JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

IPCC Coral-apocalypse: 243,000 km² of Great Barrier Reef corals to die in only 20 years

Corals, photo

Wise Hok Wai Lum: Flynn Reef 2014.

That’s it for corals.

The IPCC have gone full apocalyptic: “Coral reefs would decline by 70 to 90 per cent with warming of 1.5°C…” And this catastrophic prophesy will unfold sometime around 2040. (See the graph).

The IPCC are practically holding the Great Barrier Reef Hostage. Things are so dire, the Financial Review has just declared that the next election is the Great Barrier Reef election.

In the game of fine-tuning the carrot and stick, it’s all bad, but there is hope.

Right now the reef covers 348,700 km². And if we are good boys and girls we might only lose 243,000 km²:

Scientists say Australia has a chance to save 30 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef if immediate global changes are made to stop temperature rises.

This news will come as a shock to corals on the Great Barrier Reef which are obliviously living across a range of 2,000 kilometers and a span of five degrees Celsius from 27 to 32°C. But these are magic numbers apparently, and half a degree hotter (which is all we are talking about) it will be 27.5 to 32.5°C which is numerology hell where baby corals go to die.

You and I might think that corals might just emigrate since they shed sperm and eggs in mass spawning events visible from space and have 112 sites known to reseed all damaged areas. But what would we know?

And what would a dumb coral know –  possibly something after 200 million years of climate change, most of which was hotter.

Corals survived the rock that killed the dinosaurs. They survived Toba, the super volcano that left a crater 100km long. Corals survived a 125m sea level rise at the end of the last ice age. And they survived the ice age — and the fifteen before it. They also survived the super cyclones that have been hitting the coast of Queensland for the last 5,000 years and there is no sign that storms are getting worse. (see Nott 2001 and Hayne 2001.)Who knows what handy genes corals carry after 200 million years of climate change?

At least one research team says corals already have the genes to survive another 250 years of warming.

Corals survive across a five degree range:

Great Barrier Reef, temperature variation on the reef,

….

The IPCC are going for the full wipe out.

University of New South Wales climate scientist Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick says “virtually all” coral reefs would start dying off if global temperatures increased by 2C. — The Australian

whereas more than 99 per cent would be lost with 2C.”

Corals survive massive sea level change

Sea levels have been falling in Queensland for 3,000 years. (Lewis et al 2012) Currently they are rising globally by about 1mm a year according to 1,000 tide gauges.

However, as the seas return to where they have been scores of times before, apparently corals will be wiped out, just like they never have been.

 

Sea levels in Queensland, holocene. Graph.

Corals have been around through all this:

We are worried about a half a degree…

Geological time graph. 65 million years.

,,,

 

Note that these are polar temperatures on the graph. But that’s the thing, if tropical temperatures had this kind of volatility, how could corals have made it this far? Instead, because the tropics have their own evaporative air conditioner they don’t get too hot, and as long as we are not in a Snowball Earth scenario, they don’t get too cold either. Water evaporates quickly above 30C. 

So the tropics expands and shrinks as the climate changes but it doesn’t go away, and nor have corals.

Things the ABC BBC and CBC won’t tell you about coral reefs:

REFERENCES:

Hock et al (2017) Connectivity and systemic resilience of the Great Barrier Reef PLOS Biology (doi 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003355)

IPPC, Episode 24, Death and Destruction 2018. aka Special Report 15

Lewis, S.E., et al., Post-glacial sea-level changes around the Australian margin: a review, Quaternary Science
Reviews (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.09.006 [abstract] (paywalled).

Jonathan Nott1 & Matthew Hayne2 (2001) High frequency of ‘super-cyclones’ along the Great Barrier Reef over the past 5,000 years, Nature 413, 508-512 | doi:10.1038/35097055

Hayne, M. and Chappell, J.  (2001)  Cyclone frequency during the last 5000 years at Curacoa Island, north Queensland, Australia.  Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 168: 207-219. [Abstract] [Discussion Hayne and Chappell (2001) ]

Image: Wikimedia, author Wise Hok Wai Lum: Flynn Reef 2014.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (87 votes cast)
IPCC Coral-apocalypse: 243,000 km² of Great Barrier Reef corals to die in only 20 years, 9.8 out of 10 based on 87 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y85o95hn

179 comments to IPCC Coral-apocalypse: 243,000 km² of Great Barrier Reef corals to die in only 20 years

  • #
    PeterS

    They might as well say the moon is going to crash into earth in 20 years. That’s about how little credibility the IPCC have left.

    420

    • #
      Dennis

      Oh, have they discounted that?

      sarc.

      140

      • #
        PeterS

        One major scam at a time.

        150

        • #
          NB

          When the moon crashes into the earth it’ll bring back the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs will eat us, but they will die from climate change reversal. Trust me, I got my PhD in Palaeontological Studies.

          60

          • #
            PeterS

            So that’s where the dinosaurs went – to the moon. I wonder if I can get a multi-billion grant from the UN to study it.

            40

    • #

      I’m just waiting for what other apocalyptic predictions they’ll make. The GBR is just too localised for word consumption, they need something like the ten plagues. I think the world is ready for that and the IPCC does consider itself somewhat godlike.

      220

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Well its simple – they know their credibility is failing fast and people are switching off, so in true “Yes Minsiter” style, they have invented a new “crisis” to get themselves back on track and keep the moola flowin’……

        Once this one is also discredited, they will fade away. And they know it…

        This is the last roll of the dice for the climate clowns…..its all collapsing….

        200

      • #

        There were horror stories on the endangered reef over forty years ago. They’d usually appear in the Sunday papers then disappear for the rest of the week. Maybe it was considered the right mix of family-friendly and alarmist to get those bulky weekend reads off the shelves and trucks and into the homes. Those were church-going times, and, in any case, they couldn’t get much more out of Ray Maher’s fly and Tania Verstak in a one-piece. (Amazing to think that the press was actually much better then than now.)

        I keep coming back to the scene in Casablanca…”The reef’s been shot again. Round up the usual suspects.”

        191

        • #
          MudCrab

          I keep coming back to the scene in Casablanca…

          Unfortunately so do the Climate Carpetbaggers – “We’ll always have Paris.”

          40

      • #

        Interestingly enough, Their ABC had an article on how dramatically the West Australian coast has changed in 125,000 years:

        Archaeologists have combined detailed scientific mapping with technology usually found in big-budget Hollywood films to recreate the history of Western Australia’s shifting coastline going back 125,000 years.

        I wonder how the GBR travelled in the same time period.

        130

    • #

      They definitely over played their hand with this IPCC report. The alarmism seems to have been taken to a whole new level of absurdity. This is what happens when peer review succumbs to a political narrative and in climate science, this downward spiral started over 3 decades ago. It’s going to be fun watching them crash and burn.

      290

      • #

        It’s like they’ve taken a lesson out of the Democrat Handbook, emulating the manner in which Kavanaugh was attacked and which now appears to have resulted in a spectacular failure due to going way overboard to the point of becoming ridiculous in the eyes of any thinking person.

        I guess when prediction after prediction fails to eventuate, you just have to go in harder with even more absurd predictions. I wonder if they all dress up like this: https://cdn.britannica.com/46/130146-004-7A523E0F.jpg when they have their meetings?

        120

        • #

          I think that taking something minor and blowing it way out of proportion started with the IPCC’s demonization of CO2 as the destroyer of worlds. After seeing that this kind of BS seems to work, it’s now found a place supporting other far left narratives that also can’t stand on their own merits. It’s all about triggering an emotional response as people are far easier to manipulate when under emotional distress.

          100

      • #
        Ian Hilliar

        but people who read the SMH , and/ or listen to the ABC, for their news, believe the UN IPCC claptrap

        40

      • #
        Phoenix 44

        But they have to, because the costs of avoiding the badness are so vast. Even our mad politicians will not spend trillions to avoid a reasonably small problem.

        11

    • #
      ColA

      The IPCC SR15 report by Harahan, Harahan and Harahan Et El

      70

    • #
      ColA

      God I HATE spull chucker!!

      The IPCC SR15 report by Hanrahan, Hanrahan and Hanrahan Et El

      170

    • #
      Geoff

      If there was money to be made predicting the moon would crash into the Earth then there would be government funded bodies working on such predictions.

      In the end its “ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY” and “WHO GETS IT”.

      Large numbers of government workers do NOTHING. Keynesian economics rules. Did those holes. Fill in those holes. Don’t dig a hole where someone needs a hole.

      We have built a society with no vision, goals or leadership.

      131

    • #
      Albert

      Seems they repeat the same panic news, 10 years to the end of the Earth if we don’t act
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPGK6pNO0Qw

      60

    • #
      Albert

      An election is due soon so they trot out the same scare campaign, it’s like the boy who cried ”wolf”, I forgot was there ever a wolf ??

      50

    • #
      Richard Greene

      The Great Barrier Coral Reefs
      must have died about 135 times
      in the past 60 years.

      I guess they are still here,
      and not dead after all,
      so there can be yet another
      “The Reefs are Dying:
      announcement?

      Or maybe they do die,
      and than come back
      from the dead
      like a zombie?

      Or maybe they move
      out during the night
      and the “scientists”
      can’t find them,
      the next day,
      so they declare death?

      I really don’t know much about
      the south side of the equator,
      but it seems like those reefs
      have been “dying” as long as
      I’ve been alive (65 years soon).

      Is there an annual
      “The Reefs Are Dying”
      announcement in Australia
      that is a national tradition.
      sort of like the
      annual US announcement
      that “It’s the Hottest Year Evah” ?

