' (https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/aug/15/sydneys-bushfire-season-starts-in-winter-we-may-have-to-rethink-how-we-live)

Bushfire season brought forward in NSW by two months after 'next to no rain' (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/25/bushfire-season-brought-forward-in-nsw-after-next-to-no-rain)
Rainfall has also been below average in the eastern and northern parts of Queensland...

Damodevo
19-08-2018, 03:14 PM
The difference being different time scales. Lomborg's own graph shows the same thing, ie increase over the last few decades. Indeed, increase over the last few decades compared to the few decades before them too.

As I can't find any refutation of Lomborg's stats for the 1920s through 1960 I'll assume them correct. Lomborg states:


As is evident, US burnt forest area has dramatically *declined* since the 1920s, 1930s and 1940, after which widespread fire suppression was introduced. As more burnable mass is piling up, fire is going up slightly.

Now, it appears probable that global warming will lead to somewhat more forest fires.

[my emphasis]

Incidentally, can't speak for the US, but in south-east Australian wet forests, more burnable mass doesn't necessarily equal more fires. Rather, up to a point, more fires equals more fires - early successional forests burn well. I went to one talk by resident pyrodramatist Dave Bowman where he talked about the amount of control burning necessary to get around this problem and protect Hobart from the next "big one". It sounded such an extreme solution that I think a lot of people would rather just put up with the risk of the city going up in flames.

That makes no sense at all. Lomborg's chart shows the total area of fire burnt during the 20's and 30's was over triple what it was in recent years. That makes no sense under AGW predictions when CO2 from emissions is so much higher today than back then.

3659

Patrick Byrom
19-08-2018, 04:04 PM
That makes no sense at all. Lomborg's chart shows the total area of fire burnt during the 20's and 30's was over triple what it was in recent years. That makes no sense under AGW predictions when CO2 from emissions is so much higher today than back then. Actually it makes perfect sense if the total area burnt is a function of more than one variable - there could be more fires now, and they could be much more serious, but we could also be more effective in dealing with them.

Damodevo
19-08-2018, 04:36 PM
Actually it makes perfect sense if the total area burnt is a function of more than one variable - there could be more fires now, and they could be much more serious, but we could also be more effective in dealing with them.

According to stats it is the size of the fires and not the number that have increased. And according to NOAA stats as pointed out in the below link precipitation and temperature have barely changed in recent decades so cannot account for the recent surge in fires. The only thing that has changed is the forrest clearing policy which has left a lot of fuel load on the forest floors!

https://reason.org/policy-brief/forest-fires-management-reform/

Also, one of the papers on Lomborg's post attempts to isolate the cause of the decline in fires and climate plays very little role.

3660

Patrick Byrom
19-08-2018, 05:53 PM
According to stats it is the size of the fires and not the number that have increased. And according to NOAA stats as pointed out in the below link precipitation and temperature have barely changed in recent decades so cannot account for the recent surge in fires. The only thing that has changed is the forrest clearing policy which has left a lot of fuel load on the forest floors! https://reason.org/policy-brief/forest-fires-management-reform/ ... Your article acknowledges that man-made global warming could have been a factor: "So, while it is possible that climate change has played a role in increasing the size of fires, the primary cause seems to be forest management practices, which have changed several times over the course of the past 200 years." And it's from 2015, so it ignores the recent dramatic temperature increases.

Damodevo
19-08-2018, 09:01 PM
Your article acknowledges that man-made global warming could have been a factor: "So, while it is possible that climate change has played a role in increasing the size of fires, the primary cause seems to be forest management practices, which have changed several times over the course of the past 200 years." And it's from 2015, so it ignores the recent dramatic temperature increases.

That increase ceased in 2016. From Feb 2016 to Feb 2018 there has been a 0.56 temperature drop according to NASA's GISS which I referenced several posts back. So it is bizarre to say the least to be attributing these fires to AGW

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2018, 09:26 PM
That makes no sense at all. Lomborg's chart shows the total area of fire burnt during the 20's and 30's was over triple what it was in recent years. That makes no sense under AGW predictions when CO2 from emissions is so much higher today than back then.

Are you here to make an intelligent contribution and perhaps to actually have something to do with chess once in 100 posts or are you just here to troll on political issues? I made it quite clear how Lomborg himself accounted for the change ("after which widespread fire suppression was introduced") and, completely ignoring that point, you claim "that makes no sense at all" without saying what part of my post supposedly made no sense and why.

You seem to also be strawmanning me as taking what you claim to be the "AGW" position. I have not taken any such position, my contribution being merely to link to an article which pointed out an increase in forest fires in recent decades, caused by an average increase in size. This is not a position under dispute - Lomborg's chart agrees with it too and he considers climate to be a contributing factor!

The number of zeros between the decimal point and my patience level for non-chess blow-ins who don't argue properly has increased from 437 to 593 since you were last here. Please debate properly and be clear what you are claiming, if you are going to try to dismiss what I am saying.

Damodevo
19-08-2018, 09:40 PM
Are you here to make an intelligent contribution and perhaps to actually have something to do with chess once in 100 posts or are you just here to troll on political issues? I made it quite clear how Lomborg himself accounted for the change ("after which widespread fire suppression was introduced") and, completely ignoring that point, you claim "that makes no sense at all" without saying what part of my post supposedly made no sense and why.

You seem to also be strawmanning me as taking what you claim to be the "AGW" position. I have not taken any such position, my contribution being merely to link to an article which pointed out an increase in forest fires in recent decades, caused by an average increase in size. This is not a position under dispute - Lomborg's chart agrees with it too and he considers climate to be a contributing factor!

The number of zeros between the decimal point and my patience level for non-chess blow-ins who don't argue properly has increased from 437 to 593 since you were last here. Please debate properly and be clear what you are claiming, if you are going to try to dismiss what I am saying.

Ok but that reply was apropos your previous post where you referenced an increase since the 80s. Lomborgs data shows that trend is not true if it is extended back to the 20s/30s.

If you are not connecting such an argument to AGW then my bad but the others certainly are. No need to take personal offence.

