JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support AT joannenova.com.au
Statistics
The Achilles Heel of CAGW – what to do, what to do ?
Reality intrudes:
http://sppiblog.org/news/epa-plan-to-ban-coal-hits-major-roadblock
182
Thanks for that Ian.
For my part, I’d like to see someone in law enforcement do a FIFA on the IPCC.
Cheers,
Dave B
132
Hmm! Fancy that. Who would have believed it?
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (or Storage) doesn’t work.
One large scale coal fired power plant. 20 Million tons of CO2 a year. ONE BILLION tons of CO2 over the life of the plant.
Buried forever, never to be able to seep back to the surface.
Tony.
202
With regards to CCS in Australia, the Gorgon gas development project was approved based on the fact it would store CO2 in a deep saline aquifer. It was supposed to be the biggest, or close to the biggest CCS project in the world at the time (with the Australian government handing over $60 million to ‘help’ them).
It’s supposed to reduce CO2 emissions by 40%, but note that this is 40% of emissions associated with producing/processing the gas, not with drilling the development and injection wells, building the infrastructure, extracting/processing the CO2, or, more to the point, it doesn’t include the CO2 associated with burning ~16 million tonnes of liquified natural gas per year.
The Gorgon CCS project is indeed a very expensive joke, with the only good thing to come out of it (in my opinion) being the massive amount of data and cores they obtained while drilling a couple of test wells on Barrow Island.
40
Excellent core indeed
30
Only 18 months of obstruction and penalty-killing needed until President Obama is gone… But will Americans elect another Believer in AGW?
30
This little snippet from Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) in his Gulliver’s Travels got my mind wandering, if that what you want, Jo:
“And he gave it for his opinion that whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind and do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put together.”
160
The theme of the last few posts has been the collapse of science, or the corruption of it. Personally I put this down to the dissociation of mathematics from science. Mathematics is the language of science and the rigour of mathematics is reflected in the philosophy which defines science. Among other things, Dr. Tim Flannery redefines the mathematics free scientist.
Rene Descartes changed the world in creating philosophy based on mathematics and where would Newton be without his Cartesian cordinates? As a philsopher seeking the truth to life, he decided that only one thing was absolute in his world. No one disputes 1+1=2. He also gave us Cogito Ergo Sum, but that’s another story.
However I would would have to say in the new maths free Green Science,
1+1 = 3 because the IPCC said so
1+1 = whatever is decided by a telephone poll on the consensus principle
1+1 = whatever generates the most income
1+1 = whatever your boss says it does if you work for the BOM/NASA/IPCC. (Labor leader Bill Shorten’s comment that he agreed with whatever PM Julia Gillard thought, even though he did not know what it was. The headlines in the UK were that Bill gave new meaning to brown nosing)
1+1 = 4 based on computer models and rapidly increasing until it reaches a tipping point where it can reach 100, destroying all other numbers
1+1 = 2.85 by measurement for now but this is an hiatus because of natural variation depressing the real underlying value of 4. This is partly due also to absorption of the extra 1.15 by oceans.
1+1 = 3.2 as decided by referendum or a telephone or internet survey
1+1 = 3.14159 designed to eliminate circular arguments
and don’t get me started on 1+2.
392
TdeF,
Talking about maths. . .
2 + 2 = 5
Abe
91
I hope you have published that theory for peer review. In Green science, nothing is true until it is peer reviewed.
131
The corollary of which is that if everyone agrees 2 + 2 = 5 then it is true.
61
Lord Monckton hasn’t time to review everything…
20
I suggest you peer-review this:
Greg Cavanagh’s observation and my reply to him.
Abe
10
It’s even worse than 2 + 2 = 5.
1 = 2 is more like it. 😉
31
By the way, there is a “proof” that 1 = 2, which is more than we have for the assertion that 2 + 2 = 5. I won’t offer it up because it’s fallacious, much like a whole lot of climate science. But to the unwary it looks like 1 = 2 has been proved. And that the world is heating at an alarming rate is accepted by those same unwary people for the same reason, they’ve no means by which to detect the fallacy.
The implication in the video is chilling. And it’s in our schools and universities right now.
41
“and the 2 became one”
41
Division by zero leads to all sorts of meaningless results, even 1 = 2.
Did you know that the IEEE floating point arithmetic standard has a specifically defined floating point word represented by (+ or -)#INF (infinity) if you try to display it. And #INF results from any division by zero. #INF is a legitimate floating point value and causes no arithmetic fault. So #INF will go right on through any following computations, leading to some interesting results. Programmers must either check for #INF as the result of division or check the divisor for zero before dividing.
Another gotcha for the unwary.
41
Interesting. It makes sense. Most compilers just crash the application. The FPU does not crash, but returns a result which flags an overflow, as you suggest. So everytime you divide, you have to first check that the denominator is not exactly zero or the application will just stop catastrophically.
Zero is a very interesting number and quite difficult. In computing the use of a bit to indicate sign leads to two zeroes, +0 and -0, so you get twos complement arithmetic. You get the same in elevators, so in the US the first floor is 1, not 0.
Then in engineering, numbers are never exactly right to an infinite number of places, so using equates is impossible. At the other end of the scale, there are in mathematics cardinal numbers for different types of infinities, for example the infinity of positive integers, the infinity of all integers and the infinity of real numbers. However in normal arithmetic though, using whole positive numbers, 1+1 = 2. Precisely and without equivocation. Unless you a warmist.
40
TdeF,
Please don’t tell me you actually belive Cantor’s assertion that some infinities are larger than others.
Abe
10
Cantor? 1891? It is a fascinating idea. Believe? Why not? It seems obvious enough as a proposition, a point of view. The real question with such fantastic ideas is whether they have an practical purpose or lead to some great truth. The development of calculus was a consequence of trying to calculate areas. Some things are happy accidents. Einstein never though probability had any use in physics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was nuts and said so. “God does not play dice with the universe”, but he was wrong. I remember a group of mathematicians at the university who studied this and other puzzles and propositions. I thought it was interesting philosophy and physics was Natural Philosophy.
20
TdeF,
I personally like the result of Phillip H. Smith, when he tasked himself with making graphical tool to show how positive and negative imaginary numbers interact with ordinary everyday real numbers from 0 to infinity. And what he developed is truly useful!
He came up with this useful graph (actually a nomogram).
What was he on when he ventured in this idea? That question is not answered here.
00
Just-A-Guy,
There are two infinities that definitely meet the criterion that one is greater than the other. Positive infinity is definitely greater than negative infinity. I can prove that with a short computer program. You just divide +1 and -1 by zero and compare the result. And yes, I know there’s no such number as infinity in reality. But my computer has to deal with hardware limitations in some useful way, doesn’t it? 😉
Whether this means anything in the real world is another matter.
00
For sufficiently large values of two…
40
Only for large values of 2 ie. 2.49 🙂
42
Nice 1 Guy, there are so many issues today that this describes. No logical argument is tolerated and if you disagree, you get annihilated (mmm, now who was it that coined that phrase)
10
Chilling.
No less chilling than:
“We have 49% confidence in the probability that 2+2=5”
20
To be fair to Flannery he is also knowledge free in several other disciplines, to whit.
Thermodynamics – believes the IPCC line that the Earth is in radiative equilibrium but is warming.
Physics – believes the IPCC radiative scheme about black body Earth, and back radiation. **
Chemistry – believes rising CO2 will make oceans acid.
Palaeontology – knows very little about the distant past.
Archaeology – knows nothing about evidence of changing climate in the Holocene
History – keeps saying things are ‘unprecedented’ indicating no knowledge of the last 1250 years.
** ( NOTE not to be confused with a number of other schemes there).
341
I believe its more to do with the “I want syndrome ” climate scientists seen how you could make lots of money and went for it . No high minded scientific endeavour just plane old greed.
92
And 0 = any positive number the IPCC needs to make their models work.
Cheers,
Dave B
82
1 + 1 = 2.85 ± 0.37 for unspecified large values of 1
71
But what is the trend?
10
TdeF
The whole fiasco of the UN sanctioned CAGW©, or ‘Climate Change™’, was predicated on the spurious correlation of late 20th century global temperatures apparently rising in step with level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
For other spurious correlations, as yet unused by the UN, see http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations …
CAGW©’Climate Change™’registered UN-IPCC®
91
Brilliant! What a find.
Some are really complex, not monotonic, almost straight curves like CO2 and the two curves are far better correlated. Prof Murry Selby says they are not connected at all.
The best that can be said about CO2 vs Global Temperature is that they appeared to go up together at the same rate for about a decade out of 10. Otherwise even the correlation is not as good as any of these ridiculous examples.
A real scientist would be investigating the suspicious rapid jump from 1986 through 1996. There are two coincidences. Firstly the creation of the IPCC. Secondly the massive technology change inside the Stephenson Screens. No one appears to have compensated for known 50x change in resolution from 0.5C to 0.01C, leading to a potential change of 0.5C.
Then once you have two things going up at the same time, you can always change scale and zero to make them overlap, so creating an apparently exact correlation. Without a real and demonstrable reason to set the zero, this is utterly unjustifiable.
I loved the correlation between the “Age of Miss America” and the “Murders by steam, vapours and hot objects” or the amount of oil imported from Norway.
122
Just bought the book. Hardcover from Amazon. Loved those graphs. They are educational in so many ways in teaching that correlation is not causality and that fallacy underpins the entire man mad Global Warming industry. Then if CO2 cannot cause warming, it cannot cause climate change either.
It is fascinating how the usual suspects have given up. They are now pushing carbon dioxide as obviously evil and the cause of climate change and every storm without defining either climate change or how this works. In other words, it is now a given, 97% of scientists agree, everyone knows. There is no attempt at justification and absolutely no interest in any debate. The song is finished but the malady lingers.
122
tom0mason,
Thanks. Bookmarked.
Abe
20
To be fair, the drownings in a pool and Nicholas Cage films is probably a direct relationship of cause and effect. Mind you, there are probably better ways to deal with seeing a crap movie.
40
Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP3fsXAADAo. That was in 2011, where is it now?
20
Now they are really leveraging the knowledge of what everyone wants or searches for on the web into massive revenue streams.
Spend a few days searching for a car and for the next two weeks every site you visit, that has payed advertising slots, will have cars advertisements like what you were searching for.
All your web activities are monitored and groups like Google and Facebook are using that information to provide advertising revenue. If you want to push a product you get in touch with Google and/or Facebook. The advertising spots and pop-ups on most web pages are the modern billboards on the web highway.
30
1 + 1 = 42, The answer to life the universe and everything. 🙂
Regards
Climate Heretic
30
One keeps hearing about the influence of carbon dioxide on global warming, now climate change, with predicted rises in temperatures and general disaster if we don’t do something. However, there is little evidence of a significant correlation between global temperatures, which are currently static, and levels of carbon dioxide which have been rising more or less linearly to about 400 ppm. or 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere.
As we know, or should do, carbon dioxide is the feedstock of the photosynthetic reaction which occurs in all green plant cells and provides life with carbohydrate as a source of energy. Most of this photochemical reaction occurs in the oceans with the phytoplankton.
A simple equation being:
6 molecules of C02 + 6 molecules of water gives one molecule of carbohydrate plus 6 molecules of oxygen.
Not only does photosynthesis provide all plants and animals with carbohydrate which is the source of energy for life, but also provides oxygen for many biochemical processes, and importantly oxygen for those creatures which possess gills and lungs including the mammals.
