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

Weekend Unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.9/10 (26 votes cast)
Weekend Unthreaded, 7.9 out of 10 based on 26 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/pp6wrdy

154 comments to Weekend Unthreaded

  • #

    Look, I know that this is ancient, but I saw the pie chart addition to the earlier Thread of Joanne’s, and I immediately thought of this.

    This is a really simple 10 question test about Global Warming.

    Now I know that all of you have probably done the test, but perhaps you might like to save the link for yourselves, and just get you family members, perhaps, children or grand children even, to sit at the computer and do the test for themselves for the purposes of insight for them.

    There are numerous links and explanations at the answer response pages, and one of those is specifically at the answer for Question 6 and it shows a pie chart of Atmospheric Gas content, probably the best one I have seen, and I know I know, it’s also ancient, but when expressed like this it is a little more revealing than just saying that CO2 is 400PPM.

    Link to The Global Warming Test

    Tony.

    152

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal in Oz

      Thanks Tony,
      I enjoyed doing it, but got question 10 wrong!!
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      10

    • #
      Aaron M

      Question 1 is wrong.

      The Earth is cooling.

      81

    • #
      gai

      They have the answers to #1 and to #5 incorrect.

      As Jo has shown link the earth is gradually cooling in the long term.

      As Tony Heller has shown 2014 Was The Least Hot Year On Record In The US so the USA is cooling in the short term.

      Comments at the site also show cooling not warming.

      … here in north-eastern Florida, you will find towns with names like Orange Park, and Mandarin. One hundred years ago this area had major commercial citrus groves which shipped fruit all up the east coast. Today, you have to drive 80 or 100 miles south to find those groves. We get too many hard freezes here now to have large citrus groves. — Jason Calley

      The area where I live has pretty much lost a month off the growing season from the early 1900s to now. Back in 1919 the ‘official’ last frost date was May 1. It’s now May 15th and we’ve had killing frosts much later than that at least 7 out of the last 10 yrs…the last 3 yrs all had the last Spring frost Memorial Day weekend or later! The ‘official’ 1919 first frost date was October 6. It’s now September 28. — mjc

      Heck they even have a graphs of the temperatures showing overall cooling in #6 and #8!
      …….

      An interesting side note: Ice cores from the Freemont Glacier in Wyoming show it went from Little Ice Age cold to Modern Warming warm in the ten years between 1845 and 1855.
      onlinelibrary(DOT)wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD901095/full

      This just shows the temperature record has been so badly mangled even skeptics get confused!

      30

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        You need to READ the question. (5)
        If Steven Goddard is correct, is not the statement “the temperature has risen LESS THAN 1 degree” correct?

        00

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        This test was put together some years ago, so the answer to Q1 was probably correct, or nearly so, on current knowledge at that time. I rationalised and assumed that was the case and got THEM ALL RIGHT! Does that make me a CLIMATE SCIENTIST? I am dizzy with pleasure and self adulation. Think I’ll send this to my grandsons and really piss my son-in-law off! Thanks Tony!

        10

    • #

      If a serf can pass the test, shows the record’s
      there for the plebs and climatologists too if
      curiosity drives them but to seek.

      10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Good test, Tony. However, I remain skeptical of the greenhouse gas theory because I still can’t find good empirical evidence to support it. The effect of clouds is obvious and easy to see as weather conditions change from overcast to clear and back again. But clouds work by reflection which “bounces” heat back toward the surface instead of letting it escape into space. Clouds may also prevent warm air near the surface from rising and thus being replaced by cooler air from the surrounding area. But in gaseous form, water and for that matter CO2 as well, cannot reflect heat. So exactly what is the mechanism? And it seems to be all theory without proof.

      The mechanism by which so-called greenhouse gasses do what they’re said to do has been debated over and over on this blog and the real mechanism seems to be unknown.

      Just my personal opinion about it for whatever it’s worth.

      00

  • #
    • #
      Yonniestone

      Children will never know what thundersnow is……

      Getting very cold and wet in central Victoria today, I invested in some thermals for work this week, can’t wait. :(

      30

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        As an expat Scot, I can only shake my head in wonder at the fuss made over a little snow. And the Great Western Higway between Lithgow and Bathurst was closed for 5cm of snow! Does the RTA not own a snowplough! A local farmer with a blade on his tractor could have cleared it. Goodness, we are all going absolutely bonkers here in Oz, and I thought the Brits were the only weather obsessives,

        00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        What a whoose,

        All you need is a good Swandri (a proper green one, not the checkered ones the sell to the toorists) and a good pair of wellies.

        Those thermal things are for whimps.

        00

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      There was nothing tropical about the storms here. The prediction of snow down to 600m was pretty right. Wouldn’t be surprised to see it lower tonight, as today didn’t warm up much after melting the snow. Not nearly as much snow as July 1965? was it. From memory about 2 or three falls like this in the meantime.

      20

  • #
    Dennis

    Earth is running out of water, Western Australia is running out of water, Paris Conference running out of steam soon;

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/nasa-study-says-the-canning-basin-in-wa-is-being-depleted-too-fast/story-fnjwvztl-1227438071442

    20

    • #
      TdeF

      Sadly the drought has not ended in WA and Western Queensland. It gives the Climate Council hope. If only the people in WA and Western Queensland could be persuaded to pay a carbon tax, they could be saved. It worked for us in the rest of Australia.

      Tragically no one is building dams for the next drought as they are not acceptable. As the former Premier of Victoria, Primary School Phys Ed teacher Steve Bracks said profoundly, “dams do not make water”.

      With visionary leaders like this, who needs leaders? You can only hope the IPCC can fix the world’s problems with more taxation.

      141

      • #
        Dennis

        But expensive desalination plants make water, even when the dams predicted to never fill again are full, desalination plants are in place costing $ millions a year to maintain with little or zero output.

        The union movement and Union Labor wealth creation projects initiated by Union Labor state governments, consultant to the designers former NSW premier Carr, now Senator.

        Climate change con? Lots of room on the Gravy Train.

        92

      • #
        Another Ian

        TdF

        One of my thought for the day

        The way ALP politicians hate agriculture they must believe that they photosynthesise.

        But don’t tell the greenery about that needing carbon dioxide or they’ll never split preferences

        41

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          It’s simple. Agriculture in Australia has for 30 years been the last sector of the economy still dominated by small business capitalism. The last sector where the business owners made the business decisions.

          The modern ALP subscribe to Marxist theory, that there should be no private ownership/management of industry.

          Under policies developed and promoted by the National Farmers’ Federation using their Free Market Theory, the number of capitalist farmers in Australia has been halved. Half way there for the Marxists and gathering speed.

          So who wrote their Free Market Theory text books?

          60

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Earth running out of water?, earth has a finite amount or closed loop water system, what bedwetting doomsdayers fail to comprehend is this water cycle will not follow the ideals of Gaia loving unicorn believers, it’s raining here and the lake is full, back in 2007 I could walk across it and we almost ran out of water, go figure.

      142

    • #
      handjive

      A key government department in Western Australia has rejected the findings of a NASA-led study that examined underground water in the state.

      The Canning Basin, in Western Australia’s north-west, was named as one of the three least sustainable in the world, with its water level dropping by 9.4 millimetres per year.

      However, the state’s Department of Water has branded the study “incorrect” and said its findings were “at odds” with the US agency’s statistics.
      (celsius guru aka smh/peterhannamblog)

      30

      • #
        Oksanna

        That is alarming (/sarc) considering a bunch of travellers reported water at Dragon Tree Soak and Elizabeth Soak, not to mention Joanna (Johanna)Springs, in late 2014, just months ago.

        10

    • #
      toorightmate

      Imagine how cold it will be when global warming REALLY sets in.

      70

    • #
      gai

      70% of the Earth is covered with water and the earth is running out?!? ROTFLMAO!!!
      ………

      If you bother to look the desert zone in Africa expands when it is cold and contracts when it is warm so if there is more desert, it is COLDER!

      Vegetation maps available at AFRICA DURING THE LAST 150,000 YEARS
      (You have to go to the listed links for the map of each time period.)

      41

  • #
    TdeF

    Enjoyed Pat’s post to the Climate preconference just completed in June. Stuff about the “World’s ‘best minds’, except that almost all of the “World’s Best Minds” are excluded because they are not ‘climate scientists’.

    “It is an opportunity; the time for action is now. This conference is a deep expression of the entire science community for solution to build a sustainable future”.

    “Entire science community” means, those simply with a vested interest in pushing Climate Change/Global Warming. People who disagree including tens of thousands of Physicists, Geologists, Chemists, Engineers, Geologists, Astronomers, Microbiologists,… are not welcome. They are not the “World’s Best Minds”. Albert Einstein would not qualify. Nor the late Edward Teller who signed the Oregon Petition. Not good enough.

    However our own Tim Flannery is welcome. We can learn a lot from what happened to the giant wombats of Australia.

    151

  • #
    Peter C

    Backing up a few days Jo brought us the news that a group of 13 academics had written a written an open letter to Senators Chris back and Dennis Jensen, full of alarm about the impending catastrophe of Human Induced Climate Change.

    Rick Will provided a link to the full letter, which apparently was published on the University of New South Wales website.
    http://www.ies.unsw.edu.au/sites/all/files/letter_to_Parliament3.7.15.pdf

    In response I have drafted to letter to Senators Back and Jensen, which I will share here. Perhaps there are some improvements which might be made?

    Letter to Senators Chris Back, WA and Dennis Jensen, WA

    Dear Senators
    You recently received a letter (copy attached) from a group of eminent people claiming that catastrophic consequences will result from continued human emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. They demanded decisive and rapid cuts in Australian emissions , which if implemented would lead to great cost and hardship to the Australian population and a reduction in living standards.
    I would also ask you to “examine the evidence”, before the Australian Government commits to any action at the UNFCCC conference on Climate Change in Paris later this year.
    All of the authors are academics and have secure tax payer funded jobs and superannuation.

    It would be responsible and reasonable to ask one or more of them to meet with you and answer questions about their letter.

    One of the authors works in Perth, WA , (Professor Peter Newman AO, Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University and Lead Author for Transport on IPCC WG3.) It should not be a problem for him to meet with you and explain the basis of the assertions contained in his letter.

