JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Books

Save the world with legislation? Three quarters of worlds emissions “limited” by red-tape and meaningless targets

Here’s a new form of climate control. Red-tape. Count the laws for the climate!

[ScienceDaily] London School of Economics (LSE)

Three-quarters of the world’s annual emissions of greenhouse gases are now limited by national targets, according to a new study published today (1 June 2015) by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science.

Obviously, it’s all taken care of then, and we don’t need to do any more? We’ll just hound and hassle the last few stragglers who haven’t set a limit. But wait… despite the heart warming momentum implied there, apparently this global circle of covenants might not save the world. Oh No! Is there a chance these nations won’t deliver? The sad truth makes a brief appearance in paragraph four: The pledges are unlikely to be “consistent” (read, they’re “inadequate, empty wishes”). Red tape, it seems, will not stop heatwaves exactly, but provides atmospheric things called “confidence” and “credibility”, “opportunity” and “ambition”. But the 75% “limit” makes for a good headline.

The Grantham Research Institute speaks. Your job is to figure out what they are saying:

Lead author of the study, Michal Nachmany, said: “With three-quarters of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions now covered by national targets, we can be more confident about the credibility of the pledges that countries will make ahead of the crucial United Nations summit in Paris in December this year. While collectively these pledges are unlikely to be consistent with the international goal of avoiding global warming of more than 2 centigrade degrees, the existence of national legislation and policies should provide the opportunity for countries to strengthen the ambition of their emissions cuts after the summit.”

It’s laws for the climate then

The study also found that the 98 countries and the European Union together had 804 climate laws and policies at the end of 2014, compared with 426 in 2009, when a previous attempt was made in Copenhagen, Denmark, to reach an international agreement. In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol was agreed, these countries had just 54 climate laws and policies between them.

Study that success. This is what a 15 fold increase in climate laws has achieved:

Mauna Loa, CO2 levels, 2015, NOAA

Not quite the emissions reductions they legislated?

How many laws do we need to reduce global temperatures by one degree?

Professor Fankhauser said: “Every five or so years the number of climate laws and policies across the world has doubled. [Moore's Law of Laws? thinks Jo] This growing amount of legislation provides evidence that the world’s major emitters are taking serious steps to tackle climate change in their countries. By writing their intentions into law, the world’s leaders have shown that international climate change talks do lead to national action in the vast majority of countries.”

But maybe all laws are not created equally? One country that has lowered emissions significantly is the US. It may have plenty of laws but there was no national trading scheme, and no signing of Kyoto. Yet those emissions fell…

US CO2 emissions compared to forecasts

Without Kyoto the US reduced emissions | Graph: Forbes

But it was never about actually limiting CO2 anyhow. It’s about “seeming” to do so in Paris. What matters is getting a global carbon market ripe with broker fees, loopholes, and rewards to friends.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (89 votes cast)
Save the world with legislation? Three quarters of worlds emissions "limited" by red-tape and meaningless targets, 8.9 out of 10 based on 89 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/oon3dqd

198 comments to Save the world with legislation? Three quarters of worlds emissions “limited” by red-tape and meaningless targets

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Joanne;

    You might have also added a graph of CO2 emissions against time, with an indication of the rising number of ‘laws’.

    It wouldn’t need an accurate count, although if one were available then one of the more mathematically inclined readers could then check the correlation between rising emissions and rising ‘laws’. It would certainly be greater than that between CO2 emissions and temperature.

    354

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I’d wonder than if you had solar panels and were, according to the green nazis, “good” then surely you would be left alone?

      History tells us even though we might have close to a zero energy uptake fromt he grid, as we are human we are still “scum” and need to be “managed”.

      As we know from history, dictators are never satisfied until people are tagged and bagged and silenced – for the green nazis, the only good humans are dead ones……this is the core drivers of Agenda 21 and health care rationing ( Obamacare ) and resource rationing.

      I wonder how long it will take for dim witted australians to wake up and push back…

      162

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        By dim witted australians do you mean our politicians?

        The answer to that would be 9 a.m. on February the 30 TH. Precious few of them understand anything practical; all they try to do is “be in the middle”. So they position themselves halfway between common sense and the hysteria of the screeching green gulls. Hence all this useless legislation. It works best when it is ignored, but then the green gulls screech even more.

        160

    • #
      Carbon500

      Yawn. The Mauna Loa CO2 rise graph again.
      To put the paltry rise from 315ppm to the current 400ppm of CO2 into its true perspective, what’s really needed is a vertical axis going up to a million ppm.
      And while we’re at it, no logarithmic scales either.
      But then, a nice graph with an exagerrated vertical axis giving a nice steep ‘shock horror’ slope has much more impact, doesn’t it?
      As Al Gore and the warmists know very well.

      10

      • #
        Mnestheus

        Yawn, another billion tonnes of buzzing molecules soaking up outflowing warmth- can’t expect the atmosphere to motice what we can’t see.

        10

    • #
      Mnestheus

      Every 1 ppm increase in CO2 seems to add another lawyer to the US Congress.

      Do you have the same problem in your hemisphere?

      10

  • #
    Robert O

    If one looks at the composition of the atmosphere (dry) you will find its chemistry is as follows:
    Nitrogen 78.1%, Oxygen 20.9%, Argon 0.9%, Carbon dioxide 0.04%. with traces of Helium, Neon and Methane. The water vapour content is variable varying from 0.01 to 5% and is confined to the trophosphere where the weather and clouds are found. Of the carbon dioxide component most, 95-97%, is natural coming from volcanoes and the breakdown of organic matter.

    The so-called greenhouse gases are predominantly water vapour with a little carbon dioxide, most of which is natural, and a skeric of methane.

    So against this background of empirical chemistry, the proponents and supporters of the global warming hypothesis (now climate change) are proposing even more restrictive regulation of “carbon pollution” with agreements in Paris, although there hasn’t been any significant warming for 18 years or so according to the accurate unhomogenised satellite and weather balloon data, and without any mathematically significant relationship between global temperature and levels of carbon dioxide.

    One has to ask why are our political leaders are doing this, and whatever will be achieved, as it certainly has very little to do with the science of the world’s climate.

    713

    • #
      Richard111

      Spot on Robert O, just what are the objectives of the world political leaders?

      173

    • #
      tom0mason

      Robert O,

      More banal is the presumption that a CO2 increase of 0.02% could have a profound effect on our climate but a 0.1% variation in the sun’s output has a negligible effect.

      Maybe we need a few more national laws for that too.

      474

      • #
        Peter Miller

        And we also need laws controlling weather, hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones, droughts, cold periods, tectonic plates and drunks urinating in public.

        Along with climate, there is absolutely nothing we can do about any of them, even by doubling, tripling or quadrupling the hugely expensive and ineffective bureaucracies we have created for the whims of the Green Blob.

        Let’ s kill our economies for the sake of the smug egos of those with ‘Save the World Syndrome’. Take a look at South Africa – difficult to know if it is an ineptocracy, a kleptocracy, or both – however it is the first western country in modern times to have rolling blackouts. If the Paris jamboree later this year is successful, we shall all soon be facing them.

        Tom, only a card carrying ecoloon could possibly have given you a thumbs down for your comment.

        524

        • #
          tom0mason

          Peter Miller,

          I have found over the years never to worry about the delusional — no matter how many of them there are — for in time the truth will slap them, and usually quite hard.

          192

    • #
      TdeF

      Good. The only point which is suspect is the origin of CO2 from volcanoes. The undisputed fact is 98% of all CO2 is in the world’s oceans at 5ml/litre, 0.5%. The oceans are the major force in weather. Mobile, massive and changing, they absorb 66% of all incoming light and heat. From monsoons to hurricanes to simple rain, they replenish all the fresh water and create the clouds which block the sun and reflect the light. At 4km deep and 1atm/10 metres, they are 400x as massive as the atmosphere. Water and water vapour is half of life on earth.

      The other half is CO2 but this also is mainly stored in the water in chemical equilibrium with the atmosphere like lemonade. Heat the water and CO2 comes out. Cool it and it absorbs. So CO2 comes out at the equator and is absorbed at the poles, where currents take it very deep where the pressure is 400 atmospheres and CO2 is very compressible.

      Everyone leaves out the oceans! The land surface on which we live and the small amount of the atmosphere we breathe at below 1km is seen as our world. It isn’t.
      Without evaporation forming a hot spot, even the 50% CO2 increase cannot warm our world and there is no hot spot.

      You can prove from C14 measurements unequivocally that little of all CO2 is ‘man made’. Dr. Suess said 2%, the original Suess effect. Prof.Murry Selby agrees at 4%. So the little CO2 man releases just vanishes into the huge oceans. You can measure fossil CO2 and you can also measure volcanic CO2 because they have no C14 tagged CO2. So volcanoes + man is still less than 4%. There is no man made global warming. Every part of the argument is busted, especially the increasing temperature bit.

      453

      • #
        Robert O

        I forgot to add the oceans to the sources of carbon dioxide, which is significant, but as well one could add all the bushfires and the wood heaters and cooking stoves, and we even give carbon cash for the early burning of savannah on Cape York. (See the Aust. May 19 page 7)

        131

      • #
        DavidH

        “CO2 … is absorbed at the poles”

        So when more CO2 is added, the atmosphere warms (so the theory goes), the ice sheets melt, more water surface is exposed, more CO2 is absorbed and warming effect of CO2 is mitigated. A nice negative feedback loop there. Is this in the models?

        51

        • #
          TdeF

          No, the tiny amount of (alleged) warming of 0.85C in an average is hardly significant in the vast differences between summer and winter at the poles, which is a change +70C in the Arctic. I have experienced Colorado from summer to winter and an +80C difference. What matters is the exchange at the sea/air interface and the total amount of water exposed does not matter as much as the temperature difference between the air and the water, according to Henry’s Law.

          The way the IPCC and the Bern diagram get around the vast amount of CO2 in the oceans is to argue that the layers in the deep oceans take 1,000 years to mix with the surface and only consider the first few hundred meters of 4km.

          In fact they effectively argue without justification that dissolved gas, liquid CO2 behaves identically to water. This is a hypothesis which is contradicted by the rapid absorption of C14 tagged CO2 with a half life of 14 years. The whole vast ocean is clearly involved. The Bern diagram also shows that the C14 levels should not return to normal at all, but they do. So both are wrong.

          The IPCC knows the man released CO2 disappears into the oceans, but states that the half life of CO2 in the air is a huge 80 years, for no apparent reason. They have to do this or the very idea that man can increase atmospheric CO2 levels at all is rubbish.

          Without an understanding of gaseous equilibrium principles, it seems natural enough that you can output CO2 and it just stays in the air forever. Too bad for the IPCC that Henry’s Law disagrees and our pitifully small amounts of CO2 just vanish. It is only the arrogance of man to think we can change the atmosphere on this scale. Apart from the hydrogen bomb, we are insignificant. Sorry.

          83

          • #
            Richard

            The significance of the disapperance of the nuclear-14CO2 in the atmosphere after the 1963 test-ban treaty is something that has been on my mind for quite some time now and I’m unsure whether it is a measurement of residence time or adjustment time. However I am leaning more towards adjustment time. The residence time is the time it takes for a molecule of CO2 on average to be absorbed by a sink and the adjustment time is the time it takes for the system to return to equilibrium (or to be more specific the time it takes for CO2 to reduce to 37% of its unperturbed value as defined by the IPCC).

            As anthropogenic nuclear-14CO2 was absorbed by the sinks it would have mixed indiscriminately with the vast amounts of natural CO2 in the sinks and the 14CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would have decreased as a result of this thorough mixing process. The argument that I have heard (and it seems to be a popular argument on WattsUpWithThat) is that the nuclear-14CO2 measurements can only tell us about residence time. Say, for example, the natural CO2 emission/absorption is approximately balanced, and we introduce an impulse concentration of 14CO2 to the atmosphere, the argument is that the 14CO2 concentration would decrease because of the mixing process mentioned above, but because natural CO2 emission/abosprtion are more or less balanced the atmospheric CO2 concentartion would still increase over time anyway. That is the argument I have heard on WattsUpWithThat by many people, and I would think it contradicts Henry’s law.

            The equilibrium partitioning ratio you mention for CO2 is 1:50 for the atmosphere and oceans respectively. According to Henry’s law the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is in equilibrium with the concentration of dissolved CO2 in the surface-ocean (which by the IPCC’s estimates has a residence time of around 10 years before being diffused to the deep-ocean). So I fail to see how CO2′s adjustment time in the atmosphere is in the order of one-hundred years when CO2 diffusion to the deep-ocean is very fast. Also I would think (intuitively) that Henry’s law should apply to 14CO2 separately from 12CO2 and 13CO2 since it is a linear law and these are technically different molecules with different masses and solubility coefficients. If that were the case, the the disapperance of 14CO2 would then be a measurement of the equilibrium 1:50 partitioning ratio for the 14CO2 molecule.

            10

            • #
              TdeF

              Richard, I do not understand this difference between adjustment time and residence time, especially given the size of the reservoir. Whatever goes in is mixed and what comes out is 50x more likely to be an old CO2 molecule. So if the half life of absorption is 14 years as is obvious from the bomb graph, that is the residence time too. Half the (man released) CO2 vanishes in 14 years. The average time for the same molecule to come out again would be 50×14 or 900 years (if that is what you mean). That is why C14 levels do not change. The half life of C14 to decay to Nitrogen is 5400 years, so every 14CO2 is exchanged for 12CO2, 49 times out of 50 and so maintaining the 14CO2 levels. This produces the Suess effect.

              You are also suggesting that the atomic weight makes a significant difference in the exchange rate between 14CO2 and 12CO2, enough to substantially change the physical/chemical behaviour at the air/sea boundary. This would be a tiny effect.

              Consider the difference in weight is only 2 in 48 or 4% and this is the only differnce. The chemistry is otherwise absolutely identical. The CO2 molecule electron structure, the shape, the size, the polarity, the chemistry.

              Maybe there is at most a 4% effect in exchanges, perhaps kinetic actions like gaseous exchange where the mass is up 4% so velocity on average might be lower by 8% (1/2mv2) for a 14CO2 molecule at the same temperature. This would actually mean the absorption of 12CO2 was higher than that for 14CO2 because the velocity is higher, actually shortening the half life for absorption!

              You could think of no better experiment to get the time in the atmosphere of CO2 than to suddenly double the C14, your impulse. This happened in 1965. The decay of this concentration is a direct and unequivocal measure of a single exponential decay and is dead straight on a log graph. Game over.

              20

              • #
                TdeF

                If the average kinetic energy of a gas molecule at a given temperature is a constant, an increase in mass by 4% would mean a decrease in v^2 by 2%. Still it means a decrease in exchange rate which might correspond to a drop in temperature of 2% of 273 or 5C.

                Unfortunately Henry’s law talks about equilibrium positions, not the rate of exchange. Overall though as argued, you would expect 14CO2 to exchange more slowly then 12CO2, so using 14CO2 absorption rates would underestimate the rate of exchange of CO2, which would be under 14 years.

                As the behavior of Henry’s law against temperature is well known e^(1/T-1/To) you would expect the Kh to vary with dT/T which would be about 5/273 or 2%. Either way, the effect will be small and in the direction of reducing the half life for man released 12CO2 in the atmosphere.

                That means less than 50% of man released CO2 from 2000 is with us today. Only 25% from 1986 and only 12% from 1978. These numbers could be lower.

                20

              • #
                Richard

                Thanks TdeF, though I am a little confused by your reply.

                I am not suggesting there would be any significant difference in the behaviour between 14CO2 and 12CO2. I was merely saying that because Henry’s law is a linear law it should apply to 14CO2 independently of the concentration state of 12CO2 since they are different molecules and there are measurable solubility differences between isotopologues. That’s all. And if that were so then measuring the removal rate of nuclear-14CO2 from the atmosphere would be a direct measurement of the 1:50 equilibrium partitioning ratio.

                The residence time in the oceans would probably be a little shorter I imagine. You would need to take the total mass of CO2 in the oceans and the removal to the atmosphere. The oceans contain around 146,000 Gts of CO2 and the removal to the atmosphere is around 330 Gts/year which is a residence time of about 440 years.

