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

Carbon accounting error reduces China’s emissions tally by twice Australia’s entire output

Welcome to carbon accounting games. Which other global “free” market is based on a ubiquitous molecule made by life on Earth, and produced in massive quantities in places where it’s almost impossible to even measure accurately? The largest non-human and human players don’t play (they don’t pay). Massive quantities go missing from the accounts, while other countries are expected to turn their economies upside down to cut one tenth as much.

Shu Liu et al estimate China’s output of CO2 was 14% lower in 2013 than other estimates.[1] They estimate China emitted 2.5 Gt of “carbon” in 2013.  Australia produces around 0.1 Gt a year.* So China’s “reduction” was 2 – 3 times what Australia produces every year. There is no other market in the world where so much hard money changes hands based on soft guesses about a product that no one wants, and is hard to even measure.

Frank Jotzo, ANU, reveals how irrelevant actual CO2 emissions are — it’s “good news” that doesn’t make any difference:

Frank Jotzo, the director of the Center for Climate Economics and Policy at the Australian National University in Canberra, said it was “good news” that Chinese coal was yielding less carbon dioxide, “but it does not change the fundamentals, nor the challenge that China faces in getting away from coal.”

China uses nearly half the world’s coal. People from the outside are trying to guess how much CO2 China emits.

Some things were never going to be suitable for a “free market”. CO2 is one of them.

Abstract

Nearly three-quarters of the growth in global carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement production between 2010 and 2012 occurred in China1, 2. Yet estimates of Chinese emissions remain subject to large uncertainty; inventories of China’s total fossil fuel carbon emissions in 2008 differ by 0.3 gigatonnes of carbon, or 15 per cent1, 3, 4, 5. The primary sources of this uncertainty are conflicting estimates of energy consumption and emission factors, the latter being uncertain because of very few actual measurements representative of the mix of Chinese fuels. Here we re-evaluate China’s carbon emissions using updated and harmonized energy consumption and clinker production data and two new and comprehensive sets of measured emission factors for Chinese coal. We find that total energy consumption in China was 10 per cent higher in 2000–2012 than the value reported by China’s national statistics6, that emission factors for Chinese coal are on average 40 per cent lower than the default values recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change7, and that emissions from China’s cement production are 45 per cent less than recent estimates1, 4. Altogether, our revised estimate of China’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production is 2.49 gigatonnes of carbon (2 standard deviations = ±7.3 per cent) in 2013, which is 14 per cent lower than the emissions reported by other prominent inventories1, 4, 8. Over the full period 2000 to 2013, our revised estimates are 2.9 gigatonnes of carbon less than previous estimates of China’s cumulative carbon emissions1, 4. Our findings suggest that overestimation of China’s emissions in 2000–2013 may be larger than China’s estimated total forest sink in 1990–2007 (2.66 gigatonnes of carbon)9 or China’s land carbon sink in 2000–2009 (2.6 gigatonnes of carbon)10.

 

REFERENCE

[1^]Zhu Liu et al (2015) Reduced carbon emission estimates from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in China, Nature 524, 335–338http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7565/full/nature14677.html
___________________

*Australia emits 547 Mt of CO2-equivalent gas, which is not just carbon, but carbon dioxide and methane and all the other greenhouse gases, hence the numbers are very different.  The USA emits about 1.5 Gt of carbon (and about 6,500 Mt of CO2-e).

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (52 votes cast)
Carbon accounting error reduces China's emissions tally by twice Australia's entire output, 9.3 out of 10 based on 52 ratings

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

118 comments to Carbon accounting error reduces China’s emissions tally by twice Australia’s entire output

  • #
    Popeye26

    But but Billy Shortone’s going to reduce Australia’s emissions by 5% 10% 50% aah der – “heaps”!

    He’s going to manage that by getting the CMFEU to close down our industries and to heck wiv all honest hard working Aussies who gives a …. about Aussies – unions are far more imporatant!!

    Rolled gold idiot & fool to boot.

    Cheers,

    341

    • #
      Mike

      Greece has cut its emissions by vastly more and it would be difficult for us to compete with their efforts. Oil rig count is already down 57% in just one year on account of similar austerity urgent action. The IPCC is writing up a congratulations note as i write this.

      190

      • #
        Mark Schooley MD

        If Pachauri still headed IPCC he could send Greece a Nobel Peace Prize certificate with “Alexis Tsipras” penned in.

        120

    • #
      Mark Schooley MD

      I only recently read Codevilla’s “the Ruling Class.”

      http://spectator.org/articles/39326/americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution

      Insightful. (I studies in the Ivy League, my kids did, (Harvard,Columbia, Chicago (“Ivy stature”), and I got into a grad program at Stanford (“Ivy stature”).

      Codevilla talks about people of privilege and their concepts of “We know best”.

      The “masses” have to accept the judgments of their “betters”. The “betters” may be not altogether that bright, but they’re “connected” and exert a social-regulating force that “outsiders”, which Cdevilla calls the “Country” can’t overcome, at least not easily.

      The “betters” it turns out can’t grow/raise their own food. The outsider “Country” can more often. If the “Country” call strikes, goodbye “betters”.

      Do you know how to plant seed? Do you know how to thin seedlings? Do you know how to dig manure into soil to give it nutrients? Do you know where you can live that has adequate rainfall to support your crops? Or dig wells (but ultimately, you still need rain to replenish them).

      Do you know how to fish, with lines or nets, how to dig and dive for mollusks, trap and hunt?

      I don’t think the “betters” devising schemes to “stop “climate change” have a clue how to do any of these things. If the “Country” people who do know how to do these things decide not to apply their talents to feed their “betters”, their “betters” will either have to learn how to do these things, or suffer extinction. Which would not be a bad thing.

      130

    • #
      King Geo

      Quotating Popeye26 – “But but Billy Shortone’s going to reduce Australia’s emissions by 5% 10% 50% aah der – “heaps”

      [snip] He might be winning the “Greenie Lefties” with his insidious ETS/CT but not the “Blue Collar Lefties”, and the latter no doubt out number the former by a considerable margin – electoral suicide [snip]?

      30

    • #
      Mark Schooley MD

      Here is Paris is going to happen:

      Gold Medal winners in the Catastrophic Global Climate Change Blogogers category are going to win nonstop Google 767 “Flying Hotel” trip to Paris, and private rooms in luxe suites when they arrive in Paris, plus tables sitting not too far away from world leaders, such as Obie, Gore and others.

      Silver medal winner will ride on transatlantic Gulfstream G-5/G-6′s, and have nice rooms in Pais hotel suites, and sit at the far ends of fantastic celebrity tales.

      Bornze medal winners will ride First Class on scheduled airliners, and have first-class private hotel rooms, with 24/7 room service and minibar refrigerators, free booze.

      Runners-up will have business-class seats to Paris, good Paris double-rooms, with 24/7 room service, and free minibars.

      100

      • #

        Incidentally, one stand out thing from all these conferences is the absolutely humungous spike in money outlaid for, umm, ladies of the night. At every one of these conferences, ‘hookers’ come from all across the Country to be part of it.

        The conferences held in European Countries have seen hookers from all over Europe flocking to the Climate Conference site.

        Link to article from Copenhagen.

        Bet you won’t hear this in the news from Paris.

        Tony.

        160

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Just think of all the extra CO2 produced by all that heavy breathing?

          The delegates and support staff should all be locked away, somewhere small, and dark, and damp, and with lots of crawly things, with sharp nippers.

          90

        • #
          Manfred

          Best Aphrodisiac
          Escargot in garlic butter and chilled beef tongue
          at Le Café Paris Brasserie & Bar

          I have noted here on more than one occasion that Parisian snails are in for a hard time.

          40

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Manfred, my wife and I had escargo at La Coupole in Montparnasse.

            Only had them so I could say I ate at La coupole.

            Don’t like snails; sorry!

            KK

            30

  • #

    The Greens will be inconsolable if they read this. Plant life suffers again.

    131

  • #
    ianl8888


    … based on soft guesses about a product that no one wants …

    Not only soft, but extremely lazy

    See #25.1 on the previous Merchants of Doubt thread

    81

  • #
    cedarhill

    This meansL

    1. Soros is buying up all the coal companies because he can sell twice as much coal to China and still not worry about carbon and
    2. China agreed to an emissions limit with Obama that they can easily acheive

    The world is that simple.
    Really.

