JoNova

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


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Books

Weekend Unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (7 votes cast)
Weekend Unthreaded, 10.0 out of 10 based on 7 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y3tmvq7j

80 comments to Weekend Unthreaded

  • #
    Reed Coray

    In this comment I solicit responses from the readers of this blog.

    The phrase “greenhouse effect” arises in almost all lengthy discussions of AGW. According to https://www.bing.com/search?q=greenhouse+effect&filters=ufn%3a%22greenhouse+effect%22+sid%3a%2216eb4a31-1a62-6277-52cc-f6f300b3af61%22&qs=MB&pq=greenhouse+effect&sc=8-17&cvid=53F396E33CF543F5AB62BEB0B72B250E&FORM=CHRDEF&sp=1: “The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet’s atmosphere warms the planet’s surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere. If a planet’s atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) the atmosphere will radiate energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it.” In this comment, I use the above as the definition of the “greenhouse effect.”

    Some readers of this blog believe there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect—at least as characterized above. Those readers may be right; but I can’t make that argument because I lack sufficient knowledge to do so. In my mind it is possible that atmospheric greenhouse gases (i.e., gases that absorb and radiate electromagnetic energy in sub-bands of the infrared band) may lead to increased surface temperatures. However, I strongly believe that the primary argument used to justify that position is logically, and therefore, fatally flawed. In the past I have made attempts to articulate those flaws. One criticism of my efforts has been that I have misrepresented the argument for greenhouse-gas induced earth surface warming—in essence that I created a strawman position and then ranted against the strawman position, not against the actual greenhouse effect.

    As some of you are aware, using the comment feature of Joanne’s blog Peter Fitzroy and I are currently engaged in a discussion of the greenhouse effect. In one of Peter’s comments (http://joannenova.com.au/2019/05/weekend-unthreaded-261/#comment-2142313), he cited a 2005 paper (https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/archive/file_52051.pdf) authored by Dr. Alan J. Thorpe. By critiquing Dr.Thorpe’s justification of the greenhouse effect, I can’t be accused of criticizing a misrepresentation of the greenhouse effect. [As an aside, I believe the greenhouse effect justification appearing in Dr. Thorpe’s paper agrees with my characterization of the greenhouse effect as espoused by most of the AGW community; but as regards my appeal to blog readers, that is neither here nor there.] Because I realize I may have a blind spot, what I am asking the readers of this blog to do is not to critique Dr. Thorpe’s argument, but rather critique my analysis of his argument. Basically, try to put aside any biases you have one way or the other regarding the greenhouse effect, and focus on why I think Dr. Thorpe’s “greenhouse effect” justification is logically flawed. When you have completed your thought process, I’d like to hear what you think.

    Now to Dr. Thorpe’s justification of the greenhouse effect, and my reasoning as to why his justification is logically, and therefore, fatally flawed. Dr. Thorpe wrote:

    For a steady state, climate properties such as temperature can be supposed to result from a long-term equilibrium between received energy from the Sun and outgoing energy emitted by the warm planet. The existence of an atmosphere that is capable of absorbing and retransmitting certain wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum means that there must be a so called greenhouse effect whereby the atmosphere traps outgoing infrared radiation, thereby increasing the atmospheric temperature (see box insert and Andrews 2000).

    Note: In Dr. Thorpe’s justification of the greenhouse effect, it is the atmosphere’s temperature that increases. In the definition of the greenhouse effect I referenced at the start of this comment, it is the earth’s surface temperature that increases. In my mind this difference is a minor point; but since I’m asking people to review my logic, I thought I’d mention it.

    To see the flaw in Dr. Thorpe’s logic, let’s stipulate that the earth’s atmosphere can absorb and retransmit certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. If Dr. Thorpe’s statement has any relevance to the issue at hand (i.e., the greenhouse effect or equivalently that atmospheric greenhouse gases induce temperature increases in the earth’s surface/atmosphere), then Dr. Thorpe’s statement implies that (a) an atmosphere possessing the properties of absorption and retransmission of certain wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum will “trap outgoing infrared radiation,” and (b) the trapping of outgoing infrared radiation will produce an increase in the atmosphere’s temperature.

    Okay, let’s see where Dr. Thorpe’s justification of the “greenhouse effect” leads. (1) Pick an instant in time and measure the earth atmosphere’s temperature. (2) At that time, outgoing radiation is being emitted by the earth (a warm planet). (3) Some of that outgoing radiation is in the IR band. (4) Some of the outgoing IR band radiation is “trapped” by the earth’s atmosphere. And finally, (5) The “trapped radiation” will increase the atmosphere’s temperature. Thus, starting at an arbitrary time, Steps (1) through (5) imply that at the end of any non-zero time interval, the earth’s atmosphere will be at a higher temperature than it was at the start of the time interval.

    With two exceptions (the time is not the same, and the atmosphere’s temperature is not the same), the conditions that exist at the end of the time interval are identical to the conditions that existed at the start of the time interval. In particular, (a) the earth’s atmosphere can still absorb and retransmit certain wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum, (b) the earth is still warm and is still radiating outgoing radiation, (c) some of that outgoing radiation is still in the IR band, (d) some of the outgoing IR band radiation is still “trapped” by the atmosphere, and (e) the “trapped radiation” will still increase the atmosphere’s temperature.

    The five-step cycle above will repeat indefinitely; and cease repeating only when the earth’s atmosphere is incapable of absorbing and retransmitting certain wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum. Thus, if Dr. Thorpe’s justification of the greenhouse effect is valid, that justification logically leads to an earth atmosphere whose temperature increases without bound; or if bounded, stopping only when the earth’s atmosphere stops absorbing and retransmitting certain wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum. This completes my analysis of Dr. Thorpe’s greenhouse gas justification; however, I thought I’d add one possible response (and this is a strawman) to my analysis.