    Perhaps the following questions could be explored in more detail:
    1. “The evidence of Climate Change has been available for all to see for a number of decades”. Specifically, what is the evidence are they referring to and how would it be apparent to the average Australian?

    2. How would cuts in Australian CO2 emission strengthen our economy?

    3. Why is a 2 degree C increase in global temperature (above pre industrial levels) referred to as a “guardrail”. What was the temperature in pre industrial times and how was it measured? Why is 2 degrees considered a significant threat? Why is it claimed that burning most remaining fossil fuels will raise the average global temperature by more than 2 degrees?

    4. What is the reasoning or evidence that a temperature increase of 3.7 degrees C above pre industrial levels would be catastrophic? What if all or most of the supposed warming occurred in the frozen Arctic region. Could that be a good thing?

    5. What is the evidence that continued emission of greenhouses gases will cause long lasting changes in the climate system? What about the decrease in atmospheric C14 following cessation of atmospheric nuclear tests, which points to a CO2 half life in the atmosphere of 10 years or less?”

    6. Which of the forecast changes is/are unfolding around the world? What about the many forecasts which have so far not materialised?

    Yours Sincerely
    Peter C

    182

  • #
    Ross

    Judith Curry has highlighted a new paper ( currently in draft form ) by Nassim Taleb ( writer of the “Black Swan”)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/11/nassim-taleb-strikes-again/

    It would appear to attack the integrity of modelling with multiple variables (ie. as used in climate models)

    It looks like one for the maths buffs !! I’d be interested to read an interpretation for the layman. Hopefully one of Jo’s readers/posters has the skill to do it for us.

    71

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    I see Prince Charlie is at it again.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/02/prince-charles-climate-change-rewire-global-economy

    I am starting to think that a Republic isn’t such a bad idea, as soon as his mum goes.

    100

    • #
      TdeF

      At least he means well. So does his mum. Practically they earn more than they cost and who hasn’t been to see their places? (sorry, palaces) The world would be poorer without them and you can be sure he speaks from a sense of personal responsibility. Many others of similar privilege say nothing and do nothing in the public interest. He is only wrong because he is badly advised even by the Royal Society, but it’s not the first time.

      72

    • #
      Dennis

      I see where you are coming from but please take note, the Communist Unionists that felt from the UK to Australia were anti-monarchy, wanted a republic here and spent their time sabotaging war efforts and our economy. The fact is that we are in a sovereign nation, our parliaments make laws, the highest court is the High Court of Australia, no longer referring matters to the British Privy Council.

      Our Queen is the Queen of the UK, when she is here she is our Queen, in between times the Governor General is her representative. Both have very limited powers.

      Yes, the British Royal Family cost UK taxpayers less than they earn directly and indirectly for the UK, and for member nations of the Commonwealth.

      Are they perfect? No.

      Do the socialists want to wreck our way of life and society? Yes.

      Does Australia have the best of bad governments? Yes.

      Is Australia a corrupt nation? Well, Yes, but too many Aussies would prefer to call Indonesia corrupt and ignore the Interim Report of the Trade Union Royal Commission into governance and corruption Interim Report, and televised witness statements such as the questioning of Bill Shorten.

      Does Australia need to consider becoming a republic? Or do we need to weed out deeply rooted union movement and Union Labor Party corruption?

      130

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Dennis:

        No quarrel with that. What I thought I was implying was that Charlie as Head would certainly be an advantage to those who want a Republic. And no, I wouldn’t trust any of our current politicians to remake the Constitution.
        Charlie may be badly advised, but so were the rest of us and we thought our way through the barrage of propaganda. He has got the leisure and resources to do the same, but never attempts to question the garbage that passes as Climate “Science”. Rather he uses the deference he gets in the UK to push the agenda.

        We would be better off if he were confined to his farm and his son given the top job. At least he seems to know something of the real world e.g. helicopters run on fuel, not pushed by unicorns.

        90

        • #
          Another Ian

          Graeme

          I’ve used this before

          Way back in BC when the ABC broadcast “My Word” the theme of one programme was “Charlie is my darling” – with the exception made for Lady Diana Spencer where “My darling is a Charlie”

          40

      • #
        James Murphy

        I am really not sure about Australia becoming a republic. The most cited arguments seem to be “we should be independent”, and “Our head of state shouldn’t be a foreigner”.

        In terms of day-to-day life, none of this makes any difference to, well, pretty much anyone, really, and when you see people like Malcolm Turnbull pushing hard for a republic, you know he must see an opportunity for vast personal gain from such an action – and he isn’t alone, I’m sure.

        If we want to change the way Australia is governed, the new system must be based on something which is an overall improvement on the one we have now, not change for the sake of change, or change just because monarchies are considered ‘evil’ by those with a penchant for all things politically left-wing.

        In this regard, cogent and coherent arguments must be made by those who want to change – it is their responsibility to develop and ‘sell’ a new system to everyone else. So far, they’ve failed utterly (in my opinion).

        60

        • #
          Dennis

          A story from the 1960s told to me by an Old Girl of an exclusive non-government girls school in Darlinghurst, Sydney. The daughter of the then Leader Of The ALP Opposition in Federal Parliament was a student and one morning when the school prefects were carrying out uniform inspections they caught the daughter wearing incorrect items. She was rather put out that they dared to criticise her, the daughter of an Old Girl. And she told them, for reasons known only to herself, that one day her father would be president.

          The girls thought she meant prime minister [wink].

          00

    • #
      handjive

      7 March 2009 (telegraph.co.uk):

      The Prince of Wales is to issue a stark warning that nations have “less than 100 months to act” to save the planet from irreversible damage due to climate change.
      ~ ~ ~
      Exactly 2 years to go. (or less)

      40

    • #
      Dariusz

      I always ask: would you prefer to have Julia, Krudd, any politician perhaps with the exception of Johnny be good or the Queen to be the head of state?
      Your choice.

      Don,t tell me about the independence, Australia is a sovereign state with full independence.
      The Queen is also incorruptible. Imagine again some trade unionist being a president of this country.
      Why change something that has been working for 200 years? Look at Russia: killed most of the educated and elevated peasants.

      70

    • #
      ScotsmaninUtah

      Graeme No.3
      I like your idea of a republic ..

      I firmly believe that in the 21st Century the idea of a Monarchy seems a little antiquated, It’s a bit like having a hereditary “Postman” :o

      01

      • #
        Graeme No. 3

        UtahScot: it’s not my idea, just inevitable.
        The problem is how to keep politicians out of the top job.

        The recent history of the UK (since 1830) is that the Royals have been fairly good at the job, especially the last. ( My favourite is William 4 who never expected to get the job, except for the last 2years. When woken up and told he was now King, he said he was going back to bed, because he’d never slept with a Queen.)

        The other problem is the “baggage” associated with royalty is the aristocracy. Centuries of breeding for acquisitiveness have left a residue of rent seekers as shown by the number of them with their snouts deep in the AGW subsidies trough. Still, Australia is infested with types like Flannery and Karoly so we can’t feel superior.

        10

        • #
          ScotsmaninUtah

          Graeme No. 3

          …going back to bed, because he’d never slept with a Queen

          This made my day ! it is very funny.. :D thx

          I can only wish Australia well and hope that it eventually sees commonsense and divests itself from “the commonwealth”.

          00

    • #

      I wrote on this earlier.

      Were it not for nepotism, the man-child wouldn’t even get a job interview. Not even as a climate scientist.

      40

      • #
        ScotsmaninUtah

        Bernd
        thank you for the link and I read the piece. I have to admit even if “Prince Charles” were not an oaf as described, I would still be of the opinion that the “aristocracy” has had it’s day. It is time to move on…

        00

        • #

          Show me a nation that’s been established for more than a “generation” (30 years), that does not have an aristocracy … de facto or otherwise.

          Why change a system of government simply to replace an aristocracy with another one? Doesn’t make sense unless you want to be part of the new aristocracy.

          30

          • #
            ScotsmaninUtah

            Bernd,
            You are right , many nations have grown up with a Monarchy, but choice of who represents you as a nation is important.

            00

    • #
      Annie

      What? And end up with the incredible cost and pointless razamatazz of an Obama?

      00

  • #
    TdeF

    I find it amazing that a conference of public servant Ecologists, the “World’s best minds” was deciding the future of the planet. Would that as much effort was spent on the problems in the Middle East or Ukraine or Greece.

    So an observational science like ecology (or zoology or botany) has our best minds? To quote Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by the late and much missed Douglas Adams

    “These tales of impending doom allowed the Golgafrinchans to rid themselves of an entire useless third of their population. The story was that they would build three Ark ships. Into the A ship would go all the leaders, scientists and other high achievers. The C ship would contain all the people who made things and did things, and the B ark would hold everyone else, such as hairdressers and telephone sanitizers. They sent the B ship off first, but of course the other two-thirds of the population stayed on the planet and lived full, rich and happy lives until they were all wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone.”

    You could add ecologists to Ship B. They are dedicated to proving Charles Darwin’s Survival of the Fittest was wrong.

    80

  • #
    Raven

    News just in:

    Clean Energy Finance Corporation directed by Government to stop funding wind farms

    The $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) has been told to stop investing in wind power projects, in a move the Federal Opposition has described as a “dramatic escalation” in the Government’s war on wind farms.


    Oh . . that’s going to leave a mark. :)

    220

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      The Government should invoke The Precautionary Principle – unless wind turbines are proved harmless to humans AND wild life then they can’t be subsidised. No-one would build them then.

      180

    • #
      Peter C

      That is 10 BILLION DOLLARS that we still need to get back because we do not want to pay!
      MAGNA CARTA. A Tax revolt.

      30

    • #
      Raven

      Exactly, Peter C.
      Oh, and in a related article from The Guardian.

      But it has emerged the government’s investment directive also applies to small-scale solar technology like rooftop panels that generate up to 100 kilowatts of power.

      Hey . . a twofer. :)

      70

    • #
      Yonniestone

      A war on wind farms, about time the endangered birds of Australia got some support in their quest to exist.

      Wind farms will save us from imaginary molecular reactions but endanger the species they attempt to protect, green logic at it’s best worst.

      50

  • #

    To illustrate how the Green mentality operates, in our township, the feelings against coal seam gas (CSG), and any form of mining, is simply black and white. It’s evil and that’s it.