      20

  • #
    tom0mason

    Well said Jo!
    In addition whenever the UN-IPCC starts their propaganda efforts re: corals and global warming I always remind myself about Bikini Island H-bomb test, and how today the coral there has recovered and is doing very well. Just think the corals there were literally cooked (The explosion shook islands more than 100 miles away, generated a wave of heat measuring 99,000ºF…says this link)and yet they came back.

    Yes the less robust than corals, Marshall Islanders are still excluded from living there as it is still too ‘hot’ radioactively, but sea-life goes on. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X07004523
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    So UN-IPCC bureaucrats who, or where, is(are) the specialist(s) who can explain the total life-cycle of all the types of coral that live within the GBR,(or indeed all corals worldwide).
    Where are the figures and scientific evidence (not some ‘correlation implied’ hand-waving theory) that shows how CO2 damages these extremely robust communities of creatures.

    230

    • #
      ColA

      And mean while the REAL temperature continues to FALL since 2016!!

      Jo,

      Didn’t David’s theory say it would start around 2017??

      Oh shush you nasty mouth!
      Don’t interrupt their fantasy with mother nature and reality!

      100

  • #
    Dennis

    Wasn’t it during 2017 that the UN admitted that the GBR was in good health?

    Of course in typical UN fashion the statement added that the situation must continue to be monitored.

    And why is there so little reference to the WA Coral Coast reefs, is this because the GBR is better known internationally and therefore focused on for maximum publicity impact?

    240

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Its all about the money…..

      140

    • #
      sophocles

      in typical UN fashion the statement added that the situation must continue to be monitored.

      That’s it! Well done, Dennis. You’ve spotted it.

      Now I know what’s wrong with the GBR: it’s being studied to death!

      For the next twenty five years, all mad scientists and their Oxybenzone-packed sun screens (death to coral reefs!) have to be kept far away from the reefs. They’re to be left totally alone. Then in 2040 we can send someone without Oxybenzone sun screen—just one person—in for one day to check it’s health.

      It will still be there.

      50

      • #
        ROM

        Be reasonable folks and look at the bright side!

        The IPCC says that the GBR will get the chop big time if the global temperature goes half a degree or so.
        .

        But imagine if the IPCC has just accidentally or more likely through both ignorance and a totally biased and bigoted ideological rigidity, has got its plus and minus signs mixed up and we will see and experience a steady long term trend downwards of a half a degree a decade or much greater decrease / fall in global temperatures rather than the predicted rise in global temperatures.
        .

        It won’t be the Great Barrier Reef that will be a goner in that case but far more likely it will be the IPCC and all its minions who will suddenly find out their alarmist skills are no longer required and in fact are a very big drawback for many of them as they don’t have any other skills that are of any value whatso-ever to mankind..

        And then the UN money honey pot gets shut down as the advanced [ read "democratic" there ] Nations of the World refuse to pour ever more funding down a increasingly stinking and thoroughly corrupt scientific rabbit hole.
        .
        Particularly if the politicals allied with a now steadily increasing percentage of the populace who are just sick to death of the whole climate change scientific scam begin to take revenge on the IPCC and its alarmism that has misled them for so long and made life so uncomfortable as policies promoted by the IPCC and UN were introduced and then find they out it was all just a gigiantic con job from barely qualified scammers and so called [ lying ] activists and conmen in the climate alarmism science field merely in it to seek and gain power and influence and wealth for themselves and couldn’t give a damn for anybody else.
        .

        The IPCC itself with only I think about 30 permanent employees who are mostly not climate scientists but editors and reviewers and etc who correlate the science for the IPCC’s scienctific report and who then write and publish the politically heavily slanted and promoted IPCC “Summary for Policy Makers”, which itself is a product of and under the direction not of climate scientists but of politicians as provided quite explicitly in the drawing up of the orginal charter for the issuing of the “Summary for Policy makers”.

        A psuedo sheen of science is given to the “Summary” as it does represent the alarmism of the scientists who advise the politicians who then allow those same alamist scientists tto promote their own alarmist apocalyptic visions of the climate future as the scientific conclusions of the IPCC.
        Those conclusions and predictions presented in the SfPM’s bearing only a passing resemblence in most cases to the actual scientific conclusions that can be perused in the Scientific report of the IPCC.

        So the IPCC itself does no actual science, thats all done by scientists and psuedo climate change scientists in the various research units across the globe such as the likes Hadley and the CRU in the UK and GISS in the USA and the German center of alarmist climate research claims , the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and subsequently turns up in the Summary for Policy Makrers for the media as usual, to hype and disengeniously and selectively exaggerate to the Nth degree so as to generate headlines for itself

        Draw your own conclusions about any so called research from that lot..

        30

  • #
    Just Thinkin'

    When are these charlatans going to be put on trial?

    Maybe fining them HEAPS of money by not
    following the “scientific method.”

    131

    • #
      Just Thinkin'

      Probably the best way would be to take away their funding?

      141

    • #
      Dennis

      Well if Australian politicians get their way they will be quarantined from being charged for breaching constitutional law.

      According to comment from lawyers that is unconstitutional, but so is apparently implementing UN agendas based on Treaties with the UN.

      110

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Correct. Technically, adherence to UN treaties that supercede valid australian laws may be a form of sedition….

        130

  • #

    It’s official. The new science, a mix of media mock-ups and non-Kardashian modeling, has banned practical observation as primitive and anecdotal. So I have to say this in a whisper…

    Coral is meant to stress and to bleach. Remember you heard that here first.

    260

  • #
    Jonesy

    Sick to bloody death of the reporting of the next big death wave to hit our environment. For this stuff to thrive is to fall upon the minds of people with attention spans resembling goldfish. The current scares helped get rid of CFCs as the scourge of the newly discovered ozone hole. Europe changed fuel to stop acid rain killing the Black Forest..to change again to stop particulates!!

    …and now we have to repent to save just 30% of the GBR?…puuuulllleasse! Enough is enough!

    Watched the panel of the IPCC last night…I said to my oldest son, 300 years ago those old guys would be wearing purple robes and funny pointy mitres with lots of gold and importance demanding a tithe from us to repent our sins and ensure our passage to heaven…message changes but the goal is the same.

    270

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I was sitting there last night and it slowly dawned on me how smartphone technology is a form of emotibve training for people. Its like the facebook concept – drip feed little drips of endorphins to manipulate at a microlevel peoples emotional state.

      If you want an emotional shored-up teen ( ha ha .. I know…) make sure thier social media use is carefully monitored.

      The teen years is the prime “training ground” for the anti-God Occult UN-loving Elite to set up the teens to follow the cues on social media and mess with their heads and steal them from their families to make them emotionally the property of the State.

      Its evil.

      That also applies to 20-30 somethings, who are being programmed to repsond to news stories by tweaking their emotional responses. How else could we get such a mess in thos country – the current 20-30 somethings will be the ones who order the execution warrants for Christians and anyone who speaks against the state in 10 years, which I think is about allwe have left of Democracy in this country at curent rate of decay. We have seen Australia turn away from God fully recently with the SSM vote.

      Regardless of the drivers, we know that when a nation rejects God, it undergoes Gods judgement…..

      72

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Well said Original. If you are not under the NT grace, you are under the OT law. Like it or not.

        If you were Satan; the obvious targets to spread dissent are government, law, school, and media. In about that order. That is a massively difficult set of authorities to fight against.

        51

      • #
        NB

        The founders of the giant tech companies, such as Zuckerberg, Gates, and Jobs have put very strict controls on their children’s use of screen tech and social media.

        20

    • #
      Albert

      Let’s not forget in the 50′s scientists were saying we would populate Venus one day, they didn’t know the sulphuric acid and 800 degrees may stop that thought bubble

      40

    • #
      yarpos

      For anyone who has been an adult for a while, especially since the beginning of this fiasco some decades ago, it just gets more and more hysterical. They dont seem to care that there is an ever growing population of people that remember the last round of nonesense , and the one before that, and so on.

      Still, the twenty somethings lap it up and to some extent its not really their fault given the state of the education “system” For some of them the light will come on later when they see history (and lies) repeating.

      30

  • #
    TdeF

    There nothing $440,000,000 to a few friends won’t fix, according to the Turnbulls and now Morrison. You would think ecologists invented the Great Barrier Reef and now need billions to maintain it. This is the new huge ecology industry gone wild. Free money. Bigger than Global Warming. Jobs in paradise looking at stuff. Ecology, the new gold rush. Bigger than fracking. Even the IPCC have realised the potential.

    340

    • #
      Tom R Hammer

      Why work for your money and compete with other companies when your mate is in politics and you can weasel a share of taxpayer funds?

      110

      • #
        TdeF

        It is amazing that no one even asked for the money. The people who received it had no idea what to do with it. Now they will have trouble spending it fast enough. Surely this is unconscionable conduct by any government? Who ordered this and why? Justifying something in retrospect is not good enough. What was the urgency?

        130

        • #
          Greebo

          I’m reminded of the time Rudd and Brumby gave $70,000,000 to Toyota, unasked ( Something to do with the Hybrid Camry ). The normally inscrutable head of that firm had a look on his face that suggested he was asking himself “who are these idiots?”.

          90

        • #
          GD

          Now they will have trouble spending it fast enough

          What will they spend it on?

          More sight-seeing/research tours of the reef?
          More press releases?
          A couple of peer-reviewed papers?