    Wait,” you say, “that’s not how the greenhouse effect works. At some temperature (call it the balance temperature) a balance is reached where the earth’s surface/atmosphere radiates energy to space at a rate equal to the rate radiation is trapped by the atmosphere, at which point there will be no more temperature increase—and, therefore, there will be no runaway warming.” But since trapping outgoing radiation causes a temperature increase, or as Dr. Thorpe but it “…whereby the atmosphere traps outgoing infrared radiation, thereby increasing the atmospheric temperature,” if temperature increases stop, the atmosphere must cease trapping outgoing IR radiation. Such a response leads to a question and a comment. The question: What is the balance temperature; and if a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs IR radiation because the molecule possesses a resonant vibrational frequency in sub-bands of the IR, what is it about that process that makes it stop at the balance temperature?”

    The comment: In the real world the earth’s atmosphere exhibits a lapse rate—i.e., a decrease in atmospheric temperature with increasing altitude. Thus, if there is a balance temperature (i) below which greenhouse gases “trap IR radiation” with a consequent increase in temperature, and (ii) above which greenhouse gases no longer “trap radiation” and thus won’t increase the atmosphere’s temperature, an atmospheric temperature lapse rate can’t exist. For if it existed, the temperature of all regions of the earth’s atmosphere below the balance temperature would increase until the balance temperature is reached.

    Bottom line, I conclude Dr. Thorpe’s justification of the greenhouse effect, which in my opinion is commonly held, is logically and fatally flawed. Okay readers, what say you?

    50

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      I agree, what you get is a new, albeit higher equilibrium point, as the IR which is absorb/released by the GHC’s eventually makes its way to space. As water and CO2 will absorb IR (at those wavelengths which is emitted by the earth’s surface), but it will radiate the IR in a random direction, so you can imagine the IR/atmosphere interaction as a bit like the ball in a pinball machine.

      02

      • #
        Peter C

        In respect to Dr Thorpes argument, I agree that the result would be a new but higher equilibrium temperature. The term “traps IR radiation” misleading.

        However, either the greenhouse gases heat the air, or they heat the ground. Dr Thorpe tries to have it both ways.

        I had planned to write something about this,, following my recent flight across the Pacific Ocean, where I observed deep convection clouds going above 40,000ft in the vincinity of Samoa at about 6pm local time. Consequently I was thinking about the lapse rate, which I think is due to atmospheric mixing powered by the Earth surface temperature.

        Despite the inadequacies of the Mythbusters demonstration (and others, such asi Bill Nye the Science Guy), I think it is likely that IR absorption by greenhouse gases does indeed heat the air.
        Consequently greenhouse gases promote surface cooling by transferring heat to the adjacent air. That then leads to convection currents which take the heat high into the atmosphere, assisted by the latent heat of water.

        Hence, in my view, greenhouse gases cool the Earth ( perhaps excepting at the poles, esp in winter), but cooling overall.

        The oft talked about 33C of greenhouse warming can be explained in other ways.

        50

      • #
        Reed Coray

        I too believe adding additional CO2 will result in a new equilibrium temperature, which will manifest itself as a new lapse rate profile–i.e., vary with altitude. I do not have a strong opinion as to whether or not the “new” lapse rate temperature profile will be higher than or lower than the “old” lapse rate temperature profile. However, none of that was the point of my post. The point of my post was that the logic of Dr. Thorpe’s statement:

        The existence of an atmosphere that is capable of absorbing and retransmitting certain wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum means that there must be a so called greenhouse effect whereby the atmosphere traps outgoing infrared radiation, thereby increasing the atmospheric temperature (see box insert and Andrews 2000).

        implies the temperature of the atmosphere will grow without bound; and as such cannot be used to conclude an equilibrium temperature even exists–lapse rate profile profile or otherwise. In my opinion, Dr. Thorpe’s statement to justify an increased atmospheric temperature is similar to almost all arguments used to convince the general public that increasing atmospheric CO2 will lead to increasing surface and atmospheric temperatures. As such, although expedient for the purposes of the AGW community, the argument is scientific nonsense.

        I presented a five-step argument why I believe Dr. Thorpe’s statement implies an ever increasing atmospheric temperature. Please identify which of those steps is in error and discuss why it is in error.

        10

        • #
          Reed Coray

          I want to make it as simple as possible to counter my argument that Dr. Thorpe’s characterization of a greenhouse effect induced atmospheric temperature increase implies an atmospheric temperature that increases without bound. To do that, I will parse Dr. Thorpe’s statement and ask relevant questions. I will then answer those questions. If any of my answers are incorrect, then my argument fails. Okay, here goes.

          Does Dr. Thorpe’s argument apply to an atmosphere that is capable of absorbing and retransmitting certain wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum? Yes or No.

          I answer Yes. If yes, will an earth atmosphere with greenhouse gases absorb and retransmit certain wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum? Yes or No.

          I answer Yes. Does the earth’s atmosphere contain greenhouse gases? Yes or No.

          I answer Yes. If yes, then according to what Dr. Thorpe wrote, must the earth experience a “so called greenhouse effect?” Yes or No.

          I answer Yes. If yes, then according to what Dr. Thorpe wrote, does the existence of a greenhouse effect imply outgoing infrared radiation is trapped? Yes or No.

          I answer Yes. If yes, then according to what Dr. Thorpe wrote, does the trapping of infrared radiation imply an increase in the atmospheric temperature? Yes or No.

          I answer Yes. If yes, is there any part of Dr. Thorpe’s argument for atmospheric temperature increases that implies his argument depends on the temperature of the atmosphere? Yes or No.