Patrick Byrom
19-08-2018, 11:31 PM
That increase ceased in 2016. From Feb 2016 to Feb 2018 there has been a 0.56 temperature drop according to NASA's GISS which I referenced several posts back. So it is bizarre to say the least to be attributing these fires to AGWThe increase didn't stop in 2016 (https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#L1). This year is hotter than 2015. In fact, each year from 2016 to 2018 has been hotter than 2015. I'm not saying that AGW is the only factor. But clearly a succession of very hot years caused by AGW increases the significance of AGW as a causal factor.

EDIT: And 2018 has already set heat records in the US (http://www.noaa.gov/news/contiguous-us-had-its-warmest-may-on-record):

May 2018
The average May temperature across the contiguous U.S. was 65.4 degrees F, 5.2 degrees above average, making it the warmest May in the 124-year record, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information. This surpassed the previous record of 64.7°F set in 1934, during the dust bowl era. There were more than 8,590 daily warm station records broken, or tied, in May.

Desmond
20-08-2018, 08:06 AM
That increase ceased in 2016. lul


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWdJuNYLTLs

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2018, 12:34 PM
Ok but that reply was apropos your previous post where you referenced an increase since the 80s. Lomborgs data shows that trend is not true if it is extended back to the 20s/30s.

If it was apropos the previous post then you should have quoted the previous post. An increase since the 80s (or for that matter the 60s) is an increasing trend over recent decades no matter what the trend way before that under totally different management regimes (or lack thereof). A trend does not become "not true" just because it has not applied forever.

Imagine if it was instead a deadly disease that was on the rise. Someone said the disease had been rising in recent decades and then someone else said "ah but far more people died of it in the 1920s".


No need to take personal offence.

Now you are trying to blame me for reacting to your false assumptions and unclear accusations, by implying I am overreacting. Try supporting your criticisms clearly and with evidence and you might get a more patient response.

Damodevo
20-08-2018, 03:58 PM
If it was apropos the previous post then you should have quoted the previous post. An increase since the 80s (or for that matter the 60s) is an increasing trend over recent decades no matter what the trend way before that under totally different management regimes (or lack thereof). A trend does not become "not true" just because it has not applied forever.

Imagine if it was instead a deadly disease that was on the rise. Someone said the disease had been rising in recent decades and then someone else said "ah but far more people died of it in the 1920s".



Now you are trying to blame me for reacting to your false assumptions and unclear accusations, by implying I am overreacting. Try supporting your criticisms clearly and with evidence and you might get a more patient response.

Crickey could you possibly get any more obtuse? You argued that in response to a global warming point that actually fires are getting more intense in recent years. But you seem unaware that AGW effects are supposed to extend much further back than the last few decades. So why would you fixate on the period since the 1980s in a thread callee "Man-Made Climate Change"? Have you not seen the hundreds and hundreds of graphs on here showing AGW effects since the 19th century?

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2018, 05:13 PM
Crickey could you possibly get any more obtuse?

Crikey (correct spelling!), could pot possibly call the kettle any blacker? Obtuse means insensitive in a way that lacks perception. You displayed the first with your false accusations and then by trying to blame me when I reacted to them with the contempt they deserved. You've displayed the second continually on here in your posting career. Now you've tried to dig in on your trolling attack, this time by inventing motives for my comments that do not exist.


You argued that in response to a global warming point that actually fires are getting more intense in recent years.

I simply referenced a factual finding that is not in dispute by anyone. I wasn't doing so to further anyone's agenda, simply to contribute information that I'd seen elsewhere. I will often do this on threads - sometimes the facts I post might be convenient to my own viewpoints, sometimes not.


But you seem unaware that AGW effects are supposed to extend much further back than the last few decades.

This is a completely unwarranted presumption for which you have provided no evidence.


So why would you fixate on the period since the 1980s in a thread callee "Man-Made Climate Change"?

I didn't fixate on it, the link I provided happened to cover that period. Another poster then posted the Lomborg material, leading to the discussion of time periods.


Have you not seen the hundreds and hundreds of graphs on here showing AGW effects since the 19th century?

You should not baselessly assume that my purpose for providing a link on this thread is to make a general statement about everything else to do with AGW. Nor should you impugn my awareness of the issue when you have no evidence to support your attacks.

Damodevo
20-08-2018, 10:23 PM
Total area burnt in Europe in recent months is actually less than the avg over the last 10 years.

3661

Desmond
21-08-2018, 08:35 AM
^ pretty tough gig being a climate denialist these days.

State of the climate: 2018 set to be fourth warmest year despite cooler start
(https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2018-set-to-be-fourth-warmest-year-despite-cooler-start)

Temperatures on the Earth’s surface in the first half of 2018 were lower than over the same period for the three previous years. This was due, in part, to a moderate La Niña event during late 2017 and the first half of 2018.

However, the world is quickly switching to El Niño conditions, which should contribute to a somewhat warmer finish to the year.

Sea ice has been at record or near-record lows in the Arctic for much of the year, but has recovered slightly over the past two months.

Antarctic sea ice extent has generally been on the low-end of normal for the first half of 2018.

With the data now in for the first half of the year, Carbon Brief estimates that 2018 is most likely to be the fourth warmest on record for the Earth’s surface. Depending on what happens in the remaining six months, it could be as high as the second warmest in some temperature datasets, or as low as the sixth warmest in others.

Global surface temperatures have warmed about 1.1C since 1850 – with 0.8C of that warming occurring since the 1970s. The best estimate provided by scientists is that almost all of this long-term warming is due to human emissions of greenhouse gases.

...

Patrick Byrom
21-08-2018, 07:28 PM
... But you seem unaware that AGW effects are supposed to extend much further back than the last few decades. So why would you fixate on the period since the 1980s in a thread callee "Man-Made Climate Change"? Have you not seen the hundreds and hundreds of graphs on here showing AGW effects since the 19th century?
But when you compare the burnt area with global temperatures - done crudely below - it seems that the dramatic decrease in the burnt area happened when temperatures were only increasing slightly. Once the temperature increase became dramatic around 1980, the burnt area also started to increase dramatically. Which suggests that the decrease was caused by something unrelated to AGW, while the increase is related to AGW.

3662

Capablanca-Fan
22-08-2018, 03:34 AM
Who's the Cleanest of Them All (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/08/21/whos_the_cleanest_of_them_all_137850.html)
By Stephen Moore
Real Clear Politics, 21 August 2018
Take a wild guess what country is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions the most? Canada? Britain? France? India? Germany? Japan? No, no, no, no, no and no.