    In the last couple of weeks the government has been undertaking a seismic survey throughout the region as part of a regular review. The region is prone to earthquakes, and so the geological survey teams have been placing markers and then seismic detectors along all the major roads as part of the survey.

    Because of the hysteria over CSG, some numbnuts have perceived this as being part of CSG exploration, as there have been survey licences issued, and taken it upon themselves to not only damage the seismic equipment, but also attack the crews undertaking the survey. This has resulted in police involvement (arrests), security guards being brought in and whatnot.

    So who does the ‘Coal and CSG Free’ activists blame for the vandalism and attacks on workers? The government, for not doing enough to let ‘concerned’ citizens know what’s going on. They effectively condone violence and vandalism because they weren’t advised, to their satisfaction, as to what was going on.

    What is it with these green groups?

    131

    • #
      Dennis

      On The Bolt Report today, a segment of ABC Q&A and a Greens person, female, answering what problems Greece suffers. She answered that, wait for it, cuts will not create a better economy.

      Tasmania experiment?

      Greek reality.

      92

    • #
      gai

      They are vandals and criminals with a thin layer of ‘Politically Correct’ to make them feel ‘morally superior’

      The whole ‘environmental movement’ has completely corrupted a couple generations of kids. Some recover their senses but others go on to become parasites living off the next generation they con.

      30

  • #
    GrahamP

    The sun, rather than CO2, as driver of the earth’s climate has always seemed a more plausible theory to me.

    It seems the BoM would have agreed with me in the past.

    “Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology was one of the first government agencies in the world to publish reports linking solar activity and climate. In 1925 the Commonwealth Government’s Bureau of Meteorology published a report linking the features of Sunspot Cycle No 14 and Australia’s climate at that time”

    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/MackeyonFairbridge.pdf

    Maybe it is time for the BoM to have a look in their archives!

    111

  • #
    el gordo

    Solar connection with STR, its an oldie but a goodie.

    ‘Atmospheric circulation in the southern mid-latitudes is dominated by strong circum-Antarctic zonal west winds (ZWW) over the latitude range of 35 to 60° S. These winds exhibit coherent seasonal and interannual variability, which has been related both to Antarctic (e.g. polar ice) and low-latitude climate (e.g. El Nino – southern oscillation) parameters.

    ‘Historical and recent studies suggest that, at its northern margins, variability in the ZWW also has a marked quasi-decadal component. Analysis of sea-level pressure and rainfall data for the Australian region, South Africa and South America confirms frequent indications of quasi-decadal variability in parameters associated with the ZWW, which appears to be inphase around the hemisphere.

    ‘This variation broadly correlates with the sunspot cycle, and specifically appears to reflect sunspot-correlated, seasonally modulated shifts in the latitude range each year of the sub-tropical ridge over eastern Australia.

    ‘Sunspot-correlated variability in the southern mid-latitudes is likely to have substantial effects on temperate climate and ecology and is consistent with recent models of solar effects on upper atmospheric climate, though the mechanisms that link these to winds and rainfall at sea level remain obscure.’

    RONALD E. THRESHER, CSIRO Marine Research, 2002

    71

    • #
      el gordo

      … and the STR is traveling too far south for this time of year, its in a summer pattern. Seems odd, so I’m calling it a southern hemisphere cooling signal.

      31

      • #
        • #
          el gordo

          Apologies, sub tropical ridge, the high pressure belt.

          The cyclists have been saying for some time that the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO) should have gone negative by now.

          00

          • #

            sub tropical ridge, the high pressure belt.

            That’s the bit where the Earth’s rotation reverses. Looking down from the South Pole, the Earth rotates clockwise. From the North Pole, it’s anti-clockwise.

            Where do I nominate as a Greens candidate for the Senate? ;-)

            20

  • #

    Here’s another one:

    Pope Francis does not just criticise the excesses of global capitalism. He compares them to the “dung of the devil.” He does not simply argue that systemic “greed for money” is a bad thing. He calls it a “subtle dictatorship” that “condemns and enslaves men and women.”

    http://www.theage.com.au/world/pope-francis-excoriates-global-capitalism-as-subtle-dictatorship-20150712-giag56.html

    Isn’t the Vatican, and the Catholic church in general, one of the wealthiest organisations in the world?

    Capitalism has lifted people from poverty, not condemned them to poverty. And doesn’t his tirade on global warming and what should be done, if followed, condemn millions to ongoing poverty and death?

    What is going on?

    150

    • #
      Dennis

      The Pope sillycall

      70

    • #
      gai

      The Pope is a Socialist and is on board the UN plan for a socialist world government.

      There is a bit of a doubt as to whether the last Pope resigned voluntarily or was forced out. (I have the links some where but I am not going to look them up.)

      30

      • #
        John Smith

        the Pope may be a socialist, but …
        I’m not sure ‘socialism’ is the problem
        an antiquated term I think
        I’m wondering if a new power structure is developing that we can’t see clearly ’cause we don’t have a name for and it is observed only through it’s actions
        Could one in the early Middle Ages have observed Feudalism and named it?
        Was Feudalism created by a sinister cabal or did it simply evolve as
        powerful people became aware of the new paradigm and began to use it?
        what we have today is not Socialism or Capitalism as we once knew it
        what’s threatened is the structures that allow ordinary folk a say in the matter
        I think it started in Davos and the EU
        the Great Brickyards for the Road to Hell

        10

        • #
          gai

          I think the powerful when threatened by an evolving middle class in the 1700s made moves to get the ‘Great Unwashed’ back under their control. link

          We are seeing the culmination of those plans.

          10

  • #
    Dennis

    New coal mine state and federal approved, Chinese owners, outrage by black soil plain farmers.

    Hang on, the mine is not permitted to mine the black soil plain.

    So the farmers claim their water supplies will suffer, despite studies to the contrary. But the mine agreement includes the cost of restoring water supplies IF there was a problem unforeseen.

    How many farmers recognise the environmental damage farming caused since white settlement?

    I hasten to add that farmers have improved their management of the land.

    Will they acknowledge that economic prosperity of our nation rests with many areas of economic progress, farming and mining and others?

    101

    • #
      Glen Michel

      I came from this country years ago and well before it became the broadacre agricultural land it is today. 50 feet of A horizon topsoil.Inexhaustable. The only concern for me is the Mooki River,but in reality a lot of this river system has been compromised by afformentioned agriculture. True,it is hill country being mined- and subject to strong control.Then again the thin edge of the wedge presents itself and we end up like the Hunter.

      20

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal in Oz

        Do the aquifers pass under the proposed mine site, or are they completely contained under the plains?
        Cheers,
        Dave B

        00

        • #
          Glen Michel

          No doubt they do.The country to the east of the Mooki basin is fold mountains and the aquifers dip down into the basin.The impervious layer( there may be deeper layer- thus aquifers) is down at 30 – 50 feet.My appreciation of the hydrology is probably dated.Suffice to say the only concern is with stream and groundwater contamination.Trust the experts on this? Hard call.

          00

  • #
    Scott

    This post is terrific.
    Remember that in Communist countries, the elections almost always show 97% consensus for the dictator.
    I doubt I’m the only one to see the similarity…..:-)))

    60

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Just saw the 9 news, with them joining forces with the anti-Abbott sneer squad over the Government’s decision not to subsidise more wind farms. They said he is threatening Australia’s lifestyle. No explanation of how, of course. I switched to 9 because 7 was so bad. I am just about finished with TV news. It’s absolute crap.

    120

    • #
      Peter C

      Tony fronting UP!

      Good, but not enough explanation. Why are Wind turbines bad? He has to actually sell his idea or policy. That is not happening nearly enough. He has support but not from Greg Hunt. Should he go?

      In the vacuum of ideas the Greens can still sell their ridiculous philosophy.

      70

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    Over a Bishop Hill I note a correspondent referring to a certain UK institution as the “Wet Office”

    On this theme Flannery and Co might be the “Dry Office”

    Others might chime in with more

    30

  • #
    Carbon500

    We’re endlessly told that we must ‘trust the science’, and that we face climatic meltdown due to human CO2 emissions. In other words, those who are apparently knowledgeable experts must be believed.
    Should they indeed? Here’s a tale of an expert who certainly wasn’t to be trusted – as I found out!
    My teeth are a tribute to the dental surgeon’s art. Root fillings, amalgam and crowns abound. Not a single tooth has been untouched in my 66 years on Earth. During that time, I’ve had quite a few dental surgeons work on me, so I have a good grasp of what to expect as a patient.
    Some 25 years ago, a new dentist was assigned to me. A friendly young fellow, he saw me for a check-up every six months for a couple of years or so and during my time with him told me that all was well.
    But I felt that something wasn’t right. He’d look around my mouth with a mirror, perhaps prod a tooth or two gently, and that was it. His predecessors spent much more time on me, looking at each tooth in detail, prodding and scraping more extensively. I’m not a dentist of course, and my teeth felt OK, so I kept my darkest suspicions to myself – until I had them confirmed.
    A large filling had dropped out of a lower molar, and the crater was obvious – it was huge, but I wasn’t in any pain. My check-up was due, so I decided to test my dentist. “How are you? Is everything alright?” he asked in his usual pleasant manner. “Oh yes, I think so.” I replied.
    He looked around my mouth – and said that everything looked good, and that nothing needed to be done. My suspicions confirmed! I immediately moved another practice, where a first class dentist looked after my teeth for many years until his retirement.
    Am I a dentist? No, of course not. But I knew myself well enough, and it turned out that I couldn’t trust this expert.
    So why should we, the public, place our trust in inadequate scientists?

    90

  • #
    Carbon500

    Hot on the heels of my last spot, here’s more.
    I’ve just logged onto my email server, and found this heading on the screen display:
    “Updated – 16:10 09/07 – Due to the extreme weather across the country we are experiencing higher call volumes than normal. If you have a problem then use the Service Centre first to diagnose the issue.”
    Absolute rubbish. ‘Extreme weather’!
    A rainstorm, high winds, a hot or cold spell, all of these now seemingly ‘extreme weather’.
    I’m curious as to where in the UK this so-called extreme weather is to be found.
    The reality is doubtless that it’s either more climate nonsense being touted, or that somebody can’t speak English properly – or both!

