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


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

ABC-watch: Economist talks unresearched conspiracy science to pretend journalist

Welcome to another $3 million-a-day quality moment on Their ABC

Here’s a Nobel Prize winning economist reviewing scientific evidence – something Nobel Prize winners in physics don’t get to do on the ABC. His interviewer is the star economist Emma Alberici.

The guest opens with near apocalyptic predictions:

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: If more and more of Australia are not liveable because of climate change, you’re not going to be better off.

You know, the future of the world, let alone the future of Australia really is at stake when we are talking about climate change.

These days, wild claims are just introductory wallpaper. Meh.

Who knew, the key scientific evidence was reviewed by economists.

The evidence is overwhelming and I was on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that reviewed the evidence back 1995, …

Which tells you everything you need to know about how rigorous the IPCC science reviews are.

But it would be OK if only he knew something about climate science, the IPCC or its predictions:

…and I’ve kept looking at the evidence and you know, the one mistake we made in 1995 was that we didn’t anticipate how fast things were going to change.

Indeed, things changed so fast the IPCC has spent the last twenty years downgrading its estimates of climate sensitivity and future warming:

Falling, climate sensitivity, carbon dioxide, IPCC, graph, Scaffetta 2017.

Climate sensitivity keeps falling, Scaffetta 2017.  Thanks to NoTricksZone.

 This is not what “faster than expected” looks like

Since 1995, the temperatures didn’t rise for longer than any of the modelers thought was it was possible for temperatures to not rise. Antarctic sea ice set new highs, Antarctic temperatures did nothing, and tropical islands grew instead of shrinking. The hot spot went missing, and never returned, despite multiple search parties combing the data in search of missing upper tropospheric redness. Thus we found out the core assumption driving most of the prophesied warming was wrong.   We also found out CO2 didn’t lead temperatures for the last half a million years, instead, the hallowed ice cores showed the exact opposite. The evil pollutant turned up 800 years late to nearly every warming party there was. So much for “cause and effect”.

A thousand tide gauges showed sea levels rose slower than expected, and had even slowed down. Ocean heat went missing too and instead of being where the IPCC thought it would be in 1995, it’s probably twenty-three light years away, approaching CassiopeiaePredictions of methane growth failed dismally (see here) after the Russians plugged their leaky pipes. The IPCC did not see that coming. But carbon dioxide emissions grew faster than expected, yet had even less effect.

Meanwhile hurricanes over the US stopped for the longest time on record, and hurricanes all over the world became less energetic.

Emma didn’t ask.

Excuses, Excuses — tomorrow will be sunny with weather variability?

Stiglitz: We didn’t fully anticipate some of the effects like the increase in weather variability, the hurricanes, the cyclones and it is I think, fundamentally short-sighted not, not to be thinking about this but over the long term, the real wealth of a country is based on the skills, the abilities, the innovation of the citizens and that is going to depend on the investments that you put in your people — not on coal, not on iron ore.

You know, I spent a lot of time in China. They are beginning to wake up to the dangers of coal. Air is not breathable, that’s the most concrete immediate effect but they too understand the dangers of climate change.

He spent all that time in China, but sadly Google didn’t let him see the secret coal boom, the collapsing solar industry, nor the coal-volcano-trains. He may have missed that when Chinese Crypto companies want cheap electricity, they are buying coal fired power in Australia.

The Chinese do understand the dangers of climate change. They know it’s a scam.

So, I think there will be a global consensus on eliminating coal and that means it is all the more imperative for Australia to get off coal.

Emma Alberici skips the chance to discuss science or economics and asks him a softball psych question instead:

EMMA ALBERICI: I want to know how you explain the politicisation of climate change as an issue, given so many well regarded economists like yourself indeed — the Nobel Prize in economics has gone to William Norhaus this month, who has pioneered a framework for understanding how the economy and climate interact — and yet on the other side we have this politicisation of the issue such that if you want to reduce carbon emissions, certainly in this country, you’re a green leftie. And if you agree that it is all a bit of alarmist nonsense, then you’re really a true conservative.

She works for a tax-payer funded institute which ignores half the country and calls them names, but this ABC senior star can’t figure out why things are “politicized.”

The Nobel prize-winner doesn’t know either, but speculates anyway:

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah, I really, it is a little bit of a puzzle. You know, there are special interests who make a lot of money out of fossil fuel — coal, oil companies — and they have an economic interest to try to persuade people that its hokum, that it is a liberal conspiracy.

Except that oil companies lobby for and benefit from carbon penalties that punish coal more than them, and which also subsidize unreliable power that needs gas back up. If only Stiglitz understood economics…

If only Emma Alberici were a journalist.

h/t George

REFERENCE

Scafetta et al., 2017   Since 2000 there has been a systematic tendency to find lower climate sensitivity values. The most recent studies suggest a transient climate response (TCR) of about 1.0 °C, an ECS less than 2.0 °C and an effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) in the neighborhood of 1.0 °C.”

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (90 votes cast)
ABC-watch: Economist talks unresearched conspiracy science to pretend journalist , 9.8 out of 10 based on 90 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y9h56kyy

271 comments to ABC-watch: Economist talks unresearched conspiracy science to pretend journalist

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    As Pres. Trump might tweet: Sad!

    200

    • #
      Geoff

      Kaya, a Japanese economist, developed a simple equation to describe the relationship between CO2 emissions and a few macro-economic parameters. The Kaya identity -

      CO2 emissions = P x GDP/P x E/GDP x CO2/E

      The Kaya identity says that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are proportional to:

      • Population
      • Gross Domestic Product per capita (ie, average personal wealth)
      • Energy consumption per unit Gross Domestic Product (ie energy intensity of the economy), and
      • CO2 emissions per unit energy consumption (ie emissions intensity of energy)

      Now lets consider the Kaya identity in light of emission reduction targets. The International Energy Agency 2 degree scenario requires global emissions to reduce by around 75% by 2060. The Kaya identity tells us that one way of achieving a 75% reduction in emissions is to:

      • reduce global population by 30%, and
      • reduce average personal wealth by 30%, and
      • reduce energy intensity of the economy by 30%, and
      • reduce the emissions intensity of the energy system by 30%.

      This drives government policy.

      or go to

      Eugenics: see Democrat Party and MSM of the United States for complete policy breakdown.

      Another excellent example of bureaucratic group think in process is the European Parliament.

      Another source is The Communist Manifesto 1848 political pamphlet by the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

      210

      • #
        tom0mason

        And of course the US Democratic Party and their ‘Progressive Movement’ has been under the influence of the Fabians for many decades.
        see https://progressingamerica.blogspot.com/2012/07/regarding-friendly-relationship-and.html

        60

      • #
        sophocles

        Geoff:
        with all due respect:

        CO2 emissions = P x GDP/P x E/GDP x CO2/E
        = P/1 * GDP/P * E/GDP * CO2/E
        = P*GDP*E*CO2
        ————
        1*P*GDP*E*
        which simplifies to:
        CO2 emissions = CO2.

        How very useful …
        Only an economist could have thought of that.

        70

        • #
          Geoff

          I did not make up the formula. It is what the IPCC uses. Other than that, yes, its hard to believe that any government body would propose this. Please read the last reference and you will then understand why.

          See http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=38

          30

          • #
            sophocles

            Geoff * # 1.1.2.1:

            I did not make up the formula

            I did not accuse you of doing that, Geoff. If it’s from the IPCC, then that explains it’s pointlessness more than well enough.

            30

        • #
          AndyG55

          “which simplifies to CO2 emissions = CO2. ”

          If CO2 emissions didn’t equal CO2 emissions there would be something very wrong. ;-)

          60

          • #
            sophocles

            If CO2 emissions didn’t equal CO2 emissions there would be something very wrong. ;-)

            :-)

            Without any “constants” to assign proportionality to each part of the expression, it’s a wasted effort. That is something the IPCC does very well.

            40

            • #
              sophocles

              … which is probably one of the reasons their projections constantly keep failing … :-)

              30

            • #
              sophocles

              But then the only constant they [ the IPCC ] strongly defend is TSI, as the Solar Constant which is another good reason their projections continue to fail: they assigned a constant to a variable star. Doh.

              I’m disappointed with Stiglitz, I thought he was a worthy man, better than he has turned out, but I forgot: he’s an economist. Economists know everything so they are always right except when they’re wrong … how often are they wrong? Almost all the time. :-)

              40

    • #
      Mal

      Australia’s target of 26% reduction equates to 1 molecule of CO2 in 10million parts of atmosphere.
      We have no climatic impact but at huge economic cost.
      In fact as we all know increased CO2 has a positive benefit from increased plant life including food production
      Where are the economists discussing this?

      60

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Yes the wilder the claims are the less people will be concerned, call it Cognitive Climate Desensitization but the public will eventually call it BS as the reality around them doesn’t correlate with the fantasies of fanatics.

    301

  • #
    pattoh

    Don’t worry, Lord Poopy Pants has been back to Wall St. to get his new instructions & when he returns from Bali, the “Sermon from the Mound” will have all the heretics supplicating & wailing for forgiveness. /sarc.

    280

  • #
    James Murphy

    Higgs boson exists: Scientists interviewed
    Gravitational waves detected: Scientists interviewed
    Advancement in medical treatment: doctors and/or scientists interviewed
    Rocket launch failure: astronauts and/or engineers interviewed
    Engineering failure of some sort: Engineers interviewed
    Legal matters: lawyers interviewed
    political matters: politicians interviewed

    Yet, few people seems to raise any concerns when:
    Climate change research: economists/bankers/activists interviewed…

    641

  • #
    James Murphy

    I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that a lot of air pollution in China (in medium to large cities) is caused by cooking fires, vehicle exhaust (especially 2-strokes, and old diesels), and other burning of waste. No doubt there is a contribution from untreated/poorly treated emissions (other than combustion) from various factories as well.

    Apparently I am wrong, and it’s all due to coal, and only coal?

    In my admittedly limited experience, burning coal, even burning poor quality coal poorly, does not smell (or taste) anything like the air I’ve tasted in Beijing, Shenzhen, Zhanjiang, or even Hong Kong… if anything, it reminded me of Port Moresby and Dili, where open fires are common.

    331

    • #
      Spetzer86

      I’ve driven by a few of the dedicated coal facilities servicing the industrial areas in various cities around China. There’s a lot of smoke coming out of the stacks. They aren’t the only problem, as you’ve noted, but the older coal facilities are certainly contributing.

      140

    • #
      el gordo

      Electricity and gas for domestic heating is more expensive than coal, the authorities are aware of the smog problem.

      http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/kindle/2017-01/09/content_27901513.htm

      50

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        How many years ago did London ban coal fires for heating to reduce their smog? 50? 60?

        I was under the impression that it was there that the word smog (smoke/fog) originated.

        70

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘The Clean Air Act 1956 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed in response to London’s Great Smog of 1952. It was in effect until 1964, and sponsored by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in England and the Department of Health for Scotland.’ wiki

          70

    • #
      peter

      My 1st trip to China was in 1990, in Beijing. I saw low-grade unwashed coal piled into a concrete bay for burning in apartment building boilers (Beijing winters are very cold). It was a dusty, dirty, dark brown-black friable mound. I thought it must have been soil so I went up to it and felt/inspected it – it was coal! I come from Newcastle, NSW and have studied geology so I know coal when I see it.

      They were burning low-grade unwashed coal (the ash-content must have been >20% and difficult to burn) in urban areas without any dust catching/scrubbing or filtration out of low exhaust stacks that blew the smoke straight into the windows of adjacent apartment buildings. What the F??

      Beijing cleaned up their act a lot with the Beijing Olympics but a lot of regional China (I’ve been back since to western China) still operate with the same primitive technology from 40/50 years ago. Anyone who thinks China is giving up coal and run on clean technology is not just ignorant but deluded.

      150

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      When we (my wife and I) were working in S. China in 2066 we drove to Guangzhou from Hong Kong. It was factories all the way and most had smoke (carbon particles, not H2O droplets, I know the difference!) belching out. Yes, real polution not helped by the dense traffic and the domestic fires. The air was acrid and our eyes were constantly irritated (we were working outside). This is what the Chinese are doing their best to reduce. The new coal fired power stations are not the culprits.

      110

  • #
    Mark M

    It’s worse than we first thought.

    The 97% government doomsday settled science, that is …

    Nicholas Stern, economist and author of the government-commissioned review on climate change that became the reference work for politicians and green campaigners:

    ‘I got it wrong on climate change – it’s far, far worse’

    In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Stern, who is now a crossbench peer, said: “Looking back, I underestimated the risks.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-stern-climate-change-davos

    So, after admitting mis-leading politicians and green campaigners with failed catastrophic climate scaremongering, you double the doom & you are rewarded with a lifetime government income.

    240

    • #
      PeterS

      The term “settled science” is just another term for “propaganda”.

      200

      • #
        Bill In Oz

        By ideologues !

        no science involved.

        110

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Well, they are clearly getting desperate, as they have doubled down on the hysteria…..

          160

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            I get that impression too, Steve. But don’t underestimate The Sheeple’s abiity to fall for it. And don’t underestimate the Leftists’ propensity for dirty tricks.

            Three election coming up in Australia with far reaching consequences. One coming soon in the US, disrupted by a massive new type of fake news today.

            The Leftists won in Wentworth on the back of a fake news issue. This one is much bigger, but operating on the same principle.

            100

            • #
              PeterS

              Indeed. What many don’t understand is there is a real culture war between the left and the conservatives, and the left are winning big time, partly due to the gullibility of the majority of people accompanied with an attitude of not caring enough about politics and/or not spending any tome to do their own research to determine the truth and/or not giving a damn, and partly because they are well funded. The obvious and ironic example of the latter is the ABC funded by us taxpayers. The other factor is the LNP also don’t appear to give a damn. They are too busy fighting each other instead of the ALP+Greens who happen to have the leftist ABC fully on the side. The next election will be a great litmus test for the people. DO they see through all this craziness or will they continue to fall for it and place Shorten as PM. Eitehr way this nation is going to crash and burn because the LNP has lost all credibility.

              140

              • #
                PeterPetrum

                PeterS – you have it absolutely correct. The Sheeple do not know, more than half of the rest don’t care and we are left as an ineffectual minority, gnashing our teeth uselessly on sites like this (not a complaint, Jo – we need you!)

                100

              • #
                Ted O'Brien.

                Peter, with this blog my chief line of communication, I saw a world wide doubling of the AGW propaganda effort after the Abbott government’s election in 2013.

                Nowhere was that more evident than in the Fairfax press and the ABC. To date the increased effort has paid off for them in a big way.

                That could turn around sharply if people noticed that 1. We are the only country doing this, 2. It is already hurting, and will get worse, and 3. That despite the hysterical claptrap, thirty years into their catastrophe, there has really and truly been no increase in the rate of the rise of the sea level.

                80

              • #
                PeterS

                Peter and Ted, I can’t say for sure what proportion of the populace are brain dead, clueless and/or don’t give a damn. We will get a much better idea of that at the next federal election. That’s why I call it a very important litmus test for Australians. The real problem I see though is the LNP is delinquent in their duty to inform the public and announce the right policies. At the moment Morrison is sounding more and more like the character O’Brien in George Orwell’s novel 1984. In that case the litmus test is whether the voters are wake to the fact both major parties are useless and hence we need to break the nexus and have a significant loss of seats in both of them to the minor parties and independents as a protest vote that will make a real difference in spite of the chaos it will bring, not that it matters anyway since the alternative is far worse under either major party. That’s the part most people don’t understand (yet).

                60

    • #
      Phoenix 44

      The odd thing here is that Stern admits he was wrong but is then treated as if he was “super right”.

      Wrong is wrong, and if he was wrong before he can be wrong again.

      80

  • #

    Another great article Jo, keep them coming please.

    170

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    Let’s be clear about this.

    Let’s be clear about The Science.

    There is NO mechanism by which Carbon Dioxide can Change the Earth’s Atmospheric Temperature.

    Having previously written about the science behind the claims of manmade global warming and especially the quantitative aspects of that set of beliefs I now move to a new form of expression: ANALOGY.

    As a very young child I was shown a wonderful system of understanding the world and getting on together.

    That system was Christianity and the low key, people centered version that I saw was inspiring.

    That the two larger churches in town needed huge buildings and trappings to get across the same message was a little over the top by comparison.

    Many years later there were trips to Europe where the church had enormous Cathedrals spread from one end to the other.

    In Rome there seemed to be a Church _ Cathedral on every second corner and the money and human effort involved in the construction of those must have been incredible.

    A good idea had ended up going in the wrong direction.

    The Message had been lost in the trappings.

    The message and truth available from the application of Science has now been overwhelmed by the impenetrable Cathedrals of Klimate Change where the important thing is not the science, but the Cathedral.

    Human Origin CO2 cannot influence Earth’s atmospheric temperature.

    KK

    251

    • #

      Kranky Kinky Keith said:
      “There is NO mechanism by which
      Carbon Dioxide can Change
      the Earth’s Atmospheric Temperature.”

      That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theorist
      with an aluminum foil hat.

      Laboratory experiments since
      the late 1800s clearly show that CO2
      acts as a greenhouse gas in laboratory
      closed system experiments.

      As a result, it is a reasonable assumption
      that adding CO2 to the air, as humans
      have been doing, could cause warming.

      The amount of warming is unknown –
      it could even be too small to measure.

      And if ALL the warming since 1950
      was caused ONLY by CO2,
      that worst case assumption
      tells us one thing:
      - The worst case TCS
      is about +1.0 degrees C.,
      and that means CO2 is harmless.

      The amount of warming
      from CO2 is unknown,
      because there has been no change
      to the average temperature
      in the past century,
      that could not be easily explained
      by natural climate change.