The answer to that question is the U.S. of A. Wow! How can that be? This must be a misprint. Fake news. America never ratified the Kyoto Treaty some two decades ago. We never enacted a carbon tax. We don't have a cap-and-trade carbon emission program. That environmental villain Donald Trump pulled America out of the Paris climate accord that was signed by almost the entire rest of the civilized world.

Yet the latest world climate report from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy finds that in 2017, America reduced its carbon emissions by 0.5 percent, the most of all major countries. That's especially impressive given that our economy grew by nearly 3 percent—so we had more growth and less pollution—the best of all worlds. The major reason for the reduced pollution levels is the shale oil and gas revolution that is transitioning the world to cheap and clean natural gas for electric power generation.

Meanwhile, as our emissions fell, the pollution levels rose internationally and by a larger amount than in previous years. So much for the rest of the world going green.

This latest data also proves that despite all of the criticism across the globe and in the American media, Trump was right to pull the U.S. out of the flawed Paris climate accord. Nearly every nation that signed on to Paris and has admonished America for not doing so, has already violated the agreement. According to Climate Action Network Europe, "All EU countries are failing to increase their climate action in line with the Paris Agreement goal." All but five countries have even reached 50 percent of their current targets.

So there you have it. The countries in the Paris climate accord have broken almost every promise they've made and the nation (the U.S.) that hasn't signed the treaty is doing more than any other nation to reduce global warming. Yet, we are being lectured by the sanctimonious Europeans and Asians for not doing our fair share to save the planet. It's another case study in how the left cares far more about good intentions than actual results. What matters is that you say that you will wash the dishes, not that you actually do it.

Patrick Byrom
22-08-2018, 09:34 AM
Who's the Cleanest of Them All (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/08/21/whos_the_cleanest_of_them_all_137850.html) By Stephen Moore Real Clear Politics, 21 August 2018
Take a wild guess what country is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions the most? Canada? Britain? France? India? Germany? Japan? No, no, no, no, no and no. The answer to that question is the U.S. of A. Wow! How can that be? This must be a misprint. Fake news. America never ratified the Kyoto Treaty some two decades ago. We never enacted a carbon tax. We don't have a cap-and-trade carbon emission program. That environmental villain Donald Trump pulled America out of the Paris climate accord that was signed by almost the entire rest of the civilized world. ... Thanks to the policies of President Obama, which Trump is in the process of wrecking.

Ian Murray
22-08-2018, 10:30 AM
Real Clear Politics,[/I] 21 August 2018]
Take a wild guess what country is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions the most? Canada? Britain? France? India? Germany? Japan? No, no, no, no, no and no.

Yet the latest world climate report from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy finds that in 2017, America reduced its carbon emissions by 0.5 percent, the most of all major countries. .

The BP Review actually lists Britain as the best performer in that shortlist, with a 2.7% reduction in carbon emissions last year.

It is true that, after three years of levelling off emissions, there was a disappointing global rise last year. As the BP Review describes it, "two steps forward, one step back."


That's especially impressive given that our economy grew by nearly 3 percent—so we had more growth and less pollution—the best of all worlds. The major reason for the reduced pollution levels is the shale oil and gas revolution that is transitioning the world to cheap and clean natural gas for electric power generation..

Meanwhile, as our emissions fell, the pollution levels rose internationally and by a larger amount than in previous years. So much for the rest of the world going green.

US emissions had been falling by 1.2% per year over the preceding decade, so the 2017 result is a comparative rise not a fall, despite the country's good fortune with its natural gas reserves. However the report shows that the US reserves/production ratio is currently 11.9 - gas reserves will be exhausted in 12 years.


This latest data also proves that despite all of the criticism across the globe and in the American media, Trump was right to pull the U.S. out of the flawed Paris climate accord. Nearly every nation that signed on to Paris and has admonished America for not doing so, has already violated the agreement. According to Climate Action Network Europe, "All EU countries are failing to increase their climate action in line with the Paris Agreement goal." All but five countries have even reached 50 percent of their current targets.

How is it proved? Correlation is not causation. US emissions have worsened under Trump and have also worsened in the EU. However the decadal results for 2006-2016 were much better in the EU than in the US. The results for the next few years will give us a better idea of progress.

Desmond
23-08-2018, 08:33 PM
Who's the Cleanest of Them All (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/08/21/whos_the_cleanest_of_them_all_137850.html)
By Stephen Moore
Real Clear Politics, 21 August 2018
Take a wild guess what country is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions the most? Canada? Britain? France? India? Germany? Japan? No, no, no, no, no and no.

The answer to that question is the U.S. of A. Wow! How can that be? This must be a misprint. Fake news. America never ratified the Kyoto Treaty some two decades ago. We never enacted a carbon tax. We don't have a cap-and-trade carbon emission program. That environmental villain Donald Trump pulled America out of the Paris climate accord that was signed by almost the entire rest of the civilized world.

Yet the latest world climate report from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy finds that in 2017, America reduced its carbon emissions by 0.5 percent, the most of all major countries. That's especially impressive given that our economy grew by nearly 3 percent—so we had more growth and less pollution—the best of all worlds. The major reason for the reduced pollution levels is the shale oil and gas revolution that is transitioning the world to cheap and clean natural gas for electric power generation.

Meanwhile, as our emissions fell, the pollution levels rose internationally and by a larger amount than in previous years. So much for the rest of the world going green.

This latest data also proves that despite all of the criticism across the globe and in the American media, Trump was right to pull the U.S. out of the flawed Paris climate accord. Nearly every nation that signed on to Paris and has admonished America for not doing so, has already violated the agreement. According to Climate Action Network Europe, "All EU countries are failing to increase their climate action in line with the Paris Agreement goal." All but five countries have even reached 50 percent of their current targets.

So there you have it. The countries in the Paris climate accord have broken almost every promise they've made and the nation (the U.S.) that hasn't signed the treaty is doing more than any other nation to reduce global warming. Yet, we are being lectured by the sanctimonious Europeans and Asians for not doing our fair share to save the planet. It's another case study in how the left cares far more about good intentions than actual results. What matters is that you say that you will wash the dishes, not that you actually do it.

:lol: did this guy even read the report? US was not the greenest, as Ian notes Britain beat them as did many others. How to put it, "This must be a misprint. Fake news."

