|
|
Weekend Unthreaded
…
9.1 out of 10 based on 60 ratings
|
JoNova A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX
|
I posted this on WUWT but thought it might also be interesting to post it here: I read a CBS article about the London Grenfell tower fire and it said “a noxious gas 10-times more lethal than carbon dioxide may have been released by the burning insulation underneath the cladding.” and I wondered if this was an honest mistake and they meant carbon monoxide or if they really think carbon dioxide is a lethal gas.
230
I don’t know where CBS got their “10 times more lethal” figure, but it’s probably something they made up, as is their wont. The IDLH* concentration for CO2 is 40,000 ppm; for CO, it’s 1200 ppm.
* Immediately dangerous to life or health.
150
I found this Engineering Toolbox that covers CO2 levels,
The effects of CO2 on adults at good health can be summarized to:
-normal outdoor level: 350 – 450 ppm
-acceptable levels: < 600 ppm
-complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 – 1000 ppm
-ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppm
-general drowsiness: 1000 – 2500 ppm
-adverse health effects may be expected: 2500 – 5000 ppm
-maximum allowed concentration within a 8 hour working period: 5000 – 10000 ppm
-maximum allowed concentration within a 15 minute working period: 30000 ppm
Extreme and Dangerous CO2 Levels
-slightly intoxicating, breathing and pulse rate increase, nausea: 30000 – 40000 ppm
-above plus headaches and sight impairment: 50000 ppm
-unconscious, further exposure death: 100000 ppm
110
The US Navy allows up to 8,000 ppm CO2 on subs.
161
I’m sure that many times during WW II it got higher than that in subs from all nations that were up against heavy ASW units at some time. They didn’t have the advantage of all the technology on modern subs. No scrubbers or charcoal filters or O2 generators, just emergency O2 in bottles and CO2 absorbent used when things got bad. Having read many accounts of US and U-boat submarine warfare during WW II I know that even during normal operations during a patrol in heavily patrolled enemy waters when US subs stayed submerged during the hours of daylight it was impossible to light a cigarette prior to surfacing and getting fresh air in the boat.
Here is an account from the USS Tang as written in ‘Clear The Bridge’ authored by that great subs commander Richard O’Kane. Tang had 22 US Navy aviators onboard rescued after being shot down when Task Force 58 had raided the “Japanese Pearl Harbor” at Truk atoll. The sub, still off Truk stayed submerged the whole day. I’ll let Commander O’Kane take it from there: “It was 16:00, and those men just getting acquainted with submarines might be changing their minds about the luxury of submerged cruising. As a practical demonstration the smoking lamp was lighted at 18:30, 1/2 hour before our intended surfacing. Our regular ship’s company watched for the word that was just passed was an invitation to smoke whether one really wanted to or not. Twenty-two men tried in vain, for there was not enough oxygen to keep a match burning or even a cigarette smoldering. Three blasts, and a few minutes later a suction, brought all hands back to the beauties of earth with it’s air well scrubbed by the seas………”
131
That’s the depletion of oxygen, not an effect of CO2. A fair test – not available in a sub – would be to replace some nitrogen with CO2.
30
What do you believe replaced the O2? The amount of nitrogen remains constant but the O2 is replaced with CO2 when the people breath. Sure oxygen is depleted but it is because it has been replaced by CO2 because of respiration of the crew. When inhaling, humans take in approximately 21 percent oxygen, 0.04 percent carbon dioxide and 79 percent nitrogen. On exhalation, humans give off approximately 16 percent oxygen, 4 percent carbon dioxide and 79 percent nitrogen, according to the BBC; only the amount of nitrogen remains constant in the exchange. Exhaled air also contains water vapor. Red blood cells travel by vein to the lung; they give of carbon dioxide and take in oxygen. https://www.reference.com/science/gases-humans-exhale-2e229a37e5894295
Thus it was the replacement of O2 by CO2 that made it impossible for the men to light a cigarette or keep a match lit. CO2 levels would have to be very high and that’s the point.
61
So man just adds the derdy carbon to the O2 that was there already. That’s why removing it is called scrubbing & why ‘carbon’ gets stigmatised as a derdy pollutant
31
I am sure that I read somewhere that nuclear submarines maintained CO2 levels in excess of 4000 ppm, because it is a fire retardant, and fire is the worst thing to have on any submarine, nuclear or otherwise.
100
Fire is also one of the worst things to happen on any surface vessel.
We had weekly lifeboat and fire drills on the Angelina Lauro (former WW2 hospital ship MS Oranje), sailing from Bremerhaven to Sydney in 1968, not via Suez Canal due to a kerfuffle.
60
Confined spaces with fire suck no matter where those spaces are but in a submerged sub the whole crew is doubly confined. Even worse imagine dealing with fire on the ISS or in the Soyuz capsule.
60
I thought submarines operate at upto 6000pm. Can someone clarify
00
To the Journo’s, “di”, meaning two, is obviously twice as bad as, “mon”, meaning one.
Isn’t an education in the classics, a wonderful thing to have?
Especially when everything you learn has little or no relevance to the real world.
71
The rules of argument are quite timeless
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sophistical-Refutations
30
A slight on the classics! Oh my! Actually the classics have a lot to say on the mearning of the words “true”, “false”, “good”, “bad/evil”, “society” and “self-serving-lying-irresponsible-procreattion-result-thereofs”. Science, not so much. IMO science needs the classics and vice versa.
50
I managed a bit with Greek: cretinous coprocephalic. It’s now one of my favourite insults.
30
Origins are actually through old French, via Latin, from Greek roots. The Mediterranean seems to have been rather incestuous with its languages. Never mind, it’s English with a great rhythm.
20
I love that one, Oh Greek Wonder, but I will have to learn to pronounce it before using it.
10
Easy:
cretin-us cop-ro-seffa-lick
^ ^ ^
I’ve marked the syllables with the accent.
“Arriving at the meaning is left as an exercise for the student.”
Enjoy! 🙂
00
But of course, the browser won’t accept that …
cretin-us cop-ro-seffa-lick
is a lot better.
10
Di-hydrogen monoxide… Yikes! Ban it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
61
A red thumb, uh uhh, some one annoyed
that greenies sign a petition banning
water. Maybe red thumb is Lewandowsky
experiencing a fit of recursive fury?
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/lewandowsky-peer-reviewed-study-includes-someone-32757-years-old/
61
Ok, you do that, I’ll switch to using Oxygen Di-hydride.
10
How many ppbv CO vs ppmv CO2 to kill all life in 5 minutes, including plants? CO is used in meat packaging to make meat “look” fresh. 🙁
30
CO binds strongly to Haemoglobin the Oxygen carrier in the blood, preventing it from carrying oxygen around the body, whereas CO2 is carried in a different way that doesn’t compete with Oxygen for transport. Therefore CO kills in the presence of Oxygen, while CO2 only kills by displacing the supply of Oxygen (suffocation).
Fwiw
60
The insulation was probably foamed polyurethane which breaks down in fire with the release of a lot of smoke and the release of an unknown lot of chemicals. Possibly the journalists were thinking(?) that the basic isocyanates component was released.
31
You can get up a good scare campaign just by using the word isocyanate or something like it. I once annoyed a public servant who was carrying on, when I pointed out that isocyanurate plastics had been used as tableware since the 1920’s.
40
Super Glue is a very good way of suturing wounds if there is no doctor around,according to a surf board rider I know who has received some bad cuts from coral reefs. The glue contains some kind of cyanide compound,I don’t have a tube handy to check this.
00
Cyanoacrylates:
– methyl 2-cyanoacrylate and ethyl 2-cyanoacrylates are the popular “super glues.”
– n-butyl cyanoacrylate and 2-octyl cyanoacrylate are used in medical, veterinary and first-aid applications.
00
I saw somewhere recently (Ewan Means maybe) that the new bigger wind turbine blades had to use epoxy for strength. Epoxy uses bi-phenols and the wonder was – if advertising that they used that terrible compound could be used as a turn-off for wind power enthusiasm
60
Not as long as they’re used in microwaveable food packaging & feminising all of us who cook in plastic
61
Good post on the waste disposal issues of “Unsustainable: 43 million tonnes of wind turbine blades by 2050.“ at NoTricksZone.
The blades are not recyclable, and are land-fill only waste. That’s an amazingly Green Solution, just like the steel reinforced concrete towers.
Let’s see:
-they’re an eyesore, a blight on the landscape being utterly fugly.
-they’re a hazard to all flying creatures including the rare and the protected.
-they’re a hazard to human health by generating infra-sound (low frequency sound)
-they’re a hazard to human health through intermittent generation of electricity. Refrigerators and freezers need a constant electricity supply to keep our food edible.
It’s a Grand Green Dream. The biggest problem, is the conversion of the dream to reality. Reality doesn’t match.
Electric Cars, Malcolm’s rave fave, were apparently under discussion at Germany’s Green Party Conference. They wanted to ban conventional (fossil fueled) cars by 2030. The debate become a little robust with the first Green Party member to become a State Minister blasting the idea, saying “You guys don’t have a clue! Yet the people say that beginning in the year 2030, we can do all this. Those are idiotic target dates.” Another intrusion of reality.
50
Someone did the math years ago though I don’t have the link anymore I remember the bottom line. If it were even possible using wind alone to supply the electrical generation demands of the NYC metropolitan area it would take an area equivalent to the entire state of Connecticut using the normal distribution of wind turbines.
20
Why can’t wind turbine blades just be burned in an appropriate incenerator with scrubbers and filters, LOL? The energy liberated could be even used to make electricity at a constant rate.
20
Incinerator.
00
Cyanate, cyanide, meh so what’s the diff?
30
Grenfell tower fire released hydrogen cyanide
Grenfell Tower victims ‘poisoned by cyanide’ after insulation ‘released highly toxic gas’
80
And we saw how well that worked.
I suspect that the components were tested, but the sub-systems, and system as a whole was not. Bad engineering.
Heads should roll
60
PIR is at times stated to be fire retardant, or contain fire retardants, however these describe the results of “small scale tests” and “do not reflect [all] hazards under real fire conditions”;
in a range of flaming, non-flaming, and poorly ventilated fires, and concluded that PIR generally released a considerably higher level of toxic products than the other insulating materials studied (PIR > PUR > EPS > PHF; glass and stone wools also studied). In particular, hydrogen cyanide is recognised as a significant contributor to the fire toxicity of PIR (and PUR) foams
breakdown of isocyanurate bonds is reported to start above 200 °C, compared with urethane at 100 to 110 °C.
Entirely possible that some cyanide would be released by breakdown of the foam.
And aluminium foil would do nothing to add to fire resistance.
This has been criminal negligence.
40
It may be just an ignorant mistake, given the sad state of general chemistry knowledge in the world. I wonder how many people actually know there two common oxides of carbon. Or for that matter how many actually understand that when a climate change proponent says “carbon” what’s meant is carbon dioxide?
151
It is the sad state of practically everything that is even remotely relevant to maths, science and engineering.
There is apparently, a dearth of people with the ability and the desire to teach those subjects, prior to tertiary level.
You can get a lot more money in industry; than you can make, in trying to impart knowledge and understanding to kids, who don’t see the relevance of knowing or understanding anything, when you can just Google an answer.
70
“You can get a lot more money in industry; than you can make, in trying to impart knowledge and understanding to kids,…”
–
Those who choose a teaching career rather than the ‘lucre’ of industry, do so for the ‘joy and fulfilment’ of educating and shaping young minds …… in all its possibilities.
30
My chemistry teacher at secondary school had a full class every class. He believed in “hands on” and his classes were much better than the annual Guy Fawkes celebrations (fireworks).
What’s more, we all learnt chemistry… I’ve never forgotten Ammonium Tri-Iodide. 🙂
10
CO is quite deadly in an enclosed space. Resulting from incomplete combustion, where oxygen supply may be limited, if youre lucky you’ll wake up with a thumping headache.
Wasn’t the combustible sandwiched between aluminium, which could constrain the oxygen supply?
(The great thing about speculating is everything is possible, unconstrained by facts).
30
Marty,
Aluminum burns well if heated sufficiently and is highly exothermic….it burns very hot if it has sufficient air. All those conditions exist if the cladding is a thin veneer of Aluminum sandwiching a plastic starter fuel.
50
Powdered Alu and rusty iron make thermite from memory…..good for welding railway rails together, pretty lethal in any space once it gets going….it can burn through car engines, steel, etc.
If the alu cladding was hot enough and was in contact with rust…well….
30
Metallic aluminum will burn if made hot enough, not to mention its low melting point, 1,221 ° F, easily reached in a fire. So a fire safety measure using aluminum seems a little shaky to me.
I once saw the result of an engine fire on the right engine nacelle of an old DC-6 being flown by no less than the FAA. They were flying the instrument approach at the airport where I earned my license to measure what the glide slope actually was vs. what it was supposed to be, a regular check they do. The engine caught fire on final while close enough to land without crashing. The disabled plane was parked near the tower for a week or more where I could walk up and take a good look. It was clear that the fire, fanned by the draft from maintaining a flyable airspeed had actually burned the aluminum. Of course the situation wasn’t helped by what looked like many flying hours of accumulated leaking engine oil all over everything aft of the engine. Tells you something about the FAA too, maybe.
So much for aluminum.
40
Of course, Aluminium is a great store of energy, thinking about all that cheap electricity that’s needed to extract it from its ore and why so much energy can be saved from recycling it. Aluminium is protected from combustion by its oxide coating but heàted sufficiently that will collapse exposing the Al to combustion.
10
The noxious gas was probably from the burning combustibles in the cladding rather than co2.
20
Cyanide is the gas they were referring to as being produced by the insulating cladding that was on fire. It was also reported that some people in hospital were treated with ‘anti-cyanide’ medication.
30
Much as the German Nazis ordained, by UN decree literally nothing is as dangerous as tobacco smoke.
Imagining Non-Existent Dangers. Frank Davis, June 16th, 2017.
10
Nothing to do with CO2 – some plastic foams emit CYANIDE gas when they burn. That’s why there is careful control on plastic foams in aircraft upholstery. Don’t know if the Grenfell foam insulation was that kind, though.
00
In some blog discussion about whether GHGs can cause warming, I heard a new to me hypothesis. The GCMs model daylight. At night, there is a reversal of some critical values so the effect over a day can balance to zero change or a small value compared to what is being pushed at present. Maybe this can be seen in TOA in/out balances over a day. Maybe not.
Has anyone reference to this putative day/night balance cancelling out?
Geoff
61
It was a long time ago, and knowledge has expanded since then, but …
We were taught the expiration cycle of plants, at school. It basically consisted of plants inhaling CO2 during the daylight hours, as part of photosynthesis, and exhaling oxygen, using the carbon to build plant structure. That cycle was reversed at night, although for the life of me, I can’t remember why. I did say that it was a long time ago.
Was anybody else taught this?
40
My recollection is that; respiration is carried out continuously by the plant (producing CO2) whereas photosynthesis (>O2) occurs only in the presence of (sun)light, giving net emissions of Oxygen during the day and CO2 at night.
80
So plants were removed from hospital wards at night. (nowadays ‘Infection Control’ just won’t allow flowers on wards at all, yet now they’ve got Superbugs. Wonder why?).
50
Bugs live shorter lived on copper surfaces than stainless steel, yet isnt used….
20
Because it would be maintenance intensive I suspect though there could be other reasons like it’s a great conductor of electricity. In the US and I expect in other developed nations, the building codes for hospitals oriented to minimize fire and other hazards, and to avoid sources that may effect modern diagnostic equipment from any source, including static electricity, are quite extensive.
00
It costs more, is softer (it pits) and is more reactive. Plus the first rule of decontamination is to clean. Once a surface is clean it is clean so the inhibitory affect of copper is irrelevant in the context of hospital cleaning regimes.
00
The charge nurse in Perth Royal tolerated an Easter posey I brought in for a few days before saying the infection people would be coming down on her for it.
They are all targeted on their hospital acquired infections & now the Hospital use it as an excuse for getting you out of their beds earlier – you’ll be safer at home – yet the only hospital acquired infection I’ve caught was at home via someone else who’d picked up a terrible cough in hospital.
10
bullocky, that is the gist of it but of course there are various complications. It is the relative activities of respiration, transpiration and photosynthesis that determines the flux of gases. Photosynthesis does not happen at night but on the other hand respiration can be faster during the day due to promoted gas and water exchange and a higher temperature that increases metabolic activity than at night.