                Basically TedF, as I see it, it is possible (in principle at least) for humans to have caused an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 120ppmv even though the residence time for an average CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is very short, though I am not suggesting this has happened, just that it is possible in principle. It would simply require the natural emission/aborption of CO2 to be balanced and anything we added would elevate the atmospheric CO2 level. This is how it is usually argued, and the IPCC et al invoke the mass-balance equation. And they would be correct, if we had good knowledge of the total absorption/emission of natural CO2, but as Salby says these are ‘fuzzy’ and not known.

                This is basically how the adjustment time is argued. The natural absoption/emission is assumed to be roughly balanced and once you add CO2 to the atmosphere this increases the total CO2 content in the atmosphere simply because the natural absorption/emission are cancelling eachother out. But because CO2 is exchanged copiously between reservoirs the orignal human molcules are taken out of the atmosphere very quickly. This is why using isotopic atmospheric tracers are not valid when trying to refute the IPCC’s claim of a long adjustment time. It cannot be done. It would only be valid if Henry’s law applied to these CO2 isotopes independently of the concentration state of other CO2 isotopes.

                However people like Ferdinand Engelbeen have argued that this is not the case. But I am not so sure.

                20

              • #
                TdeF

                Sorry. 50×14 = 700 years.

                00

              • #
                TdeF

                Richard,
                You may have correctly understood what people are saying, but this statement is not right on not physical chemistry.

                “The natural absoption/emission is assumed to be roughly balanced and once you add CO2 to the atmosphere this increases the total CO2 content in the atmosphere simply because the natural absorption/emission are cancelling each other out.”

                That is not how equilibrium works.

                Add molecules to one side of the boundary and the balance restores based on ratios. It is the statistical chance of cross the boundary.

                If you add CO2 to the air, the amount of absorption goes up because there are too many CO2 molecules on one side of the boundary. The amount of emission stays the same and balance is restored only when they are exactly in the proportions dictated by Henry’s law. You cannot exempt new molecules from this rule and keep them cordoned off. Keep the existing balance but add more to one side.

                Practically the probability of a single molecule crossing the boundary is unchanged in a single collision. However more on one side than dictated by the balance condition and more on this side cross to the other side in a given time until the numbers exactly match. Increase the total amount of CO2 and the balance proportions remain the same. This is the same in every chemistry equation. The proportion on one side to the other is fixed. All molecules are involved. Disturb the balance and it will be restored. The only question is how long this takes.

                As I wrote, Dr. Will Steffen and so many others understand this, but they say nothing.

                20

            • #
              TdeF

              “the disapperance of 14CO2 would then be a measurement of the equilibrium 1:50 partitioning ratio for the 14CO2 molecule.”

              Yes. However as argued below, the difference would be minor and the slightly lower velocity of simply heavier 14CO2 would mean kinetically the rate of exchange of 12CO2 would be higher, reducing the half life of 12CO2 further.

              10

              • #
                Richard

                Thanks for elabortaing your thoughts about this problem, with which I totally concur. I understand Henry’s law and have no problem with the idea for additions of CO2 to the climate-system being approportioned to the atmosphere and the oceans as a fixed proportional basis of 1:50. However this applies only at equilibrium, as you say, and the IPCC dismisses the fast-equilibrium of Henry’s law and the partitioning ratio on the grounds that it has been superseded by the Revelle Factor which they allege renders the partitioning ratio null and void due to the dissociation of CO2(aq) into HCO3 and CO32. The Revelle Factor relates essentially the rate at which CO2 may be absorbed by the oceans while they are not in equilibrium whereas the partitioning ratio as dictated by Henry’s law relates to the proportional amount of CO2 that ends up being absorbed by the oceans at equilibrium. If you look at the IPCC’s figures in their 2007 carbon-cycle it shows anthropogenic CO2 being absorbed by sinks relatively fast, but the total CO2 content in the atmosphere still increases because of the Revelle Factor. The Revelle Factor, in my eyes, is nonsense, but it allows anthropogenic CO2 a long adjustment time even though the residence time is short. This is why I say that the disapperance of C14 from the atmosphere cannot refute the IPCC’s claim of a long adjustment time. To refute the adjustment time, one must refute the Revelle Factor.

                Also I think the IPCC’s assumption that natural CO2 absorption/emissions have remained effectively in balance since 1850 is both blind and highly doubtful, especially in the view of 1850 coming roughly 800 years after the MWP, i.e. when we should expect CO2 concentrations to start rising naturally anyway on the empirical basis of the ice-core.

                00

              • #
                Richard

                I am not sure what ‘difference’ you think I am referring to here TedF. I am simply saying that Henry’s law should apply to the CO2 isotopes separately. That is all I am saying. And since C12, C13 and C14 are almost identical their dissolution coefficients should be similarly identical. Thus measuring the removal for C14 from the atmosphere would give us almost the same removal for the other CO2 isotopes. The differences would be minor. I am not sure why you think I am suggesting they wouldn’t.

                00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            TdeF,

            Not the traditional laws, but I offer these as alternatives for our time:

            First Law of Politics: “Never confuse the populace with the facts”.

            Second Law of Politics: “All power comes from fear [in the minds of the populace]“.

            Third Law of Politics: “Fear of things that cannot be controlled, is more effective than fear of what can [be removed]“.

            31

            • #
              TdeF

              Agreed. However this is the critical and amazingly simple argument which destroys man made global warming hypothesis. As the CO2 level is not man made, the arguments about whether increasing CO2 produces warming become irrelevant. As Bart Simpson said, “I didn’t do it”.

              Most people do not understand the equilibrium process which is the next most critical chemistry concept after adding up the atoms. Every reaction has an equilibrium position. You cannot tip CO2 into the air without realising all the air comes from the huge oceans in the first place and is replaced very quickly. Otherwise fish would not survive and we all came from the oceans. Fish breathe air and breathe out CO2, just like us.

              In fact your lungs, 40m2 of thin very wet tissue exactly duplicate this process, so you can live out of the water without gills. You can clearly see gills on human embryos at early development.

              So when you breathe in air, it is 23% O2 and a tiny 0.04% CO2 but when you breathe out, 14% O2 and a massive increase in CO2, up to say 10%. You know this. It all happens in one breath, the same exchange of CO2 over the air/water boundary. In fact the breath is saturated with water too, which you can see on a cold morning. So we humans know all about how fast CO2 exchanges with water, but the IPCC pretend it takes 80 years. As if.

              40

              • #
                Robert O

                Ted, after reading the factual contents of the various blogs about temperatures, gas exchanges, solubilities, one can only come to the conclusion that any form of “carbon” abatement is a political concept pursued by people who have something to gain from it all as it will not make an iota of difference to the climate. I can understand the media, the bankers, the politicians etc.carrying on about it, but there are a lot of allegedly trained scientists who are not prepared to keep an open mind and, for example, carrying on about the effects of climate change on our native fauna. And at the news conference about the Barrier reef and UNESCO there was a comment from Greenpeace that, apart from the coal trade, the greatest threats to the reef were climate change and ocean acidification.

                00

              • #
                TdeF

                Climate Change? Presumably without a temperature change. How does that happen again?
                Acidification? Nonsense. The worlds oceans are alkali and will remain alkali forever, or all the limestone in the world is under threat like obvious white cliffs of Dover, for example. Many of our grandest buildings are built from limestone, like the entire city of Odessa, the Great Pyramids and much more. Then if 98% of all gaseous CO2 is already in the oceans, why would anything change for another 0.5%?

                All this again supposes that man is actually directly and substantially changing aerial CO2 %. Apart from the very short term, this is impossible. The only area on which the IPCC disagree is the time for the CO2 balance to be restored.

                You will find that people do not want to talk about the unequivocal evidence in C14. They segway to C13/C12 ratios which are arguable. No one wants to discuss the obvious. Dr. Will Steffen simply referred me to the IPCC even though he has a PhD in Chemistry. The ABC Science writer said I obviously did not understand radioactive decay. No one wants to admit that man cannot change CO2 levels substantially, when this was well understood in the 1950s.

                10

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                No one wants to admit that man cannot change CO2 levels substantially, when this was well understood in the 1950s.

                Murry Salby does.

                10

              • #
                TdeF

                Rod, I wrote all this down and sent it to Murry Selby more than a year ago. He did not reply. It was incredible that he was fired for telling the simple truth as an expert in his field.
                I wrote to others including Lord Monckton. To me it is simple well known physical chemistry. The C14 graph is simple proof. I refused to write a paper as the obvious should not need a paper. No experiments are required. All this is well known, even schoolboy science. Certainly first year science. However no one is really prepared to argue this. At least Richard correctly put the silly IPCC argument that somehow equilibrium does not apply to new CO2.

                10

    • #

      What our political leaders have achieved via this massive “regulation” is to transfer our CO2 producing industries and jobs from Australia to CO2 producing industries elsewhere, mainly China.

      120

      • #

        Exactly. US emmissions dropped because the economy is so poor. Fewer factories and goods produced means the US looks good. Now, take a peek at China.

        40

    • #
      stargazer

      “One has to ask why are our political leaders are doing this…”

      I have a theory… just not sure which allegory best describes the final goal of these political leaders.

      Think bee hive, or possibly giant ant hill. I just have no desire to be either worker bee or ant.

      Of course, perhaps a better allegory might be taken from distant history… Think Pharaoh and building giant monuments to even more giant egos.

      Bee hive, ant hill or pyramid… whatever your assigned duty might be you will do it from dawn to dusk. Only Pharaoh and his thugs will have the lightbulbs.

      71

      • #
        tom0mason

        stargazer,

        Remember that when the Challenger disaster happen the bureaucratic management at NASA pleaded ignorance as to reasons why it happened. The NASA scientists that were questioned were also at a loss as to what had happened. But some engineers knew who and how.

        So how did NASA and Morton Thiokol treat the engineers that spilled the beans, and revealed all? Read about bureaucratic deceitful ‘mis-truthing’ here

        The bureaucrats motto –

        ‘First define a problem, then find your fall guy.’

        20

        • #
          stargazer

          I always imagined Boisjoly wandering around clad in the tattered cloak of Sisyphus while holding forth the smashed lantern of Diogenes.

          Bureaucrats can do that to a person.

          Boisjoly has my admiration, and always will.

          00

    • #
      sillyfilly

      This is incorrect:
      “The water vapour content is variable varying from 0.01 to 5% and is confined to the trophosphere where the weather and clouds are found. Of the carbon dioxide component most, 95-97%, is natural coming from volcanoes and the breakdown of organic matter.”

      Recently in Nature: “Stratospheric water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. The longest available record from balloon observations over Boulder, Colorado, USA shows increases in stratospheric water vapour concentrations that cannot be fully explained by observed changes in the main drivers, tropical tropopause temperatures and methane. Satellite observations could help resolve the issue, but constructing a reliable long-term data record from individual short satellite records is challenging.

      This is incorrect:
      “Of the carbon dioxide component most, 95-97%, is natural coming from volcanoes and the breakdown of organic matter.” which merely mirrors another incorrect statement: “Volcanoes add far more carbon dioxide to the oceans and atmosphere than humans.” So says geologist Ian Plimer of the University of Adelaide in his 2009 best seller “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming — the Missing Science.”

      Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions

      “Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

      The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).”

      just to let you know.

      On topic, sensible US policy for the mitigation of the AGW problem through legislation.
      “US efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions look set for a huge boost this year, with carbon pollution from the power sector set to fall to its lowest level since 1994. Record numbers of US coal-fired power plants are set to close this year, and analysts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) say this will likely see power sector emissions drop 15.4% below 2005 levels….The US has a 2020 goal of curbing greenhouse gas emissions 17% on 2005 levels, and a 2030 target recently submitted to the UN of 28% cuts on 2005 levels…The US coal power sector is set to face further restrictions once the Environmental Protection Agency’s clean power plan is finalized later this year.

      05

      • #

        Others here know a lot more about these topics than I do but I can recognise obfuscation when I see it.

        It’s been pointed out before that the Boulder measurements are just one site so have no strong bearing on global discussion.

        “Cannot be fully explained by…” are weasel words. My understanding is that stratospheric WV has recently been flat or slightly dropping worldwide.

        In the stratosphere, WV has largely condensed out (by definition) so CO2 and O3 do most of the cooling so quote is misleading at best. Perhaps they don’t want to publicly admit that the primary activity of radiative gasses (aka greenhouse) is to cool the surrounding air.

        The volcano CO2 refs are way out of date. There has been discussion of seepage around volcanos since then that changes the picture. We only know of a small fraction if the worlds volcanos that are mainly under the oceans that are mainly unexplored but I don’t think they are a major component but could exceed ours. Since the IPCC and “Climate Science” choose to ignore about 90% of the ocean biomass we have no clear quantified picture of the carbon cycle.

        The quote is not only dated but garbled nonsense. “The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010″? That didn’t happen. Whether that is poor transcription or in the original is hard to guess – particularly since it is repeated.

        The bottom line in all this is that our emissions are lost in the noise of atmospheric CO2 fluxes. We don’t control them and even if we did there is still no direct evidence that their impact on climate is significant. Plants are going “yummmm”.

        20

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        sillyfilly,

        You wrote:

        This is incorrect:
        “Of the carbon dioxide component most, 95-97%, is natural coming from volcanoes and the breakdown of organic matter.” which merely mirrors another incorrect statement: “Volcanoes add far more carbon dioxide to the oceans and atmosphere than humans.” So says geologist Ian Plimer . . .

        Robert O mentions ‘volcanoes and the breakdown of organic matter’.
        Ian Plimer only mentions ‘volcanoes’.

        I’m not familiar with Ian Plimer’s book, nor do I know off hand how much CO2 is produced by the decomposition of organic matter. Therefore the accuracy of the quantities and their relative proportions in the total CO2 content of the atmosphere/stratosphere/troposphere is not something I’m going to get into.

        My only point here is that your comparison between Robert O’s statement and Ian Plimer’s statement is apples to oranges when you consider the ‘organic decomposition’ component.

        Cheers

        Abe

        PS – The reason the quantities and proportions of CO2 is uninteresting is because of a lack of correlation between CO2 (keeps going up) and temperatures (now coming down) for 17 years running. As soon as there’s no correlation, CAGW fails. The jig is up and we all know it. When will you come to the same, rational conclusion?

        30

        • #
          sillyfilly

          When will you come to the same, rational conclusion?

          When I see a rational explanation!!!
          BTW, the SH temperature graphs you linked are not a global indicator.
          Atmospheric temperatures are not the only indicators of a warming climate even though they and the current hiatus is similar to numerous similar hiatii in the instrumental record, albeit all at a lower absolute temperature, which is consistent with long term AGW superimposing its own impact on natural forcings.

          00

          • #
            sillyfilly

            whoops should read: even though they

            00

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            sillyfilly,

            You wrote:

            BTW, the SH temperature graphs you linked are not a global indicator.

            Nice one. Now I ( and everybody else reading this ) know that you’re perfectly capable of comprehending the data that’s being presented here.

            Here is the same graph with two additional trend lines, the Hadcrut3 NH unadjusted trend and the Hadcrut3 global unadjusted trend. Please note that although the global unadjusted trend may appear to be rising slightly, that rise is less than the margin of error for temperatures measured with instruments that posess an accuracy of 0.1°C as is the case with many land based weather stations. Meaning that statisticaly there is no rise.

            Even if we were to ignore the margin of error* and say, ‘but there is a perceptible rise’, that rise would translate to about 0.3°C by 2100. Barely working up a sweat.

            Therefore, as far as science and mathematics are concerned, that line is flat.

            But that isn’t what makes this data interesting. Please note that both Hadcrut3 NH and SH trend lines go in opposite directions** and cancel each other out when averaged together to get the global trend. But the SH trend line has the same downward slope as the RSS satellite trend line. This means that if we didn’t have the satellite data, we could still safely use the SH Hadcrut3 data as a proxy for the world-wide trend in lower tropospheric temperatures.

            You can convince yorself that this is true by looking at the same trend lines as the previous graph for the 1979 to 1998 time period. That’s the period when the temperatures were on the upward side of the temperature cycle. Here again, the Hadcrut3 SH unadjusted trnd line is the closest match to the RSS trend line.

            So, yes, the Hadcrut SH unadjusted data can be used as an indicator of global temperatures by proxy.