By restraining the production of carbon dioxide are we not also reducing the oxygen content of the atmosphere thereby resulting in our eventual demise due to asphixation as well?
222
Yes, but it is even bigger than that. CO2 is not only food, it is the whole plant. Carbohydrates are C(H2O)n, carbon plus water. We breathe the O2 which is missing, using it to burn our own plants. A human breathes out about 1kg/day of CO2, so 1/3tonne per year. We do not photosynthesize, but we eat the products. We cannot eat dirt. Nor can trees.
People really think trees get their weight from the soil. No, just the water and trace elements. Otherwise there would be a huge hole around a tree.
It was established 400 years ago by Van Helmont that you could grow a 65kg tree in 1kg of soil and only 100gms was used. So the trees are all CO2 and H2O and nothing else. Even humans are 86% carbon by weight, lower because of the calcium need for bones. That is why everything dried burns, plants, trees, people, insects. CO2 is not food, we are made of it and water. Photosynthesis is CO2 capture. A tree is solid CO2. So are the leaves, everything living thing. Tell that to the Greens. They will not believe you.
(Rotted leaves, coil, oil and gas are hydrocarbons (C2H2)n. Perfectly natural, not man made after all)
272
For humans I meant of course, without the H2O. Like Ramses II in the Cairo museum.
20
At the risk of being boringly repetitive, I reckon I’ve supplied the evidence to this site to prove that the correlation you mention above is zero.
So far no reply has been offered negating my claim.
Cheers,
Dave B
18
See Bevan Dockery’s contribution at #17 below.
He says the correlation between CO2 at Cape Grim (Tasmania) and Southern Hemisphere temperatures (UAH) is -0.063. That Is not only a very weak correlation, but it means the effect of increasing CO2 could be negative. That would make CO2 a cooling gas, just like H2O.
52
Correction; 0.048
21
Grrrr.
-0.048
41
Now there’s an idea that wandered.
50
So
iswas the correlation with rising population. So what?The isolated fixation on a single minor trace gas in a vast, non-linear chaotic system has already badly let you down (see this data). There has been no statistically significant warming for the last 18 years – a trendless interval – yet you banter on.
Didn’t someone once say that doing (or saying) the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is a sign of….well you know.
51
See also, Bevan Dockery May 31, 2015 at 9:06 pm #17
00
“By restraining the production of carbon dioxide are we not also reducing the oxygen content of the atmosphere thereby resulting in our eventual demise due to asphixation as well?”
No.
42
Dear enthusiastic red hander. There is a proposition. I deny it. So which don’t you like, the original proposition or the flat rejection of it? Or didn’t you read anything, as usual.
60
Just being a little facetious, artistic licence. But think about it a little, 20% of the atmosphere is oxygen and plenty more bubbling out of the oceans, a bit under 80% is the inert gas nitrogen, and the politicians are worrying about the 0.04% of carbon dioxide of which most is natural not man-made.
41
I’ll bring most of my comment here from the last thread.
This has been a significant victory against the green organisations that lobbied UNESCO with false information. They have been exposed and have lost credibility.
Might not be so evident at this time but will become apparent in the near future. It’s all about Paris.
281
Oh my, I’ll guarantee plenty of bed sheets will need changing at camp UNESCO after this scary campfire story, the real horror will set in after their heads clear from screaming tantrums that nobody is listening anymore and they aren’t so special after all, can’t wait.
221
But trust the Greens to find something negative to say about the entire decision: http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/great-barrier-reef-not-included-on-unescos-in-danger-list-but-the-future-is-still-bleak/ar-BBkqVDj?ocid=mailsignout.
Do these people ever have a positive thought in their lives?
181
Don’t you just love the way Greenies demonise fossil fuels? No mention on their part about contaminated water supplies and lack of sanitation in the Third World or lung damage arising from burning animal dung in small rooms so that the daily dinner can be cooked. Oh wait: that last one means biofuels so it is intrinsically better than fossil fuels, right?
222
Or in fact the use of fossil fuels to force water through membranes to produce clean water from dirty, or even to boil it to decontaminate the water.
I cringe at those ads on TV … wouldn’t you like to give little dying lulu (obviously just asleep) access to clean water, she is drinking water from the local loo… Just send cash – in large unmarked bills. Drinking water in these parts of the world does at least get settled and then boiled (biomass fuels) to decontaminate it. You can filter water with a pile of sand! I don’t object to charity donation but I hate being deceived, I can’t stand those deceptive guilt trip ads.
The world poor would be far better served by building electricity generation capability than anything else, give them a diesel generator, fuel and some tools they can drill their own well and do a multitude of other things, even clean and sterilise water! Gosh, they could even pump it straight to the village – give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
80
Put this link up on another thread, BoM is saying Van Dieman’s Land will be unseasonably warm this winter.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/temperature/maximum/median/seasonal/0
I strongly disagree.
122
I cancelled my bike ride today because the BOM said 45km/hr winds, 95% chance of 10mm of rain preceded by a hail storm. In fact we rode anyway because it was a sunny blue day with lighter winds and quite pleasant and no rain. Now half a day later there are some light scattered showers.
You have to read the legal disclaimer on BOM forecasts as even they do not trust their short term computer models. However they are absolutely certain about the weather in 100 years. As if.
342
Their seven day forecasts are reasonably good, but BoMs seasonal forecasts are usually wrong.
I present Exhibit A: http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDY65100.pdf
If this pattern is maintained then a cooler than average Tasmania can be expected.
122
Exhibit B: Negative AAO.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index.html
So, putting it all together, South-East Oz will be cooler than average with good winter rain. Not warm and dry as BoM suggests.
41
You would not have enjoyed it much around here this afternoon TdeF… it’s bucketed with rain this afternoon, there are deep puddles and lots of mud and it is cold. We are only about two hours out of Melbourne. I haven’t checked the forecast yet but an acquaintance was mentioning snow tomorrow. I’m glad it was better for your ride!
111
All I’ll say is greetings from sunny Ballarat, did I mention I’ve been working as a Postie here for the past 6 months?, really looking forward to this winter of unprecedented warming. 🙁
90
It is now dark and raining and night and we need the winter rains. My concern was the 95% certainty, the same sort of certainty that the Global Warming was due to man. It would be have been fine if they had said 30% or 50%, but 95%? You have to take that as certain and they were as wrong as you could be, without having the sudden appearance of summer.
92
TdeF,
The forecast for the day was remarkably accurate.
You just experienced it in the wrong year.
121
Right now, as it has been for most of today, freezing cold, windy and wet. I await with bated breath for the ‘unseasonably’ warm winter; it would most certainly reduce our need for carbonating the atmosphere with our wood heating and give me a break for a change from hunting for wood.
82
From deep in the Southern Ocean.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-216.16,-39.61,3000
31
It looks like the first day of Winter has brought with it blistering heat, 3C at 08:00am already.
50
My DH beat that with 2C somewhere en route to MEL airport this morning!
As far as I’m concerned, the temp of 40C I encountered in DXB a week ago was very much nicer! I just want to curl up under layers and layers of bedding right now.
10
Wasn’t there snow down to 300m. yesterday which is a bit early.
10
Uh Oh
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/freeze-grips-much-of-australia/304663
10
In the SThe Seniornewspaper Western Australia edition dated June 2015 page 14 “OLDER people are among the most likely to suffer from the effects of climate change and urgent planning is needed to mitigate the health effects.
A new report from the Austrlain Academy of Science urges action including creation of the Australian Centre for Disease Control and a Food and Water Commission to help plan for change and provided co-ordinated solutions to the problems.
It says changes, including an increase in fine weather, more frequent heat extremed, and increased rainfall in tropical areas, were almost certain and had far-reaching implications. These included heat waves, natural disasters and associated mental health issues and food securtiy issues.
Apart from the need to adapt buildings and infrastructure to cope with extreme weather, the report found action is needed to target issues such as increased susceptibilty to vector born diseases like Ross River fever brought about by larger insect populations and an increase in food and water-borne disease related to rising temperatures.
Respiratory illness like flu is likely to spread more rapidly as people spend more time indoors to escape the elements.
“In general it is likely that the most vulnerable – in particular the sick, the elderly and the very youg and the poor – will suffer disproportionately from the worst impacts of climate change,” the reports says.
Deliberately trying to scare the Oldies. Luckily us old White men believe it is complete BS.
262
Len,
That’s just what the world needs right now.
Two more bureaucracies based on climate change ™ scare-mongering fantasies to be occupied by hundreds of technocrats whose only aim is to keep their positions at all cosrs even if it means fiddling with data and insulting their critics because they don’t have the talent nor the intellect to get a real job producing something worth-while for the rest of society which they have a dep-seated contempt for in the first place.
Abe
122
AAS is another arrogant mob making a move on issues that are reasonably well covered by those who know what they are talking about:
“adapt buildings … to cope with extreme weather”
Yep. ABCB, JCU CTS, me and hundreds of others have been doing this for decades. Successfully.
Infrastructure? More needs to be done, but there is progress in flood-proofing the Bruce Highway.
“increased susceptibilty to vector born diseases”
No evidence of increased susceptibility. Risk varies anyway and is already reasonably covered.
“Food security issues”. Apart from infrastructure, it would be wise to protect the existing food bowl from greenie alienation before looking for a new one.
The rest of it is unsubstantiated bunk, eg
“increase in fine weather” What’s wrong with that?
“more frequent heat extremes”. Unproven and unlikely.
“Increased rainfall in tropical areas”. Not this year guys. It varies. Climate sameness.
” … flu is likely to spread more rapidly as people spend more time indoors to escape the elements”.
Hahahaha … sorry, couldn’t help it. Up here it is Show Day, early July, that needs to be avoided.
Seniors might actually find it hard to avoid the annual flu shot, and the periodic pneumonia shot.
81
A week ago I was visiting very windy Cooktown Far North Queensland and observed at a beach near the golf club a man and a women sitting on deck chairs alongside a creek and a sign warning about the danger of Crocodiles.
In the news later in the week was a story that a man has gone missing, presumed to have been taken by a Crocodile in the Endeavour River, Cooktown.
50
Crocodiles usually do not eat deck chairs. The deck chair may appear nicely folded downstream.
61
Hahahahaha
40
Really does look like we have lost “The Griss”.
31
Last? post on JoNova – January 25
Posted on skepticalscience – February 10
Posted on http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair – April 3.
Could he have eloped with sillyfilly?
81
“Could he have eloped with sillyfilly?”. Not likely, Griss has got a brain.
10
No. No. No.
He’s alive and well and has been seen [url=https://www.google.com.au/search?q=the+griss&biw=1360&bih=599&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=L_tqVfrZKMHQmAWXkoFo&ved=0CF4QsAQ][all over the net.]
And I’m sure that’s not Ms S Filly that he’s with.
20
Oops. Why didn’t that wok!
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=the+griss&biw=1360&bih=599&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=L_tqVfrZKMHQmAWXkoFo&ved=0CF4QsAQ
31
TdeF brought up CAGW maths. long-time Financial Times Investor reporter, John Authers, who has up to now avoided CAGW “finance” from what i’ve seen online, is reprinted in AFR:
31 May: Australian Financial Review: Washing one’s hands of the stain of coal
by John Authers (Financial Times)
Fossil fuels divestment is an idea whose time has come. But is it a good idea?…
*** Pension fund managers around the world are debating their policy, under pressure from activists, while the City and Wall Street have upped their expenditure on research into low- carbon investments. Global oil companies are taking note…
This is not the place to rehearse the arguments over whether carbon emissions and global warming are the serious problems that many scientists aver. The question is whether these attempts to use the levers of shareholder capitalism might reduce emissions.