    101

    • #
      Mark Schooley MD

      It is possible he will shut down coal production, although that would require purchasing majority shares. Even so, it would mean he is saving the resources for his descendants, who will be able to mine.

      50

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        Mark Schooley MD,

        Of course,it’s also possoble that his aim is aquiring majority shares which would give him control of the rate of coal production. That that means price control. Raise the price of coal high enough, and suddenly wind and solar become price competitive.

        For him, as an investor in both markets, it’s a win-win situation.

        Abe

        100

    • #
      Glenn999

      Soros is not a friend of the US. He will use the money from the sale of the coal to further his destructive goals. Let’s hope he doesn’t get control of too much …

      50

  • #
    Peter

    Meanwhile George Soros is buying up big in coal mines! No accounting errors there. The whole climate change issue has degenerated into a complete farce.

    “I find it very interesting that George Soros would buy shares in those coal companies,” said Daniel Simmons, vice president for Policy at the Washington DC-based free market energy group, Institute for Energy Research. “I am confused given the non profits he funds and how hard they have worked to demonize coal.”

    Soros, whose Climate Policy Initiative think tank recently urged the world to stop using fossil fuels in general and coal in particular, snapped up 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and half a million shares of Arch Coal, giving him significant stakes in what’s left of the U.S. coal industry.Neither Soros nor his New York-based investment firm, Soros Fund Management, would comment on the coal play, citing a longstanding policy of not discussing investments.

    191

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Peter,

      You quoted:

      Neither Soros nor his New York-based investment firm, Soros Fund Management, would comment on the coal play, citing a longstanding policy of not discussing investments.

      Actions speak louder than words.

      First Soros et.al. (Climate Iniciative Think Tank) urges the world to stop using fossil fuels, on the pretense that co2 released from coal will harm the environment. This sends a message reinforcing the calls from other environmental activists to divest from coal. Universities, Pension funds, etc. fall for the message and begin divesting. Soros buys up shares in coal which suddenly become available.

      How blind can be people be. Especially those people who are in charge of managing other peoples money. Shouldn’t they feel a responsibility to those that have entrusted their money to them?

      And on the other side of the equation, when will the general public who has entrusted their money to these so-called ‘fund managers’ wake up and realise they’re being played?

      Abe

      201

      • #
        Mark D.

        I would have to agree with you Abe. Soros buying into coal signals that he may have given up on the climate change project to control humanity. He must be realizing that the whole scam is failing fast.

        The bad thing is after he profits handsomely from this coal buy, he’ll have a fat wallet to reinvest in some new world-wide control of humanity.

        90

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      Hypocrisy is a defining characteristics of radical leftists such as Soros.
      He is also a major funding source of the stealthy movement to legalize marijuana in America. Individual states are legalizing it yet marijuana remains illegal at the federal government level. Seems Obama likes all things illegal and does not enforce federal law for many illegal activities.

      80

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        you don’t think it was his plan all along?

        Du Pont did exactly the same thing recently with CFC’s.

        30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You don’t need to be a rocket scientist, or a Chess Grand Master, to see what is happening here.

      50

  • #
    Leigh

    I remember reading years ago how one province underestimated their output of CO/2 by a couple hundred thousand tons.
    Because of that the alarmists ramped up the alarmism stating that temperatures would rise quicker.
    That’s one of what, thirty odd provinces?
    That’s quite a “lump” of CO/2 to lose if the other provinces were just as clumsy.
    If the IPCC’S crystal ball predictions of temperature rise is based on accurate CO/2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
    Wouldn’t they be a little skewed?

    Now they’re trying to say actually “we over estimated”.
    Could this be another of the 1001 reasons for the “missing heat”.
    I always asked but none of the alarmists ever answered.
    Maybe “the missing heat” just wasn’t there.

    I really can’t wait for the rediculous press releases from the alarmists and warmists as the party is under way in Paris.

    130

    • #
      PeterK

      This over estimation of China’s CO2 output explains everything. Don’t you see, less CO2 went into the atmosphere and that’s why temperatures have not risen!!!

      Do I need a sarc?

      91

      • #
        Leigh

        No Peter, you don’t need a sarc.
        But according to the alarmists and their nauseating propoganda.
        Their expert scientists in adjustments and homogenising of the worlds historical temperature records.
        All according to worlds best practice of course!
        Have just informed me it could have been the “hottest” July evaaaaar.
        You could have knocked me over with a feather.
        That is until someone that is not part of “team deception” actually checks their figures and methodology and again makes them look foolish.
        I wonder if they will be as loud with the lack of temperature rise in August?
        The news com. even stating in their opening line “if your a climate change denier”.
        Leaving you with no uncertain that their going to the party as well.
        Every day that gets us closer to the Paris party the louder and more rediculous the “full palm” readings become.

        http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/july-could-have-been-the-hottest-month-in-4000-years-climate-scientists-say/story-fnjwvztl-1227493098122

        30

      • #
        It doesn't add up...

        There’s a different problem. They aren’t claiming that they mismeasured atmospheric CO2 – only Chinese emissions. So if the atmospheric total is unchanged, that means they have also either under-estimated non anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or over-estimated CO2 sinks.

        10

  • #
    john karajas

    Mistakes compounded by dud science and wrong predictions! The Three Stooges are a model of competence compared to the Greens.

    151

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Since the Greens have no sense of humour, the Three Stooges simply look like men in suits to them.

      30

  • #

    I like to buy ageable compressed tea from China. Bit of a geek hobby for me, though I’m no expert. Let me tell you, even this modest product is subject to stupendous levels of fakery. I’m sure I’ve been stung once or twice.

    There are artists whose fakery is so good that the fakes have huge value, even more than the ancient originals, eg Chang Dai-chen’s superb classical fakes and forgeries of the 1950s. The Chinese carbon Western “experts” think they know about is the carbon the Chinese want them to know about.

    I really like and admire the Chinese. But they fake, constantly. They fake what they can. They’re great at it. They fake…okay?

    130

  • #
    ivan

    Oh dear, this is going to upset the plans of these researchers then.

    Why, oh why, is it impossible for these people to see that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is beneficial to the planet?

    120

  • #
    pat

    ***did someone spike Farrelly’s drinks at the 350.org event?

    20 Aug: Sydney Morning Herald: Elizabeth Farrelly: Two degrees or four? It’s a personal choice for survival in the near future
    ***As someone noted at the IPCC scientists’ panel organised by 350.org Australia in Sydney last week, it won’t hit four degrees warming because once it hits three, the economic cataclysm will be so intense that productivity will plummet, taking greenhouse gas production with it. (Then again, carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a century, so maybe, maybe not.)
    I went to hear the IPCC guys with a certain dread. Part of me wants not to hear. My inner primate wants to hide in a cupboard labelled Normal Life…
    We think climate change is mostly about poor people in distant countries. And up to a point that’s true. We cause it, they suffer it.
    But make no mistake. We will still suffer. The coastal houses of the rich will be suddenly worthless. There’ll be no more Barrier Reef holidays. By mid-century, current trajectory, the great reefs will be dead grey stumps. No more kilos of prawns for the barbie. As oceans warm and acidify beyond most species’ tolerance, seafood will become an expensive rarity and oysters almost unheard of. In fact, the barbie will become a dangerous pastime, as Sydney mozzies start to carry dengue and Ross River fever, and beetles carrying chagas disease – a terrible unvaccinatable disease dubbed the Aids of the Americas – also start to spread. And that’s before the homeless hordes decide that Australia looks big and empty…
    Simply, we have to become fossil free. No more oil. No more gas. And not just no new coalmines. No coal, period…etc
    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/two-degrees-or-four-its-a-personal-choice-for-survival-in-the-near-future-20150819-gj2dkw.html#ixzz3jLB2pn8R

    Stacy Herbert brought up the following article on Keiser Report tonite. well worth a read:

    1 Aug: Marketwatch: Mitch Tuchman: Why 99% of trading is pointless
    An astonishing $32 trillion in securities changes hands every year with no net positive impact for investors, charges Vanguard Group Founder John Bogle…
    “The job of finance is to provide capital to companies. We do it to the tune of $250 billion a year in IPOs and secondary offerings,” Bogle told Time in an interview.
    “What else do we do? We encourage investors to trade about $32 trillion a year. So the way I calculate it, 99% of what we do in this industry is people trading with one another, with a gain only to the middleman. It’s a waste of resources.”…
    It’s a lot of money, $32 trillion. Nearly double the entire U.S. economy moving from one pocket to another, with a toll-taker in the middle. Most people refer to them as “stock brokers,” but let’s call them what they are — toll-takers and rent-seekers…
    Research shows, over and over, that stock brokers can’t do much of anything demonstrably valuable. They don’t know which stocks will go up or down and when. They don’t know which asset classes will outperform this year or next.
    Nobody knows. That’s the point…
    If you’re a normal retirement investor trying to get from A to B and retire on time, well, you have a really big problem to face: The toll-taker wants your money…
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-99-of-trading-is-pointless-john-bogle-2015-07-30

    90

    • #
      Anthony

      Farrelly needs a cup of tea and a lie down

      91

    • #
      PeterK

      Pat: I read the Elizabeth Farrelly article and then reviewed some of the comments. All I can say is “WOW”. The comments are unbelievable. Are these people really living in our current world, are they on drugs, delusional? Again “WOW”.