            The second thing that makes this data interesting and even more remarkable is that even if we conceed that the Hadcrut3 glogal has a minute rise, it’s no longer rising at same rate as the 1979 to 1998 period. But CO2 is continuing to rise at that same rate. So the correlation no longer holds as stated earlier.

            And this is only the surface temperature data. The satellite lower tropospheric data is still sloping down. So CO2 continues to rise and the atmosphere cools? Nice green-house. Maybe you could apply for a patent. But all jokes aside. This clear explanation with the data before you can’t get any more rational. That is what you requested, isn’t it?

            Abe
            * As would be the case if all the surface measurements were taken using instruments with an accuracy of two decimal places.
            ** This divergence is interesting and an explanation/discussion is warranted, just not for the point being made here.

            00

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            sillyfilly,

            You wrote:

            Atmospheric temperatures are not the only indicators of a warming climate even though they and the current hiatus is similar to numerous similar hiatii in the instrumental record, albeit all at a lower absolute temperature, which is consistent with long term AGW superimposing its own impact on natural forcings.

            ‘Atmospheric temperatures are not the only indicators of a warming climate’ but they are the only indicators of CO2 enhancing the green house effect. This is by definition and nothing the IPCC or anyone else can say or do will ever change that fact. If CO2 enhances the green house effect, the atmosphere must get hotter. You can’t get more rational than that either.

            Abe

            00

    • #
      Peter H.

      “One has to ask why are our political leaders are doing this, and whatever will be achieved, as it certainly has very little to do with the science of the world’s climate.”

      Good question. The hypothesis that government represents the people obviously lacks explaining power. But the hypothesis that government is a protection racket, now that has explaining power.

      00

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    It may not be obvious that these laws have much affect right now, but remember that the bureaucrats are now free to “interpret” the laws and then formulate rules and regulations to restrict energy and industrial development. And, once it reaches this point the bureaucrat activists can say we are only enforcing the law and continue their destruction without voter or taxpayer inputs. Best example: EPA.

    332

    • #

      Leonard,
      You are right about the USA and UK, along with some other countries. But that is not the global situation. Most countries will go along to the meetings, make meaningless pledges get huge applause at the conventions and praise from Bob Ward, then fail to enforce those pledges. Such cynicism is derived from diplomacy and pacifying the noisy greens, whilst undertaking to serve the people of their own nations by privately ignoring them.

      373

    • #
      Manfred

      Bureaucratic imposition of the precautionary principle

      In addition to the Rio Declaration, in 1992 both the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention of Biological Diversity referred to the precautionary principle. Both conventions, in slightly different ways, stated that the lack of “full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing” measures to prevent climate change or biological loss.

      ….
      and there’s the ‘risk management’ ‘silver bullet‘ strategy of the 2×2 square that attempts to ‘persuade’ you willingly accept the Green impoverishing incarceration of humanity forever, or at least until certainty prevails that klimate khange is no longer the anthropogenically driven terminal threat of the moment.

      To be sure, that day will NEVER come.

      50

  • #

    The restrictions are useless. I estimate that on current trends global emissions will double between 1990 and 2020. It used to be (e.g. The Stern Review 2006) that the minimum requirement was to return emissions to the 1990 level. Even if the pledges are fulfilled, global emissions will still be increasing until at least 2030. But the Grantham Institute, nor anybody else will do the arithmetic. I have. They live in a time warp of the 1980s, when the World was divided into the First World (OECD), Second World (Warsaw Pact) and Third World. On that basis, the rich countries were responsible for most of the global emissions. The world has moved on. Large section of the Third World are developing at phenomenal rates, making the global distribution of income far less unequal. Emissions are the same.
    This implies that if global emissions are to be reduced, many fast growing economies must stop their high emissions growth, and start reducing immediately. A starting point is to recognize the shift in emissions patterns from 1990 to 2020, then to put into the context of emissions targets for each country.

    223

  • #
    tom0mason

    Despite all the legislation the global temperature (what ever that means) fails to rise as predicted for the last 17+ years.

    Reminds me of the reported remarks of Galileo Galilei may have said when held by his era’s global power — the Vatican. They ordered him to recant his belief that the Earth orbited the Sun, “Eppur si muove” is a phrase attributed to the great mathematician, physicist and philosopher as his reply. This translates to “And yet it moves” or “Albeit It does move”

    Maybe the skeptics rebuttal to alarmists and warmists should be “Eppure rimane lo stesso” or “Yet it stays the same” or even
    “Eppure si raffredda” or “And yet it cools”

    353

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    I fervently hope that all these idiotic and, as demonstrated, futile laws are repealed in the near future. Quite apart from the obvious problem, that the apparatchiks have no intention of surrendering power and couldn’t actually care less about atmospheric CO2, there are two deliberately fabricated constitutional issues, both of them calculated to bind the hands of more rational future governments.

    These apply to the UK. As things stand, I’d assume neither currently does in Australia (but they’re worth looking out for, all the same). One is a recent tendency for the government of the day to pass a law that, supposedly, legally applies forever. This is often claimed for the Climate Change Act in Britain, for which we have Ed Miliband to thank. Yet it is absurd to claim that something passed into law by a majority of the elected members of one Parliament cannot subsequently be undone, by a majority of the elected members of another Parliament. Blatant absurdity, however, as we know, is no brake on the Alarmistas.

    The second one, which Paris is all about, is the target of enshrining “law” in something completely outside any country’s constitution. Again, in Britain, we’ve seen this for decades, thanks to indestructible (and usually invincibly stupid) directives on all and sundry from Brussels. Every UK government since the Seventies has happily enacted reams of idiotic laws, piously intoning that we have no right to reject them, because they are “European”.

    Australia, again, is immune to that, until the supra-national body that gets to invent the stupid laws is the UN and every UN member, regardless of the wishes of its people (characteristically), elects (conscious irony, there) to surrender sovereignty to the UN, “to save the world”. Although most of the funding for the UN comes from nations still nominally democratic, especially from the United States, the UN is entirely impervious to actual public opinion. In fact, the Obama administration seems to be desperate to hand over power to the UN, precisely to prevent a Republican successor from undoing his work (on the plus-side, Americans, you’ll still have his golf-scores).

    I think everyone is assuming that China will block any deal in Paris, but China will probably sign anything, if it commits the West to economic suicide. In that case, could a legal challenge to a Paris agreement be based on the fact that it cannot, in fact, be possible for the UN to save the globe, since Switzerland is not a member of the UN?

    170

    • #
      Owen Morgan

      Hello??? My comment may be boring, but I fail to see why some moderator’s backside is still implanted on it, two hours on.

      80

      • #
        el gordo

        A couple of key words may have become caught in the filter and the sun has just risen in eastern Oz, so be patient.

        80

        • #
          Owen Morgan

          Fair enough, although this is a Western Australian site, as far as I recall.

          50

          • #
            Debbie

            Makes it even later Owen.
            WA is 2 hours behind Eastern OZ.
            Here in eastern OZ it’s about 8:30 am. In WA it’s about 6:30 am.

            50

            • #
              Owen Morgan

              I realised that, about five seconds after replying. Yes, I, too, have to confess to being an idiot. On the plus-side, I don’t impose, confiscate or spend your taxes.

              30

          • #
            Annie

            Which means they are still asleep!

            50

            • #
              Sceptical Sam

              No Annie.

              It means we’ve been out milking the cows and loading the boats to China with iron ore and coal to keep the CO2 going up so that we get more grass for the cows.

              60

              • #
                Annie

                I was thinking more of non-rural types there Sceptical Sam. Come to think of it, builders and other tradies are often up very early too.

                Our cattle are beef types so no need for early milking here! The calves do it, thank goodness.

                Over summer DownUnder WA is 3 hours ahead of the Eastern States (ignoring Qld, that is).

                10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      It seems to me, that the moderation filter chokes on certain words or phrases, because it doesn’t look at them in the overall context. It is thus a burden that the more erudite of us must unfortunately bear. :-)

      But to address your point, the EU have held a poll every four or five years, since 1991. Two questions are significant: “Do you feel attached to your country?”; and “Do you feel attached to the European Union?”

      Based on the answers to these questions, the peak “attachment” to the UN was in 2004, at about 65%, and has declined to around 43% in 2014, which is not far off the lowest, which was in 1996, of about 40%.

      Throughout this same period “attachment” to country has remained more or less constant, varying between 85% and 90%.

      Whether these attitudes translate into the context of a global governance body, can be debated. But it seems that people do put down roots in the place they are born, or choose to spend the majority of their lives, and their loyalty is primarily to those roots, and not to a bureaucratic construction.

      122

      • #
        Peter C

        You understand bureaucracy and politics Rereke,

        It seems to me like we are all on a roller coaster on a steep down slope heading toward the Paris Conference. The organizers are already locking in the agenda and the outcomes by seeking pre commitments
        Is there anything that can be done now to change course or switch tracks before our Governments sign us up to even more restrictions on emissions?

        61

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          As far as the bureaucrats are concerned, short answer is No, in my opinion. But there again, it always has been “No”, since the formation of the EEC, after the second world war. Trade is an inhibitor of war, and so the formation of an economic community for all of Europe was seen as a way of avoiding a Third World War in Europe.

          Politicians, on the other hand, are the wild cards, and if enough of them say no, then the whole thing will go quiet for a while, and then slowly emerge from the shadows when those politicians have moved on.

          Sorry, I can’t give you much hope.

          31

      • #
        Annie

        I am somewhat mystified by this Rereke W. I have no recollection whatsoever of being asked these questions re the EU and I was living in England and a voter at that time; have I misunderstood what you wrote?

        11

  • #
    Yonniestone

    These laws are getting confusing, what ever happened to the old law of nature “My only constant is change and if you try to cheat my laws it’ll only work in your imagination.” ok it’s not a good description of or maybe even a law but it’s a lot better than these ‘climate institutes’ claiming humans have such a powerful effect on nature but only 3% of it.

    182

  • #
    Pathway

    US decrease in CO2 is directly tied to the fracking revolution, which is opposed by the Obama Administration and all Greens.

    281

    • #
      DavidH

      I expect that’s true, though the GFC likely had significant impact. Look at the pronounced dip in the graph at 07 – 09.

      51

      • #
        Ian Hill

        It would be interesting to see if, for the US, the mean temperature and all the supposed CO2-caused disasters have followed the trend shown by the green line.

        00

  • #
    Manfred

    Green Baiting

    …introducing the new sport with an Orwellian hat tip.

    You score points when you highlight a pointless action.

    182

    • #
      Bulldust

      That’s setting the bar rather low isn’t it? The degree of difficulty is somewhere between spotting a politician lying and shooting fish in a barrel.

      11

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘But it was never about actually limiting CO2 anyhow. It’s about “seeming” to do so in Paris.’

    Yep, Greg Hunt still has no brain or backbone, but still manages to talk the talk and walk the walk. He is a complete and utter disgrace.

    ‘We also want a strong agreement in Paris as part of our commitment to limit global climate change temp increases to below 2 degrees.’

    Greg Hunt

    211

  • #
    Ted Ledner

    And the sun rises in the East first, despite many attempts by our various governments to align the time zones it won’t rise in the West for several hours.

    152

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    Jo, those ‘weasel words’ are the hedging of bets by the CAGW crowd that Paris will be another Copenhagen when reality will ratf&%k fantasy again but this time they will be able to brush that of as a minor irritant, the heeavy lifting having already been done.

    “The pause” will then be squatted in by the CAGW mob who will claim it as the proof that all that legislation worked brilliantly. Thanks of course to their genius in predicting the fightback of the ‘deniers’, they ensured there was belt and braces capacity in the “carbon pollution” reduction regulations which ultimately delivered “the pause”.

    ‘You know it makes sense’!

    172

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Ursus Augustus,

      If they could claim the pause the current cooling on their efforts to stem the production of CO2 they would have done so long ago. Remenber, the central claim of the IPCC, Inc. has always been a direct cause and effect relationship between CO2 and temperature. As CO2 rises, so do temperatures. Or so they say.

      The increasing desperation evident in the pronouncements of the CAGW cult leaders and their mouthpiece, the MSM, stems from the fact that the crucial linchpin in their fairytale is no longer ‘operative’. The correlation lasted a few decades. The correlation is now absent.

      This is also the main reason they’ve been relentlessly coming up with excuses to explain the cooling away. The main excuse is “the oceans ate our homework”, but there are well over 40 other documented excuses to date.

      As you know, climate scientists have been saying for years that temperature rise comes first and only later does CO2 increase. CO2 lags behind temperature. When scientifically valid data is presented and the results are reproducible, they have no choice but to “shoot the messenger”. Suddenly perfectly respectable climate scientists are hounded, and ridiculed.

      The temperatures will continue to drop. The well-known climate cycles operating in and on our atmosphere have been documented. And so . . .

      Climate Change ™ promoters have been relentless, and increasingly ruthless, in their attacks on these scientists. And for good reason too. Because . . .

      . . . the falling global temperatures are “The Fail” of Climate Change ™.

      Abe

      151

    • #
      Manfred

      “The pause” will then be squatted in by the CAGW mob who will claim it as the proof that all that legislation worked brilliantly.

      They can never make such a claim, because of this.

      Nevertheless, as history has shown, the Green frappé sippers have an infinite capacity for crassitude.

      81

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Interesting little dip in total CO2 between 1990 and 2005 ish. Basically goes to the heart of Murray Salby’s presentation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g9WGcW_Z58

    We just don’t have the ability to influence net atmospheric CO2 in a measurable way.

    152

  • #
    Ruairi

    When a theory is riddled with flaws,
    And cannot account for the ‘pause’,
    A contrived solution,
    To ‘carbon pollution’,
    From emissions,is more climate laws.

    292

  • #
    Neville

    What a joke these fools are, they don’t even understand very simple maths and science.
    The climate and temp today is much easier to live in than most of the 11,400 years of the Holocene. Just check the numerous studies in the PR literature at the co2 Science site.
    And at least 90% of new co2 emissions will come from the non OECD until 2040. The OECD will nearly flat-line until then.
    The OECD could reduce emissions to 1990 levels tomorrow and it wouldn’t make a scrap of difference to the climate or temp at all.
    Trenberth and Solomon also tell us it wouldn’t make a difference to temp or co2 levels for thousands of years if we stopped ALL co2 emissions today. So what is it these people really believe????

    172

    • #
      tom0mason

      Neville

      The majority of CO2 outgassing is from nature not humans. And, as far as can be assessed, always has been.

      Therefore the reasons for any UN actions are baseless at best, anti-nature at worst. Either way, all of these UN agreements are unnecessary, and ultimately will be detrimental to the non-elite human population and nature.

      91

      • #
        Neville

        Thomason I’m just repeating what these so called top scientists and the two top science academies on the planet believe.
        This is point 20 from the latest RS and NAS report.
        I must admit it sounds dubious at best, but IT’S WHAT THEY CLAIM TO BELIEVE. So I’ll continue to quote them whether I believe it or not.
        I’m just trying to point out their hypocrisy now that the same scientists are bullying govts to try and mitigate their fantasy. It’s all BS.

        10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      It is, and always has been a “BHAG”.

      The BHAG was, and perhaps still is, much beloved by one of the major Accounting and Consulting firms. It stands for “Big Hairy Audacious Goal”. Nobody is ever expected to achieve that goal, for it you did, it would not be Big or Audacious enough, but in striving for the BHAG you will get further than you otherwise would, if you were just focussing on what was practically possible.

      The thing that frightens me, is that phrase of, “getting further than you otherwise would”, for where that might be, or what that might mean, is never defined. It is just what you end up with.

      All of the voluminous rhetoric from the UN is simply saying nothing more than, “so far so good, so lets keep going, shall we?” But they don’t have a clue where we are going, because there appears to be no coordinated plan at all. It is all expediency folks. Does that give you warm feelings? It scares the pants off me.

      80

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        There’s a plan all right. To abolish the accumulation of wealth by firstly abolishing private ownership/control of industry by destroying entrepreneurial activity.