00
Look it up!
25
I did. It wasn’t that illuminating.
41
I think it was Willis Eschenbach over at WUWT who posted some articles on daily CO2 levels.
From memory CO2 levels are around their highest around dawn but then begin to drop quite rapidly as plants take in and photosynthesise the CO2 with it reaching the lowest concentrations shortly before sunset before then rising again. Phtosynthesis is highest during the higher levels of morning CO2 and drops back throughout the afternoon, higher CO2 levels allow higher rates of photosynthesis (with less water being needed) and thus much greater growth of all vegetation.
50
The actual Plant Pathways are important too
C4 are only a small % of species yet provide Highest % of food!
C4 Plants dominate weed species in agriculture but C3 grow better in high CO2 environment so weeds are reduced naturally. But come to cold weather (Ice Age stuff) C4 plants dominate because they are drier and C4 plants utilise H2O much more economically!
Interesting paper from Matt Ridley back in 2012 easily explained.
The world is getting colder, and science should concentrate on plants that will give more food in the future. Instead of RET, LET and Windmills! A very Finkel subject. GI should look it up too!
40
“Was anybody else taught this?”
I was taught by some nice governmental horticulture folk, USDA forestry next door neighbors, that daytime photosynthesis is mostly reducing root water to stored hydrogen while expiring O2 and water vapor for cooling. At night time that hydrogen powers the the reduction of 6(CO2) with 5(root water) expiring 6(O2) while creating cellulose (C6H10O5)n. Using isolation as an only source of power. You thought bees were busy!
Between generation of hydrocarbon fuel, and plant forced evaporation of water to prevent overheating an 8″ oak tree used between 200 and 400 gallons of water each day in the growing seasons! The total plant leaf area for insolation is 150 times the surface area of this Earth. This huge consumption of insolation produces no increase in temperature (sensible heat), but only fuel for “heat” later. Later is about 10^6 years for ‘good coal’; and the cycle repeats. Trees and some very technical ‘nuclear’; are the ‘only’ viable sources and storage of ‘renewable energy’. All else is a deliberate SCAM for your hard earned money while also ‘educating’, your children into becoming ignorant sheep asking wolves, ‘whats for dinner?’.
All the best!-will-
50
Recent paper blames rapid loss of large mass of Antarctic sea ice during 2016 El Nino time span on a series of very strong storms carrying hot air. See WUWT for more detail. The claim is that IIRC correctly some 30,000 cubic miles of ice melted in a week or two. This seems a large mass of ice to melt from hot air in that time.
Has anyone seen a reference to the physics showing that this is possible? Air does not carry all that much energy c.f. ice, it lacks density.
Geoff
[Typo’s corrected] Fly
52
Good point, but I think the humidity of the air may be the controlling factor. Low humidity air, even at low temperatures, will cause ice to sublime, i.e., evaporate without going through the liquid phase.
40
Sound science jorge.
30
On a freezing or below winter’s day in England our washing on the line dried by sublimation. After being put out it froze as stiff as a board but then softened as it dried (the ice sublimated).
70
But the up side is minus temps are great for turbo cars….more 02 per stroke..
🙂
10
OS
Wouldn’t that be for any IC engine?
10
For turbos as they usually have an air intercooler, the colder air asists droppping the intake charge air temp lower – due to heat soak from the engine being reduced due to colder ambient air acting on the intercooler ( subarus have intercooler on top of motor ).
As to the actual percentage affect, not sure. I do know the engine does have more power when its -5C
http://stratifiedauto.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/hot-and-cold-air-temperature-difference-mazdaspeed6.jpg
00
The Haynes RR Merlin Owner’s Workshop Manual explains why RR stuck with fuel being introduced into the supercharger intake. They got increased charge density due to the evaporative temperature drop of around 20 C IIRC. Which you don’t get with direct injection.
00
Another Ian:
Also that at that stage the British Aero industry lacked the technical knowhow to produce direct injection. Even had they done so, there was the cascading problem of cost, manufacturing, and servicing them (with no trained personnel).
Too much of the British industry was ‘seat of the pants’ design, fine while they had Mitchell and Sydney Camm but…
Bayerische Flugzeugwerke AG later Messerschmitt alone employed over 10 times as many engineers as the entire British Industry.
00
Is that what happened to our washing in Scotland. I never could understand it when I was a kid, although my Dad probably did explain it to me (he knew about EVERYTHING) and I’d forgotten.
30
“my Dad probably did explain it to me (he knew about EVERYTHING) and I’d forgotten.”
Isn’t it amazing the vast amount both ‘your’ parents learn between ‘your’ age of 17yr and 21yr? 🙂
50
It’s the wind and wave action from the storm that would break up the ice and carry it outside the relatively regular and colder circumpolar current into warmer waters.
This kind of thing is why I keep arguing against skeptics accepting the premise of the alarmist claim that sea ice is a viable proxy for global temperatures. It’s not melting that causes the relatively quick major changes of the metrics of sea ice, it’s wind and wave action. IMO sea ice at either pole is a miserable proxy for global temperatures/climate except when analyzed in multi-decadal time frames. And yet millions of words and uncountable hours are spent discussing and arguing about extent, area, volume and amount of “Multi-year” ice over much shorter periods as if it is the Holy Grail of global climate/temperature indicators. Why? Because we skeptics initially accepted the premise that less sea ice means more warming of sea water. A premise that is based on questionable science at best.
Besides all that, so much of the argument is with mind numbed buffoons who will continue to argue that sea ice is disappearing permanently when it isn’t. For example right now according to the US Navy National Ice Center Arctic sea ice extent is right at the 30 year mean. http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/
Can someone show me an article or paper from an alarmist organization/”news” outlet heralding that fact?
92
There is also an unstated assumption that the distribution of salt in the oceans is uniform.
61
I hope you remembered to send that link to Dr Wadham. Sea ice in the Arctic is still supposed to disappear by
2014,2016201720182020, or whenever. He needs to know 🙂There’s a very timely post on NoTricksZone about the returning ice.
I like to keep an eye on the Southern Ocean and its weather through the Australean Bureau of Meteorology’s weather maps page, in particular, their Southern Hemisphere MSLP Analysis. The link in the tab links to a pdf file which changes with the weather. It’s rather interesting.
21
The bulk of the sea-ice that melted was quite thin ice – around 3ft (~1metre) thick – and that would be vulnerable to storms, wind and wave movement as well as even a small temperature change.
30
RAH June 25, 2017 at 5:53 am
“This kind of thing is why I keep arguing against skeptics accepting the premise of the alarmist claim that sea ice is a viable proxy for global temperatures.”
RAH,,
How much alarmists BS must you promote? Why do you publicly ‘accept’ that the claimed average ‘global temperature’ has some possible meaning besides “tool to scam? There is absolutely nothing of ‘global temperature’ that has any scientific meaning whatsoever.
30
I believe that the satellite data and radiosonde data are valuable and pretty darn accurate representations of temperatures globally every where but at the poles. I believe that the data they produce is reasonably accurate and quite useful for many reasons and applications. I also believe that uncorrupted and unadjusted and honestly presented surface temperature data is very valuable though that is not what we have. And globally there isn’t even close to enough surface coverage to declare an average global temperature as they have been doing while being very selective of what station reports they use in order to skew the results the way they desire. I also believe that SSTs and temperatures at depth from Argo buoys is valuable data when not corrupted or adjusted. The modes of gathering information are not the fault here. Data obtained by as accurate means as possible and faithfully recorded is part of the foundation of good science. It’s lying cheating greedy agenda driven scum bags that manipulate the data and sensors to support an agenda that are the problem. It is not the concept of a global average temperature that is wrong, it’s those skewing it and failing to explain it’s limitations in accuracy that are the problem.
Why are you against legitimate efforts to learn as much as possible about our earth and it’s meteorology and climate and to honestly analyze that data to a global average?
Global Temperature drop during the LIA had been ESTIMATED by proxy data (Greenland Ice Cores, sediments, etc). Next time such an event comes I think it would be very valuable to have direct temperature data. Don’t you? It’s a good think to know for certain if such events as the MWP and LIA were in fact global instead of regional don’t you think? It’s nice to know how much and where the over all temperature dropped due to the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo and regional temperatures drop from smaller eruptions don’t you think? Having a reasonably accurate global temperature allows the ability to detect and quantify intensity and extent of the anomalies within the whole.
20
RAH June 25, 2017 at 11:30 pm
“I believe that the satellite data and radiosonde data are valuable and pretty darn accurate representations of temperatures globally every where but at the poles.”
OK fine ‘representations of temperature’. What meaning does ‘temperature’ have besides “representing the sensible heat of a fixed amount of some particular matter”? How can an ‘average’ of such ‘temperature’ have any meaning? I said (“There is absolutely nothing of ‘global temperature’ that has any scientific meaning whatsoever.”), you reply:
“Having a reasonably accurate global temperature allows the ability to detect and quantify intensity and extent of the anomalies within the whole.”
The whole what? This is what sets you apart as a true Climate Clown, or at least a well brainwashed lukewarm-er. You spout the party mantra of “GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALY” just as though this has some meaning besides SCAM!!
Ava June 26, 2017 at 1:01 am
“Global average temperature had a meaning…”
Can you possibly state what that meaning might have been?
21
BTW radiosondes (weather balloon data) are accurate at the poles and I did not intend to indicate they are not.
10
Global average temperature had a meaning that has become completely subverted by bias in the selection, adjustment & reselection of stations.
10
There was hot water in the Coral Sea in 2016 that moved quite rapidly south by ocean circulation confined by the Australian east coast. That carries a huge amount of heat south from the tropical Pacific. The hot water melts the ice. In 2016 it was more heat than usual.
The subsequent melting of the sea ice exposes more water surface that releases heat faster than water insulated by a layer of sea ice.
This is a self-regulating process complicated by the time scale of ocean circulation. Hot water causes sea ice to melt that allows greater rate of heat loss from the water surface to space thereby cooling the water. Less sea ice means more heat out of the climate system.
10
another agw hardcore group forming: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/26315-desperate-globalists-launch-new-climate-group-with-former-obama-energy-secretary
40
“… billionaire plutocrats of the ‘green’ Learjet-and-limousine set.”
I like that. That sums them up perfectly.
60
RW
Tesla will feel slighted!
31
Wasn’t my quotation – don’t blame me. 😉
30
Another Ian June 25, 2017 at 7:40 am
“Tesla will feel slighted!”
Nikola Tesla is long dead, but still doing grave spinnings over your nonsense! 🙂
20
He probably already is over the name I used
20
What’s the point of your comment.
11
And if their total knowledge of the science involved could be combined it would not fill one of my wife’s smallest measuring spoons. If it could they would give up this crusade and go get a day job.
41
Roy Hogue June 25, 2017 at 7:31 am
“And if their total knowledge of the science involved could be combined it would not fill one of my wife’s smallest measuring spoons. If it could they would give up this crusade and go get a day job.”
The
Uni-partyWatermelon-party has\wants\needs no physical sciences; only a convenient buzzword for propaganda. 🙂20
That, of course is he real problem. They want what they want and are willing to use any means necessary. And these days, any means necessary is beginning to include violence.
00
Australians hibernating half the year,
Won’t find electric charges quite as dear.
The Holocene had climate changes too,
That weren’t caused by too much CO2.
Alarmist politicians who ban coal,
May soon see climate skeptics top the poll.
On climate true predictions, the end score,
Is, skeptics quite a few and none for Gore.
160
BAD TIMES ARE JUST AROUND THE CORNER was one of Noël Coward’s hit songs, and it is surely time for it to be revived in Australia.
We are heading into a depression, bought on by incompetence and arrogance on one hand and stupidity and wishful thinking on the other. There is little that can be said about the present Turnbull government which would get by the moderators, and no hope that they will change. The Liberals show no signs of comprehension of the real problems that Australia faces and think that petty little political games will save them.
The electricity supply has become a compromise between bad choices and unbelievable options. The resulting soaring electricity prices will close a lot of industry, esp. among the smaller companies with resultant unemployment. Supermarkets rely on refrigerated display cabinets and cold stores so the price of food will go up. Faced with increase after increase in their bills, and doubts about job security, the consumer will not have anything to spend anyway, so the Retail Sector will collapse into a welter of stock clearance and bankruptcies. With a depression inevitable the Turnbull government will first try denial then dither as the situation becomes irretrievable and then collapse into internal bickering.
The Left have won the battle with lies and relentless propaganda, and will win the next election even with their present leader. Years of indoctrination of the young will be less effectual than intended due to their common sense, but the desire for a better future will cause them to vote for the Left. The welfare recipients will do likewise, expecting further handouts and those on the public payroll who believe in Magic Pudding economics will expect prosperity to follow for them.
The incoming Labor government will try the only remedy they know, namely pouring huge sums of borrowed money down the drain. They hope inflation will reduce the debt before it has to be repaid. The joy of the Left will reduce as the economy does not improve; rather finding that tax receipts have diminished and the Welfare outlay increased, so the deficit will be climbing and lenders suddenly having second thoughts. Their joy will turn to fury as they cannot grasp that their policies are wrong and they will resort to following the precedent set by the Liberals “If it has money we can grab some”. Superannuation will be raided again, probably by outright confiscation of any amount over whatever limit they dream up, exempting the public servants and themselves. As safe as a bank will be a sour joke.
For all that they may well win a second term as no-one will think the fractious Liberal party a serious choice. By the end of that term Australia will be disintegrating, both socially and politically. I cannot see how we can avoid that future, and even though I won’t be alive to see it, I wish there was some way to stop the collapse.
171
Graeme
In that vein
‘A TIP: THE LIBERALS’ CIVIL WAR WILL GET WORSE ON MONDAY”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/a-tip-the-liberals-civil-war-will-get-worse-on-monday/news-story/29775594a927c373d58e7c386933436e
41
Andrew Bolt may just be on the money.
21
The Liberals aren’t going to have a civil war. They are far too polite. They will wait for everybody else to go first.
Hmm, perhaps that is what they mean by, “A Civil War”? “I will let you start first”, “No, no. after you”.
61
Liberals in this country don’t make up much of a percentage of gun ownership so they aren’t too interested in the Civil war either, though to listen to their rhetoric one might think so.
31
One can only hope, but I have little faith that things will improve much with people like Greg Hunt, Pyne, Frydenberg, Birmingham**, Morrison and all the Photios selections from NSW.
**Birmingham and Pyne have control of the SA branch (esp. now that Bernadi has given up on the Libs.) and it has performed like a soggy noodle over the last decade or more.
31
Civil war, military intelligence, climate scientist.
One and the same.
41
Come Monday
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/pyne-boasts-liberal-left-rules-samesex-marriage-coming-soon/news-story/d4f6e2adb2ae16d677eb551b67877ea3
00
Bad times are indeed around the corner. There are three elephants in the room that the pollies and most of the media won’t recognise (publicly at least). They are, the islamic community which will not integrate into our society and a substantial proportion of which simply wants to kill us all, the total fraud of global warming aka climate change, and the incredible debt overhang facing the world and to a lesser degree Australia which will probably lead to world chaos and maybe a major depression,in the not too distant future.
50
Slowly, firms are starting to tell the truth about our economically debilitating energy policy. CSR warns of threat …
Building products supplier CSR is the latest manufacturer to warn runaway energy prices are threatening the viability of local businesses and could trigger plant closures and job losses.
“Manufacturing businesses across Australia face the real prospect of plant closures and job losses in high energy intensive industries if this situation continues,” Mr Sutcliffe said.
https://twitter.com/alan_john_moran/status/878372147206381568
80
Mark M:
But will they be heard in Canberra? There seems to be nothing but complacency there, with all the announced “fixes” taking place some years off, except for gas supply where they think that after the Christmas break will be soon enough.
40
Politicians award themselves a 2% pay rise for destroying Australia …
The pay of a junior federal politician will rise to more than $203,000 a year from July 1, after the Remuneration Tribunal announced the 2 per cent pay rise for federal parliamentarians and senior public servants.
Politicians will also secure a tax cut once the Government’s deficit levy on Australia’s highest income earners is lifted on July 1, which will lower the marginal tax rate to 47 per cent.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-23/politicians-under-fire-for-pay-increases-while-penalty-rates-cut/8646872
50
Just think how much the pollies would be giving us if their remuneration was performance-based.