      However,
      there is some evidence of
      greenhouse gas warming —
      much of the warming has been
      in the northern half
      of the Northern Hemisphere,
      at night, in the winter
      – those would all be “signatures”
      of greenhouse warming.

      However, the lack of warming in
      Antarctica is contrary evidence.

      I think it is a huge mistake for
      any skeptics to dismiss the little real
      science that backs the climate change
      fairy tale (the laboratory
      Infrared spectroscopy).

      So,
      I ask you to not attack
      the real science,
      and claim CO2 can not
      affect the atmosphere,
      … and make yourself appear
      more intelligent by attacking
      other issues, that are real,
      and science-free:

      (1)
      The lack of any real science,
      beyond the in-lab spectroscopy,

      (2)
      The 30 years of very wrong
      confuser model average
      temperature predictions,

      (3)
      The ridiculous water vapor
      positive feedback theory, and the
      “missing” tropical hot spot,
      and most of all:

      (4)
      Slight warming mainly at night,
      mainly in the winter,
      mainly in higher latitudes,
      is GOOD NEWS,
      not bad news.

      I’m not posting this to make friends,
      so go ahead and give me “thumbs down”,
      but I am posting this to promote
      better climate change skepticism,
      that is not easily refuted !

      My climate science blog,
      with over 26,000 page views so far:
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

      114

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Richard, I put it to you that CO2′s capacity to warm is already just about used up. So Keith’s assertion is not all that far wrong.

        100

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Ted,

          Look what happens when you take a short cut.

          I was lazy and should have said:

          “There is NO effective mechanism….”.

          And there isn’t.

          A scientist might have to say “we don’t know” but an engineer can say “effectively No Way”.

          100

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            The whole truth was ever too long a story. Few have the patience tell it, none the patience to hear it.

            70

          • #

            How about this “compromise”:

            There is no scientific proof, evidence,
            or even a good theory to jump to the conclusion
            that CO2 ‘controls the climate’ ,
            especially when ice core studies
            show temperature peaks LEAD CO2 peaks!

            51

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Hi Dick,

        Read your own paragraph 3.

        NB, closed system.

        Note carefully, atmosphere is an open system.

        Solar energy embedded in the surface can escape by one of two mechanisms: radiation or convection.

        Energy transfer from ground to atmosphere can occur by contact (conduction) or absorption (your famed greenhouse thingamajig).

        The absorption of ground origin IR by atmospheric Water, CO2 or Camel Farts is a system duplicated by “conduction” aka “impact”.

        Any “trapping” of heat by the so called greenhouse gases lasts milliseconds as gas laws demand immediate equilibration with the other surrounding gases.

        Then it’s up up and away with convection.

        Funny thing is that CO2 actually boosts the heat removal mechanism and acts as a coolant.

        But, of course, you knew all that, you were just testing.

        KK

        110

      • #
        James in Melbourne

        Are those highlighted, underlined statements on your blog meant to be hyperlinks, Richard?

        40

      • #
        el gordo

        Richard there is this old saying, ‘warm Arctic, cold continents’, so I think you’ll find the recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere is a sign of global cooling.

        CO2 does not cause global warming and I will not recant.

        60

        • #

          Actually Gordo, greenhouse warming
          should mainly affect the poles
          with not much effect in the tropics.

          We have two out of the three!

          The lack of warming in Antarctica since the 1960s
          is contrary evidence.

          21

          • #
            el gordo

            Greenhouse mantra dictates that the coldest places will warm the fastest, but that doesn’t take into consideration the natural oscillations.

            Did you know Siberia was warm during the Little Ice Age?

            20

      • #
        Peter C

        Laboratory experiments since
        the late 1800s clearly show that CO2
        acts as a greenhouse gas in laboratory
        closed system experiments.

        What exactly do you mean by that Richard?

        As a result, it is a reasonable assumption
        that adding CO2 to the air, as humans
        have been doing, could cause warming.

        Yes I suppose it could if the assumption is correct.

        But is the assumption correct?

        I do not think that KK has attacked Real Science.

        For the rest you are in furious agreement.

        40

        • #

          Infrared spectroscopy experiments.

          That’s the only real science
          behind climate change.

          We should not attack that.

          Everything else is assumption
          on top of assumption, tripled
          with a water vapor positive feedback
          theory.

          The assumptions, unproven theories
          and wild guesses of the future climate
          are EASY to attack and refute.

          They are junk science.

          Why not attack the weakest links
          of modern climate science ?

          21

      • #
    • #

      The way in which CO2, H20, O3, CH4, N2O, CFCs etc “trap” heat is well understood.

      The earth is a black body that receives radiation from the sun. It emits thermal IR to return to equilibrium temperature. GHG molecules have a dipole, atom to atom distance, the same as some frequencies of the thermal IR the earth emits. Thus a photon of thermal IR can be absorbed by a GHG molecule.

      Two things can happen from there:

      1. The molecule becomes excited, bumps into other molecules in the atmosphere, sharing the energy the photon imparted to the GHG molecule. The molecule bumped into could be O2 or N2, doesn’t have to be another GHG molecule. This is the most common way heat is trapped.

      2. The molecule re-emits the photon of IR, as likely down as up

      The CO2 warms the globe a bit, causing more water vapor to be evaporated and that vapor causes more warming. There is 8% more water vapor in the atmosphere, increasing 1.5% per decade. No wonder we have so much precipitation and so much flooding.

      Because the globe and atmosphere are warming the powerful thermals in big thunderstorms are made even bigger, sending moist (ever moister. . .) air very high into the atmosphere where it is cold and the water vapor condenses, freezes, forms hail stones and accreting more ice until the thermal can no longer keep the hail stones up and they fall. The hailstones can merge with adjacent hailstones, accrete more ice until it is below cloud level.

      So AGW is causing more hail and bigger hailstones.

      Another effect of AGW is that hurricanes that form move more slowly, so they hang over an area for longer, causing more destruction. Hurricanes like Harvey and Michael can be partly over land and partly over the sea warmed by AGW, being fed moisture and energy for longer.

      Atmospheric CO2 is increasing exponentially. 280ppm in 1880, 410ppm now so we have

      (410-280) * 100 / 280

      or 46% more CO2. And we put the CO2 there, isotopic analysis shows that.

      If we take the natural logarithm of CO2 concentration and plot that against temperature anomalies 21 years later we get a very strong linear correlation. The more we add the hotter it gets.

      “CO2 is plant food!” say the witless. Concentrations much higher than todays will see plants take up less nitrogen and produce less protein and vitamins.

      And insects are disappearing, which is off concern—how will we pollinate our crops?

      215

      • #
        • #
          Serp

          The citations don’t support your penultimate sentence is the post at 8.2, viz “Concentrations much higher than todays will see plants take up less nitrogen and produce less protein and vitamins.”

          New Scientist has lately been making the same assertion also without citations.

          Show us the arithmetic.

          110

          • #

            It is not a maths thing it is observed plant physiology.

            Maxine is only partially right though as “plants” is a generalisation – different plants respond differently. Also a generalisation is this – ” take up less nitrogen and produce less protein and vitamins”. It is an affect of greater [CO2] but not in all circumstances with significant input from other parameters (light, water, trace elements, growth, developmental stage etc) so that the net affect in a field setting is not as straight forward.

            72

            • #
              Peter C

              Maxine is only partially right though as “plants” is a generalisation

              What is Maxine right about?

              90

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Hi Peter,

                Maxine is definitely Not Right about the “black body” thing.

                The Earth is Not a black body and the use of the S-B equation by her scientist friends is illustrative of their incompetence.

                KK

                120

              • #

                Earth is a black body. Emits no visible light, is in a vacuum, receives radiant energy from the sun. Classic black body. Not perfect back body—the atmosphere “traps” some of the thermal IR the earth emits as it goes back to equilibrium temperature. No perfect black bodies have ever been found so that is not an argument that the earth is not a black body.

                11

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              Hi Peter,

              Wrote the above, then noticed you had already dealt with Maxines black body comment.

              KK

              31

              • #
                Peter C

                Yes thanks KK.

                Maxine has set off an interesting thread. Things have moved on a little bit from a few years ago, but not too much.

                However I do think that the essential flaws in the Greenhouse theory have become a bit more apparent. I am still learning things.

                80

            • #
              Dave

              Maxine & GeeAye

              Both wrong. Nitrogen is NOT being utilised by plants as CO2 increases – because of the decline in availability of Nitrogen only.
              CO2 increase has NOTHING to do with plant uptake of Nitrogen.

              30

          • #

            Experiments have been done showing what I posted is real.

            34

            • #
              AndyG55

              RUBBISH.. like everything you type.

              Unprovable anti-science GARBAGE.

              You might live in the bottom of a glass bottle, but most of the world doesn’t.

              Show us one paper which has empirical proof that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

              41

              • #

                Make up your mind AndyG55:
                are Maxine’s comments

                “RUBBISH”

                or

                “GARBAGE”

                or, perhaps

                “RUBBISH and GARBAGE”

                They are all different,
                you know.

                Please specify !

                10

        • #
          ROM

          You have a real problem with your water vapour claims, Maxine.
          First , nobody after 30 or more years of climate research is sure just what is happening to atmospheric water vapour levels , a very common characteristic of nearly everything to do with the global climate but a characteristic that is swept under caprpet by the believers in the climate change ideology as they won’t admit to anything that might challenge their climate change religious beliefs.

          There may be regional changes in atmospheric water vapour levels say between Africa and Asia but the science is suggesting that any such changes if they aren’t natural, cannot yet be quantified or measured as the period needed probaly runs into centuries to ascertain the actual natural ground level state and its changeable characteristics of atmospheric water vapour in the various regions of the planet.

          The other very real problem you have with your claim of increasing water vapour levels in the atmosphere is that more water vapour and its evaporation means more both low and mid level clouds [ I have some 3000 hours in gliders and have often looked at this aspect of the climate alot over the last 40 years of my flying pastime ]

          More low [ cumulous ] and mid level clouds means that the Earth has an increased albedo; ie ; a higher reflectivity to incoming solar radiation which means a cooling effect due to the solar radiation being reflected back into space by the very bright tops of the clouds.
          And if you want to argue the cooling effect of clouds then why does everybody give small sigh of relief when the Sun goes behind a cloud on a stinking hot, bright sunshine day? .

          In fact it has been calculated that there only needs to be a 3% change in global cloud cover for the Earth to move from a heating / cooling effect to a cooling / heating effect.
          This change has actually been measured and is called the Forbush Effect.
          It is directly related to the amount of cloud seeding incoming cosmic rays which in turn is modulated by the solar magnetic field activity.

          [ From Wiki; A 2009 peer reviewed article[2] found that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%.
          Further peer-reviewed work found no connection between Forbush decreases and cloud properties[3][4] until the connection was found in diurnal temperature range,[5] and since confirmed in satellite data.[6]]]

          Furthermore when atmospheric water vapour which is created by heating the surface and evaporating the surface water, when this water vapour condenses in the cold air of the atmosphere hundreds of metres up in the atmosphere , the condensation from water vapour into cloud droplets releases the latent heat in the water vapour that was the solar input that was the cause of the water evaporating from the surface in the first place.

          So the latent heat from the water vapour condensation process is aalso released high in the atmosphere and most of that latent heat is reflected back into space by the newly created high albedo cloud layer causing further cooling from clouds.

          But it gets even more interesting in that when the atmospheric water vapour saturation reaches close to 100% it “rains” and a very large percentage of that water vapour falls right back down to earth thus rapidly reducing the water vapour content of that air mass..

          To form water droplets from super cooled water vapour which can exist unfrozen down to close to minus 20C in the upper atmosphere , requires a seed particle for the super cooled water vapour to iniate freezing around the particle.
          The particle size required is in the sub micron sized range which is where Svensmark’s cosmic ray for cloud formation comes into play.
          This cosmic ray seeding of clouds has been observed in an experiment at the immense CERN nuclear research centre located on the border of France and Switzerland.

          Next is the fact that we already have a full sized example of very high water contents of a very large portion of the global atmosphere and that is the tropics and their high rainfall regions.

          But note here that despite the theory you are promoting, the temperatures in those tropical wet areas are actually lower than in the very dry, very sunny, low rainfall desert areas which knocks your cliams of dangerously increasing temperatures from increasing water vapour out of left field.

          You can make all tthe claims you like about climate change and global warming but the plain truth is that after over 30 years of climate research there is still no science around that specifically and catergorically can claim to know IF the globe is warming and IF it will continue warming.

          All you really have is a very large lot of arm waving individuals,a lot of whom don’t actually have any qualifications whatsoever to be making all sorts of claims and predictions on the future of the global climate, claims and predictions none of which can either be proven or much worse when it comes to the dire predictions of the climate change religious eco loons is the constant and almost uncountable number of predictions of imminent climate catastrophes made over the last 30 years , none of which have yet shown up and which have numerous historical examples of a similar natured events that are the equal or more severe than the climate events that are being promoted by the likes of yourself but which have occurred down through the centuries past long before mankind had ever thought of and invented in his own mind the rather crazy idea that a very small change in the global climate of a degree or so was going to destroy the planet.
          a planet that has been under ice for a good part of its surface for some tens orr hundreds of millions of years, , has had a high enough temperatures globally to have had dinasour period creatures at the Poles, has continnets that no longer exist as will be the ccase with our maps of conttinents ina few hundred million years time.
          A planet that has been hit repeatedly by kilometres wide meteors, has had major volcanic eruptions that spewed uncountable tonnages of poisonous gases into the atmosphere and covered thousands of square klometres of the surface with volcanic lava and ash deposits hundreds of feet thick.
          and life survived and even thrived through all of this as it adapted as has mankind, the most adaptable living life form on this planet, possibly the most adaptable life form ever, in the couple of millions of years our species and our forbearer species has existed.
          And you and your ilk Maxine expect that we will be driven extinction by your highly inflated belief and ideology all due to an increase ina minor but essential to life gas that you believe is due to mankind but for which you can produce no scientifically proven proof to sustain that belief.

          And for this you want to see not millions but a few billion of your fellow mankind continue to suffer primitive , unhealthy, life shortening conditions conditions whilst you revel in the luxuries that our inventiveness that has provided the life style we enjoy by creating immense sources of cheap energy which you now blame for destroying the planet but which you will never give up if it means youn have to go without like the other 6 billion out of 7 billion souls on this planet .

          160

        • #
          tom0mason

          Maxine, for your education here are some links to science –

          Extreme weather is NOT happening –

          Significant Decreasing Trend In Severe Weather Since 1961

          Zhang et al., 2017
          Where they say –

          Based on continuous and coherent severe weather reports from over 500 manned stations, for the first time, this study shows a significant decreasing trend in severe weather occurrence across China during the past five decades. The total number of severe weather days that have either thunderstorm, hail and/or damaging wind decrease about 50% from 1961 to 2010. It is further shown that the reduction in severe weather occurrences correlates strongly with the weakening of East Asian summer monsoon which is the primary source of moisture and dynamic forcing conducive for warm-season severe weather over China.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Most Frequent Climate Instability During Global Cooling/Reduced CO2 Periods

          Kawamura et al., 2017

          Where they say –

          Numerical experiments using a fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model with freshwater hosing in the northern North Atlantic showed that climate becomes most unstable in intermediate glacial conditions associated with large changes in sea ice and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Model sensitivity experiments suggest that the prerequisite for the most frequent climate instability with bipolar seesaw pattern during the late Pleistocene era is associated with reduced atmospheric CO2 concentration via global cooling and sea ice formation in the North Atlantic, in addition to extended Northern Hemisphere ice sheets.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Hurricane Activity Is ‘Subdued’ During Warm Periods (1950-2000)

          Heller, 2017

          Where they say –

          The hurricane analysis conducted by Burn and Palmer (2015) determined that hurricane activity was subdued during the [warm] Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) (~900-1350 CE) and became more produced during the [cold] Little Ice Age (LIA) (~1450-1850 CE), followed by a period of variability occurred between ~1850 and ~1900 before entering another subdued state during the industrial period (~1950-2000 CE). In general, the results of this study corroborate these findings … [W]hile hurricane activity was greater during the LIA, it also had more frequent periods of drought compared to the MCA (Burn and Palmer 2014), suggesting that climate fluctuations were more pronounced in the LIA compared to the MCA. The changes in the diatom distribution and fluctuations in chl-a recorded in this study starting around 1350 also indicate that variations in climate have become more distinct during the LIA and from ~1850-1900.
          [C]limate variability has increased following the onset of the Little Ice Age (~1450-1850 CE), however it is difficult to distinguish the impacts of recent anthropogenic climate warming on hurricane activity from those of natural Atlantic climate regimes, such as ENSO.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Surface Warming Weakens Cyclone Activity
          Chen et al., 2017

          And they say –

          Results indicate that the midlatitude summer cyclone activity over East Asia exhibits decadal changes in the period of 1979–2013 and is significantly weakened after early 1990s. … Moreover, there is a close linkage between the weakening of cyclonic activity after the early 1990s and the nonuniform surface warming of the Eurasian continent. Significant warming to the west of Mongolia tends to weaken the north–south temperature gradient and the atmospheric baroclinicity to its south and eventually can lead to weakening of the midlatitude cyclone activity over East Asia.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          More Hydroclimatic Variability During Cold Periods…Models Say Warming Causes More Instability, So The 21st Century Will Be Like The Little Ice Age, With More Instability/Megadrought
          Loisel et al., 2017

          And they say –

          Our tree ring-based analysis of past drought indicates that the Little Ice Age (LIA) experienced high interannual hydroclimatic variability, similar to projections for the 21st century. This is contrary to the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), which had reduced variability and therefore may be misleading as an analog for 21st century warming, notwithstanding its warm (and arid) conditions. Given past non-stationarity, and particularly erratic LIA, a ‘warm LIA’ climate scenario for the coming century that combines high precipitation variability (similar to LIA conditions) with warm and dry conditions (similar to MCA conditions) represents a plausible situation that is supported by recent climate simulations. … Our comparison of tree ring-based drought analysis and records from the tropical Pacific Ocean suggests that changing variability in El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) explains much of the contrasting variances between the MCA and LIA conditions across the American Southwest.