        30

  • #
    Robber

    Study that success. This is what a 15 fold increase in climate laws has achieved:
    – Electricity prices in Australia rising at 8% per annum
    – A less competitive Australia
    – Export of major industries
    – A bigger bureaucracy to develop even more climate laws
    – A decline in the credibility of climate scientists and the BoM

    282

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Robber,

      You wrote:

      – Export of major industries

      This is also true of the US, EU and other fully developed economies around the world. They’re all moving their manufacturing infrastructure to locations where those “climate laws” are non-existent, especially China. Industrial strength CO2 production has been ‘transfered’ to those locations because of those laws and the ‘economic burden’ of keeping them in-situ.

      This, of course, leaving unemployment in it’s wake, coupled with an increasing tax burden for the ‘new taxpayer subsidised green jobs’.

      The transfer of wealth is well under way.

      Abe

      180

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Its quite amusing considering the “conspiracy theory” is supposed to be the “West” denying industrial expansion to the developing world.

        Actually now I think about it probably makes the theory more likely to be correct because, if most Western Governments were trying to achieve that, they would no doubt screw it up to the point it looked like the goal was the opposite, so hmmmm…. interesting times.

        30

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          As an Australian farmer I don’t find this amusing at all. You might be surprised to find how right you are.

          The National Farmers’ Federation, formed in about 1979, is a firm, I say blind, subscriber to Free Market Theory as described in what I call The Current Conventional Wisdom in Economics.

          Under policies which the NFF have developed and pursued over the last 30+ years the number of farmers in Australia has been halved, and is decreasing rapidly still. The number of capitalists engaged in farming has been halved.

          The Socialists/Marxists in our universities must be delighted. They could hardly have achieved more success had they been writing the policies themselves.

          So I ask the question: Who wrote the textbooks? The subscribers at the NFF have been too dopey to understand what they are doing.

          51

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Hayekian economist Steve Kates provides an interesting critique of the ALP “year of big ideas”.

    But the parties of the left are good at finding solutions for things that are not a problem at all. Take the prime example, global warming. The planet isn’t even warming for any reason whatsoever, never mind because of the use of carbon-based fuels. But the left have created a crisis atmosphere, and have stepped forward with solutions that wouldn’t even make sense if there actually was such a problem, but which allows plenty of money to be distributed to their crony-capitalist friends while burdening the economy with taxes and imposts that are certain to make us less well off but will give the government more money to spread around at its own discretion.

    240

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Labour loves Government as we know Rod.

      The left of politics loves the business of Government, they dream of a world where there are just not enough hours in the day to fit in all the feasibility studies, to form committees for drafting a proposal, to have a commission of audit into the practicality of establishing a steering committee to look at the issues around the development of a white paper…………………………………

      The right of politics generally governs reluctantly. They stop running their businesses and perusing the gainful activities of useful human beings to come in and mop up after the left have played at Government for a couple of terms. Once things appear to be back on the rails. The business people go back to their lives, the intellectuals return with their unicorns and the cycle repeats.

      Even Michael Moore said in Stupid White Men, (summary) we desire left wing administrations, but we prefer right wing administrations because we accept that the left just mess things up.

      160

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Perhaps Von Mises said it best, Safetyguy:

        A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.

        — Ludwig von Mises, Human Action : A Treatise on Economics (1966)

        190

        • #
          tom0mason

          But Rod Stuart,
          what Ludwig von Mises missed was that in a true free market you would have a near infinity of different milks and poisons to choose from. They would be priced according to their market sector. All of these products would be entertainingly advertized, offer real or supposed advantages over other brands, and come packaged in a variety of interesting forms and colors. You would be free to pick the product you perceive to need, and that you could afford. Easy long term payment methods would be available if your budget required it.

          Whereas in the socialist model you have the choice of drinking your poisoned sour milk from the one cup you are allowed to own, before of after you are shot.

          20

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Jo, at the risk of sounding foolish is it possible for you to explain the significance of the 2 degrees centigrade figure as claimed by the warmists.
    Like when is it based from and how far are we presently towards this figure.
    Regards Geoff Williams

    81

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Unfortunately I can’t locate the source of the following information:

      Someone that was actually in attendance at an IPCC function remarked in an interview that two degrees just seemed like a good idea at the time. In the interview I recall, this individual was adamant that there was not a skerick of science, logic, reason, or rationale to support it.

      111

      • #
        Len

        It was that fellow from the Potsdam Unversity, Hans Jacob etc, who plucked the two degrees out of his rear end.

        30

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Len,

          The name is close. Real name is Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. But, your reference was close enough for me to dig up this article. ;) :)

          So, thanks and Cheers.

          Abe

          10

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      From der Speigel:

      It was a pretty audacious estimate. Nevertheless, the powers-that-be finally had a tangible number to work with. An amazing success story was about to begin.

      60

      • #
        Geoffrey Williams

        Many thanks Rod,
        The der speigel article is a great help – explains to us where this 2 degree C rise has come from.
        So is the current IPCC target/prediction for catastrophic temperature rise in line with this PIK prediction from the mid 1990′s
        And if so, how far have we gone towards this critical figure? Would it be fair to say 1 degree centigrade say since the early 1900′s.
        (the beginning of industrialization?)
        In which case we are looking at another 1 degree centigrade to reach this critical ‘global warming temperature” at some future date.
        9This just so that I can keep an eye on my thermometer you understand!)
        Am I on the right track or am I way out?! Would appreciate any comments.
        Regards Geoff Williams

        30

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          I’ll be buggared if I know. And no one else does either.
          The generally accepted “temperature rise” since the mid nineteenth century is 0.6 degrees, or sometimes people maintain it is 0.75 degrees.
          However, that is using a parameter which is thermodynamically and mathematically impossible.
          The CET (Central England Temperature) record dates back to 1659. It is quite often considered to be a reasonable proxy for global temperature by reasonable people. This data is from measurements at the same elevation and locations. The annual mean for the year 2013 was exactly the same as the mean for 1659.
          So far as I am concerned, it can be successfully argued that the temperature databases maintained by the GHCN and NOAA have been adjusted, homogenised, fiddled, and manipulated to the extent that they are absolutely meaningless. Paul Homewood and Steven Goddard have uncovered many many instances of this adjustment, always higher, all over the world. The temperature record from RSS and UAH only go back to the late ’70′s and show very little variation. That does not stop the pause deniers in their endless broadcast of pure nonsense.
          In any event, I have difficulty being aware of a two degree temperature change. I know that this morning in Tasmania at minus 2 was not as warm as Christmas day. I have worked outdoors at minus 56 C, and I have worked outdoors at plus 54 C. While neither was pleasant, they weren’t fatal either. Geology shows us that it was considerably warmer in the previous interglacial (the Eemian) and at thousand year intervals withing this interglacial, Egyption Old Kingdom, Minoan, Roman Medieval in descending order.
          For those reasons I consider “global warming” to be less factual than Homer’s mermaids and the god Poseiden. Hope that helps.

          162

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            “pause deniers”.

            A superlative set of words to belt their ears with!

            30

          • #
            Geoffrey Williams

            Thanks again Rod,
            Your comments have been a very useful learning exercise for myself and I’m sure for others out there.
            Speaking of temperatures it’s been pretty cold here in Sydney this last few days, right on cue for start of Winter.
            But it’s quite normal – just seasonal cooling! Trust you are keeping warm in Tasmania
            My wife and I keep warm burning some good Australian hardwood in our wood burner.
            (biomass boiler to our ‘greeny’ friends!)
            Regards Geoff Williams

            60

            • #
              Just-A-Guy

              Geoffrey Williams,

              I managed to find this reference to the “2°C” you asked about.

              Two degrees warmer may be past the tipping point.

              Abe

              00

            • #
              Rod Stuart

              Geoffrey
              Pierre Gosselin has just published this news from the USA.
              Paul Homewood has similar results from temperatures in faraway places like Paraguay and Iceland.
              If you search on this blog of Jo’s you will find many examples of similar stunts performed by the BOM in Australia.
              The Met office in the UK is notorious for this sort of manipulation.
              Dr. Tim Ball estimates that at least 0.3 degrees of the presumed “warming is due to this sort of hanky panky.
              And a further 0.2 degrees is solely due to the UHI uncovered by Anthony Watts a few years ago.
              Lord Monckton has a lot of information packed into this piece.
              Long story short. The temperature recovery from the LIA has been rather mundane.
              In relation to temperature regulation, all systems require some divergence from the setpoint in order to function. Your own body setpoint is about 37 degrees C. There have no doubt been excursions in you temperature to 36 degrees C when you are insufficiently clothed for conditions, and excursions to 38 degrees C due to vigourous exercise. Just imagine regulating the temperature of an entire planet to that precision!

              Before there was “climate science”, the field of geology determined that the standard deviation of temperature variations over the course of the Holocene is about one degree C. That is 8,000 years of planet temperature regulation through the magic of the properties of water. That puts “global warming” in perspective.

              20

          • #
            Carbon500

            Rod Stuart: Re. your comment that “The CET (Central England Temperature) record dates back to 1659. It is quite often considered to be a reasonable proxy for global temperature by reasonable people. This data is from measurements at the same elevation and locations. The annual mean for the year 2013 was exactly the same as the mean for 1659.”
            Well said!
            I’d like all the warmists out there to get a copy of this record (from the Met Office online), and then tell us exactly where the evidence for any impending dangerous climatic change is to be found.

            20

      • #
        TdeF

        I love the idea that if you use a supercomputer, the results must be right. A wrong or inadequate model will require a supercomputer too, but countless calculations does not make anything right.

        This is the fundamental fallacy, different to Jo’s Aristotlean or logical fallacies, that a computer, not matter how badly programmed, is going to give the truth because, the computer says so. At best this is an appeal to authority, as if the computer can divine truth on its own. It is a parody of the idea that mathematics is inarguable but the rule of computing is, nonsense in, nonsense out. Exactly calculated nonsense is just that.

        30

  • #
    sophocles

    According to the OCO2 Satellite Map for Oct 1st to Nov 11th 2014 (that’s last year for those with slow clocks …) it would seem that most of the CO2 comes from the Southern Hemisphere … (Note: I was just a little careless with drawing in the equator … as in very approximately, like using the MK I eyeball at an angle without cleaning the lens … nor the fingerprints on the screen … in poor light … so don’t for a minute consider it accurate or rigorous … )

    So why is most of the warming in the Northern Hemisphere?

    61

    • #
      sophocles

      It’s OK: the fingerprints were on my glasses, not on the screen. The observation remains, though.

      80

      • #
        sophocles

        Darn, that’s why the URL got mucked up. That’s more like it. I can see that, now.

        20

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘The $465-million mission was more than a decade in the making. The original OCO spacecraft crashed into the Pacific Ocean in February 2009, after a failure with its rocket.’

          A monumental waste of money, much better spent on clean drinking water for those without.

          Its my understanding that CO2 is attracted to sinks.

          31

          • #
            el gordo

            The Amazon is a large carbon sink, but the world’s oceans are the largest.

            10

          • #
            el gordo

            Particularly the Southern Ocean.

            ‘The world’s oceans have a remarkable capacity to absorb carbon dioxide. About one third of the carbon dioxide released by human activities has been absorbed in the ocean, with the Southern Ocean playing the most important role of any ocean and accounting for ~40% of the total.’

            ACE

            And don’t mention ocean acidification, that would rank amongst the biggest no brainers of modern natural history, along with the theory of ozone depletion.

            00

            • #
              el gordo

              I’ll just add this…

              ‘It’s Back. Slate reports the first hoax that opened the door to follow up ones like Acid Rain and then AGW is back in the news. The ‘fix’ never really worked because the problem never really existed. The Ozone hole was a natural phenomenon due to ice clouds forming at the end of the southern polar winter. It had never been seen before satellite and hasn’t changed since the world changed from CFCs to HFCs. But never mind. Now they are repeating the bad science and conclude HFCs are ‘powerful’ greenhouse gases.’

              Icecap

              00

              • #

                Does this mean “they” are running out of material and have to recycle old ideas or are they just trying to save the planet by recycling thought?

                00

      • #
        tom0mason

        sophocles,

        I note that CO2 concentration are low on the equator but rise rapidly just above and below it, and is at a maximum around the tropical forest areas.
        So the UN obviously needs a plan to deforest these area to reduce their CO2 footprint.
        Oh, sorry they’ve already done that by ensuring populations in tropical countries can not have fossil fuel, thereby ensuring that these forested areas will get incinerated instead. That should help, eh?

        I also note Northern Hemisphere land masses have low CO2 concentrations. In other words no fingerprint of anthropogenic industrial CO2 ‘pollution’.

        92

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      sophocles,

      Of course the MSM’s article had to throw the compulsory barb at Australia.

      live science:

      It shows hotspots of carbon dioxide over northern Australia, southern Africa and eastern Brazil.

      Even with my less than adequate vision, I fail to see any hot-spot over northern Australia. In the ocean to the north-west of Australia, yes. Given the scale of the map, that CO2 must be a couple of hundred miles out and centered well in the middle of the ocean.

      Abe

      80

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        And they left out China.

        They had to, though. They musn’t bring that to our attention since that’s where they’re investing heavily in manufacturing infrastructure and heavy industry.

        Abe

        70

  • #
    Tim

    “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/

    120

    • #
      Manfred

      Many power impoverished already have no choice but to switch-off their life and health preserving heating or cooling — to the reflexive ecstatic rapture to the Green Blob.

      In NZ, where 60% energy is hydro and the balance a mix including gas and wind, the power price is now a life changingly exorbitant shackle thanks to the RET & ETS. Outrageous financial penalties in the absurdly ludicrous name of saving the planet garnered for the institutional extravagance of the UN, UNEP and marketeers.

      81

  • #
    tom0mason

    With all this international agreements and local law enforcement of them, it’s just like the bad old days of the cold war.
    Back then Iron Curtain communists funded client state governments against the West, and often against the will of the client population. Similarly the west funded their own client states against the communists, and not necessarily for the will of the client population.

    However this time around it’s the UN elitists who are attempting to run all governments as client governments and not to the will of populations within these same client states.

    The more it changes, the more it stays the same — or as they say in French “Mangez plus de merde, un million de mouches ne peuvent pas avoir tort”

    70

  • #

    Part of the problem is politicians who think the best metric for their success is number of laws passed – and, of course, the voters who go along it.
    When our last PM was ousted the only thing I heard said in her support was her tally of 400 or so laws which work out roughly as several a week. Not much room for thinking there.

    As for CO2, the 90% of Earths biota that is in the seas (25,000 GT from Census of Marine Life) is not accounted in IPCC carbon cycle. They use a tiny number. Our contribution to total atmospheric CO2 fluxes is about 5% or about 1/4 of the measurement accuracy/error bars. We have no idea what’s going on but people want to base the world economy on it.

    111

  • #
    pat

    there’s no business like “climate” business. PwC, E3G (climate diplomacy?), IETA, Climate Institute give their “expert views”.

    expert at what? none have been elected to decide a change in the direction of the world economy, as far as i know.