Capablanca-Fan
24-08-2018, 12:26 AM
Way to go about missing the main point: the USA has done better at reducing CO₂ emissions than the vast majority of countries that stayed in the Paris accord. More proof that the Watermelon Greens care more about gestures than results.

Capablanca-Fan
24-08-2018, 12:31 AM
US emissions had been falling by 1.2% per year over the preceding decade, so the 2017 result is a comparative rise not a fall, despite the country's good fortune with its natural gas reserves.
This was thanks to fracking, which Obamov opposed and Trump embraced. So Trump is proving to be a greener president than Obamov in terms of actual results, as opposed to gestures.


However the report shows that the US reserves/production ratio is currently 11.9—gas reserves will be exhausted in 12 years.
So now we have "peak gas" arguments, although "peak oil" arguments have been going for a century.


How is it proved? Correlation is not causation.
What IS proved is that the Watermelons' screeching when Trump pulled out of the Paris accord is based not on care for emissions but support for transnational progressivism.


US emissions have worsened under Trump and have also worsened in the EU. However the decadal results for 2006-2016 were much better in the EU than in the US. The results for the next few years will give us a better idea of progress.
That decade included all of Obamov's reign!

Patrick Byrom
24-08-2018, 01:43 AM
Way to go about missing the main point: the USA has done better at reducing CO₂ emissions than the vast majority of countries that stayed in the Paris accord. More proof that the Watermelon Greens care more about gestures than results.You're completely missing the point - the reduction was thanks to Obama's policies, not Trump's.

But, according to you, US emission reductions should continue to lead the rest of the world while Trump is President, even though Trump has withdrawn from the Paris agreement - correct? If they don't, this obviously proves the value of the Paris accord.

Patrick Byrom
24-08-2018, 02:10 AM
This was thanks to fracking, which Obamov opposed and Trump embraced.Fake news! (https://www.skepticalscience.com/frackingandCO2.html)

Desmond
24-08-2018, 06:34 AM
Way to go about missing the main point: the USA has done better at reducing CO₂ emissions than the vast majority of countries that stayed in the Paris accord. More proof that the Watermelon Greens care more about gestures than results.

What is it with climate deniers and their inability to understand simple numbers

Patrick Byrom
24-08-2018, 10:16 AM
What is it with climate deniers and their inability to understand simple numbersAnd basic chemistry. Capablanca-Fan seems to have forgotten what one of the products of burning natural gas is.

Ian Murray
24-08-2018, 03:11 PM
Way to go about missing the main point: the USA has done better at reducing CO₂ emissions than the vast majority of countries that stayed in the Paris accord. More proof that the Watermelon Greens care more about gestures than results.

To make it easy for you to understand, the extract from the BP Energy Review at http://acfappeal.aunz.org/Carbon%20dioxide%20emissions.pdf lists the 2017 and decadal performances of all countries with contributions of measurabe significance.

When examined over time (not by cherry-picking last year only), the US has clearly not done better than the vast majority.

Capablanca-Fan
29-08-2018, 12:48 AM
Bjørn Lomborg:

When a “solution” to a problem causes more damage than the problem, policymaking has gone awry. That’s where we often find ourselves with global warming today.

Activist organizations like Worldwatch argue that higher temperatures will make more people hungry, so drastic carbon cuts are needed. But a comprehensive new study published in Nature Climate Change led by researchers from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis has found that strong global climate action would cause far more hunger and food insecurity than climate change itself.

The scientists used eight global-agricultural models to analyze various scenarios between now and 2050. These models suggest, on average, that climate change could put an extra 24 million people at risk of hunger. But a global carbon tax would increase food prices and push 78 million more people into risk of hunger. The areas expected to be most vulnerable are sub-Saharan Africa and India.

Read more in my latest for New York Post:

How the war on climate change slams the world’s poor (https://nypost.com/2018/08/26/how-the-war-on-climate-change-slams-the-worlds-poor/)
26 Aug 2018

Capablanca-Fan
29-08-2018, 01:03 AM
And basic chemistry. Capablanca-Fan seems to have forgotten what one of the products of burning natural gas is.

What, water vapour, which is indeed a potent greenhouse gas? The gaseous hydrocarbons have a higher H/C ratio than the liquid and solid ones when comparing like with like (i.e. alkanes with alkanes, etc.).

Ian Murray
29-08-2018, 08:48 AM
Bjørn Lomborg:

... a comprehensive new study published in Nature Climate Change led by researchers from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis has found that strong global climate action would cause far more hunger and food insecurity than climate change itself.

The scientists used eight global-agricultural models to analyze various scenarios between now and 2050. These models suggest, on average, that climate change could put an extra 24 million people at risk of hunger. But a global carbon tax would increase food prices and push 78 million more people into risk of hunger. The areas expected to be most vulnerable are sub-Saharan Africa and India.

The suggestion of a global carbon tax is pure fiction. Rather developing countries receive aid, e.g. the Green Climate Fund) to assist their transition to the carbon-free future. (www.greenclimate.fund),

Note the cited report does say:


The researchers stress that their results should not be used to argue against greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts. Climate mitigation efforts are vital.

Patrick Byrom
29-08-2018, 10:07 AM
The suggestion of a global carbon tax is pure fiction. Rather developing countries receive aid, e.g. the Green Climate Fund) to assist their transition to the carbon-free future. (www.greenclimate.fund),

Note the cited report does say:

The researchers stress that their results should not be used to argue against greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts. Climate mitigation efforts are vital.Lomborg and Capablanca-Fan are once again forgetting basic physics. AGW won't stop after 2050 - if nothing is done, its effects will be far worse than the proposed measures to stop it.

Patrick Byrom
29-08-2018, 10:10 AM
What, water vapour, which is indeed a potent greenhouse gas? ... And what is the other product of burning natural gas? This Wikipedia page can help you, if you've forgotten. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas)

Desmond
05-09-2018, 10:31 PM
A new survey on climate change
(https://ncse.com/news/2018/08/new-survey-climate-change-0018780)
NCSE, 08.15.2018

"A record 60% of Americans now think that global warming is happening and that humans are at least partially responsible for the rising temperature," according (PDF) to the latest survey from the National Studies on Energy and the Environment conducted by the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College.

