JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Weekend Unthreaded

..

… (Click to enlarge) Photo: Jo

I took this flying from Denpasar to Perth. Glorious ancient landscape in the dry season north-west WA. Click for a larger broader image.

UPDATE: thanks to help from Steve R W, I think I’ve found the location. It appears to be part of a long ridge in The Barlee Range, just north of the Frederick River in the Pilbara area of Western Australia.  It is so remote, Google Earth tells me “you can’t get here from where you are”.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
Weekend Unthreaded, 10.0 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/l53ydw9

126 comments to Weekend Unthreaded

  • #

    The Guardian, the greenest UK mainstream newspaper, slams wind power, both onshore and offshore, as subsidies for the rich.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/06/wind-turbines-landscape-billionaires-energy-policy

    For a paper this committed to green orthodoxy to take a kick at one of the main pillars of renewable energy is quite a shocking turnaround – lets hope it marks a real change, and its not just an isolated flash of sanity.


    Report this

    340

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Thank you for notifying the Ministry of Propaganda of this incident. Your assistance has been favourably noted.

      A Fast Action Reconditioning Team has been dispatched to The Guardian newspaper offices to identify those involved in the incident. Please be assured that FART will get to the bottom of how this occurred, and will take steps to ensure that wind power does not start to be seen as odorous.


      Report this

      450

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Eric I think this is another example of how “left” politics is confused with “green” politics. I have been guilty many times of calling greens and environmentalists left, but true left politics is more or less the opposite mindset to true green politics. They only end up in the same beds because university environments and that general protest type mentality tend to throw lefts and greens into the same mixing bowls rather than more liberal/libertarian types.

      A proper left movement would be fully in favour of the cheapest forms of power available as it gives the best foundation of industry and manufacturing which = jobs.

      Greens however are genuine conservatives, they are almost purely Malthusian and most of them have never heard of the term, they regard themselves as “revolutionary” and “progressive” because they are in the main such poor students of history, they have no idea that nothing they think is new.

      http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/courses/361/MalthusianIdeology.html

      The group who believes industry and the expansion of mankind is a “problem” aligning itself with the group who basic philosophy should be (although they have forgotten it for a while) the expansion of industry and mankind is also not new and utterly predictable. Lord Acton said (cant find the quote) something to the effect that in politics groups with very different motives will band together if power is on offer. That’s basically the period we have just been through over the last 7 years.

      If Labour is to survive, it has to quickly remember how it came to be and realise they have aligned themselves with people who share little in common with the genuine left view of politics. The things that provide jobs in the real world you and I occupy are the very things greens want to see ended as soon as possible. Its an unholy alliance that cant last.

      Sorry…. my original point being I saw The Guardian as more left than green and I think the confusion that the 2 are one needs to be challenged, especially by the left.


      Report this

      180

      • #
        PeterS

        Yes Safetyguy66, most people confuse left politics with Green politics. Deep down they are opposites; Greens are Nationalist Socialists akin to Nazism, not communist socialists. The do agree in some areas but their methods and many of their ideologies are opposite to each other. In fact they are enemies of each other but in the recent past they have been “in bed” with each other (ALP and Greens) to gain respective power (and fortunately for us have failed; at least for now).


        Report this

        92

        • #
          Jon

          After Reagan and Thatcher opened up “free market and liberalism” the classic left have been marginalised. And the economic failure of USSR really scared the ideological left in the Western World. Their totalitarian Marxist ideology simply did not work.
          Marxist, hard left, went into WWF, Greenpeace etc and changed the focus from real environmental problems to hypothetical problems that was better suited to attack the Western World free market and liberalism that outcompeted USSR in giving people better and longer life’s.
          Rest of the left supported this because with UNFCCC, Kyoto, IPCC, Agenda 21 etc the right side classic liberalism and capitalism will be marginalised and prevent these ideologies from working.


          Report this

          170

        • #
          jorgekafkazar

          You may be right. A pox on all their houses.


          Report this

          41

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          One could say shades of the Weimar Republic following WW I.
          Widespread unemployment, hyperinflation, and the Communists as well as the National Socialists had the solutions.
          With the rise of Adolf, the National Socialists won.
          It could happen here.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Jon

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic

            “The National Assembly elections took place on 19 January 1919. In this time, the radical left-wing parties, including the USPD and KPD, were barely able to get themselves organised, leading to a solid majority of seats for the MSPD moderate forces. To avoid the ongoing fights in Berlin, the National Assembly convened in the city of Weimar, giving the future Republic its unofficial name. The Weimar Constitution created a republic under a parliamentary republic system with the Reichstag elected by proportional representation. The democratic parties obtained a solid 80% of the vote.
            During the debates in Weimar, fighting continued. A Soviet republic was declared in Munich, but was quickly put down by Freikorps and remnants of the regular army. The fall of the Munich Soviet Republic to these units, many of which were situated on the extreme right, resulted in the growth of far-right movements and organisations in Bavaria, including Organisation Consul, the Nazi Party, and societies of exiled Russian Monarchists. “


            Report this

            00

      • #
        turnedoutnice

        In the UK, the elite have hijacked the Left as a cover for Eugenics and a revival of Nazi fascism in the UK, led by the privately-educated elite.

        Cameron and Clegg are their current delegates.


        Report this

        80

        • #
          Kevin Lohse

          Don’t espouse conspiracy theories where sheer incompetence is an adequate explanation. In Clegg’s case, his EU pension, which could be removed if he showed the slightest sign of original thought, provides reasons of both incompetence and venality. Cameron’s wilful destruction of the Conservative party plus standing by while the Nation’s energy provision is wrecked by the millennialist Deep Green LibDems in the DECC underlines his incompetence. As to the privately educated elite , small wonder that Cameron is opposed to Grammar Schools.


          Report this

          131

      • #
        Braqueish

        I agree totally with SafetyGuy. Coming from a left position myself I would regard the green movement as fundamentally reactionary. Their views are rather informed by the works of Tolkien and Jean-Jaques Rousseau than by Marx or Lenin. Where the synergy occurs is that the modern “Left” mainstream parties are actually elitist statists. The greens want to force people to consume less and the statists specialise in knowing what’s best for everyone (else).

        That’s why the greens’ greatest hope lies not in public campaigns (except to spin the appearance of a “movement”) but in supranational bodies like the UN, EU, UNECE, WTO, World Bank, etc, etc. That’s where the “wise” technocrats hand down the regulation which will govern us without the complication of democracy.

        It really is a hall of mirrors. Big oil and coal are up to their necks in “environmentalism” because driving prices higher (a central green target) is good for them. Environmentalism goes out of the window whenever the “solutions” to global warming are deployed, as does the damage to people. So weird is it that a leftwing environmentalist finds himself hanging out on right-leaning blogs to get some relief :-)


        Report this

        110

      • #
        Eugene WR Gallun

        The Green Movement is falling apart and the Left sees this. While the Green Movement was in ascendance the Left leaped to claim it as its own. It was Leftest policy almost from the word Go. Now the Left is trying to claim that actually it had nothing to do with the Green Movement? Political realism on the part of the Left. The memory hole is activated and the truth goes down the shoot. OUR HANDS ARE CLEAN! Pretty soon the Left will be proclaiming that the Green Movement was actually a subsidiary of the Right.

        Any good out of this? Well, when the rats on the Left are abandoning ship you know the end of the Green Movement is near. Soon the faces of Greenies will be removed from all photos containing Lefty politicians.

        Eugene WR Gallun


        Report this

        90

        • #
          Winston

          Couldn’t agree more, Eugene.

          The Left have shown their true colours with CAGW.

          Totalitarian tendencies- you own it.

          Elitism- you own it.

          Total disregard for the welfare of the common man you pretend to champion- you own it.

          If the left think they can weasel their way out of it after playing their hand so precipitously, they have another thing coming.

          And once again and for the last time, Nazism is Marxist, just economically literate Marxism. A statist is a statist is a statist. The fact that Nazis and Communists in Weimar Germany were such deadly enemies was because they were cut from the same cloth, and fighting over the same turf. Just like Shia and Sunni are deadly enemies, but are both Muslims.


          Report this

          82

      • #
        Manfred

        I have held this excellent article (Quadrant: ‘The Greens’ Agenda, in Their Own Words’, Kevin Andrews) up before and do so again. In a nutshell, it seems to me that the Greens (ecological marxists) appear a suitably expedient vehicle for the Left, at least while the shoe fits or there’s political traction. As the Green answer to ‘Life, The Universe and Everything’ starts to approximate ’42′, isn’t it likely that the Left will be in the market for new bedfellows?