40
I keep noticing references to Michael Mann being or about to be bankrupt.
https://www.iceagenow.info/agw-golden-boy-michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy/
http://principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/michael-manns-legal-case-caught-in-a-quote-fabrication-fib/
And some others. Probably WUWT has the most realistic view of it, that Mann isn’t even close to bankruptcy quite yet. But his court cases appear to not be doing well. Yet in spite of that some players with money to burn are willing to keep backing his bets. It’s scary how ruthless this climate change crusade has become. And scarier still how much money is backing climate change compared with the almost no funding at all that keeps a few stalwarts like Jo Nova putting out the truth.
70
Well, #8 finally was approved instead languishing in moderation. And I’m curious, I did a search looking for more recent information about Mann’s various legal fights and while there’s a lot of later stuff than what I posted above, I don’t see anything indicating that he has or will give it up.
Does anyone have a more definitive status about this mess?
It looks like Mann will go on to the bitter end supported by deep pockets backers and there’s not going to be a good definitive way to bring this trouble maker to heel, even though in court he’s apparently licked. He seems bent on muddying the water and making trouble forever.
He’s the one man in addition to Al Gore that I would most like to see so discredited that no one, not even the most diehard climate change pusher will ever mention again.
30
PS: I admit to limited time to search for what I’m looking for. So if you can answer me I’ll be very grateful.
10
Thanks for those links, Roy.
This Arstechnica article from December last year is quite thorough. Apparently the suit against the National Review has been disallowed by the court, but the suit against Steyn and Simberg is to go ahead.
Judith Curry filed an amicus curiae brief in January this year. I get the impression the unfailingly civil Dr Curry has had enough. I was looking for scorch marks on the paper. Mind you, it’s great reading.
Mark Steyn has written an update for his fans and well-wishers (Jan 31st, this year).
There is more to come.
Enjoy.
(google searched using “michael mann defamation law suit.”)
10
Thanks.
I’ll read these with great relish. Mark steyn’s biting wit is worth the time all by itself.
10
This is the whole 9 yards rolled up int one big falsehood.
I suspect that no judge in this world got the slightest education in numerical analysis at law school, much less even the basics of science and evidence as meaningful in science. The average juror with any understanding of the situation would be dismissed by plaintiff’s counsel immediately, leaving only the ignorant to decide the case.
The fact that a mere weather forecaster debunked the hockey stick will be dismissed because he lacks the credentials the plaintiff will demand adds insult to injury. Let’s never mind that Anthony Watt’s debunking stands up under anyone’s honest examination to this day as far as I know.
So the deck is stacked in favor of propaganda and worse by circumstances alone.
And Michael Mann marches on…
10
THE WEEK IN PICTURES: TOXIC DEMOCRATS EDITION.
30
Junk Science Week:
A bleak scene from the driverless, fried-foodless, freedomless utopia envisioned by our central-planning overlords
50
Junk Science Week: You think ‘peer review’ proves anything about the reliability of science?
Donna Laframboise: Journals can define peer review however they please, with no minimum standards no enforcement mechanisms
70
Look, I know I harp on about this absolute base Load requirement of 18,000MW, but until someone actually addresses the situation in a rational manner, then all you will see is the same old same old calling it a ‘myth’.
Then, and I think it will be sooner rather than later, someone will ask the most obvious question of all ….. “why aren’t those coal fired plants closing.” Someone will then have to either clamber down, or look for someone else to clamber down for them, and explain just why. Either that, or someone will ‘miraculously’ discover that load curve and ask the question as to where that 18,000MW will come from.
All I can say is that coal fired power has a long way to run yet, because, that being all we have here in Australia, then there is nothing else which can actually supply that huge amount of power. In reality, what will most probably happen is that new coal fired plants will HAVE to be constructed to replace those older ones as their use by date arrives, because there is NOTHING else which can supply what will ALWAYS be required.
We can look on it as an overall requirement for the whole of Australia, that 18,000MW absolute requirement, but it is worthwhile looking at it on a State by State basis, which is also an interesting exercise.
All of this data comes from 4.30AM on Saturday morning 24th June.
I’ll break it down to that State level by naming the State, the actual power consumption at that time, (4.30AM) the actual power generation from just the coal fired power plants in that State, and the last figure is the total Nameplate of all those coal fired power plants in that same State.
New South Wales – 6620MW – 5300MW – Total Nameplate – 10,240MW.
Queensland – 5130MW – 5400MW – Total Nameplate – 8200MW
Victoria – 4100MW – 4650MW – Total Nameplate – 4650MW
South Australia – 1200MW
Tasmania – 1000MW
The anomaly for NSW is the 46 year old Liddell Plant which is mainly used as rolling reserve for when the others are out due to maintenance so that 2000MW actual brings that NSW real total back to 8240MW, and in reality, that Liddell plant could be the next one to close, and that’s when you’ll see stress on power security.
At that time of 4.30AM, in NSW, all plants had all their units running and nearly all of them were delivering at less than their full rated power. Similar was happening in Queensland where only Gladstone had units off line, and most others were delivering less than their full rated power also, but note Victoria, where all of their units at both plants were delivering their full rated power, as, in all probability, they were also supplying some power into South Australia. Now Hazelwood has closed, the extra strain on just those remaining 10 units in Victoria means that any maintenance down time has to be covered from the other plants in Victoria, already constricted by the cost of the Natural Gas, and that places stress on power security in probably three States if the hydro in Tasmania is low.
Now, add up the total power consumption across all those five named States. That total is 18,050MW, the usual Base load.
At this same time, all the wind plants across those same five States were delivering 1000MW (at a CF of 22.7%) and overall, wind was supplying 5.5% of actual consumption, and from that time (4.30AM) onwards, total power consumption rose, and wind power generation fell, so that when the morning peak arrived at around 9AM, wind was 500MW, and actual consumption was 22,000MW, so wind was supplying 2.2% of the requirement.
They can call Base Load a myth, but when the crunch comes and it just HAS to be explained, a hell of a lot of people will be looking for rocks to crawl under and hide.
Tony.
341
Thanks Tony,
I have forwarded this on to Angus Taylor mp. He seems to be analysing Finkels report.
100
I say bring on more coal plant closures.
The only way politicians and the sheeple will see any common sense is to have a massive economic catastrophe with the four eastern state grids going down simultaneously after the next one or two coal plants are shut down.
Likely these plants won’t be mothballed, they will be deliberately destroyed or at least not shut down in a way that they can be restarted easily (eg no purging of the boiler tubes, not keeping the turbines rotating slowly to avoid bearing set).
This will cause a massive economic crisis and probable civil unrest and people will suffer rolling blackouts (depending on if the wind is blowing or not) for years until more proper coal, gas or nuclear power plants can be built.
92
There may be an economic crisis starting this year. China shook the world back in 2015 when it had a “loss of confidence” in their sharemarket. Their Government spent hugely to prop it up. They had already spent hugely to hold off recession from the 2008 crash. I’m watching October this year for a global monetary (credit) economic crisis like 1999’s one, which will drive most nations into recession over 2018. It’s not a case of if it will happen, but when it will happen. Then the loss of complacency because the economy is presently good, will be rather interesting to watch.
If I’m right with my timing, and next winter plays its share too, it will be very interesting.
Maybe coal power will become popular again.
10
China’s premier Li Keqiang is promoting innovation-driven development, which should stave off any depression and bring about profound changes throughout the world.
If there is a crash it won’t be universal, Beijing has a very large printing press and new silk roads. But in the aftermath of a financial crash in the first world, the yuan would become a leading contender to pick up the world crown.
00
sophocles,
A quick search with ‘Market crash follows solar cycles’ reveals that many market operators believe that ‘markets’ are subject to solar cycle effects, though some says it’s a ‘solar-lunar’ cycling effect.
All in all, most of the available literature gives what appears to be on the surface, reasonable statistics. However proper robust causation/correlation analysis for why there should be such cycles is notably absent.
10
That’s all true Tom, so few economists see a crash coming because they give no consideration to the effect of the gas giants on our yellow star.
10
If it happens, I will be happy to explain my reasoning. If it doesn’t, I’ll keep watching. I will say this, it has nothing to do with the stars, nor has it anything to do with the sunspot cycle.
It has a lot to do with our present banking systems and tax systems. You could read Dr Michael Hudson’s blog … (www.michael-hudson.com). He’s usually on the button.
10
Some scientists thought they would do a paper debunking the idea that the solar cycle has anything to do with economic activity on earth, but they found strong correlation and became converts.
http://www.socionomics.net/2011/09/article-the-sunspot-cycle-and-stocks/
00
Luckily, all this data I use is readily available, so numbers can be quite easily verified.
Add up the figures in that second section for NSW, Qld, and Vic, and the total is 15,350MW.
Of that total consumption, (18,050MW) the total supplied by all fossil fuels is 17,000, so with coal fired supplying 15,350MW, that means gas fired (the other component in fossil fuel supply) is supplying 1,650MW, or 9% of the total 18,050MW, so the answer to supplying Base Load is not going to come for gas fired power.
Of the remaining amount (18,050MW minus fossil 17,000MW) wind supplied 1100MW and Hydro supplied 600MW, and Solar zero)
It adds up to slightly more than the total 18,050MW, but you need to realise that generated power needs to be a tiny bit more than what is actually being demanded, losses etc.
For the fossil, wind, and hydro totals, I use this reference. (The Aneroid site, and you can navigate by changing the date and clicking on the relevant fuel types down the right hand side there)
For actual totals from each State I use the AEMO site, and that also is easy to navigate.
For actual power plant totals, I use the nemweb dispatch site (at this link) and for that day and time, (Saturday 23Jun2017 at 4.31AM) just scroll down till you find that day and time click on the link and save the zip file to downloads and then click on that zip file to open it, and it opens up in an XL spreadsheet, and you can see individual totals for each unit of each power plant.
So we had 18,050MW actual need, made up of coal fired power (85%) gas fired power, (9%) wind, (6%) and hydro. (3%) adding up to 103%, so 3% in extra generation over and above actual consumption, and that would account for losses etc.
So, as you can see from that, take away coal fired power and there goes ….. well, Australia really just shuts down.
Tony.
230
So then, that accounts for the Base Load.
Everything in the way of daily power consumption above that Base Load is referred to as Peaking Power, and as I have shown you here before, there are two distinct Load Curves for Summer and Winter. The Summer one has a single and larger peak, and the Winter one has two smaller peaks.
In Summer, the average Peak comes in at around 28,000MW to 30,000MW, and can sometimes be as high as 32,000MW.
In Winter, the morning Peak can be around 22,000MW to 24,000MW, and the evening Peak around 26,000MW to 28,000MW.
So, as you can see now, that is around 4,000MW (AM Winter) to 12,000MW (Summer Peak) higher than the Base Load.
What happens then, especially in Summer, is that those coal fired plants ramp up to their full total delivery, (well close to it depending on their age as we noticed with Hazelwood not being able to reach its full 1600MW after 53 years)
Also, all those smaller gas fired plants come on line as well, as required, because they can ramp up at short notice. (those OCGT plants anyway)
The grid controllers in each State watch the totals like hawks, and they can see when extra power will be needed, and each new plant needs to come on line. They have a dedicated total from coal fired power, and the rest is just adjustments on top of that as required.
When the wind drops, then more backup plants come on line, or, as the wind rises, then they shut them down. That can be easily seen as each new (backup) plant comes on line with an instantaneous price spike at the AEMO site followed by the cost settling down to the new higher, price.
Take away coal fired power and the grid will become progressively more difficult to control.
Add up the total for all remaining coal fired plants, their maximum for each unit, and the total is around 22,300MW, so start taking them away, and then see what happens, and realistically, we are almost at that stage now, because take away that almost 50 year old Liddell (2000MW) and you only have enough to cover the Base Load plus a little, so then closures for unit maintenance become problematic for the grid.
Trust me on this. Coal fired power has a long life yet, and it’s only being held back because of political weakness from every one of them.
Power consumption is an actual physical thing, and no amount of calling it a myth, or hoping people will somehow reduce consumption is a dream, because all that has happened in the last nine years I have been watching is a slight increase in consumption.
Tony.
231
Hate to ask Tony, clearly a silly question, but what is Australia’s Baseload requirement for a 24-hour period? Is the 18,000 MW figure basically constant, to keep the place running?
21
James,
(and again, everyone, see how difficult this is to explain so it can be understood.)
Think of it this way.
The Base Load is the lowest point that actual total electrical power consumption falls to, so that absolute requirement is there all the time.
The peak just rises from that point.
The Base Load is what is being consumed all the time, and above that, it’s the power that is ‘turned on’ during the day, above that Base. (if I’ve explained that well enough to be comprehended, and this is no personal refelection on you James, as nine out of ten people cannot see it)
I have two images of Load Curves at this link. The top image is a typical Summer Load Curve, and the lower one is a typical Winter Load Curve.
Note how it never drops below that figure of 18000MW, so draw a line from left to right at that point. Everything below that is consumed ALL the time, and everything above that is the extra which is consumed during the day.
Tony.
112
PA Pundits won’t show me the graphs. I am really hurt, and I am going to have a cry, because nobody loves me.
21
Hmm! That’s a little disconcerting.
Thanks for mentioning this Rereke, as this was my error. I linked into a Draft Post at my site, forgetting that they (Draft Posts, in the main) do not show up when linked into. I just forgot to link into the individual images, which do show up.
Try these individual images.
Summer Load Curve
Winter Load Curve
Tony.
42
No problem Tony.
I am sure that I will forgive you over time.
The difference between the two curves highlights that winter will be the time to worry, as you would expect.
I was surprised that the summer load curve was so smooth. I guess it is all the air conditioners, humming in the background, that are filling-in, between the morning and evening peaks?
20
Don’t cry RW – it may not do you much good but we all still love you.
00
Rereke, you might need to explain that one to me since the summer load curve is higher than winter’s, if I’m reading Tony’s graphs correctly.
10
Rereke, and everyone else too,
as you suggest, air conditioning is indeed the difference, but not as you might expect.
See that Winter Load Curve. The Summer Load Curve is exactly the same as the Winter one, only the Winter Curve is hidden in amongst that (Summer) rise.
With the Summer curve, when that Winter Curve rises after the same 4.30AM minimum there, instead of it dropping away, it continues rising.
This is due, as you say, to air conditioning, but that air conditioning is in every high rise building you see in towns, cities, large cities and Capitals where there are those tall structures.
As I have mentioned often, those units on the roof of every tall building supply breathing air circulating through them all, the only way to get breathable air into and out of those buildings.
However, in Summer, the differential between inside temp and outside ambient is much larger, hence those compressors (the huge consumer of electricity) now must work overtime to keep the temp inside at the set level, when compared to the outside ambient. The level would be around 15 to 20 degrees, considering all that glass raises the inside temp, so the compressor works for extra time, (much extra) trying to keep the temp at that comfortable level for the people in that building, be it living accommodation or the (much larger by number) working buildings.
In Winter, that differential is much smaller, hence the compressors do not work anywhere near as much as they have to in the Summer, hence less power consumption in that middle portion of the day.
THAT ….. is where that huge Summer power consumption comes into play.
The shape of those two load curves (Summer and Winter) has not changed by much since electrical power started to be consumed.
It has virtually nothing at all to do with residential air conditioning, as that would add so little at all to the total, considering the huge number of those tall buildings.
Also think of the cooling required in shopping malls, and the humungous amounts of refrigeration in every Coles and Woolies, and next time you visit one of those large Supermarkets, just look at how much refrigeration there is in them, and they also work harder in the Summer.
Summer Peaks are higher than Winter, so THAT (the Summer) is where and when the problems will come.
When you have a Solar plant supplying around 200MW (actual 40MW) and wind Plants of 400MW (actual 120MW) and compare that with a large scale coal fired power plant of 2000MW+ ALL the time, there just is no contest.
Tony.
81
Another way to look at it James, is that if supply were ever to drop below 18 Gw in those five interconnected States, even for a few seconds, someone’s power is going to be cut. Unless that interruption is done intentionally by AEMO, then more than likely all supply drops out and everyone is in the dark.
00
Rod makes a good point here where he mentions this: (my bolding here)
Here I want you to look again at Victoria specifically in the figures I showed at the original Comment 12 above.
See how every unit at both plants was delivering its full rated power, and that’s six units at Loy Yang of 525MW and the four at Yallourn W of 375MW, for a total of 4650MW.
That was at 4.30AM when power consumption was at its lowest point. The larger peak for that Saturday rose to 6400MW, and keep in mind this is for a Saturday, with lower consumption, as the average workday afternoon peak is around 7200MW plus, and in Summer, as high as 9500MW plus.