      141

      • #
        gai

        Do not forget there are ‘Professional Commenters’ and Useful Innocents at work. They often use multiple names and addresses and they have been organized for the last five or so years.

        I find this article by the other side extremely funny since they are always accusing us of what they themselves are doing.
        Denier-bots live! Why are online comments’ sections over-run by the anti-science, pro-pollution crowd? and to top it off it is by none other than JOE ROMM

        ROTFLMAO!!!!

        Notice the date is February 20th 2011. No doubt it is a ‘Rapid Response’ to the WUWT blog post below posted on the 18th

        A less inflamed account that also mentions the WUWT essay. link

        WUWT 2/18/2011: The Carbon Brief – The European rapid response team

        The Carbon Brief is a new website designed to provide a rapid response to any climate change related stories in the media.

        It is also appears to be intended as a resource for articles and it claims to be an independent mediator between journalists and climate scientists.

        The Carbon Brief’s twitter followers seem to have different expectations….

        The Carbon Brief appears to have been set up for the specific purpose of countering sceptical stories relating to ‘climate change’ by going to AGW consensus scientific sources for an instant rebuttal. It is a project of the Energy and Strategy Centre, funded and supported by the European Climate Foundation (ECF)

        I am concerned about this new apparent big Green EU AGW PR and media machine swamping any sceptical voices with instant rebuttals and twitter mobs. They would appear to have very experienced PR, Media and Communications professionals at work now, with all the tools of modern media management, all the funding they need and briefed to follow the European Climate Foundations’ agenda….

        How can independent unpaid, unfunded bloggers possibly fend off professional PR of this nature from an organisation with multi-million Euro funded backers with the agenda described above.

        You do not have to know a thing about science, all you have to do is follow all the power plays and of course the money.

        10

    • #
      Peter

      Farrelly has form. She’s a Frightbat!

      They shriek, they rage, they cheer, they despair, they exult, they scream, they laugh, they cry! There’s never a non-emotional moment in the lives of Australia’s left-wing ladies’ auxiliary, whose psychosocial behavioural disorders are becoming ever more dramatic following Tony Abbott’s election.

      131

    • #
  • #
    toorightmate

    I continue to be perplexed as to how it is only coal-fired power stations which produce this nasty seeohtoo.

    101

  • #

    Personally, I like carbon. I feel it’s like somehow integral to me. As if it’s actually a part of me. It’s a spiritual thing, which I know most skeptics won’t be comfortable with.

    https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/sleeping-with-the-enemy/

    Pointman

    201

  • #

    These people from the ANU would not know what they are talking about. They have no engineering qualifications and probably need a computer nerd to enter numbers into a spreadsheet. I bet they do no even know the difference between a nuclear power plant and a modern coal fired plant (where all the coal is under cover) or even know what a cement plant looked like if they were escorted around China. All countries cheat on CO2 emissions because a) it is politics b) they do not know how to calculate the amount c) they leave out some important outputs and sinks.
    Note, in a law case in 2007 Prof Ian Lowe (then president of ACF) was found to be exaggerating by 13 times. It is assumed that the President of the court must have thought Lowe was just incompetent or he would have been charged with perjury.
    In Europe the burning of waste (eg refuse derived fuel, tyres etc) is not counted in CO2 emissions, nor is the use of fuel for district heating (which normally produces some electricity in co-generation).
    Right now I read that cement companies in China are all making loses and many plants shut down due to the building bubble having been pricked by the government. Only the newest and most efficient plants are producing but at a loss. The building bubble also affected electricity supply and consumption. The completion of 3 Georges Dam Hydro works (which took a lot of cement) added 22,000 MW of capacity. While the Chinese will use a lot less coal than the previous year it is unlikely that they will report fully the change in the economy. Statistics in China are politically controlled.

    121

    • #

      It’s a bit like Australia’s CO2 emission data, measured by the now defunct Dept. of Climate Change and the Environment, was carefully homogenised to ensure that Oz’s Kyoto emissions target was achieved.

      It was easy – Measured increased emissions from energy and transport etc. of over 100 MTpa were offset by ESTIMATED reduced emissions by changes to Land Usage etc. of slightly less than 100 MTpa. All in accordance with UN rules like changing forests to National Parks, farm land to grassland etc.

      Importantly Labor got the UN’s big tick and a lot more Green preferences.

      81

    • #
      ianl8888


      Statistics in China are politically controlled

      Indeed they are

      Just try to extract the actual running daily mean ash (and other factors) of coal combusted in a large power station from the station itself

      Of course an accurate record is kept – the sale price of the coal to the power station is based on these measurements. But they are indeed a closely held record

      The only way I found around this was the actual mine records. I was consulting for various mines and had access to their daily internal lab records

      81

      • #
        It doesn't add up...

        When you come to look at the claims made in this paper (whose authors seem to be mainly Chinese by origin), they don’t really add up, if you’ll pardon the use of my moniker.

        As I noted over at Bishop Hill and WUWT:

        The idea is supposed to be that the Chinese recorded their coal consumption tonnage roughly right, but some international institutions over-estimated the heat content of those tonnes, and therefore the emissions.

        The most common standard pricing basis for internationally traded coal is 6,000kcal/kg, which is almost exactly 7MWh/tonne gross calorific value (GCV). One tonne of oil equivalent is 42GJ, or about 11.67 MWh. It’s clear from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy that they have some information on coal quality in China, as the calorific values implied by their data for tonnes of coal and mtoe equivalent show year to year variation post 2000, varying up to 22GJ/tonne and down to around 20GJ/tonne (and the other country data also reflect some of the considerable variations in coal and lignite qualities).

        Revising the emission data has two consequences: if China’s emissions were lower than previously thought but the atmospheric total remains unchanged, then there must be some non-anthropogenic source (or lesser sink) to account for the difference – and moreover, China’s coal fired power stations must be more efficient than we thought. The paper attempts to claim that Chinese energy consumption was actually higher than recorded by 10%, which would add to the 14% efficiency improvement claimed on lower heat content – a 25%+ (or about 8 percentage points based on 32% efficient coal stations) increase in efficiency that seems highly implausible.

        What I also find interesting is that the paper refers to BP’s 2014 Energy Review as a comparator – yet BP made substantial revisions for this year’s review published in June. As I commented at WUWT:

        What a lose piece of writing by/for Nature. Do they mean Carbon, or Carbon Dioxide? See below Anyway, one thing is clear – Chinese statistics are all over the place.

        BP made substantial revisions to their CO2 emissions estimate for China in their annual Energy Statistics this year, increasing them by 7.9Gt over the history reported last year, including upward revisions for 2007 of 1Gt and 2008 of 0.9Gt. The idea that 0.3Gt represents 15% of China’s emissions in 2008 implies that the study is indeed referring merely to the elemental carbon tonnage in the CO2 emissions, since BP now report CO2 emissions of 7.7Gt CO2 for China in 2008. By doing this they make China’s emissions appear to be only 12/44ths of what they are (excluding other nasties such as PFCs from Al smelting).

        So BP think that this study is underestimating emissions based on their own work that has just revised them upwards.

        10

  • #
    llew Jones

    “The science” tells us that what causes global warming is not emissions per se but the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

    Given we are not anywhere near sure how much of the increase in the latter parameter is due to our fossil fuel emissions this concentration on controlling fossil fuel emissions, it seems, has more to do with giving greedy capitalists a kick in the teeth and making life much more expensive and unbearable for all of us and also about preventing we wicked humans from upsetting poor old Mother Earth. Who, we are told, unless we repent will visit us with all sorts of extreme and catastrophic weather before she finally burns us all to death. Which in scientific terms is of course unadulterated bullshit.