    51

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Antarctic vortexxx at work here.We won’t hear the end of this little number.Its a media meme now.Prepare for thy doom!

      10

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Ah well the notch is actually inside the sun spinning around at an 11 year cycle

    10

  • #
    • #
      gai

      I really really did not want to see that just after I ate breakfast….

      30

    • #
      Rick Will

      If you follow through on the discussion of those papers you eventually get to a question and answer session with a co-author of the most influential paper. One of the answers is a compelling with regard to settled science:
      QUESTION
      CB: Why do we still have a large range for climate sensitivity?
      ANSWER
      SM: One of the most challenging tasks of climate science is to determine the sensitivity of climate. It is often defined as the response of the global mean surface temperature to the doubling of atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, given sufficient time. Unfortunately, there is a large spread among the sensitivity of climate models. The spread is attributable in no small part to the parameterisation of cloud process that has become increasingly detailed, introducing many parameters that are difficult to determine either theoretically or observationally. In order to solve this problem, it is desirable to constrain the parameterisation of cloud macroscopically, using satellite observation of the radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere.

      20

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    “Every Sunday is a CO2ing day… “

    Hope everyone is having a great weekend, here in Utah it is beautiful sunny day, blue skies and that means only one thing …

    Sunday BBQ :D

    50

  • #

    Good news for the polar bears (to take your mind off the heat!):

    http://polarbearscience.com/2015/07/08/sea-ice-breakup-update-high-ice-coverage-just-about-everywhere-even-hudson-bay/

    Posted a few days ago but not much has changed since:

    Hudson Bay, with almost 50% of the bay still covered in ice, has the third highest coverage this week since 1992 (after 2009 and 2004); Davis Strait has the highest coverage since 1992; and Foxe Basin and Baffin Bay have the highest coverage since 1998.

    For this week [of 9 July], the Beaufort Sea has the second highest coverage since 2006 (after 2013), and more ice than was present in 1971, 1982, 1987, 1988 and 1998 – among others.

    Published data shows that most polar bears of Western Hudson Bay traditionally come ashore in July, but this year it might be late July or even August.

    [charts and maps shown]

    Dr. Susan Crockford, zoologist

    160

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Any response or feedback from alarmist sources regarding this frightening development?

      10

  • #
    Brian from Bondi

    Stephan Lewandowsky and Nancy Oreskes (and three others) have published a paper together.

    Here is a review article by Andy West. Things like the “pause” or the “hiatus” are claimed to be cultural artifacts, not climate science. “The pause” is just an appeal to cientific uncertainty by climate change deniers.

    Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community

    http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/03/a-key-admission-regarding-climate-memes/#more-19208

    This link was posted last week, but I am just posting it again to draw attention to the two authors.

    50

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    FYI

    “The BBC is likely to be told to stop chasing audience figures and return to public service broadcasting in the largest shake up of its remit in a generation. The government is beginning consultations on how to scale back the corporation and rethink its funding structure in order to return the BBC to its original principles.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/12/imperialist-bbc-to-be-cut-down-to-size-as-tories-demand-reform/

    I wonder if there is a seismograph on ABC headquarters?

    90

  • #
  • #
    Rick Will

    Do a little more correlation of changing CO2 and temperature.

    The large annual ripple on the Mauna Lau CO2 atmospheric concentration raises an interesting question:
    https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.png
    It is apparent that this natural variation is more significant than any other underlying trend. The decline is 4ppm in 3 months so if that trend continued the CO2 content would disappear in 25 years – a very power affect. The cause is apparently due to season growth and decay of biomass.

    Correlating the monthly change in CO2 at Mauna Lau with monthly temperate in the northern hemisphere yields a significant result:
    http://www.rickwill.bigpondhosting.com/CO2Delta_TempNH.pdf
    The best correlation coefficient of 0.695 occurs when the CO2 lags temperature by 6 months.

    This process is reasonably well known and shows how strongly temperature can affect CO2 in the atmosphere. Anyone who has seen deciduous trees and resulting leaf litter can probably relate to this. Annual leaf litter is only a small proportion of the decaying biomass. The total organic carbon in soils is greater than the amount of carbon already in the atmosphere so essentially a very large source/sink that can vary over time.

    The rate of decay of annual leaf litter and longer term biomass in soils and marshland is dependent on temperature. In fact one of the proposed feedbacks with global warming is that increased rate of decay of biomass will cause increase in CO2 to accelerate.

    Applying a slightly different view – what if the global temperature were to rise due to some other cause – for example solar activity. Surely it is reasonable to conclude that the accelerated rate of decay would cause rising levels of CO2. There is reasonable agreement that global temperature has risen progressively albeit with ups and downs for the last 400 years. Is it not reasonable to conclude that CO2 would simply rise as a result of the rising temperature working toward a new equilibrium at a higher level. This natural process is clearly very powerful as the annual variation shows and is strongly correlated with temperature albeit lagging it by 6 months. So much so that the temperature drop can cause a significant fall in CO2 over a few months despite ever increasing output from fossil fuels.

    42

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Hello again, Rick.
      I see not much has changed since last week. You’re still ignoring conservation of mass.
      I realise people new to the issue are entering the fray all the time, but you’re bordering on [snip] now.

      See I tried to show you the facts and the logic, but you didn’t understand a single thing I said. The facts were wasted on you. So when facts and reason don’t work, now we go to the second stage, belittlement.

      [Please keep it reasonably civil. Thanks.] AZ

      You’ll like the third stage much better, that’s where everyone with a brain just ignores you. But you will still have plenty of companions to talk with, such as TdeF, Richard, Robert, bart on WUWT, Stephen Wilde, and our host. You can all violate conservation of mass together, like a little Wishful Thinking Club for people who believe their car brakes drive the car forward.

      Get smart, Rick. Apply conservation of mass to the only measurements of carbon depletion and accumulation that are known.

      00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Here’s some more food for thought.
      http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
      See figure 7.
      You can see that this isotope argument also reaches the same conclusion. However I don’t rely on the isotope argument because it makes more assumptions and is more difficult to understand than the conservation of mass principle.

      00

      • #
        Rick Will

        That paper only discusses the partitioning of net sequestration of CO2 between land and ocean.

        Figure 7 shows how much it varies due to temperature, ranging from -1 to 5.2Gt/yr. That supports the correlations I have made.

        00

      • #
        Rick Will

        In a previous post regarding the mass balance this was written:
        Procedure
        Just apply conservation of mass to the measurements. We wish to deduce whether Nature was a net emitter or a net absorber of carbon during any given year, and by how much. So we set the total of changes of the repositories to be zero, then calculate Nature’s change in carbon content based on the measured changes in the other two repositories (Air and Industry). Using 2004 figures in Gt of carbon : 3.4 + -8.8 + N = 0 ; therefore N = 0 – 3.4 + 8.8 = +5.4. Nature comes out as positive, its content increased over that year, therefore a net absorber, therefore not a net source.

        I cannot argue with nature being a net absorber in the chosen year. However the paper you linked to; then referred to figure 7, shows a high temperature dependance on natural uptake or release of CO2. It is the temperature dependence of CO2 in the atmosphere that I am correlating.

        The climate models take doubling of atmospheric CO2 as a given and then predict warming based on that. They then extrapolate warming due to the CO2 increase from their calibration period. CO2 increase is assumed to have positive feedback on CO2 release so is one of the amplifying factors. My understanding it that sequestering is taken as a fixed value. In fact, while the anthropogenic release is increasing exponentially the rate of sequestering is also increasing thereby reducing the rate of rise in the atmosphere. Also more CO2 is sequestered when the temperature is lower.

        I have no doubt that ongoing anthropogenic release will cause a higher equilibrium level of atmospheric CO2 for a given temperature but that does not mean that atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise as is the basic assumption of all climate modelling. Salby’s latest work puts limits on the maximum possible CO2 rather than making any suggestion that all the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is due to natural causes.

        Salby challenges the basic assumption and wide held beliefs that burning fossil fuel will cause an ever increasing rise in CO2 levels. The majority of people conclude a 1 to 1 dependence between burning fossil fuels and increasing CO2 in the atmosphere without question. All climate models assessing CO2 sensitivity start with the basic premise of CO2 doubling. Can that ever happen with the globe cooling and the constraints on fossil fuel extraction?

        00

  • #
    el gordo

    Hooray!

    ‘A directive banning the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) from investing in existing wind technology will also apply to small-scale solar projects, a move that will effectively throttle the industry, the Australian Solar Council said.’

    Guardian

    50

  • #
    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      As it will continue to do, on average, for at least the next decade.

      The cycles are known.

      Abe

      11

  • #
  • #

    ABC “News” put a spin on the story about ending wind farm subsidies last night. It went something like:

    The Abbott government is set to block taxpayer investment in wind power

    Almost like Pravda; except more annoying.

    ABC is clearly working on a definition of the word “investment” of which I was previously unaware.

    70

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Bernd Felsche,

      When the government allocates money to fossil fuels it’s called a subsidy.
      When that same government allocates money to renewables it’s called investment.

      Makes perfect sense.

      Not!

      Abe

      50

    • #

      I’m at a complete loss as to how someone hasn’t argued the case that wind power is such a failure at doing what it’s supposed to do.

      I started doing this back in March of 2008, and it was heart in my mouth stuff to put it out there that wind was so incapable of generating power on the scale required. I searched and searched, and no one was even mentioning it, anywhere. I did, and I kept thinking that surely someone will come in and figuratively speaking, shoot down what I was saying, in other words, prove conclusively that I was wrong. Then, chastened, I’d just drop it all.

      However, the more I looked, the more I saw I was correct.

      Then my thinking changed, and now I was certain that someone else, someone with way more clout than I could ever wish for, would start saying the same things.

      But no one has ever even mentioned the subject.

      They just go on and on about how great wind power is. There’s never one thing said against wind power, other than the health aspects and the threat to wildlife, and as important as they are, they are of less importance than the fact that it fails as a power generating source, and hey, even those who mention health and wildlife are roundly laughed at anyway.

      Now, I can understand the media not bothering to find out, because it’s so far over their heads that they would never even touch the subject, let alone get approval to actually publish it.