The evidence from previous divestment is now substantial. According to the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance, fully 61 per cent of the world’s institutionally managed assets is now managed according to some environmental or ethical mandate…
Until now, the most popular ethical strategies of screening out alcohol and tobacco, have had little financial effect. Shares in these sectors have continued to perform impressively. This year, historical research showed that tobacco was the strongest performing stock market sector in the US since 1900, while alcohol led in the UK. This is easily explained. Divestment is a moral gesture, but financially, all it achieves is to make stocks cheaper for other investors with fewer scruples…
***Divesters must also ask who they really need to reach. In Europe, it is still the big public pension funds. They must provide for their members in retirement, and that arguably includes acting to ensure that the atmosphere is still breathable when they retire.
In the US, the 401(k) revolution and the rise of passive indexing means that their targets should be the biggest fund managers…
So if divestment campaigns don’t hurt oil companies’ bottom lines, and other strategies are more constructive, why do it? The answer is political rather than economic. To quote Karthik Ganapathy of 530(sic).org, which co-ordinates the campaign, divestment “is a way to challenge the social licence of the oil industry and to get Americans to view them the way they now view the tobacco industry”.
Tobacco shareholders have done fine; but the important point, for the campaigners, is that smoking is ***less prevalent, and Big Tobacco has less influence.
Divestment remains a moral decision. If you want to wash your hands of fossil fuels, you can do it without damaging your wealth. Economically, there are better ways to deal with the problem.
http://www.afr.com/business/mining/coal/washing-ones-hands-of-the-stain-of-coal-20150531-ghdc8n
Authers writes: “but the important point, for the campaigners, is that smoking is less prevalent”???
Wikipedia: Tobacco smoking
As of 2000, smoking was practised by around 1.22 billion people. At current rates of ‘smoker replacement’ and market growth, this may reach around 1.9 billion in 2025 (World Bank source)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#Demographics
that would be an approx 55% increase in tobacco use by my reckoning, compared to an expected population increase of approx 14%.
“The current world population of 7.2 billion is projected to increase by 1 billion over the next 12 years and reach 9.6 billion by 2050, according to a United Nations report. (World Population to Increase by One Billion by 2025 -UNFPA)
couldn’t Authers simply have checked the accuracy of the claims about tobacco use?
61
such precision!
30 May: Independent: Jonathan Owen: Extreme summer temperatures will soon cause deaths of up to 1,700 more Britons a year, says government
Extreme summer temperatures will, in five years’ time, cause the deaths of up to 1,700 more Britons a year, according to a new government report. And that is on top of the 2,000 people a year who currently die from heat-related illness in Britain.
The stark warning, contained in the new Heatwave Plan for England released by Public Health England (PHE) and the NHS earlier this month, comes as the Meteorological Office starts 24-hour monitoring for signs of a heatwave. From 1 June, a team of weather experts will issue daily alerts on the chances of one striking the UK.
The annual heat-health watch, which continues until mid-September, began in 2004…
Under the alert system starting on 1 June, warnings of impending heatwaves are triggered when the average threshold temperature reaches 30C during the day and 15C overnight for two days running. A series of alert levels are in place, from the current level, one, to the maximum, four, when a prolonged hot spell becomes “severe”…
Last year was the warmest in Britain since records began in 1659. Temperatures in the south of England reached 30C, and in Scotland they rose to 28C. But temperatures did not stay high enough for long enough to trigger alarms, with only one heatwave warning issued, affecting the Midlands, eastern England, southeastern England and London…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/extreme-summer-temperatures-will-soon-cause-deaths-of-up-to-1700-more-britons-a-year-says-government-report-10286742.html
***scientists say:
31 May: Guardian: Catherine de Lange: The heat and the death toll are rising in India. Is this a glimpse of Earth’s future?
Global warming could also have a shattering impact on our ability to feed ourselves
(Catherine de Lange is a science journalist and multimedia producer specialising in health, genetics, psychology, and science careers. She has worked for New Scientist, Nature, BBC and Cosmos.)
It is hard to say for sure whether any single extreme weather event is a result of manmade climate change, but this is a scenario we should get used to seeing more of, ***scientists say…
“Recent research shows that heatwaves are currently five times more frequent than they would be in the absence of human-caused warming, and the chance of any particular heatwave being caused by climate change is 80%,” a spokesperson for Greenpeace said, adding that unless efforts are made to cut carbon emissions, heatwaves are forecast to be 12 times more likely by 2040…
Relying on air conditioning for survival means that power cuts – which are common during heatwaves – would become life threatening. Much better, scientists say, would be to reduce global warming. The next Lancet commission, a follow-up to the 2009 report, is due next month. “It focuses on cutting emissions and why this is so important for global health,” Maslin said.“The reason is that, as far as economists can see, there is no way of ensuring those people have enough money to be protected from the problem of not being able to grow food.”
Stott agreed. Bleak as the picture is, he said: “The key thing is where emissions go. When we think about the future, it’s a very different world depending on what happens to carbon emissions – and there’s still plenty of opportunity to avoid those worst effects. The next few years are crucial. It’s all to play for.”…
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/31/the-heat-and-the-death-toll-are-rising-in-india-is-this-a-glimpse-of-earths-future
Catherine had a blog, Naturejobs, at nature.com:
http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/author/Catherine-de-Lange/page/3
52
Those poor Poms – two days over 30 degrees is a heatwave and more people will die!!
They obviously need international assistance – and quickly, summer is upon them.
What can we do to assist them?
Send fans, ice, summer clothes?
They won’t be able to rely on air-conditioning because on hot, still days without any windmills delivering power, there will be blackouts.
60
Maybe we should just expedite it, send them round trip tickets to the Gold Coast or Cairns … The excess heat will surely cause their end of days! Besides it’s walking distance to the ocean from most parts of Britain, and from what I remember the water could never be described as tepid.
40
They seem to have forgotten the summers of 2003 and 2006. I seem to remember the temp reached 38C at LHR in 2003 and we had many warmer days than are being threatened this year, so far!
That was the year we discovered that large double-glazed windows facing south onto a large concrete-slab paved patio produced remarkable heat gain. I’ve been against large windows ever since.
10
PS Robber, we fitted an air-conditioner to one of those kitchen windows in order for me to retain my health and sanity! 😉
00
27 May: Globe & Mail: KONRAD YAKABUSKI: The darker side of solar power
The Saudi Arabian oil minister’s recent comment that the world’s largest petroleum producer sees a postfossil-fuel world in which his country becomes a solar-power superpower must have comforted climate activists that even the worst offenders can come around. After all, what could be more redemptive than turning abandoned oil fields into solar farms?
Solar power’s image as “clean” and “limitless” has led princes and politicians alike to dole out huge subsidies to bask in its glow…
Not satisfied with risk-free deals that will make many solar players rich at consumers’ expense, Ontario’s solar industry is now lobbying for even more. And it’s leveraging solar’s apple-pie image to press politicians into giving it what it wants.
On Tuesday, the Canadian Solar Industries Association (CanSIA) released a poll purporting to show that three-quarters of Ontarians “would like to see the government invest more in solar powered electricity and in technologies that enable solar power.” The same proportion apparently supports reserving revenue from Ontario’s proposed cap-and-trade scheme for more solar power and related technologies.
The folks at CanSIA are no fools. They hired the chief strategist behind Premier Kathleen Wynne’s 2014 re-election to do their polling. And David Herle put just the right spin on the results, saying, “Those who voted Wynne’s Liberals into power are looking to government to pursue opportunities presented by the solar industry.”…
It’s not clear if these voters would be as gung-ho about solar power, however, if they considered the environmental implications of its expansion. The industry doesn’t talk much, or at all, about the downsides of manufacturing solar panels or where all these panels will end up when they conk out…READ ALL
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-darker-side-of-solar-power/article24649804/
62
Long ago, Fiona Stanley nailed her colours to the mast with respect to CAGW, but I am still dismayed, and disappointed every time I see further evidence of it, such as that reported by “our ABC”. why are generally reasonable people so unreasonable about this topic?
“…children were those least responsible for increasing temperatures and pollution but “unfairly bear the brunt of the impacts”…”
62
.
And then she added the Catastrophic sentence against all mankind
Then this:
“increasing temperatures were associated with more children presenting to emergency departments with asthma, fevers and gastroenteritis”
Of course all proven that COAL burning CO2 is the NUMBER one cause
Where is the science when the ABC report this garbage?
Getting worse by the day
OH! Paris 40,000 climate experts meet to discuss our future?
I’m am getting frustrated with this CAGW junk forced down our MSM!
Still angry!
My son will be the LAST to live longer than me?
What a bunch of fruitloops?
112
If the media is to be believed, it seems as though every child is now an asthmatic, has ADHD (or ADD, or whatever the fashionable name is now), is a coeliac, morbidly obese, and is fatally allergic to peanuts. They seem to neglect the part about living with the sort of guilt and fear that only Catholics strive for, except that the guilt is related to “the environment”, and all the destruction caused by evil (white, male) humans.
I don’t understand how people can say they are trying to ‘save the children’, when all they are doing is, in my opinion, doing more harm than good. I was raised to respect, marvel, and enjoy the environment, not to be fearful, guilty, and eternally in search of repentance, and worry that the world will end if I do not turn off all the lights.
91
I see the famous Solar Impulse 2 aeroplane is having a few setbacks since its big launch on March 12. Currently on leg 7 of 12 – Nanjing to Hawaii.
Clouds can apparently have silver linings, except perhaps, when solar powered flight is involved?
Jokes aside, I think this project is interesting from an engineering and design perspective. However, the scorn and derision should be directed towards those who claim this heralds a new age in “green” air transport, as it is clear that this is so far from being able to replace existing technology that the new age is likely to be seen in my very old age (assuming I live to be 300), if at all.
131
James
But then there was this
“And One More
This is a history of piston engines, and not all piston engines have been internal-combustion types. The gasoline engine made the airplane possible, but steam has always had its advocates, and, in 1930, the steam engine finally powered an airplane. Besler, a maker of logging locomotives, installed a V-twin compound in a Waco Ten (some sources say a Travelair) and flew successfully in California. Steam enthusiasts, as might be expected, went bananas at this, but Besler broke their hearts by announcing that he had no intention of trying to develop his engine further; he had proved that it could be done and was satisfied (Fig. 11-17).”
From Smith, H. (1981). A History of Aircraft Piston Engines. McGraw Hill.
I don’t seem to have that option for flight yet.
10
A couple of entertaining links –
Correlations
Random Numbers read the reviews
21
Well a book containing one million random numbers and 100,000 deviates (Rand corp), sounds like a bargain at US$55 for the paperback sounds like a bargain.
But the next item down the page has to be an absolute steal. Testicle self examination kit and self report form for just US$155.
21
Both about as appealing as the Freddy Kruger Prostate Examination Kit, “Warning may cause internal bleeding”
41
If you do not have any space left in your bookcase, I can recommend B. Oh Bummer’s Achievements Whilst in Office”.
71
$4.50 for the ream of blank paper + binding
40
That’s unfair, Obama has done lots of stuff – he has:
Personally covered up DEA involvement in providing (at least) 2500-3000 guns to 1 specific drug cartel – resulting in a hideous amount of civilian deaths in Mexico
Had a hissy-fit about Benjamin Netanyahu getting back into power and now wants to help Iran develop nuclear bombs (unless it is just my imagination that these events are linked?)