        The Greens operate out of a set of ideological principles and beliefs that extend beyond the warm, cuddly environmentalism they wrap themselves in.[29] While “environmentalism” lies at the core of the Greens’ ideology, their policies, if ever enacted, would radically change the economic and social culture of Australia.

        This has been true from the outset. In the 1970s, Jack Mundey’s BLF campaigned for a range of radical issues beyond the immediate industrial interests of the union. He appealed beyond the blue-collar construction workers to the New Left alliance of what has become known as “doctors’ wives” and tertiary students and academics.[30]

        John Black has analysed Green voters over a series of elections. In a recent report, he categorises Green voters.[31] First, those who vote Green as their primary vote: This is the Don’s Party group that used to be in the ALP in the sixties and seventies: young university students or graduates, frequently working or still studying in academia, no kids, often gay, arts and drama type degrees or architecture where they specialise is designing environmentally friendly suburbs, agnostic or atheist, often US or Canadian refugees from capitalism, but well paid in professional consulting or media jobs.[32] These groups swung more heavily to the Greens in 2010: They were led by arts, media or architectural graduate twenty-somethings, atheists and agnostics, Kiwis, the highly mobile university student groups, gays and the Green family group, which is a professional or admin consulting couple with one child attending expensive private schools.[33]

        While the Greens appeal to an alliance of young, tertiary-educated students and professionals, the Party has increasingly been infiltrated at the parliamentary level by members of the hard Left. Let me take two examples. New South Wales senator-elect Lee Rhiannon is a former member of the Moscow-aligned Socialist Party of Australia. Her parents were prominent members of the Communist Party. The new Member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, was a radical student activist. He once attacked the Greens as a “bourgeois” party. Writing on a Marxist website in the 1990s, Mr Bandt attacked capitalism, arguing that ideological purity was paramount. It is clear from his 1995 comments— “Communists can’t fetishise alternative political parties, but should always make some kind of materially based assessment about the effectiveness of any
        given strategy come election time”—that Bandt views the Greens as a vehicle for his ideological pursuits.

        Many descriptions could be applied to the Greens, but none seems more accurate than Jack Mundey’s own description of “ecological Marxism”, which sums up the two core beliefs of the Greens. First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else. This is spelt out in the first principle in the Greens Global Charter, to which the Australian Greens are subscribers: “We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.”[34]

        Second, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism as a political movement. By totalitarian, I mean the subordination of the individual in the impulse to rid society of all elements that, in the eyes of the adherent, mar its perfection.


        Report this

        102

      • #
        Ross

        I think the confusion is deliberate
        on the part of the extreme left. They have highjacked the Green movement and I have never understood how the true environmentalists have let it happen.
        In NZ the Green party is jointedly lead by two from the hard left of politics. They have succeeded in sucking in all the environmentalists but when either of the two speak on the environment anyone can see the lack of belief or sincerity.


        Report this

        70

      • #

        Doesn’t matter what kind of socialists they are. They all want to be “in charge”. Finding that thy don’t have the brains, stickability, social connections or inherited wealth to get to the top in society as it exists they want to destroy it and remake it with themselves in charge. All else is just propaganda. They don’t want truth, relief from oppression and tyranny etc etc etc they just want to be on top.


        Report this

        21

        • #
          Jon

          I agree. It’s mostly people that have problems with classic science based teaching(technology), that is the backbone of today’s Western society. I think it’s subconscious and about reproduction. Chicks don’t choose them. And subconscious today’s western world is not something they feel they can master and is therefore felt as a threat toward their own survival?


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      Simon Jenkins, the Author of that piece is chairman of the National Trust. His latest book is England’s Hundred Best Views. As well as having been editor of The Times & London Evening Standard.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Joe V.

        The National Trust has been fairly ambivalent on the subjects of wind turbines and of fracking on its land, and on land within view of its properties. It is refreshing to see someone of its executive come out with other than a vascilating view on such a emotive subjects, at last.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Quick update, it looks like wind power is in very serious trouble – James Hansen, ex NASA GISS head, the alarmist’s alarmist, they guy who seriously believes that the oceans will boil if we don’t cut CO2 emissions, is now a nuclear power advocate – he’s dropped renewables in front of a bus.

      http://grist.org/news/more-nukes-james-hansen-leads-call-for-safer-nuclear-power-to-save-climate/

      Here’s a good one of Hansen claiming “the oceans will boil”.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1uxfiuKB_R8#t=115


      Report this

      21

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/12/07/22/41/carbon-tax-having-little-effect-report

    http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=932007

    And that’s with a price that is so out of kilter with anything happening anywhere else on the planet, that we can only assume if the system ever got to the stage where it transitions to an ETS at EU prices per unit, emissions would be more likely to rise than fall.

    http://www.dw.de/eu-states-approve-backloading-fix-to-rescue-blocs-carbon-emissions-trade/a-17213997

    Pricing carbon is the only solution huh? Yup if your a drooling imbecile I can see how you might think that….

    Abbott described the idea of an emissions trading scheme as a ”so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one”


    Report this

    180

  • #
    Peter C

    Well no Tress to be seen.
    No wonder it does not rain there!


    Report this

    20

  • #

    The people who support the Renewable power generation of choice, Wind and Solar, haven’t a clue what they are talking about with their seeming smugness. They use Wikipedia as a reference, notoriously slanted to support Renewable Power, and quoted verbatim as proof that these two forms of power generation are in fact having an impact in replacing coal fired power, and supporters are so sure that information is correct, they have this air of superiority when discussing the matter.

    Me, well I have simply the most wonderful source of information, neither biased nor slanted, because it’s actual data, and is from the most up to date source available, the U.S. EIA (Energy Information Administration) Unlike any other place on the Planet, this data is published with only a two Month lead time. Most others, including Australia, publish the data in the form of reports, usually 6 Months in the making and based on data for the previous year, so, in most cases that data is almost 2 years out of date. You can chase up current data, but it’s compiled on huge spread sheets that take knowledgeable deciphering, and making accessing it to prove a point difficult.

    This data from the EIA also needs correct understanding and explanation, so that’s why it is so far over the heads of those Renewable supporters, that they prefer to get their information from Wikipedia and other sources which confirm their belief structure about renewables.

    It’s the treasure I have that allows me to shred any and all arguments from Renewable supporters, and the information is so detailed that it can be used, once explained, to comprehensively destroy the argument that Renewable power actually might be able to do what is claimed.

    So, having painted the picture, I want you to look at the page of data at the following link, and I’ll explain the relevant point I’m going to make here about Wind Power. Wind power has ramped up considerably in the U.S. to the point where they now have 62,000MW of Nameplate Capacity, and for some perspective on that, it’s the same Nameplate total for every power plant of every type in Australia. That’s between 45,000 and 50,000 existing towers, and, as most of the recent ones have 1.5 to 3MW nacelles on them, then using that average, it would still around 35,000 to 40,000 wind towers anywhere wind plants are being constructed. So, using that 62,000MW Nameplate figure, that then equates to 31 Large scale (2000MW+) coal fired power plants. The chart at this link shows there are 29 coal fired plants of 2000MW+ for a Nameplate Capacity of 74,000MW. Not one of those plants has closed in the 6 years I have been doing this. In fact, from that chart, you’ll see there are 126 plants greater than 1000MW and none of them has closed in that time, or are even scheduled to close. So, then look at the data at this link.

    Net Generation by Other Renewable Sources:

    Look here at Wind Power. The data is expressed in actual power being generated for delivery to the grids, and shown in Thousands of MWH (GWH).

    See how Wind has ramped up considerably since 2003.

    Now, scroll down to the year headed 2013 and notice the variability of power delivery for all the Months of the year so far.

    Look at the figures for the Month of August, and that’s 9618GWH for those 31 days.

    That power delivery means that for this Month, the Capacity Factor for all that Wind power comes in at 20.8%. That total power delivery from Wind comes in at only 2.5% of all power consumed in the U.S. during that Month. That power delivery needs to be tempered with the use of the Capacity Factor, which relates to time versus power delivery, so 20.8% means that 62,000MW of wind power was only delivering its maximum rated power for barely 5 hours out of every 24 hour day for all 31 days on average, and those 5 hours could be any time, usually in the hours when power consumption is least, between midnight and 6AM, when it is not needed.