      I can also understand Politicians also not touching it, because, again, it’s over their heads also.

      These two groups, the media and the politicians I can understand not mentioning it, because if they did, someone would question them, and then they’d look foolish when they couldn’t go on with it as to why it’s such a failure, so, out of fear of not wanting to look stupid, they don’t say anything.

      But surely there must be someone out there who can actually have the clout to explain it correctly so the people can actually be aware of how it is such a failure.

      Because, once it actually does get out there, there’s going to be an awful lot of really angry people, wanting to know why they weren’t told all this.

      Now, it’s gotten so big, it’s almost impossible to effectively shoot it down.

      I know I’ve tried. If I do get anything put up as a comment, very rare indeed, it just gets laughed out of existence.

      People incorrectly assume I only say it out of support for any Conservative political party viewpoint. They cannot (more likely will not) understand the engineering points I make, so their only comeback is that political one, and the complete belief in the (bad) information they do believe.

      Hey, I don’t care. Water off a duck’s back to me, because I know my facts, but the sheeple see the replies and listen to that ….. and from then on, it’s me who is the crackpot.

      It’s all well and good for me to explain it here where people really do want to know, can see the point, and understand it, but until the wider audience of ALL the people see it, then I’m just preaching to the already converted.

      When the real truth of the matter about wind power really does get out there, then there’s going to be an awful lot of really really angry people.

      Tony.

      80

      • #
        Robber

        Tony, how about developing a specific business case showing all the costs and benefits from an investor viewpoint for a wind farm in a free market?
        Then show the costs and benefits with the government RET in place that guarantees sales of all electricity provided.
        And finally show the impact of this on the overall electricity market that ends up with the impact on consumers.

        30

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Robber,

          Basically, if I understand you correctly, you’re refering to a cost-benefit analysis on renewables.

          That was supposed to be the mandate for The Consensus Center at UWA which was shot down by an irrational emotional plea not to allow the center to be put into operation.

          While your heart is in the right place, I doubt that one man, even Tony, would have the time and/or resources to produce a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the type and scope required to actually make a difference.

          As Tony himself has said:

          Tony wrote:

          Then my thinking changed, and now I was certain that someone else, someone with way more clout than I could ever wish for, would start saying the same things.

          But no one has ever even mentioned the subject.

          No. This type of work needs to be done by the government. That’s what they’re paid to do. That’s what they were given a mandate for when they were voted into office.

          If they, the government, want to put some law or policy into effect, then it’s incumbent upon them, as the elected representatives of the taxpayers who sweat and toil day in and day out to pay for those services the government is obligated to provide, to show cause as to the fiscal viability, practicality, and feasibility of that law or policy.

          Have we all forgoten so quickly all those people who gave their lives fighting wars to rid ourselves of despotic, top-down, oppressive govenrments?

          Are we to allow these forms of goverment to rule over us once again?

          Did our ancestors all just die in vain?

          Abe

          00

          • #
            Robber

            Thanks Just-A-Guy. While it would be wonderful if the Government and the public service were presenting us with all the facts, the reality is that they only do what is politically expedient. I’ve tried asking Greg Hunt for the numbers on how much of our electricity price rises (averaging 8% pa) are due to the RET target, and he gives the politician’s non-answer.
            I’m a great believer in the power of crowdsourcing to uncover the facts and do the required analysis. As an engineer/analyst I’m happy to collaborate with others like Tony and yourself to peer review a business case or put together a hypothetical business case for a wind farm to show how the investors make money. But then extend that to show the impact of that new electricity source on the network and how AEMO balances supply and demand and the associated costs. And that finally results in the end consumer paying higher prices.

            10

      • #
        Nick Perrin

        From a long time lurker. Your tech input is of great interest and there are many others interested I suspect.
        I consider the media are either incompetant or have an agenda that is not in the public interest. I consider wind power engineering is being politically ignored so the issue now is the politics behind all aspects of AGW.

        Now a question: I have been very lazy and not yet researched this type of study.
        ? In the life cycle of a wind farm of, say 100 1 MW turbines, What is the CO2 released from factory build to end of life recycle components and remove concrete base?

        Your pointers to studies and thoughts please.

        Thanks again for your input and please continue.

        Nick.

        41

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Nick Perrin,

          My reply above to Robber was actually meant for you.

          Abe

          00

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Nick Perrin,

          I was under the impression that Tony had done those calculations but it seems I was mistaken. I know I’ve seen the numbers and they don’t add up. Once you take into consideration the cost of producing the raw materials, the cost of transporting those materials, the actual cost of construction and maintenance costs, and compare them to the same costs with reference to coal fired electrical generators, and convert both costs into dollars per Mw delivered, renewables are way more expensive.

          And let’s not forget the amount of acreage of land needed per Mw. Land that also needs to be ‘prepared’ for the construction of renewables. The cost of the land and the cost of preparig the land have to be considered in the equation.

          Then there’s the two ‘hidden’ costs most people are not even aware of. The cost of adapting the grid to accomodate the intermitent power generation of renewables and the cost of laying all the extra power lines necessary to connect renewables to the grid.

          All of these costs are subsidised in one way or another by taxpayers thereby increasing their electrical bills.

          And . . .

          Someone out there is making a whole lot of money from all those subsidies. All for a non-existing problem.

          In the comments to the link above, there was also a link to an article at WUWT along similar lines.

          Wind turbine payback period claimed to be within 8 months.

          Abe

          00

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Nick Perrin,

          This Just In

          How Much CO2 Gets Emitted to Build a Wind Turbine?

          From the article:

          “The ONLY justification for wind power – . . . – is the claim that it reduces CO2 emissions in the electricity sector.

          . . .

          But – even before the blades start spinning – the average wind farm clocks up thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions: “embedded” in thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete. So, every wind farm starts with its CO2 abatement ledger in the negative. Here’s Andy’s Rant with a breakdown of just how much CO2 goes to build a giant fan.”

          Andy’s ‘rant’ is more an indictment on the false claims that wind turbines will reduce the amount of co2 released into the atmosphere.

          H/T to David Maddison who posted the link to this article in a comment on another thread.

          Abe

          00

          • #
            Nick Perrin

            How much co2 to build a wind turbine …

            Thanks abe – Just-a-guy,
            A good reference I need to study. Sorry about the delay. I hope my reply gets through.

            Nick.

            10

      • #

        Lots of the public are wise to it, Tony.

        Politicians who haven’t noticed are past their “BEST BY” date.

        00

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Bernd Felsche,

          Tony wrote:

          I’m at a complete loss as to how someone hasn’t argued the case that wind power is such a failure at doing what it’s supposed to do.

          You replied:

          Lots of the public are wise to it, Tony.

          Linking to a Breitbart article that states:

          . . . Mr Abbott has sent a clear message to the mendicant green renewable energy sector that . . .he found the massive turbines “utterly offensive”. . . and that . . . he finds turbines “visually awful”.

          Apples and oranges. Tony is asking about wind power’s ability to perform, Breitbart is talking about the aesthetics of wind farms.

          Yes. There is mention of an investigation into the health impacts of wind farms but that’s just putting the horse before the cart. If they won’t do what they’re claimed to be able to do, why waste your time and energy on the health impacts?

          First, let’s see if they’ll perform. If they won’t perform, then why build them?

          Plain and simple.

          Abe

          00

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        TonyfromOz,

        You wrote:

        I’m at a complete loss as to how someone hasn’t argued the case that wind power is such a failure at doing what it’s supposed to do.

        So am I. (see my reply to Bernd).

        I can’t for the life of me comprehend why the point I quoted you making isn’t the one single most prominent point being addressed.

        In the form of a question:

        Can renewables do what they’re claimed to be able to do?

        I know from following your comments over the last six months that the answer is:

        No, they can’t.

        Unfortunately, I didn’t bookmark the relevant comments where you’ve already done the math to show why they can’t. If you have these comments bookmarked, maybe you could post the links.

        IIRC, you’ve also done an analysis of how from raw materials to decommission, wind turbine and solar panels actually produce more co2 than they will ever mitigate. Am I right?

        Inquisitive people, like Nick Perrin, want to know.

        Abe

        00

        • #

          Abe,

          thanks for your comments here.

          No, I haven’t done analysis on the CO2 savings from start raw materials to decommissioning.

          I just concentrate on their inability to generate electrical power on the scale required, the time required, and the life cycle required, and I also mention the huge cost by comparison.

          Wind power has a Capacity Factor, as do all power plants of any sort. Now, while that capacity factor is looked at as the ratio of power delivered to the maximum theoretical power, it can also be viewed as a time relationship also.

          Take a wind plant of 100 towers, each topped with a nacelle with a 2.5MW generator. The theoretical maximum power (the Nameplate) is then 250MW. It has been shown that across the whole overall fleet of wind power that it can operate at a capacity factor of 30%, and here I’m quoting best case, as some Countries are running as low as 15% to 20%, but for the sake of the exercise here, I’ll use the best case of that 30%.

          The Industry Standard uses total power delivery across a whole year. Now, while power delivery is quoted in KiloWattHours, here I’ll just use that Nameplate and take the 30% of that. So, across the whole year the wind plant will only deliver its Nameplate multiplied by 30%. So it has delivered the equivalent power of only 30% of 250MW, or only 75MW.

          Now, where the time comes in, we use a whole year for the calculation. That 30% Capacity Factor can now be expressed as the wind plant delivering its full power for only 30% of the time. (the full year) Hence, when taken back from a year to a day, then that is the equivalent of an average of only 7.2 hours a day. Now, while there are days when wind delivers a lot, then, using that average, there must also be days when wind delivers very little, and that’s why we use the average of that 7.2 hours.

          Even so, those 7.2 hours are never set in stone. They can be any hours at all, at any time, an hour here a couple of hours there, so no one ever knows when that time will be. I could be when power is needed during the Peak period (7AM to 10PM) or it could be (as is often the case) during the night, when it is not really needed.

          See the point here. No one knows for certain when it will be delivering and when it won’t.