          I answer No. If no, then independent of the atmosphere’s temperature, will the greenhouse effect as described by Dr. Thorpe result in an earth atmosphere temperature increase? Yes or No.

          I answer Yes. If yes, is there anything in what Dr. Thorpe wrote that implies at some atmospheric temperature, the temperature of the atmosphere will cease increasing? Yes or No.

          I answer No.

          My conclusion: Dr. Thorpe’s argument for a greenhouse effect induced atmospheric temperature increase implies an atmospheric temperature that increases without bound.

          00

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Does the atmosphere lose energy to space? Yes or No.
            If that loss meditated in any way by the temperature of the atmosphere? Yes or No

            If you accept that you will get an new equilibrium temp then you must say yes to those 2 statements. Therefore the atmosphere’s energy will eventually reach a balance.

            Conversely look at the case of a ‘snowball earth’. Here you have the opposite situation where the snow both changes the albedo, and prevents IR radiation from the underlying crust (this is only a rough example, it is meant to be illustrative only). However you will still reach an equilibrium point between the atmosphere and space. There will not be a runaway cooling either.

            00

            • #
              Reed Coray

              For the THIRD time. I believe fixed concentrations of gases in the earth’s atmosphere (both greenhouse and non-greenhouse) will lead to an equilibrium atmospheric temperature lapse rate profile. Please quit trying to convince me of something I already agree with—you’re wasting both my and your time. Why I believe the earth atmosphere’s temperature lapse rate will reach equilibrium is irrelevant to the point I was/am trying to make—unsuccessfully in your case.

              The point I was/am trying to make is: Does Dr. Thorpe’s characterization of the greenhouse effect imply the earth’s atmospheric temperature will increase without bound? Yes or No. The reason I’m making this point is because I believe Dr. Thorpe’s characterization of the greenhouse effect is the primary argument used by the AGW community to convince the general public that we have a greenhouse gas induced warming problem. If (a) Dr. Thorpe’s characterization of the greenhouse effect implies the earth’s atmospheric temperature will increase without bound, and (b) the earth’s atmospheric temperature is not increasing without bound, then Dr. Thorpe’s characterization of the greenhouse effect is incorrect; and as such cannot and should not be used to convince anybody of anything.

              Having said that, I’ll answer your questions.

              Does the atmosphere lose energy to space? My answer: Yes.

              If[s] that loss meditated in any way by the temperature of the atmosphere? My answer: Yes.

              Now would you please be so kind as to answer the nine questions I asked above?

              00

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                I don’t read that paper in the same way you do. That is why I put those 2 questions to you. What I understand is that as you increase the amounts of GHG’s (water and CO2 as examples) the physics will say that the atmospheric temperature will increase as a result. Add more CO2 and you (until saturation is reached) increase temp. I’m being general here but I hope you understand the grist. What the paper does not mention is the eventual increase in loss of energy to space, which is what will stabilise the equilibrium point at a higher value. This is not a criticism of the paper, it only concentrates on the atmosphere, ignoring to a large extent everything not atmospheric.

                To answer your question – inside the bounds of the atmosphere, and with no loss to space, then yes, you would get a positive feedback. But, as we have agreed, that is not the case and there is loss of energy to space, which will reset the equilibrium point

                00

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Reed,

          It would be interesting to compare the amount of energy that CO2 could “re-direct” in the spectrum band shared with water.
          Water would be substantially larger.

          Then there’s the added issue that human origin CO2 is only say 4% of total CO2.

          Then compare those energy redirection amounts (assuming no conduction with the ground) with the energy required to vaporize water at ground level.

          KK

          00

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Kicking off the unthreaded with best wishes to all the good people out there that strive to make the world a better place.

    Thanks for giving us plebs some hope.

    90

  • #
  • #
    Another Ian

    “What One World Government?”

    “OECD To Set New Global Minimum Corp. Tax Rate”

    More at

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2019/06/01/what-one-world-government/

    30

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo gets mentioned here

    “Build surplus RE for reliability! How come we didn’t think of it?”

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2019/06/01/build-surplus-re-for-reliability-how-come-we-didnt-think-of-it/

    20

    • #

      Yes, wind power did have three really big days earlier this week, and on one day, the Tuesday, an outstanding day, delivering almost 16% of all Australia’s power requirements across the day, and wind power delivered across the day at a Capacity Factor of just on 63%, the biggest I have seen it. However, these last two days it’s been back to normal, and yesterday, below average again.

      But you can’t run a Country on one big day every so often.

      On that same big day for wind, coal fired power was also up on the day, again proving that wind, whether up or down, has no effect at all on what coal fired power does. On that same day coal fired power delivered 4.5 times the huge total for wind power.

      On the opposite scale, yesterday showed just how good (/sarc) solar plant power can be. From a Nameplate of 2549MW, it reached a peak of 830MW, and averaged 180MW across the day at a Capacity Factor of 7%, and delivering, wait for this 0.7% of Australia’s power requirements. Not even one percent of an absolute requirement, and for the billions spent on solar plants. Rooftop solar was not much better, also at a Capacity Factor of around 7%.

      Those low days for both wind and solar are a lot more frequent than those big days.

      Tony.

      120

      • #
        Richard Ilfeld

        Yup. Like it’s probably not a good idea to invest in a restaurant if you only examine it on a holiday.
        But many do, and remorse follows. Your research is heroic, sir.

        10

    • #
      RickWill

      This from the link within the link:

      However counterintuitive, a study our colleagues and we conducted shows that these steps are the key to the least expensive path to an electric grid powered largely by solar and wind.

      No wind or solar project will stand the economic test if overbuild is included. The proponents of existing wind and solar projects call foul any time they are curtailed. Curtailment, realistic transmission loss factors and reduction in LGC price is already making it tough for existing subsidy farnmers.