    Figueres always guaranteed to provide a laugh:

    1 June: CarbonBrief: Sophie Yeo: Expert views: Countries meet in Bonn to restart negotiations on UN climate deal
    Diplomats are gathering in Bonn, Germany, to negotiate the UN’s 2015 climate deal – the package that will determine what chance the world has of limiting global warming to below 2C over the coming decades.
    Negotiations opened today with a 90-page text on the table…
    (For the benefit of confused journalists in a press conference today, UN climate chief Christiana Figueres described the difference between the “Paris agreement” and the “Paris decision”. The agreement should be considered as a formal, structured text, she said, while the decision is the “instruction manual” that explains how to use it.)
    But it may not be an easy task… There are still two UN sessions before the final showdown in Paris, and diplomats may be unwilling to abandon their proposals so soon. In a briefing on the talks, Jonathan Grant, director of sustainability and climate change at PwC, says:
    “Real progress is unlikely as countries will not compromise much at this point.”…
    Since March, countries have been submitting their “intended nationally determined contributions” (INDCs), setting out how they will tackle their emissions beyond 2020 and up to 2030. Many more are expected to come forward before December, although it is unlikely that the aggregated proposals will be enough to keep the world below an agreed limit of 2C.
    Liz Gallagher, who leads E3G’s climate diplomacy programme, said in a press call that countries need to figure out in Bonn how they can design a ratchet mechanism to ensure ambitions increase over time. She says:
    “We know that these INDCs won’t achieve an outright 2C outcome, but what we need to mark for Paris is the way that we’ll get back onto the trajectory for 2C, so how we are actually going to achieve it. So the ratchet mechanism is something that hasn’t really been discussed as much as we’d like, and Bonn is going to be the place where we think that parties will really start ***to tease out exactly what it means and how they might operationalise it.”…
    Dirk Forrister, president of the International Emissions Trading Association, tells Carbon Brief that there needs to be a more coherent approach to carbon markets at Bonn. He says:
    “The EU’s submission on Friday is helpful in bringing market matters to the fore as climate negotiators begin two weeks of talks, and we hope that markets continue to get airtime in Bonn.”…
    On 4-5 June, 24 developed countries will be questioned by their peers, including Canada, Australia, Russia and the UK.
    For Australia, considered something of a laggard after prime minister Tony Abbott axed the country’s carbon tax, this process will show that its actions are under scrutiny, says The Climate Institute, an Australian think-tank, in a briefing:
    “Formal questions have already been asked by China, Brazil, the US, the EU and others, raising doubts around the international credibility of Australia’s emissions reduction targets and domestic policies. On 4 June, Australia is scheduled to stand up in an international forum to answer direct questions from other countries and justify its climate change actions to date…The multilateral process so far is a clear signal that the rest of the world is paying careful attention to Australia’s domestic targets and policies. When Australia faces its review session in Bonn this scrutiny will continue, giving Australia a taste of what to expect should its post-2020 targets also be considered inadequate by our key international partners.”…
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/06/countries-meet-in-bonn-to-restart-negotiations-on-un-climate-deal/

    41

  • #
    pat

    31 May: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Wind industry makes last-ditch effort to save subsidies
    Government plans to curtail onshore wind subsidy scheme will see millions of pounds of investments written off and “massively damage” investor confidence, ScottishPower claims
    Government plans to curtail onshore wind farm subsidies will raise energy bills, “massively damage” investor confidence and could see hundreds of millions of pounds of investments written off, energy giant ScottishPower has claimed.
    Keith Anderson, its chief corporate officer, launched the outspoken attack after the Telegraph revealed that Amber Rudd, the energy secretary, was considering shutting the ‘Renewables Obligation’ (RO) subsidy scheme early.
    The plans, expected to be unveiled within days, are designed to implement the Conservatives’ manifesto pledge to end any new public subsidy for onshore wind farms.
    The wind industry on Sunday stepped up last-ditch lobbying to try to save the subsidies, insisting onshore wind was the ***cheapest green energy option and ***popular with the public…
    “Onshore wind is clearly still the most cost effective large scale way of deploying renewable technology in the UK. Economically, you would therefore question, why in God’s name would you want to bring that to a premature halt?
    “Our calculations are that if you prematurely bring onshore wind to a halt you will end up costing consumers £2bn to £3bn. You will end up having to deploy offshore wind or other more expensive technologies,” he said…READ ALL
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11642302/Wind-industry-makes-last-ditch-effort-to-save-subsidies.html

    31

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      pat,

      You quoted some nin-cum-poop (spelling?) saying:

      “Our calculations are that if you prematurely bring onshore wind to a halt you will end up costing consumers £2bn to £3bn. You will end up having to deploy offshore wind or other more expensive technologies,” he said…

      Wrong! You forget about on-shore and off-shore and save consumers £2bn to £3bn.

      Abe

      31

  • #
    pat

    “cold front”:

    1 June: Aljazeera: Tarek Bazley: Pacific solar flight aborted due to weather
    Cold front compels experimental Solar Impulse 2 aircraft to make an unscheduled stop in Nagoya in Japan.
    “Unfortunately the current weather window to reach Hawaii has closed,” the team said in a statement.
    “The cold front is too dangerous to cross, so we have decided to land in Nagoya airfield, and wait for better weather conditions in order to continue.”…
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/06/pacific-solar-flight-aborted-due-weather-150601075541077.html

    “icing”:

    1 June: BBC: Jonathan Amos: Solar Impulse: Zero-fuel plane makes forced Japan landing
    Solar Impulse, the zero-fuel aeroplane, has landed in Japan after being forced to abort a Pacific crossing due to deteriorating weather ahead of it….
    But a developing cold front over the ocean is blocking its path and pilot Andre Borschberg has decided to play safe by putting down in Nagoya…
    Solar Impulse will now be tied down and protected from the elements in a mobile hangar while meteorologists and flight strategists look for a new possibility to cross the Pacific…
    “When we took off from China two days ago, we thought we could go through the front and reach Hawaii. Now, we see the front has closed. It’s active. There’s rain, there’s icing – everything that’s dangerous for our aircraft. So we’ve decided to stop in Nagoya and wait for better weather to continue.”…
    Ideally, the team needs to cross America, and then the Atlantic, before the hurricane season starts to ***peak in August.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32963426

    ABC chooses an AFP report – no cold front, no icing, but a promo for “green energy” and an endorsement from the UN!

    2 June: ABC: AFP: Sun-powered Solar Impulse 2 plane lands in Japan due to bad weather, delaying round-the-world voyage
    Weather deteriorating over Pacific, decision taken for intermediate landing in Nagoya and wait for better conditions,” Bertrand Piccard, the initiator of the mission, tweeted.
    The plane was in a holding pattern near Japan on Monday as organisers warned that bad weather in the days ahead could block its ambitious bid to cross the Pacific…
    “When we took off from China it was quite clear we could cross the front,” Mr Piccard said on a live video posted on YouTube.
    “It was almost easy I would say, the weatherman was very confident.
    “Now the window has closed. The front is too thick, too big. The plane would have to go through big layers of cloud.”…
    The flight from Nanjing to Hawaii was scheduled to be the longest section of the maiden solar-powered global circumnavigation and an attempt to promote green energy…
    Ridiculed by the aviation industry when it was first unveiled, the venture has since been hailed around the world, including by UN chief Ban Ki-moon.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-01/bad-weather-to-force-solar-impulse-2-to-land-in-japan-nagoya/6513022

    31

  • #

    Note that second graph there which shows what looks to be a pretty dramatic reduction in CO2 emissions in the U.S.

    Note how they began to fall in 2007/8, and hey, can you just see how this will be used by the Obama Administration at Paris ….. See what happened when I became President ….. see how they started to fall when I was made the Boss ….. I’m the one who made things happen.

    So then let’s drill down into why they fell, and the second part of this relates directly to the main topic of this Thread, Regulation by Big Government.

    Understand first the nature of power CONSUMPTION, and then relate that to power GENERATION.

    Large scale coal fired power plants, well, all of them really, have to run virtually continuously, as they cannot just start from cold and deliver power at a moment’s notice.

    In 2008, the AVERAGE age of ALL coal fired plants in the U.S. was just a little shy of 50 years, which is around the maximum expected use from them, so you can see that a large proportion was in fact well older than 50 years. These old plants were basically used for Running reserve, their power only required for a few hours a day to top up power during Peak power periods, but they were still running virtually all the time, so CO2 emissions were quite high.

    Since 2008, all those old and ancient plants have been replaced by Natural gas fired plants, virtually on the same sites as those old coal burners. So, while the coal fired plants burn and emit all the time for only a few hours of power delivery, the newer gas burners run up and deliver the same (and greater in fact) power, and the gas burners emit less CO2, so there’s a big saving right there.

    Even taking this into account, the average age of all those coal Plants is still 45 years, still a lot of old plants around, all going unreplaced.

    Now, the second part of what has happened since 2007/08, when Obama took over, and the Regulations began to roll out.

    Big Industry has declined, and declined considerably. Steel manufacture and auto manufacturing has moved out of the U.S. and gone off to China, and hey, Tony, how easy is that to say and not so easy to prove, but look at what I have here first before you think I cannot back it up, and then refer to the second reference at the bottom of this Comment.

    With respect to power consumption, Commerce uses (average here) 10 times more than a residential home, and Industry uses (also the average) 100 times more than a residential home, and Big Industry can be up around 1,000 times and more, of the average residential consumer.

    Excuse the use of percentages here, and by their nature, (different amounts of actual consumption) they are indicative, and do not add up to the overall

    Overall power consumption in the U.S. has fallen, but only marginally, by 0.3%.

    Residential power consumption has RISEN by 1.6%.

    Commerce power consumption has RISEN by 1.6%.

    Industry power consumption has FALLEN, and by what is really a whopping amount, fallen by 5.5%, nearly all of that from big industry which has gone offshore.

    So, that shows conclusively that Industry has declined, and declined big time.

    While power consumption is indicative of the decline, a lot of that Big Industry are also large emitters of CO2. So there is another addition to that drop in CO2 emissions.

    It’s not because word is getting through to the people to consume less electricity, as the 2 sectors most closely related to ….. PERSONAL use of electricity, the residential and commerce sectors have both INCREASED their consumption.

    The fall in CO2 is fortuitous (lucky too!) in one respect, because technology has improved in the Natural gas turbine sector, better and larger Natural gas supply, the same power with less emissions.

    On the other hand we have the indicator that Government Regulation has strangled big industry, driving it out of the U.S. and directly because of that emissions have fallen,adding to the overall fall.

    It has nothing to do with President Obama taking over on that first respect (replacement of coal Plants with Gas Plants) and everything to do (in a wholly negative manner) with President Obama on that second respect. (the loss of big Industry)

    Tony.

    First reference – Net Generation by source (compare generation total for coal fired and gas fired 2007/8 to 2014)

    Second reference – Link to Reference of power delivery to Sector (compare 2007/8 to 2014)

    162

    • #

      that’s a lot of writing based on a speculative premise.

      215

      • #
        tom0mason

        Gee Aye,

        More than the speculative the elitist UN’s premise that CO2 causes global warming? I think not.

        TonyfromOz’s educated and knowledgeable speculation on these things is very worthy, in all probability very accurate. Unlike the elitists’ UN notion that CO2 is a pollutant.

        92

        • #

          tomo his speculation was knowing what Obama would claim in 6 months time. For all his insider knowledge, he does not have access to Obama’s speech writers.

          212

          • #

            Hmm!

            Farbeit from me saying, umm, ….. wanna bet!

            Not the access to his speech writers, but their inability to be able to resist saying, umm, something to just that effect, and then entering it all into the teleprompter for him to read.

            Anyway, let’s not debate the secondary premise.

            The facts are pretty obvious when you actually look at the data, and have someone explain it, using the context of time, with relation to that, umm, quite factual data shown at those two links.

            President Obama could actually show enormous leadership on this front just by legislating to close down those coal fired power plants, the source of 40% of those emissions.

            He knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he wouldn’t dare do that ….. directly, so he has to seem to be seen as doing something, using his specifically placed people at the EPA to do his bidding with their draconian legislation, and then, when those ancient plants close, without any replacement, he can do the Leftist thing, and blame those money grubbing generating companies for closing down because their profit base was eroded.

            Seeming and doing. Vast difference between the two of those.

            Tony.

            192

          • #
            James Bradley

            Accurate interpretation of methodology and motivation is more an expert opinion rather than mere speculation.

            83

  • #
    pat

    a couple of laughs -

    surely it’s Seth who is “stuck on strange”:

    29 May: AP: Seth Borenstein: This has been a month of extreme weather around the world
    Even for a world getting used to wild weather, May seems stuck on strange…
    When climate scientists look at what caused extreme events -***a complex and time-consuming process that hasn’t been done yet – heat waves are the ones most definitely connected to global warming, (University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall ) Shepherd says…
    Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, likens what’s happening to a stewpot: Natural climate fluctuations such as El Nino go into it. So do jet stream meanderings, random chance, May being a transition month, and local variability. Then throw in the direct and indirect effects of climate change.
    “We know that the stew has an extra ingredient,” Hayhoe says, referring to climate change. “That ingredient is very strong. Sometimes you add one teaspoon of the wrong ingredient and boy, it can take your head off.”
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/20b4c60765004e77a2d8e48eebb9862f/has-been-month-extreme-weather-around-world

    what alarms me is that these “environmentalists” really believe it was Obama writing the tweets! most unlikely, i would think:

    29 May: Guardian: Obama’s Arctic drilling tweets alarm environmentalists
    Activists say the president made it look like decision to allow Shell to resume drilling operations ‘is not in his hands’ despite executive actions in other areas
    by Rose Hackman in New York
    Environmental groups were baffled on Thursday after President Barack Obama wrote a series of seemingly misleading tweets justifying Royal Dutch Shell being allowed back into the US Arctic for exploration and drilling…
    The three tweets addressing the controversial issue appear to either be misleading or even possibly at times to misstate the facts, environmentalists say.
    Obama, using his recently acquired @POTUS Twitter handle, answered a question posed to him: “Why are you allowing oil drilling in the Arctic if you are concerned about climate change?”
    The president’s response was issued in three parts…
    Michael LeVine, Pacific senior counsel with Oceana, called the tweets “disappointing”…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/29/obama-arctic-drilling-tweets-alarm-environmentalists

    31

    • #
      Tim

      OMG …. not the dreaded ‘extreme weather’.

      I knew it would come. Suzuki and Ehrlich told me 30 years ago it was totally and immediately imminent, and urgent action was desperately required instantly. (Could be it’s just running a bit later than predicted.)

      10

  • #
    pat

    ***”causal knowledge” is the thing!

    WileyOnline: Public Perception of Climate Change: The Importance of Knowledge and Cultural Worldviews
    Authors: Jing Shi, Vivianne H. M. Visschers and Michael Siegrist, ETH Zurich, Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Consumer Behavior, Zurich, Switzerland
    Article first published online: 29 MAY 2015
    Funded by: China Scholarship Council (CSC)
    Abstract: The importance of knowledge for lay people’s climate change concerns has been questioned in recent years, as it had been suggested that cultural values are stronger predictors of concern about climate change than knowledge. Studies that simultaneously measured knowledge related to climate change and cultural values have, however, been missing. We conducted a mail survey in the German-speaking part of Switzerland (N = 1,065). Results suggested that cultural worldviews and climate-related knowledge were significantly related with people’s concern about climate change. Also, cultural worldviews and climate-relevant knowledge appeared important for people’s willingness to change behaviors and to accept climate change policies. In addition, different types of knowledge were found to have different impacts on people’s concern about climate change, their willingness to change behaviors, and their acceptance of policies about climate change. Specifically, ***causal knowledge significantly increased concern about climate change and willingness to support climate-friendly policies. We therefore concluded that risk communication should focus on ***causal knowledge, provided this knowledge does not threaten cultural values.
    LINKS
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.12406/abstract

    31

    • #
      tom0mason

      Here’s one for you from New Scientist (aka more agenda driven advocacy news.)

      “If renewable energy were cheaper than coal, it would be a major help in achieving the crucial target of keeping global warming below 2 °C. This week a worldwide initiative is being launched in London to achieve just such a transformation in energy costs within 10 years.

      The Global Apollo Programme wants to jump-start research into cracking the biggest technological obstacle to widespread adoption of solar and wind energy: how to store and distribute it so it can be used as and when needed, rather than consumed immediately as at present. Once that happens, clean energy can undercut coal and consign it to history.”
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27635-new-apollo-programme-wants-moonshot-budget-to-boost-renewables.html

      Now who is The Global Apollo Programme? Any bets that it’s it is a group of utterly impracticable no-nothing green bureaucrat?

      70

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Glowbull Apollo Progrmme
        Well well well. It is none other than the ratfink of the UK, David King.

        The British government has been very keen to see the operationalising of the Green Climate Fund (GCF). It was never us blocking the operationalising process nor was it the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. It appears that we are now close to operationalising the GCF and we will be pushing for that to be developed and we are ready to put money into it from a British point of view.

        This article in nine months old now, and I bet things have changed considerably in the last month.

        41

      • #

        Thanks for this tomomason. I just love it where they say this: (my bolding)

        ….. how to store and distribute it so it can be used as and when needed, rather than consumed immediately as at present. Once that happens, clean energy can undercut coal and consign it to history.”

        Fancy them not even knowing their Maths on this.

        POWER OUT EQUALS POWER IN

        Currently, wind power delivers its power at a Capacity Factor of 30%. For it to equal the absolute requirement for a base load requirement, they will need to construct 3.3 times as many towers to do that, tripling the price of any prospective wind plant, because the storage, whatever it is, can only deliver what power goes into it, no matter what it is.