          On the other hand, we have (an equivalent) 250MW coal fired unit. While ever coal is being fed into the furnace, it generates its maximum 250MW ….. ALL THE TIME. That coal fired unit operates at its peak continuously, and because of its nature cannot be ramped up and down at a moments notice, so they just keep running it at that maximum, all the time. The only down time is for scheduled maintenance, and that’s why (large scale, 2000MW+) usually have a Capacity Factor up around 85%, with some of the most recent USC plants in China operating at around 92%. One plant here in Queensland, Stanwell, has the World record for run time, almost three years of continuous operation delivering its full power for all that time, constantly running at maximum.

          Gas fired plants can be run up and down at short notice, so they are used during those peak periods to supply what is needed as consumption increases during the Peak periods, some for many hours and some for just a few hours. They too supply their maximum while ever the gas is being burned in the turbine driving the generator.

          When two thirds of every Watt of power is required absolutely for 24 hours of every day, then a plant which can only supply power on an average 7.2 hours a day, hours we never can be certain of, then wind power cannot do that.

          So, 30% of its maximum Nameplate, or 30% of the time. Either way, it can never equal what coal fired power can do.

          Those coal fired plants can just hum along all the time, supplying what they do. Wind plants will come in and drop out, who knows when, and when they drop out, then the only backup is Natural Gas plants which can start at short notice. So when they drop out, a call goes out to the NG plant to start up, and when the wind picks up, they tell them to shut down. That is not by any definition efficient. The coal fired plant just keeps running all the time.

          THAT is where my concentration lies, in pointing that out, with respect to wind power.

          You cannot run a Country on a here and there basis. There has to be certainty, both in time, and also in the total power which can be delivered.

          I know I go on at times, but something like this is what is important, and until people can see even the basics of that, then Wind power will just get away with the spin that they put out that they can do what is required ….. when quite patently they can’t.

          As to cost, well that evidently does not seem to be much of a problem these days, as people will pay whatever, and not be all that concerned about it. Having said that, the meme is that the cost of wind is cheap, which is not true, and that it is getting cheaper, which is also not true. So, cost is almost incidental really, while that actual power delivery is of the utmost importance.

          Wind power will never say any of this, with relationship to anything I have mentioned here.

          The same applies for both versions of solar power, Solar PV and Concentrating Solar Power with respect to actual power delivery.

          I can say all of this, but it means nothing unless the general public are told, and no one is telling them.

          Tony.

          20

          • #
            Robber

            Tony, to take your analysis a stage further.
            What are the capital and operating costs of that 100 tower 250MW wind farm?
            I found one US reference to capital costs of $1940/kW equals A$2600 giving capital cost of A$650 million. (Probably will cost more given Australian labour costs)
            At 30% capacity factor, that wind farm could produce 657,000 MWh per year.
            With a feed in tariff of 8 cents/kWhr (the current solar feed in tariff) that gives revenue of $52.6 million per year.
            From that we need to deduct operating costs. Any estimate? Let’s say $5M per year.
            I assume there are good depreciation allowances, but let’s assume the equipment is written off over 20 years, so an annual charge of $32.5M.
            So my before tax income is $15M, after tax $10M. Not a great return on my $650 million investment.
            Further analysis welcomed.

            10

            • #

              Robber,

              thanks for your Comments.

              It’s easy to go by what are only basic numbers for costings when it comes to wind plants. Keep in mind a lot of this is modeling only, and in most cases, they attempt to keep the numbers as low as possible to make it seem like they can compete.

              I like to go on the actual cost of recently constructed or proposed plants.

              For example, the (now failed proposal) King Island wind Plant for Tasmania was going to be 500MW Nameplate and was proposed to cost $2.2 Billion, which works out at $4400/KW.

              Anything and everything is done to keep those modeled costs low for wind, and then anything and everything possible is done to increase the coast for coal fired power.

              It’s the only way they can (attempt to) compete.

              Tony.

              20

              • #
                Robber

                Tony, what I’m trying to find an answer to is: At what price must a wind farm sell into the grid (without subsidies) to get a return on investment and how does that compare with a modern coal plant?
                From the numbers in my earlier post, it didn’t seem that 8 cents/kWhr would be enough, and you are suggesting that the capital costs may be nearly double what I had assumed.

                10

              • #

                Robber,

                okay then, let’s do an exercise, and this will be based on actual recent costings.

                Let’s compare a new state of the art UltraSuperCritical (USC) coal fired plant and an equivalent Nameplate for Wind.

                Currently in China, they are (regularly) constructing these new plants for $2 Billion, but Chinese costs are way lower than they would be for here, so we need to look around for similar plants. We have one in Germany, the Neurath F and G units, and they are utilising brown coal. The cost for that Plant was $3.6 Billion, so I’ll even round that up to say $4 Billion here in Australia.

                They are running 1100MW generators, so let’s then actually round that downwards for Australia, and only use 1000MW generators, so that gives us a Nameplate of 2000MW.

                Okay then, a really large wind plant was proposed for King Island. That was going to be 500MW Nameplate, and it was going to cost $2.2 Billion, and there are very few wind plants as large as that.

                So, just to equal the Nameplate of the new USC plant, we would need four of these plants, so a total of $8.8 Billion.

                However, as with all renewables here in Australia, a little more than half that original cost is given to them, and yes, this is what is called a ….. SUBSIDY.

                So that takes the individual plant cost back to $1 Billion, and with four of them we now have a (convenient) total of $4 Billion.

                So here we now have the same Nameplate and the same cost, even though I have done the best for wind, and the worst for coal.

                So now, over the life of the plant, we have to recover that original cost, and that is done from the sale of the electricity.

                Luckily, wind with its free money from the Government (read taxpayer) they only have to recover less than half of that money, the same $4 Billion as for coal.

                Let’s do the sums for whole of life electricity power delivery. For wind, I’ll use the best case life span of their 25 years, considering they are barely managing 15 years at best, and now I hear that ten years is looking more likely, but hey, I can use best case here. Again, for the Capacity Factor, they will start at 30%, maybe even a point or two higher at times, but across the years that will drop, sometimes considerably, so again, I’ll go best case and give them 25% for the whole 25 years. For coal, those new USC plants will be averaging 92% for the first few years, but over time that will drop to around 75 to 80%, and for an average I’ll go low and say around 83% for their whole of life average. They are scheduled to last 50 years, and most of the large ones even last longer, but hey, I’ll use the low figure of 50%.

                Again note how I’m going best case for wind and worst case for Coal.

                Here’s the Maths then.

                WIND.

                2000 X 24 X 365.25 X 0.25 X 25 = 109,575,000MWH. (or 109.6TWH, or for ease of unit cost per KWH, then 109,575,000,000KWH)

                COAL FIRED

                2000 X 24 X 365.25 X 0.83 X 50 = 727,578,000MWH. (or 727.6TWH, or for ease of unit cost per KWH, then 727,578,000,000KWH)

                So, as you can see here, the coal fired plant generates 6.64 times the power.

                Because of that they can now spread that original cost across that greater power and see a significantly cheaper unit cost.

                Admittedly, there are other costs, especially the coal as fuel, but in some cases, the owners of the plant own the coal mine nearby as well, but even with the purchase of the coal the resultant unit cost for coal fired power is still hugely cheaper.

                If wind wasn’t gifted more than half the up front costs, the result for wind would be considerably worse.

                And please don’t try and tell me that the maintenance costs for wind would be less. You have 2 generators at the one coal fired plant and for the wind, you’ll have 800 huge towers spread across a huge area. Infrastructure costs would be considerably higher for wind.

                The list goes on.

                There is no way wind can be cheaper than coal.

                It fails on power delivery and it fails on cost. However, the most important thing here is that actual power delivery. 6.64 times as much power.

                Tony.

                20

              • #
                Robber

                Tony, to complete the analysis need some other estimates.
                Allow say 5% of capital as annual maintenance costs for both coal and wind.
                Coal plant will require operating labour costs over and above maintenance costs. Say 100 staff at $100k = $A10 million pa?
                Coal plant should assume purchase of coal at say $80/tonne. Estimate 14 tonne/MW/day = 8.5 million tonnes pa?
                Here’s a strawman comparison.
                Coal Versus Wind Power Generation Costs

                Coal Wind
                Nameplate Capacity MW 2,000 2,000

                Capital Cost A$ million 4,000 8,800
                Expected life years 50 25
                Depreciation A$ million per year 80 352
                Average utilization % 83 25

                Annual Production MWhr 14,551,560 4,383,000

                Annual Revenue @ 8c/kWhr A$million 1,164 351

                Annual maintenance costs 5% of capital 200 440

                Annual labour costs say 100 staff @$100k 10 –

                Raw material costs Coal @A$80/tonne 679
                Annual coal usage Million tonnes 8.5
                (estimate 14 tonne/MW/day)

                Net Income 396 -441
                SO this suggests substantial subsidies to make wind competitive. Welcome critique of my assumptions.

                10

            • #
              Rod Stuart

              This article by Alan Moran may be of interest to you.
              Or this article from Germany.

              10

            • #
              Rick Will

              You can get good actual data from windfarm annual reports:
              http://www.infigenenergy.com/media/docs/Infigen-Energy-Annual-Report-2014-53b8059a-5789-48ed-a309-aaf858559cbe-0.pdf
              Page 23 has most of what you are looking for.

              The subsidy comes by way of LGCs and there is a lot of discussion in the document regarding these. The windfarms would not be profitable without LGCs contributing about 30% of their revenue. However they would be cash positive without subsidy so it gets down to financing costs.

              On the other hand I think all the existing coal power stations were built with some level of government subsidy. In fact I have the belief that all the large ones were built by State governments. Some have since been sold to the private sector.

              This article will give you some insight why I doubt we will not see another greenfield coal plant in Australia:
              http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/news/climate/How-the-community-stopped-HRL/
              Note that it too relied on both State and Federal subsidy to make it viable but then the banks pulled out as the cost estimates got more realistic. You could guarantee that costs would go close to AUD2bn for this 600MW plant by the time it was built if that ever happened. HRL was originally the research arm of SECV.

              In the long run it makes sense to conserve fossil fuels. They are a relatively dense means of storing energy. If grids remain viable then a mix of all the forms of energy production makes sense. Without a means of local storage, wind power capacity of about 20% of total system demand is likely to be the long term economic level. I have done the economic analysis on an offgrid system for household use and it works out best value to use a small diesel in conjunction with solar.