      Promoting such heresy would soon highlight the lunacy of comparing LCOEs for dispatchable and intermittent generators.

      60

  • #
    Another Ian

    Renewbles – the “Tail Fins Era of Power Supply” (Hopefully)

    20

  • #
    yarpos

    Funny sighting on the ABC weather the other night. The weather guy shows the 7 day forecast , and for the second week in succession its showers and temps in the teens as far as you can see. Then in the middle of it they feel obliged to throw in a graph from Monash Uni showing how autumn temps have been rising since a cherry picked date at the end of WW2, and give a mention to the BOM warm dry winter forecast.

    Its almost like they are panicking that people might look out their window and not listen to their mesmerising messages of doom, unless they are continually reinforced.

    100

    • #
      Peter C

      Monash University has a Climate Change propaganda unit called the Climate Change Communication Research Hub. It purpose is th feed climate stories, focusing on climate warming and climate change to media units inclusding the ABC.

      A Dr Ailie Gallant has been running a weekly column in the Leader newspapers in Melbourne. Every single column so far has found some warming trend. The latest story looks at the coldest day in May since 1980

      https://www.monash.edu/mcccrh

      70

      • #

        I see where they are “building climate literacy” at Monash. So literacy is no longer ability to read and it is no longer acquired but “built”? Like what young John Monash did with reinforced concrete? Moreover I thought that to string five nouns together for “Climate Change Communication Research Hub” you had to be speaking German (like young John Monash).

        Well, I’m sufficiently literate (original sense) to find out that last Friday’s cold on the NSW midcoast is the lowest for Port Macquarie in any available record. The -4.1 is the second lowest for Kempsey…after last year’s August reading of -4.4. Amazingly, we were still in autumn last Friday.

        The ever-practical builder, Sir John Monash, would get it. Not sure about the university named after him.

        70

        • #

          Cold in Port Macquarie at lowest level? Well that’s unprecedented, but not in a good way. Expect adjustments to be made, cold to be warmer,the past to be cooler. Observations must be made to comply with theory, its the post-modern-new-science way.

          50

      • #
        Greg in NZ

        There’s that triple-C configuration again (CCC), this time Climate Change Communication

        Consonants don’t lie, nor numbers (6 = C), ie. 6 6 6 Research Hub.

        How much CO₂ pollution is ‘emitted’ every time these yakkademics expel the word hub Hub HUB!

        40

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6184421/brace-for-impact-climate-change-litigation-is-fast-approaching/

    Prepare for a sinking … There is a rising wave of climate change-related litigation globally which is headed for Australia … it will sink Australia, unless drastic measures are implemented.

    61

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      The mess that’s been created by climate change activism is extraordinary and this potential legal burden on business may see even more business closures and job losses.

      Where is our government?

      70

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      More Fairfax B/S.
      Designed to scare only
      Perhaps someone should sue Fairfax & the individual journalists to publishing such crap.

      And yes i know that Channel 9 & Fairfax have merged.. But Fairfax outlets are behaving as if that has not happened.

      40

  • #
    el gordo

    Labor planned to roll Shorten last year and replace him with Albo, I thought they had banned that practice after the Rudd/Gillard fiasco. Anyway, this is a good read.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-02/labors-sliding-doors-moment-lost-election/11166960

    20

  • #
  • #
    el gordo

    ‘The ABC and SBS could be forced to merge as streaming services wreck the broadcast licence revenue that the government has used to fund public broadcasting, according to analysts at Morgan Stanley, reports The Australian’s Andrew White.

    ‘Historically the fees are collected as a percentage of advertising revenue – around 10% for television and 3-4% for radio, peaking at $300 million in 2009 and declining ever since with the rise of streaming services.’

    Media Week

    40

  • #
    pat

    29 May: PhysicsWorld: Views differ on renewable energy futures
    by Dave Elliott
    (Dave Elliottis emeritus professor of technology policy at the Open University, UK and writes a regular column for Physics World on sustainable energy technologies)
    As ever, BP’s annual Energy Outlook (LINK) has renewable energy making only a small primary energy contribution – around 4 billion tonnes of oil equivalent by 2040, i.e. 15% or, including hydro, 22% combined. Non-hydro new renewables do grow rapidly in its scenario, faster than anything else, and coal and oil take a big dive, but gas remains king. Nuclear stays low. But even in BP’s rapid transitions scenario, by 2040 renewables still only hit 29% of global energy (38% with hydro).
    To put all this in perspective, IRENA, the International Renewable Energy Agency, looks to renewables supplying around 60% of total primary global energy (LINK) by 2050…

    That’s very different from the gloomy scenario painted in Jeremy Grantham’s grim GMO white paper (LINK): renewables will boom, but not fast enough to avert climate change. BP says basically the same. They do look at scenarios with more of a push on carbon dioxide reduction and with less globalization. But the main message in both studies is that, in all cases, though renewables boom and dominate, fossil fuel will still be large. And so BP’s central scenario expects carbon emissions to grow 10% by 2040, as world energy demand grows by a third and fossil fuels continue to play a key role…
    https://physicsworld.com/a/views-differ-on-renewable-energy-futures/

    20

  • #
    pat

    loads of links:

    31 May: EnergyPost: Electricity Capacity Mechanisms face legal challenge in UK, Poland
    by Joe Mitton and Matthew James
    Recognising that energy markets might not always be able to meet demand on their own, the European Commission allows EU Member States to operate Capacity Mechanisms (CMs). These schemes introduce public funds to the electricity market, to help make sure there is always spare power for the grid, even as demand and supply fluctuate. But the designs of the CMs are proving contentious, and legal challenges to CMs threaten to shut them down.
    A British firm, Tempus Energy, has already challenged the UK’s CM in court, leading to the suspension of CM auctions in that country. A similar case from Tempus before the courts now threatens the Polish model, and could lead to further cases against CMs across the EU…