          And…

          lots of trips to the reef staying in five-star accommodation
          regular appearances on the ABC detailing the dire prospects the reef is facing
          and the invaluable work they are doing.

          00

    • #
      King Geo

      A$440 million of wasted tax payers money. The GBR will love the rise in future global temps – the S.E. Asian coral reefs flourished during the Early/Middle Miocene when global temps were higher than at present. What the GBR fears is the next Ice Age.and given the duration of the last two Interglacials (10 – 15 thousand years) then the current Holocene Interglacial (11,700 years in duration) could come to an end anytime soon – which is very scary given the last two Glacial Cycles last ~ 100,000 years.

      50

  • #
    robert rosicka

    I’m starting a petition to stop mining coal on the Great Barrier Reef and I also want equal rights for GLBTXYZ zoolanthe and stop all oppression of them .

    130

    • #
      TdeF

      And put thousands of windmills on the great barrier reef to save it. You know it makes sense.

      100

      • #
        Greebo

        Wouldn’t that get them in a lather. Sort of a greenie version of an infinite loop.

        70

        • #
          TdeF

          Chopping down forests to open cut mine coal is forbidden. Cutting down forests to build wind farms is perfectly acceptable.

          80

          • #
            James Murphy

            Burning coal to generate electricity is forbidden. Burning rubbish to generate electricity is perfectly acceptable.

            30

  • #
    aussiepete

    Children born today will never see coral.

    163

    • #
      Albert

      If children born today live to 500 years, they will see the same coral that we see, perhaps more

      80

    • #
      aussiepete

      I seem to be the only one getting red thumbs. Looks like maybe I needed the sarc tag after all.

      80

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        It’s not the sarc (or the snark). We have a bot that picks on posts almost at random and gives them red thumbs. There is no rhyme or reason for many of the RT’s.

        00

  • #
    Ruairi

    Each report is more and more fraught,
    And always worse than they thought,
    With warnings so dire,
    That the public just tire,
    Of the I.P.C.C.’s tedious onslaught.

    332

    • #
      Albert

      Al Gore gave many predictions, one after the other of complete Arctic melt, as each failed he gave another prediction and then he gave up. Humans have been on the Earth for 5 minutes of Earth time and very little has changed

      70

      • #
        yarpos

        the arctic has melted before, a US submarine surfaced at the North Pole in 1958, but that doesnt seem to matter.

        30

  • #
    Another Ian

    “The World Has Less Than Ten Years To Get Leftist Lies Under Control”

    https://realclimatescience.com/2018/10/the-world-has-less-than-ten-years-to-get-leftist-lies-under-control/

    Includes the recycle from 30 years ago

    140

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Email all your friends the recent exposure about the IPCC data…you will be amazed how much news will spread, especially in Australia, when people relaise they have been ripped off and cheated by the IPCC….Australians hate to be cheated…..

      70

      • #
        Dennis

        I have been told a number of times that the only real motivating factor with too many voters is their “hip pocket nerve”.

        When I point out to people that less than 5 per cent of electricity to the electricity grid here, and often much lower, comes from the unreliables, and that without the RET and consumer paid for subsidies to the operators our electricity bills would be much lower, their reaction is an expression of disbelief and anger.

        One day the climate change based hoax will become widely known and understood and when that happens the politicians will run for cover. Unfortunately many of the culprits will have retired in the comfort of an indexed for life defined benefit pension and blend into the woodwork in denial.

        110

        • #

          When I point out to people that less than 5 per cent of electricity to the electricity grid here, and often much lower, comes from the unreliables…..

          This IPCC Report is supposed to signal the death of coal fired power.

          Total Nameplate for the three renewables of choice in Australia is just on 15000MW, and that’s wind power, solar power plants and all rooftop solar installations.

          Total Nameplate for coal fired power is 23000MW.

          So, coal fired power has a larger Nameplate by 53%.

          Just in the last week, just those three renewables of choice generated a total of 448.32 GigaWattHours of power.

          In the same seven days, coal fired power generated 2714.16 GigaWattHours of power.

          Only 53% higher Nameplate, and yet it delivered more than SIX TIMES the power.

          They’d better find a way of improving those renewables pretty damned quick if they want to replace coal fired power, because take coal fired power away, and you’ve got ….. nuthin!

          Tony.

          200

          • #
            TdeF

            We need to move to night time solar. Coal powered windmills. Pumping water uphill.
            Then Flannery’s Hot rocks and tide power. Even when our chief scientist says it will make no difference at all.

            120

          • #
            theRealUniverse

            Its funny how REAL figures like that (from Tony) never get into the MSM..I wonder why?

            70

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              I don’t recall the news ever using real figures. They like saying things like “such and such increases the risk of *bad thing*”. They never say the risk is 0.0005% and doing “this” increases that 0.001%. It’s all just hyperbole, and because the original figures are so small, they go out of their way not to mention them.

              71

            • #

              Now imagine if you will the incredibly huge cost for all those wind plants, all those solar plants, and all those rooftop solar installations, the total cost for all of them.

              And coal fired power delivered six times the generated power.

              Please don’t ever try and tell me that renewables are cheaper than coal fired power.

              Tony.

              130

              • #
                theRealUniverse

                Any ideas or figures on how much extra power (and grid demand) required to charge all the electric cars, with scenario only electric vehicles are allowed on the road? I havent looked, but it may be quite large Id guess.

                50

              • #

                Any ideas or figures on how much extra power (and grid demand) required to charge all the electric cars, with scenario only electric vehicles are allowed on the road?

                That age old adage still applies, Power out equals Power in, minus losses, but all those electric car ‘urgers’ conveniently forget where that monstrously huge amount of power (for the Power In part of the equation) will come from.

                Note that the talking head on the ABC last night also mentioned that we would also have to move away from fossil fuelled cars as well, and here also note they only mention cars, so I suppose that means all forms of current vehicular transport, like sedans, utes, people movers, trucks, SUV’s, both small and large, rigs, transports, boats, planes, mowers, etc etc etc.

                Perhaps a ballpark might be from energy consumption data. (and keep in mind here that this is total ENERGY, as opposed to electrical power generation data) and bear with me here for a minute as I attempt to explain this, and I’ll be using energy figures here, expressed in PetaJoules. (PJ)

                The current petroleum product consumption is around 2400PJ.

                Fossil fuels in the power generation sector come in at around the same, 2400PJ, and fossil fuels make up 85% of power generation, and that comes in at around 170TWH, so to replace all fossil fuelled cars etc, as above, you’ll need to find that extra 170TWH PLUS of power, (power out = power in minus losses) just for the battery transport of the future.

                So, if wind, solar and rooftop solar currently deliver around 25TWH, then you’ll need to multiply every existing renewable by 7 just to cover the battery transport. Oh, and also replace fossil fuels in the power generating sector, (as also mentioned by the talking head in last night’s warning) so another 170TWH, so existing renewables by fourteen.

                Keep in mind all this is ballpark, and probably conservative and on the low side.

                But hey, the whole thing is just an academic exercise, because they will NEVER (and let me repeat that word ….. NEVER) be able to manufacture enough batteries, and then keep up supply, and work out a way to dispose of them.

                It’s all just talk about pie in the sky.

                It’ll never happen.

                Tony.

                100

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Tony, its a bit like when your 4×4 breaks down in the middle of the Simpson desert, even a donkey cart as the only viable means of transport looks highly desirable at that point…..thus is the deforming of the energy “normalicy” in this country so that super expensive solar, when its the only game in town ( that the govt hasnt destroyed), looks “attractive”.

                My dear Dad passed away earlier this year and he needed 24×7 care. I dread to think how many peoples dear parents will die when the power goes off and the backup gennies dont start…..

                40

              • #
                theRealUniverse

                Of course at present technology the energy density in petrol is far greater than any battery.

                50

    • #
      Albert

      I’d like the alarmists to explain why I’m not 20 metres under water as they forecast ?

      60

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        Only 20, oh dear we got that wrong.. should have been at least 50!

        50

        • #
          Environment Skeptic

          The science is much worse than even the IPCC had imagined possible.

          32

        • #
          Albert

          The ABC chief scientist forecast 100 metres of water by 2100. Interesting that the MSL mark etched in stone in Tasmania hasn’t changed in a century

          61

          • #
            Graeme#4

            That didn’t stop somebody writing a paper claiming that the gent making that mark got it wrong. Very good refutation of the paper.

            10

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          50m under water? I thought the seas boiled off 5 years ago.

          00

      • #
        Environment Skeptic

        Global warming can cause local sea level rises and some parts of the world are already more than 20 meters under water. Some parts of the Great Barrier Reef are over one kilometer underwater due to increased sea level anomalies as i write.

        It is only by virtue of the reefs ‘Barrier’ that it has been able to prevent further local sea level increases. If the Barrier Reef did not have this natural barrier against temperature rises and local sea level increases, it would have vanished into the climospheric ectoplasm back in 2004 circa.

        The science is much worse than we thought. :)

        36

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    One would have thought that by now the public would have ‘woken up’to the warmist alarm calls setting deadlines of 10, 20 or whatever years for catastrophic events in the future.
    Those of us with memories will recall this tactic going back to the 1980′s. Without fail these ‘warnings’ from the past have all prooved to be wrong. Why is now any different?
    GeofdW

    140

  • #
    Robdel

    What about the Red Sea corals which lie in warmer waters?

    140

    • #
      el gordo

      Adaptation.

      The biggest threat to the GBR is sea level fall and as we are at the end of the Holocene Interglacial we may need to consider putting a brick wall around particular pockets, as tourist destinations.