Received the Nobel Peace prize based on promises which he didn’t keep
Made lots of sanctimonious and tedious speeches
Surely they are all achievements to be proud of?
70
On Monday 25 May, the CSIRO Website displayed the atmospheric CO2 data for the Cape Grim, NW Tasmania, station updated to March 2015. When compared with the latest data from the University of Alabama, Huntsville, for the satellite measured lower tropospheric temperature, it revealed that the correlation between the annual change in each of the CO2 concentration and the Southern Hemisphere temperature was -0.048 with a probability of 33% that the value could be zero. If not zero, then the result indicates that increases in CO2 concentration have corresponded to falls in the temperature during the past 37 years. Alternately there is no reason to claim that there is a causal relationship between the two variables.
Further the correlation coefficient for the annual change in CO2 concentration relative to the Southern Hemisphere 13 month average temperature for each period was 0.66 with a negligible probability of zero correlation. This indicates that the temperature is controlling the rate of change in CO2 concentration, definitely not changes in the CO2 concentration setting the atmospheric temperature level as that is illogical.
Taken together with the fact that the global temperature has remained stable during this century in spite of an 8% rise in CO2 concentration at Cape Grim, this shows that the IPCC has some explaining to do as has our CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology who meekly parrot the IPCC themes.
184
Thanks Bevan,
Very interesting,
Could you clarify a couple of things.
1. Did you do the correlatiion yourself or is it published elsewhere ( if so could you give the reference )
2. Can you clarify what is meant by;
The correlation of the annual change in each of the CO2 comcentration and the Southern Hemisphere temperature was -0.048,
And
The correlation coefficient for the annual change in CO2 concentration relatives to the Southern Hemisphere 13 month average temperature was 0.66.
These two measures seem almost the same to me yet the coefficient is widely different.
20
PeterC, the quoted correlation coefficients are the standard text book correlation coefficients calculated via linear regression in my spreadsheet application.
The figure of -0.048 is for the relationship between the 12 month increment in each of the CO2 concentration and the satellite lower tropospheric temperature for the Southern Hemisphere. The annual increments are used in order to avoid the seasonal fluctuations that arise from the growth and decay of annual life forms. This is the regular cyclic pattern that is obvious on all CO2 graphs across the globe. It has its greatest range in the far northern hemisphere, for example, a range of 18 ppm at Barrow, Alaska, which greatly exceeds the typical annual increment.
The correlation coefficient of 0.66 is a measure of the relationship between the annual increment in CO2 concentration, as used above, and the average of the temperatures for the 13 months applicable to that increment, for example, CO2 concentration for May 2015 less that for May 2014 compared with the average temperature for May 2014 to May 2015.
Note that it was the revelation of this later measure that was probably part of the reason, unspecified, that Professor Murry Salby was sacked by Macquarie University as professor of climate science. We do not want factual data getting in the way of the IPCC fraud do we?
61
CLOUDS,
Last weekend tomOmason brought up the subject of clouds, noting the well defined nature of cumulus clouds in Jo’s headline photograph.
Is there some local effect, previously un-noticed which creates the well defined cloud margins?
I have spent the last week looking at cumulus clouds, from the ground and also from an aeroplane at 35,000 ft.
My observation is that cumulus clouds have quite well defined upper and lower boundaries, which are detiremined by an inversion level, in the case of the upper bound and the condensation level for the lower bound.
The lateral margins of the cloud are not as well defined, but this is not so apparent unless the cloud is viewed from directly below or above. When viewed from the side, as in the photograph, the lateral boundary is obscured by the cloud mass behind.
Consequently I don’t think there is any special effect. The cloud forms because moist air from near the ground is raised by a thermal. If the thermal reaches the condensation level a cloud will form. The thermal keeps rising until it reaches an inversion layer, then spreads out to the sides.
In many cases the upper air is much drier than the thermal and hence the cloud dissolves at the edges. The lateral margins can hence be fuzzy. If the upper air is not much drier than the thermal it does not dissolve but spreads out to merge with other clouds, creating a cloud layer (stratus).
What is interesting, noting the distribution of cumulus clouds is how inhomogeneous the upper air is in moisture content. This feature is best seen from high altitude in an aeroplane. . H2O is not well mixed in the atmosphere. This is likely due to the up and down air motions in the troposphere.
71
Peter C
Thanks for the up-date. I too have been looking at cloud, I often do…
Anyway I get what you are saying but the bit that keeps me looking is the unresolved energy emitted and absorbed by clouds that was measured back in the 1990 by Cess et al. and a few others.
I don’t know if this paper is still available, it was difficult to find 3 years ago —
Basically from Cess et al., observations show that the climate models have badly missed the energy that clouds absorb and radiate. By all accounts this problem has been ignored by those involved in climate science/modeling.
What a revelation, eh?
But Cess and many others saw this back in the 1990s (!), yet no further investigations appears to have be done (funded?) to reconcile this fairly large anomaly. If nothing else I like to publicize this matter in the hope that someone somewhere will feel (and maybe fund) an investigation of clouds.
81
Hi tomOmason,
Ok. I think the discussion about cloud boundaries was worthwhile, but perhaps a small side issue to the main discussion.
The radiation absorptive power of cloud is very important. I do not know how the Global Cimate Models are fomulated, but if they model clouds as clear sky I think they are very grossly in error. Cess et al suggest that the radiation absorbtion for short wave in models is the same as clear skies.
That must be an error familiar to anyone who has been in the hot sun, and then been shaded by a cloud.
It is possible to get a sunburn on a lightly shaded day,so I expect that some UV can penetrate cloud to some extent. How much? I expect that it depends on the thickness of the cloud layer.
Surely there is some work on this?
31
Peter C,
And that is where I started and imagined that clouds would interact only at the surface areas, as these are the main areas of temperature and humidity change. But, and this is the nub of it, the ‘surface’ has depth and that depth is dependent on the cloud density at any particular point.
That is to say, measurements of the energy changes from the cloud body and boundaries, and all of its physical changes — density/humidity, volume and hence its mass, all require better estimations than we have currently. Weather radar is quite good at giving estimates for some of these physical parts but the energy parameters, as started to be done by Cess and the other, are what is really needed.
Quite a problem and requires more info than I can see.
And yes, from all I’ve read, the UN-IPCC sanctioned modeling does grossly underestimate the energy by simple expedient of using entirely hypothetical figure for the effects of clouds.
You would have thought that in the 20 years or so since Cess and all the rest of the investigators looked at this, someone would have nailed the modelers and the UN-IPCC over their inaction on this matter, but it appears that consensus rules.
Of course that other area that is badly modeled, is advection in the atmosphere which Tim Ball highlighted here — http://drtimball.com/2015/advection-the-forgotten-weather-factor/ and at WUWT blog-site.
Yes we may get to better model a cloud but then forget to understand what makes them scoot across the sky. 🙂
20
Thanks tom0mason,
We have been thinking along similar line about the way clouds might modify the radiative transfer between the sun, earth and space.
I think Konrad’s posts on the “Science is broken” thread might be relevant. Konrad say that IR radiation is absorbed at the water surface and hence quickly lost to the surroundings. UV by comparison penetrates to depth and heats the surface waters. Konrad says that invalidates all the black body calculations used to support the Green house gas theory.
UV seems to penetrate to depth in the oceans and also clouds, which are liquid water but dispersed in very small droplets.
Worth pondering for another week.
Cheers
21
The Coupled GCMs take account of depth of solar insolation into oceans and different responses due to variability in such components as biomass. Likewise the release of energy through radiation, evaporation and convective transfer. The assumed parameters are adjusted until the model can produce something like the historical variation.
The models are limited in their spatial resolution and the amount of variables they can handle. For example, an atmospheric model might cover two degrees of latitude, three degrees of longitude and 1km of atmosphere. The coupled ocean model may have increasing increments of ocean depth from a few metres at surface to 100m at depth. Hence a single cloud is minute on this block scale and is not going to be observed within the resolution of the model. The parameters that cover radiation in and out of the atmospheric model block will have a value that is fine tuned to best match observations. The parameters may vary within a block or could be averaged over all model blocks.
The early GCMs fail because the parameters were calibrated based on observations from the 1970 to 1990 when the sun was increasing in activity and they treat all solar insolation the same with a very small change in total energy. There was no allowance for variation in wavelength of that energy. None of the GCMs have atmospheric block transmittance altered by cosmic particles. It is assumed negligible. The early models do not make provision for bio feedback such as increasing vegetation with rising CO2 either.
One certain aspects that the present GCMs can demonstrate is that if the earth gets covered in snow and ice it will stay that way until there is a large amount of heat released from below the crust. Snowball earth is a stable state. Anything beyond that has so many interactions and occurs over such a large scale that the GCMs can only be regarded as extraordinarily primitive models.
Having the science settled creates a dilemma for some creating more complex models with more variables and higher resolution with more recent calibration. A model producing zero correlation with CO2 would be the worst possible outcome. If the correlation shows a negative relationship between CO2 and temperature then that is OK because there is still man made Climate Change. The zero correlation would be hard to sell as still being climate change so the ocean acidification would need to be pushed. The gravy train has been rolling 25 years now and it has been good to many. The big push this year to lock in funding at or even before Paris will see a major effort. I doubt there will be enough signs of cooling this year to upset the gravy train.
50
I found a neat paper that discusses some interesting results from coupled circulation models:
http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/brose/resources/Publications/Rose_JGR2015.pdf
This model is not high resolution and not complex in that it discards land. What it shows is that there are four distinct stable states possible for the current level of solar insolation with these models. These states simply depend on the starting conditions. The GCM parameters are the same for each state. The range of insolation that are possible for the stable states is much wider than the notional forcing that the IPCC afford CO2.
Right now the global climate is at the Goldilocks state. The impact of CO2, if in fact it can increase forcing, is negligible compared with the range of stable states of the climate that can occur naturally depending on what conditions prevail at some point in time.
As far as applications of models are concerned this paper appeals to me because it simplifies and shows the range of possibilities as well as sensitivities. This contrast to the majority of the models that have so many parameters that they can be tuned to match any historical result but are meaningless in improving understanding or giving useful predictions.
20
Rick Will,
Many thanks for the link…interesting.
00
I felt a rant coming on. It’s actually quite cathartic.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/achtung-spitfeuer/
Pointman
42
Very well ranted and very true.
00
At the end of the two-days-old thread on The Bureaucratic Science Machine, I posted a couple of long comments that have escaped notice, to which I direct your attention.
The first is a reposting of highlights of Henry Bauer’s article, “Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels.” It has several good suggestions for getting science back on track. It’s at http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/lancet-editor-perhaps-half-of-all-science-is-wrong/#comment-1715053
The second follows right after. It is extracts from Brian Martin’s pamphlet, “Strip the Experts.” They will warm your cockles.
51
Thanks Roger,
I think that Henry Bauer’s ideas are best ignored!
Scince Courts. Ombudsmen etc Bauer sounds like a bureaurocrat himself. He would just make things worse.
IMO the first things to do are;
1. All research materials methods, programs and data must be published so that they can be examined or replicated. That,is not even controversial. But it does not,happen
2. Peer review (if it is to be retained ) must be open, not ccnfidential.
Openness exposes wrongdoing, which tends to prevent it.
71
“Scince Courts. Ombudsmen etc Bauer sounds like a bureaurocrat himself. He would just make things worse.”