Those ten units are already delivering their maximum, and as that load rises, other plants, nearly all of them gas fired are brought on line to cover that total as it rises.
Those coal fired units are all the largest in the State, so it would only take one of them to fail, and then there would not be enough power to run the State. This would immediately overload all the other power plants and as a safety measure to protect them, they would progressively and automatically drop off line.
See where I mentioned ….. progressively in the earlier sentence, well that would be around a half a second, a couple of seconds at best. Take out a huge whack in one hit like that, and everything goes down, without a warning. That’s South Australia and Victoria, because if Victoria goes down, then the Interconnecter into S.A. would also fail as well.
South Australia was the perfect example of that cascading failure happening, no matter what anyone else says.
As old as Hazelwood was, it acted as insurance. Now, that umm, insurance cover has gone.
Tony.
60
Interesting Tony.
I’ve often wondered at which point the grid will become so unstable that it must go into meltdown because it is impossible to control the frequency within acceptable limits.Unlike European countries which can import power from other countries , Australia is stuck with what we have. There has to be a critical level of reliable dispatchable powe below which the grid will not be operable. Every closure of a coal-fired station brings this situation a little closer. Even worse, since the pollies have shown an intention to dismantle these stations there will be an incredibly long lead time (4-6 years) before replacement plants can be built.
40
AEMO purchases “FCAS”; frequency control ancillary services. This service is by definition supplied by machines with a great deal of inertia. If ever AEMO is unable to purchase sufficient FCAS, the excrement will smash heavily into those whirling giant fans.
40
Keep harping Tony, I find your posts most informative.
50
My Journey to the North Pole.
I took a flight on Friday from New York city to Hong Kong with Cathay Pacific. The aircraft was a Boeing 777 300ER (extended range) and the flight time was a bit over 15 hours. Take off at 10am (New York Time) and landing into Hong Kong about 2pm (Hong Kong Time).
I started watching the moving map display soon after take of and it seemed that we would take a northerly route, which I estimated might pass over northern Canada. The local time in New York seemed to be the same as the local time in Hong Kong, which I thought was a bit strange. About 4 hours into the flight as we passed east of Hudson Bay I thought I might see the Arctic Ocean. With luck I would see some ice.
I had an isle seat and everybody had the the window blinds closed so they could sleep, which made observations a bit difficult. I found that I could take a walk up the isle to the galley and peer out through the small window in the exit door. That disturbed the cabin staff a bit but they weren’t doing anything at the time. I saw some icebergs in the Davis strait and got a few pictures of glaciers on the west coast of Greenland. We passed over the ice edge at the northern end of Baffin Bay.
By now it was clear that we would pass over the middle of the Arctic ocean, very near the North Pole. At last the significance of the local time in New York and in Hong Kong became clear to me. The local time was always the same but one was am and the other pm. In other words the two cities are 180 degrees of longitude apart. Hence our great circle flight path was across the North Pole.
The Arctic Ocean seemed quite full of ice and the North West passage was fully blocked. The light was extremely intense. At first all I could see on opening the window blind was intense white light and it took up to a minute to accommodate enough to see surface details. When I went back into the darkened cabin the contrast in intensity was so great that I could see nothing for several minutes and I had to grope about to find the isle and then my seat.
Time seems to have a different meaning as one approaches the Pole. If we passed slightly to the east of the pole time was going forwards, whereas if we passed a little to the west of the Pole time was going back until we crossed the date line, gaining a whole day, and then going backwards again. Either way we got to Hong Kong at the same time. The date was auspicious because it was 21 June (mid summer day in the Northern Hemisphere) and hence it was mid day all day.
By the time we got to the Russian coast the cabin crew were serving a meal so I was not able use the isle to get a look at the North East passage. I can however report that there is plenty of ice in the Arctic Ocean this year. Ice levels seem to be up compared to previous years.
Polar travel is not what it used to be! I can recommend the flight for people who are interested in geography. The total flight time back to Melbourne takes a few hours more than the alternative route across the Pacific Ocean but we picked up a few hours by avoiding LA airport. Also the airfare was cheaper.
212
As I showed above the US Navy National Ice Center reports Arctic Ice Extent right at the 30 year mean.
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/
120
Send this to Malcolm Roberts! Impirical evidence at last. I bet that the NASA data shows no ice.
Election now!
66
Thanks for red thumb.
FYI:
73
no thumb from me. Thanks for the correction and for brevity
11
green thumb from me
00
Also I could not spell aisle.
10
Exciting to see Peter C. I’ve not managed the North Pole yet but our pilot son does from time to time. I do much the same as you did, giving the cabin crew raised eyebrows and amusement because I want to see out! I remember pointing out the Maldives to them once, not one of them had ever bothered looking, even when not busy in the cabins.
30
I flew from LHR to Calgary in late September 2009. We flew for hours and hours over a perishing cold, icy snowy landscape. That, of course, was when the extent would have been at its lowest.
22
Thanks Annie,
I did that flight a few years ago. The flight path crosses the southern end of the Denmark Strait (between Iceland and Greenland). That is almost over the resting place of HMS Hood, sunk in the epic battleship encounter with the KMS Bismark on 24 May 1941.
This film (taken from The Prince Eugen) shows Bismark firing. Note the shell splashes from Prince of Wales which are going wide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWvZ8EEoovM
Hood blew up after a hit by a single shell from Bismark.
40
Thanks for that link, Peter C. My wife’s 19yo cousin went down with the Hood and she was fascinated with the clip and some others that were linked to it. She knew little of what had occurred and watched with mixed feelings. But thank you.
10
Hi Peter Petrum,
The disaster of the HMS Hood has been a major fascination for me for many years. There are so many aspects to it. Hood and Bismark were evenly matched in many ways. Hood was the only ship in the Royal Navy that could match Bismark for speed until the KGV class came along. So Bismark practiced tactics against it.
Maybe I will write an essay about the encounter/
00
Why not? Include that the design of the Hood was known to be faulty by 1923, after analysis of the losses of battlecruisers at Jutland, but it was never refitted against plunging fire as recommended.
00
Oh hello red thumbers…distressed at a bit of direct observation are we? Poor dears.
52
I hope that you were wearing your concrete underpants because the cosmic ray radiation up there is quite intense.
😉
60
”We did think that the loss of rain was simply due to the [rain-bearing] storms shifting south, off the continent,” Professor Nicholls said.
”Now we know the reason they have slipped south is that the subtropical ridge has become more intense. It is getting bigger and stronger and that is pushing the rainstorms further south.”
Monash University’s Neville Nicholls in 2009
——–
This is the biggest global warming signal in 2017, tell me I’m dreaming?
41
The reason why the Klimatariat is not crowing may relate to the hiatus, which gave them quite a scare. So there won’t be any acknowledgement that the intensification of the STR (the belt of high pressure circling the globe in both hemisphere) is a global warming signal.
The ABC weather guys say its intensifying, but then say no more. Where are the Fairfax and Guardian reporters?
21
ABC anchor Jo O’Brien pushes weather man ‘Nate’ to say that the warm low pressure over north west Australia is unprecedented for this time of year, but Nate didn’t bite.
BoM has taken the catastrophe out of climate change, they are losing faith in the models.
20
Jo O’Brien had another go at Nate this morning, the subtropical ridge has intensified and is travelling too far south for this time of year. Nate only smiles at the goading anchor.
There is no snow, the worst start of the season in 20 years, they publicly both agree that the snow machines will be working overtime.
00
??? what is the definition of “climate change” as it relates to the following? that is one of the questions that needs clarifying:
23 Jun: ClimateChangeNews: US joins UN resolution to protect human rights from climate change
The US said climate change had “a range of implications for the effective enjoyment of human rights”, in a departure from recent diplomacy and Trump’s rhetoric
By Sébastien Duyck
(Sébastien Duyck is a senior attorney at the Centre for International Environmental Law)
The UN Human Rights Council has adopted a resolution that calls for the protection of human rights from the impacts of climate change, with the support of the US…
Addressing the Council as governments were about to consider the adoption of the text, US representative Jason Mack cleared any doubts about the US position on this resolution.
“As we said previously on this topic, the effects of climate change have a range of implications for the effective enjoyment of human rights. On this basis we join consensus,” said Mack…
However Mack did raise concerns about references to the Paris deal in the Council resolution. In one of the few contentious parts of the negotiations, the US said the Human Rights Council should not interfere with the formal UN climate negotiations, a risk the US saw as encouraged in the eventual resolution.
Nor would the US brook any language that compelled countries to take steps inside the Paris accord or out.
“Any calls for climate action in this resolution can only affirm actions that countries choose to take,” said Mack.
On the other hand, German ambassador Antje Leendertse, speaking on behalf of the EU, stressed the importance of including considering human rights principles within the climate talks...
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/06/23/us-joins-global-resolution-protect-human-rights-climate-change/
links to the various resolutions – A/HRC/35/L.3 & A/HRC/35/L.32 refer to 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development/climate change and “human rights and climate change” respectively – worth reading. I can’t open them because I don’t have Office:
24 Jun: OHCHR: Human Rights Council concludes thirty-fifth session after adopting 36 resolutions and a Presidential Statement
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21802&LangID=E
31
“The UN Human Rights Council has adopted a resolution that calls for the protection of human rights from the impacts of climate change, with the support of the US…”
In as much as ‘climate change’ (aka AGW) is only interpretations of climate model effects (projections to the future by non-validated and unverified computer models), then all US citizens should already have protection from these virtual climate effects scenarios.
00
24 Jun: France24: AFP: Macron launches global pact on environmental rights in Paris
“With the planetary plan, we need to move on to a new stage after the Paris accord,” said Macron, referring to the landmark agreement signed in December 2015 by 196 nations to take steps to reduce greenhouse gases and combat global warming.
The end goal of the new pact is a legal treaty under which states can be brought to justice for flouting the rights of a group or individual.
“We already have two international (human rights) pacts… The idea is to create a third, for a third generation of rights — environmental rights,” said former French prime minister Laurent Fabius, who also presided over the Paris COP 21 conference on climate change.
Seeking to underline the urgency of the need to act, Fabius said it was time for “less talk, more action”, borrowing the turn of phrase from ex-California governor-turned climate campaigner Schwarzenegger, who joined the gathering, as did former UN chief Ban Ki-moon.
Other participants at the meeting at the Sorbonne university included high court judges from several countries.
The new pact will eventually be put to the United Nations for adoption, and impose legally-binding obligations on signatory states, its drafters say.
The earlier covenants — one for social, economic and cultural rights, the other for civil and political rights — were adopted by the UN in 1966.
Fabius says the new text will outline rights and duties, provide for reparations to be made in case of a breach, and introduce the “polluter pays” principle, holding them legally responsible or compelling them to adopt green laws.
That would be in marked contrast to earlier declarations such as that made following the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio which was not legally binding.
http://www.france24.com/en/20170624-macron-launches-global-environment-pact-paris
31
Now we have Alan Kohler quoting Finkel and Vesey, saying that solar and batteries are going to significantly reduce in price. Again, without offering any proof to backup these statements. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but solar cell technology is already at the base of the bathtub curve and is fast becoming an old technology. And there is still no sign of any battery technology that promises to provide low-cost large-scale storage. Where are these folks obtaining their advice from? Or are they all just repeating each other without ever checking the actual data?
152
While we’re at it, Graeme IV, can someone define for me the term they always bandy around, “utility-scale solar?” What is this, is it in place anywhere in the world, and what are its costs?
21
One large-scale solar site is Ivanpah in the U.S. There has been plenty of discussion both here and WUWT about this site. I also recall a Spanish site where diesel generators were used to power lights at night to provide “solar” power – apparently the subsidies made this profitable.
32
James:
There isn’t one. They are limited to about 150-170MW capacity by the area necessary to get enough energy. Most of the later “Big, New plants” that get the greenies all excited are about 110MW which in electricity generation terms are toys. And if they try to supply 24 hours a day then the amount delivered per hour plummets to about a third of capacity. The steam turbines would have to be a bespoke order, for when the Northern power station in SA shut down in 2016 its 265MW turbines were not replaceable ‘off the shelf’. Current builders want 500 or 800MW units and I am sure TonyfromOz can tell you how big the latest ones are.
Nor is the 24 hour capacity much more than a myth. The Gemasolar plant in Spain which ran for 36 days did so by cutting back from 50MW nominal capacity to a little over 15MW average (13-19). But it shuts down for 3 months in winter when the sunlight is poor. Ivanpah is a complex of different designs of solar plants (3 amounting to 375MW) and uses so much natural gas to cover supply that the laws had to be changed to avoid them being classified as a gas fired plant. The Crescent Dunes solar tower plant ran without gas for a year but shut down in October last year because of a minor maintenance problem and has apparently not yet restarted. In any case much of its production when it was running occurred in 3 months (Guess when – HINT not winter).
50
Highly subsidize solar and wind are less than 1% of all power generated and of course intermittent, often unpredictable. How he argues it is the future is beyond both logic and fact.
However there is one thing on which Alan Kohler and I enthusiastically agree. Wind and solar do not need subsidies.
So remove the massive Renewable Energy Tax, $400 a tonne for natural gas at retail. Only perhaps $100 of that goes into buying new windmills for strangers. The rest is money for jam. The $300 is raw profit and they get to charge for the new windmills anyway, a win/win for windmill investors.
So Alan is right. Remove the RET. They do not need it. As he says, it is an embarassment for Malcolm Turnbull.
While the government is doing this, also stop banning oil and gas exploration and exploitation. Alan is right.
They will die naturally and quickly in the face of far cheaper ‘renewables’, even without subsidies.
I also agree with the former head of the ABC, we are not North Korea. We do not need government media. Sell the ABC.
I also agree with former Climate Commissioner, Prof Will Steffen. Twice as much solar energy falls on Victoria every year than we need to power the state. So just to cover half of Victoria with solar panels and we do not need coal.
Sometimes is pays to agree with these people.
122
Actually to some extent, solar is very predicable. There is none at night.
Consider that Paris is at 49 degrees, 7 degrees lower than Hobart. There is no sun in winter. Predicable. The border with Canada is at 49 degrees too. Big cities like Oslo, Copenhagen, Moscow are closer to 60 degrees. Forget solar in winter and at night. Not only that, it can be very cold in Winter. It can reach -15C in Berlin. Moscow has reached -42C. Solar panels? Nighttime? Obviously solar and wind are the clear winners in the energy race.
Is someone joking?
132
Consider Stockholm is 59.3 degrees latitude. So less the 23 degrees for peak summer and it has a maximum latitude of Melbourne.
In winter, it is 83 degrees North and Sunrise 8am, sunset 3pm and the sun does not clear the trees. The Swedes skip lunch as there is no time.
So Alan Kohler believes solar is the solution for Sweden? Also the temperature in Sweden with a population of 10 million can go below -53C. You do need heating. Yes Alan, what do they do at night and how many months do those batteries last?
122
I can remember being told (by a Norwegian) that particular year Stockholm had 50 minutes sunshine in January.
40
They are simply agreeing with each other, because none of them have a clue.
Solar will decrease in price because they have run out of people silly enough to buy in at the original inflated price. But you are right, people who buy in now will be scraping the bottom, and buying old technology.
From the information I have, battery technology that promises to provide low-cost large-scale storage is becoming viable, but at a cost that is prohibitive, and with operational risks are considerable. For one thing, the some of the battery technology being considered, has a tendency to explode, for no apparent reason. Just what you need to happen in the middle of a dinner party.
Messrs Kohler, Finkel and Vesey, are no more than talking heads, and they know nothing about the engineering challenges that they gratuitously brush aside.
142
24 Jun: SMH: ‘Long, slow, horrible’: Former Defence officers warn of climate impacts on national security
by Fergus Hunter with David Wroe
Former Defence Force officers, including a former chief of the Australian military, have warned that climate change will emerge as the defining security threat of the 21st century and urged governments to step up their responses accordingly.
The warnings come as the Senate convenes an inquiry into the national security implications of the environmental phenomenon, called by Greens senator Scott Ludlam. The government has dismissed the move, arguing it is unnecessary because of actions already being taken by the Defence Force.
But a former Defence Force chief, retired admiral Chris Barrie, says the overall response to the “existential threat” needs to be ramped up as Australia faces particular exposure to the consequences of extreme weather events, higher temperatures and sea level rises.