    While we are looking at China’s shonky emission figures let’s see if we can guess what percentage of the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from the world’s coal fired power plants?

    101

    • #

      Sorry Llew Jones you have the first sentence wrong. Some people who call themselves “scientist” (but in fact are incompetent) have made incorrect hypotheses such as “back radiation” which have been known to be incorrect for some 300 years (since the time of the engineer Carnot (after whom the Carnot cycle of Thermodynamics is named) through the weight of evidence but are difficult to definitely prove particularly, as Popper notes, introducing complexities and further wrong assumptions such as “radiating up and down or in all directions and photons (which the Nobel prize winning physicist Lamb stated in peer reviewed papers do not exist) The CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere absorbs such a small amount of radiant energy that it is unmeasurable. Even on Venus where the atmosphere is at high pressure and is composed around 95% CO2 the radiation absorbed from the surface makes no contribution back to the surface temperature.
      I know of no one, whom calls themselves a “scientist”, who fully understands Thermodynamics and Heat&Mass transfer. If they did understand they would be recognised as an engineer and be working in a satisfying engineering field or owning a company making engineering equipment.

      42

      • #

        The two that gave the red thumbs down clearly have not ever noted that the temperature of the atmosphere at 10kPa pressure (or 100 mBar)on Venus is about 240K while on Earth (which is a similar size) at the same pressure (ie 10kPa) is 217K. The difference is explained by the distance from the sun. This shows that more CO2 from 400 ppm upto 950,000 ppm has no effect on the atmospheric temperature. Note the adiabatic lapse rate and the gravity of Earth & Venus are similar. There are many peer reviewed papers based on actual measurements that note that there is no “greenhouse” effect on Venus.

        20

      • #
        llew Jones

        You may be right CAF but it is I suggest far more productive to assume the GHG theory is the best we have as yet and show that the alarmists from their clergy to the lay believers (one or two of whom put red ticks here) haven’t got a clue about their much loved science.

        When the postulates of that science (from Fourier, Tyndale and Arrhenius until the present) are known and understood there is no cause for alarmism. So my suggestion is that we show that religious flock how little any of them, from their clergy to the laity, know about “their science”. (Emissions according to their theory don’t cause GW but they obviously don’t know that. Who really knows if any of the atmospheric CO2 up there, where it is supposed to count, comes from our fossil fuel combustion? Beat them on their ignorance of their much loved science rather than be labeled a crackpot peddling,a presently despised science).

        00

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    Even though the greens and the government make common cause from time to time, the greens are vulnerable to reality in a way that governments are not. There is no green argument that cannot be trumped be trumped by national security. If, for example, the US suddenly had to quickly convert back to “King Coal” a domestically available land delivered product, we would stop hearing about death trains, and instead be celebrating how clean coal plants today delivered only water vapor and a colorless, odorless trace gas from their stacks. The difference between perceived existential threats, like the oil shock that freed the Alaska Pipeline after five years of delay, and the threats today is that today’s threats have been mostly actualized in economic terms. Energy costs rise and economies do less well, but it’s the boiling frog model. If the greens feel pressure because the Chinese economy renders western actions useless, then change the perception of the Chinese economy — they aren’t so bad so we are awful. The whole framework of the argument is a lie anyway.

    This BS will mostly stop when the brownouts, and industrial failures due to grid shock start. Ratepayers being nickel and dimed to death doesn’t bring out the pitchforks, but flicking a switch and getting no result does.

    If you tell me the Chinese can pollute, but we have a moral responsibility not to, I’d better not be sitting in the dark eating a cold meal while the lights in the capitol still burn brightly.

    111

    • #
      gai

      Richard,

      Why do you think the Department of Homeland Security has:
      #1. organized the local police
      #2. provided them with military equipment
      #3.has purchase orders for 1.6 billion rounds of Ammo.

      It also does not hurt that ex-military personnel are now common in the local police force and the attitude has gone from officer friendly to viewing civilians as The Enemy.

      There is also the Feb 22, 2008 agreement that the Canadian military can cross the border to help in the case of ‘An emergency’ (and vice versa) The Law of Posse Comitatus, a post-Civil War statute that restricts the military’s ability to participate in civilian law enforcement… has now been openly abandoned.

      Mark Stoval, a fellow skeptic has put up on the internet a poweful graphic by Zoey DeGarmo that depicts what I am trying to say.
      Militarization of the Police in the USA.

      …After looking the graphic over I realized there was nothing I had not read before in it, but all that information in one place is powerful. Plus, that is a very professionally done piece of artwork. It communicates the problem very well in my opinion. The only problem I have is that this only scratches the surface. That the local police and its SWAT goon squads have become more and more militarized is very true, but it is also true that many federal agencies have also beefed up their “enforcement” capabilities. It is almost as if the central government is preparing for a civil war…

      Unfortunately that is how I read the situation too.

      00

  • #
    Ruairi

    Do the Chinese keep a close count,
    And precisely record the amount,
    Of emissions from coal,
    Under U.N. control,
    As the ‘West’ is held to account?

    130

  • #
    • #
      James Murphy

      This reminds me of the person who tried to tell me that not only was CO2 increasing at a terrible rate, but oxygen was decreasing at similarly terrible rate. i think they were alleging that by some unknown time, we’d have no oxygen left.

      To support the claim, they pointed to some sort of miscellaneous chart with unknown provenance and context. the X and Y axes were essentially unintelligible without context, but 1 line went up from left to right, and 1 line went down from left to right. I guess that’s all the proof I should need…?

      I wish I’d kept the link now… it might even be on here somewhere.

      40

      • #

        James I notice as well as numbers plucked from the air both articles are quick to tell you the stuff is toxic but don’t mention much about the start of the food chain in the ocean.
        Even natural stuff is presented as unnatural if it is caused by a natural event that does not occur often. It seems to me that if a third of the ocean life were to die this way it still becomes fertiliser for future life to abound. Nature is just a nasty old bitch sometimes.

        00

  • #
    mmxx

    Carbon trading – a device that I hear will increase the levels of profits of doom.

    71

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    AFP mouthpiece Nine News parrots NOAA press release:
    World breaks new heat records in July: US

    “The world broke new heat records in July, marking the hottest month in history and the warmest first seven months of the year since modern record-keeping began in 1880, US authorities say.”

    Right, so 12 years of Pause doesn’t invalidate a warming trend, but 7 months is enough to make pronouncements about global warming. How’s the desperation?

    “The world is warming. It is continuing to warm. That is being shown time and time again in our data,” said Jake Crouch, physical scientist at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.

    Indeed the world is still warming, if you can call 0.05 degrees per decade as warming, which is to say… not really, it’s just more desperation.

    “Now that we are fairly certain that 2015 will be the warmest year on record, it is time to start looking at what are the impacts of that?”

    Hadley’s Sea temps could support the claim of warmest 12-months up to August, though it’s unusual to see more variance in sea surface than in troposphere. As for the claim of the calendar year 2015 being hottest, aren’t they making big assumptions with 5 months still remaining in the year? Of course making assumptions is typical behaviour for NOAA as by their own maps vast areas of land are not actually measured. Yep data gets homogenously infilled in a desperate attempt to feign global coverage, then the first seven months are desperately cherry picked for headlines.

    All this desperation to reassure re-scare the hoi polloi can only mean one thing; climate treaties are in season and Roy’s been putting their models under the microscope again:

    Note that in the tropical observations portion of the left panel in Fig. 2, all three 183.3 GHz channels (corresponding to different free-tropospheric layers) suggest decreasing water vapor with warming. (I don’t know how cirrus clouds might also be affected, but Lindzen has argued as part of his Iris Effect hypothesis that vapor and cirrus cloud cover should change together, and the 183.3 GHz data are affected somewhat by thick cirrus).
    The mid-latitudes seem to be mostly in the realm of positive water vapor feedback, although maybe not constant RH (which is what the models tend to do).