On the contrary, the existence of a science court would make things better. It would force the consensus to confront and respond to its critics–and the consensus can’t convincingly do so. That was shown by its shut-down of the science-courtish APS (American Physical Society) protocol for constructing its new position paper on climate change.
Ombudsmen would help too. So what if they’re bureaucratish–that doesn’t make them bad. It would actually make them more acceptable to consensus-types.
(Bauer was a chemist and became a dean, FWIW.)
30
IMO the major problem is the closed community of UN elitists who command the The Bureaucratic Science Machine.
I feel that if the UN were serious about climate science actually progressing at a more productive pace then all the data and methods would be open to public inspection.
And if a model of how to do it is needed then the way that the software that is use on the worlds biggest computers is assembled makes a pretty good method. All the big computers run on versions of Linux or Unix at its base, and as such it has a lot of freely available open sourced methods and code algorithms (as too has MS Windows, Google Android, and Apple OSs).
The open source method works. It is open to inspection by anyone, though changes are made only made by those volunteers who are authorized to do so. All aspects of the why and how any change is implemented also open to public scrutiny.
Nothing hidden, nothing obscured by commercial concerns. If this climate project is so important for mankind and the planet’s future I feel it is the best method that could be adopted. Everyone that wants to know can see anything at any time — why hide anything anyway? It is paid for by our taxes that funds the UN, and it is our future the UN wants to control. If this climate fear-mongering has any merit at all, then they would gladly open all the information what ever the costs — they have only a few billion of our money to play with.
Though I can see that certain Mannian types would have great problems in the unlikely event of this happening.
30
It has been a passion of mine since the energy crisis in the 1970s. My chemical handbook showed that Aluminium would burn with a comparable energy to oil. Aluminium is also totally renewable, even with irregular power supplies, so a perfect way to safely store energy. At similar cost per kg, half the power but twice the density, 80 litres of Aluminium would match 80 litres of oil. Burning does not produce CO2, of course. Basically aluminium is 95% pure energy, so why not release the energy (Aluminium is used for explosive energy in hand grenades, cookie cutters, much more. Mix with an oxygen source like KMnO4)
However Alcoa has been listening. Since the 1980s they had a project for an aluminium battery. Batteries work on the difference in EMF between metals. Now Alcoa and Phinenergy have a working Aluminium battery (In the US, Aluminum) which is replaceable. 55kg of power for about the same price as say 55litres of petrol. Just swap them out. The aluminium oxide is 100% recylcable.
You just wonder if the Greenies had not spent $1Trillion on windmills and the like, we could be completely oil free today. However with mini mills, core problem with casual energy sources like wind and solar and tide and proximity and storage and movement would all be solved. Wind farms could actually be useful. Nuclear plants could be sited far from people.
Aluminium, the wonder metal which enabled modern aircraft is now being used in many cars including Audi and Jaguar. My Audis for 20 years have been all aluminium. Now they can consume themselves. The picture of Doc Brown putting an aluminium can in his car intake in Back to the Future now makes perfect sense. Not sure about the banana peel though.
101
My solution was not a battery but a steam engine which ran on aluminium bars, producing aluminium oxide. No special chemicals and precious metals but a bit prosaic compared with a battery which does solve the handling problem, if you can lift 55kg.
It is also notable that the 1970’s shortage and price explosion was caused by OPEC. Now we have a halving by Saudi Arabia. The politics of oil has changed so much since Winston Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty changed the British Fleet from coal to oil in 1912 and then created the concept of a land ship (which ended up being hidden as a “water tank” project, so then called a tank). Oil has been the driving force in every major war since.
Australia is also the world’s largest supplier of bauxite, so you think we would be doing some work on the idea, as iron ore prices drop and Alcoa abandon smelting under pressure from science ignorant communist Green politicians.
101
The banana is nuclear fuel, potassium you know !
60
One of may favorite slapback to the anti-nuclear brigade when they start telling me that since the Japanese nuclear plant had its tsunami disaster, fish in the Pacific are now ‘very’ radioactive.
Yes, I say, the fish might eventually become as radioactive as a supermarket banana in time. 🙂
60
What is the relative radioactivity of brazil nuts? On a school visit to AERE Aldermaston we were informed that they are the most radioactive food known. This was many years ago, of course, in the olden days when I was young. 🙁
30
Annie,
I didn’t know about brazil nuts.
I do however remember my school days were in order to show us that radiation was natural, a banana was held up to a Geiger counter and the clicking increased to a steady buzz. A piece of granite caused the teacher to change the counter’s range switch twice as it fizzed loudly.
However this was the day that I found out the watch my uncle had given me was the most radioactive item in the school! The watch was an old Smiths Empire watch, made in the late 1940s or early 1950s, and the glass face had crazed. When held up to the Geiger counter the radiation was off the scale and out of range. The speaker noise was a loud hiss!
Further tests (thankfully) showed it emitted mostly low energy alpha particles (easily blocked with a sheet of paper) but there was some energetic beta particles detected.
The teacher informed the class that from his scientific investigations of my watch, he could say with certainty my watch’s painted dial contained radium. He also told us of the many women employed as watch face painter that died because of exposure to the radium paint.
I lost that watch many years ago, hopefully it never hurt anyone, or me.
30
And the technology moves on, see —
http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2015/04/aluminium-ion-battery-can-charge-smartphone-one-minute
00
Taking a banana for lunch when working in a nuclear power station is a no no it will cause the plant to go into auto shut down. Very dangerous those bananas.
00
Clam gardens point to ancient marine management
These beaches are certainly more than 1,000 years old and likely many thousands of years older.
“We think that many Indigenous peoples worldwide had some kind of sophisticated marine management, but the Pacific Northwest is likely one of the few places in the world where this can be documented,” says Lepofsky.
“This is because our foreshores are more intact than elsewhere and we can work closely with Indigenous knowledge holders.”
Her team is comparing clam garden productivity to that of modern aquaculture and assessing whether the shell-rich beaches of clam gardens help buffer against increasing ocean acidification.
. . .
Just as well they aren’t studying sea level rise from global warming.
There has been none for thousands of years here.
50
31 May: LA Times: Jerry Hirsch: Elon Musk’s growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies
Los Angeles entrepreneur Elon Musk has built a multibillion-dollar fortune running companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space.
And he’s built those companies with the help of billions in government subsidies.
Tesla Motors Inc., SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.
“He definitely goes where there is government money,” said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. “That’s a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day.”
The figure compiled by The Times comprises a variety of government incentives, including grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and environmental credits that Tesla can sell. It also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars…
The payoff for the public would come in the form of major pollution reductions, but only if solar panels and electric cars break through as viable mass-market products. For now, both remain niche products for mostly well-heeled customers.
Musk declined repeated requests for an interview …
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83663044/
51
Supported by news outlets such as their ABC and Faux Facts the empire is trying to promote battery packs for solar power systems in Australia.
40
OTOH, battery packs make perfect sense if what you want to do is off-grid yourself and peer back at the rent seeking blood suckers (power company) while knocking back a coldie.
Solar power is almost capable of powering a small household but you do need to store power for nights and dull days, oh and keep the geni handy for those awkward moments. With luck you might only have to run the geni for say 200 hours P/A.
PS.
Batteries are on-demand so batteries are also very useful for households run off generators, the technology allows you to run the generator at peak efficiency, rather than wasting fuel when you don’t need power, for most houses running a 10kW geni just 2 hours a day gives plenty of energy and doesn’t disturb the neighbours as much as 24 hour running. With solar you might only need 1/2 hour run time on some days. Saves wear and tear too.
Needs to be heaps cheaper though…
60
To start to commence to begin to convince me:
1) you need to list the appliances you can run in your home simultaneously at night on battery power with the power requirement in Watts for each appliance and also the length of time these can be run simultaneously before the batteries drop to useless
2) how many people (and at what ages) do you envisage living together in “small” household
2) how you cope in winter at 7am with ambient temperature about 3C
Perhaps you do indeed have sensible answers to these questions, but so far each time I have asked these questions of a spruiker of the solar/battery homeset variety, they have disappeared without answering
50
Such easy ones Ian!
1. Small household = 2
2. You can’t run many at all, but you could probably manage a heat pump (800w COP 4) for 2 hours, a 2.5 kW COP 4.5 reverse cycle aircon for 2 hours, a TV/computers for 4 hours, LED lighting and maybe induction cooker for an hour. With good management night time demand can be as low as 6kWh. I have pretty average appliances and excluding hot water I can reach a daily consumption of as little as 13 kWh. If I had solar or heat pump water my total could be as little as 15kWh a day. 6 for night consumption isn’t unrealistic for an energy managed property in a warm place.
The battery never drops to useless, since if you read my post, the generator kicks in to recharge the battery if it gets low or if demand exceeds inverter capacity.
3 Admittedly I live in a warm place – obviously will die early /sarc but what I’d do is extract heat from the genset exhaust, and combine that with the heat pump to heat water for an underfloor heating system. That way not only do you get your COP 4 on the water heating, the exhaust heat can be used to make use of the 65% of the fuel energy that is lost in the generator. Overall for a 2KW heat pump (probably need that for heating) you might get close to 9.5kw of heating (CoP of 4.5 – 4.8 overall).
I’d also have a system that can vent the heat pump exhaust into the house as well to help that little aircon along in summer.
And, me well I’d have a wood burner as well – just because, well I like wood fires! With the addition of a water jacket these can heat water for the HWS and underfloor central heating too offloading the heat pump.
So Ian, a combination of energy efficient appliances, intelligent energy management (with batteries) and recycling of waste heat/cold can make a household just about liveable off grid, but you probably need to be pretty annoyed by the power company and as rich as Al Gore to bother to do it.
40
For all you Australians, take out your most recent electricity Bill and note how much the retailers charge you for every KWH (KiloWattHour) of electricity.
The smallest part of that total unit cost of the KWH total goes to the actual entities which generate the power you consume.
The retailers have contracts for the electricity that they purchase from those generating entities, and when they add the totals for what they have to pay and the power actually purchased, they average it out to a single unit cost per KWH, and it’s still the smallest part of the overall retail cost.
Far and away the cheapest price the retailers pay for the generated power is for coal fired power. That total comes in at between 2.5 and 3 cents per KWH, around 8% of what you pay at retail.
The costliest power that retailers have to purchase is rooftop solar power fed back to the grid from those (now 1.4 Million installations) who have rooftop panels. The cost that retailers have to pay for that power varies between 35 and 70 cents per KWH. (some retailers add on an extra bonus here for panel owners) As you can see, the cost retailers have to pay for that rooftop power fed back is in virtually every case higher than the retail price they can actually sell power for.
Now, for panel owners considering going off grid and buying batteries to supply power after hours, add up the cost of the panels, and their replacements when they are no longer viable, inverters, and their replacements. Batteries and their replacements, and here, do it correctly, not the least viable method, the ongoing maintenance, the installation of the original system and all replacements.
When that exercise is completed, then compare that with the original unit cost for coal fired power, around 3 cents per KWH.
There is no comparison.
Oh, and for all you Americans, look at your unit cost for every KWH. Similar costs apply there as well. The unit cost for the power which was generated from Nuclear Power Plants averages between 0.8 and 1.3 cents per KWH.
Odd, isn’t it? The cheapest forms of generating power are the most vilified. The single most expensive ways to generate power are made to seem to be the most attractive.
Tony.
