The UEA has a map of the areas where there will be massively increased aridity if warming hits 2C. One major area that could be affected is Southern Australia – from Perth to Sydney. Al Gore, on pages 114-115 has a graphic of where global precipitation increased and decreased in the 20th century. In most of Southern Australia it increased significantly – 30% or more. The earth warmed by a third of the way to the dangerous 2C warming barrier.
Compare the graphics. https://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/southern-australia.jpg
Sceptical Sam,
The purpose of this rubbish is not to waste our time. It is to scare politicians into putting more onerous policies to combat dangerous global warming. But whatever policies are enacted in Australia, Canada or the EU, there are two economic reasons why global GHG emissions will not be reduced.
On the Demand side, 80% of the world’s population live in countries whose government’s have no intention of enacting policies to significantly reduce their emissions. The Policy Gap will not be closed.
On the Supply side, to meet the emissions targets, at least 75% of global proven reserves of oil, gas and coal must be left in the ground – and any future discoveries. Countries with major reserves of fossil fuels include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Qatar and China. Do anyone seriously think these countries will sign binding agreements to eliminate a major part of their GDP’s within the next 20 years?
More onerous policies which coincidentally break down and eventually destroy our capitalist system.
In order to replace it with the model used in Venezuela.
I can just imagine how a ticked off australian population will handle that…they wont. At that point, the Elite will either have to fomd, or deploy draconian riot control measures that coukd easily escalate into civil war in this country.
People think it cant happrn here, but any population deprived of Liberty with a proven track record of being able in times of conflict to harness its “inner mongrel” and use things like bayonets in jungle warfare as its preferred weapon as Australians can, is a population not to be messed with.
The Elite rely on bluff, because unless they exterminate chunks of the population to maintain control, they wont want to pick a fight with Australians internally…it will go very badly and the Mad Max scenario will likely become very real very quickly.
Kevin Marshall (Manicbeancounter)January 3, 2018 at 10:22 am
Sceptical Sam, The purpose of this rubbish is not to waste our time. It is to scare politicians into putting more onerous policies to combat dangerous global warming. But whatever policies are enacted in Australia, Canada or the EU, there are two economic reasons why global GHG emissions will not be reduced.
Kevin, I agree with your utterance describing the ‘scare policies’ involved to adversely influence politicians against citizens\voters. Why do you accept the deliberate stupidity of your fake GHG emissions. Please use your bean-counter\statistical learning to help identify why ‘Green House anything’ is but a scam!
Will,
Try looking at the logical economic method of Ludwig von Mises in his magnum opus Human Action, or the more mathematically formal neo-classical economics. Both make logical assumptions and then examine the internal logic of those assumptions. In so doing it is possible to say either certain situations will not arise, or give explanations of certain real world and complex situations. It does not mean that economists accept the homo-economicus is a species.
Similarly for climate policy, I do not accept the assumption that a doubling of CO2 levels will lead to 3C of warming, or that 2C of warming is the boundary of climate apocalypse, but the IPCC does. If you take their beliefs and apply it climate mitigation, I know they will not achieve their aims. The reasons I lay in #1.1.1.1. I have simply worked through the logic. Asking the “What if” questions does not mean accepting the scenarios as being true.
“What if” questions does not mean accepting the scenarios as being true.
I disagree! Your “logical economic method of Ludwig von Mises” is not applicable to this UN political scam. Such nonsense may be acceptable at (politics not science), https://cliscep.com/. Please explain why you wish to promote such scam at Joanne’s blog? Where is any science in support of your fake CO2 “What ifs”?
Will,
As an example of the failure of the internal logic of the climate alarmists, take claim of 1000 GtCO2e of emissions being sufficient to generate 2C of warming.
1. The core assumption of that a doubling of CO2 will lead to 3C of warming.
2. Therefore a rise of CO2 from 280 to 450ppm will generate roughly CO2 of warming.
3. At the end of 2011 CO2 was already at 390ppm.
4. It takes around 15-17 GtCO2 (4 GtC) of emissions to raise CO2 levels by 1ppm from data of the last 50 years.
5. Therefore 1000 GtCO2 of emissions will result in CO2 levels of 449 to 457ppm
This is logically consistent except
a. There should have been more warming already from CO2 alone. Having “prepaid” warming is fine, but you must allow for it in policy.
b. There are other GHG gases.