    In the first of two articles on this subject, political columnist Joe Mitton looks at the policy questions around CMs, and the legal cases, while Energy Post’s Matthew James spoke to senior European Commission officials about the issues…READ ON
    https://energypost.eu/electricity-capacity-mechanisms-a-brewing-clash/

    20

  • #
    pat

    28 May: BBC: Swansea Bay floating island: Public urged to ‘embrace’ plan
    People should welcome “visionary” plans for a floating island with up to 10,000 homes in Swansea, a man involved with Dubai’s Palm Islands has said.
    Malcolm Copson has been working with Swansea Bay City Region’s task force on how to revive the failed £1.3bn Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon project.
    The renewable energy scheme was thrown out by the UK government over costs.
    But it is claimed the new scheme which would also have underwater turbines to produce electricity would be cheaper.

    Plans for “Dragon Energy Island” would see thousands of homes on floating platforms receive power over a period of 120 years and ***would not need financial backing from the UK government…
    Councils and other public sector bodies would be ***invited to buy electricity generated by the lagoon for a set number of years…

    Analysis by Sarah Dickins, BBC Wales economics correspondent
    ***To get financial institutions like pensions funds to invest, it needs to prove that it has long-term customers prepared to sign 30 year contracts to buy the electricity generated at a set price…READ ALL
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48430104

    40

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    1 Jun: UK Times: Towns need rapid chargers if drivers are to go electric
    by Ben Webster
    More than 40 towns and cities across Britain have no accessible rapid chargers for electric cars, deterring drivers to switch from petrol and diesel, a government advisory body has said.
    The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) is calling on the government to subsidise the spread of rapid chargers, which can add 100 miles of range in about 30 minutes.
    It says that ministers must ensure the infrastructure is in place to allow for all new vehicles to be electric by 2030.

    This chimes with the Clean Air for All campaign by The Times, which is calling for sales of new diesel and petrol cars to be banned from 2030 and the recent cut to green car grants from £4,500 to £3,500 to be reversed…
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/28df8916-83e4-11e9-bb89-165499dc1684

    30 May: Scotsman: EV drivers risking electrocution due to charge point shortage, charity warns
    by Ilona Amos
    Thousands of Scots could be risking electrocution or burning down their house due to a lack of proper charging facilities for the rapidly increasing number of electric vehicles coming onto the roads.
    According to a new survey of eco-friendly motorists, three out of four have admitted to cobbling together cabling in order to power up their car at home.

    Many have used equipment not suitable for the outdoors, left cars attached to the mains in the rain and “daisy-chained” an assortment of leads to get the required length.
    Consumer protection charity Electrical Safety First has warned that such risky practises could cause electric shocks and start fires…
    https://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/ev-drivers-risking-electrocution-due-to-charge-point-shortage-charity-warns-1-4938279

    40

  • #
    pat

    31 May: ClimateDepot: ‘What if Green Energy Isn’t the Future?’ – None of wealthy nations in UN Paris pact —or any of poor ones—have come close to meeting green pledges
    Mark P. Mills/WSJ: “There’s a reason Warren Buffett decided to bet $10 billion on the future of oil and natural gas…For a bellwether reality-check, note that none of the wealthy nations that are parties to the Paris Accord—or any of the poor ones, for that matter—have come close to meeting the green pledges called for. In fact, let’s quote the International Energy Agency on what has actually happened: “Energy demand worldwide [in 2018] grew by . . . its fastest pace this decade . . . driven by a robust global economy . . . with fossil fuels meeting nearly 70% of the growth for the second year running.”
    The reason? Using wind, solar and batteries as the primary sources of a nation’s energy supply remains far too expensive. You don’t need science or economics to know that. Simply propose taking away subsidies or mandates, and you’ll unleash the full fury of the green lobby…
    READ ALL

    (Mr. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a partner in Cottonwood Venture Partners, an energy-tech venture fund, and author of the recent report, “The ‘New Energy Economy’: An Exercise in Magical Thinking.”)
    https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/05/31/what-if-green-energy-isnt-the-future-none-of-wealthy-nations-in-un-paris-pact-or-any-of-poor-ones-have-come-close-to-meeting-green-pledges/

    40

  • #
    Chad

    The “Bradfield scheme” revisited..
    I wanted to pick up on Hanrahans post last weekend.
    As i believe water is the next big crisis ( after energy). That we are going to have to face.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/05/weekend-unthreaded-261/#comment-2142648

    The only possibility of new, reliable uncommitted water would be Hells Gate in the upper reaches of the Burdekin. It is on the western slope of the range which solves one obvious problem – pumping.

    It is too far to carry water in an open canal in the summer [only time there is water available] so it must be piped. Its way beyond my pay grade to calculate how big that pipe would need to be and how much it would cost but my guess ia that it would dwarf the F 35 and NBN. Prolly more than them combined.

    Rereading this I see the same problem for the Bradfield Scheme as we all see with wind/solar – Too expensive, too intermittant.

    I admit i have not personally looked in detail at these proposals, but my impression is that there have been a lot of experts in the field who have spent time and effort to refine the options to the point where the only problem is political willpower. ( avoiding the “Green”/environmental debate).
    Technically there are solutions to the known issues..with China , Libya, etc having done similar major hydrological schemes, and the results if completed would be a huge gamechange for the future of Australia.
    There are bound to be environmental debates and , but what really prevents these schemes being initiated ?