    Those equivalent 31 Coal fired power plants would have delivered just under 4 times the power, so the same power from all that wind was delivered by 8 of those coal fired plants.

    There would be some who might accuse me of cherry picking just one really sad Month for Wind, (a whole Month mind you, and look at data for any of the previous August Months) but even the figures for the rolling 12 Month period still sees Wind with a Capacity Factor of only 29.8%, still only 7 hours a day on average for the whole year.

    Access to data like this and correctly explained gives me the ability to shred any and all supporters, not just for Wind but for Solar Power as well, and hey, why would you even bother with Solar Power when you look at hat pitiful total there at the link for all the solar power in the U.S. a power delivery that equates to only 0.18% of all power consumed in the U.S. So, when Renewable power supporters assert that I’m the one living in the past slagging off at new technologies, if any new technology performed as badly as Renewable power, it would be laughed out of existence, literally, and in very short time.

    Renewable Power is a failure, and that’s putting it politely.


    Report this

    412

    • #
      Migraine

      Renewable Power is a failure, and that’s putting it politely.

      There you go again Tony, mis_stating the truth again to confuse and misinform the plebs’. My inspiration in all this has tried to correct your ranting on many occasions in the past, I expect her to show up shortly and correct you again.

      Migraine
      sarc off.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Dave

      Tony,

      Different diagram on area required by wind, solar and nuclear.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        bobl

        Nice diagram, but wrong I think. Based on the nameplate capacity which is about 20 x times the baseload equivalent capacity (reliable capacity – live without nuclear or coal level of renewable generation).

        The areas shown is only enough to produce electricity for all about 5% of the time, or 5 % of the consumers all the time.

        BTW for those that care, to date, Margot has yet to contact me to organise her disconnection from the grid anytime renewable production falls below 100 %

        BA-4 what about you, are you prepared to be second off the grid behind Margot when renewables underperform nameplate? C’mon m’ boy, ante up!


        Report this

        20

      • #

        I’ll do this in two comments, because this is important.

        Now, while the area coverage for power production, both for Solar Power and Wind Power is one part of the equation, I think we can tend to concentrate too much on that. It’s something at the periphery, and don’t look at that as my downplaying the importance of that area coverage thing.

        The same applies with (a) the (now confirmed) medical problems associated with Wind turbines, and (b) their propensity for bird and bat chopping.

        While all those problems are worthy of notice, again, they are also at the periphery in my opinion.

        Far and away the problem that should be concentrated upon is their total inability to provide power on a regular and dedicated time basis.

        Coal fired power supplies while ever the unit is running, and has an acknowledged reliability, and can be relied upon to supply huge amounts of power. Literally set and forget. While we don’t have Nuclear plants, they are the same as for coal fired power, regularly supplying power at a 90% CF, and sometimes even greater than that. Constantly running. Set and forget.

        When extra power is needed, then natural gas fired units are run up, also supplying large amounts of power while ever the unit is turned on. Again, set and forget.

        Wind power. Quite literally, who knows? They just cannot be relied upon to supply any level of power with any regularity. THAT is the major problem with Wind power and should be concentrated on the greatest, their total inability to supply their Nameplate power on demand, if and when it is needed.

        Tony.


        Report this

        71

        • #
          bobl

          You miss my point Tony, it’s exactly because it’s unreliable that I point out that you have to overbuild about 20 times in order to get “baseload equivalent power” even assuming that the storage necessary to deliver that existed. You and I are saying the same thing, I’ve just quantified it. The area needed by solar is 20 times that in the diagram, and needs 5 days or so of energy storage and for wind it’s almost infinite, because no amount of storage can reliably fill gaps that might extend for weeks.

          The area argument shows the total impracticality of wind/solar, it also effectively plays to the environmental argument, how environmentally sensitive can carpeting 15 square kilometres to the Gigawatt with solar panels be?

          It’s a good effective argument, but it must be made on an oranges to oranges basis. That is, what area is required for a renewable plant that is capable of operating standalone, without fossil backup, and that works out to be about 8W per square metre for solar.

          It’s the same at home, if you want to run 24 x7 standalone solar with grid level reliability then take your daily consumption and multiply by 5 and that’s your required battery storage, to keep it charged take your average consumption divide it by 8, and that how many square meters of solar panels you need. For a home that averages a kilowatt you need about 120 square metres of panels for a reliable supply.


          Report this

          00

      • #

        Again, this is why this diagram is of the UTMOST importance.

        Power Consumption Load Curve

        Note the line of the curve itself.

        That is the total power consumption, power actually being consumed by all the users in all three sectors, Residential, Commercial, and Industrial.

        The actual amount of power being generated follows that curve exactly, only at a slightly higher level. Power MUST be there ready if consumption increases, or any plant is scheduled for removal because of maintenance or an unscheduled outage.

        Imagine if you will that Wind power is part of that mix, and as is nearly always the case, the variability of wind causes turbines to stop. So now we have the case where consumption is greater than what is being generated. The ONLY answer to that is that some consumers somewhere get taken off the grid, in other words they have their power removed.

        Because of that, grid controllers MUST have dedicated actual power on line at all times, running and supplying power to the grid, enough to actually cover if wind fails.

        Imagine being the grid controller relying on wind to be part of that mix, only to have wind fail, and generation to fall lower than consumption. Imagine the decision makers all the way above him to the relevant State Minister. Who values their job so little that they are the ones to tell the grid controller to just rely on the wind. What grid controller in his right mind would be the one who decides to rely on Wind to be part of that maximum level.

        Having said that, note on that Load Curve the yellow part at the bottom.

        That is Wind Power, barely 2.5% of the total, virtually nothing overall. Even though it is nothing, make that wind part of the Maximum and it fails, then there HAS to be power there ready at all times to cover any failure in wind.

        So, not only is Wind Power NOT supplying at the level that makes any difference whatsoever, it needs constant backup to cover for it when it fails.

        Talk all you like about area coverage, medical problems, and the problems with wildlife, but far and away the greatest thing that should be highlighted about Wind is the failure to do what they are claiming Wind can do.

        Tony.


        Report this

        61

      • #

        While I concentrate mainly on Wind, my reaction to Solar Power is more along the lines of why would you even bother.

        See that Load Curve image I linked to.

        Solar power in Australia is not indicated with a colour as it is too small to even show. It can be explained with this.

        See the line indicating the curve itself. Follow that line from around 6AM to 6PM.

        Solar power in Australia is the thickness of that line, and that includes ALL rooftop solar power as well.

        Now, go back to the humble grid controller.

        Is he relying on commercial solar and rooftop solar? It does not even enter his mind.

        During daylight hours rooftop solar is mainly supplying the homes which have the panels on their roofs.

        Residential power consumption is only 20% of all consumption (here in Australia) so that rooftop solar power is supplying around 0.2% of all power, and that figure is a conservative one on the high side, as it is probably closer to half that percentage.

        Now, because rooftop solar is supplying the needs of the homes with the panels, that means traditional sources do not need to supply that power to homes ….. during the time they supply, daylight hours.

        So, rooftop solar power has ZERO effect on coal fired power supply, as those units just hum along supplying their maximum all the time. Gas fired units still supply what they supply, and the percentage from solar power is so small that overall, it would not amount to the output of one of those Peaking Power plants, as rooftop solar is localised consumption only.

        As to the power being fed back to the grid, after the residence itself takes what it needs, that amount is a percentage so tiny that grid controllers would be hard pressed to even notice it, let alone rely on it for consumption in other areas.

        Being so tiny and localised, then this too would not see any other power units shutting down either.

        So people can spruik on all they like about how renewables, both wind and solar are having an effect.

        The actuality is that they have little if any effect, and cannot be relied upon to cover actual needed power consumption.

        A humungous waste of money for virtually no effect whatsoever.