        So, now that the price has been effectively tripled plus, are they stupid enough to think we would believe that storage facility would come at no cost.

        These people ….. actually are ….. insane.

        Solar Power is actually worse, both versions, with PV (panels) at 13 to 17% and CSP (mirrors) 25 to 28% Capacity Factors respectively.

        Oh dear! Own Goal!

        Tony.

        91

        • #
          ianl8888


          These people ….. actually are ….. insane

          Unfortunately, I think not

          Such people are simply well aware that the majority of the populace is ignorant here and will believe most things they are told, especially when told repeatedly

          This is the underlying reason I think the war is lost

          52

          • #

            ….. I think the war is lost

            Right up until 5 minutes after the coal fired power plants get turned off.

            Hey, what just happened then?

            Tony.

            60

        • #
          tom0mason

          TonyfromOz,

          Their ignorance is deep and thick, they have no idea.

          From that quote –

          “….. how to store and distribute it so it can be used as and when needed, rather than consumed immediately as at present.

          They have failed to realize that a grid connected electricity distribution system must be a demand governed (not supply governed) with some over-capacity built in, or the whole darn grid will just fall apart.

          To me it looks like the green mumpties believe that supply-side economic theory can be applied to electricity distribution. It can not!
          The grid relies on instantly available extra capacity in production to work.

          80

          • #
            tom0mason

            Or more simply –

            Currently –
            Customer demand dictates power generation (+ reserve)§.

            Green proposal –
            Power generation dictates customer demand (- over demand)*.
            .
            .
            § (+ reserve) is the rolling reserve (generators running on-line but not feeding the grid). This reserve ensures, as far as possible, that the grid can always meet demand. Most Western countries try to run a 7-12% reserve over current demand requirement.
            ¯

            * (- over demand) in the green proposal customers are automatically made to reduce demand either by ‘smart’ domestic appliances being commanded to reduce load or switched-off, or the customer can be taken off-line by consumer ‘smart’ metering.

            Some question to think about
            ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

            Who’s paying for ‘smart’ appliances and ‘smart’ metering?

            Who’s going to pay the extra that will be needed to make the ‘smart grid function?

            However who will profit the most from these proposals? I know it will not be the consumer.

            40

      • #
        Rollo

        If renewable energy were cheaper than coal

        If you tax evil “carbon” high enough whilst subsidising solar and wind sufficiently you get to a point where the renewables become the economical choice. Consider the Drax power station as an example. They are happy to use inefficient wood pellets shipped from the USA, as oppposed to cheaper more efficient coal, because government subsidises the shortfall. Both Drax and the government get the green tick of approval and nothing else matters. The fact that mug taxpayers and users of electricity finance the idiocy doesn’t come into their decision making.

        50

        • #
          tom0mason

          Rollo,

          But the big problem is that the ‘renewables’ can not ever run a grid system. They are not capable — no matter how many wind farms or solar panel you have!

          Imagine is no fossil fuel generators are running.
          All the grid supply is from so called renewables. How do you regulate this grid so that all the consumers are always satisfied?
          The bottom line …
          It just can not be done!
          There is NO technical fix — period!

          Without nuclear, hydroelectric, or fossil fuels there is no grid.

          50

          • #
            Rollo

            But the big problem is that the ‘renewables’ can not ever run a grid system. They are not capable — no matter how many wind farms or solar panel you have!

            Tomomason, you are correct in saying that solar and wind will never hold up the grid, but power stations like Drax, running on wood pellets can. Just as birds are sacrificed to wind farms and solar mirror arrays, so forests can be sacrificed to make wood pellets for the greater good. I suppose they can use cow dung in the event of a wood pellet shortage! It would be interesting to know what acreage of forest would be required to run all the coal fired plants in Australia for example. I suppose Tony would have this info at his fingertips!

            30

            • #
              tom0mason

              Rollo

              Absolutely agree with you.

              I have however been in a heated discussion with a friend’s wife recently. She (and her mother) is a very green advocate and completely (to my understanding deliberately — willfully) misunderstands how important electricity grid integrity is to a nations power requirement.
              She is no slouch academically having gained a degree in history where she studied the history of European industrial revolution!

              So I’m a little sensitized too the subject and the many people who believe that windmills and solar cells can run everything.
              I apologize if I all too hastily grabbed the wrong end of what you were trying to convey.

              10

  • #
    Phil sawyer

    The Paris bargain…..

    The Recalcitrants……China and India, much of third world, including the oil states, plus Australia, Russia, and Canada will all offer ” targets ” and ” mechanisms “, the so called ( independent thingos ). These minimalistic, spurious, non binding, and non verifiable offers will be liable to denunciation by some parties as inadequate to the perceived task at hand, right from the outset.

    US and Japan…….ambiguous …roles. US will ensure no binding treaty will be sought.
    Japan will be a recalcitrant this time, under Abe.

    The Radical Transformationists, like the EU, ( only the EU ? ) will offer more, and want more from the recalcitrants. How can an agreement be reached?

    In my view, no upward revisions will be made by the Recalcitrants in Paris, in response to EU pressure, although money for buying off Island States and such may be forthcoming.

    This leaves the EU with a stark choice. Accept the Recalcitrants offers, and pretend they are adequate, so as to reach agreement, or, refuse, and allow the talks to fail, like Copenhagen. And be blamed for it!

    ( However, if they accede to an agreement on such a basis, the Climate Industry will attack it as a greenwash, and declare the talks a failure anyway! Thus the talks will be a failure, regardless of the outcome. )

    The Bargain will be set.
    The recalcitrants will pretend their offers are serious, and the EU will pretend to agree!

    60

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Phil Sawyer
      I recall a few months ago that Lord Monckton claimed to have overheard a conversation in which someone in the UK government maintained that all the countries were ready to sign in Paris except Canada and Australia, and that “they” intended to dislodge both Harper and Abbott.
      Well, it’s early days, but the polls in Canada have the current government with a healthy lead, and Abbott is far from finished.

      111

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Phil Sawyer,

      You really believe that all those billionaires, individual and corporate, with all their ‘billions spent’ are just gonna walk away and say, “Well, we tried?” Without a political and/or economic dog-fight?

      And even if no agreement is reached in Paris, they’ve already pushed all these laws into place without it. Where’s the guarentee they won’t continue pushing those laws anyway?

      CAGW and it’s ideological parent Agenda 21 have to be exposed for what they are. A power-grab. Pure and simple.

      Abe

      61

    • #
      TdeF

      Good summary Phil.

      Recalcitrants? China, India and Indonesia? Pakistan? At least half the world’s population and more than 50% of the CO2 will not sign? What about the Russian states, another 250million and the Arab states, 280 million. SE Asia? Another 350 million. South America? So much more than half the world will not sign anything. Some deal!

      The EU with its 350 million can sign all the agreements they like with each other. The days when the EU dominated the planet are ending, especially if they continue trying to tax each other and everyone else and trade their worthless carbon indulgences with each other. They will soon be too busy dealing with Greece, Spain and others. The windmill and carbon credits industries will fail like the pyramid building industry in Egypt.

      40

  • #
    Brute

    It is an object lesson for those that still think that liberalism is about the increase regulation over our lives (when it is, in fact, the exact opposite).

    30

  • #
    manalive

    As others have noted, how many of the so-called laws are the result of popular mandate and how many are via backdoor regulations?

    70

  • #
    Dennis

    There is only one way to stop these Earth Cycles, put Mother Nature in prison.

    61

  • #
  • #
    DonS

    You know, just because something is passed in to law does not mean it will be enforced. Plainly if three quarters of the worlds emissions are covered by legislation then logically emissions should not be still increasing at record rates. Seems to me that a lot of governments are passing laws that make them feel/look good (e.g.China) to the warmists but in reality these governments have no intention of enforcing those laws and stuffing their economies.

    Once legislated a law can be on the books for a long time as governments tend to be more interested in making new legislation rather than going back and clearing old law from the books.

    For example: Apparently it is illegal to walk on the right hand side of the footpath in some parts of Australia. There are thousands of such examples from around the world.

    In 100 years time these laws that try to change global climate by limiting emissions of harmless gases will still be on the books but people will scratch their heads, laugh and wonder what we thinking.

    40

  • #
    Another Ian

    DonS

    O/T

    Sometimes these obscure laws can be handy. Apparently in Queensland it was on the books that if in desperate need one could pee down the nearside front leg of ones horse.

    I heard of one bloke that got off a charge by the near side front wheel being deemed the modern equivalent.

    30

    • #
      Yonniestone

      The IPCC have been peeing down the backs of Governments and telling them it’s NOT raining for some time now…unfortunately they can’t escape the Law of Planned Events – It never rains it pours.

      50

  • #
    Ceetee

    We really are making a mockery of our democracies aren’t we. Maybe we need a redesign?. Democracy has become a complacency and a blind faith in authority which are the very things that it should absolutely reject. We are fed lies and compulsion usually based someone else’s idea of morality, dubious environmental emergencies, cronyism and corruption (See FIFA , the beautiful game ruled by crooks). People will go on paying their levies and taxes for this BS because they have been deliberately designed to be below the level of intolerance. We are frogs in a pot of water set to boil slowly. We need a new kind of revolution, one that’s never happened before. One based on common sense and reason.

    50

  • #
    pat

    a bit of fun with “REFUGIA”!

    2 June: ABC: Eric Tlozek: Creating private nature refuges key to battling climate change effects, Queensland Government says
    The Government worked with James Cook University and the CSIRO to assess which habitats for 1,600 different vertebrate animals would best resist the effects of global warming.
    Department of Environment and Heritage director of landscape conservation, Allan Williams, said the research was done by looking at where animals lived and the climate in those locations.
    “If we then superimpose CSIRO’s projections on how the climate will change, what will the climates be like in the future, and then where will the animals live in those climates?” he said.
    He said the research found the most climate-resistant parcels of land were elevated areas and protected valleys…
    Mr Williams said a key part of the research was the identification of smaller “refuge” areas where animals could survive the projected warming.
    ***”Refugia are areas where plants and animals retreat during the bad times,” Mr Williams said…
    While some of the land is already national park much of it, particularly west of the Great Dividing Range, needed greater protection from clearing and development, Mr Williams said…
    The National Parks Association of Queensland (NPAQ) had praised the previous state government for commissioning the research and urged the new Government to act on it.
    NPAQ executive officer Paul Donatiu said the Government needed to pledge a funding package behind that strategy…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-02/nature-refuges-on-private-land-key-to-battling-climate-change/6505288

    nice work if you can get it, but is it a waste of time and money for a non-problem?

    28 May: Conversation: Let’s get serious about protecting wildlife in a warming world
    by Stephen Williams – Prometeo – Visiting Scientist Yachay Tech University and Professor, Centre for Tropical Biodiversity and Climate Change at James Cook University
    Brett Scheffers, Assistant Professor at University of Florida
    Lorena Falconi, Research worker, Terrestrial Ecosystems and Climate Change at James Cook University
    Disclosure:
    Stephen Williams receives funding from Australian National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Earthwatch Institute and SENESCYT & Yachay Tech University, Ecuador.
    Brett Scheffers receives funding from National Geographic Society.
    A whole host of research groups have worked on conservation in the Wet Tropics, supported by the Australian and Queensland governments. These include: the Wet Tropics Management Authority, Rainforest-CRC, Marine and Tropical Science Research Facility and the National Environmental Research Program…
    2011 this research identified ***refugia that will remain cooler than average under climate change…
    The JCU team then combined projections of future species distributions with the ***refugia mapping to identify areas of high conservation importance. These areas have high ***refugial potential and both high current and future biodiversity value…
    We need to establish a global network that builds on the Australian model by including empirical research on adaptation and mitigation, monitoring, regional and global capacity-building and information exchange across the globe…
    http://theconversation.com/lets-get-serious-about-protecting-wildlife-in-a-warming-world-42109

    11

  • #
    pat

    can’t be clearer than this, can it?

    2 June: Platts: World Gas Conference 2015: Shell CEO fears coal’s growth in energy mix at expense of gas
    Shell CEO Ben van Beurden is set to warn a major conference Tuesday that the energy industry must guard against the development of a coal/renewables-based energy mix at the expense of natural gas.
    Speaking at the opening day of the World Gas Conference in Paris, van Beurden is expected to say that a failure to properly price carbon dioxide emissions is allowing coal to maintain or grow its share in the energy mix alongside renewables, at the expense of cleaner-burning gas.
    A coal/renewables mix can already be seen in European countries such as Germany and could spread to Japan, he argues, according to a section of the speech released earlier Tuesday.
    “Key gas and LNG markets have … failed to create carbon pricing systems that lead to a switch from coal to gas in power generation,” the prepared speech says.
    “In Europe, gas-fired power-plants have been mothballed or decommissioned over the last few years … from a short-term financial perspective, coal-fired power has been cheaper than gas.”…
    On Monday, six oil and gas majors made a joint call for world leaders to introduce effective carbon pricing systems…
    http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/paris/world-gas-conference-2015-shell-ceo-fears-coals-26108283

    killing coal has always been the plan.
    and to hell with the millions/billions who rely on it for cheap, efficient energy.

    31

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      pat,

      Nice find.

      You commented:

      killing coal has always been the plan.
      and to hell with the millions/billions who rely on it for cheap, efficient energy.

      Of course they need to protect their financial interest over the taxpayers well-being. Tax them until they bleed!

      Abe

      60

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Off topic. Those idiots at Fairfax and the ABC have done it again. Reporting that a record cold start in south eastern Australia to June is interesting, like it never happened before. Well it has. Lots.

    There are so many records that reporting them is just meaningless. Not only that, it is weather which is not the same as a cooling climate. I bet they won’t report the next heatwave. Biased!

    30

    • #
      el gordo

      At this point in time (under AGW) we should not be experiencing normal winters. Records on the cold side are being broken, which leaves aunty and Fairfax with a problem. Should they ignore observation and hope that it all goes away?

      As you may be aware global cooling began in 2003 and is expected to pick up speed within the next couple of years, then the game will be up for the Klimatariat.

      By the way, heatwaves were not unusual during the Maunder Minimum and I strongly recommend you visit Stephen Wilde’s blog to get a grasp of the mechanisms involved in our transition to global cooling.

      52

      • #

        El g… are you serious or just going with the joke?

        11

      • #

        and if it was serious and weren’t off topic I’d ask if you disagree with the commenters in this post and with Anthony Watts who eventually apologised for a very silly post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/08/correcting-trenberth-et-al/

        11

        • #
          el gordo

          Stephen got a bashing over his adiabatic process, fair enough. The post created a lot of discussion, more than 400 comments, and Stephen was forced to defend his position time and again. Here is a snippet from him to get the gist.

          ——

          ‘Perhaps I should now address the conduct of this thread.

          ‘Whilst Anthony was within his rights I did place trust in his judgment and sense of fair play. Others can judge whether or not I was unwise.

          ‘There clearly has been an attempt to humiliate me but I do not feel humiliated because no one has yet addressed the basic point.

          ‘How does one get 102 Wm2 of DWIR from a non-radiative block of PE distributed through the atmosphere ?

          ‘If someone now tells me how that can be done then I am still not humiliated because thus far no one else here appears to know the answer.’

          10

  • #
    Dave in the states

    The rise and enpowerment of the administrative state among the western democracies is the root of the problem. John Locke warned of this:

    The legislative can not transfer the power of making laws to any other hands…

    But that is exactly what has happened. It short circuits democracy and/or republics. When the power to make and enforce law, rules, and policy, are placed in the hands of the executive then what we have is tyranny. Elections can become just a formality, as the administrative state and its policies carries on regardless.

    Once bureaucracy becomes entrenched it becomes a cancer on society that can not be easily contained. The ultimate mastification is the UN bureaucracy. Stalin could only dream.

    Bureaucracy always seeks its own interests. Chief among those interests are expanding its scale of power and gain, and in self perpetuation. It is not primarily interested in serving the needs of the people. Administrators in the administrative state do not like being second guessed. Their policies are not open to negotiation. Scientists in the employ of the administrative state don’t like being questioned. It is arrogance unbounded. It is not too far from black uniforms with red arm bands.

    It is not about saving the planet. It is about controlling the planet. It does not matter if such laws and policies are effective or needed at all. It is about laws and policies for their own sake.