    40

  • #
    Another Ian

    Dealing with environmental hazards

    “Philippines tree planting program – a global model for climate progress, even if shovels serve double-duty knocking false environmentalists out of the way”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2019/06/01/philippines-tree-planting-program-a-global-model-for-climate-progress-even-if-shovels-serve-double-duty-knocking-false-environmentalists-out-of-the-way/#comments

    31

  • #
    Reed Coray

    This comment is to Peter Fitzroy.

    In a comment on Joanne’s blog— see http://joannenova.com.au/2019/05/weekend-unthreaded-261/#comment-2142313 —you referenced two papers that you said “will do for starters”—referring to making your case for how the greenhouse effect works. I have already commented on one of these papers–https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/archive/file_52051.pdf. This comment is a response to the other paper–https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/–written in 2010 by Dr. Andrew Lacis and entitled CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth’s Temperature.

    In that paper Dr. Andrew Lacis, wrote: “Because carbon dioxide accounts for 80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing in the current climate atmosphere, atmospheric carbon dioxide therefore qualifies as the principal control knob that governs the temperature of Earth.” (bold emphasis mine)

    Contrast this with what Dr. Judith Curry wrote in 2014 as part of her testimony to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works –see https://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/01/prweb11515154.htm–The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob that can fine tune climate variability on decadal and multi-decadal time scales.” (bold emphasis mine)

    What we have here is a case of dueling authority figures. Who to believe? Reminds me of kids taunting each other with: “My big brother can beat up your big brother.” Since both kids can’t be right, how can someone ignorant of both families intelligently decide who is correct? He/she can’t. This is why in logic “argument by authority” is meritless. If a person is essentially oblivious to the underlying science, any decision he/she makes based on “authority” is going to reflect his/her background and prejudices, not the underlying science.

    I don’t accept Dr. Lacis’ position because he argues (he calls it an assessment) that primarily atmospheric CO2 but secondarily other minor non-condensing greenhouse gases act both as a thermostat and a furnace. As a thermostat they regulate the equilibrium temperature of the earth. As a furnace they warm the ground surface by means of the greenhouse effect. Comparing the warming of a house by a furnace to the warming of the earth’s surface by means of the greenhouse effect is quite a stretch. A furnace generates heat via a chemical reaction that converts chemical energy into thermal energy. Greenhouse gases do not generate heat. They can absorb electromagnetic radiation, but they don’t generate heat. If the radiation greenhouse gases absorb comes from an object at a higher temperature than the greenhouse gases, re-emission of some of that radiation back to the radiation-originating object does not imply heat flows (i.e., the transfer of thermal energy transfer) from the greenhouse gases to the object. Thus, in the sense of thermal energy flow, greenhouse gases cannot “heat” the radiation-originating object. Greenhouse gases may affect the steady-state temperature of the radiation-originating object, but they don’t “heat” the radiation-originating object. To claim otherwise would be to argue that you can heat a room in your home by capturing the radiation from the walls of the room and returning it to the room.

    Dr. Lacis justifies his argument by saying: “This assessment comes about as the result of climate modeling experiments.” The phrase climate modeling experiments is an oxymoron. I don’t know what is standard in climate science, but in physics, there are theories and there are experiments. Theories (e.g., mathematical models) describe how someone believes nature behaves. Experiments measure how nature does behave. It doesn’t matter how “rooted in well-known science” a theoretical model is, you don’t establish the validity of a theoretical model by (a) running the model, (b) looking at the model outputs and (c) proclaiming: “my model is rooted in well-known science and/or the model predictions agree with my model; therefore my model is valid.” To call the output of a model an “experimental result” is more than poor science, it’s junk science. Worse than that, to knowingly do so approaches disreputable science. So when Dr. Lacis wrote: “This assessment comes about as the result of climate modeling experiments,” he either (a) misspoke, (b) was careless, (c) is unaware of the difference between theory and experiment, or (d) is knowingly trying to hype climate models by giving them the gravitas of experimental confirmation.

    Dr. Lacis then goes on to say: “The numerical climate experiment described in Fig. 2. demonstrates the fundamental radiative forcing role of the non-condensing GHGs, and the feedback (only) role of water vapor and clouds. This climate modeling experiment was performed using the GISS ModelE general circulation coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model by zeroing out all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases. Doing this removed the radiative forcing that sustains the temperature support for water vapor and cloud feedbacks, causing rapid condensation and precipitation of water vapor from the atmosphere, collapsing the terrestrial greenhouse effect, and plunging the Earth into an icebound state.” (bold emphasis mine)

    I have two thoughts regarding the above statement. First, Dr. Lacis again uses the word “experiment” in his description of the outputs of a model. To be fair, he qualified his characterization with the words “climate modeling” and identified the specific model used; but no matter how many caveats he applies to the word “experiment,” model outputs are not experimental results. Second, if by removing CO2 from the earth’s atmosphere we are going to plunge the Earth into an icebound state, then by all means let’s get busy adding more CO2 to, not removing CO2 from, the atmosphere. I don’t want to live in an icebound Earth; and doesn’t the precautionary principle dictate we take action to prevent that possibility?

    40

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      Reed, you have my email, please use it

      00

      • #
        Reed Coray

        Peter, I don’t have your email address–or if I did, I inadvertently deleted it. I gave Joanne permission to send you my email address–and as I understand it, she did. I don’t know whether or not you gave her permission to send me your. In any event, she has not sent me your email address.

        If you have my email address, please send me an email so I have yours. If you don’t have my email address, send Joanne an email (a) asking for mine, and (b) giving her permission to send me yours.

        Thanks,
        Reed

        20

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      sorry Reed, I can not accept “the stagnation in greenhouse warming.” this is an unscientific cherry picking of the temperature record.
      Dr. Lacis, as you suggest is playing with the models, no real insight is gained from that.
      If we are discussing climate any measurement must use a 30 year baseline.
      As to CO2, we have been at stable 300 ppm or there about for a long time, so we have before the industrial revolution values and that from the 1970’s to now. The only question we need to consider is there any other mechanism, beside increase in GHG, which explains what we see.