      70

  • #
    Peter C

    The story is in The Age this morning on page 5, “Next Decade Critical to Save a Warming Planet” by well known Climate spruker Peter Hannam.

    The Good News is the article opposite on page 4, “Morrison and Miners did in to Defend Coal”. Morrison is being forced, probably against his inclination to take a position here. The Greens and Labor are saying that they will make Climate Change an issue at the next election in 2019.

    If Morrison wants to win the next election he will have to take up that challenge and back his pledge for cheaper electricity and the economy. The real problem is not so much the Greens as the Linos or Cinos in his own party.

    150

    • #
      Bobl

      If labor make the election about climate change, history says they will lose. Australians are sick too death of taxes and are not prepared to accept carbon taxes or unaffordable intermittent electricity.

      60

  • #

    [...] miss Jo Nova’s rejoinder to the call to make the next election a referendum on the GBR. Share [...]

    30

  • #
    M Allinson

    I can’t see the point in continuing to argue against such absurd predictions as if they were legitimate scientific issues.

    The AGW movement is nothing more nor less than a concerted effort from the EU/UN/Globalists to attack and destroy Western capitalism, nationalism and culture, and this report is their final push towards the end game.

    We are under attack, and if the Morrison government capitulates they need to be voted into oblivion next election.

    201

  • #
    PeterS

    As far as I’m concerned the IPCC predictions are no more accurate than those who make prediction of the future based on tea leaves in a cup. In some ways tea leaves reading does get things right at least some of the time. The IPCC have been proven wrong each and every time. Clearway those who believe in the IPCC are not to be trusted any more than a hungry fox is to be trusted with a flock of chickens.

    130

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    Scammers of past history, like B Mussolini, P. Pot and A Hitler would stand in awe of those who currently have the reins and are making themselves rich and powerful with hardly a shot fired.

    Just imagine the sense of achievement that must be felt by modern day politicians like Gore, Trumble and the Clintons when they can easily divert billions of dollars in taxes to “a higher purpose” and know that they and their families are secure for generations.

    Global warming has much in common with the recent US Judicial farce in that the same factors are at work.

    For whatever Mr Kavanaugh may have done 36 years ago it was likely par for the course and he would not have done anything out of the ordinary for his peers, both male and female.
    Since then, regardless of what happened so long ago, he seems to have been able to keep his nose clean.

    The use of hi-vis Rent-A-Crowds to move public opinion and disrupt basic Democratic process in this manner is very worrying.

    The Rent-A-Crowds used in the global warming scam have been much less visible but totally destructive.

    Cui bono.

    Given the huge Chinese renewables industry which sells 97% of its production outside their own borders, we have to consider the possibility that China has bought the IPCCCCC and is guiding the West towards 2040.

    We need to wake up and fire our current politicians to avoid going over the edge.

    We can see and learn.

    Europe is a Mess.

    America and Britain are extricating themselves from serfdom but it is hard to think for yourself and so easy to feel warm and fulfilled in a Rent-A-Crowd.

    KK

    121

    • #
      PeterS

      Like past major scams I look forward to the time when the main perpetrators of the current CAGW scam are punished appropriately. Given the massive scale of the current scam the only suitable punishment is life behind bars with no prospect for parole. As for those leaders lower down the scale who go out of their way to use the CAGW story to push their agenda for more renewables at the expense of coal, I would class them as terrorists and deal with them the same way as the scam artists.

      111

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I just keep asking climate believers why if you want to kill coal in this country are you still exporting it, and why is every country except Australia smarter than we are?

        110

        • #
          PeterS

          I keep asking the exact same questions. While we keep exporting massive amounts of coal to fuel more and more coal fired power stations all over the world with the prospect of several hundreds of new ones to be built in addition of hundreds currently under construction, I wonder why Australia is hell bent on moving over to more and more renewabales, which we all know will keep increasing power prices and reduce the reliability of our grid system. It certainly has nothing to do with reducing global CO2 emissions because those coal fired power stations are being built by the hundreds. I can only think of one possible answer for those leaders who are pushing the CAGW agenda here. They are active terrorists or at least have a strong desire to destroy our Western way of life.

          90

          • #
            el gordo

            Melissa is not a terrorist.

            ‘Federal Environment Minister Melissa Price has argued some of the world’s leading climate scientists are “drawing a long bow” in calling for an end to coal power in a bid to limit global warming.’

            ABC

            50

          • #
            yarpos

            I gave up a while ago, I just invest in it, coal that is.

            20

        • #
          el gordo

          The guvmint hears you.

          ‘The Australian government has rejected the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report’s call to phase out coal power by 2050, claiming renewable energy cannot replace baseload coal power.

          ‘The deputy prime minister, Michael McCormack, said Australia should “absolutely” continue to use and exploit its coal reserves, despite the IPCC’s dire warnings the world has just 12 years to avoid climate change catastrophe.’

          Guardian

          90

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            Hmm…and what is the chance of a Labor Socialist UN-hugging govt at the next election?

            If we have change of govt, Australia will slowly morph into the “Mad Max” scenraio….

            I actually think the Mad max film makers were quite intuitive. Australia , as seen in the movie, had some form of operational but crippled govt, but the roads and a lot of the countryside were fairly lawless. It was predicated around some form of govt collapse or some form of apocalyptic event whether it be a sudden economic ruin or simialr, but no where do we see climate as a possible cause.

            60

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              I also think we need to prep out families for whats coming.

              The shock will be acute and debilitating, if they arent expecting, it and have scenrios and knowledge and resources in palce to cope with it.

              I actually find my faith to be a great comfort, however physical and mental preparartions are also important….

              71

              • #
                el gordo

                We obviously see the future differently.

                After the collapse of the catastrophic global warming theory, within a couple of years, there will be lots of laughter ringing out around the world.

                They got it wrong, we are saved.

                60

              • #
                PeterS

                el gordo you are right in the longer term. The CAGW scam will end some day just as all other scams of the past have. Where I might differ with you is we could still have the scam go on for many years to come simply because there is such a large following in high places who have lots of money and power. SO we could easily end up with a Shorten lead government for at least one term and if that happens this nation will very likely crash and burn. Lessons will be taught the hard way to the people and out of the ashes we go. If on the other hand you are right and the CAGW scam is killed off very soon and we are saved from a Shorten lead government, or even if they do win they are forced to admit it’s a scam and move due to public pressure then and only then will we avoid a crash and burn. Timing is key. I still feel it’s likely to get much worse before it gets better. There’s just too many rich and powerful people behind the scam.

                40

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                El gordo, I really hope youre right, although if we do crash and burn its going to be very ugly for a long time, especially if the govt tris to “help” which may in fact maintain the crashed condition , by design…..

                This is a religious war – its humanity vs the UN-backed Occultists.

                Prediction – should australia crash, UN troops will show up to “help”. They will be to ensure Australia stays in martial law and continues.
                Whyt do you think we have the most oppresive gun control laws in the world? Its not by accident. These people work decades in advance.

                We are crash test dummies for this to be rolled out on a global scale….

                41

              • #
                PeterS

                OriginalSteve, not sure about the UN troops part. That’s certainly a possibility. The other possibility is Chinese ones will be eager to “help” us. After all they have already started the process to get to that stage. At least then we can look forward to much cheaper power from nuclear and coal. The Greens and the like will mos likely be imprisoned and “retrained”.

                31

              • #
                el gordo

                The Coalition must return to its base and promise to build new coal fired power stations, otherwise the electorate will reckon they are all hot air and vote them down.

                Its up to Morrison to make the right call.

                Life under Bill and Penny won’t be so bad, Albo will get a chance to build his bullet train network with monies borrowed from the Chinese Infrastructure Bank.

                10

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      I think China is making a killing from the Western climate BS to some extent.

      100

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Like the US spooked Russia with a fake star wars program…

        60

      • #
        el gordo

        Virtue signalling is high on their agenda and the commercial possibilities are endless. I blame them for propping up this AGW nonsense, hypocrisy of the first order.

        40

      • #
        PeterS

        It’s obvious that China, India and many others are laughing behind our backs about all this. They must think Westerners are stupid. Well of course we are to some extent for letting our respective governments falling for falling for the scam. The only exception so far is the US with Trump. It remains to be seen if the rest of the West follows him before his term(s) is(are) up and the US ends up with a President who is all for the CAGW scam. If we don’t follow him in time then the crash and burn scenario effectively becomes a guarantee with China and Russia licking their chops like scavengers waiting to pick up the pieces and deciding who gets what.

        20

  • #
    Robber

    From Graham LLoyd in The Australian: UN’s climate change panel inhabits a universe without parallel
    B”ack in the real world, governments are unable even to deliver remedies scientists say will put the world on to a warming course more than double what is required to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. As with all IPCC reports, the latest one comes loaded with political intent. As much as climate change, the document sets out a pathway to achieve the UN’s broader sustainable development goals.For the UN, climate change is a mechanism to deliver a more equitable sharing of global resources. This is explicit in the summary for policymakers in the latest report, and it is what drvies developing nations to come to the table for a global agreement.”

    50

  • #
    Robber

    Did an Australian Government Minister participate in the final IPCC negotiations or sign off on this doom and gloom report?
    Among the authors: Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (Australia), Elvira Poloczanska (UK/Australia), Petra Tschakert (Australia/Austria), Jatin Kala (Australia), Will Steffen (Australia), Malte Meinshausen (Germany/Australia), Neville Ellis (Australia), Jason Evans (Australia), Annette Hirsch (Australia/Switzerland), Peter Newman (Australia), Mark Howden (Australia), What’s with these dual citizens?