          80

          • #

            Have I mentioned extreme weather?

            I mentioned more atmospheric water vapor. That is so, 8% more since 1880, increasing by 1.5% per decade.

            I mentioned that hurricanes had slowed down. They have. Look at Harvey & Michael.

            Plants will suffer with more CO2 and higher night time minimum temperatures: that is supported by various field studies.

            26

            • #

              Maxine, you miss the point on water vapor. What matters is not the total column but the altitude of the extra vapor.

              It just fills the lower few kilometers where water vapor emission bands are already saturated. The hot spot mattered (if it existed) because extra vapor up that high did make a difference.

              What no one could find with 28 million weather balloons was extra water vapor at 10km up over the tropics or the trademark heat up there that we would expect if the water vapor increased up there.

              111

            • #
              tom0mason

              Maxine,
              Utter whako nonsense about plants suffering.

              In general plants LOVE more CO2, or maybe NASA is lying about the greening of the planet.

              No data anywhere shows weather being controlled by CO2 levels in the atmosphere — that was my point. You just scaremonger about the weather which is stupid, immoral and wrong.

              80

            • #

              Maxine
              The current measurements of atmospheric
              water vapor are different and inconclusive.

              Your claim that water vapor in the 1800s
              was known is garbage.

              Only a DING DING DING
              bat
              would make such a claim.

              52

            • #
              sophocles

              Maxine alleged:

              Plants will suffer with more CO2 and higher night time minimum temperatures: that is supported by various field studies.

              Modern plants, are mostly of the C3 variety (about 97% of them) which evolved during the Mesozoic period when:

              … atmospheric CO2 rose from 420 p.p.m.v. in the Triassic period (about 200 million years ago) to a peak of 1,130 p.p.m.v. in the Middle Cretaceous (about 100 million years ago). Atmospheric CO2 levels then declined to 680 p.p.m.v. by 60 million years ago. Time-series comparisons show that these variations coincide with large Mesozoic climate shifts…

              [ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260206131_Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_linked_Mesozoic_and_Early_Cenozoic_climatic_change ]

              What this means, Maxine, is that our present plants evolved during a time when CO2 levels were, on average, about 800 – 1,000 ppmv. Yet you claim that plants will suffer if the CO2 level rises above its present concentration of 408ppmv.
              How do you think you would cope with being starved of oxygen; if you were always living on the verge of suffocation?
              C’mon Maxine: think!.

              What utter rubbish. If the C3 plants are “suffering” at present CO2 levels it’s because these levels are insufficiently high for plants to reach full health and efficiency. Yet when someone mentions that CO2 is plant food you call them witless. Tch tch. Speak for yourself, Maxine. Speak for yourself.

              Life is a gas, CO2: the Gas of Life.

              60

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                :-)

                The oxygen we breathe in is important, but the equally vital step is breathing out where we provide CO2, plant food for the greenery around us.

                No doubt CNN&N could whip up a story that our main function here on earth is to provide food for plants.

                KK

                20

        • #
          tom0mason

          And a little more for you Maxine

          Nurtaev and Nurtaev, 2017

          A reconstruction of total solar irradiance since 1610 to the present estimated by various authors an increase in the total solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum of about 1.3 W/m² [2]. This is a huge amount of energy, taking into account the Earth’s total land mass. … More sunspots deliver more energy to the atmosphere, by way of increased brightness of the Sun and solar wind what tend to warm the Earth. Solar activity affects the Earth in many ways, some which we are still coming to understand. In accordance with National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) forecasting the solar cycles 24 and 25 will be very weak: averaged sunspot numbers W-35 for the solar cycle 24 and for the solar cycle 25 less than W-35 , NGDC (2009). Total Solar Irradiance will equal -1365 [during solar cycle 25]. (23 cycle -1366). This actually will lead to a decrease of the temperature on 0.5 – 0.7°C in both averaged solar cycles, in Geneva will decrease to 1.5 °C. Temperature of air will be lower in the Northern Hemisphere. Precipitation rate in Caucasus will be more in average on 100-150 mm in dependence from location. The World Ocean level also will be lower, due to more snow and glacier accumulation on continents.

          Currently the warming as seen by UHA is on a downward trend.
          Also Roy see no increase in hurricane activity in the USA — http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/u-s-major-landfalling-hurricanes-down-50-since-the-1930s/ and he see that tornado activity has radically decreased across the USA — http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/new-record-low-tornado-count-as-of-october-3/
          So where are your nubers from for all this wild weather Maxine, or are you just inventing a scare from your imagination?
          Many solar scientist expect there to be a large solar minimum over the next few years. Lets see how your global warming stand up to some cooling then Maxine, a time when rather wild weather should be expected.

          100

        • #
          tom0mason

          And a few more on hurricane activity for you –

          Vyklyuk et al., 2017

          Hurricane genesis modelling based on the relationship between solar activity and hurricanes … There are a number of works concerning the Sun–Earth connections and their influence on atmospheric motions. There are a number of observations which show that within a few days after energetic solar eruptions (flares, coronal mass ejections and eruptive prominences), there are diverse meteorological responses of considerable strength (Gomes et al. 2012). … Conclusion: [T]here are several indications which are in favor that the beginning of violent cyclonic motions in Earth’s atmosphere may be caused by charged particles from the solar wind.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Katsuki et al., 2017

          Typhoon frequency in East Asia is synchronous with the solar irradiance. … Several studies documented typhoon pattern changes in response to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO). … The fluctuation of the solar activity plays a key role in regulating the westerly jet movement. The multi-centennial scale of the typhoon frequency in mid-latitude East Asia is therefore caused by changes in the solar activity and ENSO conditions.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Douglass et al., 2017

          Using a newly reported Pacific sea surface temperature data set, we extend a prior study that assigned El Niño episodes to distinct sequences. Within these sequences the episodes are phase-locked to subharmonics of the annual solar irradiance cycle having two- or three-year periodicity. There are 40 El Niño episodes occurring since 1872, each found within one of eighteen such sequences. Our list includes all previously reported events. Three El Niño episodes have already been observed in boreal winters of 2009, 2012 and 2015, illustrating a sequence of 3-year intervals that began in 2008.

          Maxine your assumption of weather events being cause by CO2 is lacking science. Your just scaremongering aren’t you?

          101

        • #
          sophocles

          Maxine:
          All three of your “links to the science” are paywalled, therefore invalid.

          They are also incorrect or wrong, therefore invalidated a second time.

          Some links for you to real science:

          1. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-novel-investigation-about-the-thermal-behaviour-of-gases-under-theinfluence-of-irradiation-a-further-argument-against-the-greenh-2157-7617-1000393.pdf

          2.https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf
          This paper reduces Global warming to 2 variables: Solar insolation and Atmospheric Pressure. Those gases you assert to be so important:

          The way in which CO2, H20, O3, CH4, N2O, CFCs etc “trap” heat is well understood.

          are not important at all: They have no effect.
          Your assertion is just that: an unsupported assertion. You offer no Proof. What is the mechanism? (if any). You claim them to be well understood yet your understanding fails.
          Heat? This is your fundamental error invalidating your whole argument: Nothing traps heat. Gases and other physical/materials/objects can absorb energy, use it or re-emit it. But not heat. The sun shining on your skin feels hot. It is not supplying your skin with heat. It is irradiating your skin with IR energy, which your skin senses as heat.

          3.https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-not-change-climate

          To help you, you might find these useful:

          http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Sands2/publication/215930210_The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics/links/56460dbc08ae54697fb9cf4d/The-Feynman-Lectures-on-Physics.pdf Free download.

          70

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Hi Maxine,

        You are right, there is a dipole.

        Do you by any chance know Richard?

        Human efforts to create a CO2 oversupply are pathetic and we couldn’t increase atmospheric CO2 even if we tried.

        It is obvious that in falling for the CO2 scam you are uneducated or, if you really do have science credentials then you are pushing the barrow for the very lucrative Renewable energy scam.

        Think MalEx or Solar J. Hewson.

        It’s quantitatively impossible for Human Origin CO2 to have any Temperature Effect.

        It’s a scam.

        KK

        130

        • #

          Hey Kinky
          I feel like I’ve been insulted.

          So I’m coming to get you.

          Where do you live?

          Look out — I’m 4′ 10″
          and 395 pounds,
          so once I get going,
          only a wall can stop me!

          I favor a doubling or tripling of CO2 levels
          to accelerate C3 plant growth so that humans
          and animals have a greater food supply.

          If CO2 causes any warming, it is likely to be minor:
          mainly nighttime warming in the colder months,
          in the higher latitudes, where a little warmer
          will be celebrated.

          But CO2 is a greenhouse gas and could cause
          some harmless warming, no matter what you say !

          By the way, my middle name is “keith”,
          and now I’m having it changed
          so I have nothing in common with you.
          How does “Englebert” sound?

          21

      • #
        Annie

        Insects are disappearing? The many and varied ones around our place don’t seem to have got the message. As for bees, for weeks and weeks we have had very loud humming from them as various trees and other plants come into flower. I copped a bee sting a few days ago while I was mowing in the orchard; thank goodness for anti-histamine!

        120

      • #
        robert rosicka

        “Isotopic analysis shows that close to 98% of Co2 in the atmosphere is natural and not from burning fossil fuel ” .

        There fixed it for you !

        51

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Maxine says “Co2 is plant food say the witless ” !! I say you’ve revealed your still in grade two .

        81

      • #
        AndyG55

        The Earth is NOT a black body.. Nowhere near it. !

        Energy absorbed by CO2 is NOT trapped by transfer to other molecules.
        Once thermalised the energy is dealt with by the normal gravity based pressure temperature gradient.

        Basically EVERYTHING else you ranted about is also MANIFESTLY WRONG. !!

        Just a brain-washed regurgitation of AGW anti-science.

        101

      • #
        bobl

        Welcome back for the next election cycle Maxine.

        Unfortunately what you say is unsupportable. Let’s look at it.

        The IPCC and you claim there is 3.3 degrees rise (incuding feedbacks) for a forcing increase of 3.7 Watts per square metre (psm) at the surface. Problem here is that if you were to raise the earths surface from 15 deg to 18.3 degrees there is an increase of around 16 Watts psm in surface emission. 3.7Watts Forcing can’t cause 16 Watts in emission – Equilibrium (where the 3.7 Watts incoming = 3.7 Watts outgoing is about 0.5 deg)

        2 What goes up must come down, 8% higher evaporation begets 8% higher precipitation – average precipitation is 1m so 1m per square meter is 1cubic metre of water per square meter of surface – the extra 8% is 80kg H2O per square meter. Now evaporating water costs 2257kJ + (100-T) x 4.2 kJ oe for 15deg C = 2257+357 = 2614kJ per kg (not including heat of fusion for water sublimated from ICE) so for 80kg you need 80 x 2614 kJ = 209MJ per square meter to evaporate an extra 8% – hope you are following me.

        Now a Watt is a joule/second so if we divide the number of joules by the number of seconds we get the number of watts required to do that. There are 31557600 seconds per year so 209000000/31557600=6.62 Watts per square metre. Since there is only an existing forcing of 0.6Watts per square metre, and indeed a doubling only produces 3.7 Watts psm total forcing it’s mathematically incapable of producing 8% more evaporation – indeed even if it produced its maximum potential of around 5% more precipitation for a doubling of CO2 that would consume all the energy from global warming and there could be no warming to drive the evaporation (we call that non-causality). Your statement of 8% is therefore bunkum and the most that could be produced by the current 0.6Watts psm forcing would be 0.8% extra evaporation.
        (For those who caught it, yes I’ve simplified, heat of fusion for ice evaporation is unaccounted and I’ve not accounted for raising that 80 kg to 10 km (mgh) which increases the energy requirement. It only makes a small difference (adds 7.8 Megajoules per annum). I’ve also assumed that all the energy from CO2 warming is converted to latent heat of evaporation which is not even nearly the case.

        If it was even nearly the case then the evaporation would consume all the global warming, there is no energy left over for your claims of stronger storms, or to melt ice, or all the other energy consuming claims made.

        Maxine,
        Every day the earth receives on average around 342Watts psm of sunlight, AGW according to Hansen currently adds an extra 0.6Watts 0.6Watts / 342 Watts which is 0.17%, about a fifth of 1 percent change – fact is a fifth of one percent can’t really change anything more than a fifth of one percent. In reality the extra 0.17% is going to be shed just like the other 99.83%.
        Don’t believe everything you read Maxine – Do the math.

        61

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Bob,

          I know it must have taken a while to put that together and I only spent 5 minutes skimming it, but the truth of the comment comes through.

          It’s an energy balance done from a sound logical base and has the potential to provide an irrefutable end point to the Global Warming Sham.

          Maybe Jo could help expand it with a few diagrams and make it a full post: it is important.

          Trouble is that your argument is too real and incomprehensible to people like Maxine.

          In a recent post she said in argument:

          “CO2 from all sources”.

          This statement encapsulates the warmer stance where the main issues are holding social control and collecting the Money.
          The fact that she includes ALL CO2 in analyses tells us that for her, human CO2 is not the issue.

          My recent thumb estimate comment pointed to the energy needed to lift all of that ground water to altitude.
          In the past I’ve thrown in comments about energy needed to raise water, it doesn’t get there by itself. Even Will J seemed focused on his specialty of atmospheric radio physics and didn’t want to deal with the simple aspects of energy in the biosphere.

          Anyhow, it was great to see an energy balance done from a solid base with the potential to wind up the CAGW scam.

          There has to be an end to this madness soon, the world is at a serious tipping point.

          KK

          50

          • #
            Bobl

            Keith,
            I do these ALL the time, for example I tested the claim that there was 300Cubic km of ice melt over the two million square km of west Antarctica and calculated the energy requirement at 30watts psm. 50 times the available energy. I have no doubt about the melting but doing the energy calc shows that it cannot be AGW causing the melt. I wore to the author and told them this and they said they didn’t do an energy balance and agreed it couldn’t be AGW but no retraction for the claim was ever printed.

            While these simple tests aught to hold sway Australians no longer care about the facts. The battle is ideological and the best way forward is to show what a stupid idea wind and solar are, and to show How wicked the effects of so called climate action are in killing grannies and babies in adverse weather. It’s also true that energy especially fossil fuels are the solution to climate change and poverty not the cause of it. This use the ground to fight this war. ScoMo needs to start saying this. The answers to climate adaptation (hot or cold) lie in more cheap energy, not in less!

            I wish Jo would write more on this topic.

            70

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              Talking about where all the extra energy came from to melt the ice reminded me of something I wrote about last week.

              Earth’s core is extremely hot.
              Surrounding our Planet is the ultimate heat sink with a super low temperature that is just a bit more than 1C° above Absolute Zero.
              The core energy is not really noticeable at the surface, but if you go down a mine of significant depth you become quickly aware that it gets hotter as you go deeper.

              This heat seeps into rock and ocean and makes it to the surface slowly. Someone mentioned last week that the loss was very low, maybe one tenth of a watt per square metre.
              While this escaping energy may not be enough to melt ice it could help keep the temperature up enough to bring the possibility of a melt a bit closer.

              This core energy is a factor in the question of ice melting and deserves inclusion in the discussion along with the issues of evaporation and elevation of huge masses of water with significant energy use.

              Energy balances with All the factors could destroy the CAGW scam.

              KK

              40

              • #
                Bobl

                Indeed.
                To have warmer surface, increased precipitation, increased ice melt, stronger storms, more lightning, increased plant growth, more transpiration, warmer water, and all the other claims by the warmies, individually is improbable, but taken together is impossible. Each effect absorbs some of the excess energy, once the effects absorb all the excess energy warming cannot happen, no warming means no effects. To have effects and warming the energy absorbed by the effects must be substantially less than the excess energy (0.6watts per square meter or 0.17% of insolation) that is the effects must not absorb more than about 0.3-0.4 watts psm to leave enough warming for reasonable causality to be met. These things combined absorb much more than this, 20% higher growth of plants absorbs about 0.5 watts per square metre alone. As I pointed out just 0.8% increased evaporation uses up all the available forcing. Such a potent negative feedback.

                20

              • #
                Bobl

                One of the problems is that most of the factors are unknown and there are numerous energy sources as well as sinks, a true energy balance is pretty much impossible but individual factors can be estimated. For example human cells produce about 200 watts of warmth at rest and 500 watts active. This is around 3 watts per kg. Applying that to all bio mass I estimate that cellular activity adds 3 watts per square metre. This is a large amount, 5 x the heating that CO2 is supposedly adding but it’s not in Hansen’s primitive energy balance. Same with plants absorbing sunlight, the earth’s orbital energy is 200billion times the energy received in sunlight in a year but Hansen assumes none of that kinetic /potential energy leaks into the climate. Many of these factors dwarf Co2 warming by an order of magnitude yet they are ignored. I’ve never seen such ignorance in science and engineering.

                AGW hinges on the energy balance but we have no idea what that balance is because as much as 50 watts of sources and sinks are ignored. Without an accurate energy balance we have no idea whether the earth is warming or cooling.

                20

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                The 1:33 am post is really heading in the right direction.

                All the energy losses to be accounted for.

                Plants use incoming UV.
                Water moves from ground to cloud.
                Something? Moves huge air masses horizontally and vertically.

                The greatest danger we face is in losing too much of each days Solar Ration and freezing.