Mr Barrie said the world’s governments were not on track to keep warming to 2 degrees celsius – the target laid out in the Paris climate accord – and said the impacts on humanity could be “long, slow, lingering and horrible”…
Retired army major Michael Thomas, now a senior fellow at the Centre for Climate and Security, said global warming increases the likelihood of instability in the region and further abroad, particularly for developing nations.
“I think it’s the defining threat of this century. I can’t think of any other threat that is transforming the planet on this level or scale. It’s such a ubiquitous threat,” he said.
“People might say terror is a threat and that’s true but I don’t think it’s anywhere near what climate change is presenting itself as.”…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/long-slow-horrible-former-defence-officers-warn-of-climate-impacts-on-national-security-20170623-gwxain.html
Chris Barrie pops up annually:
Jun 2016: ABC Lateline: Interview: Chris Barrie and Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti
Admiral Chris Barrie is the former chief of the Australian Defence Force and Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti is the UK Government’s former Climate Change and Energy Security Envoy. They both helped launch the Centre for Policy Development report today that warns the Australian Defence Force is falling behind in climate change related national security contingency plans already underway in other parts of the world.
EMMA ALBERICI: Chris Barrie, the report talks about a threat to peace in our region. What is the worst-case scenario?
CHRIS BARRIE: I think there are a number, Emma. We’re going to be living in the Asia Pacific region of about seven billion people. That’s a hell of a lot of people any way you want to count it. And it’s also the region in which climate change consequences will have the biggest effect. So let’s just step back and think about possible scenarios. First of all, depending on how you want to count and the time scale, upwards of 200 million to 600 million people looking for a new home…ETC
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2015/s4259982.htm
Oct 2015: news.com.au: Ian McPhedran: Climate change is a major security threat but old and bold don’t get it
Speaking at a Climate Security summit at the Australian Defence Force Academy Admiral Barrie, who is an adjunct professor at the Australian National University, said older military leaders tended to downplay the potential risk from climate change.
“I think there are a lot of people in the 40-year-old and under group who get it [climate change] and understand it,” he said…
Admiral Barrie said food and water security would be crucial threat multipliers in the years ahead…
“If the Himalayan glacier disappears and India and China, Bangladesh and Pakistan have no freshwater that is a huge problem.”
Also speaking at the summit climate scientist Will Steffen told the audience that included numerous officer cadets that sea levels would rise by up to one metre by 2100.
“That increases the instance of coastal flooding by a factor of 10,000,” Professor Steffen said.
He pointed out that should the Greenland ice sheet melt then sea levels would rise by seven metres…
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/climate-change-is-a-major-security-threat-but-old-and-bold-dont-get-it/news-story/3d513d76edb9c9a80597aacb5004e500
51
This is just getting plain silly.
Right you guys, get kitted up, full combat gear, check your weapons, rations, and ammunition supplies, the subject of this combat briefing, are the tactics to be employed in regard to … Um, … How do you respond to a security threat that originates in the weather …?
I would swear that there is something in the water in Canberra, that gives people, “a good time”.
152
I think that the idea that Climate Change™ was somehow a military issue originated in Obama’s Department of Defense in which many of the good leaders were fired and replaced with sycophants. Here is a report linking Climate Change to a military issue.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/
42
In the second world war, the sheer weight of bombs dropped on Hambourg, by the Allies, on one occasion, was enough to create a fire-storm that consumed and therefore removed most of the oxygen in the immediate vicinity. That was before the supranational bodies had come up with the concept of crimes against humanity. I wonder how that idea would be interpreted by the “combatant commands” today.
41
I think that the most idiotic phrases spouted by the ill-informed prats is related to “fighting climate change”.
How does one fight something that is a figment of the imagination? Is it like fighting with the Easter Bunny? Or does it bring to mind the Hugh Jackman Christmas Kangaroo skit?
30
I think that the most idiotic phrases spouted by the ill-informed prats is related to “fighting climate change”.
How does one fight something that is a figment of the imagination? Is it like fighting with the Easter Bunny? Or does it bring to mind the Hugh Jackman Christmas Kangaroo skit?
Forgot the link
20
Living proof that to be part of the Establishment, you have to go along with “the cause”, no matter how dumb it is…..
I’d find it hard to be believe brass that high are as dumb as greenie rank and file….
00
Predicated on Global Warming continuing at what rate? I don’t think even the most Gung Ho soldier would consider the IPCC predictions (and the history of error) were a reliable base for planning.
20
it’s Aspen time for the Globalists:
24 Jun: TheAtlantic: Julie Beck: The Challenge of Fighting Mistrust in Science
Emphasizing the way scientific findings play out in people’s everyday lives could help.
“The denial of science—I’ll just state it straight up—is dangerous,” said Michael Myers, the managing director of the Rockefeller Foundation.
The “denial of science” of course is a nuanced phenomenon, and not one that is as simple as flatly denying science as a concept. People who don’t believe in climate change, or evolution, or who mistrust vaccines all come to those conclusions for different reasons. A lot of it has to do with tribalism—you believe what the people in your group believe, because membership in that group is more important to you than the truth.
“What I think is part of the challenge here is that people’s hardening belief systems are going against the science,” Myers said Saturday at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. And that’s true—one of the biggest reasons that it’s so hard for facts to change people’s minds is that people have an incentive to keep believing what they already believe, as I’ve written before, especially if it’s a belief that’s deeply tied to their identity. The mental gymnastics they do to achieve this are known in psychology as “motivated reasoning.” …
Montira Pongsiri, a planetary health science policy adviser at Cornell University suggested that when scientific findings are applied in ways that fix problems in people’s lives, they might be more easily accepted.
“I think it’s the process of science that people don’t necessarily trust,” she said. “It takes a long time.” People who are facing crucial problems now don’t necessarily want to wait for peer review to get an answer, and it can be frustrating when studies contradict each other, or the best answer science has on a question is “We don’t know.”
Myers added that one way to convince people of the truth and utility of scientific findings is to “bring it down to a personal level.” Like the extreme heat that was grounding planes in Phoenix this week, for example, he said. “That just reinforces that something different is happening to the planet. It’s those kinds of direct connections, bringing it into the everyday lives of people—that’s what I think we’re going to have to deal with as we try to rebuild people’s trust in science.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-challenge-of-fighting-mistrust-in-science/531531/
30
Atlantic’s Julie Beck wrote:
“Montira Pongsiri, a planetary health science policy adviser at Cornell University”.
Rockefeller Foundation: Montira Pongsiri, Science Advisor
DMontira Pongsiri was the first Science Advisor at the U.S. Mission to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)…
Dr. Pongsiri was on overseas assignment to the U.S. Mission to ASEAN from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Research and Development, where she is an Environmental Health Scientist…
Dr. Pongsiri leads the agency’s technical partnerships with the Smithsonian Institution and with the Rockefeller 100 Resilient Cities Challenge to share and apply technical expertise, science based tools and best practices to strengthen resilience…
Before joining EPA, she completed her Ph.D. at Yale University…
***Montira again:
July 2015: The Lancet: Human activities are jeopardizing Earth’s natural systems, health of future generations
Journal References includes: ***Montira J Pongsiri
A new report released by The Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on Planetary Health, calls for immediate, global action to protect the health of human civilization and the natural systems on which it depends. The report, Safeguarding Human Health in the Anthropocene Epoch, provides the first ever comprehensive examination of evidence showing how the health and well-being of future generations is being jeopardised by the unprecedented degradation of the planet’s natural resources and ecological systems.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150715212204.htm
20
***seems the President should follow the example of the MSM?
24 Jun: Weather Channel: Pam Wright: Americans Doubt ‘Global Warming’ But Accept ‘Climate Change,’ Study Says
Climate-science labels really do matter, a new study says.
According to research conducted by Cornell University and published May 14 in Climatic Change (LINK), the American public continues to have doubts about “global warming” but appears to be unified in believing in “climate change.”
The contrast was most divided among individuals who identified themselves as Republicans.
In fact, the study found that 74.4 percent of respondents who identified as Republicans said they believed that climate change is really happening. In contrast, only 65.5 percent said they believed in global warming. Democrats, on the other hand, feel very differently, with 94 percent replying “yes” to both questions.
Jonathon Schuldt, the study’s coauthor and assistant professor of communication at Cornell, told phys.org that some Republicans may discredit climate science primarily because they oppose the policies that have been proposed to address the issue…
While the terms are often used interchangeably, they have very different meanings.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, global warming (LINK) refers only to the Earth’s rising surface temperature, while climate change includes warming and the side effects of that warming.
“Said another way, global warming is one symptom of the much larger problem of human-caused climate change,” NOAA notes…
Schuldt suggests that President Donald Trump, who pulled out of the historic Paris Accord earlier this month, consciously uses the term global warming in his tweets, despite the fact that most ***media uses climate change in its coverage.
“Our results suggest that Trump’s emphasis on ‘global warming’ may be an effective rhetorical strategy that resonates with his Republican constituents, who express more skepticism in response to that term in particular,” Schuldt told phys.org…
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/climate-change-global-warming-labels-study
June 2015: NOAA Climate.gov: What’s the difference between global warming and climate change?
Author: Caitlyn Kennedy, Rebecca Lindsey
Global warming refers only to the Earth’s rising surface temperature, while climate change includes warming and the “side effects” of warming—like melting glaciers, heavier rainstorms, or more frequent drought. Said another way, global warming is one symptom of the much larger problem of human-caused climate change…
As far back as the late 1800s, scientists were hypothesizing that industrialization, driven by the burning of fossil fuels for energy, had the potential to modify the climate. For many decades, though, they weren’t sure whether cooling (due to reflection of sunlight from pollution) or warming (due to greenhouse gases) would dominate.
By the mid-1970s, however, more and more evidence suggested warming would dominate and that it would be unlike any previous, naturally triggered warming episode. The phrase “global warming” emerged to describe that scientific consensus…
The bottom line
Today’s global warming is an unprecedented type of climate change, and it is driving a cascade of side effects in our climate system. It’s these side effects, such as changes in sea level along heavily populated coastlines and the worldwide retreat of mountain glaciers that millions of people depend on for drinking water and agriculture, that are likely to have a much greater impact on society than temperature change alone.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-difference-between-global-warming-and-climate-change
the Cornell study:
30 May: Springer: Climatic Change: Does the label really matter? Evidence that the US public continues to doubt “global warming” more than “climate change”
Abstract:
Does the public doubt the existence of “global warming” more than “climate change”? While previously published research suggests that it does, others have argued that this effect either never existed or has disappeared amid broader shifts in public opinion. We draw on survey response theory to help reconcile this debate. We then analyze data from an October 2016 probability-based survey experiment (n = 1461 US adults) to test the prediction that the US public (***and particularly, Republicans) continue to respond differently when asked whether global warming vs. climate change exists…
References: (ALL THE USUAL SUSPECTS – ORESKES, NYT’S DAVENPORT, LEISEROWITZ, COOK, GUARDIAN, GOOGLE SCHOLARS, RAHMSTORF ETC)
Funding information: ***Russell Sage Foundation
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-017-1993-1
***another taste of the Russell Sage Foundation:
Donald Trump and the rise of white identity in politics
The Conversation US-20 Oct. 2016
Eric D. Knowles receives funding from the ***Russell Sage Foundation for research on racial attitudes, identity, and political behavior.
10
comment in moderation beginning: 24 Jun: TheAtlantic: Julie Beck: The Challenge of Fighting Mistrust in Science
25 Jun: TVNZ: Hamilton law student takes government to court over ‘inadequate’ greenhouse gas targets
Sarah Thomson is confident of getting a case here after similar cases overseas have proved successful.
“The court’s a last line of defence, we haven’t had enough action from our government.
“It doesn’t feel like David and Goliath because I have some amazing scientists and lawyers backing me,” Ms Thomson told 1 NEWS.
One of those scientists is James Renwick, who says it’s a moral issue for the government.
“We don’t get let off the hook because we’re a small country,” Mr Renwick said…
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/hamilton-law-student-takes-government-court-over-inadequate-greenhouse-gas-targets
24 Jun: RadioNZ: Student’s court battle with govt over climate to begin
In a New Zealand first, a legal case challenging the government over what is being called its failure to tackle climate change will be heard in Wellington next week
Hamilton law student Sarah Thomson will challenge the government to justify the way this country’s climate targets have been set.
It will be heard at the High Court in Wellington from Monday and run for three days.
New Zealand has committed to reducing emissions by 11 percent on 1990 levels by 2030 as part of the Paris agreement.
However, New Zealand’s most recent greenhouse gas inventory shows emissions in 2015 were 24.1 percent higher than 1990 levels…
Ms Thomson said the government’s response to climate change has been blasé and the target needs to be more ambitious.
“We’re already seeing the effects of climate change right now. Every year we’re experiencing more extreme weather like cyclones, droughts and floods.
“Entire communities are being left devastated, yet our government is burying its head in the sand, business as usual,” she said.
The case will include evidence from Victoria University climate scientist James Renwick.
He said New Zealand’s targets for emissions reductions were not good enough.
“It is now recognised that the world must get to zero emissions as quickly as possible, preferably by 2050 with emissions starting to decline no later than 2020, if we are to meet the Paris goals,” he said…
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/333722/student-s-court-battle-with-govt-over-climate-to-begin
Sarah looks like she’s enjoying a little media attention.
30
Massive Model Failure
‘All eight international models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology now suggest tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures are likely to remain ENSO-neutral for the second half of 2017. This compares to seven of eight models that suggested a possible El Niño in April.’
BoM
82
Who reckons you’ll hear about it on their ABC?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
51
Why? I’ll put money on it being reported within a month once the BOM releases its (sure to fail) predictions. I’m sure that last year someone on this blog made the same claim
http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2016-06-22/la-nina-50-per-cent-likely-this-year/7529712
10
ENSO remains an enigma.
00
It’s already released. it’s on the BoM website.
What you really mean is that their ABC doesn’t understand what it means and has to wait until it gets the BoM spin before touching it.
That how the propaganda works, but nobody expects you to understand that Gee Aye. So carry on.
22
According to the phenomenally good fit by Prof Weiss and his fourier analysis over an amazing 2500 years, we know that the temperature was to rise at the end of the 20th century, stay flat and then fall sharply as the PDO and the De Vries cycle both plummet simultaneously. Right on schedule. Of course the computer models know nothing about solar variation and El Nino and the PDO and La Nina. They do not include any.
So the models are wrong and Weiss is right. I mean its not as if we do not now fully understand the global temperature. We have our complete solution and it’s the sun, not ‘The Science’. None of this involves CO2, a mere artifact of warming oceans. It should start to drop too as the oceans cool.
82
TdeF could you find me a graph to argue your case?
10
There are graphs in the YouTube video TdeF linked above plus also see
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/fourier-analysis-reveals-six-natural-cycles-no-man-made-effect-predicts-cooling/
22
Thanks David.
‘POST NOTE: April 3, 2014 Don’t read too much into the cycle lengths or the predictions.’
00
This paper from Ian Wilson explains the meaning of everything.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260670249_The_Venus-Earth-Jupiter_spin-orbit_coupling_model
Admittedly I’m out of my depth, but intuitively I sense that the structure is firm and correct.
21
Interesting. I never thought to compare them, even if they are all gas giants close to becoming stars
Weight of the sun 2×10^30kg so -200,000 x 10^25
Weight of Jupiter 2 x 10^27kg so —–200 x 10^25
Weight of Saturn 6×10^26kg so ——60 x 10^25
Weight of Uranus 9 x 10^25 so ——-9 x 10^25
Weight of Earth 6 x 10^24 so ——-0.6×10^25
so the sun is 1000x the mass of jupiter, but a variation of even 1/1000th of the radius of the orbit of Jupiter is significant
for people on earth.
So while you would not expect that Jupiter would push the sun around much at all, a small change in the distance from the earth to the sun
makes are huge difference, governed by the inverse square law.It is not surprising then to find correlations. When you look at all the influences
on solar intensity, the orbit of the sun around the centre of gravity of the solar system may be significant.
20
As Jupiter is 5x further out than the earth, a variation becomes 5/1000 or 1/200 and this squared means a change in solar intensity of 1/14 or 7%. That’s enough easily for an ice age.
10
Sorry, carried away. Only 1% variation in insolation.
20
Atmospheric Angular Momentum (AAM) follows the Length of Day LOD.
From my casual reading there appears to be a strong correlation between ENSO, AAM and LOD.
It has also been suggested that the large icebergs in the Southern Ocean during the 19th century were somehow related to LOD.