    60

  • #
    Dan Pangburn

    Proof that CO2 has no influence on climate has been hiding in plain sight.

    32

    • #
      James Bradley

      Dan,

      Absolutely agree.

      The planet has not continued to warm for almost 19 years now, yet atmospheric CO2 concentration continued to rise.

      So, if global warming is not a product of CO2 then climate change is not a product of global warming.

      Therefore we are experiencing a natural climate cycle.

      40

  • #
    pat

    2 June: UK Daily Mail: AAP: Coalition MP breaks ranks on RET (Renewable Energy Target)
    Nationals MP Keith Pitt said the draft laws paring back the target from 41,000 gigawatt hours to 33,000 would only increase the cost of electricity for those who could least afford it, and slug taxpayers billions of dollars to subsidise private enterprise.
    “And come 2020, environmentalists will have little to show for it other than a warm and fuzzy feeling,” he told the lower house on Tuesday.
    Another coalition backbencher also voiced concern with the draft laws, saying the target simply won’t work.
    Liberal Craig Kelly said the legislation, which requires 20 per cent of Australia’s energy to come from renewables by 2020, would lead the nation backwards in terms of productivity.
    He questioned how building 2,000 wind turbines would reduce the impact of climate change.
    “It is little different from those in primitive societies that believed that we can change the weather by throwing 2,000 virgins down a volcano,” Mr Kelly said.
    The costs of investing in solar panels would outweigh the benefits, he said.
    ”The investment will see $9 billion of our nation’s limited and precious resources – excuse the language – simply pissed up against the window.”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/aap/article-3107124/Coalition-MP-breaks-ranks-RET.html

    it is not made clear in the following whether Kelly ended up voting for the bill or whether his vote, like Pitt’s, was not counted. (i think i heard on the radio that it was not counted, but i may be wrong):

    3 June: 9 News Australia: AAP: RET bill passes lower house
    Legislation paring back the renewable energy target to a bipartisan 33,000 gigawatt hours has passed the lower house
    Nationals MP Keith Pitt broke ranks during debate on the legislation…
    However, his vote was not formally counted among those in opposition, with only independents Bob Katter and Andrew Wilkie voting against the bill…
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/06/02/ret-bill-passes-lower-house-0

    10

  • #
    pat

    hmmm!

    29 May: WaPo: Sheldon Whitehouse: The fossil-fuel industry’s campaign to mislead the American people
    (Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat, represents Rhode Island in the Senate)
    Fossil fuel companies and their allies are funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.
    Their activities are often compared to those of Big Tobacco denying the health dangers of smoking. Big Tobacco’s denial scheme was ultimately found by a federal judge to have amounted to a racketeering enterprise…
    ***To be clear: I don’t know whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry. We don’t have enough information to make that conclusion. Perhaps it’s all smoke and no fire. But there’s an awful lot of smoke…
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-campaign-to-mislead-the-american-people/2015/05/29/04a2c448-0574-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html

    00

    • #

      If any of you go to the link which pat has provided here, look closely at the image, and then read the caption under that image where it says this: (my bolding here)

      The dome of the U.S. Capitol is seen behind the emissions, and a smokestack, from the coal-burning Capitol Power Plant, in Washington, D.C., March 10, 2014. (Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA)

      This power plant ceased operations delivering power to the Capitol area in, umm, 1952.

      All it does since that time up till now is to provide steam for heating, and chilled water for heat exchange units, cooling, for 24 buildings in the Capitol complex.

      True, it was once a coal burning plant.

      However, it converted to using Natural Gas in 2009, six years ago.

      Even at the height of its coal burning years, the CO2 emissions from this plant were only 0.6% of those from an average large scale coal fired power plant, so this was a positively tiny plant, first becoming operational as a power supplying plant in 1904, and closing its electrical power delivery operation in 1952, after 48 years of supplying electrical power.

      The, umm, emissions quoted in the caption that you can plainly see are in fact waste steam.

      The article talks about what is basically the alleged misleading practices of that coal fired industry.

      Pot, meet kettle.

      Tony.

      30

  • #
    pat

    ***publicly-funded, of course. to save the world. multiple links:

    2 June: Carbon Brief: Simon Evans: Analysis: Climate change ‘Apollo Programme’ raises both hope and questions
    If only clean energy was less costly than coal, oil or gas, then global energy use could rapidly become zero-carbon and fossil fuels would be left underground.
    To get there, the world needs a major ***publicly-funded research initiative, on a similar scale to the 1960s US Apollo programme, which, in today’s money, cost around $15 billion a year over the course of a decade…
    That’s the idea behind the Global Apollo Programme to Combat Climate Change, launched today by the London School of Economics. Heavyweight supporters include: Sir David Attenborough; Sir David King, UK special representative on climate change and former UK chief scientist; Lord Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal and former president of the Royal Society; Lord John Browne, former head of BP; and Lord Gus O’Donnell, former head of the UK civil service…
    The story is the front page splash for The Independent, under the headline “Radical plan to put coal out of business”. The Financial Times says “$150 billion need to save the world from climate change”. The Guardian and BBC News also have the story.
    Cheaper than coal
    The deceptively simple goal of the initiative is to make clean energy cheaper than coal in sunny parts of the world by 2020, and worldwide by 2025…
    Speaking at a press event, Sir David Attenborough said:
    “Reading this report gave me huge excitement – and I’ll tell you why. I’ve been involved in the problem of the despoliation of the natural world for a long time. Nearly all the reports you get are gloom and doom. Prophets of doom who say ‘don’t do this, don’t do that, stop fracking, stop burning carbon’. The exciting thing about this report is it is a positive report that says ‘do this, improve this, it can be done’. That is the excitement I get from reading this, that at last, somebody is saying here is a way in which we can do things.”…
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/06/analysis-climate-change-apollo-programme-raises-both-hope-and-questions/?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=ed019c46c4-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-ed019c46c4-303449629

    00

  • #
    pat

    pardon me. now the greening of the Sahel means we need Govts at the Paris meeting must recognise “the gravity” of CAGW!!!!!! the ultimate psyop:

    2 June: Daily Mail: Jennifer Newton: Climate change is HELPING Africa because greenhouse gases are bringing rain to areas that have suffered drought for decades, says new study
    Global warming has actually triggered a return of rain in the Sahel
    Researchers say human activity has caused the rain to return to region
    Area was previously drought-stricken leading to famine, killing 100,000
    Crisis prompted Live Aid concerts which took place exactly 30 years ago
    Climate change means rain is returning to previously drought-stricken areas of Africa exactly 30 years since Live Aid raised £150million to help starving people there, a new study has revealed…
    But now research by scientists at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading, has shown how increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which have caused climate change, have triggered a return of crucial seasonal rains to the Sahel region…
    Professor Rowan Sutton, who led the research published in the journal Nature Climate Change, said: ‘Scientists often study how greenhouse gas levels in the future will influence the climate.
    ‘These findings show how even the greenhouse gases already emitted by humans, while only a fraction of those projected for the future, have nevertheless affected rainfall on a continental scale…
    But despite the beneficial impact of global warming on Africa, the scientists have warned that the long term impacts will be very differenct as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere…
    Professor Sutton added: ‘These positive short-term impacts were accidental. No-one was trying to bring them about.
    ‘Nevertheless, such major changes show that by continuing to emit greenhouse gases, we are seriously upsetting a natural system that we don’t even fully understand, and this system is our home…
    ‘Our new study shows that our activities are not just causing problems for future generations. They are causing major changes now.
    ‘Continuing on the current path of greenhouse gas emissions will lead to more serious and widespread impacts.
    ‘I trust the governments meeting later this year in Paris will appreciate the gravity of this message.’…
    (ENDS WITH LIVE AID, U2, THE QUEEN & PAUL MCCARTNEY)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3105940/Climate-change-bringing-rain-Africa-30-years-Live-Aid-tried-help-end-famine.html

    The Times & Reuters are also covering this. no doubt the rest of the MSM is busily typing up versions.

    1 June: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Climate change boosts rain in Africa’s Sahel region: study
    BONN, Germany (Reuters) – Rising greenhouse gases have boosted rainfall in the Sahel region of Africa, easing droughts that killed 100,000 people in the 1970s and 1980s, in a ***rare positive effect of climate change, a study said on Monday…
    It said a continued rise in greenhouse gas emissions was likely to help more rainfall in the region in future…
    “And it was a surprise that the increase in greenhouse gases appears to have been the dominant factor,” he (Rowan Sutton) told Reuters…
    Sutton cautioned that the change in rainfall was only local and that many parts of Africa face mounting problems from warming, ranging from desertification and floods to rising sea levels.
    “It would be naïve to conclude that this is a good thing for Africa,” he said. “And in future, there are other effects – the rise in temperatures can be detrimental to crops.”…
    Separately, the Stockholm Resilience Centre says a greening of the Sahel is also caused by changes in farming…
    http://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-boosts-rain-africas-sahel-region-study-160140969.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    oops, meant to type in my opening line:

    means Govts at the Paris meeting must recognise “the gravity” of CAGW!!!!!!

    00

  • #
    pat

    in the rightwing conservative Spectator:

    1 June: Spectator Blog: Ben Goldsmith: David Cameron must now lead a green Conservative government
    (Ben Goldsmith is the founder of green investment business WHEB and Chairman of the Conservative Environment Network)
    Those on the left tend to think that British Conservatism is a derivative of US Republicanism. But environmental policy shows that it’s a far more pragmatic mix. The latest Conservative manifesto encompasses George W Bush’s marine conservation ambition and Obama’s selective interventions to raise the pace of clean technology innovation. This partly reflects the fact that the environment is still a largely non-partisan issue in British politics, but also that Cameron has protected discreet space for Conservative modernisers to bring forward new green ideas. As one of them I’m pleased with the progress we’ve been able to make. The manifesto commits our party to making ‘almost every car a zero emissions vehicle by 2050′, it reconfirms support for the Climate Change Act and promises to set up a ‘blue belt’ of massive international marine reserves.
    Cameron has explicitly rejected the climate denial of many of his conservative counterparts in the US, Australia and Canada. He has not accepted their lazy assumption that tackling big environmental challenges requires big government. Indeed, when Tony Abbott and Stephen Harper invited Cameron to join an alliance of like-minded nations to limit climate action, he not only rejected their advances but went on to side with Obama against Abbott to get climate change onto the G20 agenda last December…
    As we saw in the election Cameron is always at his best when he expresses moral conviction, and it’s in channelling his conservation ethic, to leave the world a better place than he found it, that he can counter the widespread view that the Conservative Party has given up on the environment. If he emerges at the end of this year with a decent international climate deal, UK electricity decarbonisation still on track and the beginnings of a plan to recover the health of the country’s natural environment, he can not only claim to have made the world a safer and more beautiful place, but he may also have shaped the course of modern Conservatism.
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/06/david-cameron-must-now-lead-a-green-conservative-government/

    Wikipedia: Ben Goldsmith
    Benjamin James “Ben” Goldsmith (born 28 October 1980) is an English financier and environmentalist. The son of financier James Goldsmith and Lady Annabel Goldsmith he is one of the founders and managers of the sustainability-focused investment firm WHEB Group. He has used his personal wealth to support both philanthropic and political projects in the area of the environment and sustainability.
    He had a high profile marriage to Rothschild heiress’s Kate Emma Rothschild which ended in 2012…
    WHEB manages approximately €500 million across private equity, quoted equities and renewable energy infrastructure…
    Goldsmith is understood to chair the Advisory Board of the JMG Foundation, named for his late father, which supports environmental advocacy campaigns…
    In 2004, Goldsmith gave 20,000.00 Pounds to the UK Green Party and again prior to the 2010 General Election in which Caroline Lucas became Britain’s first elected Green Member of Parliament….
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Goldsmith

    00

  • #
    pat

    following is not attributed…but it has to be a lunatic who wrote this surely!!!

    ***even a US$235/tonne carbon price (300 Australian dollars/tonne) is not enough. when will the public understand how utterly insane the CAGW plan is?

    1 June: Financial Times: The compelling case for global carbon pricing
    To wean the world off use of fossil fuels they must become less cheap
    Carbon must have a higher price tag if the risk of catastrophic global warming is to be contained. On this question environmentalists and economists agree — joined, perhaps, by an increasing number of industrialists…
    The case is clearest for coal, which is both very cheap and extremely dirty. Burning it emits a kilo of carbon dioxide for every kilowatt hour of electricity generated — about 20 times more than wind, solar or geothermal energy. It is also easy to transport and store, and abundantly available. For these reasons coal still provides almost one-third of the world’s energy needs…
    The most developed market for carbon emissions is in Europe, where they trade at €7 per tonne. This adds barely 1 per cent to the cost of coal-fired electricity. According to Britain’s Committee on Climate Change this will have to rise ***tenfold by 2030 and ***three times again by 2050.
    At such a level, not only coal but gas and oil would be rendered uneconomic…
    Scientists have determined beyond reasonable doubt that there remains too much carboniferous fuel in the earth’s crust to be safely extracted and burnt. The best way to keep it underground is through a rigorously enforced carbon price. But that alone is unlikely to prove sufficient.
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5bc4f5a4-0851-11e5-85de-00144feabdc0.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    1 June: Financial Times Blog: Nick Butler: The clouds over the French nuclear industry
    “I am convinced that the nuclear industry has a future, that it is a strength of our country.” The fact that Manuel Valls, the prime minister, had to make such a statement in the National Assembly in Paris two weeks ago is a dramatic indication of the depths of the problems the nuclear sector in France is facing.
    A few facts:
    In Finland, the new EPR reactor being built by Areva at Olkiliuoto is nine years behind schedule and and its original budget has doubled. The reactor is now the subject of a bitter legal conflict between Areva and TVO, the Finnish utility.
    In France. the new EPR reactor being built by EDF at Flamanville in Normandy is five years behind schedule and almost €6bn over budget. According to utility EDF the reactor will now be commissioned in 2017 – a date many in the industry still doubt.
    As a result of these problems and the doubts over nuclear safety raised by the accident at Fukushima in Japan, Areva has signed no new nuclear construction deals since 2007…
    On May 7 Areva announced that it was laying off 6,000 of its 45,000 strong workforce, having lost €4.8bn last year…
    The plans to merge Areva’s nuclear design and construction operations with EDF has been promised for months but has been hampered by doubts about the detailed financial terms. Areva is in effect broke and any deal with EDF will have to include some prior write off of debts and some acceptance by the French government of any continuing liabilities – not least in Finland. There are also personal animosities – the two companies have been at daggers drawn for years, and it is hard to see a happy marriage in prospect…
    Meanwhile, the vultures are circling, ready to pick the flesh off the bones…
    At stake in all this is not just the fate of one company and its workforce, but also the future of a major European industry. What happens next will show whether France and Europe as a whole are capable of maintaining a strong industrial base…READ ALL
    http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2015/06/01/the-clouds-over-the-french-nuclear-industry/

    never mind. EU is sanctioning Russia & their gas, blowing up or destabilising countries with fossil fuels, and the nuclear industry is on life support, but a MASSIVE CARBON PRICE will solve everything…with wind & solar!!!

    00

    • #

      Now that the new Thread is up, I guess not many people will be coming back to look at comments on this one, but I’d just like to say a little about these new EPR nuclear plants in Finland and also in France.

      Now, I couldn’t care less about the cost, and the reason for that is that no matter what the cost, It will be cheaper, buy a quantum level than any wind plants of equivalent power delivery.

      Keep in mind that just ONE unit at each of these plants will be driving a generator of 1,630MW ….. ONE generator 1,630MW.

      So then, it’s never about the Nameplate Capacity as I have said so often, so let’s then look specifically at the actual power delivered.

      To deliver the equivalent power to the grid, you’re going to need a Nameplate Capacity for Wind of 5025MW.

      Have you got that yet. 5,052MW Nameplate. That’s 2,010 of those huge towers at the current average of 2.5MW per nacelle.

      That’s around 10 large scale wind plants of 500MW, and that’s around the largest wind plants there are.

      Averaging out at around $2.2 Billion for one of them, there’s $22 Billion straight up.

      ONE generator compared to 2,010 Wind Towers.