150
Tony, which retailers are you referring to when you quote that 35c to 70c price they have to pay? Are you aware that in your state the retailers don’t actually pay anything for the solar power? That is one of the issues that they want to fix up. The wholesalers pay those government mandated feed-in costs you quote and they are passed up the line and to all customers as network costs. The retailers only pay the NEM prices which reflect the coal and gas fired pricing. That is partly why non-solar customers are unhappy to have to pay that component of network charges. The report that your last premier Newman commissioned (check out your QEC reports) recommended a feed-in pricing scheme that saw retailers pay for the solar feed electricity that their customers generated. The recommended feed-in price was of the order of 6-8 cents and was calculated on a ‘costs avoided’ basis so it had nothing to do with the solar infrastructure costs but reflected the equivalent coal fired pricing it would ‘save’ or ‘avoid’ (and even that price had arguments both going ways as it is a complex issue). Perhaps if there was a mechanism for any solar power (including all the small scale rooftop stuff) to compete on the NEM to earn their price, would take some of the emotion out of it. It seems silly tho for any of the tiny rooftop systems to be selling their excess at 6 cents and then purchasing the off-peak at 18 cents to heat their hot water system at night. It would make more sense to dump all that excess into the heater during the day with a little electronics wizardry and not feed anything back into the network. That way what the solar folk do is their own business and has no bearing on the other non-solar folk. In that respect I do agree that the solar feeds don’t lend themselves to feeding the network.
10
Bobl,
OTOH, battery packs make perfect sense if you’re head of an electric car manufacturer with declining sales of these vehicles. 🙁
Reality starts to kick in when he realizes that warehouses full of unused batteries are not getting moving, and are likely to reach their expected end of life before they get fitted in new or refurbished cars. Also Mr. Musk’s company is tied to a contract with the battery supplier that ensures he has to buy more batteries every year, whether he needs them or not. 🙁
Oh what to do ❓
💡 💡
Well obviously use-up the oldest batteries in this home scheme as it’s a quick way to get rid of old stock plus the government will give more cash/debt guarantees for ‘greening’ yet more of the fake and unfree ‘renewable’ marketplace. 🙂
And as he has tied the consumer contract to a SolarCity Corp battery fitting deal that the customer pays for, he makes money both ways! 😀 Yes you can buy the battery separately but the caveats on the sale… 😥
Yep you got to hand it to Mr. Musk, he’s one smart guy. 😆
20
TomOmason- declining vehicle sales? Do you have evidence of that? Time to put up or shut up.
04
Sales are no where near what the smoothy Elon said.
Can you say his sales are rising — Do you have evidence of that? Time to put up or shut up.
20
Certainly tomOmason- Model S worldwide 2015 Q1 sales up 55% over 2014 Q1 sales.
01
Willard,
And how many of them are not new but refurbished old models (that’s pre-owned or secondhand) getting resold by Tesla dealers?
40
So Willard there up by 55% are they. Wow they must have sold millions eh?
Percentages are usually trumpeted by scoundrels in the marketplace when actual numbers are very low. After-all maybe his sales rose from 127 to 197 — that’s a massive 55% rise!
30
TomOmason- it’s 55% increase in NEW car sales but the link you provided is interesting non the less, another great concept from Tesla, thanks for finding that gem TomO.
01
Tesla S sales include ‘pre-owned’?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-launches-used-car-sales-via-web-1430502587
20
I saw one of his cars in Copenhagen last year. Wow! Fabulous looking cars, not those eco tin cans or smart cars. Of course there is no saving overall in CO2 but with a good source of electricity. Perhaps the aluminium battery above? Really just save on the weight of the engine with electrical power straight to the wheels with regenerative electric motors. These would run for days in the city. Whatever Musk is doing with his billions, it is far better than $1000Bn in windmills.
41
Actually, I wonder whether the aluminium ‘battery’ is reversible like a lead acid battery. I doubt it, but perhaps. However paired with Lithium, it is more like a tank of electricity. Zero charging time. Replace the recyclable battery.
50
No, these batteries produce aluminium hydroxide which is viscous, most implementations flow the electrolyte over the electrodes to avoid the electrolyte turning to jelly and fouling the electrodes. But you can reclaim the aluminium chemically later in a factory. Aluminium air batteries are just about doable if the electrolyte can be managed properly. Having said that ammonium fuel cells would probably be a better bet!
There are considerable practical problems with al-air batteries, be careful what you believe.
20
May depend on how you do it. Stanford has a small unit they’ve had some success with: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/march/aluminum-ion-battery-033115.html
00
TdeF
2 other cars that look fabulous (on government money)
00
Yes, these are called hype powered cars, for a good reason!
42
Interesting you didn’t research the story before posting on Pindan, I’m also interested why a “glass half empty” guy like yourself Tom has posted a number of recent negative stories on Tesla? What have they got to do with flora and fauna in the Kimberley? Do you have any knowledge on the aims of the company? Or do you just copy and paste other websites garbage? The saying goes “no one ever built a statue for a critic” so I dont expect to see Tom Harley’s in chinatown anytime soon.
110
So why did you go there Willard, to beat yourself up? I go anywhere where I like, to chase down scams and cons that rely on other people’s money. Like one of your favorite politicians squirming under examination by counsel, today, because he is found out. But don’t you worry too much, the media say there’s nothing to see here. In fact, they aren’t even there. My interests are in a lot more than flora and fauna, but I do things that the Green Blob doesn’t, because all their climate and environmental scams leave no funds to do real environmental repair.
61
Tom, please tell me who one of my favourite politicians is? Because I’ve questioned your negative posts on Tesla your suddenly able to bracket my voting intention?
13
You told me who your favorite politicians are. The same ones who wont go to
21
Please explain Tom?
10
The left has made an alarmist opinion on this scientific issue into a doctrine of their political ideology.
42
Tom, best not to split the public into left/right/green based on their support/ non support for a particular industry, hobby or choice of car.
12
Willard,
your blind support for a Billionaire 13 times over seeking to increase his fortune is commendable, and I wholly understand your need to come here and snipe at anyone who seeks to speak against the meme which goes to the making up of your belief structure, but, really, we only need the facts to poke fun at your blind adherence to this.
Let’s actually pretend that Elon Musk’s wonderwall battery sells literally off its face here in Australia.
The target is the residential power consumption sector.
Overall Total power consumption – 210TWH
Residential Sector – 63TWH (30% of all power consumption)
Rooftop Solar Power Generation – 3.45TWH (from 1.4 million installations)
Off Grid Rooftop Solar consumption – 690GWH
Tesla’s probable target – 6.9GWH (if they are really really successful)
So then, the target is for 0.003% of Australia’s power generation.
So that leaves the remainder at 99.997% of power generation.
Hmm! Large scale coal fired power wouldn’t even slow for a f@rt with that kind of inroad into their generation.
Incidentally, Bayswater delivers that same power all those wonderwalls will deliver in one year, and will do it in 2 hours and 36 minutes.
You can support your favoured choice of one billionaire over a
money grubbingpower retailer for all I care, and hey, you may evencongetevery other consumer, sorry,taxpayer, sorry Government to even stump up for half the cost, as with most other renewables, but please, don’t gloat about saying this is actually something worthwhile, when simple facts make this look so ridiculous.Tony.
142
Tony, Tony, Tony, lets not forget that you can use the battery to accumulate energy during cheap times and spit it out at just the right time to avoid time of use maximums, if I had a factory I’d seriously consider that. That (mis)use alone might be able to pay for the batteries.
Batteries can make time of use metering work for you instead of against.
30
C’mon Tony you know the “battery storage will replace large power stations” headlines are just clickbait for the masses, on the other hand your spot on with the math, battery storage will hardly scratch the surface of the energy required, but, and its a big but, many homeowners are non to happy with their electricity retailer and/or are keen to save every dollar if they can, you say they can’t, I will sit on the fence and watch on with keen interest, of course various forms of battery storage have been around for years, now the noticable developement over the past few weeks is since Tesla announced the powerwall, other big brands have followed suit, they must see some sort of market availlable.
Anyway your probably best to stop waisting your time trying to determine my belief structure based on the few posts I have written and get on with telling us all how Electric vehicles are going to overwhelm and crash the Australian power grid.
26
Solar subsidies still mean robbing the poor to pay the rich. You gave away your belief structure in your first comment.
61
Tom, where have I mentioned solar subsidies in the above?
21
Speaking of subsidies, Willard, Musk is the biggest: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/02/tuesday-titter-josh-on-the-stench-of-green-subsidies/
00
Tom Harley- WUWT is a site on global warming and climate change, why are they keen to highlight the business practices of a person who deals in rockets that transport equipment to the space station, electric cars, battery factories and solar panels?
00
Crash the grid. You have to be joking.
A few thousand cars (if they sell like hot cakes here in Oz) all charging at the exact same moment could be handled by just one of Bayswater’s 4 units without any change whatsoever in its normal delivery of power to the grid. The power required to charge those few thousand Teslas all charging at the same time is the equivalent power delivered by that one unit at Bayswater in 15 minutes.
And I’ve never at any time said they would crash the grid. What a jolly japer you are.
Tony.
62
My apologies Tony, it was another poster that seems to think charging 1000s of EVs at home will require massive upgrades to every part of the power grid.
12
BTW, I didn’t red thumb you, but am keen to know why soomeone would?
11
Willard,
No one at this site has ever mentioned that. Had they, I would have immediately countered the argument. I haven’t seen it here at all.
Please, you need to stop saying we have said things we haven’t, or inferring/implying that it has been said at this site, neither of which is true.
Tony.
31
Truthseeker
January 26, 2013 at 7:23 pm
Johnny boy, you are missing many things. Let’s see what happens when we have 15 million electric cars on the road. That is 60 kWH per charge per car. So that is 60 kWH x 365 (daily car usage) x 15,000,000 = 328,500,000,000 kWH per year. That is the equivalent of the annual output of 14.2 Bayswater power stations required just for the cars.
You clearly have no understanding of the real world. You just think that power comes from a wall socket and there is unlimited amounts of it.
Keep smiling Johnny boy. You clearly live in a fantasy world.
Surprised you didn’t pick up on this one Tony!
33
Ahh! Entrapment eh? Well done you.
15 Bl00dy million electric vehicles.
Dream away.
Surely you wouldn’t expect me to remember every single comment ever made here and reply to something so patently outrageous as 15 million electric vehicles running at the maximum of their operation every single day. You’d be lucky to have this happen to a hundred of them, let alone 15 million.
Tony.
60
No entrapment Tony, an old post, a few around like that but nothing as outrageous as that, of course 15 million EVs is fantasy by the truthseeker, but look at the other figure- 328 500 000 000 Kwh, the local coal industry would be happy.
12
It wasn’t me either, but here’s a 2013 article discussing the possibility: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/518066/could-electric-cars-threaten-the-grid/
and another from 2014: https://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/impact-of-electric-vehicles-on-grid/
The issue doesn’t seem to be power generation, but the wires at the other end.
10
OTOH Tony, I could see some streets on the north shore of Sydney perhaps overwhelming the local transformer. Of course maybe they’d just take the Merc or the Jag instead.
10
Elon is a very, very smart chook.
He’s become a multimillionaire by extracting US$4.9 BILLION in subsidies from the US Government.
Working out how to extract these subsidies is the trick. When you work out the trick, you can say you arte doing anything that tickles your fancy.
And aren’t the video clips and the brochures nice and shiny?
Come in suckers.