Asked "From what you've read and heard. Is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past four decades?" 73% of respondents — the highest rate since the survey asked the question in 2008 — said yes, 15% said no, and 12% volunteered that they were unsure.

Asked about the causes of climate change, 34% of respondents attributed it to human activity, 26% attributed it to a combination of human activity and natural patterns or were not sure, 12% attributed to natural patterns, while 12% were not sure if climate is changing and 15% thought that climate is not changing.

According to the NSEE report, there were 751 adult respondents for the survey, contacted via land line and cell phones between April 29 and May 25, 2018; the margin of error was +/- 4% at a 95% level of confidence. The data were weighted by gender, age, race, income, and education to reflect the population characteristics of the United States.

Ian Murray
09-09-2018, 08:47 AM
Summer Nights Are Getting Hotter. Here's Why That’s a Health and Wildfire Risk (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09072018/heat-waves-global-warming-overnight-high-temperatures-impact-health-wildlife-wildfires-agriculture)
Inside limate News
11.7.18

...When temperatures fail to drop at night—when the overnight lows are too high—the heat can become deadly, especially for the elderly and children.

In the hottest of cities, it's becoming a crisis. In Phoenix last year, 155 people died of heat-related causes, according to National Public Radio. In recent decades, the average overnight low in the area has gone up several degrees, and there are significantly more days each year above 110 degrees.

Cooler nighttime temperatures allow bodies to "reset" and recover from scorching daytime highs as buildings and houses cool. But when external temperatures stay above 80 degrees, internal body temperatures don't have a chance to cool. ...

Ian Murray
12-09-2018, 04:07 PM
How much does it cost to power an electric car around Australia? $150 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/12/how-much-does-it-cost-to-power-an-electric-car-around-australia-150)
The Guardian
12.8.18

Sylvia Wilson drove around Australia in an electric car. It cost her $150.90.

Wilson, 70, a retired farmer from near Biloela in central Queensland, had planned the trip of a lifetime with her husband, Rod. One impulsive evening in mid-2016 they went online and, sight-unseen, bought a Tesla S75 electric car for the journey.

A few months after Rod died last year, Sylvia announced to her family: “I think I’ll do that trip.

“Most of them were really keen. A couple of them said ‘you’re mad, you’ll never do it’,” Wilson told Guardian Australia.

It took Sylvia 110 days and 20,396km door to door to navigate the Round Australia Electric Vehicle Superhighway – a loop of charging stations. She is the first woman to drive the route and the second person to loop the country in a Tesla....

Ian Murray
29-09-2018, 05:42 PM
Hurricane Florence crippled electricity and coal -- solar and wind were back the next day (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hurricane-florence-crippled-electricity-and-coal-solar-and-wind-were-back-the-next-day/)
CBS MoneyWatch
25.9.18

Nearly two weeks after Hurricane Florence swamped North and South Carolina, thousands of residents who get power from coal-fired utilities remain without electricity.

Yet solar installations, which provide less than 5 percent of North Carolina's energy, were up and running the day after the storm, according to electricity news outlet GTM. And while half of Duke Energy's customers were without power at some point, according to CleanTechnica, the utility's solar farms sustained no damage.

Traditional energy providers have fared less well. A dam breach at the L.V. Sutton Power Station, a retired coal-fired power plant near Wilmington, North Carolina, has sent coal ash flowing into a nearby river. Another plant near Goldsboro has three flooded ash basins, according to the Associated Press, while in South Carolina, floodwaters are reportedly threatening pits that contain ash, an industrial waste from burning coal.

The lesson, according to environmentalists: Utilities' vulnerability to major storms underscores the urgency of shifting to energy that it is not only clean and renewable, but also more resilient....

Ian Murray
01-10-2018, 08:52 PM
Gas leak: Government tries to release its greenhouse news on the quiet (https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2018/09/29/australia-greenhouse-gas/)
The New Daily
29.9.18

The Morrison government stands accused of trying to sneak-release the latest greenhouse gas emission figures – they’ve gone up, again – by making them public on the eve of the footy grand finals.

The figures are the latest evidence that Australia will fail to meet its Paris Agreement targets, despite the government’s claims to the contrary.

In the year to March 2018, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions rose by 1.3 per cent – totalling 529.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent – according to new figures published late Friday afternoon by the Department of Environment and Energy....

antichrist
02-10-2018, 08:49 AM
Gas leak: Government tries to release its greenhouse news on the quiet (https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2018/09/29/australia-greenhouse-gas/)
The New Daily
29.9.18

The Morrison government stands accused of trying to sneak-release the latest greenhouse gas emission figures – they’ve gone up, again – by making them public on the eve of the footy grand finals.

The figures are the latest evidence that Australia will fail to meet its Paris Agreement targets, despite the government’s claims to the contrary.

In the year to March 2018, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions rose by 1.3 per cent – totalling 529.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent – according to new figures published late Friday afternoon by the Department of Environment and Energy....

I hate to say it but no one really cares - everyone still drives their polluting cars

Ian Murray
03-10-2018, 12:34 PM
I hate to say it but no one really cares - everyone still drives their polluting cars

Europe and China, inter alia, are shifting away from petrol/diesel cars. Not so the current US administration.

The Trump administration knows the planet is going to boil. It doesn't care (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/02/trump-administration-planet-boil-refugee-camps)
Bill McKibben
The Guardian
3.10.18

In the cloud of toxic dust thrown up by the Kavanaugh hearings last week, two new Trump initiatives slipped by with less notice than they deserve. Both are ugly, stupid – and they are linked, though in ways not immediately apparent.

In the first, the administration provided the rationale for scrapping President Obama’s automobile mileage standards: because Trump’s crew now officially expects the planet to warm by 4C . In the environmental impact statement they say it wouldn’t make much difference to the destruction of the planet if we all keep driving SUVs.

The news in that statement is that administration officials serenely contemplate that 4C rise (twice the last-ditch target set at the Paris climate talks). Were the world to actually warm that much, it would be a literal hell, unable to maintain civilizations as we have known them. But that’s now our policy, and it apparently rules out any of the actions that might, in fact, limit that warming. You might as well argue that because you’re going to die eventually, there’s no reason not to smoke a carton of cigarettes a day....