00
Newton pointed out that the combined pull of the planets would move the Sun slightly off a circular path (about 1 solar diameter has been calculated). Also factor in that the Sun ‘porpoises’ with respect to the plane of the galaxy.
10
TdeF, ‘Yes,’ in four foot letters!
20
MSM loved this “story”, but didn’t note the detail:
23 Jun: Deutsche Welle: France to stop granting oil exploration licenses
by sri/rd (AFP, Reuters)
The French government says it is going to stop granting NEW licenses for oil and gas exploration in France and ITS OVERSEASE TERRITORIES, in a bid to fulfill one of President Emmanuel Macron’s campaign pledges…
“There will be no NEW exploration licenses for hydrocarbons, we will pass the law this autumn,” Hulot said on French news channel BFMTV.
President Emmanuel Macron said during his election campaign in February that he was opposed to exploration for gas and shale gas in mainland France.
Macron even said he would like to see the exploitation of oil and gas halted altogether in France’s overseas territories, especially in French Guiana on the northeastern coast of South America…
But Hulot, an environmental campaigner and former TV star before he joined the cabinet last month, said it would currently be IMPOSSIBLE TO TAKE SUCH A MOVE without triggering lawsuits from energy companies.
Hulot also added that diesel and petrol taxation WOULD REMAIN UNCHANGED in the near future.
http://www.dw.com/en/france-to-stop-granting-oil-exploration-licenses/a-39384760
this is just Total, read all:
21 Jun: Reuters: Dmitry Zhdannikov: From Middle East to Argentina, France’s Total bets on cheap resources
As the world witnesses spectacular growth in oil and gas production from the U.S. shale deposits, the boss of French energy giant Total paradoxically says this is one area where he doesn’t want to expand.
Instead, chief executive Patrick Pouyanne told Reuters he can find an edge over rivals by going after cheaper reserves elsewhere, including from shale in Argentina and deepwater wells in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as through new gas technology.
“Shale oil is too expensive,” said Pouyanne, who has clinched strategic deals for Total in Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Iran since taking over as CEO at the end of 2015.
Companies including Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Statoil have invested billions in recent months to enter U.S. shale areas such as in the Permian basin in Texas…
Pouyanne therefore remains reluctant to expand beyond Total’s current gas fields in the Barnett and Utica shale formations in Texas and Ohio respectively…
Now Total, which is France’s largest company, is cautiously returning to new projects. This year it gave its first go-ahead since 2014 to develop Argentina’s Vaca Muerta gas project, one of very few exploited shale deposits outside North America and where land costs are significantly lower…
In U.S. production, Pouyanne sees greater opportunities in the Gulf of Mexico, where Total along with only a handful of the world’s other top oil companies have the necessary expertise in deep water drilling. “Today it is a game of only five or six players,” he said…
Total will raise its production by around 30 percent during this decade and has already surprised the market with better than expected growth rates in the past few quarters as projects in Angola, Russia and Brazil added new barrels…
***Like many of his peers, Pouyanne aims to shift Total increasingly toward less polluting gas as the world seeks to reduce carbon emissions to near zero by the end of the century.
For the 53-year-old, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind will make up around 20 percent of Total’s portfolio within 20 years.
***However, Pouyanne says coal remains the main threat to gas and he supports a drive by some oil majors for more countries to impose punitive taxes on carbon emissions, which are much greater from burning coal than gas.
***”Gas might be undercut by coal. Renewables will grow but the real fight is against coal. That is why we are advocating a carbon tax,” he said.
***Britain could serve as a model after its imposition of a carbon tax helped to reduce coal usage drastically. “The UK has managed to shift its power system to gas from coal in one year. The UK has demonstrated it works,” he said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-total-strategy-idUSKBN19C0HO
20
The hype cycle is a branded graphical presentation developed and used by the American research, advisory and information technology firm Gartner, for representing the maturity, adoption and social application of specific technologies. The hype cycle provides a graphical and conceptual presentation of the maturity of emerging technologies through five phases.
1. Technology Trigger: A potential technology breakthrough kicks things off. Early proof-of-concept stories and media interest trigger significant publicity. Often no usable products exist and commercial viability is unproven.
2. Peak of Inflated Expectations: Early publicity produces a number of success stories — often accompanied by scores of failures. Some companies take action; most don’t.
3. Trough of Disillusionment: Interest wanes as experiments and implementations fail to deliver. Producers of the technology shake out or fail. Investment continues only if the surviving providers improve their products to the satisfaction of early adopters.
4. Slope of Enlightenment: More instances of how the technology can benefit the enterprise start to crystallize and become more widely understood. Second and third generation products appear from technology providers. More enterprises fund pilots; conservative companies remain cautious.
5. Plateau of Productivity: Mainstream adoption starts to take off. Criteria for assessing provider viability are more clearly defined. The technology’s broad market applicability and relevance are clearly paying off.
Progress through the cycle often takes 5-10 years.
It appears that with wind, solar, and batteries we are currently at the peak of inflated expectations. we have Alan Kohler quoting Finkel and Vesey, saying that solar and batteries are going to significantly reduce in price and can become “base load”.
How long before we drop into the trough of disillusionment? Could it be next summer?
40
Is the continental shelf of abject derision reserved for only it’s political followers ?
10
I was discussing the survey where the majority of people supported renewables and everyone started talking about how renewables are much cheaper and the way of the future. I suggested that they weren’t and we were wasting money trying to save the planet. I was then told are you one of those who don’t look at the facts that are in front of me. I then asked can they show me the evidence to prove we are warming the planet and co2 is the cause. I was then told they have read all the facts and if I didn’t understand it wasn’t worth discussing and i should go check what is really happening to the environment.
50
Exactly what happens whenever I have tried to discuss the subject with a “believer”. When I argue that consensus and computer models are not science and ask for the empirical evidence, that’s usually the end of the debate.
52
The pause in temperature for over 18 years is a worry, the AGW scripture didn’t anticipate this outcome.
The warmist zealots are deaf to this new reality and refuse to acknowledge that anything is untoward in regards to their theory.
41
Just saw the latest WUWT post about an ABC sceptics show. Apart from Judith Curry and Freeman Dyson, I don’t recognise the other participants as known sceptics. Can anybody comment on the others?
20
Graeme #4 – the link:
25 Jun:WUWT: Eric Worrell: Aussie Government Broadcaster Gives Climate Skeptics Airtime
excerpt from comments:
EOSWA – Having listened to this episode of the podcast, it makes no attempt to address the ongoing bias of the ABC in regard to Climate Change. Every assertion made by the so called deniers was given the right of reply by Andy Pittman who is modeler and part of the IPCC machine with no further opportunity for reply by the original speaker. He spouted typical alarmist rhetoric including assertions that average temperatures would rise by up to 4 C with extremes of up to 10. No mention that we had only seen 0.3 in the last 30 years. No acceptance of tuning through adopting high sensitivities in models…
steverichards1984: Just listened to the show, very biased output with the climate alarmists able to rebuff every comment from a realist.
I did note that at 39 minutes in, Andy Pittman suggested that warming could reach 10 degrees or more with business as usual…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/25/aussie-government-broadcaster-gives-climate-skeptics-airtime/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/25/aussie-government-broadcaster-gives-climate-skeptics-airtime/
note theirABC’s ***headline. click show to the right of Transcriipt to get the full text. i’m not bothering to listen:
24 Jun: ABC The Science Show: Robyn Williams: ***Has ‘denying’ won?
The science is 150 years old and growing each day, yet it is still being rejected by politicians and some academics. We shall talk to some of those who remain unconvinced by climate research and its conclusions. Have they ever changed their minds? Do they perceive any risk at all? How can critics remain unmoved as the evidence mounts?
Robyn Williams: Climate. It’s on again. Whatever the gold-star scientific evidence, however responsible the enquiry and reports by chief scientists, some people still say no. We begin this special Science Show with a glance back at QnA from ABC television. The first voice is Brian Cox. The second is Malcolm Roberts from the party One Nation…
Brian Cox: This is now a clear global problem. The absolute, absolute consensus is that human action is leading to an increase in average temperatures, absolute consensus. I know you may try to argue with that but you can’t…
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/has-‘denying’-won/8618656
note: I searched ABC + climate change several times yesterday and never saw a link to anything relating to this program, and I don’t even get the above link in a “news” search of the headline today. it is only in general results.
obviously ABC is not trying to draw attention to the program. they usually love to do articles promoting their programs.
21
I know it is Jo’s favorite complete argument but everyone agrees the extra CO2 on its own is not enough to produce significant global warming. So global warming is not expected at all. It never was.
To create even the hope of warming, you have to invent another mechanism than direct reflection by CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Now Gavin Schmidt is talking about man made methane. Desperate people. Now the poor animals are condemned as polluters.
The standard explanation was an hypothesis that CO2 produced a little warming which in turned produced a bit more water vapour which itself produced the required warming. Water is after all the strong and visible hot house gas which CO2 is not. The problem is that this would produced by necessity a warm wet area in the atmosphere, a hot spot which we know for certain is not there. So it’s busted.
No one has any other explanation for how CO2 can warm the planet significantly. So why is there an expectation of CO2 produced Global Warming?
This is quite apart from the fact that with incredible accuracy we know now there has been no significant temperature change for the last 20 years.
My own favorite is that you can prove that mankind has not contributed to the increase in CO2 by radio carbon dating.
The other is that we have a full explanation for all the temperature variation of the last 2500 years, the sun.
The last is that warmer oceans must produce more CO2 by Henry’s Law and while there is no explanation for warmer oceans we have a simple one for increased CO2.
The one professional climate scientist who has suffered the most is Prof Murry Selby, fired for announcing publicly that there was no correlation at all between CO2 and temperature. He did find a good correlation with the integral of temperature, which scientifically does exactly support the warming ocean conclusion.
So while I love to contribute, really we are flogging a dead horse, a bit like Tescos in England who found horse in their burgers.
The best we can do is distribute the link to the Paris Petition on Jo’s prior article. Plus we can marvel at how Al Gore keeps going in the face of overwhelming destruction of his made up science. I guess a Nobel Peace Prize is worth having, even if it is meaningless. What part of Peace is Climate?
62
TdeF …….”Plus we can marvel at how Al Gore keeps going in the face of overwhelming destruction of his made up science. I guess a Nobel Peace Prize is worth having, even if it is meaningless. What part of Peace is Climate?”
I’m sure Yasser Arafat cherished his Nobel “peace prize”.
41
There is real rationale in Arafat’s prize in a war zone. Peace is a relative term in a place where bloody conflict has been the norm for 1400 years and slaughtering your enemies the standard solution. There is value in such a prize. However the rationale for giving Al Gore and the IPCC the Nobel Peace prize is without rational explanation. Like Tim Flannery’s Australian of the year award or Chief Climate Commissioner. Surely that should go to the chief meteorologist of the BOM, but I guess in the wacky Green climate world, meteorologists are incompetent in climate and unqualified science fiction is more appropriate.
70
From a tweet today I’ve lost track of.
40
It’s now clear with 100% certainty thanks to Pyne’s recently leaked comments on SSM and various other actions by Turnboll et al over the past month or so the only ones who don’t believe the Libs will lose the next election by a landslide are the Libs themselves. What fools they are, and the voters who will still vote for them or the ALP/Greens. Australia wake up! It is now time for a major change. Forget both major parties. They are too far to the left for the survival of this once great nation.
71
You have to think Turnbull is unconcerned about losing. Consider that destruction of the Liberals was his intent, if he could not reform them in his image. His whole family history is Labor and they rejected him. Clearly his intent was a new very left Green Turnbull party but he understood that he controls the party, he can take it anywhere he likes. History now shows him as a Prime Minister and he will have achieved his destiny. He will retire with this fortune and fame. He can follow Rudd and Gillard on the international circuit as former Prime Minister.
His great uncle George Lansbury, originally a very left Liberal split the Labor party in England too. A pacifist against rearmament he announced that Adolf was an unambitious Christian with no designs on Europe. Turnbull still thinks he can join forces with the Greens, against the wishes of both the Liberals and the Green voters. In his world voters do not matter. They do not control the party room. He does and he controls, even owns the party. Hitler and Lenin only won a minority vote. It is all done with strategic partnerships, not democracy.
100
He once said that he would join any party that offered him a path to The Lodge, Canberra.
When he joined the Liberal Party he told Labor people, as reported recently by former NSW Labor Minister Carl Scully, that he did not join Labor because he did not believe that he would be supported because of his career background and business activities. I suspect that what he meant was the Labor factions would not back him and therefore deny him the leadership.
At a younger age he said that he would like to be the head of a trade union, AWU I understand was his preference.
70
As Rudd found out, the Unions will use you to get power and then dump you. As he did with Abbott. The parallels are perfect. To complete the scheme, Abbott must replace Turnbull at the last minute and then lose the election, a victim of Turnbull’s tearing up the contacts with party, party members and the public. Perversely Turnbull will be very pleased. He hates elections anyway and detests losing even more. Imagine, being judged by your inferiors! He will retire, having taken Abbott’s job, his years of hard work and his ideas and prestige, he will have twice denied Abbott the Prime Ministership where Turnbull can say he has never lost an election. As Sir Les Patterson would say, a legend in his own lunchtime.
However I believe the people who backed Abbott to a landslide victory have had a gutful of traitors Turnbull and Shorten and big government will come back. Certainly the vilified and frustrated Catholic sector Abbott tacitly represents. If Abbott returns, he will quickly undo Gonski 2.0, the Bank tax, the RET and electricity prices will plummet, South Australia will come back and the windmills fantasy will stop. He can threaten SA with equity in the GST, which is the underlying play. SA is using the bank tax as leverage to stop the removal of their unfair slice of the state GST.
Queensland and Bernadi and more will come back. He can even make up with Hanson who is very popular as an anti Canberra icon but advised poorly. Hanson is vehemently against big government, faux apologies, the river of money flowing to made up socialist causes like Global Warming and Clinton and the UN.
Abbott could simply quote Alan Kohler’s words. Renewables no longer need subsidies. A bad joke maybe, but now official opinion. With reasonable electricity prices, manufacturing will respond quickly, if it is not dead. Many companies like Bluescope and Alcoa are just hanging in there hoping for sense to return and with it the jobs. Kill the absurd submarine fantasy. Abbott might do what Rudd could not, restore faith. The practical question is whether Turnbull will want his $1.75Million loan back from the Liberal Party. No banker donates money. However if there is an IOU, it may well be illegal. The AEC would be very interested in anyone having a controlling interest in a political party and without declaration.
There is time to remove Turnbull, before he starts to legislate from the hip, say on Gay Marriage. Turnbull’s banker’s very practical view is that parties control the parliament and people control the parties. The wishes of Australians are irrelevant. Ethics have nothing to do with it.
If Turnbull loses, he will immediately resign and retire, causing a byelection, hoping offering control of parliament to Labor to finish off Abbott. The underlying rivalry here is profound. There can be only one. However without Turnbull, Zimmerman and Photios’ control of the NSW Liberals might disintegrate. As Turnbull said, there are no factions in the NSW Liberals.
The next few weeks will be very interesting. Hopefully the RET will be gone soon.
80
November, 1993 – Turnbull publishes his book “The Reluctant Republic”. In it he…
.
• Attacks Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies. (pg 59)
• Praises Labor’s Curtin and Doc Evatt. (pg 53)
• Admits they tried to hide ALP involvement in the republic movement. (pg 186)
• Praises Paul Keating. (pg 190)
• Wants Australian flag changed. (pg 199,200)
• Suggests anti?republicans are racist against Asians. (pg 217, 218)
• Says monarchists are “cave?man conservatives”. (pg. 227)
• Says monarchists will use racism and sectarianism and will promote ignorance and fear to
achieve goals. (pg 263)
• Attacks Sir Garfield Barwick. (pg 124)
• Suggests Australia is a racist country. (pg 34,35,38).
• Makes abusive remarks about Liberals. (pg 244)
• Threatens Liberals with election challenges. (pg 245, 247,248)
40
All very interesting but that’s all water under the bridge if not conjecture and hearsay. I also read somewhere Turnbull tried to join the ALP first but was rejected. Who cares as it’s all in the murky past. It’s the future we now have to worry about. We desperately need to get away from both major parties otherwise we are doomed big time!
20
Nice idea but practically big parties win. If the Liberal party fractured, there would be one dominant party for decades. That is why Abbott with a Masters in International politics from Oxford is desperate to hold the party together through this.