      03

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        “The only question we need to consider is there any other mechanism, beside increase in GHG, which explains what we see.”

        Of course there is.

        KK

        00

  • #
    Zane

    Usual drivel in the Guardian about acting ” for the climate’s sake “. Is it a requirement to be a full-blown idiot to become a journalist these days? Because it certainly seems that way.

    60

  • #
    Another Ian

    Willis E. has been tallying

    “What Senators Do … And Don’t”

    https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2019/06/01/what-senators-do-and-dont/

    20

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Freedom Gas!

    Hat tip, The Conversation,
    ‘As the climate crisis grows ever more urgent, fossil fuels are becoming an increasingly unattractive proposition. For the US, which is doubling down on its natural gas infrastructure, that’s a problem. The country wants to increase exports of its home-brewed gas. What better way than to rebrand it as the “freedom gas” and “molecules of US freedom” that uphold the country’s commitment to clean energy? Right?”

    14

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Peter,

      I live in the United States and fortunately for us there is no climate crisis. And I remember asking you for evidence that CO2 can do what you would like to blame it for and, wonder of wonders, you didn’t answer me.

      Now if there is a climate crisis it’s foundation lies in CO2s ability to heat planet Earth, that has been the claim from the beginning and I would think that those proposing a crisis based on CO2s ability to heat the planet would be careful to be sure they’re correct.

      Does that make sense to you? I’ll put words in your mouth and say I think it does. So why not answer me and be done with it. Just one question answered with empirical evidence would get me and I think many others off your back about what you say. So far the evidence is that you don’t have the necessary evidence or you would show it to the world. I certainly would.

      60

    • #
      Richard Ilfeld

      The evidence of what is actually being built in the world is that fossil fuels are seen as the soundest path to exiting poverty by most of the world. Rebranding coal as “black diamonds” or natural gas as “freedom gas” is irrelevant to folks actually responsible for analysis of the tools for eradicating poverty and taking further steps up the economic ladder.
      It’s very hard to argue with coal as as a choice for the first steps. Cost effective, relatively low tech, pretty safe at the implementation level. Natural gas requires considerably more development and technology to use, especaily as a home fuel or transportation fuel. It is, however, more efficient than coal in many ways and thus a alternative choice fossil fuel in many cases.
      Liquid petroleum fractions are far and away superior for most transport applications, and find global use in a variety of formats.
      Almost all of the progress in cleaning up our energy use, undertaken on a large scale before the global cooling scare emerged and morphed into CAGW/CLimate Change, has been through application engineering of fossil fuel consumption. We have done quite a good job. Living a couple of miles downwind form a coal plant is no longer an issue of any kind, and our vehicles are cleaner and more efficient.
      In a common sense world, there would be virtually no dispatch power from solar or wind, as there is no economic reason to put in on the grid. Both would exist, as niche and experimental power sources; humankind has always obtained some fraction of its energy from wind and solar, and it is arguable that a huge portion of our technological development is motivated by overcoming their limitations.

      Now, once again Peter, how many CO2 molecules can dance on the head of a pin?

      60

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      I knew no one would pick up that this was humour. Sigh

      01

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Roy, I’m sorry that I did not reply but here is part of my evidence

    In general
    https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

    For CO2
    https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

    There is lots more if you want it

    02

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Peter,

      Thanks for the reply. I can only say that you don’t see your problem.

      References 1 and 2: These start out with climate change as a given, it’s here, it’s happening. Beyond that point all objectivity as been lost and everything they say comes from the biased position that man made climate change is happening. Who says so? Well it was a washed up politician named Al Gore who knew nothing about what he was talking about and a former NASA GISS scientist named James Hansen. They demanded to b believed without evidence and said no more debate is possible. That is not science. Everything is on the table for debate. And it’s not evidence, it’s opinion. There is a difference.

      Reference 3: OK, so what? Nothing here either. They study and discuss how CO2 does this and that. It may ore may not do this or that. I didn’t see one shred of evidence in that whole discussion telling me why I should be afraid of global warming.

      Do you not realize that temperature is influenced by another much more potent greenhouse gas, water vapor. Even if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere the Earth would be kept warm by it’s water.

      Sadly, no one notices that weather varies so much from one year to the next that it’s impossible to draw any meaning from the fact that this year it may have been hotter or 25 years ago it may have been colder. Ask yourself this question, what is the meaning of the average temperature of the Earth? Think about that because climate change pushers always rely on it for some odd reason. See if you can tell me in understandable terms what that average temperature means.

      The truth is that climate change must be happening or a large number of people who have built their entire careers on it will be out of a job. Some of those people would rather see the population of our planet drastically reduced. That means death to not millions but billions of human beings. And what will do that? Reduction of our standard of living so drastically that life spans are shortened, the sick who can’t cope will die… It’s not pretty to contemplate.

      To make it short, they needed a way to blame us, you and me for something that they can easily convince us is bad, rising temperatures, rising out of control. And what is the one thing we do that they can point to and say we have to stop it or else? We put CO2 into the atmosphere. And CO2 happens to have a property that will let it radiate some of the heat escaping from the surface back to the surface. Never mind that natural sources of CO2 dump many times more of it into our air than we do by burning fossil fuels. And they can’t blame water because they have no way to say stop the water from evaporating into the atmosphere. And never mind that the effects of CO2 is inversely proportional to the logarithm of the amount in the atmosphere and it’s close to saturated. Jo can point you to some excellent material on why CO2 isn’t a problem. Or, download and read The Skeptics Handbook.