Capablanca-Fan
23-10-2018, 08:38 AM
14,000 ABANDONED WIND TURBINES LITTER THE UNITED STATES (http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=138950&fbclid=IwAR3XJxno18Lr-hfJ9BivtZSCGbNW4BVwpyEcIovg0lKwi9xoPb4hQ4-e9yM)
10 Nov 2015 [three years old, and still the greenies want more of our tax dollars spent on these bird-slaying triffids]

The towering symbols of a fading religion, over 14,000 wind turbines, abandoned, rusting, slowly decaying. When it is time to clean up after a failed idea, no green environmentalists are to be found. Wind was free, natural, harnessing Earth’s bounty for the benefit of all mankind, sounded like a good idea. Wind turbines, like solar panels, break down. They produce less energy before they break down than the energy it took to make them. The wind does not blow all the time, or even most of the time. When it is not blowing, they require full-time backup from conventional power plants.

Without government subsidy, they are unaffordable. With governments facing financial troubles, the subsidies are unaffordable. It was a nice dream, a very expensive dream, but it didn’t work.

California had the “big three” of wind farm locations — Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio, considered the world’s best wind sites. California’s wind farms, almost 80% of the world’s wind generation capacity ceased to generate even more quickly than Kamaoa Wind Farm in Hawaii. There are five other abandoned wind farms in Hawaii. When they are abandoned, getting the turbines removed is a major problem. They are highly unsightly, and they are huge, and that’s a lot of material to get rid of.

Unfortunately the same areas that are good for siting wind farms are a natural pass for migrating birds. Altamont’s turbines have been shut down four months out of every year for migrating birds after environmentalists filed suit. According to the Golden Gate Audubon Society 75-110 Golden Eagles, 380 Burrowing Owls, 300 Red-Tailed Hawks and 333 American Kestrels are killed by the turbines every year. An Alameda County Community Development Agency study points to 10,000 annual bird deaths from Altamont wind turbines. The Audubon Society makes up numbers like the EPA, but there’s a reason why they call them bird Cuisinarts.

Desmond
23-10-2018, 09:38 AM
14,000 ABANDONED WIND TURBINES LITTER THE UNITED STATES (http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=138950&fbclid=IwAR3XJxno18Lr-hfJ9BivtZSCGbNW4BVwpyEcIovg0lKwi9xoPb4hQ4-e9yM)
10 Nov 2015 [three years old, and still the greenies want more of our tax dollars spent on these bird-slaying triffids]

The towering symbols of a fading religion, over 14,000 wind turbines, abandoned, rusting, slowly decaying. When it is time to clean up after a failed idea, no green environmentalists are to be found. Wind was free, natural, harnessing Earth’s bounty for the benefit of all mankind, sounded like a good idea. Wind turbines, like solar panels, break down. They produce less energy before they break down than the energy it took to make them.WIND TURBINES DON’T USE MORE ENERGY THAN THEY PRODUCE — DEBUNKING THE MYTH THAT WON’T DIE (https://planetsave.com/2018/06/03/wind-turbines-use-more-energy-than-they-produce-the-myth-that-wont-die/)
... In a 2013 study by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, researchers found that about 0.06 kWh of energy were used for every kWh of energy produced by a typical wind turbine. ...


The wind does not blow all the time, or even most of the time. When it is not blowing, they require full-time backup from conventional power plants.
Ever heard of a battery?

Ian Murray
23-10-2018, 12:40 PM
14,000 ABANDONED WIND TURBINES LITTER THE UNITED STATES (http://forums.canadiancontent.net/showthread.php?t=138950&fbclid=IwAR3XJxno18Lr-hfJ9BivtZSCGbNW4BVwpyEcIovg0lKwi9xoPb4hQ4-e9yM)
10 Nov 2015 ....

The source, as cited in that blog, was https://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/14000-abandoned-wind-turbines-litter-the-united-states/ from 2013, making it five years old. It was debunked at the time:

Fact check: About those 'abandoned' turbines … (https://www.aweablog.org/fact-check-about-those-abandoned-turbines/), using some actual data and references. The 14,000 figure is pure fiction.

As for birds, they are much safer around wind turbines that coal-fired power stations:

Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they’re made out to be. Here’s why (https://theconversation.com/wind-farms-are-hardly-the-bird-slayers-theyre-made-out-to-be-heres-why-79567)


...Wind turbine blades do indeed kill birds and bats, but their contribution to total bird deaths is extremely low, as these three studies show....

Capablanca-Fan
23-10-2018, 04:05 PM
Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy (https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy)
We urgently need to stop the ecological posturing and invest in gas and nuclear
Matt Ridley, Spectator, 13 May 2017

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.

As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.