        Tony.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          bobl

          Wrong, wrong, wrong Tony,

          Solar/wind does have its uses, it’s a lot cheaper to install a solar panel or a wind mill on a bore pump 1/2 a mile from the nearest electricity outlet. You can also pretty reasonably power a house, if you have $50K to spend (every 10 years) and lots of space to waste

          But beyond small remote area supplies it’s pretty useless becuase it only works during the day, and then only when the sun shines.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Tony,
      Thank you for that.
      I’ve been trying to get permission to publish here an article from the Journal of the Professional Engineers of GB, August 2013, no luck so far. Header “Wind Power Does Cut Carbon.” Quote “Clearly a wind turbine cannot generate electricity when there is no wind at all – however in the UK wind turbines generate electricity 70-85% of the time. According to table 6.4 of DUKES* 2012. 10.4 TWh of electricity was generated by 6.4GW installed capacity of onshore wind in 2011.
      *DUKES = Digest of UK Energy Statistics. They further say “In 2011, the capacity factor, based on average beginning and end-of-year capacity, was 29.8% for onshore wind. The benefits of the higher wind resource offshore are highlighted by an increased capacity factor of 36.8%”
      You might like to compare these UK figures to the USA ones you quote.
      I get an impression that the UK engineers are slanting towards re-education. The Journal Editor seemed alarmed that a survey that asked professional engineers “Do you accept that wind turbines produce a net CO2 reduction over their entire life cycle?” got a response of 24% Yes and 33% Don’t Know. So the Editor rushed to show that all was well.
      Pity he did not include the backup that is needed for wind to be viable. I tossed him the thought that you would not road test an electric car in a location that had sparse recharge points limiting its range, without mention of that limitation.


      Report this

      41

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Geoff;
        you are probably aware of Duncan Seddon’s article

        http://www.flipemag.com.au/APT/emagEG_fourthquarter_2013/

        Pages 25-27. He calculates the difference in CO2 emissions between wind +OCGT backup and a CCGT plant.

        He points out that below 33% capacity factor for the wind component there will be more CO2 than from the CCGT unit.
        Given that the UK and Australia (particularly SA) rely mostly on OCGT to backup wind farms, this would indicate that most wind farms are causing MORE EMISSIONS, not less.

        Seddon takes a fairly generous view for wind. He estimates the CO2 emissions from OCGT at 569 kg. per MWh, which is a good deal lower than most estimates of 650-750. To be fair he is assuming methane supply, whereas in practice OCGT can be powered by kerosene or oil as well. Those higher emissions raise even more doubts about any savings from wind. He also accepts the claims for Capacity Factor supplied by the wind farm operators; e.g. Albany WA is shown as 35.4%. When it was built the claim was nearly 41% would be available, but since then the estimates have been 31.5-33.5%. Also given that they are quite close together, one wonders why Waterloo was installed there when the Hallets, Snowtown and Clements Gap were so much better choices? (Unless the owners of Waterloo are more truthful).

        In a real grid system there are further drawbacks because most power will be from continuous units (coal or nuclear as per Tony above). Too high a supply surge from wind will cause these units to operate inefficiently, i.e. they will produce less electricity without much if any reduction in the CO2 emissions. Too much wind and the plants will have to be shut down. I suspect this was the basis of the warning by the Danish Electrical Ass. (and repeated by the Spanish later) that more than 17% wind capacity destabilises the whole supply.

        The Danes get no emission reductions from wind, and in fact get higher emissions when there is lots of wind because the CHP*
        plants have to keep supplying heat but cannot supply electricity because that from wind gets priority. Nor have they shut down any coal fired stations in the last 20 years.

        *combined heat and power plants.


        Report this

        10

    • #

      James Hansen, who’s 80′s testimony practically kicked off the AGW scare, has just put his reputation solidly behind nuclear. He doesn’t believe renewables are the solution.

      http://grist.org/news/more-nukes-james-hansen-leads-call-for-safer-nuclear-power-to-save-climate/


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Peter C

    I would like to know what happened to Climategate 3.0 emails. The unlock key was revealed to a few people in March 2013 and since then we have nor seen a single email!

    Surely there must be a few people who have seen them.

    What gives. Are they so boring that we could not be bothered reading them? I don’t mind looking through a bit of rubbish. The perpetrators of the Global Warming Scam cannot be punished enough. Privacy is no excuse here. The TRUTH must come out.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Peter C, I think Climate-gate one and two had all of the good stuff.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        DavidH

        That may be. But when the question is raised – T’m one of several who’ve asked it here and I’ve seem the question posed on other sites – there doesn’t seem to be a response from anyone. If the truth is out there, then surely one of our many, capable internet sleuths would have provided a link. If there’s nothing new, then there ought to be a link somewhere saying that and “see for yourselves”.

        I’m suspecting that the harrassment of people such as Tall Bloke and later legal threats to people who have the decryption key may be (quite understandly) weighing on peoples’ minds.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Peter C

          Well according to Jo, here is what FOIA himself/herself said

          If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words…

          The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.

          Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.

          It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.

          Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”. The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.

          Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.

          We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.

          If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.

          It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.

          Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

          Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.

          If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I’d have to try. I couldn’t morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.

          Surely his message needs to get out. Why can’t he send it to an obscure Russian website and let us download it from there?


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          David,

          All of the evidence that I have seen, indicates that the entire file of emails was copied en masse, in a single action. It could have been a backup file, for example, that was put in the wrong place, and gave a one-time opportunity to acquire the contents.

          If that is the case, then it would have contained a whole lot of personal and private information about people who are only peripheral to the science; wives, husbands, children, parents, etc.

          The privacy of those people needs to be protected. They should not be collateral damage.

          I trust people like Tallbloke, and the other folks who must have spent hours sorting the relevant emails from the personal and private stuff.

          FOIA achieved his/her purpose, and the release of the first, and second, tranche of relevant emails presented sufficient evidence to initiate the required change in direction. They did the job.

          Knowing that somebody’s child has leukemia, for example, does not help in the discussion of the politics surrounding climate activism.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Ross

            I agree RW. But, in contrast, it is interesting to read about the Snowdon leaks and how the stolen files were organised so meticulously. Must have taken along time to do.


            Report this

            00

    • #
    • #
      bobl

      FOIA stated that he had not released CG3 because the thousands of e-mails had not been redacted. CG1 and 2 had been redacted by FOIA. Hence the password was released in confidence to some trusted people. I dont think Jo was among those unfortunately. Anthony Watts definitely was though, so you might do better asking on WUWT

      From all reports the balance of the email did not produce much more newsworthy content over CG1 or 2. Speculation that FOIA was holding back some gems was wrong, FOIA had already released the good stuff.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    I got a strange invitation the other day, and I was wondering if there are any other Sydney-siders that got it as well …

    It is an invitation from Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore (Green left – shouldn’t she by Lady Mayor?) and the Premier of NSW, Barry O’Farrell (Liberal – mostly harmless) to participate in a selection process (starting from 20,000 invitations) to get to a committee of 43 people to make recommendations for the following question –

    How can we ensure we have a vibrant and safe Sydney nightlife

    The committee will meat over 5 Saturdays in starting in February and ending in April and will have access to “information and experts” to arrive at a consensus style decision. The Premier has committed to table the recommendations in parliament (NSW). Easy promise to make as it does not mean that parliament will actually have to do anything with the recommendatons.

    This has been instigated by a think tank called newDemocracy. Now usually when the left add the term “new” to anything, it means “not” as in “New Scientist”. Members of this think tank include former premier Nick Greiner, Lucy Hughes Turnbull (former Lord Mayor), Cheryl Kernot (former leader of the Australia Democrats) and John Della Bosca (former Minister in previous NSW Labor government) and a bunch of academics. Now their website does propose a few things that I like such as optional preferential voting and the submission of an empty vote (or “None of the above” option) is a valid vote. They are also against the rise of the professional politician although I think that their proposed solution for this is a bit cumbersome.

    I am not sure whether this is worthy of my time even though they have promised to provide meals and a $400 payment to “cover expenses”.

    What does the peanut gallery think? (that is you lot – in case you were in any doubt)


    Report this

    20

    • #

      If you have the time, turn up just to see how these things work (or don’t work as the case usually is).

      By the way, just from the fact that these morons advocate a “none of the above” vote, I’d say they were latte sipping lefty drongos totally cut off from reality.
      When I did scrutineering at the last federal election, one of the things that broke up the monotony in a fun way was reading the many and varied comments written on the ballot papers, making them (effectively) “none of the above”.
      We don’t need no steeenkin’ 25 page legislation to “legalize” none of the above voting. We the uneducated plebs already know how to vote “none of the above”, we just write “Go F@#$ Yourselves” (or similar) on the ballot paper.