    The report keeps referring to temperature increases of 1.5-2.0 degrees. But then they point out that is from a baseline in 1850. Why don’t they start with the current state – and then talk about the impact of 0.5-1.0 degree increase – not as scary?

    Some of their prognostications: If all anthropogenic emissions (including aerosol-related) were reduced to zero immediately, any further warming beyond the 1°C already experienced would likely be less than 0.5°C over the next two to three decades. There is no single answer to the question of whether it is feasible to limit warming to 1.5°C and adapt to the consequences. Limiting warming to 1.5°C implies reaching net zero CO2 emissions globally around 2050. Warming of 1.5°C is not considered ‘safe’ for most nations, communities, ecosystems and sectors and poses significant risks to natural and human systems as compared to current warming of 1°C.
    If only all their efforts and $$$ were devoted to helping the poor we might make some further progress.

    80

  • #
    David Maddison

    I bet former PM Turnbull had advanced notice of this “finding”, hence him giving $444 million about 7 weeks ago to an organisation of about 13 people, not even full time, in the form of the “Great Barrier Reef Foundation” who had neither asked for the money or expected it and were quite shocked when the announcement was publically made before they were even told.

    100

  • #
    yarpos

    I wonder what the average person makes of this doom porn? I am guessing most expect nothing else and tune out. The good part is we have another range of hysterical predictions to test against reality over time.

    Meanwhile our valued scientists are hard at it on the taxpayer $, and sometimes they even fit in some work.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-08/riding-crop-slap-playful-not-sexual-harassment-csiro/10351886

    40

    • #
      PeterS

      Good question. I suspect there are many who couldn’t give a damn about the fuss but the problem is when they listen to “experts” on the MSM they believe what they say about how we must save the world from global warming/climate change by whatever means. I know most of my relatives and friends are blind as a bat when it comes to politics and science. They just switch off when I talk about the real science. It’s a major part of the problem – the lack of interest by the public by and large. Hence we get the government we deserve, past, present and future. I’m afraid it will have to take a major crisis to wake most people up to reality. That of course might very well have to be a crash and burn scenario.

      30

  • #
    pat

    Judith Sloan nails it:

    If climate disaster is nigh, at least we’ll be spared IPCC reports
    The Australian – 9h ago
    by Judith Sloan
    Here we go again — a group of like-minded, henny-penny scientists telling us the world is about to be transformed in a bad way unless we act. Yes, we’ve heard it many times before.
    The good thing this time is that this group of credulous scientists who are part of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is telling us that we are so close to a tipping point that there will be no point issuing any more warnings. That will be a relief…

    130

    • #
      pat

      more Sloan excerpts, found in comments at Pickering Post:

      To suggest that all coal-fired power stations will need to be closed by 2050 is not just silly, it is also completely naïve…

      For anyone who wants to spend time on yet another IPCC report predicting future climate cataclysms, I recommend you read Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s latest book, Skin in the Game. He makes the distinction between science and scientism.
      The IPCC report is a clear example of the latter, with all its fancy concocted charts and tables pretending to be based on real science undertaken by disinterested scientists when it is nothing of the sort.

      According to this insightful author, “one can see that these academic-bureaucrats wanting to run our lives aren’t even rigorous. They can’t tell science from scientism — in fact, in their eyes scientism looks more scientific than real science”.
      In sum, “scientism is to science what a Ponzi scheme is to an investment”.
      We should all bear this in mind next time we see a report from the IPCC.

      90

      • #
        Dennis

        Of course the 1,600 or more coal fired power stations under construction or recently completed would be closed down well before their time.

        Developing nations would agree to remain third world standards nations to save the planet from a problem that doesn’t exist, man-made global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions.

        But the above would definitely accept developed nation’s monies.

        60

      • #
        Old Boot

        So the scientism is settled then?

        40

      • #
        Albert

        Closing coal fired power stations will only start a civil war

        40

  • #
    Mark M

    How many halves make a whole?

    A 2012 study established that around half of the coral composing the reef is already dead – killed by pesticide runoff, muddy sediment from land clearing, predatory starfish, coral bleaching and various other impacts.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/01/-sp-great-barrier-reef-and-coal-mine-could-kill-it

    In the summer of 2015, more than 2 billion corals lived in the Great Barrier Reef. Half of them are now dead. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/since-2016-half-the-coral-in-the-great-barrier-reef-has-perished/558302/

    In 2016 and 2017, marine heat waves caused by climate change resulted in mass bleaching, which killed about half of the corals on the Great Barrier Reef, along with many others around the world.

    https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/08/world/great-barrier-reef/

    50

  • #
    • #
      Dennis

      “Fossil fuels deliver affordable, plentiful, and reliable energy critical to human welfare. Wind and solar are not practical and reliable substitutes.
      Fossil fuels create a better environment for the ecosystem because they require less surface area than renewable energy sources.
      Sixteen of 25 identified impacts of fossil fuels are net positive, eight uncertain. Only one is net negative. Areas of impact measured include agriculture, air quality, extreme weather events, and human health.
      Forcing a transition from fossil fuels to wind and solar power would inflict tremendous economic hardship, reducing world GDP by some 96 percent and plunging the world back to economic conditions last seen in the 1820s and 1830s.”

      70

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        “back to economic conditions last seen in the 1820s and 1830s.” Thats exactly what the “Agenda’ wants.

        80

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    “Apocalypse now” yep thats it.
    “virtually all” coral reefs would start dying off if global temperatures increased by 2C.”
    Well it aint going to rise buddy. Its already falling.

    All this is a grand stand as the evidence that their scam is falling apart in increasing and the public are getting more aware. In fact most of the world population, that dont read any IPCCrap documents or headlines are more worried about their next meal or never see a western news(crap) paper.

    50

    • #
      • #
        theRealUniverse

        Good point.
        But I was more referring to the lie about rising temperatures that what it does(nt) do to coral. As cites above by Jo’s excellent graphs.

        50

      • #
        Albert

        4 short videos about el nino/la nina and explanation of why the sea level rises and falls over the coral reef, about ½ metre, this rise and fall exposes the ‘new coral growth’ to the sun which causes bleaching

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjlIeQFxdlE
        Brilliant videos, expertly produced. It also shows how mid Pacific islands can falsely claim ‘sea level rise’ when it is only the westward travelling Monsoon during la Nina which eventually collapses

        40

    • #
      sophocles

      We live in an Ice Age: the Quaternary Ice Age. It swings, depending on the sun’s mood and the Milankovic Cycles, between stadials (cold times with glaciers aka glaciations) and interstadials (warm times without glaciers). For the last 10,000 years, the planet has been in the Holocene interstadial which, over recent millenia, has shown signs of ending.

      After it was fully established, there was the Holocene Optimum from c. 8,000 years ago to c. 5,000 years ago. During that time, the climate swung up and down from LIAs to GWs (Little Ice Ages to Global Warmings) by a few degrees C—the warmings and coolings reflecting the sun’s moods. From the start of the present interstadial, about 10,000 years ago, there was a constant background cooling of about 0.05°C per millenium. At the end of the Minoan warming (c 4000 years ago), which was warmer by about 2 – 3 °C than the present day Eddy Warming (approx 1880 to 2016. Yes, it’s over), the millenial background cooling reached a tipping point and since then, the background cooling has been 0.5 ° C per millenium. Ergo, we’re on the downward slope towards the return of the ice, despite the 20th Century’s little solar caused uptick of temperature. Note that the 20th Century’s warming was not unprecedented; the Klimatariat chose to ignore previous Holocene warmings and coolings. It might have been unprecedented if measured from 1415 to today but then, so is anything if you choose the myopic short term view instead of the (much) longer geological one.

      The return of the ice wipes out the coral reefs. They will be reformed at the next interstadial as they most likely have been at the start of every previous interstadial. There have been somewhere around 33 – 37 stadials (glaciations) and interstadials over the last 2.4Million Years, the current lifetime of the Quaternary Ice Age. In each stadial many if not most of the present coral reefs are killed because they end up well above the then sea level as water is swept up into the huge ice sheets of the stadials. Tectonic action and volcanism are also killers of coral reefs. Most of the Pacific’s reefs are formed on and around the peaks of dormant submarine volcanoes. A nice, safe position. Ri-i-ght, because dormant does not mean extinct. There is absolutely nothing we can do about any of those causes.

      In the meantime, the GBR is, without any reference to its likely life cycle and ultimate future, being `studied’ if you can call it that, `to death.’ It is being used as an excuse, not a reason and this hysteria should be roundly and soundly rejected. How much any recent bleaching is caused by the Oxybenzone content of some human sunscreens is unknown—it hasn’t been studied to the best of my knowledge—but its a chemical now known to be deadly in miniscule quantities to marine life, especially marine filter feeders—like corals. It has been found in human blood and human milk. It’s effect on the human organism is also unknown. Those are areas warranting immediate study, but unlikely to get it.

      When the ice returns, the GBR will be gone, until the next interstadial, when it will reform. Yet again.
      Until that comes to pass, mankind should not meddle because wherever mankind meddles, mankind manages, without fail and despite all the best intentions, to thoroughly mess things up. That is because mankind is shortsighted and impatient because of a short lifetime. This animal is incapable of taking the necessary long term view.

      Which is why it is typical the IPCC should choose such a temporary Poster Child for their cause. They got the Polar Bears so wrong, now they are about to make fools of themselves over coral reefs. They are supposed to be the Klimate X-purts, but they end up playing like circus clowns. You can’t say they aren’t entertaining!