Ian Murray
23-10-2018, 04:59 PM
Wind in numbers

1,155,000 Jobs created by the global wind industry at the end of 2016.
55.6 The record number of 55.6GW of wind power installed in 2016, bringing the total installed global capacity to 486.8GW at the end of 2016.
637 In 2016, wind power avoided over 637 million tonnes of CO2 emissions globally.
5,500 The number of average EU households that one 6 MW offshore turbine can power.
8,000 The number of parts a wind turbine has.
10,000,000 The amount of homes powered by wind energy in Spain.
49 The share % of all the electricity used by South Australians in June 2016 was generated by wind power, and on occasions during the month provided all the state’s electricity needs.
5,497,522 The amount of avoided CO2 emissions by wind power each year in Brazil.
42.8 China’s share of global wind installations in 2016.
37.6 Share % of Denmark’s electricity consumption was covered by wind energy in 2016. The Danish government aims to get 50% of its electricity from wind by 2020 and 100% from renewable energy by 2050.
341,320 The number of wind turbines spinning around the world at the end of 2016.
104,934 The amount of wind turbines up and running in China at the end of 2016.
52,343 The number of wind turbines in the US at the end of 2016.
3,589 The number of offshore wind turbines in Europe at the end of 2016.
10.4 In an average wind energy year, the EU’s current wind power capacity covers 10.4% of the EU’s electricity consumption.
14,384 The amount of offshore wind power installed globally at the end of 2016 in megawatts.
3 It takes a wind turbine 3-6 months to recoup the energy that goes into producing, operating and recycling the wind turbine after its 20 to 25 year lifetime.
1 The amount of subsidies in USD given to all renewable energy technologies, versus the $USD 6-7 in subsidies given to fossil fuels (IEA World Energy Outlook).
3.7 The percentage of global electricity supplied by wind power in 2015.
51 Wind power installed more than any other form of power generation in Europe in 2016, accounting for 51% of total 2016 power capacity installations.
10,000 A farmer from Iowa who uses one tenth of a hectare for a wind turbine could earn about $USD 10,000 per year, compared to about $USD 300 using the same area to grow corn for ethanol.
17 The cost of integrating large, conventional power plants onto the power system in Texas is more than 17 times larger than the cost of reliably integrating wind energy.
8 The largest wind turbine in the world is the Vestas 8 MW turbine with a rotor diameter of 164 meters.
88.4 The world’s longest wind turbine blade is LM Wind Power’s 88.4 meters long blade.
102 The amount of megawatts in the first large commercial offshore project outside of Europe – the Shanghai Donghai Bridge offshore project.
89 The % share of EU citizens who are in favour of wind power, according to a 2011 poll.
2 A 10 MW wind farm can easily be built in two months. A larger 50 MW wind farm can be built in six months. The Butendiek 288 MW offshore wind farm with 80 turbines in the North Sea was built in just 16 months and now supplies clean power to 370,000 households.
520,000 The number of people expected to be employed by the wind industry in the EU by 2020.
2,014 The number of megawatts of wind power installed in Brazil in 2016. Brazil has become a leader in the South American wind energy market, reaching a total of more than 10.74GW.
6.6 The number of GW installed in Xin Jiang Province in China at the end of 2015, making it the second province after Inner Mongolia to pass the 10 GW milestone. Other provinces aiming to reach at least 10 GW include Gansu and HeBei.
17 Wind power farms generate between 17 and 39 times as much power as they consume, compared to 16 times for nuclear plants and 11 times for coal plants.
29 Amount of countries having more than 1,000 MW of wind power installed across the world; 9 countries have installed more than 10,000 MW.
107.2 Amount in $billion invested in wind power globally in 2017 (source: BNEF), making it one of the fastest growing industrial segments in the world (source BNEF).
387 The amount of million cubic meters of water use avoided by wind energy in the EU, equivalent to the average annual household water use of nearly 7 million EU citizens (source: EWEA).
2,000 The amount of water in liters that wind power can save per MWh against other energy sources (source: US Department of Energy).

http://gwec.net/global-figures/wind-in-numbers/

Desmond
23-10-2018, 07:26 PM
Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy (https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy)
We urgently need to stop the ecological posturing and invest in gas and nuclear
Matt Ridley, Spectator, 13 May 2017

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.

As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.


Typical climate denial idiot.

antichrist
24-10-2018, 02:28 AM
Typical climate denial idiot.

A I may have already mentioned (?) my science fanatic bro in law, since 1966 has been keeping records of number of days had temperatures of over 40 degrees. In 1966 it was one day every second year I think he stated, now it is average of six a year. As well in 1956 he knocked off the astronomy book at the Christian Brothers College in Albury where he attended whilst being a refugee at the old army base on the border. He still proudly has it and has pride of place in his own registered giant observatory outside Sydney. Donald Trump and Pauline Hanson would deport such a thief.

Desmond
24-10-2018, 07:54 AM
A I may have already mentioned (?) my science fanatic bro in law, since 1966 has been keeping records of number of days had temperatures of over 40 degrees. In 1966 it was one day every second year I think he stated, now it is average of six a year.
Interesting, and hardly surprising. It is also consistent with the records from thousands of weather stations around the world over the last 150 years, and accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and science societies of the world - the world is warming, and we are the cause.

Desmond
01-11-2018, 08:18 PM
Australia in October 2018 (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/summary.shtml)

Temperatures
October was an exceptionally warm month for Australia. The national monthly mean temperature was the fourth-highest on record for October at 1.83 °C above average. For Australia as a whole, mean minima were the second-highest on record for October, some 1.81 °C warmer than average for the month. Mean maxima were the ninth-highest on record, with days 1.84 °C warmer than the long-term mean.

The year to date has also been very warm for most of Australia, with mean temperatures in decile 10 for the ten months to October across a great deal of Australia. Compared to other January to October periods, the area-averaged mean temperature for Australia was the fifth-warmest on record. It has been an especially warm year so far for New South Wales—the warmest on record compared to other January to October periods. ...

antichrist
02-11-2018, 05:59 AM
Interesting, and hardly surprising. It is also consistent with the records from thousands of weather stations around the world over the last 150 years, and accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and science societies of the world - the world is warming, and we are the cause.

Funny my bro in law. On every other issue is a right wing white male chauvinist. A refugee to from the 1956 Hungarian Revolution that was crushed - yet is against refugees. Against gays - the whole gambit. EXCEPT he is a science fanatic and is 100% for trying to save the planet - it is not a commo conspiracy for him like many other issues are. When thinking about it if we lose the planet all the other issues are meaningless anyway.

Ian Murray
05-11-2018, 08:45 PM
Global Warming Is Messing with the Jet Stream. That Means More Extreme Weather. (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31102018/jet-stream-climate-change-study-extreme-weather-arctic-amplification-temperature)
Inside Climate News
31.10.18

Greenhouse gases are increasingly disrupting the jet stream, a powerful river of winds that steers weather systems in the Northern Hemisphere. That's causing more frequent summer droughts, floods and wildfires, a new study says.

The findings suggest that summers like 2018, when the jet stream drove extreme weather on an unprecedented scale across the Northern Hemisphere, will be 50 percent more frequent by the end of the century if emissions of carbon dioxide and other climate pollutants from industry, agriculture and the burning of fossil fuels continue at a high rate....

Capablanca-Fan
10-11-2018, 01:17 AM
Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11/had-they-bet-on-nuclear-not-renewables-germany-california-would-already-have-100-clean-power)
Michael Shellenberger, Forbes, 11 Sept 2018

Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress (http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/9/11/california-and-germany-decarbonization-with-alternative-energy-investments).

The analysis comes the day before California plays host to a “Global Climate Action Summit,” which makes no mention of nuclear (https://www.globalclimateactionsummit.org/?s=nuclear+energy), despite it being the largest source of clean energy in the U.S. and Europe.