The 2006 STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change stated in the Executive Summary page iii summed up the conundrum quite nicely.
The current level or stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is equivalent to around 430 parts per million (ppm) CO2 compared with only 280ppm before the Industrial Revolution. These concentrations have already caused the world to warm by more than half a degree Celsius and will lead to at least a further half degree warming over the next few decades, because of the inertia in the climate system.
Other GHG rises were equivalent to 40ppm of CO2 rises and at least 0.5C of warming was in the pipeline. With CO2 rising by 2ppm we already have 2 degrees of warming in the pipeline, and there was already well over 1.5C in the pipeline back in 2006 ifone assumes that a doubling of CO2 will eventually lead to 3C of warming.
Logically the argument for climate mitigation fails, just as the policy case for reducing global emissions fails, as I lay out in comment #1.1.1.1.
1. What do you mean by your intentionally ambiguous ‘warming’? Is the application of additional power to already boiling water, considered ‘warming’ with no increase in temperature or not?
2. You spout nonsense of 1000 GtCO2e of emissions as though such had meaning but you provide no such meaning! Even if an atmospheric mass of 10^15 Kg gaseous carbon dioxide meant something such cannot be some sort of ’emission’ as the largest part of that 10^15 Kg was already atmospheric oxygen.
3. Atmospheric CO2 ratio in ppmv can be a quite accurate measurement, but the way you promote it is but nonsense. You insist on conflating total atmospheric mass, sea-level pressure, and gravitational accelerative force (weight). Your institutionalized academic meteorological professors have demonstrated over and over again that they lack the mathematical and geometric skill required to calculate the mass of Earth’s atmosphere; let alone even attempting to provide some reason for just that atmospheric mass!!
You could be a little nicer — just regular hammers.
I think it was your sledgehammer style comments sent me away
from this blog for a few years — unless there is someone
else who talks like you.
I agree with most of what you say
but not with the way you character attack.
I’m back after a few years,
armed and dangerous,
and wanted to hunt you down
and tell you what I really think
of your sledgehammer comments:
— Up your nose with a rubber hose.
Would this link explain what goes on behind the scenes of government & their dealings with the Fearful Master, (th UN).
I bet Australian government is up to it’s eyeballs in similar “agreements” signed without the knowledge of the electorate.
I wish I had the time and computing power to create models of my own to predict a mini ice age, which is just as likely if not more so than any of the garbage models suggesting massive global warming. We can then have Betsar and others getting into the act to see which models would become the favourite. I bet mine would be 🙂
The Klimatariat have been pushing the meme that the intensification of the subtropical ridge (STR) is a global warming signal and southern Australia would become droughty under AGW, so the politicians built desalination plants in preparation for the worst.
China has ghost cities and Australia has desalination plants.
In the real world the STR has collapsed and southern Australia can expect good winter rains for at least a couple of decades.
Stange – I thought that a colder climate would be drier and a warmer climate wetter. But it seems that with the recent claims that Global Wafming causes cooling, then I suppose Global Warming can also cause droughts – it seems to be responsible for everything else.
Which “cool regime” is that?
The failed prediction by John McLean, which failed to eventuate? The failed prediction by Lindzen? David Evans’ prediction which we are told hasn’t failed yet, although it hasn’t come to pass…..
Maybe you should have been more sceptical of this “cool regime” narrative that has been put about, El Gordo?
If I can speak for el Gordon, I believe they are referring to geolocation evidence and perhaps ice core evidence of matching drier periods in the past and not to any future predictions.
In the context of Australia, variability caused by El Nino/La Nina cycles has the dominant effect on our precipitation tallies.
So the question is – “how does the warming of the oceans and atmosphere affect the El Nino/La Nina cycles?”
We’ve always had periodic droughts – the main thing of interest to us from a water security point of view is whether the La Nina events become less frequent or less intense, because that will have a massive effect on our rainfall trends.
Could you possibly provide a reference for the map with blue dots on it?
I ask, because I am sceptical, and factchecking the “blue dots” map against the data recorded by BoM would appear to show the “blue dots” is wildly inaccurate:
My comment in the “Janoschka style”.
No one censors him here.
So I assume I can comment like he does?
.
.
MagicBeanCounter
.
I looked at your blog
.
and saw this statement:
.
“Now, having read Al Gore’s authoritative book An Inconvenient Truth …”
.