              10

              • #
                Robber

                Thanks. Will examine the Infogen data. Would love to see your calculations and assumptions for offgrid household. Hardly seems feasible to be running a diesel generator in suburban areas.

                00

              • #
                Rick Will

                This shows the modelled cash-flow:
                http://www.rickwill.bigpondhosting.com/Off_Grid_Cashflow.pdf
                This is based on a 10kWh lithium battery. There is no condition where a lead acid gives better cashflow than a lithium.

                My existing 5kWh lithium battery has a cycle efficiency of 96%. It is presently used on a load that averaged 2.8kWh/day last year. It typically drops from 53V to 52V overnight and charges from 53 to 54V when the sun shines. Way smaller charge/discharge voltage range compared to a lead/acid battery. The best that a lead/acid will give is around 80% cycle efficiency. So that means more solar panels to do the same job. This chart shows a comparison of a lithium and lead/acid with twice the nominal capacity on a high demand load:
                http://www.rickwill.bigpondhosting.com/Battery_Cycle.pdf
                My 5kWh battery is not being worked as hard as the one charted so the cycle efficiency is a tad higher.

                The 5kWh battery has been in use now for 20 months with no sign of deterioration. My life cycle calculation for the battery is an inverse power function of DoD;
                Cycles = 595324 X DoD ^ (-1.267)
                That is the best fit curve for accelerated cycle testing for the cells I am using. I base the DoD on the average depth of discharge over a year using randomised approximations of my daily usage and random factors such as cloud cover that give reasonable correlation with my historical data.

                My oldest lithium battery was bought in 2007 and still gives rated capacity but it has not been deep cycled much. No one has long calendar life cycle testing on lithium batteries because they have not been around for long. I can verify performance is much better than lead acid.

                Average daily load in the model is around 14kWh but varies between 6kWh and 20kWh on a daily basis and each yearly run is a bit different from the last.

                The solar component in the model has 5kW of solar panels. I have found there is benefit in having some east and west facing panels as well as north, originally to use best roof space, but it also helps on overcast days. The model effective average sunlight is equivalent to 4.2 hours full sunlight. It ranges from less than 1 hour up to 7 hours. My actual average is 3.5 hours but I have some panels set to maximise winter input rather than maximum annual collection. That is a key factor for going off-grid. In summer there is heaps of excess but by the end of May the capacity gets tested. If the generator runs it will be in June and/or July.

                The model allows me to do yearly runs with randomised cloud cover and demand within various constraints. With 5kW of panels and 10kWh of batteries the diesel rarely runs in any year however I would not leave the grid without a back-up source that I had control over. Running the diesel would be no more imposing than a lawn mower.

                I also have gas connected for heating needs and am looking at reducing the gas demand then eventually disconnecting from the gas. The low hanging fruit is the hot water heater. It consumes $40/month of gas just staying warm. I am set up to now use excess solar from the off-grid system to heat water. My system has much better thermal insulation than any domestic electric water heater so it becomes a useful energy store as well.

                In the economic model the power cost is 30cents/kWh. The service charge is 83cents/day. There is 2% annual inflation. Component costs are based on retail price without subsidy and I have $2000 for installation. I am using multiple small chargers/controllers and inverters as these work out more economic than large single units. They also give a level of redundancy. Another benefit is to adjust when and at what voltage the load controller cuts in – beneficial for using the top of the charge to heat water for example.

                00

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            TonyfromOz,

            Thank you for taking the time to re-post all of this information. This time I’ve bookmarked your comment for future reference.

            Cheers,
            Abe

            00

        • #

          The message is that they want to construct wind plants to replace coal fired power ….. and here they really mean LARGE scale coal fired power plants, of 2000+MW.

          In truth, not one large scale coal fired plant has closed because wind power has replaced it. The only plants closing are the all but ancient 40/50 years plus in age, and small plants at that, and virtually all of them smaller than 100MW, and mostly plants in the range between 20 and 50MW.

          No large scale plant over 800MW has closed having been replaced by wind, let alone replaced because of the CO2 induced Climate Change/Global Warming scare campaign.

          All of those large scale plants are still in operation, and will be until they also time expire.

          Consider this for Australia.

          Every wind plant East of the WA border comes in at a total Nameplate of 3669MW, and that’s almost 40% larger than the Nameplate of Bayswater, so we’re talking bi numbers here for wind.

          However, the total power actually delivered from ALL that wind is being delivered by Bayswater in 207 day, under normal operation.

          So, all that wind power still has not equalled the power delivery from ONE plant, let alone actually replace it.

          That’s nearly 40 Wind Plants, costing an enormous sum of money, more than half of it from taxpayers, funded by both Federal and State Governments.

          And it can barely manage half the power delivery from ONE large scale plant.

          Forget South Australia, the poster child for wind power. That State only consumes 6% of the Australian power total. The coal fired plant closed is Playford, well over 50 years plus in age and Northern will be 40 years plus old when it closes down.

          Replaced by wind. Ha! What a joke. When Northern closes, the Interconnector to Victoria will be able to supply a constant 24 hour supply equal to what is currently being supplied from Northern, and that power from Victoria will be brown coal fired power.

          Wind CANNOT replace coal fired power, on any metric being used.

          The Nameplate looks good, but it’s an untruthful diversion away from what they actually do deliver.

          Tony.

          30

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        TonyfromOz.

        You wrote:

        . . . even those who mention health and wildlife are roundly laughed at anyway.

        Well, yes.

        Because in the a$$-backward, warped mind of the greens, who cares about health and wildlife when your ‘Out to save the world’.

        Abe

        11

  • #
    pat

    Another Ian -

    not only BBC, but CBC, so why not ABC?

    Robyn Williams with Suzuki, who says CBC is being “amputated” far more than ABC. also mentions Globe & Mail cutting “science” stories (perhaps the public is fed up with CAGW 24/7?).

    nonetheless, the arrogant Williams would no doubt not accept that ABC should be similarly amputated – saving taxpayer money for more worthy projects – given the vastly-changed media landscape:

    11 July: ABC The Science Show: Quirks and Quarks – also celebrating 40 years
    Bob McDonald has been hosting CBC’s Quirks and Quarks for 22 of the program’s 40 years…
    Bob McDonald describes the range of science in Canada, and the struggle in the face of reduced government support. This now extends to a muzzle on some government scientists. And despite the popularity of science and its importance, newspapers in Canada and elsewhere are reporting science less with fewer dedicated reporters. The program’s original host, David Suzuki describes how audiences responded to some touchy subjects in the program’s early days, and the threat today to public broadcasting in Canada.
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/quirks-and-quarks-e28093-also-celebrating-40-years/6610756

    10

  • #
    pat

    the Jesuit Pope has a friend in Jerry:

    11 July: Breitbart: Robert Wilde: Pope Francis Calls on Jerry Brown as Climate Change Expert
    Pope Francis invited California Governor Jerry Brown to lend his expertise on global warming and climate change to a summit at the Vatican later in the month.
    This week Brown explained that climate change combines the spiritual and the political. “Religion deals with the fundamentals,” he said. “When you deal with the fundamentals of what makes the atmosphere, and the weather, and whether that permanently or radically changes, that’s very similar to a fundamental principle of right and wrong.” …
    The Pontiff inviting Brown as a speaker comes as an unpleasant surprise to many Catholics. The governor, who earlier in life practiced to be a Jesuit priest before having a change of heart, is well known for his liberal stance on abortion, advocacy for gay marriage, and LGBTQ issues.
    Nevertheless, the indefatigable septuagenarian is enthusiastic about participating at the summit…
    In an interview this week when asked about climate change, Brown said Francis, was “bringing a moral and theological dimension that adds to the market and political calculation.” He added, “We face an existential threat to human existence as we know it. It’s not being taken seriously by the vast majority of powerful people. When the pope, as a powerful person, issues this encyclical, it’s a helpful addition to the mix.”
    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/11/jerry-brown-becomes-climate-change-expert-for-pope-francis/

    Potsdam’s Edenhofer has Jesuit history too! Lewandowsky – is CAGW a Jesuit conspiracy? LOL.

    Wikipedia: Ottmar Edenhofer
    Ottmar Georg Edenhofer (born 8 July 1961 in Gangkofen, Lower Bavaria, Germany) is a German economist dealing with climate change policy, environmental and energy policy as well as energy economics. Edenhofer currently holds the professorship of Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin was appointed one of the co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III “Mitigation of Climate Change”. He is Deputy Director and Chief Economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Director of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change. Among many other functions he is member of the group “Climate, Energy & Environment” of the German National Academy of Science Leopoldina, of the Advisory Committee of the Green Growth Knowledge Platform (joint effort of the Global Green Growth Institute, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Environment Programme (UNEP), and World Bank), of the Forschungsforum, Promoter Group Economy, chair of the Euro-CASE Energy Platform and of the German Academy of Science and Engineering acatech…
    ***He joined the Jesuit Order from 1987-1994 and earned a bachelor degree in Philosophy with summa cum laude at the Munich School of Philosophy ….
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottmar_Edenhofer

    11

  • #
    Sonny

    Jo, when will you do an article on the media story of the coming “MINI ICE AGE”?

    This has to be the highest value target for skeptics who have been ridiculed for suggesting that climate change is primarily caused by the SUUUUUN!