      Report this

      72

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Baa,

        I think that there is, and should be recognised in electoral legislation, the difference between an informal vote (the “Go F#%k yourselves” option) and a “null” vote where you are politely saying “None of these candidates deserve my vote”. The next step from having the “null” vote is to say that if more than 50% of voters for a lower house seat choose this option, then no candidate is elected and a by-election has to be held and none of the previous candidates can stand for this by-election.

        I may be dreaming, but it is my dream and I will have it if I want to.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          bobl

          I formally gift you the right to your dream and promise that I will never alter section 18C of the anti-discrimination act to outlaw your dreams. Having said that, I cant speak for the various leftie hangers on that so readily think they can regulate thought

          Orwell was a prophet!


          Report this

          10

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      ” They are also against the rise of the professional politician “. Is this a classic case of pulling up the ladder of preferment after them?


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Kevin,

        No it isn’t. The better way to achieve this would be to not allow anyone to stand for an elected office once they have served 10 years at any level as an elected candidate. You can finish your term, just not stand for a new one. This will effectively force a continuous turnover of elected representatives and means that people being elected would have to have some real world skills to bring to the table.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          The politicians are not the real problem. It is the public servants who “advise” them, that are the problem.

          In the UK they are referred to as Permanent Secretaries, or Permanent Under Secretaries, depending on the area of Government. The television series, “Yes Minister”, and its sequel, were funny, exactly because they took the truth and emphasised it to an extreme.

          The politicians set the overall policy objectives, but rarely have much say in the way those objectives are “addressed”.

          As such, any initiative that is considered too onerous by Management and the rank and file, in the public sector, invariably fails through lack of support, and sometimes misdirection.

          There has been numerous examples where computer systems that work in the private sector, somehow fail to work correctly in the public sector. The stated reason being, that the public sector is much more complex than the private sector, because of all the special cases that must be considered, and the need for total accountability at all stages of every process. The real reason is that change – any change – is often seen as a risk to the concept of continuous employment.


          Report this

          20

      • #
        AndyG55

        “” They are also against the rise of the professional politician “. ‘

        Ohh, does that mean no more ex-Union lawyers? SWEEEEET !!!


        Report this

        20

    • #
      LevelGaze

      “committee will meat over 5 Saturdays”

      If I were a Sydeysider, I would definitely accept that that invitation!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    handjive

    NASA’s Cassini mission has captured an incredible high-resolution animation of the psychedelic jet stream known as Saturn’s Northern Hexagon.

    The strange polygonal object is a continent-sized six-sided hurricane with 200 mph winds that spins around Saturn’s north pole.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I have no intent to marginalize the technological achievement that let Cassini capture that picture of something no one on Earth could ever see but for that space mission.

      On the other hand, as an over taxed, over restricted citizen who pays for NASA’s work, I have to wonder if this whole business of unmanned space exploration is worth my contribution to the effort. I can find incredible high-resolution beauty and mind boggling phenomena right here at home. A spider’s web wet with the morning dew and sparkling in the rising sun, still to this day blows me away knowing that a creature with a nearly non existent brain compared to mine can do such work and I cannot. And the pictures Jo has been putting up as lead in to these weekend threads have much more appeal, even considering my rather great scientific curiosity.

      I can’t help wondering what much more valuable technology we might now be enjoying if some scientist had been concentrating on solutions to our pollution or medical problems instead of space flight.

      I wonder if we’re on the right track or the wrong.


      Report this

      41

      • #
        Manfred

        I take the view that anything, and I mean just about anything that prevents Humankind from navel gazing, that encourages us to look outward and beyond ourselves far surpasses the measly effort of NASA’s budget.

        The NASA budget is utterly and completely insignificant when compared with the gigantic financial extravaganza, that economically near fatal haemorrhage inflicted upon us by the deranged CAGW cult over the last 15 – 20 years. Costs related to UN spending, global ETS, US Government budget, Big Green, Green policies, Rio / Copenhopeless Summits et al., and on and on and on and on – trillions of wasted dollars.

        Had this titanic politicised spend been directed to fruitful scientific pastures the benefits to humanity are almost beyond comprehension.

        Therein lies the terrible, dreadful loss, the colossal crime, the Jungian ‘shadow possession’:

        “A man who is possessed by his shadow is always standing in his own light and falling into his own traps…”


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Manfred,

          I can understand that. I won’t argue a bit. Yet the few millions — or hundred millions — on Cassini could do a whole lot of good in other places.

          You’re right, the NASA budget is insignificant compared to the waste of billions global warming has caused. But when a man is hungry, even a $20 bill can be a vast sum of money if he doesn’t have it.

          It’s all relative.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I can say I was disappointed in there high resolution animation. It was a chunky gif which barely animated. I could see what looked like mini storms surrounding the central main. But the resolution and animation was so poor to be almost worthless.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Manfred

      Strains of the black monolith. There may be some unrestrained excitement.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Neville

    Why does there seem to be so little global warming? The new study on SLR by Chen, Feng and Huang finds a deceleration in the rise and probable 7 inches or 17.5 cm by 2100.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/new-paper-finds-sea-level-rise-has.html Much of the deceleration is due to a slowing of thermal expansion over the last 10 years and a change in the PDO.
    Just more evidence if needed that OZ should repeal Labor’s clueless co2 tax immediately. You can find a link to the paper at the bottom of the article.


    Report this

    131

  • #
    Dave

    Windmills, Bird Munchers, Bat Poppers are off:

    I am getting sick of the Greenies touting the benefit of these idiot things. Here’s an example of a local councillor, John Boyle who lives close to the wind farm which generates 10 megawatts from the five turbines, who said:

    “A section of blade around 10 feet long broke of and fell to the ground beside the turbine. It didn’t do any damage and there was no one near it. I can only presume it was the very strong winds which caused it to break off”

    They didn’t report that he sold the land for two of the turbines. Well in March this year, the windfarm at Loughderryduff, near Mass, Portnoo had a major failure with one of the five falling in a heap. The main stem lying flat on the ground and debris was spread over a wide area.

    Back to the original Councillor saying everything is OK, well mate, the guy that took this PHOTO says it’s only 10 meters from his home. FFS, why does this Green parasite lie through his teeth to justify his income.

    There are two stories associated with this windmill mess:
    1. Wind turbine blade breaks off near Killybegs.
    2. Huge wind turbine blown down near Ardara.

    The bloke who is concerned about these monsters, says the other windmills close by are still operating. Very good work place health and safety in place here.

    Greenies will have a lot to answer for very shortly.


    Report this

    71

  • #
    Peter Miller

    One of the intriguing things about the last few months has been the abrupt reversal of the previously steadily declining Arctic ice cap.

    Has it been unusually cool in the Arctic during the past few months? Answer: No, in fact it has been slightly warmer than usual.

    All this strongly suggests that there is a mechanism controlling the Arctic’s ice extent which we have not yet recognised. In reality, this should state: “which the climate establishment deliberately refuses to investigate or recognise.”

    Climate alarmists consistently point at the Arctic as being ‘proof’ of man made global warming caused by carbon dioxide. Well, we all know the Antarctic is not playing ball and its ice cap continues to grow steadily year by year.

    My point is that I think the Arctic may be about to become the final battle ground between sceptics and alarmists. All the rest of the ‘proofs’ for man made global warming have been so shredded that they are now only believed by card carrying alarmist cult members and/or the very gullible.

    So, what is really happening in the Arctic and why is it so different from the Antarctic?

    1. The Arctic is almost a closed sea, the Antarctic is totally open. The impact of ocean currents varies more in the Arctic than in the Antarctic.

    2. The Arctic is fed by several major river systems, the Antarctic has none.

    3. The Arctic has much lower salinity than the Antarctic, if the Arctic Ocean’s salinity was the same as the rest of the world’s oceans, its ice cap would be much smaller than it is today.

    4. The Arctic is underlaid by complex layers of sea water with varying salinities.

    5. The Arctic is in the Northern Hemisphere and therefore is subject to much greater levels of airborne pollution, and soot in particular.

    6. The Arctic is underlaid by several major active hydrothermal systems, which may have an impact on both water temperature and near surface salinity. Active hydrothermal systems on the Arctic Ocean floor could be causing an irregular mixing of sea water of different salinities. If the more saline deeper waters are brought closer to surface, it will result in ice only be able to form at higher temperatures – in other words, the ice cap will retreat.

    So why do alarmists deliberately ignore all of the above points?

    Are they inconvenient? Answer: Yes.

    Are alarmists stupid to ignore the above? Answer: ‘Yes’ for some of them, but ‘No’ for those who have chosen to be deliberately dishonest or disingenuous.