10
Toorightmate, pretty well spot on but he became a multi- millionaire through his dealings with Zip2 then part proceeds of the sale of paypal to ebay, the billionaire part came later, his not the first person to take advantage of govt grants and wont be the last. So you would think the people who dislike him most are Oil companies, probably no, the franchised car dealers of the US and some other countries would love to see him rocket off to Mars sooner than later, because if Tesla’s direct sales model takes off with major car builders a lot of middlemen car dealers will be out of work.
00
toorightmate
Not only that, but Elon has managed to convince the ‘technically stupid but rich’ that his wonderwall is the next green chic fashion item they must have to help them salve their guilt and ‘save the world’. A steel box full of nearly new batteries. Pathetic product, great sales pitch!
When all is said and done, Mr Musk has a lot to admire — his carefully controlled PR chutzpa that allows both the public and the government to believe in his brand of green hogwash.
30
Tom Harley
Spot-on.
40
Climate change conference this week in Greenland:
http://arcticjournal.com/press-releases/1629/international-conference-ilulissat-highlights-consequences-climate-change
I wonder if the topic “Failure to Melt” will get discussed:
http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/e/n/i/b/m/Melt_combine.png
60
the Carbon Expo in Barcelona has ended with no MSM coverage, and now everyone’s off to Bonn!
31 May: Global Post: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Bonn U.N. talks seek to trim unwieldy climate change plan
OSLO (Reuters) – Governments will try on Monday to streamline an 89-page draft text of a U.N. deal to fight climate change due to be agreed in Paris in December, hoping to avoid the acrimony of the last failed attempt.
The 190-nation talks among senior officials in Bonn, from June 1-11, will try to narrow down vastly differing options, ranging from promises to slash greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050 to vague pledges to curb rising emissions.
The talks are to prepare for a conference in Paris in six months’ time to agree a global deal to curb climate change that a U.N. panel blames for a rise in temperatures and more severe droughts, floods and rising sea levels.
Time is starting to run short to distil the draft, which has 4,232 lines of text and hundreds of brackets, into a meaningful document…
“Instead of the blaming game that was Copenhagen, what is being built here is much more of an alliance, a broad collaboration among countries to get a deal together,” she (Christiana Figueres) told Reuters…
One problem is how to make the deal legally binding…
“I don’t think we’ll be down to a few pages by the end of Bonn,” said Mark Kenber, head of The Climate Group, an independent organization that works with business and governments.
“These negotiators are schooled in the art of not giving anything away unless they have to,” he said…
http://www.globalpost.com/article/6566331/2015/05/31/bonn-un-talks-seek-trim-unwieldy-climate-change-plan
18 March: LeadersLeague: Mark Kenber (The Climate Group): “Innovation is at the core of the Clean Revolution”
The Climate Group, is globally recognized for its exceptional impact on the climate debate, and respected as one of the world’s most influential non-profits. We have met with Mark Kenber, CEO of the UK branch.
Kenber: Also in 2005, we started our States and Regions Alliance. Now, our Climate Group States & Regions brings together 27 ***sub-national governments from around the world in a powerful, high-profile network that shares expertise demonstrates impact and influences the international climate dialogue. Our members represent some of the most economically powerful regions in the world and include governments from across Europe, the Americas, South Asia, Australia and Africa. States & Regions members collectively account for 313 million people, 11% of global GDP and 2.3 Gigatons CO2e. States and regional governments are setting standards for impactful global climate action…READ ALL
http://www.leadersleague.com/en/news/mark-kenber-the-climate-group-innovation-is-at-the-core-of-the-clean-revolution?language=en
21
These negotiators are the “thin red line”, the only thing standing between us and a remorseless enemy, exemplified by Mark Kleber himself.
The remorseless enemy wants to impose carbon solutions on us that we don’t want. And since we are resisting that they want to take away our right to self determination.
20
can’t recall seeing this reported in the MSM:
20 May: International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD): ***Subnational Governments Sign Under2 MOU
A group of 12 subnational governments, representing more than US$4.5 trillion in GDP and 100 million people, have signed the ‘Under2 MOU,’ a commitment to take leadership on climate action at the relevant levels of jurisdiction. The 12 signatories include: California, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, in the US; Acre, Brazil; Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany; Baja California and Jalisco in Mexico; Catalonia, Spain; Ontario and British Columbia in Canada; and Wales, UK…
Each signatory commits to limit its emissions by 80-95% below 1990 levels or achieve a per capita annual emission target of less than two metric tons by 2050, which is the level needed to limit temperature rise to below 2°C by the end of this century…
Speaking on the occasion of the Under2 MOU, World Bank Group Vice President and Special Envoy for Climate Change Rachel Kyte pointed to local and ***sub-national governments as critical innovators in combating climate change, noting that their record of building up solutions, from carbon pricing to electric vehicle roll-out to green buildings. She said national governments should follow their “excellent model.”
Climate Group CEO Mark Kenber indicated that his organization is working with this initiative through its States & Regions Alliance, in order to replicate best practices, measure impact and support governments.
The signing took place in California, US. In April…
http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/subnational-governments-sign-under2-mou/
14 May: Blue&GreenTomorrow: Ilaria Bertini: Former Tory minister Gregory Barker joins the Climate Group’s board of trustees
Ex- minister for energy and climate change Greg Barker has become a trustee of the Climate Group – an international organisation focused on making businesses aware of low-carbon opportunity to fight climate change…
Among Barker’s greatest achievements were the creation of the Green Investment Bank (GIB), the renewable heat incentive and the support for large solar energy projects…
Barker: ” I hope to help The Climate Group build on its excellent track record of convening world leaders, and communicating the economic and business benefits of innovation and investment in the low carbon economy.”
Barker added he will support the Climate Group in a range of initiatives, such as helping businesses to move to 100% renewable energy.
Mark Kenber, the Climate Group’s CEO said he hopes that Barker’s experience in the government will help the group to effectively communicate with institutions about the need for a low-carbon shift…
http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2015/05/14/former-tory-minister-gregory-barker-joins-the-climate-groups-board-of-trustees/
31
almost all vital CAGW information is now confined to “specialist” websites which have no little or no public feedback as far as i can tell. interesting that Shankleman puts science in quotation marks!
20 May: GreenBiz: Jessica Shankleman: Paris climate politics: Let the corporate lobbying begin
Documents seen by BusinessGreen reveal how the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) demanded references relating to the ***”science” behind the need for a 2° Celsius temperature target were stripped out of the guideline messages prepared for speakers at the event. The group also attempted to add a number of caveats on industrial competitiveness and carbon pricing mechanisms to the briefing documents.
The summit, at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris, aims to show politicians that many businesses strongly support global action on climate change and want to see an ambitious international deal finalized at the upcoming U.N. Climate Summit thatalso will be hosted in Paris in December.
The event is being sponsored by a number of industry groups, including Cefic, and will feature a wide range of high-profile speakers, such as Tony Hayward, the former BP chief executive who now leads Glencore Xstrata; Philippe Marchessaux, chief executive of BNP Paribas Investment Partners; and Georges Plassat, chief executive of the supermarket giant Carrefour…
A showdown at the summit?
One industry insider with knowledge of the proceedings accused Cefic of seeking to undermine the meeting’s level of ambition…
The source added that while they understand the need for consensus building, there is a risk those businesses that want a truly ambitious climate agreement could see their position watered down. “I understand that in order to move everyone forward you have bring these groups on board but at the same time, when do you draw a line in the sand and say five or six months out from what we hope to be a global defining agreement, when do you just start excluding these groups and say, ‘No, you can’t be involved because we don’t feel that your contribution is going to be constructive’?”…
But Mark Kenber, chief executive of The Climate Group, a supporting partner of Climate Week in Paris, defended the decision to bring together a wide range of industry groups for the Paris meeting.
“This is something that involves businesses of all sectors and all countries, so I don’t think it’s right for them to exclude this business or that business,” he told BusinessGreen. “The point is to show that there is this unstoppable momentum…
(A spokesman for Cefic) explained Cefic’s reasoning behind some of the attempted alterations.
On removing the reference to the ***”science” of a 2° C target, he said the target is an objective set by governments, which is ***guided by science, and that Cefic never has commented on the target itself. He also insisted that industrial competitiveness is “essential” for all businesses and “must be discussed during any discussions on climate change.” Equally, he said “carbon leakage” was a major concern within the European Union (EU), which is why the group wanted a reference to it in the document…
http://www.greenbiz.com/article/cop-politics-begin-industry-lobbyists-targeting-climate-change
21
one that’s made it into the Financial Times and Independent:
31 May: UK Independent: Ian Johnston: Climate change: Major energy companies write to UN to request help in setting up carbon pricing scheme
A carbon pricing scheme would involve a fee being charged to emit the greenhouse gas and the proceeds would ***probably go to companies that reduce them
BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, Statoil, Eni and the BG Group asked Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to help them hold “direct dialogue with the UN and willing governments” about developing a scheme to charge those who produce carbon emissions…
The companies’ chief executives revealed the move in a letter to the Financial Times, which said: “We owe it to future generations to seek realistic, workable solutions to the challenge of providing more energy while tackling climate change.”
A carbon pricing scheme would involve a fee being charged to emit the greenhouse gas and the proceeds would probably go to companies that reduce them, such as renewable energy firms…
The move by the six energy firms comes ahead of a major global summit on climate change in Paris in November and December, when most of the world’s countries are expected to sign up to a new agreement on how to deal with the problem.
***This could include setting a date by which the use of fossil fuels will stop.
Two major US energy firms, ExxonMobil and Chevron, have already ruled out joining the European energy firms to come up with a joint global warming strategy, the FT reported.
Rex Tillerson, Exxon’s chairman, told shareholders: “We’re not going to be disingenuous about it. We’re not going to ***fake it. We’re going to express solutions and policy ideas that we think have merit.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-major-energy-companies-write-to-un-to-request-help-in-setting-up-carbon-pricing-scheme-10288009.html
unbelievable.
20
‘Skeptics need to know what they stand for and what they don’t. Skeptics get painted as deniers and conspiracy theorists and changing that perception won’t happen overnight. But it won’t happen at all if it’s not communicated.
‘What skeptics need is a strong spokesperson. Preferably a young, charismatic, non-partisan scientist to go on daytime TV, YouTube and TV news shows. This would be a true skeptic of CAGW who could point to their belief that CO2 is a greenhouse gas as a defense against being labelled a denier. The skeptic spokesperson would be trying to reach low information viewers. The types of viewers that are most prone to rational ignorance on climate change.’
Matt Manos (WUWT guest blogger)
—–
I nominate Lomborg after his conversion.
22
Paris 2015
Mobilizing the Billions and Trillions for Climate Finance (worldbank.org)
“In less than nine months, climate negotiators will be in Paris to finalize an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and begin slowing the impacts of climate change.
Over the next 15 years, the global economy will require an estimated $89 trillion in infrastructure investments across cities, energy, and land-use systems, and $4.1 trillion in incremental investment for the low-carbon transition to keep within the internationally agreed limit of a 2 degree Celsius temperature rise.
In addition, developed countries are working to meet a commitment made in 2010 to mobilize $100 billion a year from public and private sources by 2020 for climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries.”
~ ~ ~
Will it be “the hottest year ever” in Paris, December 2015?
Averages for Paris in December (holidayweather.com)
Weather overview
December is one of the coldest months in Paris, France, when the weather is cold, wet and there is a small chance of snow.
Disneyland Paris Weather in December (weather2travel.com)
. . .