      20

  • #
    pat

    Paul Barry might have made a mistake showing Dean and Cameron, cos the clip is funnier than anything passing for “comedy” on theirABC in years!

    VIDEO: 6mins53secs: 8 Oct: ABC Media Watch: Climate Calamity
    Timing of news releases obscures Australia’s emissions data
    TRANSCRIPT:
    So, in the face of urgent calls to save the planet, how will News Corp’s Sky after Dark respond?
    Well, on Thursday we got this anticipatory rant on climate change from Ross Cameron and Rowan Dean:

    ROSS CAMERON: … we just want to make it clear that on this issue we, on Outsiders, are in full dissent. We don’t believe that there is a compromise situation available. We believe the whole thing, from its foundation to its turret, is a bull story.
    ROWAN DEAN: Total.
    ROSS CAMERON: We believe it is completely, irretrievably garbage. We believe with Tony Abbott in a moment of clarity and frankness that climate change is …
    ROSS CAMERON/ROWAN DEAN: Crap.
    - Outsiders, Sky News, 4 October, 2018…

    Ultimately, voters will decide what Australia does or does not do about global warming.
    ***But it’s the media’s job to tell them what’s happening…
    http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/climate-calamity1/10353132

    ***PAUL BARRY, FOUR WORDS FOR YOU – “JOHN MCLEAN DATA AUDIT”.
    HOW ABOUT NEXT WEEK YOU TELL US ALL ABOUT THAT?

    100

  • #
    destroyer D69

    It is a requirement of being accepted as a referee on the report that your input agrees with a stated outcome declared prior to the reports final publication. This was clearly stated in the call for submissions to the interim report which is the precursor to the actual report we see now released. ITS A SCAM.

    110

  • #
    pat

    2min14sec: first mention by Luke Grant/2GB. says we have a report from IPCC, but there’s another report that talks about some of the measurements…that might make the IPCC report a bit dodgy…we’ll talk about that later.

    4min04sec to 7min30sec: back to the IPCC report. reads the Graham Lloyd article…

    44min27sec 46min38sec:: Paul Barry, Media Watch: climate change – over-zealous. is Media Watch the right place for that? mention of Graham Lloyds’ article.

    AUDIO: 9 Oct: 2GB Wake Up Australia: Luke Grant (in for Michael McLaren who is on leave):
    https://www.2gb.com/podcast/wake-up-australia-09-10-2018/

    40

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Another good article via icecap.us
    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2018-10-7-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-of-all-time-part-xix
    You can say that again!
    I hadnt seen this guy write before.

    20

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    In moderation…..I put a link which uses that bad word Sorry..fra*d. See icecap.us The political climate column.

    50

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Listen to Piers Corbyn excellent comments about CO2 levels that are humans have NO control over, also talks about the possible coming little ice age. https://weatheraction.wordpress.com/2018/04/12/watch-piers-corbyn-mini-ice-age-is-here/

    50

    • #
      Annie

      A clear, brief summary.

      40

    • #
      Albert

      Piers Crobyn some years ago predicted the coldest winter in 100 years and he was right on both counts, meanwhile the British Met predicted a warm winter

      50

      • #
        sophocles

        Quite a few years ago, Corbyn used to bet with a Bookmaker’s company (Hills, I think) against the UK Met Office’s forecasts with his own. Of course, the bookmaker used the Met Office predictions, and consistently lost.

        I don’t know if Corbyn stopped betting because he no longer needed to, or if his bets were no longer acceptable to the Bookmaker. (Bookmaker’s odds are infinitely flexible and there is no point in betting if the odds offered do not allow profit for the bettor.)

        20

  • #
    Greebo

    You can’t really blame the IPCC. After all, they had to do something to deflect attention away from McLean and Ridd.

    100

  • #
    Greg in NZ

    Evil man carbon™ now causes:

    “Last day of sunshine before spring southerly blast brings rain, icy winds and snow” – ‘heavy snow’ to 400 metres Wed, Thur, Fri –

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12139251

    Thought this article might’ve been a satirical ray of hope but no, they’re freak ‘n’ serious!

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/science/08-10-2018/today-marks-the-end-of-magical-thinking-on-climate-change/

    They want “to create a New Zealand net carbon zero… Bronwyn Hayward is associate professor at the University of Canterbury and a lead author on the IPCC special report.She would also like to acknowledge the efforts of Dr Andy Reisinger, the New Zealand Vice Chair of the IPCC, and Ministry of Environment officials, Dan Zwartz and Helen Plume who put in many long hours in the intergovernmental approval process for this Special Report [sic].”

    50

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Poor NZ will collapse as it will no longer be allowed to import oil…Only hydro will save it. I hope they are preparing for the iceage. Remember the Mackenzie country was covered in 3000′ of ice 12000 years ago.

    40

  • #
    pat

    8 Oct: TWEETS: George Monbiot:
    September: BBC internal guidance states “As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate.”
    October: @BBCNewsnight invites arch denier Myron Ebell to debate the IPCC report.
    Nothing learnt, nothing remembered…

    And will @BBCNewsnight tell its viewers who funds Myron Ebell’s Competitive Enterprise Institute? BBC Editorial Guidelines say that it should etc…

    reply: John Haworth:
    Your employer, the Guardian, is funded by a company registered in the Cayman Islands. Have you ever disclosed this fact?…
    https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1049318853778558982

    8 Oct: TWEET: Bob Ward, Grantham Research Inst, LSE:
    What a great shame that @BBCNewsnight is planning to mislead its viewers tonight about the @IPCC_CH report by balancing the global science community against US climate change denier Myron Ebell. Utterly clueless

    Gareth Simkins: Environmental policy journalist. Senior Writer @TheENDSReport:
    Paging @RupertRead Doesn’t having a denier on #Newsnight go directly against the BBC’s editorial briefing that “You do not need a ‘denier’ to balance the debate”? Grief – I thought we had got somewhere…

    Rupert Read, Ideas-merchant, Earth-defender. I’m Reader in Philosophy at UEA, and Chair of @GreenHouse_UK.
    [Working on it.]

    (earlier) Rupert Read:
    Bob, how do you know that this is planned? I can’t find any more info.
    As you’ll imagine, I’m enraged and primed to go into full-protest mode…

    David Charles:
    Here’s a real scientist for you Princeton physicist Professor William Happer He will explain climate science for the layman. According to professor Happer We are in a C02 famine! We could do with more to feed the plants and trees of the world! LINK…

    Dr. Matt Prescott, Oxford PhD (DPhil) in Zoology, Founder Environmental Rating Agency (European FinTech 100) and Ban The Bulb
    “Although he [Happer] clearly understands basic climate science, his presentation includes claims that are exaggerated, misleading, or incorrect regarding human-caused climate change.”…

    TWEET: BBC News Press Team:
    Newsnight editor Esme Wren has tweeted about tonight’s programme:
    esmewren, Editor, BBC Newsnight
    THREAD: As part of our coverage of the IPCC report on global warming we currently plan to discuss the politics of climate change and the mindset of the current US administration. In this section it is relevant to hear from those who have advised President Trump.

    esmewren:
    The issue of false equivalence is only in play when discussing the science of climate change. This point is entirely recognised and adhered to by the programme. #newsnight

    reply to esmewren: from Max:
    This looks like a pretty crappy attempt for you to justify that which cannot be justified. You could quite easily have examined the thinking of the Trump administration without giving airtime to a denier.
    I mourn the loss of what your programme used to be.

    Jonathan Church:
    We have just seen what a terrible decision it was to have him on, in spite of Evan’s best efforts. All the radical climate denial tropes given good airtime on a day when that’s the last thing we need to be hearing about…

    Martin Vickers:
    The science and politics of climate change are inextricably linked, and you know it. Poor, poor form…

    Nancy:
    Myron Ebell is an evil little man who should be in prison for crimes against humanity. Use your precious resources to expose him and his fellow climate criminals…
    https://twitter.com/ret_ward/status/1049302408982159360

    30

    • #
      pat

      VIDEO: 15min20secs: 8 Oct: BBC Newsnight: Why we’re heading for a ‘climate catastrophe’
      A damning report from the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has put the world on the path to a ‘climate catastrophe’ as global warming nears 3C.
      We investigate if its too late to turn back.
      Presenter: Evan Davis
      opening report: Chris Cook, Policy Editor, Newsnight
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06nb972

      first voice in Chris Cooks’ report:

      Dieter Helm, Professor of Economic Policy, Oxford Uni:
      It’s about making the Chinese leadership, the India leadership, many of the African leaders, decide to move away from coal and, unfortunately, that’s quite expensive for these countries, and the real issue is whether, and who, is prepared to pay the substantive cost of a fast switch out of this most pernicious form of fossil fuel.

      at 3min12sec, Davis’s partisan intro to Myron Ebell, ending with:

      Myron Ebell, who was Donald Trump’s advisor during the presidential transition. he is director of the CAI (CEI) think tank that campaigns for the US energy industry and deem the Paris Climate Agreement an unprecedented power grab on American consumers and the economy. (INTERRUPTIONS FROM DAVIS MAKE EBELL’S CONTRIBUTION MEANINGLESS)

      then it’s on to the final 6 mins – cosy studio talk between BBC’s Davis and the following:

      Cambridge Uni: Dr. Simon Beard, Postdoctoral Reseacher, Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Forum for Sustainability and the Environment.
      Simon holds a PhD in Moral Philosophy from the London School of Economics. Prior to joining CSER, Simon was a research fellow at Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, where he worked on the project “Population Ethics: Theory and Practice”. Simon has also worked as a parliamentary researcher and a campaigner, and his research has been used by a number of campaigning organisations, including SCOPE, Dignity in Dying and the Skills Commission. He was a parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Democrats in 2015.