    What I would like to see is a balanced in depth research program on the Arctic ice cap, with none of the usual hysterical hype about polar bears and imminent Thermageddon.

    Any chance of this type of research being instigated by the current Climate Establishment?

    Answer: Absolutely none. After all, why should the Climate Establisment risk committing hari kari by undertaking the type of objective research, which had the potential to shred the only remaining pillar of its alarmist arguments?


    Report this

    171

  • #
    Turtle of WA

    Caught up with a lefty mate today. He was putting up his Christmas Tree. This was ironic in itself. What surprised me was that when I asked ‘What sort of tree?’ he told me the went to the bush and cut one down. When I expressed my dismay that he would chop down a tree, sarcastically, he explained that modern wisdom tells us a plastic tree must be used for twenty years to be environmentally sustainable. You have to laugh. Growing up my right wing farming family always grew vegetables (much they gave away, largely at church) and cut down their own Christmas tree. No trendy accolades or feel-good mantras. No drive for sustainability.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Seen this a couple of days ago http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/snow-falling-in-australia-in-summer-that-is-all/story-e6frflp0-1226775945701 good to see people remembering 2006 in the comments, there may be hope yet.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Say “It Ain’t So”…..

    SANTA THREATENS TO CANCEL CHRISTMAS!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBS4_Keowy4

    Shows the DESPERATION of Greenpeace!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Ian Hill

    While sitting in my back yard on a warm summer afternoon reading “Taxing Air” I look up and see a butterfly sort of prancing around the lawn. They just cannot fly in a straight line like a bird. Then there was another and another, and I thought “you never see just one butterfly”! That got me thinking about the statement that “a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon affects the weather in the Philippines (or wherever it was)” and then thinking “what utter cobblers”. For starters the random movement of the many butterflies in the near vicinity would make the net effect of all those miniscule eddies so close to zero it might as well be. Then there is the dampening effect of the traffic in my street. Nah, it’s like telling me a child throwing a pebble in the sea at Sydney will cause a tsunami in Chile.

    There, I’ve got that out of my system! :)


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Rabe

      Ian, “They just cannot fly in a straight line”…

      I thought so, too, but they can. I was on my bike going about 20 Km/h when one flew straight beside me for about 150 meters.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Eugene WR Gallun

    AL GORE — AMERICAN BLOVIATOR

    Forever, forever its all Al Gore
    Now, in the future and always before
    Spinning himself with the words he can whirl
    The earth is his oyster, he is its pearl

    –Carbon dioxide is filling the air!
    And there’s no escaping — ITS EVERYWHERE!
    It’s up in the sky, it’s under your bed
    It’s deep in your lungs, comes out of your head!
    The polar caps melt from CO2′s heat
    The seas will be rising twenty-five feet
    The Ocean Conveyor ceasing to flow
    Where water goes stagnant algae will grow!
    A growth in plant life that carbon promotes!
    Green seas where sargasso seamlessly floats!
    If acid rain scared you — THINK ABOUT THIS!
    Oceans acidic and warmer than piss!
    The teddy bears — Wait! — the polar bears drown
    As carbon goes up — survival goes down!

    Whatever Al says he fully believes
    First before others himself he deceives
    Then sure of THE TRUTH his dictums are hurled
    Like God, by the Word, creating the world!

    – The sky! It is falling upon your head!
    Sharknadoes increasing with millions dead!
    (That’s in a movie — I make movies too
    Seeing’s believing so all of it’s true!}
    Weather is weirding and it’s everyplace!
    Our footprint of carbon on Gaia’s face!
    No refuge! No sanctum! None can escape
    Gaia’s revenge for Capitalist rape!
    Science is settle! We know all the facts!
    These super storms need a new super tax!
    The pain of the earth has left me no choice!
    Gaia’s commandments are heard in my voice!
    Live out the penance not any may shirk!
    Give up your cars — ride bicycles to work!

    Al’s actions say more than words can explain
    An angel with wings! — his own private plane
    Mansions and autos, a party time yacht
    Al owns such but preaches — others must not!

    (Note: At the end of this poem I intend to include a
    short note about Al Gore’s propensity to fake “science
    experiments” to impress children with the dangers of
    global warming. The reality is that people like Al Gore
    are the real danger to our children.)

    Eugene WR Gallun


    Report this

    150

  • #
    janama

    Tonight I remembered that Ove Hoegh-Guldberg had a website called Climate Shifts so I visited it once again.

    It’s last post was Jan 27, 2013.

    http://www.climateshifts.org/


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Either he has to concentrate on his employment or he is “exiting as if pursued by a bear” from acting as a visible AGW green.

      Now who was that UK (victorian times) politician known as Wicked Shifts?


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Another great picture. I really must get to Australia before I die.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Manfred

    Magnificent photo Jo. Not so far removed from the splendid images produced by MRO, HiRISE and ESA/Mars Express.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Wonderful view Jo.

    I watched the Aussie version of the Coast program last night that covered this area. Absolutely fantastic natural lanscape. The only blemish on the program was that it had Flannery on it but at least he was talking about dinosaurs and not CC.


    Report this

    51

  • #
    O2

    Global warming its as real as Santa Clause


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Anthony

    The Climate Council has just released it’s first report, I mean one that wasn’t copy and pasted from another website that is.
    I haven’t actually read it yet, just skimmed it, (some awesome photos of our beauty flora and fauna, before the impending AGW caused bushfires of course) so not to sure what it is all about, but I can imagine…


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    surely the maddest & most dangerous CAGW-promoters are the “beyond zero” crowd:

    9 Dec: Climate Spectator: Stephen Bygrave: The bloody-minded Banjos keepin’ carbon in our air
    (Dr Stephen Bygrave is chief executive of Beyond Zero Emissions. He has worked nationally and internationally on climate change for 20 years)
    Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics about average household expenditure show how repeal of the carbon price cannot save households very much.
    Why not? Because households don’t spend very much on power.
    For a house that is struggling to pay all it’s bills, that may not sound like much comfort, but the amount we’re talking about is relatively tiny…
    For Beyond Zero Emissions, a carbon price with a 5 per cent emissions reduction target is 95 per cent less than what we should aim for. As it happens, our 2010 Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan estimated that a comprehensive feed-in tariff to pay for zero-emissions electricity would add about $8 per household per week ($416 per year).
    So looking at this argument backwards, the carbon price, costing between $1.74 and $3.13 per week, is relatively cheap. For a few dollars more, a radical emissions cut is possible. And this action would take our entire electricity generation (stationary energy) sector to zero emissions…
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/12/9/policy-politics/bloody-minded-banjos-keepin-carbon-our-air

    Bygrave’s timeline conveniently omits any mention of 2009 and Climategate:

    21 Nov: Climate Spectator: Stephen Bygrave: What price the carbon price?
    We all know that the act of ‘putting a price on carbon’ has contributed to the downfall of three Australian prime ministers and two opposition leaders.
    What might not be as well known is that carbon pricing has gone relatively unnoticed in other countries, particularly in Europe, but also in our close neighbour New Zealand.
    When I was working in the OECD on emissions trading from 2002-2004, the European Commission was designing and implementing an emissions trading scheme with little attention from anyone in the community…
    Australia had been leading the world in emissions trading design in the late 1990s…
    When the Howard government established the Australian Greenhouse Office in late 1997, this was the world’s first government agency dedicated to climate change.
    Part of the work of the AGO was to produce four papers on emissions trading:…
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/11/17/policy-politics/what-price-carbon-price

    20 August 2013 — Beyond Zero Emissions has appointed Stephen Bygrave to the position of chief executive officer
    He has a PhD in Resource and Environmental Management from ANU and bachelors of Economics and Science…
    Dr Bygrave’s work has included designing the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target in the late 1990s, managing Australia’s first major renewable energy and sustainable transport programs, and most recently being involved in the design and implementation of the Clean Energy Future package.
    http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/archives/53766/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    Anthony -

    Flannery has co-opted my “reality bites”!! LOL.