                KK

                10

        • #
          sophocles

          Loud applause from this cheap seat :-) .

          50

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        The earth is a black body that receives radiation from the sun.

        Maxine,

        Even I, a computer scientist by education and experience, know that the Earth is not a black body. And there goes your argument. If Earth was a black body it would be quite a different place than it is. It would also be quite a scientific curiosity since the black body is an idealized concept in physics that does not exist in reality.

        71

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Just to be sure you understand me, argument from ignorance is fallacious, therefore not something I can get excited about. Come back with an opening argument that stands up under reasonable scrutiny and you’ll have a good debate.

          51

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Exactly.

          61

      • #
        sunsettommy

        Maxine, when you write this absurdity, it quickly over for you since you publish dead on arrival baloney:

        The way in which CO2, H20, O3, CH4, N2O, CFCs etc “trap” heat is well understood.

        No they are NOT Molecular cages holding energy in place, if they were there would be NO MORE ABSORPTION LEFT to be done, it would be 100% full with no more allowed to come in.

        Come on THINK Maxine, think!

        The earth is a black body that receives radiation from the sun. It emits thermal IR to return to equilibrium temperature. GHG molecules have a dipole, atom to atom distance, the same as some frequencies of the thermal IR the earth emits. Thus a photon of thermal IR can be absorbed by a GHG molecule.

        Since the Earth is NOT a blackbody (which was known LONG AGO) the rest of your stupid drivel is suddenly not worth reading when you start this badly it becomes obvious that you are still ignorant as hell.

        61

      • #

        “No wonder we have so much precipitation and so much flooding.”

        Who are “we”? Chinese of the 1930s? Chinese of the 1880s? Americans of the 1920s or Americans of the 1850s? N Europeans in 1530 or in 1287? My lot in 1955? (That inland sea the size of England + Wales west of Sydney in ’55 was certainly something…but let’s not forget the actual amount of rain that fell on the east of the continent in 1950. “We” won’t forget 1950 in a hurry.

        So who are “we” and what is the “wonder”?

        40

      • #

        Maxine
        I was the “bad boy” here for just a moment,
        after attacking Kinky Keith, and then you came
        to take the crown (bad girl, of course)
        with your junk science.

        There are so many errors and false statements,
        in your comments, that it is hard to start
        to refute them.

        I would prefer to take the easy road,
        and just call you a
        DING DING DING
        bat,
        but that would be rude, so I won’t.

        Most of climate change science is unknown,
        including how much warming, if any,
        CO2 has caused,
        but so far it is safe to say “not much”,
        and “there’s no evidence of any dangerous warming”.

        You, however, don’t seem to know that,
        so your knowledge of climate science
        is near zero — maybe below zero !

        My comments about your many mis-statements:

        (A)
        “The way in which CO2, H20, O3, CH4, N2O, CFCs etc
        “trap” heat is well understood.”

        They don’t “trap” anything!

        (B)
        “The earth is a black body … ”

        The earth is not a black body.

        (C)
        “It (the Earth) emits thermal IR
        to return to equilibrium temperature.”

        The Earth is not in
        thermodynamic equilibrium.

        (D)
        “The CO2 warms the globe a bit,
        causing more water vapor to be evaporated
        and that vapor causes more warming.”

        The CO2 is ASSumed to warm the globe,
        but measurements of water vapor
        are inconclusive, and contradictory,
        – so no conclusion is possible.

        (E)
        “There is 8% more water vapor in the atmosphere,
        increasing 1.5% per decade.
        No wonder we have so much precipitation
        and so much flooding.”

        Today’s water vapor measurements
        are contradictory, inconclusive,
        and the rate of change is certainly
        not known.

        We do not have unusual precipitation.

        We do not have unusual flooding

        (F)
        “Because the globe and atmosphere are warming
        the powerful thermals in big thunderstorms
        are made even bigger … ”

        If the global warming was from
        greenhouse gasses, then the warming
        would be mainly at the poles,
        with the least warming in the tropics,
        reducing the temperature difference
        between the poles and tropics,
        which would make the
        planet’s weather milder.

        (G)
        “So AGW is causing more hail and bigger hailstones.”

        There is no obvious trend of hail and hailstones,
        assuming historic data were accurate,
        except for there being more structures,
        that could be damaged,
        thanks to economic growth.

        (H)
        “Another effect of AGW is that
        hurricanes that form move more slowly,
        so they hang over an area for longer, …”

        So, consider the record span of years,
        from 2005 to 2017,
        where no major hurricane
        ( CAT. 3, 4 or 5 )
        made landfall on the 48 contiguous
        US states … was that caused by AGW too ?

        (H)
        Atmospheric CO2 is increasing exponentially.
        280ppm in 1880, 410ppm now so we have …”

        The recent trend of +2ppm per year,
        or +0.5% a year, is not “exponential”.

        (I)
        “If we take the natural logarithm of CO2
        concentration and plot that against temperature
        anomalies 21 years later we get a very strong
        linear correlation. The more we add the hotter it gets.”

        We had global warming
        from 1910 to 1940,
        with little change in CO2 levels.

        We had global cooling,
        from 1940 to 1975,
        with lots of growth in CO2 levels.

        We had global warming,
        from 1975 to 2003,
        with lots of CO2 growth,

        We had a flat temperature trend,
        from 2003 to mid-2015,
        with lots of growth in CO2 levels.

        The correlation has changed from
        almost none, to negative,
        to positive, to almost none.

        So, which period of time should we
        cherry pick, to define the
        CO2 – average temperature
        relationship — you choose one !

        There is no known mechanism that
        would cause a 21-year delay in warming
        from CO2.

        (J)
        “CO2 is plant food!” say the witless.”

        I offer you a summary of thousands
        of real science experiments showing
        CO2 IS PLANT FOOD, at the link below,
        ( not to mention that
        smart greenhouse owners
        buy and use CO2 enrichment systems
        … but of course what could
        greenhouse owners possibly know
        about growing plants? )

        summary of CO2 plant growth experiments:
        https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/CCR/CCR-IIb/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

        (K)
        “And insects are disappearing …
        how will we pollinate our crops? ”

        That’s good news –
        you can keep all the insects,
        except the honeybees !

        There is no matching down trend
        of global food production.

        I don’t know how accurate
        the honeybee data are
        outside the US but when the
        U.S. Department of Agriculture
        began tracking hives in 1947,
        there were 5.9 million colonies.

        In 2008, that number had dropped
        to 2.44 million, but the decline
        seems to have leveled off.

        By 2017 colony numbers
        had risen slightly to 2.67 million,
        so the trend is up since 2008,
        as CO2 levels increased — how do
        you explain that ?

        00

    • #
      PeterS

      Weather CO2 can warm the planet is not the real issue. The real issue is the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, whcih is around 0.04%, hardly worth mentioning. We might as well say it’s 0.000004% although that would cause other problems for life here on earth. Yet mankind contributes only about 4% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere with the rest 96% coming from natural sources. If only enough people understood the proportions involved. The they would then know the CAGW is not based on any real science but is a total scam, the biggest in all of history. Many have been put into prison for committing much smaller scams, some for life.

      100

  • #
    TedM

    This has to be an all time journalistic low (F minus) even for Emma. However the ABC devotees, and I’m related to some, just suck it up. I wince when I think of just how this generations children are going to pay for the alarmists and their followers folly.

    230

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      I repeat. No, Emma, you don’t have to be a Leftist Greenie to want to reduce carbon emissions.

      All you have to do is fall for the scam.

      140

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    The sheer nonsense of the Climate Science Extravaganza is well illustrated by the scientific looking graph that Jo has placed in the post.

    Figure 7 looks very scientific but when you look at the detail and see terms like TCR and ECS, it’s hard not to laugh.

    The fact that there is No scientific Mechanism underpinning these two important sounding terms seems of no concern to the authors associated with each of the dots on the graph.

    Don’t they feel embarrassed or is the money just too hard to resist?

    Perhaps the truth is that this is a political document designed to give people a warm comfy feeling knowing that everyone is on the same page.

    The good news for the Climate outsiders in the real world is that the graph seems to be heading inexorably towards the Truth: Zero Effect by 2020.

    KK

    92

    • #

      I guess this is my pick on Keith day !

      “Figure 7 looks very scientific
      but when you look at the detail
      and see terms like TCR and ECS,
      it’s hard not to laugh.”

      I agree its hard not to laugh,
      but not for the wrong reason
      that you gave!

      The correct answer for TCS
      is “No one knows”,
      and
      the correct answer for ECS
      is “No one knows”

      That means the chart is just
      opinions / wild guesses
      by people with science degrees.

      Well, I have a science degree too …
      and I KNOW the right answer is:
      “No one knows”

      A worst case estimate of TCS,
      as detailed in my last post,
      is about +1.0 degrees C.,
      which would be
      at the bottom of the chart,
      but no “scientists” were willing
      to guess 1.0 — only higher than that.

      They are Just wild guess numbers,
      off the tops of their heads,
      or from two feet lower (heh heh)
      which is not real science !

      61

      • #
        Graeme#4

        Richard, is there any way you could let your sentences extend out to the end of your editor boundaries? I’m interested in what you have to say, but I sometimes skip your comments because I find the abbreviated layout difficult to read.

        40

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        The Quantitative aspects of the CO2 Global Warming hoax are overlooked by many “scientists” but in terms of what can happenthey are very illuminating.

        As my Great Grandmother wrote some time ago:

        ————————————————————
        MaryFJohnston
        October 24, 2011 at 9:10 am

        Every “Climate Scientists” presentation I have seen tells lies by omission.

        For example we are told that “Carbon Dioxide will blah, blah, blah ….. and if CO2 doubles then … blah, blah, blah ”.

        They will Never separate out the Human effect of CO2 from the Total CO2 effect.

        They will never acknowledge the presence of water vapour in the air because as a Green House Gas it wipes the floor with CO2.

        So, as a last post, I felt it important to give examples of how the CO2 we produce really influences the climate and will use a very concrete example of a real measured period from our recent past.

        With apologies to Rudyard Kipling.

        IF

        Active Carbon Dioxide Distribution is:

        a. 98% of Earths ( active ) CO2 is dissolved in the oceans.
        b. 2% of Earths ( active ) CO2 is in the atmosphere.
        c. 97% of atmospheric CO2 is of Natural Origin.
        d. 3% of atmospheric CO2 is Human attributable.

        And

        e. Atmospheric H2O is about 95% of the total greenhouse effect.

        It would seem then that if we want to control CO2 levels we need to control three items:

        1. The oceans and 2. Water vapour 3. Natural CO2 emissions.

        Logically the Atmospheric CO2 and Ocean origin CO2 interaction needs serious study and Human CO2 emissions are rendered insignificant by the shear weight of the Water GHG effect.

        So the Total GHG effect is

        1. Water about 95%
        2. Total CO2 about 4% of GHG effect
        3. Human proportion of CO2 is 3% of the above 4% or 0.12 % of all CO2 effect.

        IF

        If world atmospheric temperature rose by 0.6 C degrees over the last 150 years from 1860 (maybe).

        And if Greenhouse gases are the only cause of this rise (very debateable).

        And if human origin CO2 is to be taken into account.

        THEN.

        Our part of the world’s green house gas effect is 0.0009 C degrees of the temperature rise of 0.6 C degrees. (calculated as a max).

        The rest is nature.

        Likewise we are responsible for 0.0045 mm of the annual 3mm ocean increase.

        Over 100 years we would cause 0.45 mm sea rise.

        Holy Crap Batman.

        We’ve been had by the IPCC, WWF and many politicians.

        The “revelation” above is simply confirmation of the real science.

        When you quantify the “Green House” ( if I can use that term) effects:

        • we have a major winner in Water

        • followed by Natural produced CO2

        • and way behind both in magnitude, Human Related CO2 struggling to make any visible impression on the system.

        So CCS and Carbon Abatement, Carbon Footprint, Responsible Energy and other catchphrases of the Church of AGW may now be consigned to the sin bin where they belong.

        MFJ
        http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/unthreaded-oct-22-2011/#comment-622658
        ————————————————————————————————
        KK

        60

        • #

          As I stated above, the more CO2 in the atmosphere (regardless of source) the warmer it is and the more water vapor is in the atmosphere, further warming the globe.

          Easy.

          315

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Complete Scientific Rubbish.

            140

            • #
              Peter C

              I have to agree KK.

              Maxine makes two amazing assertions in her/his/its first two sentences;

              The way in which CO2, H20, O3, CH4, N2O, CFCs etc “trap” heat is well understood.

              The earth is a black body…

              If Greenhouse gasses actually “trap heat” the way that happens is Not well understood. In fact observations suggest that Greenhouse gases do not trap heat!

              Earth is not a “black body”. Heat storage means that the Earth is a lot warmer than an equivalent Black Body.
              http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/weekend-unthreaded-232/#comment-2057557

              70

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              KK,

              When she began her argument by asserting that Earth is a black body, didn’t she lose the argument with that sentence?

              I didn’t look though everything that followed to see if someone else also called her on that mistake but I did it and I won’t spend any more time on her.

              Perhaps you can save raising your blood pressure any higher. I would hate to lose a friend.

              50

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            And further: if you had worked through MFJs post you would have found the error.

            There’s a small mistake there.

            ?

            60

          • #

            Don’t worry Maxine. MFJ is a wanna be scientist and gets a bit hurt when questioned

            25

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              Why are you wasting your time here?

              Were are too insignificant for you…surely….

              Stupidity can be weaponized, just as people can be made into manchurian candidates.

              Funny old world. Et Tu, Brute?

              20

          • #
            John F. Hultquist

            You also said “280ppm in 1880, 410ppm now

            That’s a change of 130.
            If the ppm had gone down to: 280 -130 = 150

            . . . we would all be dead.
            If it gets to 1,000, those alive today can all relax.
            Hope is not a plan, so I do my part.

            90

          • #
            tom0mason

            So Maxine you can explain the pause in temperatures for a 20 year period when CO2 level were rising, eh?

            60

          • #
          • #
            AndyG55

            What a load on anti-science BALONEY you are regurgitating today M.

            So FUNNY !!!

            51

          • #
            AndyG55

            The ONLY warming in the last 40 years has come from El Nino ocean releases.

            Not even you could be DUMB enough to say that human CO2 causes El Ninos.

            Or could you ;-)

            Heck, next you will be DENYING the existence of the LIA cold anomaly, that we have thankfully warmed slightly from

            You do know that the GHE from atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet, don’t you.

            70

          • #

            Maxine
            Some water vapor measurements support what you say
            and others refute it.

            The water vapor positive feedback theory would lead
            to runaway warming … but CO2 levels have been up to 10x to 20x
            higher than the current levels in the past, with no runaway warming.

            The theory is falsified.

            30

          • #
            robert rosicka

            Regardless of source !! Hang on a second Maxine are you now admitting you were wrong ?

            40

          • #
            AndyG55

            the more CO2 in the atmosphere (regardless of source) the warmer it is “

            Totally unsubstantiated GARBAGE. based on ZERO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

            Atmospheric CO2 warming exists ONLY in models. It has NEVER been observed on measured anywhere on the planet.

            20

          • #
            sophocles

            Maxine alleged @ # 10.1.2.1:

            As I stated above, the more CO2 in the atmosphere (regardless of source) the warmer it is and the more water vapor is in the atmosphere, further warming the globe.

            Only just Maxine, but each skerrick of warming is so small, it’s insignificant.
            As this graphic http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hHQysIIF9d0/VOVmiBLMKFI/AAAAAAAARTE/WGh1MW57JPw/s1600/heating_effect_of_co2.png shows, we have long exceeded the point where any further additions of CO2 won’t add anything significant to warming because it can’t. Take careful note of the comment at 150ppmv. 20,000 years ago at the depths of the last glaciation, atmospheric CO2 was somewhere between 180 to 190 ppmv. That planet was within 40ppmv of being crashed with all life wiped out.

            Warming from CO2 is not sufficiently strong to bring more water vapour into the atmosphere: only the sun can do that.

            10

          • #
            sophocles

            Ergo Maxine, you have it back to front: like the IPCC, you confuse cause and effect.

            The more the sun shines on the surface of the oceans (when there is less cloud to block it), the more energy the oceans absorb—they could be said to be `warmed;’ the absorbed energy translating into higher temperature. The more energy the oceans absorb, the more water is evaporated into the atmosphere. Water carries it’s `heat of evaporation’—the energy which forced it into the atmosphere—with it, which is felt as `humidity’ and the energy is converted into atmospheric temperature. The more solar energy into the oceans, the more which is converted into a temperature rise and the more CO2 they emit, as well. The rise in CO2 follows the rise in oceanic temperature from the absorption of the solar energy, always.

            But atmospheric temperature is mainly the product of solar insolation and air pressure. The energy or `heat’ of evaporation of water vapour carried into the atmosphere stays with the water vapour and is the energy which powers storms.

            20

  • #
    Robdel

    Economics has been termed the dismal science. Even more dismal is climate science. When you combine the two, how dismal can go?

    130

    • #

      I’ve written an economic newsletter,
      for subscribers,
      as a hobby, since 1977.

      As a group, economists have never
      predicted a US recession …
      so why not get into climate change too !

      100

  • #
    Neville

    Their ABC and (SNIPPED) are beyond belief. Here’s China’s TOTAL energy generation from every source using the EU based IEA data. China generates 66.7% of their TOTAL energy from coal and about 0.8% from Solar and Wind. GEO+ S&W about 1.6%, see Lomborg’s data quoting the IEA.

    Today’s Chinese have a life expectancy of 76 only about 5 years shorter than the west and at least 30 years more than they enjoyed in 1970. And they now have the same life expectancy as the West in their big congested cities. Please wake up to the liars and fraudsters who have conned everyone for at least 30 years.