      Wikipedia: Baroness Worthington, British environmental campaigner and life peer in the House of Lords…founded Sandbag, a non-profit campaign group designed to increase public awareness of emissions trading, in 2008…
      Lady Worthington was the lead author in the team which drafted the UK’s 2008 Climate Change Act…
      As of 2016, Worthington is the executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund.

      Beard and the Baroness’s contributions are pretty pathetic, to put it mildly.

      30

  • #
    TdeF

    I really wonder how the IPCC do their calculations. It might not be too hard to estimate the output of CO2 from all life on earth. All cars and planes would be quite easy. Then you have to estimate farts from huge numbers of animals because methane is 30x as powerful as a greenhouse gas. Then all the methane from decomposition of plants and from digestion by insects like termites. Getting harder. Any way you look at it, it is even harder to connect this to temperature since global temperature seems quite independent of CO2 concentrations, according to the hard evidence of the last 30 years of very good data. So how do they do it?

    How do they calculate that if we reduce CO2 emissions and stop eating meat that the temperature will fall and by how much? It raises all the questions of how the explain the lack of response to the last 30 years and 350,000+ windmills and so many solar panels? I mean, who is doing this calculation so that they can prophesy with such accuracy that if people pay carbon taxes and man generated CO2 is reduced, that everything will be fine?

    Where are the calculations? Or is that only for the high priests and we, the public who pay the bills, are not worthy enough or skilled enough to view these calculations.

    Even with one IPCC report talking about an 80 year cycle time for CO2 back into the oceans, how is that included? CO2 and O2 are both exchanged mightily with the world’s oceans or fish would drown or asphyxiate. Who is doing that calculation. Half of the CO2 since 1940 should be gone and 3/4 of the CO2 from 1860. One quarter of the CO2 from 1990. I would like to see the workings for reabsorption.

    No, we are just told that their graphs are right. Besides, I would love to know where they obtained the 80 year time anyway, as it is wrong.

    This is the greatest problem. The lack of presentation of any of these calculations. Just show us how CO2 is expected to go down. Then explain why it has not happened in the last 30 years and why doubling down will make any difference?

    70

    • #
      TdeF

      For those who don’t know (including every contributing scientist to the IPCC) the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere is 14 years. The CO2 from WW2 70 years ago is down to 2^5 or 1/32. 3% is left. Even from 2004, only half is left. It’s not that the CO2 has vanished as it has been replaced with ocean CO2, but that the exchange is so quick that equilibrium is in play. When equilibrium is in play, we cannot change the result no matter how much CO2 we generate. That is high school chemistry, unknown to the IPCC. The technical word for their conclusions is, baloney.

      90

      • #
        TdeF

        The other result of equilibrium, exprssed as Henry’s Law, is that if you increase ocean surface temperature, CO2 comes out. According to the IPCC, CO2 goes in. Someone needs to go back to school.

        100

    • #
      TdeF

      To termites add slaters, all forms of cockroaches and of course legions of bacteria which specialise in extracting the last bits of chemical energy from the remains of photosynthesis. Who can say how much is released in the decay of every living thing. All significant. It might actually be more than the larger and easily identified herbivores. Even bacteria in the gut, all working to decompose plant matter. It would not be surprising if all the calculations were wrong by an order of magnitude. The only thing surprising is the degree of certainty given by the IPCC that we humans control CO2 and CO2 controls temperature when we have little real idea of how much CO2 we actually control.

      All quite irrelevant if the major force is in the vast oceans which contain 98% of all gaseous CO2. The IPCC dismiss this by saying carbon dioxide gas cannot come from the depths. Too bad that is in contradiction with everything we know. Look at the bubbles in your drink. You see, beer explains everything. Warm beer goes flat, not fizzy.

      90

      • #
        Bobl

        I did an estimate once of the amount of direct heating caused by biological functions IE cells burning food. It’s was a minimum of 3Watts per square meter to as much as 6W per square metre. This is 10 times the supposed imbalance of incoming to outgoing energy. Photosynthesis is off the order of -3 to -5 watts per square metre.

        Not to mention that what the IPCC say (4deg) is in fact literally thermodynamically impossible.

        The basic flaw remains that Eout=Ein (Where E is EMR) is bovine excrement. The real equation is EOut=Ein + dE where dE is the sum of all the losses and gains like photosynthesis, bio energy, kinetic energy losses and so on. dE is totally unknown and probably unknowable. Without knowing dE we can’t say whether it’s cooling or hearing.

        This is a scientific scandal …

        70

  • #
    robert rosicka

    At least the Environment Minister is calling the IPCC out for what it really is .

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-09/environment-minister-says-calls-to-end-coal-drawing-long-bow/10354604

    I’m sure if Greg Hunt was still in the job he would have praised the report and demanded action .

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    It is a puzzle to me how many senior scientists are sitting on the sidelines. They know this is all nonsense. It’s not that their jobs are threatened. They simply don’t care. I mean the people who understand you can radio carbon date the air and show it has almost no fossil fuel CO2. The ones I know say nothing. They just let the whole thing play out. That means the activists are the people who know nothing. You have to be thankful for Jo’s blog to allow some science to be expressed. Unfortunately the IPCC do not use science. It is a political organization, not a scientific one.

    I had to add that I was however very disappointed to see the head of the WMO joining in supporting the IPCC, a creation of the WMO. Like the boards of the US Physics Association, the Royal Society, NASA, all complicit. It shows how the people are the top are so often political and career opportunists often completely disconnected from their members. Sad.

    Still, why has no one condemned the giving of $440 Million of Barrier Reef urgent Fix it cash, 7 tons of gold to people who did not even ask for it and for purposes not even defined at the time or since? What I have read since is made up waffle, for half a billion dollars of public money? It show how complicit the media and politicians on both sides are in all this. Australians should be outraged. Like the RET, the cash flows like a river to friends of politicians. In this case, no one even bothered to explain it. Morrison just turns a blind eye to it all, a do nothing administrator almost terrified of having an opinion or showing any backbone.

    120

    • #
      Dennis

      $444 million handed over despite Treasury officials recommending no more than $200 million, and spread over instalments for a number of years.

      80

  • #
    pat

    nothing political about the Nobels!

    8 Oct: ClimateChangeNews: Economics Nobel goes to inventor of models used in UN 1.5C report
    William Nordhaus originated the idea of a 2C global warming limit but last year cast doubt on our ability to reach it. He shares the prize with Paul Romer
    By Megan Darby
    William “Bill” Nordhaus was awarded the Nobel Prize on Monday for his pioneering work on modelling the economics of climate change and energy.
    He shared the prize with Paul Romer, developer of “endogenous growth theory”, which emphasises the value of investing in innovation.

    Nordhaus has worked on climate change problems since the 1970s, when he proposed 2C as an upper limit on global warming to aim for.
    In the 1990s, he was among the first to develop “integrated assessment models”, which remain the dominant way of analysing how to cut emissions over the long term.

    Indeed, that modelling approach was used in a major UN report published Monday to show possible routes to halting global warming at 1.5C above pre-industrial levels – the tougher target in the Paris Agreement…READ ON
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/10/08/economics-nobel-goes-inventor-models-used-un-1-5c-report/

    9 Oct: Bloomberg editorial: This Nobel Rewards the Right Kind of Economics
    Building elegant little models is passé. The future of econ is rigorous, empirical, and always engaged with the real world.
    Nordhaus brought economics to climate change. Long after scientists had established that fossil fuels risked destroying the environment, reasonable people could differ on what should be done. Nordhaus built models that quantified the costs of action and inaction, making an irresistible case for effective climate-change policy. This opened the way to contemplate solutions such as a carbon tax — a policy that Nordhaus has long advocated…
    In recognizing Nordhaus and Romer, the Nobel committee has rewarded economics as it should be done. Study the evidence, employ it to build testable theories of how the world works, then use them to inform actual policy — and always be ready to change theories that don’t match the facts. It’s an approach that the profession as a whole would do well to emulate…
    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-10-08/nobel-prize-for-romer-nordhaus-points-to-future-of-economics

    an amusing footnote to the choice of Nadia Murad, as one of two winners of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize:

    6 Feb: GlobalCitizen.org: Hillary Clinton Gives Human Rights Award to ISIS Survivor Nadia Murad
    The survivor, activist, and UN Goodwill Ambassador received a human rights award from Hillary Clinton at the annual Hillary Rodham Clinton Award Ceremony at the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace, and Security…
    Clinton highlighted the importance of advocates and activists like Nadia and Wai Wai during the discussion that followed the award ceremony.

    “When you listen to Nadia’s story, you realize the importance of law — the rule of law — ***due process, judicial systems, international organizations that have to be sustained and supported to set standards and hold people accountable and serve as places of recourse for the Nadias of the world,” she said…
    https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/nadia-murad-isis-yazidi-refugee-hillary-clinton-aw/

    lol.

    50

  • #
    pat

    9 Oct: Daily Caller: Michael Bastasch: A $240 Per Gallon Gas Tax To Fight Global Warming? New UN Report Suggests Carbon Pricing
    •A new U.N. report suggests a $240 per gallon gas tax equivalent is needed to fight global warming.
    •The U.N. says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton in the year 2100.
    •If you think that’s unlikely to ever happen, you’re probably right.
    A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.