    9 Dec: SMH: Tim Flannery: Reality bites as climate change adds fuels to bushfires
    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/reality-bites-as-climate-change-adds-fuels-to-bushfires-20131208-2yz47.html

    Murdoch uncritically publishes every Flannery utterance:

    9 Dec: Herald Sun: Matt Johnston: Climate Council warns on big and frequent bushfires
    Chief councillor Professor Tim Flannery said Australia had always experienced bushfires and there was a growing likelihood there would be more of them in the future.
    “Climate change is driving up the risk of fire danger weather,” he said…
    “We must understand the risks of a changing climate to protect ourselves into the future.”
    The report says climate change is contributing to hotter and drier conditions in the southeast and southwest of Australia.
    The report also predicts sustained and more frequent heatwaves, extending into October and March…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/climate-council-warns-on-big-and-frequent-bushfires/story-fni0fit3-1226778254803

    Siemens & “holistic”? appealing to the aesthetic sensibilities of the CAGW Believers?

    12 Nov: Australian: Hannah Jenkins: Tim Flannery’s Climate Council set to target commercial buildings
    Chief Technology Officer at Siemens Energy, Dr Michael Weinhold, said sustainable-energy systems need to be integrated into the market if they are to make an impact on society.
    “We have to take a holistic view against energy systems and take action to frame markets and push infrastructures that have been designed by engineers,” he said.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/tim-flannerys-climate-councils-to-target-commercial-buildings/story-e6frg6xf-1226758400568

    renewable behemoth, Siemens, are the only ones quoted besides Flannery. is Flannery back advising them by any chance?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    handjive

    A bizarre instrument combining a piano and cello has finally been played to an audience more than 500 years after it was dreamt up Leonardo da Vinci.

    * A look through comments will note a history that this amazing thing has been built before.

    But this is the only one around now. Enjoy.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Global warming is ‘threatening’ rare wildlife in Queensland forests, says ‘their’ ABC on radio yesterday. The white possums have had to move ‘further up the mountain’ to escape the heat. Some checking only finds adjusted heat, using an old post of Jo’s to help refute. Thanks Jo.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    a Bloomberg/Glencore/Coal/CAGW saga.

    ***remove the competition & increase your profits!

    5 Dec: Bloomberg: Thomas Biesheuvel/Jesse Riseborough: Glasenberg Raises Glencore’s Bet on Coal as BHP Pauses: Energy
    (at end of article: Peter Grauer, the chairman of Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, is a non-executive director of Glencore Xstrata)
    Ivan Glasenberg, the billionaire running commodities supplier Glencore Xstrata Plc, is investing more in thermal coal than his three closest competitors combined even as investors warn the fuel’s outlook is deteriorating…
    Glasenberg, 56, is deepening his bet on coal as appetite wanes among some investors for companies that extract fuels blamed for making the biggest contribution to climate change…
    Glencore, based in Baar, forecasts that demand for coal exports will rise 12 percent by 2016 from this year and has a “positive medium-term market outlook” ***as less profitable mines close, removing supply…
    Glasenberg’s bet on coal is underpinned by the company’s view that demand will rise in China, India, Vietnam and Turkey. An estimated 1,600 new coal-fired power plants in 59 countries are expected to come online by 2020, Glencore’s head of coal Tor Peterson said in London in September. Still, 30 percent of world production is unprofitable at current prices because of a supply glut and the market will be “difficult” for the next six to nine months, he said.
    Anglo American has committed funds to the development of the Cerrejon thermal-coal mine in Colombia, which it owns with Glencore and BHP…
    Anglo is also studying two new thermal coal projects in South Africa that would add 14.1 million tons a year to production…
    Coal remains a “good story,” with demand from China and India estimated to grow almost 4 percent a year through to 2020, Godfrey Gomwe, head of Anglo’s thermal coal unit, said in e-mailed comments.
    Aside from Cerrejon, BHP’s only other thermal coal investment is $367 million to expand its Newcastle Port in Australia. Rio has no large capex planned for its thermal coal projects.
    While a global agreement on climate change may be some way off, regional polices to tackle local pollution and air quality are already undermining demand for coal, according to Scottish Widow’s Mackenzie and APG’s Stork…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-05/glasenberg-raises-glencore-s-bet-on-coal-as-bhp-pauses-energy.html

    this writer is a bit of a dreamer:

    8 Dec: Kansas City Star: Lewis Diuguid: China could lead efforts to end global warming
    Last year new car sales jumped 7 percent to 15.5 million. Used car sales were up 11 percent to 4.8 million, and are expected to rise steadily to 20 million by 2020.
    Migration out of rural areas to big cities continues for better jobs, wages and way of life, adding to congestion, Yang Ning explained during a tour of Beijing…
    Smart Cars and similarly sized vehicles dominated European roadways. I didn’t see that in Beijing, Wuhan or Hong Kong on a recent trip.
    American-size Hyundais, Hondas, Fords, Toyotas and General Motors vehicles clogged traffic. Luxury cars included Buicks, Cadillacs and BMWs.
    The planet can’t accommodate a nation China’s size with America’s fossil fuel appetite…
    China, like the U.S., must do more to retrofit existing buildings with green energy…
    Transportation of the future must include pollution-free vehicles. It can start in China and spread to the rest of the world.
    The planet’s delicate ecosystem means China’s choking pollution doesn’t just linger inside its borders. It affects everyone, everywhere.
    Solar, wind and geothermal energy have to help fill our future energy needs. Living green is how we can save ourselves and the planet.
    http://www.kansascity.com/2013/12/08/4674760/china-could-lead-efforts-to-end.html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Re the Kansas Kid; is his name pronounced Do Good?

      Might explain his odd ideas.
      Incidentally China has a population density well below that of India, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, the UK, Italy and Switzerland. There’s a lot of land out west. Even if the cities are crowded, Singapore is 54 times the density of the whole chinese figure without people wanting to knock it down and put up wind turbines.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Secret Santa has been past my chimney pot tonight. :)
    IPCC AR5: Synthesis Report Pre-First Order Draft available here:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/ipcc-ar5-synthesis-report-pre-first-order-draft-available-here/

    Enjoy a cool Yule, a Merry Christmas and a Happy Hogmanay,

    Cheers all

    Rog TB


    Report this

    50

  • #
    handjive

    Death threat to climate scientist confirmed.

    A prosecutor in Ohio is reportedly seeking the death penalty for the ‘climate scientist’ who emerged from his home in Gobbler’s Knob, Pa., on Feb. 2 and did not see his shadow, translating to an “early spring”.

    It’s a tough thing to understand. Less ice at the top of the world, often considered the planet’s thermostat, might normally signal warmer global temperatures, not colder ones,” said the ‘threatened’ climate scientist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    9 Dec: SMH: Tom Arup: Bernie Fraser criticises axing of Climate Change Authority
    The Climate Change Authority chairman said he was frustrated and disappointed that the government was giving up a chance to receive ”good, independent advice”…
    Environment Minister Greg Hunt has said the closure was part of a push to reduce bureaucracy, and climate change advice could come from the federal environment department, CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology.
    Mr Fraser said public servants did good work, but did not have the freedom and opportunity to deliver well-considered, independent advice in the manner of the authority, Reserve Bank or Productivity Commission.
    ”On a subject as complex as climate change, I would have thought every government – whatever its complexion – would want to get good independent advice,” he said…
    Mr Fraser said he was not making a plea to save his own job or those of other board members. But he said there was a role for the expertise of the authority’s staff…
    Mr Fraser’s comments follow those of Clean Energy Finance Corporation chairwoman ***Jillian Broadbent urging the government to re-think its plans to axe that institution.
    http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bernie-fraser-criticises-axing-of-climate-change-authority-20131208-2yzey.html?skin=iphone

    ***Broadbent has already had her own headlines at SMH on the same topic, so i guess we will eventually have headlines for all the rest.

    btw where is the “climate change” “expertise” of which you speak, Bernie?