Turnbull is openly wrecking the joint, one of at least five Abbott cabinet ministers who planned their takeover of the Prime Ministership, the Winning Circle in Pyne’s terms. They are far to the left of Bill Shorten and much more comfortable with the Greens.
Prepare for seismic shock as small parties form and group and regroup. The only hope for the Liberals and it is a great hope, is to get Abbott back and undo all the damage. No RET. Undo Gonski 2.0. Undo the bank tax. Strip SA of the ridiculous submarine contract and unfair GST subsidies. Plebiscite now.
Get the smelters going and get the big power stations working. Undo the absurd deal with Obama and Manus Island for Central American refugees. It could all be done this year. Stop the windmills. Start the power stations.
10
Also disband the HRC. It is useless. Make the huge ABC/SBS obey the media laws which apply to every other media company. Why should they be exempt? Disband the many QANGOes created by Labor. Save billions. Use it to promote a meritocracy in education, where results matter. Lift enrolments in Physics from a dismal 6% to the former 25%. We are educating our children to be waiters, not scientists. Why talk of STEM when you means social sciences like the nebulous ‘environment’ and Tim Flannery’s paleoentology? When did that earn export income? Over 50% of our engineers are imported. We need to make Australia great again, not back to an open cut mine and tourist venue with the defence capability of Heard Island.
There is time. Now.
20
Critique of 100% renewables study in Euan Means link at
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/06/blowout-week-18.html#comments
20
Minor nitpick Ian, (you’ve done it twice now) It’s Euan Mearns not Means.
20
what a cheap way to recruit thousands of unpaid “marketers” when you make millions from the CACW scam:
25 Jun: Portland Tribune: Jennifer Anderson: Gore in Seattle to train next batch of climate reality leaders
He’ll be in Bellevue, Wash. the week of June 27-29 to lead the 35th of his Climate Reality Leadership Corps, featured in the new film. About 700 trainees will attend, from across the Pacific Northwest as well as across the U.S. and around the world.
The Climate Reality Project, the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit hosting the event, says they received about twice as many applications for the training but had to cap it for space constraints
Those presenting at this year’s training include: Ken Berlin, president and chief executive officer of The Climate Reality Project; former Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, who was trained in 2006 as a climate leader; and Washington Governor Jay Inslee.
New climate reality leaders have access to what’s called a Climate Speakers Network, which seeks to engage communities of faith, conservatives and other non-traditional allies about climate change.
Newly trained leaders are also encouraged to give presentations to their peers and communities, and have found that active engagement has been a way to breakthrough with people who express doubt or denial.
http://portlandtribune.com/sl/364188-245032-gore-in-seattle-to-train-next-batch-of-climate-reality-leaders-
10
I would like to reiterate my previous request that we collectively generate both a meme for posting on social media and an FAQ explaining how REC’s work and how these directly cause higher electricity prices.
Eg content would include (please correct any errors).
-For permission to generate electricity a coal plant has to pay about 9c per kWh.
-This 9c is directly transferred to a windmill or solar operator as pure profit and they have done nothing to earn it except having produced one kWh of power even if its uneeded. This money is usually transferred to foreign owners.
-Even if a coal plant didn’t charge for electricity it would still need to recover 9c per kWh.
-Any wind or solar power generated gets first option to be sold into the grid.
-I’m not sure how the final retail price is determined.
Comments?
41
David, I believe it works as follows:
– Retailers purchase electricity from generators through the bidding process run by AEMO (Not sure how network costs are factored in).
– Retailers must also submit to the Clean Energy Regulator large renewable energy certificates that demonstrate that they have purchased a proportionate share of their supplies from renewable suppliers. Large-scale generation certificates are created based on the amount of eligible renewable electricity produced by the power stations, and can be sold or traded to Renewable Energy Target liable entities, in addition to their sale of electricity to the grid. Liable entities have a legal obligation to buy and surrender large-scale generation certificates to the Clean Energy Regulator on an annual basis. The number of large-scale generation certificates required to be submitted by electricity retailers is set each year by the renewable power percentage. The price paid depends on supply/demand.
Large buyers and sellers of Large-scale Generation Certificates (LGCs) trade through the wholesale market with minimum parcel sizes of 5,000 certificates. LAte last year prices were about $87/MWhr, but recently prices have been below $80.
40
Here’s a link to the “RET How it works and what it costs November 2013”
The link should download a 673KB PDF file.
Yes, it’s a bit out of date being 2013 but the explanation and ‘money-go-round’ graphic is invaluable IMHO.
http://aign.net.au/file_download/1051/RET+How+it+works+and+what+it+costs+November+2013.pdf
20
David,
I think it’s a very good idea. And Robber has got it off to a good start.
Maybe Jo would think it worth putting it up as a subject for comment.
20
Awaiting moderation because Of a four letter word (think bowel movement)
From a tweet I read earlier today (yesterday in Australia)
50
Ah! So the four letter word that you referred to is “socialism” then?
But, but but….. that’s got nine letters.
No matter. Same difference.
00
links to report:
25 Jun: ClimateChangeNews: End of coal: Failure to see it coming will hurt miners most
By Oliver Sartor and Andrzej Błachowicz
(Oliver Sartor is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations and Andrzej Błachowicz is the managing director of Climate Strategies)
In a new report (LINK), authors from the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations and Climate Strategies examined past coal mining declines in five European countries (Spain, the Netherlands, UK, Poland and the Czech Republic) and also in the US.
One of the overarching conclusions is that early anticipation is essential to making a ‘just transition’…
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/06/25/just-transition-coal-possible-starts-now/
About: Think tanks IDDRI and Climate Strategies are the leading partners for the Coal Transitions Project. This brings together a team of researchers from:
•Australia – Australian National University & Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne
•South Africa – Energy Research Centre of the University of Cape Town
•Germany – German Institute for Economic Research – DIW
•Poland – Institute for Structural Research
•India – Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad
•China – Tsinghua University
The project partners gratefully acknowledge funding by the ***KR Foundation, with additional support from the European Climate Foundation (ECF).
***26 Mar: Clean Technica: Connie Hedegaard: “I wish that European institutions would focus more on climate and environmental questions to show the value of the EU to EU citizens.”
This week, Tobias Engelmeier interviewed Connie Hedegaard, First chair of the Board for the KR Foundation, a large Danish climate and sustainability foundation operating globally. As the former European Commissioner for Climate Action (2010-2014), Connie Hedegaard has led the negotiations towards the adoption of the EU 2030 Climate and Energy Framework as well as the 2050 Roadmap for moving to a low carbon economy…
HEDEGAARD: China understood that in order to maintain social stability it needs to address its environmental issues. As a result it is relying less on coal and investing heavily into renewables. Now China is addressing transportation in cities, pushing electric vehicles and public transport…
My cause for optimism is, again, that the business case for renewables is so strong. Re-opening old, uncompetitive coal mines, on the other hand, makes no sense. One would expect that a businessman like Trump can see a good business case.
Read the entire interview here (LINK)
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/03/26/connie-hedegaard-wish-european-institutions-focus-climate-environmental-questions-show-value-eu-eu-citizens/
10
Quoted from an email
““After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.”
Pure Gold!!!!
This is priceless
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/05/19/a-new-academic-hoax-a-bogus-paper-on-the-conceptual-penis-gets-published-in-a-high-quality-peer-reviewed-social-science-journal/amp/ “
30
It didn’t even need mate review or pay to publish
01
A question that maybe tony could answer?
this is the situation in Vic
VIC $109.27
Demand 6,150
Generation 5,823
Wind and Other 14
They are importing 127MW from NSW which is the max rated for the link and 119MW from TAS which is also the max rating for the link.
Now look at SA
SA $112.99
Demand 1,522
Generation 1,444
Wind and Other 4
The generation is from our thermal gas and this is pretty much maximum for that plant, we are importing 92 MW from Vic and exporting 18MW also max for link.
So my question is what happens if our 51 year old CCGT drops a turbine or our demand goes up where does SA get the extra power from? Some may say ah that’s easy we get it from our OCGT at Pelican point, my response will be don’t hold your breath as last time in this situation we load shed as there was no gas for pelican point abd even it there was it was too damn expensive to buy.
So can someone explain where the extra power if needed comes from?
60
Both South Australia, and Victoria could be in trouble at the evening peak around 6PM when the demand will be Vic – 7133 (an extra 1000MW above what is being consumed now) and S.A. – 2165MW. (an extra 600MW on top of now)
All wind in Australia is currently delivering around 25MW, out of a Nameplate of 4400MW, so that’s a CF of 0.57% or around 0.09% of Australia’s consumption, less than one tenth of one percent.
S.A. wind plants have been delivering zero power since 7AM.
Quick, let’s build more of them. (/sarc)
This is just plain disgusting really.
I wonder what will get the blame this time.
In Victoria, all ten units at Loy Yang and Yallourn are running, generating 4730MW from a Nameplate of 4650MW. Great eh, they tap out those coal fired units for all they can get, especially when it’s needed eh!
Tony.
61
Thanks Tony,
Does Vic have any spare generation left? The old Torrens plant is going gang busters over here just waiting for another fire and two turbines to drop off.
A more on here at work is telling me about the LCOE study claiming the following
ANU produced the following levelised cost of generation (LCOG) earlier this year:
Wind: $64 / MWh (and falling)
Solar: $78 / MWh (and falling)
Allowing for the cost of balancing the grid ($24 -$37 / MWh) they laid out a 100% renewable grid with an levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) of $75 – $93 / MWh. Their primary storage / balancing mechanism is pumped hydro, and the study scopes feasible sites for PHES in SA, VIC, NSW and QLD
The same study estimate the LCOE for supercritical black coat at $80 / MWh.
Oh how I laughed…………..
Anyway after some robust debate he now claims wind is cheap when the wind blows, when it does not blow its well not dear. Apparently when the wind does not blow in SA like now we just get our power from Vic which is why we have not load shed so whats my problem. I explained lack of generation as in the above comment and then further explained Victoria have been using the same LCOE computer model so Vic wont have power to share will they????????????????
For some reason he did not want to discuss the topic anymore.
20
Tassie hydro is currently pumping out over 1500 MW versus capacity of 2260 MW. In Vic Murray hydro is pumping 600 MW versus capacity of 2200 MW (assuming water is available), while NSW hydro pumped out 900 MW this morning, now resting ready for the evening peak, with capacity of 2600 MW, mainly from Tumut.
On fossil fuels, at 4pm SA seems to be at >90% utilisation. In Vic, Yallourn and Loy Yang are >90% with the only apparent spare capacity at Newport gas, running 147 MW versus 500 MW capacity, and Mortlake gas running 212 MW of 283 MW capacity.
It will be interesting to watch how the evening peak is covered.
20
Look, I don’t care, but when is somebody going to actually say ….. “enough is enough!”
That’s 19 wind plants with around a thousand separate turbines on poles, and the output is zero, and has been zero now for nine hours.
Here we have an asset worth approximately $10 Billion in today’s money and it’s currently just sitting there producing absolutely nothing.
And this is what they are replacing coal fired power with.
NOTHING
Australia wide, 45 wind plants, and there’s an asset worth around $25 Billion in today’s dollars, and it’s working at only 2.2% of its capacity.
Anything else, anything at all, and there would be some serious questions asked and some heads rolling.
This is absolutely disgusting.
And the upshot is that you won’t hear a single word about it anywhere.
Tony.
101
They probably never will Tony, like when SA went black because the software on the turbines, yes it was not due to a lack of generation per se but people rushed to the turbines defence. Same thing will happen next time and eventually it will be “if we want to save the planet we all need to make sacrifices’, “you do want to save the planet don’t you?” and the more ons will get that warm fuzzy glow and accept it.
41
6PM Victoria – Total Power Consumption – 7150MW, Wind – 5MW (or 0.07% of consumption) Cost $135/MWH.
6PM South Australia – Total Power Consumption – 2200MW, Wind 10MW (0.45% of consumption) Cost – $126/MWH
Absolutely pitiful.
Tony.
41
Hazelwood, so bl00dy ancient, that in its last Month, it couldn’t even reach its Nameplate of 1600MW after 53 years, and all it could manage was 1377MW at its best, 300MW LESS than every wind plant in South Australia.
In the last TWELVE HOURS, all those 19 wind plants in South Australia generated 20MWH of power, you know, the same power generated by that ancient relic Hazelwood during its last Month in, umm ….. 52 SECONDS.
52 seconds worth of generated power in twelve hours.
Wind, a bargain in anyone’s opinion, eh! (/sarc)
Tony.
71
TonyfromOz –
the CAGW are too busy fleecing the public every which way to worry about mundane things like keeping the lights on etc:
22 Jun: BloombergNewEnergyFinance: Green Bond Investors Ask If Their Cash Is Being Spent as Promised
“If we buy a green bond, how do we know that it is really green?” Robert Parker, Credit Suisse Group AG’s former senior adviser, said at a recent conference in Luxembourg. “There are some big issues to make sure it is compliant.”
Reassurance is needed because there is no regulator for the green-bond market, and investors can’t monitor hundreds of separate projects around the world themselves. The lack of enforced standards also gives issuers some latitude in determining what constitutes a “green” project.
Attempts at standardization include a green-bond label introduced this week by LuxFlag, a group backed by the Luxembourg government and the nation’s stock exchange, which lists more than 50 percent of green bonds worldwide.
“The most important factor is truth in labeling,” said Anouk Agnes, deputy director general at the Association of the Luxembourg Fund Industry, which helped found LuxFlag. “Investors need to be reassured that if they buy a fund or a bond that says it’s green or sustainable, it is doing what it says.”
Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, also offers a green bond tag…
Defining what counts as “green” still remains a challenge, particularly when traditionally heavily polluting industries seek funding. In China, the biggest source of green bonds last year, notes can be used to fund coal power plants, if the project meets certain criteria.
Major oil producers have also started selling green bonds…
“I’m very concerned when a company sells a green bond and on the other side their business isn’t compliant with energy goals,” said Ulf Erlandsson, an investor at Swedish state pension fund Fjaerde AP-Fonden, which manages about $37 billion. “There is certainly an element of green-washing in the market.”…
The International Capital Markets Association also this month updated its green-bond guidelines, adding recommendations for greater reporting.
Data Crunching
To help investors make use of this data, Rockefeller Foundation is supporting a “carbon yield” methodology that acts as a way of comparing the environmental impact of different investments. The tool, which is publicly available online, relies on estimating how much carbon-dioxide pollution is avoided. It was devised by merchant bank Lion’s Head Global Partners, sustainability adviser South Pole Group and asset manager Affirmative Investment Management.
“The thirst to understand what impact people’s investment is having is becoming ever more concentrated, particularly as the impact of climate change is becoming more visible to the man on the street,” said Christopher Egerton-Warburton, a partner at Lion’s Head.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/green-bond-investors-ask-if-their-cash-is-being-spent-as-promised/
00
22 Jun: EconomicTimesIndia: Joel Rebello: Rural Electrification Corp to raise $300 million selling green bonds
The bonds are so called green bonds and will be used to finance environmentally friendly projects. These bonds will be the first such by REC under its $1 billion medium term note (MTN) programme, these people said…
The sale may happen even next week depending on the demand for the paper,” said one of the persons familiar with the issue.
Barclays, BNP Paribas, HSBC, ANZ Grindlays and Mitsubishi UFG are the bankers to the issue.
Funds raised from a green bond are used for projects like renewable energy, environment friendly technology and pollution control.
***Globally some large funds have specific mandates to invest in these kind of instruments which mean that these papers have a pool of investors ready to put money.
Broadly, Eligible Green Projects will include solar, wind, and biomass projects or assets, hydropower projects, and sustainable water and waste management projects,” Moody’s said.
In an interview with ET in April REC chairman PV Ramesh said the company is looking at diversifying from power sector lending to financing equipment manufacturing, energy efficiency schemes, power plants renovation and coal blocks development.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/bonds/rural-electrification-corp-to-raise-300-million-selling-green-bonds/articleshow/59273821.cms
00
20 Jun: Reuters: Euro zone debt chiefs cautiously eye sustainable bond options
by John Geddie and Dhara Ranasinghe
Portugal, Ireland and Italy are all looking at the possibility of following France by issuing sustainable debt, the heads of their respective debt agencies said on Tuesday.