    Below is Dr Rosling’s 200 countries since 1810. In 1810 everyone was poor and sick and life expectancy was under 40 years of age. In just 4 mins he shows how the world changed quickly after the Ind Rev and China’s extreme use of coal has increased their life expectancy in record time.

    PLEASE WATCH HIS VIDEO, it only takes 4 mins of your time and was funded by the US state dept and the BBC. Yes unbelievable but true. But when will they wake up?

    https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/CHINA4.pdf

    Oh and the US generates just 17.1% from coal and the left just hate them for it. Unbelievable but true.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

    (Snipped 5 words) CTS

    50

    • #
      Kneel

      “…at least 30 years more than they enjoyed in 1970.”

      As per the west, yes.

      However, I think it is important to note that this DOESN’T mean that people are living to an older age, it means only that less are dying at a young age.
      EG.
      1970: life expectancy is 40, most who survive TO 40 will live to at least 60, it’s the ones that die at 0-40 years that pulls the average down
      2018: life expectancy is 76, meaning most people likely live to about 80 after you take account of “unexpected” deaths (car accidents, drownings etc).

      40

      • #
        Neville

        Rosling’s quote is for AVERAGE life expectancy and in 1810 a few lucky people would still have lived to their 80s and 90s.
        But kids died in much higher numbers and diseases that killed many then are easily cured today.

        20

  • #
    Neville

    Why am I in moderation again???

    10

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Neville certain keywords are filtered ,some are hard to believe unless you know the reason and some are designed to avoid possible litigation and then there’s the usual swear words etc and occasionally a link may contain a keyword.
      Quite a few get caught by either first second or third ,if your sure all words and links are fine you’re more than likely to have triggered No 1 and if all is ok the mods or Jo will check and release your post from moderation .
      Frustrating if you are unaware of the processes involved .

      Note though some keywords are neither defamatory or foul language.

      50

  • #
    robert rosicka

    More ABC drivel , the tipping point has been reached , renewables cheaper than fossil etc etc .

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-25/why-company-directors-have-started-caring-about-climate-change/10423658

    60

    • #
      PeterS

      If they are cheaper then how come power prices are at record highs instead of record lows?

      110

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Some of these company directors are being paid millions and in charge of billion dollar companies, which is sort of scary if they believe this garbage .

        70

        • #
          ROM

          I am in my eightieth year and maybe it shows but I have also observed the various strengths and frailities of the human race for a good part of those eighty years.
          I am quite convinced particularly over the last couple of decades of my life when one gets an opportunity to look back and analyse all those at the time rather mysterious events and outcomes involving people, that all those high flying , high falutin directors and most CEO’s are definitely no smarter than you and I and in fact some come from the dumbest end of the spectrum of human intelligence but have learn’t as most of the high flyers have, to hide their lack of acumen and intelligence under a rather warped veneer of so called sophistication .

          Looking back it seems that far more often than not, there is a series of events and changes that one makes and that occurs without any personal input that shapes the positions , the wealth one accumulates and the regard and standing one holds in our society, all of which occur or not, on nothing more than chance and the spinning wheel of life.
          Some, a very few of the best business and proffessional people like any other proffession do have a unique ability to be able to assemble a ultimately successful scenario for the future of their organisations based on their assessments of a very small amount of information which in turn are based on what for most of us, is the very flimsiest and minimal amount of information.

          The rest are just plain straight out lucky to be in the right spot at the right time and make the right noises in the right company which enables them to climb the so called ladder to respectability and potential success.
          Witness politics where the route to a parliamentary seat is a university economics or a meaningless social degree, a shift straight from university to a politicians office or a legal position and from there work the way up the social ladder inherent in these positions and then get nominated for a parliamentary seat.
          Little in the way of how an ordinary street level tradie or office worker or factory hand let alone a farmer or a rural person or a back waters rural small isolated town person is ever experienced by these wannabe politicians who subsequently are almost entirely ignorant about the real life pressures and events that impact on the ordinary citizen ona day to day, hour by hour basis, meaning that for the rest of us, a lousy politician promoting all sorts of ill thought out , unreasearched , it seemed like a good idea at the time proposals most of which have no real benefit at all to society or to our citizens.

          In a true survival mode outside of the concrete jungles they are so comfortable in, these inexperienced in real life high flyers be they directors or CEO’s or wannabe politicians or extremely specialised narrow and channel minded university trained researchers just won’t hack it alongside of the ordinary person who has not had the luxury of having the ability and wealth to achieve a much better outcome for their lives.

          Directors of companies, CEO’s, Politicians , University professors , bank executives [ although they seem to mostly represent the low end of intelligence and behaviour ] and etc and etc ALL come from exactly the same gene and intelligence pool as each and every one of us comes from.

          And that is something I never forget when dealing with most of these people these days whilst in my dotage.

          100

          • #
            Kneel

            +100

            I am technically a tradie, although I do enginnering type work – design, prototype etc, as well as BAU “fixes”.

            The number of “managers” and “high-flyers” who won’t, eg, talk to the garbo is stunning.
            Me? I’ll talk to any of ‘em, as long as I have a reason to. With no reasons, I would prefer the company of other tradies and the rest of us “lower downs”.
            Garbos and courier drivers are some of the greatest people you’ll meet, once you get past the “rough” veneer they put on to – I believe – keep the “knobs” away. So just that tells you they are smarter than the average pollie-muppet.

            90

          • #
            Kneel

            +100

            I am technically a tradie, although I do engineering type work – design, prototype etc, as well as BAU “fixes”.

            The number of “managers” and “high-flyers” who won’t, eg, talk to the garbo is stunning.
            Me? I’ll talk to any of ‘em, as long as I have a reason to. With no reasons, I would prefer the company of other tradies and the rest of us “lower downs”.
            Garbos and courier drivers are some of the greatest people you’ll meet, once you get past the “rough” veneer they put on to – I believe – keep the “knobs” away. So just that tells you they are smarter than the average pollie-muppet.

            40

            • #
              Annie

              +100 for your comment Kneel.
              Real people don’t ignore others; they take them as they actually find them.

              30

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              I’m a silly engineering draftsman in Council. So I get to see the various management levels from the lowbie wannabe’s to the CEOs that come and go. Some of the upper managers are worth their salt, others are idiots with the gift of the gab and nothing else. I find most of the Councilors surprisingly smart. The middle managers are almost universally dumber than two bricks. They get into those positions by failing upward (being moved out of areas where they are a burden into management where they can do no direct harm). Others are just so ambitious that they jump up the ladder before they learn their jobs (another form of failing upwards).

              40

      • #
        Watchman

        It is like someone claiming that Wagyu beef is cheaper than Australian lamb, after a $200 per kilo ‘sheep meat tax’ and a $200 per kilo government subsidy for Wagyu beef are have been applied.

        100

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Did the ABC call for the elimination of subsidies for those “cheap” renewables?

      140

      • #
        ROM

        Quoted from the above #13 posts;

        More ABC drivel , the tipping point has been reached , renewables cheaper than fossil etc etc .

        If they are cheaper then how come power prices are at record highs instead of record lows

        Did the ABC call for the elimination of subsidies for those “cheap” renewables?


        Actual Reality which I have posted on previously, from the central Victorian nominal 4.1 Mw two turbine “Hepburn Community Wind Park Co-operative” [" Hepburn Wind "] 2017 annual report; Page 9

        Financial Year 2017 numbers;

        Electricity sales; = $617,990

        Renewable energy certificate sales [;ie subsidy] = $625,015

        LGC’s increases in value = $ 132,793

        Total = $1,375,793

        [ LGC [ ? ] [ I assume here that the increase in value of the renewable certificates available to be sold leads to this very significant increase in profits ]
        ………………….

        And the electricity generated income ;

        Electricity generated [ per MWh ]. = $59.67

        Certificates created [ for sale to fossil fuel generators ] per MWh= $85.46

        All in value [ per MWh ] = $145.13

        Capacity factor = 27.5%
        ———————————–
        The 2016 numbers are also included in this report; sample following ;

        Electicity generated income per MWh = $42.73

        Certificates created = $85.46

        All in Value =. $117.24 [ per MWh generated ]

        Capacity factor = 27%
        ——————————-
        So you can see here why renewable energy is so much cheaper than fossil fueled generation plants [ SARC/ ]

        And a pretty good return for generating units that only produce a fraction more than a quarter of their supposedly maximum output and this for more than at least two years running.

        Any industry that only utilises its machinery at one quarter of its capabilities for years at a time is either way overcapitalised or is grossly inefficient.
        I’ll let you make the judgement on that based on those real wind turbine figures as above.!

        The level of gross lies being spread about how renewable energy is cheaper than coal fired generators by the renewable energy industry and its cabal of assorted ethics and morality free advocates including the Australian Bolshevists Co-operative [ ABC ] is almost beyond comphrehension in its hubris and chutzpah with no consideration at all for the immense scale of social and financial and industrial sabotaging damage it is doing to Australian society and our citizens.

        It is increasingly clear that the politically supported renewable energy ripoff chickens are about to come home to roost as this morning’s Australian suggests that Treasury is concerned that a large section of the Australian public will begin to draw down their very limited savings as the costs of living [ energy primarily, ] continue to increase.

        140

        • #
          Graeme#4

          Have quoted your figures often in The Oz, as a riposte to those who suggest wind farms make money. Good stuff.

          90

        • #
          Serp

          Yep. Showing the arithmetic is all that’s needed to kill renewables.

          40

          • #
            Bodge it an scarpa

            Unfortunately the average man/ woman in the street or on social media could not understand much of that with LGCs etc etc, and would be unaware that the wind energy producers get paid all that above what they are paid for the electricity they deliver. I will try to edit it tomorrow in simple Layman’s language before sharing it on Facebook.

            40

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              It’s a good message if it can be put in simple form.

              40

              • #
                Bodge it an scarpa

                Yes KK, I agree it’s a good message if it is possible to make it inviting to read and to pass on to family and friends of normal intelligence.

                50

              • #
                ROM

                Of course there is the usual carefully hidden item that is a integral part of any turbine operation which not reported on or touched on in any way in that Hepburn turbine report.

                Turbines when in an operational mode, ie; ready to produce electrical power when wind conditions are suitable, need to keep all their systems running right through periods when the wind is such that the turbines are stationary due to calm conditions or even too windy to operate conditions say above 45 knots / 55mph / 90 kph wind speed at the turbine’s nacelle altitude where wind speeds are usually a lot faster than at ground level.

                To keep those essential to their operation turbine systems operating such as oil pressures to bearings, oil temperature control and heating for cold weather operation, wind direction turning motors, blade braking and feathering motors, blade heating for icing control in cold climate conditions , electronic data recording, output metering, phasing with grid control systems, maintaining radio links to the central control systems of the farm, circuit breaker settings [ too restricted settings to protect turbines from severe power spikes claimed to be one of the reasons for the turbine dropout cascade and the resulting SA's big blackout ] , all of these plus other systems must be kept operating to enable the turbine to resume generating as soon as wind or grid conditions warrant it doing so.

                But all of those systems require a lot of power in total to keep operating when the turbine is in standby ready to go and is not generating any power of its own .

                And that power has to come from somewhere , the somewhere being the Grid which the turbine draws on to maintain its operational systems when not operating due to conditions or other factors.

                And that power being used by the stationary wind turbine has to be generated somewhere, usually a fossil fueled generator as low wind conditions usually encompass a quarter to a third of a continent in area, right where the concentration of wind turbines is here in SE Australia when such conditions occur so all wind turbines are either in standby due to the lack of wind or are only generating token amounts of power.

                That power used by the turbine / turbineshas to be generated and is being generated elsewhere and therefore has to be paid for by somebody somewhere.

                The turbine companies as seen in the financials and operating hours of the Hepburn turbines don’t record, they actually avoid recording let alone paying anything for the power they are actually using when the turbines are in standby.
                Which seems to be the standard turbine farm operating procedure situation being followed at Hepburn Springs wind farm.

                Of course with no records of power being used in the wind turbine standby mode , there are no grounds for being charged and paying for any of the power used and drawn from the grid.

                As that power has to be paid for by somebody it is the consumer of power who is hit once again for the power used by the turbine farms when they are stationary and in standby mode due to no wind or even possible grid oversupply situations.

                The actual grid power used by a turbine in standby when summed for a long period of operating based on some research out of Europe seems to be a minimum of at least the equivalent to no less than 8% of the turbine’s historical recorded output of power, ranging up to an estimated 15% or 16% of its output if blade heating has to be used for icing removal in cold climates .

                And that is a hell of a lot of grid power being used by useless non generating turbines.

                The turbine industry is to say the least is extremely coy and secretive about this power useage being drawn from the grid and for which they apparently refuse to record and therfore don’t pay a cent for that power.

                That power to maintain turbines in standby conditions is another huge and unrecorded direct subsidy to the turbine companies and a huge hidden impost on the consumer who has no say whatsoever in this turbine farm consumer leeching debacle.

                It is us, the consumer who pays for that power which is hidden in the bills we receive for power we supposedly use.

                It doesn’t seem to matter which way we look at the wind turbine industry, we are getting thoroughly screwed over by this so called industry which is nothing more than a vast consumer leeching and con operation with little in the way of any advantages except if you are a rusted on believer in the climate change religious ideology which enables you to arrogantly and self righteously refuse to consider such imposts on the community, particularly the lower income sections of that community..

                The sums on Carbon claimed to be saved by wind turbines in any case are to say the least ,marginal according toa some research done on the entire sequence of mining, refining ores , constructiong turbine componentsm transporting those huge components , erecting and wiring to the grid when the turbine component and all the energy used in to create that in overseas factories with cheap labour that before it is even shipped and erected.

                It all occurs somewhere else out of sight so the greens and other turbine luvvies are too damn dumb or too smug by half to admit that when measured against the so called Carbon saved as against the building and operation of a coalfired HELEgenerating plant along with the replacement costs of turbines to match the life of the HELE plant, all of which makes the turbine barely less , a very small percentage less for total Carbon emmissions compared to the building and generating emmissions over the 50 year life of a coal fired HELE generator twith its absolute reliability, its cheapness of power, its visible costs of running and its overall reliability in its operation.

                None of those inherent characteristics of a coal fired generator have yet been demonstrated to exist in a wind turbine or solar panel farm system.

                And so we the consumer pay and pay and pay for what. Nobody seem s to be able to explain why we have to pay for expensive very unreliable and unpredictable generating systems that are grossly inferior in every way to the older highly reliable and cheaper coal burning systems we used for the last century past.

                60

              • #
                ROM

                Just up on Pierre Gosselins “NoTricksZone” german to english blog is this quite frightening piece of research into the impact of wind turbine infrasound on human health re the health of the human heart when exposed to long periods of wind turbine infrasound.

                “Heart-Jamming” Wind Turbines …New Medical Research Confirms Infrasound Negatively Impacts Heart Health!

                Wind turbines convert 40 percent of the wind’s energy into power and 60 percent into infrasound, thus making them a real potential threat to human health.
                &
                Prof. Wahl became interested in infrasound and its impact on health after a friend who lived near a wind park had complained of feeling continuously sick. It is known that all around the world people living near wind parks often experience health issues – some being severe.
                &
                Citing the results, Prof. Vahl said: “The fundamental question of whether infrasound can affect the heart muscle has been answered.”
                &
                The researchers conclude: “We are at the very beginning, but we can imagine that long-term impact of infrasound causes health problems.
                The silent noise of infrasound acts like a heart jammer.”

                50

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Yes ROM

                VLF pulsing is bad news that has been deliberately hidden by authorities under the disguise of the term: noise.

                KK

                40

  • #
    • #
      Graeme#4

      Our Labor govt doesn’t seem in a hurry to catch up, which is good. Also we have a plentiful supply of gas. We certainly do NOT want to be connected to the “National” grid!

      50

  • #
    Ruairi

    No prose or scholarly poem,
    Or research that would fill a great tome,
    Can explain the Left’s urge,
    To succumb to the scourge,
    Of Climate Derangement Syndrome.

    140

  • #

    “Since 2000 there has been a systematic tendency to find lower climate sensitivity values.”

    I suggest this will keep on going then pause awhile near zero until someone is brave enough to show it is negative. That is CO2 counteracts natural change by partly negating it and/or that it encourages natural negative feedbacks.

    70

  • #
    C. Paul Barreira

    perhaps some one is Oz might follow the fabulous example of Allie Beth Stuckey. See here!

    30

  • #
    Bill In Oz

    I chose not to read or watch the Alberici interview with Steiglitz….I thought “Why bother ? I know what they will say. The world faces global imminent catastrophe.

    Sighhhhhh !

    But let’s think about that. We have only 11 more years to wait folks, before it doesn’t happen. Then the prophets of Doom & Gloom will have to find some other Cause to bleat about. It seems like that some humans just love to think about the world ending…And then ‘warn’ the rest of us about it…

    Wolf stories designed to frighten kids..Ummmmm ?

    By the way the ABC is not all completely useless.. Last night I listened to a very informative, science based discussion of the Great Artesian Basin on ABC Radio Night Life hosted by Phillip Clarke with 2 actual scientists as part of the discussion. I hope he does more like that

    70

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Spot on Bill , the ABC used to have some great science documentaries which actually were the opposite to their ideological dogma , isostatic rebound , plate tectonics, volcanoes the list of subjects was amazing and informative but alas someone worked out they were giving a possible reason for nature changing things not humans .

      70

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘And if you agree that it is all a bit of alarmist nonsense, then you’re really a true conservative.’

    Emma is being a bit glib, the agrarian socialists aren’t your typical ‘conservative’, we just believe climate change science is crap.

    The green left is a Cultural Marxist movement which accepts the paradigm that a beneficial trace gas causes global warming, they have been brainwashed.