    Climate Change Authority Board
    http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/board


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    9 Dec: News Ltd: Grinch Tony Abbott makes threat to hold MPs back over carbon tax
    POLITICIANS may still be denied a Christmas with their families if the carbon tax repeal is not passed by Thursday, despite Tony Abbott spending the majority of this week away from parliament.
    Environment Minister Greg Hunt this morning said the government was prepared to keep MPs in Canberra for as long as it took to ensure Australian families were freed from the burden of Labor’s carbon tax.
    “We are happy to continue sitting until the carbon tax bills are voted upon,” Mr Hunt said.
    He said if Opposition Leader Bill Shorten simply sent his MPs home to “watch the cricket” Australians would feel begrudged.
    “The rest of Australians will rightly say ‘we’ve got to do our job surely Mr Shorten you can do your job’,” Mr Hunt said.
    “With regards to the Senate, they can vote today or tomorrow, they can vote Wednesday or Thursday. If they conduct their vote they would have done their job.”
    Asked if it was appropriate to try and keep MPs in Canberra through to Christmas when Prime Minister Tony Abbott was away for most of the week in South Africa for Nelson Mandela’s funeral, Mr Hunt said the PM was doing the right thing…
    The Senate determines its own sitting schedule and it is unlikely Labor and the Greens will vote to extend sittings beyond this week, meaning there would be no way the repeal could pass before Christmas.
    The Coalition have threatened to take Australians back to the polls as part of a double dissolution election if the carbon tax faces a roadblock.
    But it is likely the government will simply wait until the Senate changes hands on July 1 next year and they can negotiate with key independents and Clive Palmer’s party to get the repeal passed.
    http://www.news.com.au/national/grinch-tony-abbott-makes-threat-to-hold-mps-back-over-carbon-tax/story-fncynjr2-1226778511208

    9 Dec: SMH: Peter Hannam: Flat emissions result masks impact of carbon tax
    Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions fell more than 2 per cent on an annual basis in the three months to June, undermining the Abbott government’s claims the carbon tax was having no impact on pollution.
    Emissions were 545.9 million tonnes in the year to June, just 300,000 tonnes lower than a year earlier, the government said on Sunday, citing as-yet unpublished National Greenhouse Gas Inventory figures.
    The government estimates the carbon tax bill is $8 billion, implying it cost about $26,700 per tonne of emissions abated.
    However, a broader view of the inventory suggests the carbon tax is having an impact on the parts of the economy it covers, particularly the power sector. Areas not covered by a price on carbon are on the rise.
    Fairfax Media has asked the office of Environment Minister Greg Hunt for a more detailed summary of emissions, which is out this week…
    They (emissions) edged 0.1 per cent lower to 557 million tonnes over the 12 months.
    The June quarter, though, saw a cut of 11.1 million tonnes on an annual basis, or about 2 per cent…
    The inventory figures show the “tax is a rolled-gold failure”, Mr Hunt told journalists on Sunday.
    “We have an $8 billion-a-year tax with virtually no impact,” he said. “There couldn’t be a clearer demonstration of an utter carbon con…
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/flat-emissions-result-masks-impact-of-carbon-tax-20131209-2z0mr.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gerard Basten

    In this book about the settlement of Gippsland, there are several references to the change to climate in the region as a result of the deforestation arising from settlement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    pat

    3 Dec: Popular Mechanics: Jerry Bellinson: Climate Scientists: IPCC Is Wrong—We Need a 1-Degree limit on Warming
    James Hansen and Jeffrey Sachs of the Columbia University Earth Institute lead a new study disputing the IPCC conclusion that the world can withstand a 2 degree Celsius increase over preindustrial level. Anything more than 1 degree, they say, could lead to disaster.

    Most of the questions at the press conference, which was attended by a couple of dozen journalists, came down to this: “Why even propose a carbon tax, since politicians will never enact it?”
    ***Sachs argued that there is widespread public support for some kind of action on climate change, and that what has been lacking in building support for a tax is a practical vision for how to cut U.S. emissions, probably through improved electrical infrastructure, efficiency, renewables, and next-generation nuclear power plants. And, he admonished, “Don’t say something’s never going to happen. I was in the Kremlin in December 1991 the day the Soviet Union ended. Anything is possible.”
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/climate-change/climate-scientists-ipcc-is-wrong-we-need-a-1-degree-limit-on-warming-16228387

    REALITY:

    8 Dec: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Axe carbon tax to keep lights on and cut energy bills, says ScottishPower chief
    ScottishPower says tax will force coal plants to shut too soon and push up bills
    Britain’s unilateral carbon tax should be scrapped before it causes blackouts, pushes up household bills and makes the UK uncompetitive, ScottishPower argues.
    Keith Anderson, chief corporate officer, warns that the “carbon price floor” (CPF), which taxes companies for burning fossil fuels, will make Britain’s remaining coal plants “largely uneconomic by around the middle of the decade”…
    Writing in Monday’s Telegraph, Mr Anderson also calls for a review of Britain’s £12bn programme to install “smart” electricity and gas meters in every home, suggesting costs should be cut to reduce the impact on consumer bills.
    Several coal-fired power plants have already shut this year under EU rules to help curb acid rain and pollution. About a dozen plants remain operational and provide about 40pc of UK power…
    But a combination of further EU rules and the carbon tax, which increases steeply every year, means most of these coal plants may be forced to close by 2015 or 2016.
    “Abolishing the CPF, or freezing it at the current rate, would help to reduce upward pressure on bills, improve UK competiveness and help in cost effectively maintaining security of supply,” Mr Anderson says…
    Manufacturing bodies and consumer groups both attacked the Chancellor for failing to cut or scrap the carbon tax in last week’s Autumn Statement, despite the Prime Minister’s pledge to “roll back” green levies… (READ THE REST)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10504524/Axe-carbon-tax-to-keep-lights-on-and-cut-energy-bills-says-ScottishPower-chief.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks to being snowed-in today, Chapter 2 of the autobiography, “A Journey to the Core of the Sun,” was completed and is now posted below for comments:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf

    This chapter provides clear and unequivocal (precise experimental data) evidence:

    1. Neutron repulsion is the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms and stars
    2. The Sun made our elements, birthed the solar system and sustains our lives
    3. Iron-56 is the most abundant and most stable atom in the Earth and the Sun
    4. Weizsäcker’s “nuclear binding energy” obscures neutron repulsion selectively

    These are the main conclusions to a research assignment from the late Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda 53 years ago.

    Comments from readers would be much appreciated.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    handjive

    “Scientists have said we have passed the point of no return,” said Ishihara.

    Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara warned on Wednesday the 2016 Olympics could be the last Games, with global warming an immediate threat to mankind.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve R W

    I’ll take a stab at that photograph. I think it’s the Kennedy Range.

    (:


    Report this

    10

    • #

      Thanks Steve, I would like to know. I admit I did hunt through the Kimberley images looking for that signature gap and couldn’t find it. My feeling at the time was it was further north, but looking at bigger maps the flight paths from Bali may not go even over the Kimberley. So you might be closer. I can’t see it in the google maps (aren’t those satellite images amazing that we get for free online?)


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Bones

        You wont find the gap because its hidden with the missing heat


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Bones, lol.

          I took other photos and judging by them, we flew directly over Dampier, then due south for Perth, there is a large East -West River meandering and it’s somewhere South of that. It’s part of a large circular type pattern (crater remnant?) I should not spend time wandering over the Pilbara in Google Earth. It’s too big.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Steve R W

        Hi Jo.

        I suggested the Kennedy Range simply because i’m a flight simulator buff. Denpasar is directly north of Onslow on the airway R592.

        Once the plane flies over Onslow there are two choices of airways for any possible flight. These being R592 as above or another J116. I suggest J116, for it is the most direct path to Perth. If this is the case, it’s most likely the only significant land feature you will see from the airplane would be the Kennedy Range. If on the R592 the Barlee Range becomes a possibility?

        (:

        PS.

        Flying over the Kimberley from Bali? It would take freak weather for that to occur.

        Cheers.

        —-
        You are so right. I posted my reply before I saw this. We flew up over Onslow (I have the photos of the square pans of salt? at Onslow) and flew back south over the distinctive islands next to dampier. Amazing I can recognise them from google Earth. I still can’t find the prominent ridge though. It was north of a small inland community of about 30 houses that sat just north attached to an east west running dirt road. I might have to give up… damn curiosity. Barlee Range? – Jo

        UPDATE: Thanks, I think I’ve found it. Just north of the Frederick River.Barlee Range indeed. Someone added a photo a few kms away. Google Earth tells me “you can’t get here from where you are”.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Bones

    Was the missing heat there with or was I wrong again.Also look for a large man made feature about the size of ayres rock.That will be the latest load of dribble from flannery


    Report this

    11

    • #

      Bones, since no one can get there, the missing heat might be there, someone should apply for a grant…


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Joe

        ‘Glorious ancient landscape’ you write – that is not a very scientific observation Jo. Shouldn’t one say – ‘large, readily accessible formations of iron rich mineral deposits’? Don’t be concerned about the lack of roads there, Gina builds her own. J.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    wazsah

    Classic example of the effects of a fault.


    Report this

    00