    20

  • #
    pat

    Sonny -

    ***RTCC claims the mini ice age has been debunked!

    meanwhile, the CAGW gravy train has moved to Ethiopia:

    12 July: RTCC: Ed King: BRICS’ leaders back global climate change pact
    In a statement the world’s top emerging economies said they expressed “readiness” to address climate change and wanted to achieve an “comprehensive, effective and equitable agreement” later this year.
    “We stress the importance of transfer of technology and scientific knowledge to address climate change and its adverse effects and therefore agreed to conduct joint research on the priority issues of common interest,” they added…
    Still – it’s not all green. The statement also calls on cooperation to promote the “efficient and environmentally friendly use of fossil fuels” and talks of the development of technologies aimed at “hard-to-recover resources” extraction. I’ll leave you to work out where that refers to…
    UN CLIMATE TALKS: One week to go until a two-day ministerial meeting opens in Paris. We’re expecting the new snazzy and shortened text for Paris to be available soon after. Here’s my latest take on what the process needs to sort out.
    ***MINI ICE-AGE LOOMING? Despite suggestions in Sunday papers that a cooling sun will make it a little chilly, it appears not.
    TWEET by Gareth Jones: To summarise, scientists do NOT think any type of ‘ice age’ is imminent (MULTIPLE LINKS)
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/07/12/brics-leaders-back-global-climate-change-pact/

    12 July: RTCC: Financing for Development: What to expect from UN Addis Ababa summit
    Success of global climate pact and new development goals hangs on four-day finance meet in Ethiopia
    By Leo Barasi in Addis Ababa
    Who will foot the bill to end poverty and tackle climate change?
    That’s the big question as the third Financing for Development Conference opens in Addis Ababa on Monday, with an ambitious agenda to agree funding for global efforts against poverty and hunger…
    But after months of negotiations and with just four days until the conference finishes, details of how development will be financed remain unclear, and observers have warned that failure could imperil action to end poverty and achieve sustainable development.
    “We need some good announcements to put down momentum, but that’s not underway yet”, Alex Evans, a Senior Fellow at New York University’s Centre on International Cooperation, told RTCC…
    According to the UN, achieving the new Goals will demand financing of over $10 trillion, while official foreign aid currently amounts to around $160 billion a year.
    To meet the gap between the funding needed to meet the SDGs, and the finance available from foreign aid, this week’s conference is aiming to reach agreements on other major sources of finance.
    Funding to address climate change is likely to feature in the discussions, with the conference expected to emphasise existing commitments to providing $100 billion in climate finance a year by 2020…
    Global negotiations on international tax reform have been deadlocked as developing countries, particularly the wealthier emerging economies, believe the current draft Addis agreement does not go far enough and have called for the creation of a new UN-based tax body.“…
    Professor Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, told an Addis side event ahead of the conference on Sunday that failure to reach an agreement would harm developing countries …
    “It’s bad enough that developed countries haven’t lived up to their commitments on ODA and on climate change… They haven’t made a commitment to make sure developing countries are getting the tax revenue from the economic activities that happen in their countries.
    “Their irresponsibility [has] been harming developing countries.” …
    There are fears that, if the Addis conference makes little progress in securing new funds for development, this year’s poverty and climate conferences in New York and Paris could be undermined.
    “The SDGs are holistic in a way the MDGs weren’t but we’re not seeing a delivery agenda that’s commensurate with that”, said Evans (NYU)…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/07/12/financing-for-development-what-to-expect-from-un-addis-ababa-summit/

    11

  • #
    pat

    all over the MSM today:

    Climate change a risk to financial system, says Cameron Clyne
    The Australian Financial Review – ‎15 hours ago‎
    Climate-related risks to banking, insurance, superannuation, capital markets and infrastructure are highlighted in a new discussion paper by the Climate Institute. The institute is calling for a review of Australia’s preparedness for a climate-related …

    Australia’s financial system ‘vulnerable’ to climate change
    The Australian – ‎15 hours ago‎
    Australia’s financial system could be vulnerable to the effects of global warming both in terms of direct climatic changes and in any slump for exports of carbon-intensive exports. The Climate Institute, in a discussion paper released today, warns the …

    Australia’s finance sector heavily exposed to climate risk, report says …
    The Guardian – ‎21 hours ago‎
    Extreme weather events, underinsurance and banks invested in a nation of coastal properties mean the economy is vulnerable, Climate Institute says. Flooded road. While coastal properties are threatened by climate change, the report points to Queensland…

    pdf 19 pages: Climate Institute: Australia’s Financial System and Clime Risk
    Discussion Paper – July 2015
    Acknowledgements
    This policy brief was written by ***Kate Mackenzie. The Institute would like to thank the expert reviewers who commented on early drafts, including Martin Parkinson, Emma Herd, Jack Gray, Shannon Lewis, Karen McWilliams, and
    Sharanjit Paddam. All viewpoints expressed and any errors are our own.
    http://climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/TCI_Australias_Financial_System_and_Climate_Risk_FINAL.pdf

    Kate McKenzie LinkedIn: Manager, Investment and Governance at The Climate Institute
    Previous:
    Asia correspondent, FT Alphaville, Financial Times 2011-2014
    Editor, FT Energy Source, Financial Times 2009-2011
    Interactive editor, Financial Times 2006-2008
    Companies reporter, Financial Times 2005-2006
    Reporter; Online editor, The Australian, news.com.au – News Corporation 2000-2004
    Online and radio journalist, Australian Broadcasting Corporation 1998 – 2000

    11

  • #
    pat

    pdf 38 pages: Third International Conference on Financing for Development, Addis Ababa, 13-16 July 2015
    General debate on financing for development: consideration of the draft outcome document of the Conference Draft outcome document of the Conference
    http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/CONF.227/6

    13 July: UN: Billions to Trillions: Ideas to Action
    Organised by: World Bank Group, African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank
    Summary
    The World Bank Group is hosting, in collaboration with the multilateral development banks (MDBs), a special side event—Billions to Trillions: Ideas to Action—at the Third International Conference on Financing for Development in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia…
    http://webapps01.un.org/ffd3/sideevents/events/event/billions-to-trillions-ideas-action/

    13 July: UN: High-Level Event on Financing Sustainable Energy for All – with Opening Remarks by the UN Secretary-General and World Bank President
    Organised by: Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All)
    Executive Office of the Secretary-General of the United Nations
    PANELLISTS
    H.E. Peter Launsky, Director General for Multilateral Development Cooperation, Austria (kick-off remarks)
    Mr. Tom Steyer, Founder, Farallon Capital Management
    Ms. Beth Tritter,Vice-President for Policy and Evaluation, Millennium Challenge Corp
    Dr. Naoko Ishii, CEO and Chairperson, Global Environment Facility (GEF)
    Mr. Klaus Rudischhauser, Deputy Director-General, European Commission Policy and Thematic Coordination
    Mr. Richard MacGeorge, Lead Infrastructure Finance Specialist Financial Solutions, Energy & Extractives, World Bank Group ETC
    BOTTOM OF PAGE – ORGANISERS? UN, WORLD BANK GROUP, WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION UNCTAD, UNDP

    11

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      pat,

      This is most likely obvious but thought I’d mention it anyway.

      Notice that they use the word financing. As we all know, financing means loans. So, if they get an agreement in Paris, then the whole world will have to seek ‘financing’ to meet their ‘legally binding goals’ to reduce co2 by replacing fossil fuel based energy with ‘sustainable renewables’.

      In Other Words: Legally Mandated Loans. :o

      Now, whom, I wonder, stands to make a bundle on those loans?

      Abe

      20

  • #
    pat

    13 July: SMH: Peter Hannam: Australia can be a global solar and wind superpower, and the CEFC is the key
    Australia is perfectly placed to become the next global superpower of renewable energy, the “Saudi Arabia of solar” for the coming century.
    While Saudi Arabia has barrels of oil, we have an abundance of sunlight to fuel solar power and wind to power turbines, plus enough geographical space, modern infrastructure and a stable political system to house such an industry on a massive scale…
    Why there is a need for a green investment bank is that our banking industry is not particularly innovative when it comes to backing new technology – whether renewable energy or other sectors…
    In unhelpful timing for the Abbott government, the CEFC is also expected to release its latest annual results this week showing that it is delivering a positive return on its investments to date…
    Coal use will have to be curbed if Australia is going to meet anything like the 24-28 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030 that is reported by Fairfax Media to be the Abbott government’s likely pledge ahead of the global climate summit scheduled for late this year in Paris. (The release of the targets has now been put back to August, well after most other nations have disclosed their goals.)
    Renewable energy must fill much of that void, and Australia has excellent wind and other renewable sources that could replace much of the coal-fired sector.
    It is also ***remarkably popular with the electorate, making any roll-back moves likely to trigger some response in the electorate…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-can-be-a-global-solar-and-wind-superpower-and-the-cefc-is-the-key-20150713-giariy.html

    ***”remarkably popular”? well it would be if the pubic is never informed of the real cost, wouldn’t it, Hannam?

    11

    • #

      …..and Australia has excellent wind and other renewable sources that could replace much of the coal-fired sector.

      Oh no it can’t.

      Tony.

      50

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      pat,

      Peter Hannam has now re-defined the words ‘global super-power’. Up until now, in the business and commercial world, a global super-power was one who produced and exported some type of ‘goods’. How, I might ask, can Australia produce and export the energy produced by renewables?

      These [snip] people aren’t pulling any stops, are they?

      Abe

      [Please avoid name calling. I made a small edit to preserve your meaning. Thanks.] AZ

      20

  • #
    Paul Vaughan

    Question:
    Is the pause (or hiatus) over?

    Illustrations

    Sun:
    http://s15.postimg.org/g8wfenpgb/Sun_Climate_101_ERSST_Thermal_Equator_SCD_RI.png

    Sun+BDO:
    http://s13.postimg.org/rfca8pipz/Sun_Climate_BDO_ERSST_Thermal_Equator_SCD_RI.png

    Sun vs. Sun+BDO animation:
    http://s13.postimg.org/93ju9lqtj/Sun_Climate_BDO_ERSST_Thermal_Equator_SCD_RI_101.gif

    Answering the question from more than one perspective:

    • Bidecadal Oscillation (BDO):
    Yes, but…

    • South of Thermal Equator (Sunspot Integral = RI):
    Doesn’t look like it …but some people will misinterpret the contribution of BDO no doubt.

    • North of Thermal Equator (Solar Cycle Deceleration = SCD):
    There hasn’t even been a pause …unless one wants to pretend the BDO bite into SCD isn’t BDO.

    Summary

    We’re warming …but it’s natural and it’s caused by:
    1. Sun
    2. BDO (bidecadal oscillation)

    31

  • #
    el gordo

    Just stumbled across this old Bob Tisdale post and wondered what caused the blip, remembering that there was also one in 1879.

    Bob has the last word in the comments.

    https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/the-large-1945-sst-discontinuity-also-appears-in-cloud-cover-and-marine-air-temperature-data/

    It might have something to do with the well documented 60 year cycle.

    00

  • #
    D o u g   C o t t o n 

    If you want to know why planetary surface temperatures are what they are, then read my three comments starting here and feel free to discuss.

    00