Here are the two main findings from EP's analysis:


Had Germany spent $580 billion (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-germany-emissions/) on nuclear instead of renewables, and the fossil plant upgrades and grid expansions they require, it would have had enough energy to both replace all fossil fuels and biomass in its electricity sector and replace all of the petroleum it uses for cars and light trucks.
Had California spent an estimated $100 billion on nuclear instead of on wind and solar, it would have had enough energy to replace all fossil fuels in its in-state electricity mix.

The finding that Germany could have entirely decarbonized its transportation sector with nuclear is a significant one. That’s because decarbonizing transportation is considered a major challenge by most climate policy experts.

Thanks to its deployment of nuclear power, the Canadian province of Ontario’s electricity is nearly 90% cleaner (https://twitter.com/ScottLuft/media?lang=en) than California’s, according to a recent analysis by Scott Luft (http://coldair.luftonline.net/p/aboutcontact.html), an energy analyst who tracks decarbonization and the power sector.

Ian Murray
10-11-2018, 07:58 AM
...Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources...

Bemoaning the decline of nuclear power is a waste of breath. Californians and Germans don't want it, so it's politically out of the race.

In any case, "as LCOE [levelised cost of energy] values for alternative energy technologies continue to decline, in some scenarios the full-lifecycle costs of building and operating renewables-based projects have dropped below the operating costs alone of conventional generation technologies such as coal or nuclear. This is expected to lead to ongoing and significant deployment of alternative energy capacity." https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/

antichrist
13-11-2018, 09:10 AM
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/weather/2018/11/12/meteorologist-pushes-back-trump-claim-wildfires-sater-sot-nr-vpx.cnn

check this link at 3.14 secs and about 19 of 20 worse fires in America have been this century

Ian Murray
20-11-2018, 02:23 PM
Unsubsidised wind and solar now cheapest form of bulk energy (https://reneweconomy.com.au/unsubsidised-wind-and-solar-now-cheapest-form-of-bulk-energy-96453/)

Third battery storage maker to set up factory in South Australia (https://reneweconomy.com.au/third-battery-storage-maker-to-set-up-factory-in-south-australia-73704/)

Ian Murray
21-11-2018, 08:09 AM
Fresh thinking: the carbon tax that would leave households better off (http://www.grandchallenges.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/Carbon_Report_(Digital).pdf)
UNSW

The Australian Climate Dividend Plan (ACDP) is a comprehensive market-based approach to making energy in Australia more affordable, more reliable, and ensuring that the social cost of energy use is taken into account.

The ACDP involves a tax of A$50 per Metric Ton (MT) of CO2 emissions on electricity, direct combustion, transport, fugitive emissions, and
industrial processes (‘the carbon tax’). The revenue generated would then be returned, evenly, to every voting-age Australian citizen. This would represent a tax-free payment of approximately $1,300 per person per annum.

Under the plan, border adjustments for traded goods would mean that Australian industry would not be put at a competitive disadvantage. Exports to countries without comparable schemes would receive rebates for the taxes paid. Imports from countries without such schemes would be charged fees based on the carbon content of those products.

The plan would also permit the rollback of subsidies for renewables and similar measures—these being unnecessary given a carbon tax. This could save the government more than $2.5 billion annually....

antichrist
21-11-2018, 08:53 AM
Fresh thinking: the carbon tax that would leave households better off (http://www.grandchallenges.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/Carbon_Report_(Digital).pdf)
UNSW

The Australian Climate Dividend Plan (ACDP) is a comprehensive market-based approach to making energy in Australia more affordable, more reliable, and ensuring that the social cost of energy use is taken into account.

The ACDP involves a tax of A$50 per Metric Ton (MT) of CO2 emissions on electricity, direct combustion, transport, fugitive emissions, and
industrial processes (‘the carbon tax’). The revenue generated would then be returned, evenly, to every voting-age Australian citizen. This would represent a tax-free payment of approximately $1,300 per person per annum.

Under the plan, border adjustments for traded goods would mean that Australian industry would not be put at a competitive disadvantage. Exports to countries without comparable schemes would receive rebates for the taxes paid. Imports from countries without such schemes would be charged fees based on the carbon content of those products.

The plan would also permit the rollback of subsidies for renewables and similar measures—these being unnecessary given a carbon tax. This could save the government more than $2.5 billion annually....

I was thinking of this some time ago, that we ban items produced in a badly polluting manner, and to be consistent we ban uranium exports as creates dangerous by-products.

In the future I imagine whole new communities will arise with the ethos that they only consume and produce in a sustainable manner - only it won't occur on a large scale until it is too late.

Ian Murray
21-11-2018, 09:46 AM
...we ban uranium exports as creates dangerous by-products....

Ban coal exports - much more dangerous by-products

antichrist
21-11-2018, 10:28 AM
Ban coal exports - much more dangerous by-products

agree wholeheartedly but nuke wastes can effect future populations thousands of years ahead who would have received none of the "benefits" of the nuke industry and is more insidious. Coal/climate change will also effect long term but better still also effect short term - so catch the so and soes who are benefiting from it as is currently happening.

Ian Murray
21-11-2018, 02:08 PM
agree wholeheartedly but nuke wastes can effect future populations thousands of years ahead ...

If we don't stop climate change there won't be future populations

Desmond
21-11-2018, 02:16 PM
Since when are Uranium exports banned?

According to DFAT (https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/international-relations/asno-annual-report-2013-14/html/section-2/australias-uranium-production-and-exports.html), we exported 6701 tonnes of it in 2013-14, and are the world's third largest producer.

antichrist
21-11-2018, 02:55 PM
If we don't stop climate change there won't be future populations

there may be in some isolated pockets. But nuke wastes can cause illness and deformities etc in all creatures forever - as I stated earlier in populations that may know nothing or very little about nuke power at the time and received no benefit. How many civilisations have lasted hundreds of thousands of years to transmit such knowledge?

At least your great great grand children can have old pics of great great granddad in big gas guzzler with beaming smile. We will be the hated
and scorn generation.

antichrist
21-11-2018, 02:59 PM
Since when are Uranium exports banned?

According to DFAT (https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/international-relations/asno-annual-report-2013-14/html/section-2/australias-uranium-production-and-exports.html), we exported 6701 tonnes of it in 2013-14, and are the world's third largest producer.

Blame Malcolm Fraser and sell out Bob Hawke for that