    Once again nature has made fools of all of us.
    If you said feedback from water vapour was negative… you were wrong.
    If you said feedback from water vapour was positive… you were wrong.
    It looks like the feedback sign changes across the Hadley cell boundaries, being negative in the tropics and positive everywhere else. As the models overestimated warming it may be the tropics have more influence on the global average.
    All of this fluid unsettled science is obviously a firm foundation for making 30 year global CO2 reduction plans. /s

    121

    • #
      Manfred

      Radio NZ broadcast on the news this morning in eco-stunning form that the NOAA had stated we were experiencing the ‘highest temperatures since records began and global mean temperature of greater than 16C’ due, they said, to fossil fuels.

      However, the Radio NZ news web site says nothing of the sort, stating that,

      Scientists say global climate change and the impacts of the El Nino weather phenomenon are behind the record temperatures.

      “Now that we are fairly certain that 2015 will be the warmest year on record….”

      When scientists looked at both sea and land for the year to date, they found combined a combined average temperature of 0.85 C above the 20th-Century average.

      The NOAA calculated the rate of temperature increase for July at an average of 0.65 C per century.

      There appears a glaring discrepancy between what is read out on the news and what is written and posted, remaining a matter of public record. I wonder whether anyone else has noticed this possible discrepancy?

      Meanwhile, in the real world [NZ]Meridian is hurting to the tune of an astonishing $38M because: “…there has been a long hiatus where the renewable energy certificates that support renewables have been trading at a very low level, and second, the target reducing has had a further impact on forward pricing of those certificates and lastly, the removal of carbon pricing pulls away another piece of future income.”

      Electricity generator and retailer [NZ]Meridian has fired off some angry criticism of the Australian Government, accusing it of costing the company $38 million – the sum that has had to be written off the value of its Mt Millar wind farm in South Australia.

      Retaining the Bledisloe Cup wasn’t enough. They have to have a crack at the Australian PM. Shame on them.

      20

  • #
    TdeF

    All this is based on the wrong idea non science idea that man can increase CO2 levels. It may seem intuitive to the layman, but it is not true and not science. According to simple physical chemistry man cannot set CO2 levels and this glaring fallacy is fundamental. Even the IPCC admit it, that ultimate CO2 levels cannot be set by man. So how do the IPCC ignore science orthodoxy?

    There are only two ways the IPCC can justify their short term fantasy, they claim that the bulk of the massive oceans play little short term role (under 1000 years) in setting CO2 levels and that the half life of CO2 in the air is 80 years. If anyone can explain how they arrive at 80 years, it would make interesting reading.

    102

    • #
      TdeF

      1/Looking at one IPCC publication. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
      Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis

      “About half of a CO2 pulse to the atmosphere is removed over a time scale of 30 years; a further 30% is removed within a few centuries; and the remaining 20% will typically stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.”

      Now that does not even make sense. Whatever removed half over 30 years quickly would refuse to take any more? Who set that limit?

      2/ Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide, 2009

      CONCLUSIONS
      “The models presented here give a broadly coherent picture of the fate of fossil fuel CO2 released
      into the atmosphere. Equilibration with the ocean will absorb most of it on a timescale of 2 to
      20 centuries
      . Even if this equilibration were allowed to run to completion, a substantial fraction
      of the CO2, 20–40%, would remain in the atmosphere awaiting slower chemical reactions
      with CaCO3 and igneous rocks. The remaining CO2 is abundant enough to continue to have a
      substantial impact on climate for thousands of years.”

      Again, this elaborate paper is based on models and speculation, not actual measurement of the lifetime of a pulse of CO2.

      There must be an end to this idea that speculative (computer) models are the truth, not measurement and that if the data does not fit the model, the data is wrong and must be adjusted to ‘reality’. True voodoo science.

      91

    • #
      gai

      Dr Segalstad addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air.

      Correct Timing is Everything – Also for CO2 in the Air

      Guest Editorial by Tom V. Segalstad @ CO2 Science
      Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology
      The University of Oslo, Norway

      00

  • #
    TedM

    Is this because china is burning high quality Australian coal?

    60

    • #
      Peter

      China is burning coal cleaner today than it was even ten years ago, across the board. For starters the briquette ban is something not many know about.

      Huge advances have already been made

      Since the beginning of the 21st century, China has made great advancements in improving coal-fired power generation. The first 1 GW ultra-supercritical coal-fired unit was placed in operation at the end of 2006 at the Zhejiang Yuhuan Power Plant. Since then, orders for 1 GW ultra-supercritical units are known to have far exceeded 100. By the end of July 2012, 46 units had been constructed and are operating. China has become a world leader in the number of installed and ordered large-scale (i.e., >1 GW) ultra-supercritical units.

      30

  • #
    Mark Fraser

    With a little luck, coal will do to Soros what Silver did to the Hunt Brothers.

    40

  • #
    A C

    “a ubiquitous molecule made by life on Earth,”

    Errrr? We are talking CO2 here?

    I think you will find the life on Earth exists BECAUSE of atmospheric CO2 – not the other way around. Atmospheric CO2 in sufficient quantities is a precondition for the evolution of a biosphere based on carbon-based life forms. It is The source for the carbon.
    Oxygen on the other hand is just a waste product of photosynthesis on a which few parasites have managed to evolve to live off.

    101

  • #
    David Maddison

    It’s all academic anyway because the proportion of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is only around 3% of all CO2 emissions. Around 97% of CO2 is of natural origin according to http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth10.htm

    52

  • #
  • #
    ROM

    For those interested enough my post # 24.1.1.1 of Jo’s 17th August post “Myths about Myths of the climate change debate” seems very relevant to Jo’s above posted Chinese CO2 emission findings and analysis.
    ————–
    To repeat another question I have asked on more than a couple of occasions and one which the green marxists and global warming cultists who appear sometimes here on Jo’s blog have never answered or attempted to answer.

    Could somebody in the CAGW believer’s camp please point out just one really significant and society benefiting outcome that has arisen out of the trillion dollars of wealth and resources squandered world wide over the last two decades to try and reduce CO2 emissions and any actual proven, directly observable benefits to people and society that might have occurred ?

    61

    • #
      gai

      Yes I can point to a ‘benefit’

      In the UK and to a lesser extent in the rest of the EU, they have managed to kill off ~30,000 old age pensioners a year.

      The Fabian Socialist have no use for old retired ‘useless eaters’ who are too smart to fall for their B.S. Better to use the funds to bribe the young and ignorant immigrants.

      00

  • #
    pat

    the claim about hottest July (year) seems to be dependent totally on alleged ocean temps, isn’t it?
    ***love the need to mention relocation of a weather station when record cold is recorded:

    NOAA: Global Analysis – July 2015
    The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2015 was the highest for July in the 136-year period of record…
    Separately, the July average temperature across global land surfaces was 0.96°C (1.73°F) above the 20th century average, the sixth warmest for July on record…
    A large swath stretching from eastern Scandinavia into western Siberia was cooler than average, with part of western Russia much cooler than average. Cooler than average temperatures were also observed across parts of eastern and southern Asia and scattered areas in central and northern North America…
    Despite a heatwave over part of Sweden at the beginning of the month, temperatures remained cool for the reminder of July across much of the country…
    Pajala (Sweden) observed its coolest July since 1965 and Gaddede its coolest since 1951, ***although SMHI notes that the station has been relocated a few times over the years…
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201507

    19 Aug: Snowboarding/Transworld: First Snow of the Season Dusts Colorado High Country
    Record Low Temperature Set in Denver; Snow Spotted in Rocky Mountain National Park
    So it begins. The first dusting of snow was spotted in the Colorado High Country on Wednesday morning and the temperature recorded at Denver International Airport dropped to 47 degrees Fahrenheit, setting a new record low for August 19th…
    http://snowboarding.transworld.net/news/first-snow-of-the-season-dusts-colorado-high-country/#4kRGHH2zOD0VOALB.97

    50

  • #
    David Maddison

    Hopefully this will be the first of may BIG MISTAKES and LIES that will be uncovered, hopefully to be revealed before the Parisites have their meeting.

    41

  • #
    David Maddison

    Off topic but I mentioned the other day about their ABC show on warmist scientist’s “feelings” about “climate change”. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rnafternoons/scientists-say-how-they-27feel27-about-climate-change/6698622

    I submitted a comment and they did not publish it. I asked them why they did not publish it and they did not answer. I sent the question again to the program contact form and days later, that is still unanswered. I guess it is a formal complaint next.

    81

  • #

    I have always had serious doubts about how they can actually measure accurately the CO2 emissions from a power plant.