    100

  • #
    el gordo

    A true conservative, Craig Kelly.

    “The reality is today, we live in a time where our generation has never ever been as safe from the climate at any time in human history,” Mr Kelly told the group on Wednesday, according to a recording of his speech.

    “The climate was always dangerous. We didn’t make it dangerous, [and] it’s fossil fuels that protect us from that climate.”

    SMH

    160

  • #
    Neville

    Germany has been trying to reduce co2 emissions for decades, but have recently extended more of their brown coal mines. Here’s the IEA data for Germany and the US.

    Will we ever wake up to this S&Wind fra-ud and con?

    https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/GERMANY4.pdf

    Here’s the much lower coal percentage used by the US. Just 17.1% and mostly much higher quality black coal than the Germans. One country is praised and the other hated by the looney left.
    Guess which country gets the praise for their S&W idiocy that barely rates on the IEA pie chart , just look at the data.

    https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/USA4.pdf

    40

    • #
      Neville

      Even Dr Hansen tells us that Paris COP 21 is just BS and fra-d and he states that a belief in S&W idiocy is like a belief in the Easter bunny and the Tooth fairy.
      IOW it is a fairy tale, yet Germany has wasted 100s of billions $ on S&W for decades for a zero change to the temp by 2100.
      Just ask China and India etc as their emissions continue to soar and with hundreds of new coal fired stns yet to be built.
      So why doesn’t their ABC tell us the truth?

      80

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    Nobel continue to make a mockery of themselves with “the Nobel Prize in economics has gone to William Norhaus this month, who has pioneered a framework for understanding how the economy and climate interact”.

    90

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Check out the 1997 Nobel Prize for Economics. The Daddy of them all!

      30

    • #
      RickWill

      There is no Nobel prize in Economics. It is the Sveriges Riksbank prize in Economics in honour of Alfred Nobel. Nobel would turn in his grave to think that there is a prize in his name for such frivolous nonsense as economics.

      50

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Ted and Rick: I just quoted what was written.

        This link:
        https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1997/press-release/

        Implies rather strongly that it is a Nobel prize. Granted it’s not from the Nobel comity, so you’re probably right. In which case; they sure are misusing the great man’s name for their own glory.

        Oh; and I read through the article, but it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

        40

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          I glanced through the link. It looks like the right one, though I had forgotten the names.

          I didn’t see any mention of the subsequent developments. Within a year this new process was involved in huge losses, requiring extraordinary rescue measures to prevent a bigger crash. I don’t remember the details, but one of the recipients was closely involved with the crash.

          This was so big that I am surprised to see anybody not trying to hide all association with the issue. It thoroughly discredited the prize.

          20

        • #
          RickWill

          Greg
          I know you are quoting but it perpetuates the perversion.

          I have similar distaste for the term “renewable” used to describe intermittent ambient energy sources.

          20

  • #
    TdeF

    You have to wonder about the CO2 sensitivity. There is simply no correlation between this manufactured world temperature and CO2. Or between windmills and CO2.

    The original 1988 panic was +0.5C in ten years meant +5.0C in one hundred years and a world emergency, the greatest moral challenge in a generation. All childish mathematics without foundation in any known science, without even any proof that the CO2 increase was man made.

    Thirty years later in 2018 we should be up another +1.5C up already and the IPCC are talking instead about +1.5C over the next 70 years. Deferred warming. All those alleged scientists and as “Global Warming” has become a joke, no one can see there is something wrong with the basic assumption of constant warming?

    Michael Mann’s Hockey stick is as flat as a flat thing. Man made Global Warming has become history, a manufactured scare from the 20th century as it sputters out.

    However never has a 30 year old pretend emergency generated so much cash for bankers, governments, carpetbaggers and pundits, economists, politicians and climate psychologists, hydrology cell ecologists. Huge international conferences in prestige locations overflowing with consultants, private jets, limousines and experts. The biggest money trough in history, as the 30 year history of the Man made Global Warming fr*ud is written.

    Of course it’s all true. The only thing wrong with man made Global Warming is the total contradiction by the facts.

    110

    • #

      TdF
      “However never has a 30 year old pretend emergency generated so much cash for bankers, governments, carpetbaggers and pundits, economists, politicians and climate psychologists, hydrology cell ecologists.”

      That is a brilliant statement !

      I especially love the phrase
      “pretend emergency”.

      80

  • #
    RickWill

    I applaud the sad soul charged with the “ABC-watch”. I would need to be paid well to watch the ABC. I can no longer even listen to the ABC radio.

    I have the car radio set on the ABC but I find I can only stand it for maybe 5 minutes before it gets” paused”.

    90

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    No, Emma, you don’t have to be a Green Leftie to want to reduce carbon emissions.

    All you have to do is fall for the scam!

    70

  • #
    Neville

    Jo could you please explain this Q&A from the Royal Society and NAS report?
    Question 20 and answer states that the world could STOP emissions today and we wouldn’t see a change in Co2 levels for at least a thousand years or thousands of years.
    I know the ice core data shows this to be the case, but why doesn’t the media disclose this extreme lag?
    IOW could we be waiting until 3018 or 4018 and beyond before co2 levels STARTED to decline?
    But what does Jo or David think?
    BTW the RS and NAS are probably the world’s premier science expert groups. Whatever that means?

    70

    • #
      TdeF

      Amazing.

      “Measured decreases in the fraction of other forms of carbon (the isotopes 14C and 13C) and a small
      decrease in atmospheric oxygen concentration (observations of which have been available since 1990)
      show that the rise in CO2 is largely from combustion of fossil fuels (which have low 13C fractions and no 14C).”

      That is not true. It is the justification for man made Global Warming and it is not true. At least they do not say “scientists have found “. This is the Royal Society.

      80

      • #
        TdeF

        The sudden doubling of the atmospheric C14 in 1965 and its rapid decay with a half life of 14 years proves that regardless of the Royal Society espoused view, the rate at which CO2 is exchanged with the 98% reservoir in the oceans is very high. CO2 levels are therefore set by rapid equilibrium and industrial CO2 vanishes rapidly. That is also indisputable fact, not conjecture or opinion or hypothesis or dictum. This massive world wide test of CO2 absorption is the final word.

        Sir Paul Nurse may have a Nobel Prize in genetics, but he knows nothing much about physical chemistry. The question is whether he refuses to listen. His awful debate with James Delingpole and his fantasy “precautionary principle” would have him thrown out of the medical profession for violating the Hippocratic oath, do no harm. You do not prescribe potentially lethal treatments for cancer unless you are certain they have the disease.

        90

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          How about testing The Royal Society for mind altering substances?

          The tests that truckies and miners have to undergo should do the trick. We have to keep the world safe.

          20

    • #
      el gordo

      Neville what do we see here?

      https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Carbon-14-content-of-tree-rings-illustrating-the-Oort-Wolf-Spoerer-and-Maunder-minima_fig14_251435151

      Temperatures drop first, then CO2 is swallowed up by the cold ocean sinks pretty quickly.

      70

  • #
  • #
    wal1957

    If only Emma Alberici were a journalist.

    And that little line says it all….

    80

  • #
    Bodge it an scarpa

    With Sceptics being effectively censored from much of the MSM, how do we get the truth about Climate Change out to the general public that don’t do online research of their own ? Sceptics and like minded corporations like Skye News must find a way. Maybe hire Airial Sky Writers in each Capital City to regularly write “Climate Change Is A Scam See Here For Details” :-) I don’t know, but by the time the climate changes drastically enough for us to win this non debate, the country and the Western World will be in ruins !

    70

    • #
      el gordo

      We are waiting to see what impact a blank sun can have on climate, its a waiting game, global cooling should theoretically begin in 2020. Its a millennial vision.

      Sky is doing great stuff with the WIN network, going to all the regions. Bolt and the other commentators are attacking aunty for blatant bias, which must come as a great shock to those country folk raised on the ABC.

      40

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Start by making sure that people understand that increased energy costs must be paid from the same money barrel as their wages. More money for energy means less money for wages.

      30

  • #
    pat

    listen from 6min15secs to 9min15sec:
    re Govt’s latest energy announcement. Hanson, speaking from an overnight stay in a coal miners’ camp in Moranbah, Qld, provides some horrendous examples of MASSIVE electricity bills:

    AUDIO: 14min03sec: 25 Oct: 2GB: Luke Grant: ‘They can’t afford it’: Pauline Hanson tells Government to ditch renewable energy obsession
    “People are paying through their taxes for the subsidies for renewables, then we’re paying for it in higher prices as well.”
    “We need to deliver cheap power because I’ve got industry, manufacturing and families suffering because they can’t pay their power bills. People are going to shut up shop, leave the country and take their business overseas because of escalating power prices.”
    “They can’t afford it.”
    “So stop pushing for this renewable energy. It is a way for the future, but it’s not the only way.”
    https://www.2gb.com/they-cant-afford-it-pauline-hanson-tells-government-to-ditch-renewable-energy-obsession/

    50

    • #
      RickWill

      Pauline clearly has no idea how the RET works. It is not a tax or a government subsidy. It is a simple government mandated transfer payment from those who consume electricity to those who generate electricity from ambient sources. It is fundamentally immoral where those with capital or access to finance can receive income from those financially disadvantaged in society.

      The state and national social service groups all support this immoral law despite their constancy being highly disadvantaged by it. Few people actually understand how it works and Pauline is not improving the understanding.

      50

  • #
    pat

    listen from 16min46sec to end – ridiculous:

    AUDIO: 19min01sec: 25 Oct: 2GB: Ray Hadley: Peter Dutton comes out in support of Malcolm Turnbull
    Peter Dutton didn’t think Malcolm Turnbull should lead the nation but he does think should lead government negotiations in Indonesia.
    Two months after leading a leadership coup against the deposed PM, Mr Dutton is now supporting his political enemy…

    Ray Hadley asks the Home Affairs Minister whether Mr Turnbull should be conducting government negotiations.
    “Yes he should. I’ve had a very close look at this and I’ve spoken to Scott Morrison about it.
    “I think this has been blown a little bit out of proportion.
    “Malcolm does have a relationship with the Indonesian President.
    “In the end, the government makes the decisions on all policy areas. The Cabinet will, the Prime Minister will.
    “Mr Turnbull is going as a representative of our country and I think it’s appropriate in the circumstances.”
    https://www.2gb.com/peter-dutton-comes-out-in-support-of-malcolm-turnbull/

    first few minutes:

    AUDIO: 6min58sec: 24 Oct: 2GB: Ben Fordham: ‘If I were the prime minister…’ Tony Abbott responds to Turnbull’s Bali trip
    Tony Abbott believes a minister should be sent to a climate change conference in Bali next week…
    “As you can imagine, I’m all in favour of making good use of former prime ministers.
    “But I’ve got to say, if I were the prime minister I would have sent a minister to this conference because only a minister can really speak for the government.”…
    https://www.2gb.com/if-i-were-the-prime-minister-tony-abbott-responds-to-turnbulls-bali-trip/

    50

    • #
      RickWill

      In a way it demonstrates the lack of commitment to do anything. Turnbull is not even a dead duck. He is just a skid mark; presence but no substance. A minister might actually have the authority to agree to something, which is not a good idea.

      40

  • #
    pat

    24 Oct: Mining Monthly: Indian opportunity
    INDIA could be another major market for Australia’s thermal and metallurgical coal as it tries to modernise its economy and help uplifted its more impoverished citizens.
    Indian thermal coal consumption is rising faster than any other major economy because of increased electrification. However, domestic supply and demand remains tight because the Indian coal sector is yet to be reformed.
    A tripling of crude steel production is also driving the demand for metallurgical coal. It has no viable coking coal deposits of its own
    These are among the findings of the latest New Frontiers report from the Minerals Council of Australia.
    According to the report, coal is the most important commodity among Australia’s mechandise exports to India.
    Coal exports were value at about $9 billion in 2017.
    Over 2007-17 India’s thermal coal imports expanded more rapidly than its metallurgical coal imports…
    https://www.miningmonthly.com/investment/international-coal-news/1349570/indian-opportunity

    15 Oct: Minerals Council of Australia: New Frontiers: India
    DOWNLOAD PDF
    https://www.minerals.org.au/news/new-frontiers-india

    20

  • #
    Graeme#4

    Thanks for the reference list of IPCC failings Jo. A lot of useful info in there. The recent Levin interview mentioned that a Swedish IPCC scientist admitted that the model data was “Parameterized”, i.e. fiddled to obtain desired results. Does anyone have a link to this?

    50

    • #
      GrahamP

      Here is a link. He says models are “parameterized” at about 4:40 mark.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ

      20

    • #
      tom0mason

      Graeme#4
      Parameterized values are used for many variables in both weather and climate models.
      It allows weather forecasters degrees of freedom to make model output reach a closer match to the actual observations.

      E.g. Here is an AMS paper on Sensitivity of Precipitation Statistics to Resolution, Microphysics, and Convective Parameterization: A Case Study with the High-Resolution WRF Climate Model over Europe

      Note this paper basically justifies how and why Precipitation Statistics are parameterize. The climate models’ justifications are a little harder to find!

      20

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Rain predicted for next week is between 0 and 120 mm , I think they will be right .

        40

      • #
        Graeme#4

        Thanks Tom. Surely, if a IPCC scientist said this, somebody must have noted it down at the time.

        20

        • #
          tom0mason

          Here’s a quote for you from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (HERE)

          The climate system includes a variety of physical processes, such as cloud processes, radiative processes and boundary-layer processes, which interact with each other on many temporal and spatial scales. Due to the limited resolutions of the models, many of these processes are not resolved adequately by the model grid and must therefore be parametrized. The differences between parametrizations are an important reason why climate model results differ. For example, a new boundary-layer parametrization (Lock et al., 2000; Lock, 2001) had a strong positive impact on the simulations of marine stratocumulus cloud produced by the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) and the Hadley Centre climate models, but the same parametrization had less positive impact when implemented in an earlier version of the Hadley Centre model (Martin et al., 2006). Clearly, parametrizations must be understood in the context of their host models.

          [my bold]
          ¯

          I’m sure there must be others but as it says “Clearly, parametrizations must be understood in the context of their host models.” which makes it clear those who are running the models make the decisions about what and how any variables are parameterized.

          10

    • #
      RickWill

      Graeme
      The first question at the 47 minute mark in the linked lecture from Michael Mischenko gives clear insight to the fudging in climate models:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjKJyn_uoIE

      Mischenko is a NASA/GISS scientist. His statement that climate models can produce “whatever” by tuning is compelling insight into the lack of rigour in climate modelling.

      30

  • #
    pat

    25 Oct: Griffith Uni News: Stan Grant joins Griffith University
    Internationally renowned journalist and eminent thought leader Stan Grant will join Griffith University as Professor of Global Affairs in December.
    “We are delighted to have Stan join Griffith University,’’ Pro Vice Chancellor (Arts, Education & Law) Professor Paul Mazerolle said.
    “His deep knowledge of global affairs and extensive journalistic experience is an incredible asset to the University.
    “Our journalism and communication students and others will benefit from his knowledge and wisdom.”…

    Prior to his appointment at Griffith, Stan was the ABC’s Chief Asia Correspondent. He spent 10 years as Senior International Correspondent for CNN in Asia and the Middle East, broadcasting to an audience of millions around the world. He was also a news presenter on the Australian Macquarie Radio Network, Seven and SBS…
    https://app.secure.griffith.edu.au/news/2018/10/25/stan-grant-joins-griffith-university/

    30

  • #
    Jeff

    I’m glad I am in the house alone because I start swearing at the ABC TV news as they go from one Climate catastrophe “expert” interview to another “expert” interviewed about how the children on Nauru have stopped eating and all in need of urgent medical attention.
    I switch off and have to walk out.

    100

  • #
    John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

    Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame and a banking Financial modeller in a previous life) take on catastrophic climate change based on models.
    “Climate Models: As soon as you hear that someone has a complicated prediction model, that’s a red flag. If you hear that the model involves human assumptions and “tweaking,” that’s a double red flag. If you hear there are dozens of different models, that’s a triple red flag. If you hear that the models that don’t conform to the pack are discarded, and you don’t know why, that is a quadruple red flag. And if you see people conflating climate projections with economic models to put some credibility on the latter, you have a quintuple red flag situation.”
    As for his career as a financial modeller, he says:
    “My projections required human judgment on lots of variables, so the output was little more than guessing and massaging the numbers to meet my boss’s expectations.”
    These quotes can be found at this link:
    http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/09/11/when-to-trust-the-experts-climate-and-otherwise/

    70

  • #
    pat

    24 Oct: news.com.au: AAP: PM Morrison stands by ABC funding
    Labor has challenged the government to restore funding to the ABC, but Scott Morrison says the broadcaster needs to be efficient.
    The ABC does a good job but must live within its means, Prime Minister Scott Morrison says.
    Labor challenged the prime minister in parliament on Wednesday to restore $83 million cut from the national broadcaster’s budget.

    Acting managing director David Anderson told a Senate estimates hearing on Tuesday the ABC could not achieve the cuts without “major disruption”.
    Labor leader Bill Shorten said the ABC’s services were vital, especially for those living in rural and regional Australia.
    Mr Morrison said future growth funding for the ABC had been “adjusted”, but $1 billion a year would continue to be spent on it.
    “The ABC budget is going up, it’s going up each and every year,” he said.

    “We believe the ABC should be run efficiently, run independently and it should do a great job for taxpayers – and I believe it does do a great job – but they have to live within their means.”
    https://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/pm-morrison-stands-by-abc-funding/news-story/003d6bdc24ec766be9f745989537483d

    20

  • #
    pat

    25 Oct: ABC: BOM outlook: Low chance of drought recovery for eastern Australia in coming months
    ABC Weather By Kate Doyle
    Despite heavy rain lashing parts of the country in recent weeks the big dry is far from over — and according to the Bureau of Meteorology, the hard times are set to continue.
    According to the latest outlook there is a low chance of recovery for drought affected areas in the coming months, and the financial ramifications are expected to take some time to play out.