      Tell me something that if you can convince me it’s true will alarm me just as much as you’re alarmed right now. Where on Earth is the weather significantly different now than it was 30 or 40 years ago? If you had not been told there’s a problem, would you notice anything different? I wouldn’t.

      The plain truth is that over the past at least 30 years a lot of predictions about the consequences of global warming have been made and not one of them has come true. Our newly minted Congress Woman, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, AOC for short, has been crying out loud and clear that we only have 12 years left to change our ways or…or what? She isn’t exactly clear about that. I have no idea where 12 years comes from. Have you.

      Other questions:

      Have you looked into the drowning polar bear alarm? Do you know how many polar bears are actually known to have drowned? I do. It’s exactly 4. Remember polar bears live and hunt in and around the water, sometimes under the polar ice. They are natural born swimmers and it took a fast moving storm that caught 4 of them out too far to get back to safety before the storm hit them. Their floating carcasses were seen from the air and suddenly polar bears are in danger of drowning. It made a few minutes of fame for the guy who discovered them but it did’t mean what he would have you believe it meant.

      Can you give me locations where there have been recent temperature records set and by how much the previous record was exceeded? Who took those readings and how was it done? Why is the new record something to be feared?

      Peter, when you look into the actual claims they evaporate for lack of support. There is nothing there.

      I’ll read any rebuttal you want to make.

      40

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Very much on the mark Roy.

        KK

        40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        No Fitzroy yet? Could it have been something I said?

        20

        • #
          Reed Coray

          As of the writing of this comment, Peter has also not answered the nine questions I posed in comment 1.1.2.1 above [http://joannenova.com.au/2019/06/weekend-unthreaded-262/#comment-2144184.] Peter and I are now in email contact with in part the goal of letting each other know there is a comment to be addressed. I just sent Peter an email requesting he answer the above nine questions. We’ll see.

          10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Reed,

            Please don’t hold your breath while waiting. I don’t want my name associated with a body count. ;-)

            00

  • #
    Greebo

    Hypocrisy? Stupidity? Both?

    US States Georgia and Alabama are introducing laws to prevent abortions if “the foetus’ heartbeat can be detected”.

    Major movie content producers Disney and Netflix have declared that they may boycott any production in these States if these laws pass. ( Both Disney and Netflix have filmed major films in Georgia, Avengers: End Game most recently. ) So, I find it interesting that Disney is in a major partnership with China, who, as we all know, has a human rights record second to none. Also, Netflix is quite happy to film in Egypt and Jordan. Egypt bans ALL abortions unless the mother’s life is at serious risk, and Jordan is only slightly less restrictive.

    Then, we have actress (?) Sophie Turner saying she “won’t work in States that deny woman’s rights” Ms Turner played Sansa Stark in Game of Thrones. Large segments of GOT where Ms Turner was featured were filmed in Northern Ireland, where abortions can lead to the mother being jailed.

    20

  • #
  • #
    Lewis P Buckingham

    AlGore effect. Coldest morning for ten years in Brisbane, more to come Courier Mail Paywalled.

    40

  • #

    Carbon Dioxide Absorption Power and the Greenhouse Gas Theory

    Eddie Banner

    Global warming is certainly happening and much has been written about the Greenhouse Gas effect and it’s claimed warming of the Earth’s surface. The ideas have been based on the ability of molecules of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere to absorb infrared photons of 15 micron wavelength, but very little, if anything, has been published about the power which can be handled by the atmospheric carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, GHG advocates claim a “radiative forcing” of about 2 Watts per m2 at the Earth’s surface. The following calculations show that for CO2 this GHG theory cannot be correct.

    Consider a standard column of the Earth’s atmosphere, based upon an area of 1 square metre of the Earth’s surface.

    The number of molecules in this column (1) is 2.137*10^29
    So at the current concentration of carbon dioxide, 400ppm, the number of molecules of carbon dioxide is (400*10^-6 )*(2.137*10^29 ) = approx 8.5*10^25

    From the HITRAN database (2), the ability of the CO2 molecule to absorb a 15 micron photon is given by its absorption cross-section, which is 5*10^-22 m2 per molecule. (Note that this database gives the value in cm^2 ).

    So, in an area of 1m^2 the number of molecules required to absorb 1 photon is 1/(5*10^-22) ; that is 2*10^21 CO2 molecules per m^2
    But there are 8.5*10^25 molecules of CO2 in the column.
    So the number of photons which can be absorbed is (8.5*10^25) / (2*10^21)
    = 4.3*10^4 photons per m^2

    Now, the energy of a 15 micron photon (3) is 1.3252*10^-20 Joule
    So the energy absorbed by all the CO2 in the column = (1.3252*10^-20) * 4.3*10^4 Joule
    = 5.7*10^-16 Joule per m^2
    This process can be repeated many times per second because the excited CO2
    molecule can release its energy by collision with any molecule in the atmosphere, ready to absorb another photon of the right energy. The mean free path in air at atmospheric pressure (760 torr) is about 0.1 micron, and the molecular velocity is 465 m/sec, and so the mean time between collisions is about 2*10^-10 second. So the process can be repeated about 5*10^9 times per second.
    Therefore, the maximum power which the carbon dioxide (at 400ppm) can handle is (5*10^9)*(5.7*10^-16) Joule per second per m^2, that is approx. 3*10^-6 Watts.m^-2

    Whereas the Greenhouse Gas theory requires about 2 W.m^-2 , which is about 700,000 times the power available. This seems to show that the Greenhouse Gas Theory is not valid for carbon dioxide.

    References
    (1) http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints3/976/
    (2) http://vpl.astro.washington.edu/spectra/co2pnnlimagesmicrons.htm
    (3) https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/energy-of-photon

    00