The cost to end world hunger…
— $30 billion per year is needed to end world hunger (Food & Agricultural Organisation)
“Against that backdrop, how can we explain to people of good sense and good faith that it was not possible to find US$30 billion a year to enable 862 million hungry people to enjoy the most fundamental of human rights: the right to food and thus the right to life?” Dr Diouf asked.
20
Actual cream rises to the top. Earthlings now cultivate other critters for food and survival. Welcome some evidence of God, that will slap the shit out of earthlings, and make them slaves of Arachnids that do not do such stupid things
22
The people don’t matter, it’s all about politics, socialism masquerading as environmentalism
20
‘December is one of the coldest months in Paris, France, when the weather is cold, wet and there is a small chance of snow.’
A very negative and persistent NAO in December, should provide heavy snow in Europe similar to 2009-10.
Warmists will say its nothing, just a cold air outbreak in line with AGW thinking.
31
It was a post by someone on another topic on this blog that got me thinking about the links between Manichaeism and Gnosticism’s dualistic vision of a fight between the forces of good and evil, and the mindset of the Deep Green movement, specifically, how it relates to the Global warming scare, with the forces of good on one side and the fossil fuel lobby (and humanity) on the other side.
While I have not walked that highway the distance that it deserves, it requiring a lot of background reading, I came across some interesting byways.
One of these is the academic Anna Bramwell, and her research into the links between the Nazis and the Green movement. Specifically, the Green Wing of the Nazi Party.
Bramwell is criticized by both the ultra-right and of course, by the eco-socialists and everyone else on the Left. So I figure she must be doing something right. The libertarians call her a Green. She is not, although she confesses to admiring Lovelock’s dreamy Gaiaphilic vision. The Left, frothing and vituperative, allude to her admiring the subjects of her research, the Nazis. Strangely, the ultra-Right say her hatred of Nazism has affected her work. Bramwell is obviously hitting the mark. And putting a lot of noses out of joint in the process.
Another avenue of exploration is Eco-Socialism itself. A huge topic with many interesting avenues for exploration. Interesting that in Australia the Democratic Socialists once had an alliance with the Greens. Remember “Green Left Weekly”? (Interesting to me, in that Democratic Socialist parties were cover for the Communists in Europe prior to the October Revolution. Stalin visited London as a card-carrying member of the Georgian wing, seeking funding from wealthy soap barons, and attending a Marxist conference, back in 1907.)
According to Bramwell, after WWII, when the Left flocked to join the Green parties, they disconcertingly discovered that the conservatives on the Right had beaten them to it. (Does anyone remember Eugene von Guerard and his magnificent Australian landscape paintings? They are now saying he was strongly infleuenced by the environmentalism of the Prussian explorer-scientist Alexander von Humboldt, author of Kosmos, and himself influenced by German Romanticism.)
A character that I came across in looking at the origins of Eco-Socialism is Joel Kovel. He for a time (1988-2009) held the Alger Hiss chair of Social Studies at Bard College. (Alger Hiss was unmasked by one Richard Nixon working with Joseph McCarthy, found to be a Soviet spy, convicted and imprisoned for such. Hiss stood at Roosevelt’s right hand side during the Big Three meeting at Yalta, which gave away eastern Europe to the Soviets).
Kovel is what I unashamedly call a brilliant thinker. (There is a tautology hiding in there somewhere). From what I can see such thinkers are found on all sides of the AGW debate, including the sceptical side – think Lord Lawson, think Richard Lindzen. Kovel finds and critiques the similarities between Deep Green thinking and Nazism, yet his own proposals are almost as radical. Kovel wants to get rid of capitalism and replace it with a restructured society where the workers control everything through collective ownership, there is free association of producers and natural resources are commonly-owned by all.
I figure all that is missing from his vision is a class of cadre to oversee the entire project. Sort of akin to “Stalin’s Willing Executioners” a la Yuri Slezkine and Kevin McDonald? Hopefully Joel Kovel’s vision – a socialist Eco-Utopia or Green Hell, as you prefer, will never (re-) materialize. Once every hundred years is enough.
60
Paul Vaughan gets a run at Tallbloke, looks promising.
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/pumping-persistence.png
11
29 May: CBS News: Ben Tracy: Is an El Nino next in pattern of treacherous weather?
Scientists say the floods could be a sign the weather-pattern known as El Nino is gaining strength in the Pacific. If so, California could finally get the drought-busting storms it desperately needs…
Josh Willis, a NASA climate scientist, tells CBS News that in the past two years, scientists have seen a change in the jet stream that could be attributed to climate change. It often takes on a wavy pattern, causing more extreme weather – such as all that snow in Boston this past winter. Now, scientists are watching an El Nino rapidly grow in the Pacific Ocean…
Willis tells CBS News that while it’s a bit early to say for sure, “this El Niño has all the markings of a big one.”
“The cycle will continue throughout the year and peak sometime in the winter.
***So it could be Godzilla El Nino, but it could also be El Wimpo,” he says…
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-an-el-nino-next-in-pattern-of-treacherous-weather/
***heard this on some radio station this morning and could not believe the reporter wasn’t laughing out loud. Godzilla/Wimpo, it’s all CAGW.
51
helping the hungry!
1 June: UK Express: Peter Henn: Tony Blair ‘in £330,000 demand for hunger talk’
A SPEECH by Tony Blair at a world hunger conference was dropped after the former Prime Minister allegedly demanded a massive £330,000 fee, it has emerged
Mr Blair was asked to speak at the Eat food forum in Stockholm, Sweden, which starts tomorrow.
The event, which last year featured a talk by former American president Bill Clinton, claims to be a forum where ‘science politics and business can share insight and ideas to achieve our common goal of ***sustainably feeding a healthy world population.
Kruger Cowne talent agency, which represents Mr Blair, asked for a £250,000 fee plus £80,000 expenses for a twenty minute speech, according to the Sunday Times.
Mr Clinton got a total of £327,000 for his half-hour talk last year.
Eat offered Mr Blair, who stepped down from his role as Middle East peace envoy last week, £215,000, but after months of talks, an agreement was not reached.
A source said: “Blair is just not Clinton, and even his star peer is fast diminishing…
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/581161/Tony-Blair-wanted-330-000-hunger-talk
(this does go on to claim the money would have gone to his wife’s foundation for women! EAT’s insult to Blair is a joke, given they offered him £215,000)
EAT Stockholm Food Forum 2015
The vision of EAT is a transformation of the global food system to sustainably feed a healthy population of nine billion people by mid-Century…
WHO IS EAT? EAT is initiated and owned by the Stordalen Foundation with Stockholm Resilience Centre as main academic partner…
Fall 2013 the Stordalen Foundation supported the Green Summit 2013: Farm to Fork, hosted by the Swedish-American Chamber of Commerce in New York. Earlier this year, it contributed to the “Global Health Beyond 2015” conference hosted by the Swedish Medical Society and The Lancet, as well as contributed to the “Transformation in a Changing Climate” conference at the University of Oslo. It also co-hosted the Re|Source 2012 conference at University of Oxford…
Furthermore, The Stordalen Foundation supports a new Lancet Commission Climate Crisis: Emergency Actions to Protect Human Health that will be released in 2015. The Stordalen Foundation is a proud sponsor the European Climate Foundation, the Zero Emission Resource Organization and the Rainforest Foundation Norway..
ACADEMIC PARTNERS
Harvard, Berkeley etc
STRATEGIC PARTNERS
National Geographic Society, Climateworks, Deloitte, Google, WWF, Environmental Defense Fund, etc.
FUNDING PARTNERS
Stordalen Foundation, Antonia Ax:son Johnson Foundation for Sustainable Development, Oak Foundation
http://www.eatforum.org/
from Gunhild Stordalen/Wikipedia:
The Stordalen foundation focuses on 4 separate areas:
The Rainforest Foundation
Zero Emission Resource Organisation (ZERO): The Stordalen foundation supports the non-profit environmental organization Zero. Gunhild Stordalen serves on the Board of Directors of the organization.
European Climate Foundation: The foundation supports the European Climate Foundation (ECF) and Gunhild Stordalen serves on the organization’s supervisory committee.
GreeNudge: In June 2011 the couple founded GreeNudge, a non-profit initiative that will initiate and support behavioral research related to energy efficiency and climate change, in order to provide evidence-based data as a basis for decision makers to implement effective climate policies.
On April 18, 2012 a new collaboration between University of Oxford/Smith School of Enterprise and Environment and the Rothschild Foundation and the Stordalen Foundation was announced. 250 of the world’s most influential thinkers and leaders have been invited to Oxford University in July to discuss the management of natural resources. Speakers include Bill Clinton, David Miliband, and James Cameron
Stordalen is an Earth Hour ambassador for Norway…
EAT Stockholm Food Forum was initiated by Gunhild Stordalen and arranged by the Stordalen Foundation and the Stockholm Resilience Centre at the Clarion Hotel Sign in Stockholm in May 2014…
Hosting 400 participants from 28 nations, it was a combination of talks, panel debates and discussions between researchers, politicians and industry. The participants included Charles, Prince of Wales, who spoke via a link on the theme of ‘The global food system: A sustainable future’, former US President Bill Clinton, who gave the keynote speech, and Professor Hans Rosling. Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland and Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway…
31
I wonder what Tony will do without the 330,000 quid?
I suppose the truth must be that I wasn’t watching, But could this be the most obscene report I have ever seen in my life?
20
given Rachel Kyte/World Bank in IISD article posted earlier is echoing Laurence Tubiana in her RTCC interview with Ed King (link posted in jo’s Nth Atlantic cooling thread)about bypassing national govts & working with ***sub-nationals, just want to remind everyone we had a perfect example of this in australia when Christiana Figueres was here in May:
4 May: Guardian: Oliver Milman: UN climate chief says the science is clear: there is no space for new coal
The UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, has said there was “no space” for new coal developments and stressed the benefits of ambitious renewable energy targets after a meeting with representatives from ***seven Australian governments…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/04/un-climate-chief-says-the-science-is-clear-there-is-no-space-for-new-coal
i find this behaviour unacceptable.
41
Go solar! http://m.smh.com.au/business/the-24minute-24b-wipeout-that-halved-chinese-billionaires-fortune-20150521-gh69x1.html.touch.touch.touch.html
20
Reckon we have two trolls on this thread, one of whom is more persistent. It must get tiring voting down so often and having no effect.
60
“A 40 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2025 would have a catastrophic effect on Australian poverty levels. The only way this could be achieved would be to drive up the price of fossil fuels until vast numbers of poor people simply had no choice but to turn off the heating (or air conditioning in summer)”
(Think of the money the country would save on pensions.)
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/01/oxfams-pig-ignorant-support-of-decarbonisation-will-make-the-poor-poorer/
20
‘If I look at academia at the moment, the takeover of dystopian pessimism is all but total in arts, social sciences as well as climate science. Optimism is rarer than hen’s teeth in most University common rooms. Who listens to engineers who talk about going into space any more when we have all these environmental problems yet to be solved?’
John A. (guest post at WUWT)
20
The STR is low in the Southern Ocean and with expanding sea ice its possible to imagine how cooling will impact Australia.
http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDY65100.pdf
10
Australian tropical cyclones on a slippery slope.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V18/feb/a24.php
The reason for the decline is debatable.
10
Following on from that I see Jo has done a previous post on the subject.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/storms/tropical/haig-2014-fig-4-australian-cyclones-1500-years.gif
So now it all makes sense, cooler climes mean more La Nina and less tropical cyclones.
10
That should read more TC, not less.
10