    Bureau of Meteorology senior climatologist Blair Trewin said the heaviest rain had mostly fallen in places less severely afflicted by the drought.
    “If we look at the areas that are running significantly above average for October, you’re essentially looking at the south-east quarter of Queensland and the New South Wales coast from about Sydney north to the Queensland border,” he said.

    Dr Trewin said broadly speaking, west of the divide had been a bit hit and miss in October because the rain had mostly come in thunderstorms.
    “To give one example, Dubbo, which has had a direct hit from a couple of thunderstorms, has had 90 millimetres for the month, but a lot of places around it have had a only 30 or 40,” he said…

    Dr Trewin said cool temperatures in the eastern Indian Ocean had been a significant factor in the drought so far…

    The outlook said November in particular is looking dry but there is no strong indication of either a wetter or dryer on the eastern side of the Great Dividing Range.
    The hot and dry conditions are expected in part because of the continued cool temperatures in the Indian Ocean and a looming El Nino event in the Pacific…READ ON
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-25/bom-outlook-grim-forecast-drought-to-continue/10427318

    40

    • #
      TdeF

      “The hot and dry conditions are expected in part because of the continued cool temperatures in the Indian Ocean and a looming El Nino event in the Pacific”

      So Global Warming produces cooling which produces hot dry conditions. As for the El Nino, that is unpredictable by any climate models, CO2 or no CO2.

      You have to wonder about man made Climate Change when droughts are due to cooling.

      Also both of these events are ocean temperatures, not air temperatures. All a great mystery, except all due to CO2.

      50

      • #
        TdeF

        I also love this

        “The El Nino phenomenon, which occurs every three to five years, is caused by warmer water in the eastern Pacific Ocean. This water is warmer because as trade winds lessen or reverse their direction, winds from the west push warm surface water to the east in the direction of the continent of South America.”

        So warmer water changes the climates around the Pacific. All unpredictable.

        You could be forgiven for thinking water temperature is far more important than air temperatures in determining climates and rainfall. Now how does CO2 selectively heat the water? Say around the Great Barrier Reef?

        Surely $443Million, 7 1/2 tons of gold should give us an answer?

        100

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘Now how does CO2 selectively heat the water? Say around the Great Barrier Reef?’

          The GBR is bleached by a drop in sea level caused during strong El Nino, any slight variation in sea temperature is not the culprit behind bleaching.

          00

  • #
    pat

    24 Oct: Daily Caller: Michael Bastasch: Trump ‘Fundamentally Changed’ The Politics Of Global Warming, Author Says
    •Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accord and focus on energy dominance has changed the game.
    •“There is no country in the world which has more to lose from decarbonization,” Darwall said.
    President Donald Trump has “fundamentally changed” the politics surrounding global warming and energy, according to author and energy policy expert Rupert Darwall.

    Darwall, author of the book “Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex,” recently sat down with The Daily Caller News Foundation to discuss his book, the Trump administration and climate change…
    WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW WITH DARWALL: VIDEO 8MINS 55SECS

    Darwall noted countries, like Australia, stand to lose a lot if the Paris accord is fully implemented.
    ***Indeed, the country’s conservative government is more in line with Trump on global warming policies than other U.S. allies…
    https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/24/trump-politics-global-warming/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=thedcenergy

    ***Indeed, SOME OF the country’s conservative government…

    40

  • #

    “…if you want to reduce carbon emissions, certainly in this country, you’re a green leftie. And if you agree that it is all a bit of alarmist nonsense, then you’re really a true conservative.”

    Just so. I actually agree with the ABC harpie. I agree with her. I said it. Think I need to go wash myself.

    By the way, Nobel Economics Prizes now come in the same breakfast cereal packs as Nobel Peace Prizes. You just need to get lucky and be some sort of twisted commo denier of Quaternary and Holocene science…what Emma would term a “green leftie”.

    70

    • #
      RickWill

      There is no Nobel prize in economics. It is the Sveriges Riksbank prize in economics in honour of Alfred Nobel. Nobel would rollover in his grave to see his name put to the frivolous study termed economics. You dishonour a great scientist by using his name directly in an award in economics.

      20

  • #
    Dave in the States

    Since 1995, the temperatures didn’t rise for longer than any of the modelers thought was it was possible for temperatures to not rise. Antarctic sea ice set new highs, Antarctic temperatures did nothing, and tropical islands grew instead of shrinking. The hot spot went missing, and never returned, despite multiple search parties combing the data in search of missing upper tropospheric redness. Thus we found out the core assumption driving most of the prophesied warming was wrong. We also found out CO2 didn’t lead temperatures for the last half a million years, instead, the hallowed ice cores showed the exact opposite. The evil pollutant turned up 800 years late to nearly every warming party there was. So much for “cause and effect”.

    A thousand tide gauges showed sea levels rose slower than expected, and had even slowed down. Ocean heat went missing too and instead of being where the IPCC thought it would be in 1995, it’s probably twenty-three light years away, approaching Cassiopeiae. Predictions of methane growth failed dismally (see here) after the Russians plugged their leaky pipes. The IPCC did not see that coming. But carbon dioxide emissions grew faster than expected, yet had even less effect.

    Meanwhile hurricanes over the US stopped for the longest time on record, and hurricanes all over the world became less energetic.

    Excellent summary of the failures of the CAGW claims. After decades isn’t time we called an end to the experiments?

    70

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘If more and more of Australia are not liveable because of climate change, you’re not going to be better off.’

    At the moment 80% is not liveable, which is why the cities hug the coast.

    40

  • #
    pat

    ABC Breakfast, Fran Kelly.

    Mark Butler not listed as guest, but he gets the first negative words.

    around 4mins: Fran – under the plan, Govt could underwrite coal. didn’t the Govt hear the message from the voters of Wentworth, not to mention the market? people want more action on climate change, more clean energy, not more fossil fuels. isn’t that one of the messages?

    AUDIO: 12min56sec: 24 Oct: ABC Breakfast: Fran Kelly: ‘We’re on the consumer’s side’: Frydenberg defends government’s energy policy
    The Federal Government has been warned that its intervention in the energy sector will damage investment and will do little to push down power prices…
    The government says household power bills could shrink by more than $800 a year but the Shadow Energy minister Mark Butler says the price savings will be much more modest.
    Guest: Josh Frydenberg: Federal Treasurer
    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/were-on-the-consumers-side-on-energy-policy-frydenberg-says/10422158

    20

  • #
    pat

    NCAA: 2018 Sydney Peace Prize Lecture Date: Thursday 25 November 2018
    Tickets: Cost: $45, $35,$25
    This event will also feature a fabulous musical performance as well as a conversation between Professor Stiglitz and ***Laura Tingle…
    Professor Stiglitz will be traveling to Australia in November to receive the Prize and will spend a week in Sydney engaging with the media, students, policymakers and the broader community.

    NOT MANY MAJOR EVENTS WHERE ABC ISN’T INVOLVED. TINGLE WILL DO A GREAT JOB!

    Wikipedia: Laura Tingle
    A supporter of carbon pricing, and a critic of the Coalition’s Operation Sovereign Borders, she predicted that these border security plans would be “impossible to implement”. Tingle has subsequently described Abbott as an “oaf”, an “utter destructive force” and a “waste of space”. When Malcolm Turnbull challenged and won the Liberal leadership and prime ministership from Abbott in an internal party ballot in 2015, Tingle described it as “the end of a particularly poisonous period in Australian politics”, said “Australia has been pushed sharply to the right” and that Abbott’s government was “unlamented… except at News Corporation”…
    She judged that the move to oust Turnbull was driven by “pure spite and collective madness”…
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Tingle

    20

  • #

    [...] and just asked the questions to enable the real or at least prize-winning economist to display his expertise in climate science. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: If more and more of Australia are not liveable because of climate change, [...]

    20

  • #
    rollo

    Off topic but the ABC screened an interview with Robin Williams today. Robin thinks we can use the nitrogen in the atmosphere to generate ammonia and store energy with far greater efficiency than any Muskian battery and potentially sell “energy” all over the world. The interviewer did not ask Williams about the lack of sharks swimming around Melbourne and Sydney streets.
    Robin’s interview was screened after an interview with a Melbourne uni professor who warned about the dire consequences of the impending 1.5 degree temperature rise.
    It’s time to delete the ABC channels from my TV!

    60

  • #
    pat

    May 2014: National Review: Joseph Stiglitz’s Curious ‘Outside Activities’
    By Eliana Johnson
    The self-styled champion of the poor is not eager to disclose his ties with foreign leaders.
    Columbia University economics professor Joseph Stiglitz, the liberal economist and scourge of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), has a long list of accomplishments. His curriculum vitae runs 56 pages, to be exact…
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/05/joseph-stiglitzs-curious-outside-activities-eliana-johnson/

    pro bono work for the children! read all:

    11 Jul Updated 30 Jul: InsideClimateNews: Nobel-Winning Economist to Testify in Children’s Climate Lawsuit
    Joseph Stiglitz writes in a court brief that fossil fuel-based economies impose ‘incalculable’ costs on society and shifting to clean energy will pay off.
    By Georgina Gustin
    One of the world’s top economists has written an expert court report that forcefully supports a group of children and young adults who have sued the federal government for failing to act on climate change…
    The government, he writes, should move “with all deliberate speed” toward alternative energy sources…

    Stiglitz has submitted briefs for Supreme Court cases—and normally charges $2,000 an hour for legal advice, the report says—but he wrote this 50-page report (LINK) pro bono at the request of the attorneys representing the children. It was filed in federal district court in Oregon on June 28.
    He is one of 18 expert witnesses planning to testify in the case, scheduled for trial later this year, the children’s lawyers said…

    Olson said it’s likely the case will end up in the Supreme Court eventually, but she’s unconcerned about Kennedy’s retirement and the expected shift to a more conservative court.
    “This case is fundamentally a conservative case,” she said. “It’s about protecting individual liberties from government abuses of power, and that’s very much in line with the conservative justices on the court.”
    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11072018/joseph-stiglitz-kids-climate-change-lawsuit-global-warming-costs-economic-impact

    20

    • #
      pat

      24 Oct: Science Mag: Scientists take opposing sides in youth climate trial
      By Julia Rosen
      Next week, barring a last-minute intervention by the Supreme Court, climate change will go to trial for just the second time in U.S. history…
      Each side has recruited a roster of high-profile scientists and economists, including Nobel laureates, to bolster their argument. “It’s clearly going to be a battle of the experts,” says Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, who is not involved in the case…

      One expert for the plaintiffs, climate scientist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, filed testimony based on his research that invokes principles of thermodynamics to explain how warming can amplify disasters. Hotter, dryer weather increases the risk of fires, he notes. And warmer air can hold more moisture, boosting rainfall by up to 20%—a factor he says worsened floods that affected plaintiffs living in Louisiana, Florida, and Colorado. “Once thresholds are crossed, things break, burn, or die!” he writes.

      Defense expert John Weyant, a management scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, disagrees that weather extremes can be pinned on climate change. Existing science is not precise enough to attribute individual events and injuries to climate, he writes in his testimony, and Trenberth’s method ignores confounding factors. For example, he argues, poor forest management and human-sparked blazes also cause severe fires.

      These confounding factors are “true but irrelevant” to whether warming contributed to a particular weather extreme, says climate scientist Drew Shindell of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. But Trenberth’s approach is controversial, notes climate scientist Friederike Otto of the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. (Neither scientist is involved in the case.) Researchers can now at least partly attribute extreme events to warming, Otto says, but Trenberth’s method isn’t able to rule out whether a particular event would have occurred even without climate change…READ ALL
      https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/scientists-take-opposing-sides-youth-climate-trial

      24 Oct: PacificStandardMag: How the Government Plans to Defend Itself Against the Young People Suing Over Climate Change
      Reviewing the government’s expert testimony, we can see what its strategy will be as the Juliana case comes to trial.
      by Sophie Yeo
      In less than a week, the government could go on trial for causing climate change…
      The plaintiffs have submitted an expert report (LINK) by Mark Jacobson, an engineering professor at Stanford, claiming that it is “technologically and economically possible” to run the U.S. on 100 percent clean energy by 2050.
      The government has submitted its own expert reports arguing strongly against the feasibility of this idea, including an accusation that Jacobson’s plan for a clean energy transition relies on flawed data and a flawed methodology.

      “It is my expert opinion that Jacobson’s proposed timelines for building, installing, and deploying the necessary facilities and infrastructure to transition to his proposed energy system are unrealistic and likely infeasible by failing to address myriad real-world considerations,” writes Howard Herzog, a senior research engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sweeney, meanwhile, accuses (LINK) Jacobson of assuming “the existence of technologies that are in development and are decades from commercial acceptance.”…

      The plaintiffs are asserting that the U.S. government consciously chose policies that have benefited the fossil fuel industry.
      They rely on the expert report of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. “The fact that the U.S. national energy system is so predominantly fossil fuel-based is not an inevitable consequence of history,” Stiglitz writes. “The current level of dependence of our energy system on fossil fuels is a result of intentional actions taken by defendants over many years.” These actions, Stiglitz says, include fossil fuel subsidies and a lack of research and development into alternatives, even following the oil crises of the 1970s, when the risks of America’s oil dependence became clear.

      The government’s experts reject these claims. David Victor, a professor of international relations at the University of California–San Diego, points out that the U.S. was not alone in developing an energy system that depended on fossil fuels, arguing (contra Stiglitz) that “the global race to dependence on fossil fuels, indeed, was inevitable.” Victor also claims that federal fossil fuel subsidies are a “tiny fraction” of the total value of the fossil fuel industry, to the extent that such governmental assistance is “not material” to its continued dominance…READ ALL
      https://psmag.com/environment/how-the-government-will-defend-itself-against-young-people-suing-over-climate

      30

      • #
        pat

        SBS likes NYT’s flowery take:

        23 Oct: SBS: The lawyer helping young people sue the Trump administration over climate change
        By John Schwartz, New York Times
        Julia Olson climbed the slope of Spencer Butte, taking the steeper of the two paths. Near the summit, shrouding pines suddenly gave way to a vista of the Cascades. On this day, summer wildfires, their season lengthened by climate change, put a haze in the sky.
        The climb and return, which she can power through in an hour, is a head-clearing ritual for Olson, an environmental attorney…

        If all goes as planned, Olson will deliver her opening argument Monday in a landmark federal lawsuit against the Trump administration on behalf of 21 plaintiffs, ages 11 to 22, who are demanding the government fight climate change…
        Their age is central to their argument: For older Americans, the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change are a problem, but ultimately an abstract one. Today’s children will be dealing with disaster within their lifetimes; the youngest of the plaintiffs, Levi Draheim, will be just 33 in 2040, the year by which a United Nations scientific panel now expects some of the biggest crises to begin…

        But as of now, less than a week before the trial is scheduled to start in US District Court in Eugene, whether the young people will get their day in court is still an open question. On Friday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. granted a Trump administration request to put a brief hold on the proceedings to consider government filings that could derail the case.
        It is unclear how long the delay will last, or what the outcome will be. The Supreme Court could even dismiss the litigation, though that would be unusual at this early stage…

        The lawsuit, Juliana v United States, is the most visible case for Olson and her nonprofit organisation, Our Children’s Trust. The group is involved in similar legal actions in almost every state, and other climate suits around the world…
        Olson originally filed the federal suit in 2015 against the Obama administration…

        Then came President Donald Trump, whose administration is reversing Obama-era climate policies and encouraging the use of fossil fuels, which greatly contribute to warming. “In the view of the plaintiffs, Obama was moving too slowly, and now Trump is moving backward,” said Michael B. Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School…

        “This lawsuit is an unconstitutional attempt to use a single Oregon court to control the entire nation’s energy and climate policy,” Jeffrey H Wood, the Justice Department attorney in charge of the division representing the government, said in a statement….
        https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-lawyer-helping-young-people-sue-the-trump-administration-over-climate-change

        30

  • #
    Rocky

    Sam Kekovick Ad for ACs is going well.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02ItUhfTLgo

    40

  • #
    pat

    Stiglitz has a long history with George Soror, including:

    Wikipedia: Institute for New Economic Thinking
    Chairman of the Governing Board: Adair Turner
    The Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) is a New York City–based nonprofit think tank. It was founded in October 2009 as a result of the 2007–2012 global financial crisis, and runs a variety of affiliated programs at major universities such as the Cambridge-INET Institute at the University of Cambridge…

    INET was founded with an initial pledge of $50 million from George Soros.
    It has since been supplemented by donations from James Balsillie and William H. Janeway, together with other philanthropists and financiers, including Paul Volcker, David Rockefeller, the Malcolm Hewitt Wiener Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, and Stiftung Mercator. Later funding has come from the Keynes Fund for Applied Economics and the Isaac Newton Trust at the University of Cambridge…

    The INET advisory board includes nobel laureates George Akerlof, James Heckman, Sir James Mirrlees, Amartya Sen, A. Michael Spence, and Joseph Stiglitz, as well as other prominent economists such as…Jeffrey Sachs, ETC

    The executive director is Robert Johnson, former managing director at the hedge funds Soros Fund Management and Moore Capital Management.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_New_Economic_Thinking

    Adair Turner is in or has just been in Beijing, according to the following (and one brief mention in a Chinese article):

    24 Oct: Project-Syndicate: A Zero-Carbon Economy Is Within Reach
    by Adair Turner
    (Adair Turner, a former chairman of the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority and former member of the UK’s Financial Policy Committee, is Chairman of the Institute for New Economic Thinking)
    Getting to net zero carbon emissions in just four decades is both necessary and a huge challenge. But the good news is that it is undoubtedly technically feasible – and at an acceptably low cost to the global economy.
    BEIJING – But as a forthcoming report from the Energy Transitions Commission (LINK) argues, the good news is that it is undoubtedly technically possible, and at an acceptably low cost to the global economy. Moreover, we already know the key technologies we need to achieve this objective.