France this year became the second sovereign after Poland to sell so-called “green bonds”, where the proceeds are used to finance projects to address climate change…
Portugal’s debt agency chief Cristina Casalinho told an audience at a Euromoney conference in London: “We’ve always been trying to diversify our investor base. We are considering green bonds, responsible bonds.”…
“The issue we may find in Ireland is sufficient projects that could qualify (for green investment) … but we keep an open mind,” said (Ireland’s head of funding Frank) O’Connor…
Italy’s debt chief Maria Cannata added that while she had no firm plans and was concerned about the reporting requirements of issuing sustainable debt, the Italian Treasury was “investigating all the aspects” of the new asset class.
https://www.reuters.com/article/eurozone-bonds-green-idUSU8N1CQ01I
everyone is getting into it:
23 Jun: TodayOnline: Angela Teng: MAS Green Bond Grant scheme not limited to Singapore issuers
SINGAPORE — It is not realistic to expect the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s (MAS) Green Bond Grant Scheme to be restricted to Singapore issuers, as the domestic market is too small and such bonds are international by their nature, a senior central bank official said on Friday (June 23).
Several panelists at the discussion said that as the green bond market takes off in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) and the rest of Asia, there is a need for standardisation without stifling the growth of the market.
Mr Wee noted that ASEAN regulators have been working with the International Capital Market Association (ICMA) on a green bond standard.
“The reality is that green bonds (may be) fast growing but it is still a very nascent market. The nature of a nascent market is that it is small, messy and commercially might not make sense as it is such an early stage,” he said…
In March, Second Minister for Finance Lawrence Wong announced the MAS Green Bond Grant scheme to kick-start the development of a green bond market in Singapore. He noted that the global green bond market has grown rapidly in recent years, reaching more than US$80 billion (S$112 billion) last year…
Property developer City Developments (CDL) in April became the first Singapore company to issue a green bond. The two-year secured bond raised S$100 million at a 1.98 per cent fixed rate due 2019, with investors comprising mainly financial institutions and fund managers, CDL said.
http://m.todayonline.com/business/mas-green-bond-grant-scheme-not-limited-singapore-issuers
00
20 Jun: IRIS: An Apple in the Green Bond Orchard
Apple Inc. brought their second green bond offering to market this month, raising $1 billion from investors through the issuance of these 10 year notes. The proceeds of this bond issue are earmarked for various energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, sustainability initiatives, and other green undertakings.
The company’s first foray into the green bond market was in 2016 when they raised $1.5 billion, the largest green bond issued by a U.S. company to date. Of the funds raised in 2016, $442 million were allocated to sixteen projects by the year’s end, ranging from recycling to renewable energy…
Moody’s projects that total issuance in 2017 will exceed $206 billion, a much more positive outlook for the market than Bloomberg New Energy Finance which projects growth to $123 billion this year. In comparison, the total issuance in 2016 was $93 billion with green bond issuances in the Chinese market representing roughly a third of the total issuance…
Last year saw significant developments in the green bond market with the first sovereign bond being issued by Poland, the introduction of covered bonds in the Chinese market, and the mortgage-backed bonds being marketed in the Netherlands…
Given the widespread commitment to the continued support of ambitious emissions reductions programs by states and cities in response to President Trump’s actions regarding the Paris Agreement, it is expected that there will be continued growth in the municipal green bond market…
http://www.iris.xyz/fixed-income/apple-green-bond-orchard
00
Wow! Smart move.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/rachel-carling-jenkins-joins-bernardis-australian-conservatives/8651032
10
While at the same time the Liberals threaten to implode. A good read.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jun/26/christopher-goes-the-full-pyne-as-moderates-roast-gives-conservatives-indigestion
10
Ooops . . my apologies.
This was from a NOAA monthly weather review in 1922.
81
Friends of mine just sent me this email after returning from a trip to the north pole on a Russian icebreaker. They are unaware of my scepticism about climate change.
I did the same trip in 2008.
I sent a reply saying that Al Gore said there was.
31
read all:
26 Jun: Adelaide Advertiser: Rules to prevent another statewide blackout means higher power bills
by Sheradyn Holderhead
SOUTH Australian households and businesses face further increases to their electricity bills — this time to secure the grid and prevent another catastrophic statewide blackout.
The Australian Energy Market Commission will on Tuesday release tough draft rules for the national energy market aimed at reducing the risk of widespread blackouts as a result of increasing use of wind and solar power.
Some of the rules add new costs into the grid and the report conceded there would be flow-on to consumers but the AEMC has tried to minimise the hip pocket pain.
It comes as retailers prepare to impose huge bill increases of almost 20 per cent from Saturday, adding hundreds of dollars to household bills…
“The shift in our generation fleet being driven by climate change policies and technological advances is changing our energy landscape,” the report states…
Because of this shift, the AEMC wants all transmission businesses to be required to meet new benchmarks to ensure the power system is maintained in a secure operating state…
Another rule would set minimum levels for system strength and require all new generators connecting to the grid to “do no harm”.
It means that when a new generator negotiates its connection to the grid, it would have to provide or fund any services needed to maintain existing system strength…
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/rules-to-prevent-another-statewide-blackout-means-higher-power-bills/news-story/536ad016a89ea6b8e0add43b7915dec1
00
LOL @ http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/antarctic-sea-ice-record-high-600000km2-more-than-previous-record/
00
***FakeNewsMSM jumped on the BP rubbish en masse…
Trump Clings to Coal as Worldwide Demand Plummets
New York Times-13 Jun. 2017
Global coal usage falls as world turns towards cleaner energy
The Australian-13 Jun. 2017
now this nod to reality:
Coal on the rise in China, US, India after major 2016 drop
Daily Mail/AP -5 hours ago
nonetheless, the AP piece is full of CAGW rubbish and even has silly quotes from ABC darling, ex-Citibank guy, Tim Buckley.
this is the only MSM carrying the AP piece so far, apart from Daily Mail:
26 Jun: PittsburghPostGazette: Coal on the rise in China, U.S., India after major 2016 drop
by Matthew Brown and Katy Daigle, Associated Press
Mining data reviewed by The Associated Press show that production through May is up by at least 121 million tons, or 6 percent, for the three countries compared to the same period last year. The change is most dramatic in the U.S., where coal mining rose 19 percent in the first five months of the year, according to U.S. Department of Energy data…
(LOL) Coal’s fortunes had appeared to hit a new low less than two weeks ago, when British energy company BP reported that tonnage mined worldwide fell 6.5 percent in 2016, the largest drop on record…
The reasons for this year’s turnaround include policy shifts in China, changes in U.S. energy markets and India’s continued push to provide electricity to more of its poor, industry experts said…
The U.S., China and India combined produce about two-thirds of the coal mined worldwide, and the latter two nations also import coal to meet demand. India’s production expanded even during coal’s global downturn…
Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Pakistan also are building new plants.
In India, where 70 percent of electricity comes from coal, production has long been increasing in defiance of global trends. The country has long argued it has both a right and an obligation to expand power generation as it extends electricity access to hundreds of millions of people who still have none…
A cold winter in parts of the U.S. also benefited coal by increasing power demand…
(LOL) (Energy Economics and Financial Analysis’s Tim) Buckley, the energy finance specialist, said he expects the mining increases of 2017 to emerge as an ***anomaly and global declines will soon resume. But he noted that many existing coal plants will continue operating for years to come.
“We’re not talking about the end of coal tomorrow or the end of coal next decade. We’re talking about a 40-year transition,” he said.
http://powersource.post-gazette.com/powersource/companies/2017/06/26/Coal-production-rise-China-US-India-2017/stories/201706260113
will the MSM pick up this story eventually? will check tomorrow to find out.
30
followup –
MSM has picked up the story, though I had to click on “omitted results” to find most of them.
had to do individual searches to find the AP article on NYT & WaPo.
failed in all searches to find the story at BBC, ABC Australia, CNN or Guardian.
only NBC regionals seem to have it.
BEST NEWS: DrudgeReport has it.
00
The science of thermalization and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy explain why CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate. The people denying science are the advocates for the AGW mistake.
Failing to recognize that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is an egregious mistake but is dwarfed by the potential disasters of what actually does.
The still-rising water vapor is rising about three times as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone (feedback). The rising WV coincides with rising irrigation, especially spray irrigation on fields and lawns. The warming (WV is a ghg) is welcome (countering the average global cooling which would otherwise be occurring) but the added WV increases the risk of precipitation related flooding. How much of recent flooding (with incidences reported world wide) is simply bad luck in the randomness of weather and how much is because of the ‘thumb on the scale’ of added water vapor?
“We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” Ayn Rand
11
Dan
You are making things up again. The atmospheric water vapour is exactly where it should be the modest rise in sea surface temperature over the last 120 years.
Sea surface rise about 0.6C:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadisst1_0-360E_-90-90N_n_1900:2020_a.png
Water vapour pressure rise expected is 70Pa for 0.6C, very close to that measured:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icru4_vap_25_0-360E_-90-90N_n_a.png
There is no increase in precipitation:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icamsopi_0-360E_-90-90N_n_a.png
In fact it is slightly down over the last 30 years.
00
I do not and have never made things up but am in constant search for the truth. Unfortunately, a lot of stuff out there comes from advocates of one side or the other.
Thanks for the links. Unfortunately different sources often give different numbers. I used a linear regression of HadCRUT4 temperatures 2001-2015 (which is steeper than Jan 1988-April 2017). Water vapor is measured by satellite by NASA/RSS as TPA (total precipitable water) and reported numerically at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201704.time_series.txt (the link changes monthly so if this does not work, change the 4 to 5). This is for 60N to 60S. Because this is most of the planet and there isn’t much WV closer to the poles anyway, IMO it is a valid metric. The data is graphed at Fig 3 in my blog/analysis (click my name to see).
I don’t understand the graph at your second link. The saturated vapor pressure of water at 14 C is about 16 hpa (text book and on line) and the graph shows only about 0.9 hpa. It looks even too low to be the actual unsaturated partial pressure of WV. Also, there can be a relation between temperature and partial pressure, but there is no relation between partial pressure (or vapor pressure) and TPW.
My comment on precipitation is, as implied, speculative so your link is appreciated. There has been a lot in the news but my perception from the news is little more than anecdotal. I would want to see corroborating assessments, though. IMO if precipitation is increasing, cloudiness should also be increasing.
00
The graph is the vapour pressure anomaly.
The is the actual vapour pressure:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icru4_vap_25_0-360E_-90-90N_n.png
Your data is more up to date. 2016 was an El Nino year and you would expect the water vapour ton increase in a hot year. It is similar to 1998 which was also an El Nino period. In 2017 the WV is not far above the average value. consistent with the long term temperature rise. For example, the anomaly in your test file has averaged 0.9kg/sq/m or 90Pa compared with the expected anomaly of 70Pa for a 0.6C SST rise. Keeping in mind that your data does not cover the whole globe that is within the error band. It is hardly what I would call 3X the expected level.
00
Apparently you overlooked this “…there is no relation between partial pressure (or vapor pressure) and TPW.”
00
The relationship is termed relative humidity.
For the calculation of the expected anomaly I used 100% relative humidity, which puts an upper bound on the expected change in TPW for sea surface temperature change.
A departure from the relationship between water Vapour Pressure and TPW there would need to be a change in Relative Humidity. Relative humidity over the oceans has not changed and RH has fallen a little over land. That means less precipitable water over land.
00
You say “that means less precipitable water over land.”.
Not necessarily. It could alternatively mean it is warmer over land. Relative humidity requires also the temperature to determine specific humidity which is the measure of the amount of the ghg water vapor in the atmosphere.
I suggest you spend some time learning about this stuff, perhaps starting with a psychrometric chart. It shows how specific humidity varies with relative humidity and temperature.
00
Yes – correct TPM is both a function of relative humidity and temperature.
Your assertion above
The NOAA data for April 2017 gives an anomaly lower than December 1997 value. Surely this data means your assertion is nonsense.
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNgklDQLsO8rSf-eMY
00
Ric – Shame on you for cherry picking the peak of the super el Nino in Dec 1997. The trend supports my assertion.
00
In what way does the “trend” support your assertion that there is THREE times more precipitable water than expected from the water temperature rise.
You are saying I cherry picked 199 7 because it was an El Nino year – that means it was a hot year and TPW did what you expect. It went up. 2017 is panning out to be the same temperature as 1997 and the TPW is back to exactly where it was in 1997. There is no THREE times more precipitable water than expected. It just changes in line with sea surface temperature.
00
The calculation is in my analysis in the section titled ‘Water vapor’ (fourth paragraph before Fig 3). It uses the temperature slope from HadCRUT4 and the TPW slope from the NASA/RSS data. Calculation is as follows:
“Global temperature increase in a decade from HadCRUT4, discounting el Nino is about 0.08 K. At 15°C increase in water vapor partial pressure is 6.25% per degree. Percent increase in water vapor due to temperature increase = 0.08 * 6.25% = 0.5%. Measured % increase from TPW in 28 yr = (29.5-28.5)/28.25 = 0.044 = 4.4%. In 10 yr = 10/28*4.4 = 1.57%. Thus measured increase in WV is about 1.57/.5 = 3+ times that for temperature increase alone.”
10
Dan
You have two basic flaws in your calculations. First, water in the atmosphere comes from the oceans meaning sea surface temperature is your only concern from the perspective of temperature. It has increased, ON AVERAGE, from 18.2 to 18.7C since 1980:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ihadisst1_0-360E_-90-90N_n_1980:2020_1980:2020.png
The second fundamental flaw is not understanding the relationship between temperature and vapour pressure. It is not linear. Taking your two values of TPW, namely 28.5 and 29.5, and approximating the RH over oceans to be 80% you have corresponding vapour pressures of 3562Pa and 3687Pa. These correspond to sea surface temperatures of 27.1C and 27.6C. So a difference of 0.5C. As close as you could get to the measured average temperature difference.
00
RW – Because the global temperature is about 71% ocean temperature, average global temperature is a good estimate of average ocean temperature which I could have as easily. Note that your ocean temp increased 0.5 C. My global temp increased .08 C per decade. It has been 5.75 decades so, to the nearest tenth of a degree, I also got 0.5 C. Your numbers amount to a verification, not a mistake.
The relationship between temperature and vapor pressure is a simple look-up such as at http://intro.chem.okstate.edu/1515sp01/database/vpwater.html . No way is the average RH 80% over the the oceans and why use RH anyway, it varies with altitude (lapse rate) from 100% at the interface with water to typically less than 50% and then up to 100% again at clouds, less with clear sky. What matters to warming from the ghg water vapor is TPW. The least biased approach is by % which is what I did.
00
Vapour pressure may be a simple look up for you but that does not change the fact that it is non-linear. Use your simple look up to see the change in Wvp from 15 to 16C versus the change from 27 to 28C. Both are a 1C change but the Wvp changes twice as much.
There is much more water vapour above tropical oceans than over high latitude oceans. It is the temperature of the tropical oceans that matter with regard to the TPW and changes in both.
I suggest you redo your analysis with a base temperature of 27C rather than 15C. 27C is much closer to the base temperature of interest than 15C.
00
RW – I agree. The difference per degree is higher but the base amount is also higher so the % increase of vapor pressure per degree of temperature change is actually less at 5.8% per degree in place of 6.25% so the change per decade is .08*5.8%=.46%. 1.57/.46=3.3+ times that for temperature increase alone.
00
I given change on a larger base is SMALLER percentage not higher!!
Show your workings for the expected change in TWP for your delta T Ove a stated time scale starting at a base temperature of 27C and compare that to the actual measured change in TWP over the same time scale so I can see specifically where you are going wrong.
00
“I given change on a larger base is SMALLER percentage not higher!!” Yes, 5.8% is smaller than 6.25%.
My ‘workings’ are detailed in my blog/analysis.
00
Basing your calculated change in TPW on an average temperature of 15C is wrong. Redo your analysis at 27C and place the link here if you are not prepared to show the calculations here.
00
An elderly couple had just learned how to send text messages on their new mobile phones.
The wife Kelly was a romantic type and a retired English Teacher of the Classics …. and the husband,a retired Navy Chief,Brett was more of a no-nonsense guy.
One afternoon the wife went out to meet a friend for coffee. She decided to send her husband a romantic text message and she wrote:
“If you are sleeping, send me your dreams.
If you are laughing, send me your smile.
If you are eating, send me a bite.
If you are drinking, send me a sip.
If you are crying, send me your tears. ….I love you.”
The husband texted back to her:
“I’m on the toilet…… Please advise.”
Ain’t love grand……
00
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
00