    Now there’s a number of major ones here, and there are specific ….. guidelines. (and note here I said guidelines)

    Working here small to large plants.

    With all oil product based power plants, there’s a certain amount of CO2 emitted per (unit of) oil based products consumed, and this is similar to that for Natural Gas emissions. (note I just said similar to)

    With Natural Gas fired plants, the same, and that’s 122 pounds of CO2 for every mcf (thousand cubic feet) of NG being burned.

    With coal fired power plants there is a basic (note I said basic) emissions level of 2.86 tons of CO2 for every ton of coal consumed. (and here, that 2.86 multiplier is used for U.S. tons, Imperial tons, and Tonnes) However, that 2.86 multiplier again is just a guideline.

    Emissions from coal vary on a number of things, bituminous, sub bituminous, etcetara, and vary from brown coal Lignite though the grades of coal to Anthracite.

    So, even though a plant can be designed for one ‘type’ of coal specifically, the coal used even then varies.

    So, with so many different variables, how can they ….. ACCURATELY measure the ACTUAL CO2 emissions from the plant.

    If they have this problem with just one plant, imagine the problem with many of them, hundreds of them, thousands of them, a Country full of them.

    I have always used that 2.86 multiplier, but that is basically really just a guide.

    Now keep in mind, that they could measure the CO2 emissions by keeping an accurate note of how much actual coal is consumed per unit whilst it is in operation, but as the coal itself can be variable, how the hell can they do it like that with absolute accuracy.

    Now, think laterally, and wonder at just how accurate any ETS would be, based on those CO2 emissions, and you’ll immediately see the problem that something like this could be ever so easily scammed, and please don’t tell me those people who will be doing this trading are as pure as the driven snow altruistically motivated people. Of course it will be scammed, and scammed hugely big time.

    Think then also that the average large scale coal fired power plant will burn between 6 million and 7.5 million tons of coal each year, and using that guide multiplier of 2.86, then that’s an emissions total of between 17 and 22 Million tons of CO2, and then multiply that by the dollar value for each CO2 unit traded, and what’s a couple of thousand tons of CO2 here and there, millions of dollars.

    They have no ACCURATE way of measuring CO2 emissions to the degree required.

    The same applies when they Guesstimate the emissions for any Country, be it Australia, the U.S. India, China, whatever.

    It’s in their interests to beat up those totals, inflate them, grossly overstate them.

    That’s just coal fired power.

    There’s steel making, cement manufacture, all range of Industrial processes.

    And that’s just coal.

    Even then, there’s the multiplier of 2.86 which I use. Wikipedia uses 2.92, and some I have seen even use 3+, and work it out using those three multipliers for a plant consuming 6 million tons a year, and you can see the pretty large variation just from those figures.

    Then there’s the 23 other gases on that Greenhouse gas list, all based on Multipliers of CO2.

    There will NEVER be accuracy in any of this. It’s all just guesswork which has been inflated for base interests only.

    You can buy an ounce of Gold, and it’s accurate to 99.999%.

    You can buy a jar of Vegemite and be certain it contains exactly what it says it does.

    You can buy a litre of milk and know it is exactly one litre.

    Point at the stack of a power plant and measure me out one ton of CO2.

    Good luck with that.

    Tony.

    PostScript – Here’s the link to my own Post from 2008 when I explained that figure of 2.86, incidentally, one of the single most popular Posts ever at that site I contribute to.

    Here’s the link to the reference I use for that figure of 2.86 from the U.S. EIA. (Energy Information Administration) and it’s under that second heading Coal Combustion and Carbon Dioxide Emissions.

    101

    • #
      ianl8888


      So, even though a plant can be designed for one ‘type’ of coal specifically, the coal used even then varies.

      So, with so many different variables, how can they ….. ACCURATELY measure the ACTUAL CO2 emissions from the plant

      Constant monitoring and sampling – not 100% perfect but works in practical terms

      Various coals are also blended as raw feed, with blend ratios obviously known and controlled

      So how can we know what the final blend quality is ?

      Please note here, TonyOz [I appreciate your electrical engineering input, well mostly, but when it comes to the interface of engineering and geology, you do struggle mightily - and have an habitual technique that assumes what you don't know is probably not knowable]:

      when one blends coal piles, each pile individually known with quite well measured characteristics, the resultant blend characteristics are a straight linear value of the blending ratios for each individual characteristic

      example: blend (mix very well, with a front-end loader or dozer if necessary), 20 tonne of 20% ash coal with 20 tonne of 25% ash coal. Result 40 tonne of 22.5% ash coal. Not perfect, but works very well in practice. When it doesn’t work (poor measurement, bad blend arithmetic), Tokyo exceeds its’ atmospheric particulate limits and all h3ll breaks loose (I used Tokyo as an example here because the Japanese are particularly skilled at blending coals sourced from all over the place, 20 to 30 different piles at a time, I’ve observed the process from the controller office surveying a huge stockpile yard). I’ve also used only ash as a single variable, but in fact up to a dozen variables are blended simultaneously, so rigid sampling procedures are vital (whole sub-section of geology/engineering, entire on-going symposia dedicated to it)

      Why do that? Because the power plant may be designed to work at maximum efficiency on 22.5% ash coal but the product availabilities and costs of blending are a more cost-effective input than purchasing straight-out 22.5% raw fuel, especially if you then have all your eggs with one supplier mine

      From there, it’s a matter of the old equation C + O2 —-> CO2 and using the atomic weights of carbon and oxygen calculated off the known tonnage of carbon from the coal fed into the station. Again, not perfect, heavens knows, Ive been part of a team calculating Gillard’s carbon tax many times before it was repealed and that was a nightmare, but with effort can be reasonably done

      The bureaucrats and the ATO are a quite separate element in this nightmare, they have no clue :)

      60

  • #
    David Maddison

    Red Thumber – why don’t you read the posts and learn something! Your anti-science will get you nowhere. Alternatively, explain in scientific terms and with evidence why we are wrong.

    71

  • #
    pat

    21 Aug: Bolt Blog: Greens pay Aboriginal objectors to mine
    (Link The Australian)Indigenous elders fighting for ­native title on the land of Adani’s proposed $16 billion Carmichael coalmine have accused the green lobby of exploiting them and causing bitter divisions…
    Mr Malone, a former manager of indigenous broadcasting at the ABC, said last year the applicants had an in-principle agreement to take Adani’s offer… Mr Malone and Ms White said a change last August in the applic­ants on the native title claim, including the appointment of entertainer and mine critic Adrian­ Burragubba, led to a shift in the group’s position on Adani…
    Earlier this year it was revealed that, weeks after the meeting, Wotif founder Graeme Wood and former Greenpeace employee John Hepburn were involved in setting up a company, The Sunrise Project, to help the indigenous group fight Adani…READ ALL
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greens_pay_aboriginal_objectors_to_mine/

    21 Aug: News.com.au: The Australia Institute Chief Economist calls for moratorium on new coal mines
    by VICTORIA CRAW In London
    AUSTRALIA is the “little country that wants to ruin the world”, and it might just succeed thanks to Tony Abbott’s push to increase coal mining.
    That’s the view of The Australia Institute’s chief economist Dr Richard Denniss, who says our government’s attitude to mining is “bat sh*t crazy” and warned it could undermine global efforts to stop climate change.
    Speaking at an event in London, Dr Richard Denniss said government-backed plans to ramp up Australia’s coal output to more than 604 million tonnes a year was very dangerous…
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/the-australia-institute-chief-economist-calls-for-moratorium-on-new-coal-mines/story-fnjwvztl-1227491882114

    10

    • #

      How cool is this? (my bolding)

      AUSTRALIA is the “little country that wants to ruin the world”, and it might just succeed thanks to Tony Abbott’s push to increase coal mining.
      That’s the view of The Australia Institute’s chief economist Dr Richard Denniss, who says our government’s attitude to mining is “bat sh*t crazy” and warned it could undermine global efforts to stop climate change.
      Speaking at an event in London, Dr Richard Denniss said government-backed plans to ramp up Australia’s coal output to more than 604 million tonnes a year was very dangerous

      So let me see now!

      Burn all that coal (if it ever gets mined in the first place, because it’s just a proposal he’s beaten up) and the CO2 emissions come to less than 2.5% of the World’s total greenhouse gas emissions per year.

      2.5%

      Ruin the World!