    All feasible paths to a low-carbon economy and, eventually, net zero CO2 emissions require a massive increase in the role of electricity. The share of electricity in final energy demand will have to grow from around 20% today to around 60% by mid- to late century, and total global electricity generation will have to rise dramatically, from around 25,000 TWh today to as much as 100,000 TWh.

    That electricity must come from low-carbon sources. And while nuclear power and gas generation offset by carbon capture may play a role, the lion’s share will have to come from renewable sources – 70-80% in the IPCC’s scenarios. But there is plenty enough land in the world to support renewable expansion on that scale, and enough time to make the necessary investments as long as we act fast.

    Three other sets of technologies will also be essential. First, hydrogen, ammonia, and perhaps methanol must be used as energy carriers in transport and industrial applications and as chemical feedstock inputs. All three will eventually be produced synthetically, using clean electricity as the ultimate energy source.
    Second, biomass could provide low-carbon aviation fuel, or feedstock for plastics production. The total scale of use, however, will need to be carefully managed to avoid harmful impacts on ecosystems and food supply.

    Third, there should be at least some role for carbon capture, and either storage or use, in key industrial processes such as cement production, where viable alternative routes to decarbonization are currently unavailable…

    To achieve the 1.5°C objective, the IPCC estimates that the required additional global investment, from 2015 to 2050, could be $900 billion per annum. That may seem like a startlingly high figure; but, assuming 3% annual economic growth, global GDP, which stands at almost $100 trillion today, could reach $260 trillion by 2050…

    China alone currently invests more than $5 trillion each year, a significant proportion of which is wasted on the construction of apartment blocks which will never be occupied in cities which face static and eventually declining populations. By redirecting investment, China could build a zero-carbon economy without any sacrifice of consumption. For the world as a whole, the impact on living standards of achieving net zero emissions will be trivial…

    The alternative is another decade of only incremental progress, which will put us on a catastrophic path toward 3°C warming within the lifetime of today’s children.
    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/zero-carbon-economy-within-reach-by-adair-turner-2018-10

    30

    • #
      pat

      the CAGW architecture is so powerful. who can possibly dismantle it?

      Institute for New Economic Thinking: Adair Turner, Co-Chair
      Prior to joining the Institute in 2013, he chaired the UK Financial Services Authority (2008-2013) and played a leading role in the redesign of the global banking and shadow banking regulation as Chairman of the International Financial Stability Board’s major policy committee.
      Lord Turner has combined a business career with public policy and academia. He was at McKinsey from 1982-95, building their practice in East Europe and Russia; was Director General of the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) 1995-2000; became Vice-Chairman of Merrill Lynch Europe (2000-06) and has been a Non-Executive Director of a number of companies, including Standard Chartered plc (2006-08). Currently Lord Turner is an advisor to the Board of UK start-up bank OakNorth, a non-Executive Director at Prudential plc., and most recently appointed Chairman of CHUBB Europe. He is also chairing the Energy Transitions Commission, and is a Trustee of the British Museum. A cross-bench member of the House of Lords since 2005, he served as the first Chairman of the Climate Change Committee (2008-12); chaired the Pensions Commission (2003-06) and the Low Pay Commission (2002-06)…

      He is Senior Fellow at the Centre for Financial Studies (Frankfurt), and a visiting professor at the London School of Economics and at Cass Business School. More recently he’s been appointed Visiting Fellow at the People’s Bank of China School of Finance, Tsinghua University (Beijing) and Visiting Professor at the International Center for Islamic Finance (INCEIF) in Kuala Lumpur. He was elected an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society in 2016.
      ***36 PAGES OF EXPERTS
      https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/experts

      Adair Turner linked to a report from this lot, where he is conveniently co-chair! check out the rest:

      Energy Transitions Commission: Who we are
      (includes) Rachel Kyte, Andrew Steer President/CEO, WRI, ex-World Bank, Nicholas Stern, Laurence Tubiana, Adair Turner co-Chair, former senator Tim Wirth, now Vice-Chair United Nations Foundation ETC ETC

      The ETC is funded by Bank of America Merrill Lynch, BHP Billiton, BlackRock, Energy Systems Catapult, CO2 Sciences, the European Climate Foundation, General Electric, Generation Foundation, the Grantham Foundation, OPower, the Paulson Institute, the Rocky Mountain Institute, Royal Dutch Shell, RWE, Schneider Electric, Statnett and the UN Foundation. Regardless of funding every Commissioner has an equal voice and participation in ETC activities.
      http://www.energy-transitions.org/who-we-are

      just for fun:

      PHOTO ONLY: 22 Apr 2018: Sydney Peace Foundation: Joseph Stiglitz in New York with former prime minister Kevin Rudd and philanthropist George Soros
      http://sydneypeacefoundation.org.au/american-economist-and-nobel-laureate-joseph-stiglitz-wins-2018-sydney-peace-prize/joseph-stiglitz-in-new-york-with-former-prime-minister-kevin-rudd-and-philanthropist-george-soros-photo_aap_750x500/

      20

  • #
    pat

    comment in moderation re: the CAGW architecture is so powerful. who can possibly dismantle it?

    30

  • #
    NB

    Hilarious. It is nice getting these reports about our little ABC because who watches/listens to it these days?

    40

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    For a start. great journalistic grammar here “If more and more of Australia are not liveable be” IS not liveable..

    BS anyway of course.

    “The evidence is overwhelming and I was on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that reviewed the evidence back 1995, …”
    Meaning she was sucked in like a baby.

    How fast? was that at 1000x the current rate, change? um yep.

    “there are special interests who make a lot of money out of fossil fuel ..”
    Retranslated
    “there are special interests who make a lot of money out of fossil fuel carbon trading. “

    60

  • #
    GoWest

    Has anyone investigated the link between economic / real depression and ABC’s discussions on global warming.

    50

  • #
    Stav

    I am a bit confused here.

    In 2012 Joanne went on the record to state “…carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that adding more to it will warm the planet, yes, absolutely, that’s all well proven solid science known for years, yes. I have no disagreement with any of that. Disagreement is with how much warming there is. Is it going to be a catastrophe or is it going to be 0.5 degrees and as far as we can see the evidence the empirical evidence, and there’s lots of it, all seems to point to it being around about half a degree to maybe one degree with CO2 doubling which is not the catastrophic projections that are coming out from the climate models.”
    So she agrees that temps are rising due to CO2 but believes that the current politcal spill on Climate change is overstated.

    that is backed up in this post.

    the final comments of the study are “Since 2000 there has been a systematic tendency to find lower climate sensitivity values. The most recent studies suggest a transient climate response (TCR) of about 1.0 °C, an ECS less than 2.0 °C and an effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) in the neighborhood of 1.0 °C.”

    So quoting your own research temps will go up by up to 1.0 Degrees Celsius.

    If climate change was not real then it would go up 0 degrees.

    So while the doomsday exaggeration is overstated climate change is still happening and it is being accelerated by humans.

    14

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      Climate has nothing to do with the constituent gas of a planet. Recently shown by Zeller et al. (2018). Therefore all talk of warming or a wee bit of warming due to humans is total bunkum. Period.

      30

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Stav don’t confuse climate change to CAGW , the climate has always changed and no one here is disputing that .
      What we are disputing is the piddly amount of Co2 that man is responsible for can do anything detrimental.

      70

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘…climate change is still happening and it is being accelerated by humans.’

      Global warming has stopped, but is set to pick up again next year with a large El Nino, this dramatic increase in world temperature is beyond ordinary mortals.

      CO2 has no part to play and this will become self evident after 2020.

      10

    • #
      el gordo

      Stav this is the general argument against CO2, our variable yellow star is the main driver of weather.

      https://www.thegwpf.com/the-fast-approaching-solar-minimum-and-its-potential-impact/

      10

    • #
      AndyG55

      “If climate change was not real then it would go up 0 degrees.”

      It depends what you mean by “climate change”

      Climate has ALWAYS changed, and always will change

      If you mean “Climate Change™”, as in forced by human CO2 there is absolutely ZERO empirical evidence to back up that anti-science CON-jecture.

      What caused the massive cooling for the 2000 years before the LIA cold anomaly?

      Why do you think there wouldn’t be a small NATURAL warming, (also highly beneficial to ALL life on Earth) after such a protracted an deep cold anomaly ????

      00

    • #
      AndyG55

      “climate change is still happening and it is being accelerated by humans”

      That comment is absolutely unsupportable by ANY scientific data.

      It hasn’t warmed , apart for NATURAL El Nino events, for some 40 years of the satellite record.

      Anything before that is a wild ass guess.

      It was almost certainly warmer in the NH during the 1930s, 40s and cooler during the 1970′s

      Climate changes.. NATURALLY

      SO WHAT !!

      10

    • #
      AndyG55

      Come on, Battered Stav

      Answer me a quick question.

      In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically and empirically attributed to human CO2 ?

      WAITING !!!

      10

      • #
        el gordo

        Stav can’t argue the science.

        Andy as you’re interested, the present El Nino is looking to be moderate but a more severe El Nino will emerge in the Austral winter 2019. I’m relying on Ian Wilson’s moon theory and wonder what you think the odds?

        00

  • #
    Neville

    That donkey should have a look at OZ rainfall data from BOM. Since 1970 there has been much higher rainfall and 1895 to 1970 was a very dry period indeed.
    Check out NSW and MDB as well.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=8

    50

  • #
    Bodge it an scarpa

    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
    During a 3 hour long online argument after posting this link, the 2 quite educated and seemingly intelligent warmists I was arguing with claimed that the speech attributed to Christine Figueres of the IPCC where she apparently admitted that the Climate Change Scam was just a tool for wealth distribution and had nothing to do with saving the planet, was in fact a deliberate mistranslation by the sceptical side. Jo, if you read this, are you unequivocally able to rebutt that claim ?

    30

    • #
      Bodge it an scarpa

      Ottmar Edinhoffa (.sp) is actually credited with writing much of what Christine said in that speech,
      Does anyone know where the transcript of Christine’s speech or statement can be found ? Hate to think that our side, the side of goodness and niceness has been spreading porkies to win points from the side of naughtiness and evilness.

      20

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    I read it.

    Their stupidity made me angry.

    That’s why I rarely listen to, watch or read the ABC. It’s a corrupt, green-left organisation.

    80

  • #
    John McLean

    “The evidence is overwhelming and I was on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that reviewed the evidence back 1995, …”

    No, he wasn’t. His role was not to review the evidence but to discuss the economics associated with it. His work was in the Working Group III contribution, general title “Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change”.

    He was one of six author of WG III Chapter 1 (“Scope of the Assessment”). The chapter cites his papers (i.e. he is lead author or one of two co-author) 21 times and in fact he was an author or co-author of 25 of the 120 papers (16.8%) cited by that chapter.

    The evidence is available in 2AR, which is available from the IPCC website.

    He was also an author of WG III Chapter 4 (“Intertemporal Equity, Discounting, and Economic Efficiency”). His papers are cited 10 times and he was an author of 5 of the 72 papers cited by that chapter.

    80

  • #
    pat

    look at the url!

    24 Oct: NYT: Gavin Schmidt: How Scientists Cracked the Climate Change Case
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/opinion/climate-change-global-warming-trump.html

    CarbonBrief re NYT: How Scientists Cracked the Climate Change Case
    “Like forensic detectives, climate scientists have developed a new array of tools in recent decades designed to skillfully calculate what the fingerprints of these [climatic] changes look like, and more important, how they differ from one another.,” says Dr Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “When this is all put together, the conclusions are inescapable: Without human activities the planet would not have warmed over the past century.”

    25 Oct: Reuters: New York sues Exxon for misleading investors on climate change risk
    by John Benny in Bengaluru and Gary McWilliams in Houston
    New York’s attorney general sued Exxon Mobil Corp on Wednesday, alleging that the world’s largest oil company for years misled investors about the risks of climate change regulations on its business…
    “In bringing this case, the state is yet again using the Martin Act as a political weapon,” said Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, calling the case “nothing more than a contortion of the securities litigation system.” …

    “This is a very significant lawsuit,” said Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists…
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-lawsuit/new-york-sues-exxon-for-misleading-investors-on-climate-change-risk-idUSKCN1MY2IB

    20

  • #
    pat

    25 Oct: Guardian: Lisa Cox: Australia urged to model economic effects of 1.5C and 2C climate increases
    Thinktanks and investor groups want economic implications examined as Lancet open letter attacks dismissal of IPCC report
    Progressive thinktanks and investor groups want the Australian government to model the economic effects climate change will have on Australia under 1.5C and 2C warming scenarios.
    This week the new Treasury secretary, Phil Gaetjens, told a Senate estimates hearing the department had done no modelling that compared the difference in economic impacts of 1.5C of warming and 2C…

    At the same time, in an open letter in the health journal the Lancet, 22 prominent scientists and health professionals have criticised the Australian government for dismissing the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent 1.5C report.
    “The Australian government’s contemptuous dismissal of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), including the panel’s recommendation to dramatically reduce coal power by 2050, is unacceptable,” the letter, published Thursday, states.

    Australian scientists and health professionals were dismayed at the government’s “ongoing stance to disregard the consensus of the world’s leading climate scientists” as well as “any idea of duty of care regarding the future wellbeing of Australians and our immediate neighbours”, the letter said.
    The authors include Prof Fiona Stanley and Nobel laureates Peter Doherty and Tilman Ruff…

    They say Australia is more exposed to the impacts of climate change than other OECD countries and the government “must commit immediately to embrace strategies of energy generation that do not put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere”.
    One of the letter’s authors, Prof Peter Sainsbury, said: “We were just horrified by the Australian government’s response to the report and that’s why we chose to write the letter…

    Emma Herd, the chief executive of the Investor Group on Climate Change, who was one of the voices calling for economic modelling comparing 1.5C warming impacts to 2C impacts, said similar work was already being done in other jurisdictions, including by the Bank of England, and by China, New Zealand and many European jurisdictions…
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/25/australia-urged-to-model-economic-effects-of-15c-and-2c-climate-increases

    24 Oct: ClimateChangeNews: Brexit and Germany erode EU climate resolve
    The departure of a heavyweight champion of tough climate measures comes as Germany wavers and Europe faces big decisions about future
    By Sara Stefanini in Brussels
    (Climate Home News’ reporting on Brexit is supported by a grant from the European Climate Foundation)
    Britain is leaving, Germany is “wobbling” and talks on EU emissions cuts are tipping in favour of the bloc’s more reticent countries, according to diplomatic sources following climate files in Brussels…

    “Unfortunately, Brexit and this German wobbling come at the same time,” a diplomat from the most ambitious group of countries said. “The UK has been by far the most influential member state on climate policy up until the Brexit referendum. With the loss of that influence, the EU could start to go in the other, less ambitious, direction.”…
    At the same time as Brexit, diplomats in that more ambitious camp worry another powerful partner is breaking ranks: Germany.
    September’s federal election weakened chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition between her centre-right bloc and the Social Democrats, amplifying her need for support from industries, including coal and cars…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/10/24/brexit-germany-erode-eu-climate-resolve/

    30

  • #
    pat

    25 Oct: UK Times: Wind farms ‘are causing drop in bird population’
    by Catherine Sanz, Ireland Reporter
    Bird populations drop in areas near wind turbines, research from Irish scientists has suggested.
    The study, led by researchers at University College Cork, found that the main reason appears to be the clearing of habitats during the construction of the wind farms…
    They found that populations of birds were 10 per cent lower in areas close to turbines.
    The machines may also harm or deter birds by blade noise, visual disturbance, increased predation risk, or human activity around them, they said.
    The UCC research was published this week in Conservation Biology, a scientific journal…
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wind-farms-are-causing-drop-in-bird-population-pc8mscpg6

    40

    • #
      Bodge it an scarpa

      Sorry Pat, my question is unrelated to your post. Would you’ve so kind as to use your internet search skills to try to track down the original transcript of Christine Figueres from the IPCC speech or statement where she basically admitted that Climate Change is merely a tool used to destroy Capitalism and force governments of wealthier nations to contribute to a massive wealth redistribution program among poor underdeveloped countries, and has little or nothing to do with saving the planet ?
      Warmists are claiming that Figueres words have been mistranslated, taken out of context, embellished etc etc by Sceptics to show the IPCC in a bad light. Cheers.

      20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Economists have been right about economics so much of the time that I almost believe what they say. Perhaps we should almost believe this one and then move on down the road. Who knows? His guess might be as good as a guess made by anyone I meet on any street corner.

    Or is it more likely that he thinks climate change is a problem because someone told him it is and now he wants in on the fun and the 15 minutes of fame, indeed glory, that he can get with one more theory?

    You all can be the judge better than I can. This is just my disgust at the waste of everyone’s time that Joseph Stiglitz represents.

    60

    • #
      Curious George

      They are particularly good at predicting tipping points, also known as crises. There are so many examples .. sorry, right now I can’t remember any ..
      :-)

      50

  • #
    Ray Derrick

    It has been patently obvious to me for quite some years that Emma Alberici is nothing more than a talking head who is given a set of questions to ask, presumably by her producer, and that she has no real substance between her ears that might allow her to process the answers given and respond with any kind of meaningful unscripted question.

    Sadly the same can be said for many of those folk whom we laughingly call journalists currently employed at Their ABC.

    00