    For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.

    If you think that’s an unlikely scenario, you’re probably not wrong. However, it’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, released Sunday night, sees as a policy option for reducing emissions enough to keep projected warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius…

    In order to effectively keep future warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the IPCC says carbon taxes would need to range from $135 to $5,500 per ton in 2030, $245 to $13,000 per ton in 2050, $420 to $17,000 per ton in 2070 and $690 to $27,000 per ton in 2100…
    http://dailycaller.com/2018/10/08/a-240-per-gallon-gas-tax-to-fight-global-warming-new-un-report-suggests-carbon-pricing/

    50

  • #
    angry

    Checkout this bullshit………….

    UN predicts 90 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef will disappear unless the world ditches coal and adopts green power by 2050

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6251453/United-Nations-predicts-90-cent-Great-Barrier-Reef-disappear-2050-without-changes.html

    A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHY WE NEED TO GET RID OF THE ANTI HUMAN COMMUNIST “un”!!!

    31

  • #
    Robber

    Just did a search using Google for IPCC Report 2018.
    Top stories listed are from The Guardian, Renew Economy, CNN, and YouTube. Google balanced? Not likely?
    Only on page 3 of search was: Josh: The New IPCC report is a work of art | Watts Up With That?
    We are doomed according to the IPCC’s headline statements:
    Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052. Admire their precision?
    Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia.
    Climate models project robust differences in regional climate characteristics between present-day and global warming of 1.5°C, and between 1.5°C and 2°C. These differences include increases in: mean temperature in most land and ocean regions (high confidence), hot extremes in most inhabited regions (high confidence),heavy precipitation in several regions (medium confidence), and the probability of drought and precipitation deficits in some regions (medium confidence). And I thought extremes were weather.
    In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030. Pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems. So stop what you are doing and switch 45% of everything off now.
    All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with limited or no overshoot project the use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Masks will be fitted to all life forms.

    Interestingly, on the IPCC’s website there are five chapters each with 200-300 references, produced by an army of listed authors, but they are listed as Final Government Drafts with a warning on each page”Do Not Cite Quote or Distribute”. <The science is settled because we have published our report. Read, but do not point out our errors.

    60

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I’ll guess that the GBR is probably the largest thing they think they can use as a club to beat the world over the head with. “Conform to the thought of big brother UN or we’ll steal your corals,” something of that dire nature.

    The world has lost its collective mind. And the reef yawned and said, “Ho hum.”

    70

  • #
    pat

    #1 reason to ditch Paris. the CAGW mob have shown, time and again, they do not respect the democratic process. they prefer to take a chance on activist courts:

    9 Oct: ClimateChangeNews: Climate lawyers to use UN 1.5C report to sue governments
    Lawyers have long planned to use a report released on Monday to lend weight to calls for climate damages or redress through the courts
    By Megan Darby
    Roda Verheyen is representing ten families in a lawsuit against EU institutions, dubbed the People’s Climate Case. She will argue in the European General Court that the EU must adopt a more ambitious 2030 climate target to defend their human rights – drawing on the UN assessment of the science.
    “There is a huge difference between 1.5 and 1.9 or whatever is ‘below 2C’, especially for the people I represent. The impact prognosis is very, very different,” she said…
    In a letter to EU politicians, published in Climate Home News (LINK) on Tuesday, the plaintiffs said the IPCC had confirmed that only European emissions targets that hold warming below 1.5C were compatible with their “fundamental rights”.
    The signatories included Maurice Feschet, 72, a fourth-generation farmer in the south of France. He told CHN climate disruption has become more frequent since his youth…

    What the IPCC special report does not do is fundamentally alter anyone’s legal obligations. These cases still rely on a mixture of existing national and international legal principles.
    “It doesn’t change the law,” said Jonathan Church, lawyer at London-based firm Client Earth, “but at the same time it does potentially provide a lot of ammunition for those of us seeking to use the law to effect change in this area.”

    The volume of climate lawsuits is increasing, as action to tackle climate change fails to keep pace with the impacts. “We expect more and more climate litigation in the coming years,” said Church…
    Greenpeace Southeast Asia has a “climate justice” team. It is primarily focused on a petition to the Philippines Commission on Human Rights, seeking to hold major historic coal, oil and gas producers to account for their role in causing climate change…
    The inquiry continues with a session in London on 6-8 November…
    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/10/09/climate-lawyers-use-un-1-5c-report-sue-governments/

    30

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      “The volume of climate lawsuits is increasing, ..” Winners are the lawyers as usual. the whole thing has reached insane levels, ‘climate justice’, Insanity its actually getting dangerous.

      70

  • #
    pat

    9 Oct: ABC: Bylong Valley mine gets NSW Government approval as UN warns against coal energy
    By Cecilia Connell & Kathleen Ferguson
    Plans for a long-debated coal mine in the NSW Bylong Valley have again been referred to an independent panel, this time for the final go-ahead.
    The open-cut underground mine proposed by South Korean company Kepco Bylong Australia would be built near Bylong, 55 kilometres north-east of Mudgee.
    The project is intended to operate for 25 years, extracting 6.5 million tonnes of run-of-mine coal per annum…

    The NSW Department of Planning and Environment has completed its final assessment report and said the development is approvable, subject to stringent conditions…

    The project is expected to create up to 645 jobs during construction and 450 jobs during the peak operational phase.
    Mid-Western Regional Council Mayor Des Kennedy said it would help the local economy prosper.
    “We want to see the Kandos, Rylstone, Bylong, Mudgee, Gulgong towns grow with new families coming into the region, ” he said.

    The matter has been referred to the Independent Planning Commission which will hold a public hearing next month before making its final determination.
    As the former Planning Assessment Commission has already held a public hearing in relation to the project, merit appeal rights in relation to any future determination by the renamed Independent Planning Commission have been extinguished
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-09/byalong-valley-coal-mine-gets-approval-from-nsw-government/10355668

    9 Oct: news.com.au: Glencore wins cut to Newcastle coal costs
    The Port of Newcastle has been ordered by the ACCC to reduce its charges for ships entering the port to carry coal for Glencore.
    The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission says Port of Newcastle Operations (PNO) should cut its current rate by about 20 per cent to 61 cents per gross tonne, backdated to 2016.
    The port said it would contest the decision…

    The Port of Newcastle provides the only commercially viable means of exporting coal from the Hunter Valley region and is jointly owned by China Merchants Port Holdings Co Ltd, which took a stake in February, and Australia’s Infrastructure Fund…
    https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/breaking-news/glencore-wins-cut-to-newcastle-coal-costs/news-story/9463fa525189f515e3861f5b35bd9ad7

    30

  • #
    RAH

    This Yank is just curious. When did the climate alarmists, not just the IPCC, first start prognosticating the demise of GBR? And how often have they been demonstrated to have been wrong in their prognostications?

    40

  • #
    David Maddison

    Even if anthropogenic global warming were real (it isn’t) the periods of natural warming such as the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Climate Optimum have been highly productive times for civilisation. Warming is something to be celebrated, not feared!

    30

  • #
    Ian MacCulloch

    There is more than one ‘GAB” In fact the abstract below from the IODP Expedition 325: Great Barrier Reefs Reveals Past Sea-Level, Climate and Environmental Changes Since the Last Ice Age.

    The depths reported here for the reefs correlate quite closely with the off shore drilling work for palaeostrandlines containing heavy minerals that I did many years ago. The depths recorded in this paper correlate nicely with the earlier definitive work of R W Bainbridge in 1960. Bainbridge’s work was also used as a guide to establish the general position of the mineralised strandlines. I suppose after nearly 500 holes and 100′s of lines of shallow seismic one gets a reasonable idea of what was going on.

    doi:10.2204/iodp.sd.12.04.2011
    32 Scientific Drilling, No. 12, September 2011

    by Yusuke Yokoyama, Jody M. Webster, Carol Cotterill, Juan Carlos Braga,
    Luigi Jovane, Heath Mills, Sally Morgan, Atsushi Suzuki,
    and the IODP Expedition 325 Scientists

    The timing and courses of deglaciations are key components in understanding the global climate system. Cyclic
    changes in global climate have occurred, with growth and decay of high latitude ice sheets, for the last two million
    years. It is believed that these fluctuations are mainly controlled by periodic changes to incoming solar radiation due
    to the changes in Earth’s orbit around the sun. However, not all climate variations can be explained by this process, and
    there is the growing awareness of the important role of internal climate feedback mechanisms. Understanding the nature
    of these feedbacks with regard to the timing of abrupt global sea-level and climate changes is of prime importance. The
    tropical ocean is one of the major components of the feedback system, and hence reconstructions of temporal variations
    in sea-surface conditions will greatly improve our understanding of the climate system. The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) Expedition 325 drilled 34 holes across 17 sites in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia to recover fossil coral reef deposits. The main aim of the expedition was to understand the environmental changes that occurred during the last ice age and subsequent deglaciation, and more specifically (1) establish the course of sea-level change, (2) reconstruct the oceanographic conditions, and (3) determine
    the response of the reef to these changes. We recovered coral reef deposits from water depths down to 126 m that ranged in age from 9,000 years to older than 30,000 years ago. Given that the interval of the dated materials covers
    several paleoclimatologically important events, including the Last Glacial Maximum, we expect that ongoing scientific
    analyses will fulfill the objectives of the expedition

    00