      Undermine efforts to stop Climate Change.

      Really!

      Tony.

      70

  • #
    pat

    pdf: 17 pages: ABC: Media Watch Transcrips: Greenpeace: Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom
    Funding proposal for the Australian anti-coal movement
    John Hepburn (Greenpeace Australia Pacific)
    Bob Burton (Coalswarm)
    Sam Hardy (Graeme Wood Foundation)
    Particular thanks are due to Mark Ogge (Beyond Zero Emissions), Paul Oosting (Getup!), Ellie Smith, Holly Creenaune(United Voice), Barry Traill (Pew), Julie Macken (Greenpeace), Drew Hutton (Lock the Gate), Kirsty Ruddock (Environmental Defenders Office NSW), Jo Bragg (Environmental Defenders Office Queensland), Patricia Julien (Mackay Conservation Group), Carmel Flint (Nature Conservation Council), Chantelle James (Capricornia Conservation Council), Mark Wakeham (Environment Victoria), Kate Lee (United Voice), Geoff Evans (Mineral Policy Institute), Richard Denniss (The Australia Institute), Belinda Fletcher (Greenpeace) and Georgina Woods (CANA) for comment, critique and input on various drafts…
    http://business-reporter.co.uk/2015/08/18/carbon-taxes-blamed-for-next-years-closure-of-longannet-power-station/

    31

  • #
    ROM

    David Maddison @ #31

    Alternatively, explain in scientific terms and with evidence why we are wrong.

    Come on David! You surely can’t expect a drive by pop gun shooter with a very small cork and an IQ that matches their shoe size to meet your demand ? :-)
    ——————-
    On a more serious note and off topic.

    There has been a rash of quite serious over estimations of gas usage and therefore overcharging, by about 9% in my case, by the gas supply retailers in the Horsham area at least, who are now using “estimations” of gas usage for their quarterly or bi-monthly billing periods and who are now apparently only actually reading the gas meters once or perhaps twice a year.

    The outcome is of course a few tens of millions of”free” money illicitly extracted from their customers, those who don’t know how to check the hieroglyphics the gas retailers now use to bamboozle the customers.
    It is inadvertently supplied and unknowing customer’s “free” money that becomes available to those gas retailers for anything up to three quarters of the year.
    It makes the financial performance of the company look real good and boosts executive bonuses as well, all at the complete expense of the more trusting and innocent customer who is paying for a product they did not use and did not access.

    The Mafia still have quite a lot to learn from some of these outfits.

    81

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      An important point. Governments can’t even regulate energy suppliers so that we are treated fairly.

      KK

      30

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    A few of us in a previous thread brought up the “accounting error” of not counting anything other than Electricity when calculating the Carbon Usage of the world.

    There are many countries where most, if not all, cook with fuel fires using wood, grass, dung and even coal and whatever else will burn.

    Why isn’t this fact clearly stated somewhere in the IPCC manifesto?

    KK

    40

  • #
    pat

    20 Aug: RTCC: Ed King: Tackling climate not in Poland’s interest, says Duda
    New president warns Warsaw will push EU for more concessions on its greenhouse gas emissions and coal use
    In an interview with Politico, Andrzej Duda said the October 2014 decision by the EU’s 28 member states to target 40% emission cuts on 1990 levels by 2030 was “bad for Poland’s direction”.
    “Compared to the rest of Europe, we have enormous coal reserves and simply understood decarbonization is completely not in our interest,” he said…
    According to Politico, Duda “waved off” a question on the wider impacts of temperature rises, responding: “Global warming, global warming.” …
    Duda, who won office in May, also claimed that EU climate regulations were more severe than in other parts of the world, naming the US, China and Brazil.
    That was “simply unreasonable” and made the European economy uncompetitive, he argued…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/08/20/tackling-climate-not-in-polands-interest-says-duda/

    20 Aug: RTCC: Ed King: EU climate chief outlines criteria for Paris success
    World must agree to zero emissions trajectory by 2100 says Miguel Arias Canete, or 2015 deal will lack credibility
    Speaking to media in Brussels, the EU climate commissioner said he had “no doubt” a new climate agreement would be signed off this year, but “the question is: will it be enough?”
    The EU’s preference for a long term goal was “at least” 60% global emission cuts on 2010 levels by 2050, falling to zero by 2100…
    A report (LINK) by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change released on Wednesday confirmed that emissions targets entered to date are insufficient to prevent dangerous warming…ETC
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/08/20/eu-climate-chief-outlines-criteria-for-paris-success/

    30

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      pat:
      They have been subject to surges of wind electricity from Germany for years, disrupting their market. Their coal fired stations get extra costs accommodating them and have less output, reducing their profits. Hence there has been little investment in electricity generation.

      Recently they have had blackouts because there was no wind power available across most of Europe. Sorry, didn’t record the link but map from HAMMweather.com 12/8/2015

      Poland (& the Czech Republic) are installing phase shifting transformers to stop these surges, and make the market stable for new coal fired generation in Poland (and nuclear in the Czech Rep.).

      00

  • #
    crakar24

    Its over 80 comments so time for thread diversion

    http://www.sciencealert.com/india-establishes-world-s-first-100-percent-solar-powered-airport

    I read in the gaurdian that for you to understand climate change you need to understand science fiction a kind of climate fiction if you will, is that what they are doing in the above link?

    100% solar power with 12 hours of sun……………do the math

    cheers

    60

    • #
      TdeF

      So they can fly solar powered aircraft? It is high farce.
      0.4Km x 0.4km of solar panels, 1,000 to the acre.

      70

      • #
        TdeF

        At peak 1kw/m2 at midday, 47,000 panels over 45 acres means 47 Megawatt.

        Sounds impressive but a single 777 jet engine at maximum can produces 108 megawatts night and day. So they are replacing less than a quarter of a single jet engine with 47 acres of precious land and at a real cost, even assuming land is free, which might be around $8 per watt or $400Million. That’s what I mean by farce. As for powering 10,000 Indian homes? How many have power? At night?

        Still you do save the CO2 and that is all that matters, reducing the land you need to grow food and reducing the CO2 from which food is made. These people are Green? How long before Indians are starving again?

        The other farce is that this is an airport, where thousands of jet engines land in a year and they are saving CO2? An example to us all. Of what is less certain.

        81

    • #

      From the article: (my bolding here)

      In a move that’s expected to save 300,000 tonnes of carbon emissions over the next 25 years, the state of Cochin on the southwest coast of India has transitioned its airport to 100 percent solar power.

      300,000 tons of CO2 over 25 years.

      You know the same emissions from a large scale coal fired power plant in umm, 6 days and 9 hours.

      So, hmm, let me see now, one airport saves that much, so how many airports to save emissions from, ah, forget it.
      The article then say this:

      “Now, Cochin airport will have 50,000 to 60,000 units of electricity per day to be consumed for all its operational functions, which technically make the airport ‘absolutely power neutral’,” Cochin International Airport Limited (CIAL)

      Go on then, you pick out the weasel word here.

      Tony.

      81

  • #
    giordano bruno

    Australia do NOT emit co2 as is the world leader in co2 sequestration. Unfortunately the new world irder wants less trees and more peoples in Australia. Trees or wildlife do not pay taxes and the more are the peoples the fatter are the cats.
    God save Australia from the watermelons.

    81

  • #
    David Maddison

    Premier Andrews in VIC just announced VIC is going to be 20% “renewable”, mostly wind, by 2020 and to encourage things the government is going to buy 100MW of the capacity. I hope they ONLY buy wind so the lights and computers in government offices go out numerous times per day. It will stop the public serpents doing anything and while they are not doing anything we are safe.

    91

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you Jo, it almost amazes me that MSM can constantly ignore the corruption of the “settled science”.