      50 years plus for the Nuke, and after 25 years if they do indeed make it that far, then you’ll need another 2,010 wind towers to equal the power delivery from just this ONE unit, so, in effect, $44 Billion for wind.

      Now perhaps you can see why the cost is of no concern to me at all.

      Tony.

      40

      • #

        Tony—Is it okay if I copy your comment to my whynotwind blog? (That’s whyNOTwind, not pro-wind.) It’s a very good reply to people who talk about the cost of nuclear. I have tended to emphasize that fear is why nuclear costs so much. I like your answer better.

        00

        • #

          Sheri,

          I don’t have any problems with that at all.

          I’m always amazed by how much people are petrified as soon as you add the word Nuclear to anything, unless of course it’s Nuclear Medicine or Nuclear Family.

          Ask any person four questions and watch their faces when you give them the correct responses.

          At what level of enrichment is the naturally existing raw dirt in the ground, the original yellowcake containing ore body? Answer – Around 0.8 to 1%

          At what level of enrichment is the fuel which makes up the pellets which are inside the rods for the Nuclear power plants? Answer – 3 to 5%, typically closer to 3%

          At what level of enrichment is weaponised Uranium? Answer – Typically between 95 and 98%

          At what level of enrichment is the fuel when it is of no longer use in Nuclear power plants, usually after 18 Months of judicious use, so all the rods have depleted to around the same level? Answer – Typically between 0.8 and 1%, which is around the same level as the original ore containing dirt which is dug up in the first place.

          I’ve found now that the best way to explain the horrendously expensive (as everybody is told at length) Nuclear power plants is to compare them with the supposedly cheap (and as is often explained, free power) renewables, when compared on a like power delivery for like power delivery basis.

          There just is no comparison.

          Tony.

          PostScript: Oh, and that second time I mentioned the Nameplate for wind. That was a slight error. It should be the same as for the earlier total 5025MW and not 5052. I just got the 5 and the 2 in the wrong place second time around.

          00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            I’m always amazed by how much people are petrified as soon as you add the word Nuclear to anything, unless of course it’s Nuclear Medicine or Nuclear Family.

            Tony,

            It’s worse than that. In a recent discussion about electricity being in short supply I mentioned nuclear power and how we can now build very safe reactors. Someone immediately demanded that I, “shut up,” in a very loud and angry voice. For the sake of not having a big fight over being treated so shabbily I dropped the subject. But I really wanted to shove it down her throat.

            You can’t win against closed minds. They have eyes but cannot see, ears but cannot hear and minds but cannot think beyond the end of their noses. Truly a tragic waste of a good human being.

            00

          • #
  • #
    pat

    full moon in England must be responsible for what i’m reading in the UK MSM today:

    3 June: Stuff NZ: Damian Carrington: Fossil fuel subsidies outstrip global public spending on healthcare
    (This content is published courtesy of the Guardian as part of the Climate Publishers Network and the “Keep it in the Ground” campaign)
    Fossil fuel companies are benefiting from global subsidies of $7.38tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling estimate by the International Monetary Fund.
    The IMF calls the finding “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $7.38tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments…
    Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damage economies, particularly in poorer countries.”
    Lord Stern said that even the IMF’s vast subsidy figure was a significant underestimate: “A more complete estimate of the costs due to climate change would show the implicit subsidies for fossil fuels are much bigger even than this report suggests.”
    The IMF, one of the world’s most respected financial institutions, said that ending subsidies for fossil fuels would cut global carbon emissions by 20 per cent…
    Ending the subsidies would also slash the number of premature deaths from outdoor air pollution by 50 per cent – about 1.6 million lives a year.
    Furthermore, the IMF said the resources freed by ending fossil fuel subsidies could be an economic “game-changer” for many countries, by driving economic growth and poverty reduction through greater investment in infrastructure, health and education and also by cutting taxes that restrict growth.
    Another consequence would be that the need for subsidies for renewable energy – a relatively tiny $120bn a year – would also disappear, if fossil fuel prices reflected the full cost of their impacts…
    David Coady, the IMF official in charge of the report, said: “When the [$7.38tn] number came out at first, we thought we had better double check this.”
    But the broad picture of huge global subsidies was “extremely robust”, he said…
    ***The IMF estimate of $7.38tn in fossil fuel subsidies represents 6.5 per cent of global GDP. Just over half the figure is the money governments are forced to spend treating the victims of air pollution and the income lost because of ill health and premature deaths.
    The figure is higher than a 2013 IMF estimate because new data from the World Health Organisation shows the harm caused by air pollution to be much higher than thought.
    Coal is the dirtiest fuel in terms of both local air pollution and climate-warming carbon emissions and is therefore the greatest beneficiary of the subsidies, with just over half the total…
    The biggest single source of air pollution is coal-fired power stations and China, with its large population and heavy reliance on coal power, provides $3.2tn of the annual subsidies…
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/69076177/fossil-fuel-subsidies-outstrip-global-public-spending-on-healthcare

    20

    • #
      Dave in the states

      Some rather “creative” accounting there. Of course all they want is the headline and the deception perception.

      00

  • #
    pat

    3 June: Economic Times India: AFP: Angel Merkel under pressure on coal ahead of G7 climate push
    BERLIN: Chancellor Angela Merkel is hoping to send a robust message on climate change from a G7 summit this weekend but may be undermined by Germany’s own heavy dependence on coal.
    Europe’s top economy sees itself as a pioneer among industrialised nations for its ***”energy transformation” pushing the development of renewables while phasing out nuclear power.
    However the ambitious drive, prompted by Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, has extended its reliance on coal, particularly the country’s own enormous lignite deposits.
    Environmentalists aim to use the G7 huddle starting Sunday at Bavaria’s Elmau Castle to hold Merkel’s feet to the fire over Germany’s dirty and abundant coal-fired plants even as she seeks ambitious climate pledges from the club of rich nations.
    Looking ahead to the summit, Greenpeace launched protests across Germany last weekend under the banner “Climate Chancellor or Coal Chancellor?” demanding that Merkel take a stand on a decisive issue in the climate debate.
    Given its low price and a broken European system of carbon emissions trading, coal remains the primary source of electricity in Germany, accounting for 45 percent of gross production…
    ***The ultimate goal is to eliminate the competitive advantage of cheap coal, forcing the dirtiest plants to close and making renewables more
    competitive.
    But the energy industry has mounted ferocious opposition to the scheme, raising the spectre of tens of thousands of lost jobs…
    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/angel-merkel-under-pressure-on-coal-ahead-of-g7-climate-push/articleshow/47528277.cms

    the sheer arrogance of the ***noted Stern:

    3 June: Business Green: Will Nichols: Lord Stern: India must tackle ‘worrying’ coal use
    Economist says country should learn from China’s example that unfettered coal-powered growth can cause huge problems.
    The ***noted economist said the country should not follow the example of China in inflicting significant environmental damage in pursuit of economic growth.
    India’s heavy reliance on coal power means it is already the world’s fourth largest source of greenhouse gases after China, the US and EU. And its emissions are expected to triple by 2030 if current levels of economic growth are maintained…
    Stern is today publishing a book calling for greater pressure to be put on world leaders to create “political tipping points” for action on climate change and identifies India as a huge opportunity to drive growth while tackling climate change…
    “There are signs of change, but growth of coal in India is worrying and that should be absolutely at the heart of the discussion [because] India is crucial to this whole ***story.”
    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2411246/lord-stern-india-must-tackle-worrying-coal-use

    00

  • #
    pat

    2 pages: 3 June: Reuters: Japan’s emissions target, relying on nuclear, seen as unrealistic
    By Yuka Obayashi and Aaron Sheldrick
    Japan has set an emissions target to be presented to November’s climate summit that critics say is unambitious compared to those of other leading countries and unrealistic because it depends on restoring its nuclear industry in the face of public hostility.
    The government is proposing to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent by 2030 from a base year of 2013. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will present this to a G7 meeting in Germany at the weekend where the Paris climate summit is a key agenda item.
    “We have come up with a reduction target that is no less ambitious than what other countries are aiming for,” Abe told a cabinet meeting this week, according to a Cabinet Office official…
    Japan’s target would represent a mere 18 percent cut from 1990 levels.
    Its greenhouse gas emissions in the 2013 base year rose to 1.41 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, just shy of a record set in 2007. That reflects an increase in the use of fossil fuels for power generation after the shutdown of the country’s 43 nuclear reactors following the Fukushima disaster in 2011.
    The target for emission cuts is based on a proposed power generation mix for 2030 that has nuclear energy accounting for 20 to 22 percent, with renewable energy making up 22 to 24 percent and fossil fuels making up the rest.
    Yet stringent safety checks and the need for local authority approval mean the outlook for rebooting the nuclear industry remains uncertain. One reactor is earmarked for reopening in August…
    “The energy mix is based upon restarting nuclear in a substantive way, which looks unlikely in view of public opposition,” said Mutsuyoshi Nishimura, a former climate ambassador for Japan.
    The shutdown of reactors has pushed coal and LNG consumption to record highs and Japan is ramping up construction of coal- and gas-fired plants. Under the government plans, coal will account for 26 percent of power generation in 2030, up from 24 percent before Fukushima.
    Power from renewable sources at 22 to 24 percent would be up from 11 percent before Fukushima and 10.7 percent in fiscal 2013/14.
    “By relying on a ***fantasy nuclear energy mix rather than setting ambitious renewable and energy-efficiency targets, Japan will fail to meet even the low-bar CO2 reduction goals that Abe announced,” environmental group Greenpeace said in a statement.
    A Reuters survey last week showed that companies were also sceptical about the government’s nuclear target.
    Kimiko Hirata, international director at non-profit organisation Kiko Network and a regular at climate change conferences, said industry should be asked to take further action to cut emissions.
    “I would imagine that Abe will face serious pressure at G7 that will force him to reconsider,” she added.
    http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL3N0YH1BT20150603

    3 June: Council On Foreign Relations: Stewart M. Patrick: The G7 Summit: An Exclusive Club—But a Global Role
    When President Obama and his fellow Group of Seven (G7) leaders convene this weekend at the Bavarian retreat of Schloss Elmau, they will face two tasks. The most obvious is to formulate common positions on a global agenda so sweeping that it will strain even the lengthiest communique. Their more subtle challenge is to signal that their advanced market democracies remain not only an anchor of order in a turbulent world but also a potential engine to drive global governance reform…
    Meanwhile, the rise of new powers and alternative groupings, such as the Group of Twenty (G20) and the BRICS, has threatened the G7 with irrelevance…
    Supporting Sustainable Development and Combating Climate Change: The Elmau summit offers a chance to build momentum behind three major UN gatherings during the second half of 2015: the Financing for Development summit in Addis Ababa in July, the launch of the Sustainable Development Goals in New York in September, and the twenty-first Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris in November and December…
    The G7 nations will also showcase new climate change initiatives, with an eye toward the Paris conference. On May 7, the German government announced the G7 initiative on Climate Risk insurance, which aims to increase the resilience of developing countries against climate-induced (and other natural) disasters. Another promising development was the agreement [PDF] by G7 energy ministers on May 12 that all the G7 countries’ initiatives should support a global climate treaty. Meanwhile, a coalition of 120 business leaders has sent an open letter [PDF] to the G7 finance ministers, urging them to support a long-term global emissions reduction goal in the Paris agreement and submit short- to medium-term national emissions pledges and country-level action plans…
    http://blogs.cfr.org/patrick/2015/06/03/the-g7-summit-an-exclusive-club-but-a-global-role/

    00

  • #
    pat

    3 June: Daily Mail: Hannah Parry: Obama to follow Al Gore into campaigning against climate change after he leaves White House
    The US President had invited British naturalist Sir David Attenborough for surprise private meeting
    The veteran documentary maker said Barack Obama was committed to tackling climate change
    Sir David even suggested President may follow example of Al Gore and go into environmentalism after office
    Sir David said he had come away from the meeting feeling that Obama was ‘very much in favour of dealing with climate change’ but got the sense he was ‘wondering what he’s going to do next’…
    Sir David said he had been ‘astonished’ to receive the invitation to Washington, which came about after Obama heard about his award-winning series Rise of Animals: Triumph of Vertebrates that aired in the States last month.
    The half hour meeting was held in the Blue Room of the White House where he and Obama discussed climate change and conservation…
    ***Sir David said: ‘He wanted to make it clear that he was not a philistine in this matter.
    ***’He is on the side of the natural world and that’s what he wanted to be clear.
    ***’And that’s against some very powerful voices that are in the US which are not in favour of the natural world.’ …
    The 89-year-old TV presenter added that the meeting with one of the most powerful men in the world was a ‘great privilege’ but admitted he was still ‘truly baffled’ as to why the President wanted to meet him.
    ‘He invited me to go to Washington. He sent me a ticket. I was astonished, I don’t understand it.’
    He added that Obama told him he was a fan and enjoyed watching his wildlife documentaries.
    Sir David was speaking at the launch of the Global Apollo Programme – a proposed research programme to tackle climate change by reducing the cost of green energy…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3107781/Obama-follow-Al-Gore-campaigning-against-climate-change-leaves-White-House-naturalist-David-Attenborough-reveals-invited-secret-meeting-president.html

    3 June: ReCharge News: Christopher Hopson: Global Apollo asks G7 to help renewables R&D
    World leaders meeting at next week’s G7 summit in Germany are to discuss an ambitious plan by a group of prominent UK scientists, businessmen and civil servants to help slow climate change by making renewables cheaper than coal by 2025…
    Global Apollo hopes to increase spending on renewables R&D from $6bn globally at present to $150bn in the next ten years, to help make clean energy much cheaper than coal.
    The group argues that the research should focus on cutting the cost of renewables – solar in particular… “First most of the growth in world energy demand will be in countries with high solar radiance…
    “Thirdly, renewable energy can never replace base-load fossil-fuel powered electricity unless it can be stored more cheaply. And finally, its integration into the grid requires more sophisticated software management.”
    The report claims there has been a “shocking failure” to spend more on developing new technologies to combat “the greatest material challenge facing humankind”.
    http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/1401810/global-apollo-asks-g7-to-help-renewables-randd

    00

  • #
    pat

    something decidedly creepy about this one!

    3 June: UK Independent: Tom Bawden: Pester power: The new weapon in the fight against global warming
    The world’s leading climate economist is urging children and young people to guilt-trip their parents and other adults into doing more to save the world.
    “Today’s young people can and should hold their parents’ generation to account for their present actions. They can elicit an emotional response that can motivate action,” argues Lord Stern, a ***respected London School of Economics professor who wrote a hugely influential review on the financial implications of climate change in 2006.
    “If thinking about the lives of unborn future generations seems too abstract to motivate you to act, try instead looking a young child or grandchild in the eye and asking yourself what sort of future you are leaving for them,” he writes in a new book…
    “Children can teach their parents: I am reminded of the song ‘Teach Your Children Well’ by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, which also says ‘Teach your parents well’. Education goes both ways.”
    Tom Burke, chairman of the E3G sustainable development charity, told The Independent: “Young girls have enormous influence on their fathers. In the work I have done I would say that the most influential group of people of all are 12-year-old girls; they have their fathers wrapped around their little fingers.”…
    Cecily Spelling, of the ***10:10 climate-change group, is managing a campaign to help schools raise money for solar panels. “The kids get very heavily involved in the fundraising and it really makes them think about the environment – to the point where they have told off head teachers for not turning off the lights in their offices,” she said.
    “Then they go home and tell their parents they don’t need to boil a full kettle of water for one cup of tea. It’s quite inspiring and the parents take notice,” she added…
    Conservation groups are shocked that the government has not appointed a full-time minister for the natural environment.
    Lord Gardiner has been made House of Lords’ spokesman for the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) replacing Lord de Mauley, who combined the post with being natural environment minister.
    But Lord Gardiner is already juggling his new post with being deputy chief whip for the Lords. This will mean his nature portfolio will be much smaller than Lord de Mauley’s – with the remainder being shared between other Defra ministers.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/pester-power-the-new-weapon-in-the-fight-against-global-warming-10292998.html

    00

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    A resounding hallelujah and praise be to the Lord ! (sorry God I mean the other Lords)

    Obviously, it’s all taken care of then

    It “warms” my heart to know that our caring Politicians are legislating the problem away ! :D

    and I was worried there for a minute… :(

    00