    61

  • #
    pat

    20 Aug: Breitbart: Steve Milloy: Another Climate Alarmist Buys Another Coal Company
    It’s a good thing I finally went public last week with my long-held view that Democrat investors were going to snap up coal companies driven to bankruptcy by Obama’s war on coal.
    The day after I made my prediction, news came that leftist billionaire George Soros had purchased shares of the two largest U.S. coal companies, Peabody Energy and Arch Coal. Now comes news that bankrupt Patriot Coal is being purchased in a $400 million deal led by Tom Clarke, a prominent Virginia-based environmentalist.
    But Clarke’s purchase of Patriot brings a new — and likely fraudulent — twist to what I called “Obama’s Great Coal Train Robbery.”…
    My original article forecast that the new kings of coal would have try to rehabilitate coal so they could profit from it with a straight face after having for years bashed the essential commodity as a people- and planet-murderer.
    So Clarke plans to do this — no kidding — by planting trees. Clarke will sell his coal at a 10 percent premium. And why would any cash-strapped utility pay 10 percent more for Clarke’s coal? The coal will come with a carbon credit certificate (also called a “carbon offset”) worth 30 percent of the coal’s emissions…READ ON
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/20/another-climate-alarmist-buys-another-coal-company/

    00

  • #
    pat

    19 Aug: BusinessInsider: Reuters: Barbara Lewis: EU debate on green energy targets pitches UK against Germany
    BRUSSELS – Britain and Germany will line up on opposite sides of a European Union green energy debate starting next month on how to meet agreed renewable fuel targets for the next decade…
    The emissions target will be mandatory in the wider framework of U.N. climate goals to be reviewed in Paris at the end of the year.
    So far, the 2030 renewable goal is binding only at EU-wide level and the challenge is to ensure it is met as the bloc as a whole cannot be fined for infringement.
    Germany, which is pushing through its Energiewende, or shift from nuclear to green energy, wants binding laws…
    Portugal also takes a firm line in another paper designed to influence diplomats. It says “a strong governance system” with “clear compliance mechanisms” is needed to attract investors.
    Campaigners agree.
    “Investors’ confidence for clean energy will develop only on the back of a strong and reliable governance system,” Imke Luebbeke, policy officer at campaign group WWF, said.
    In the opposite camp, Britain aligned with the Czech Republic in a joint paper urging a “light-touch and non-legislative” approach…
    http://www.businessinsider.com/r-eu-debate-on-green-energy-targets-pitches-uk-against-germany-2015-8?IR=T

    Reuters – it is absurd that WWF, Greenpeace or similar is quoted in every major energy pice u write. give it a break.

    10

  • #
    pat

    20 Aug: BizJournals: Arch Coal stock jumps on investor, debt news
    Arch Coal Inc. stock was up more than 45 percent in late-day trading Thursday, to about $3.35 a share, continuing the week’s climb on news about its debt situation and an investment by billionaire George Soros.
    The coal company’s shares also benefited from heavy trading Thursday with volume that was nearly 18 times the full-day average, MarketWatch reports…
    Arch Coal saw a pop Monday from news that billionaire George Soros’ investment fund, Soros Fund Management, had taken a 553,200-share stake in the company in the second quarter.
    Soros also disclosed he had a stake in Peabody Energy Corp., and its stock rose on the news as well…
    http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2015/08/20/arch-coal-stock-jumps-on-investor-debt-news.html

    10

  • #

    Thank you Jo, it almost amazes me that MSM can constantly ignore the corruption

    10

  • #
    pat

    ***carbon credit fraud on the rise in UK:

    20 Aug: InternationalAdviser: Richard Hubbard: Many UK retirees seen using pension freedoms to get cash
    Research by UK insurer Royal London has found that nearly 70% of savers who have taken advantage of the government’s new pension reforms since April have taken their money in a cash lump sum…
    Scams surge The lack of sophistication shown by many of those accessing their retirement savings under the pension reforms, which allowed savers over 55 virtually unlimited access to their funds, has also triggered a surge of investment fraud based in London’s financial centre…
    The Financial Times reported on Thursday that the scale of the problem had sparked alarm across the City and authorities had begun a campaign of disruption against suspected criminals who were renting exclusive offices in prestigious locations.
    The paper said criminals were making high-pressure cold calls urging people to place large sums in too-good-to-be true schemes involving wine, gems, antiques, art, overseas property, oil wells, forestry, ***carbon credits and other exotic commodities..
    http://www.international-adviser.com/news/1024450/uk-retirees-pension-freedoms-cash

    20 Aug: Russia Today: City fraudsters stealing millions from vulnerable pensioners in toxic scams
    Ruthless white collar criminals in the City of London are targeting large numbers of vulnerable Brits, luring them into investment scams, stealing their hard earned cash and driving some to commit suicide, it has emerged…
    Dozens of suspected criminals have been arrested in recent months as detectives arrived unannounced at offices around London’s financial district, the Financial Times revealed on Thursday…
    White collar criminals cold call unsuspecting Brits, urging them to invest hefty sums in supposedly lucrative schemes involving oil wells, ***carbon credits, forestry, gems, antiques, art, wine, and other luxury commodities.
    They reportedly purchase the contact details of pensioners or people who are particularly vulnerable due to dementia or other illnesses…
    https://www.rt.com/uk/312933-city-scam-fraudsters-pensioners/

    00

  • #
    gai

    Soros is not a friend of the US….

    No he is not.

    Interesting that he is investing heavily in South American farmland.

    Argentine farm sales raise questions of land speculation by Soros

    Soros has a 21 percent stake in a company named Adecoagro that is worth some $236 million….

    Adecoagro, an agribusiness company based in Brazil, was created in 2002 to invest in biofuels, coffee, cotton, dairy, grain and sugar production in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. Over the last decade, the company has amassed 283,000 hectares in land which it is now slowly selling off as the price of the land rises. All told the company has now made $132 million from selling farmland and calculates that it has made over 30 percent a year for its investors….

    The planting of soy – together with palm and jatropha – has boomed around the world in the last decade because of generous subsidies from governments in Europe and North America who want industry to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels like coal and petroleum in order to meet international obligations to mitigate global warming under the Climate Change convention.

    But the environmental gains from soy production are questionable. Tim Searchinger, a former Environmental Defense lawyer, authored a 2008 paper for a workshop organized by the Farm Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture that showed that converting cropland to soy biodiesel production created “dramatically” more global warming than burning regular fuels.

    “Prior analyses made an accounting error,” Searchinger told Scientific American. “There is a huge imbalance between the carbon lost by plowing up a hectare of forest or grassland from the benefit you get from biofuels.”

    Activist groups like Oxfam are also critical of the impact of the biofuel rush which they say is pushing subsistence farmers off their land. “(L)and deals driven by biofuel production mean that there is less land available to grow local staples, fruit and vegetables, making it difficult for parents to provide their children with healthy, nutritious meals,” writes the UK NGO in “Hunger Grains” published in September 2012.

    There is one factor that has slowed Adecoagro speculation in Argentine land, however. This occurred in December 2011 when the Argentine Senate voted 62-1 to approve a law capping ownership by a foreign individual or company at 1,000 hectares (2,470 acres) in a bid to curb the loss of land to outsiders.

    During the last glaciation Brazil and northern Argentina were grasslands. Not bad land to own if the weather turns colder.

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/NEW_MAPS/southam1.gif

    10

  • #
    gai

    Pointman reminds me we all need to join E.M. Smith’s (ChiefIO)

    Church Of The Sacred Carbon

    Posted on 21 July 2012 by E.M.Smith

    So I was pondering Religion the other day… My Son has gone off to help found a church and is now a formal Minister in his church. FWIW I’m a legally ordained minister as well; though I’ve not done much with it…

    Which leads me to Part Two…

    So all life on Earth is Carbon Based. We must consume carbon to live. Literally. We burn carbon to warm ourselves and preserve life. Carbon provides light and life itself.

    So why not have a Church Of The Sacred Carbon?

    Heck, God made us of the stuff. ‘Nuff said!

    …With that, I urge you to prepare now for the Holy Burnt Offering of The Church Of The Sacred Carbon.

    I will now hold aloft a “Wave Offering” to consecrate this moment. And Thank Carbon, most Holy, for my life in Carbon…

    Amen.

    So here it is: The Church of the Sacred Carbon | Joy In Carbon Based Life

    …I’m proclaiming this the Holy Month Of July.

    Festivities to commence whenever and wherever desired. Preferably a natural fire using charcoal, wood, or if necessary, propane for cooking. Unlike Ramadan, eating is encouraged during our Holy Months…

    Think of it as an ongoing celebration of our Carbon Based Life. Rather a bit like Yule. Pig on a spit, or steak on a grill, or even vegetarian kabobs over flames. Beverages of choice to include sacred wine, sacred beer, and even sacred soda pop…

    Nothing like fighting religion with religion now that the Pope and the Church of England have joined the circus.

    Nothing like humor, a good charcoal broiled steak and a beer to help us deal with this mess.

    20