.
.
You might as well wear a T-shirt
.
that says “I am an idiot”.
.
.
.
Our planet is starved for CO2,
.
and needs more CO2
.
.
.
Plants used for food would have optimum growth
.
at 800 ppm to 1,200 ppm, at a minimum
.
.
Adding CO2 to the air is great news
.
— greening our planet.
.
.
.
If the CO2 causes any warming
.
it would be a harmless +1 degree per doubling,
.
which would take 133 to 200 years,
.
(assuming 3 ppm or 2 ppm CO2 increase every year),
.
(the +1 degree is based on simple lab experiments) —
.
there is no other science to predict what CO2 does,
.
.
,
Climate models are not real science
.
.
They are not even real models.
.
.
.
Real models would make accurate predictions !
.
.
.
There is NO SCIENCE to support
.
+3 degrees warming from CO2 doubling,
.
and runaway global warming is complete
.
nonsense, since CO2 levels in the past 4.5 billion years
.
were almost always higher than today,
.
up to 20x higher.
.
yet there was never any runaway warming.
.
or none of us would be alive today,
.
reading your nonsense.
.
.
.
NO historical proxy data,
.
and no historical instrument data,
.
even suggests that CO2 controls the climate now,
.
or ever has !
.
.
.
CO2 is a minor variable.
.
.
.
Only the brief period from the early 1990s’
.
to the early 2000s, had rapidly rising CO2
.
and rapidly rising average temperature
.
at the same time
.
just one decade of “proof”
.
in the past 4.5 billion years ?
.
.
.
If CO2 caused mild harmless warming.
.
which is possible based on lab experiments
.
that would be beneficial,
.
because greenhouse warming
.
would be mainly at night,
.
in high latitudes,
.
where it would be welcome !
.
.
.
CO2 is a false boogeyman
.
used by smarmy leftists.
.
like you
.
to scare and control people.
.
.
.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
.
for thinking you know ANYTHING,
.
about real climate science.
.
.
,
You are a left-wing mindless parrot
.
repeating what your leaders tell you:
.
(scare the people, to grow the government)
.
.
.
Please stay away from my climate blog at
This is my local member of the Federal Parliament, Julie Bishop MP, bowing her head to the ideological dictator of Iran just before she hands over a multi-million dollar cheque.
She projects far beyond any Chamberlainesque obsequiousness or postural weakness when least he could be accused of trying to buy time.
On the other hand as a minister of the crown, an elected leader, and a woman she lowers her over inflated head before a humanity crushing medieval theocracy hell bent on nuclear weapons. Dear God, is that what the behaviour of a new age traitor looks like? What next, will the Australian and New Zealand political class be genuflecting on command from the UN and EU?
Sort of like the numerous meetings and handshakes that Chamberlain did with Hitler. I can already sense the day when the likes of Bishop will regret the day they were seen with dictators like those in Iran.
As I recall, East Germany was called the “DDR” – one of those “D”s representing the word “Demokratisches”. You would want to be fairly sceptical of dictatorships that try to tell you they are “Democratic”.
3 Jan: Australian: Carbon war: Tony Abbott fires up for battle
by Rachel Baxendale & Joe Kelly
Malcolm Turnbull is facing a backlash over his energy policy as conservative MPs including Tony Abbott condemn a proposal to allow power companies to meet emissions targets by buying permits from overseas as a “carbon tax” by stealth.
Mr Abbott has slammed the government’s in-principle support for including international carbon credits in Australia’s energy policy, arguing that the move will see Australian businesses and consumers shovelling money to foreign carbon traders, with huge potential for rorts…
Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly has joined Mr Abbott in voicing strong opposition to the government’s move, while the Nationals’ George Christensen has previously expressed concerns about the international trading of carbon credits.
Mr Abbott said his position on international carbon credits remained the same as it had been when he was prime minister and party leader…
Mr Frydenberg hit back last night, saying the role of international carbon credits had been on the table since Mr Abbott’s government announced in 2015 Australia’s Paris commitment.
‘’Since then we have conducted a major climate review in which industry groups representing energy intensive businesses across the economy including the BCA, AiG and the Minerals Council have made it very clear they strongly support the use of international permits,’’ he said. “It is worth noting that Mr Abbott’s position on international permits is closer to the Greens than that of Australia’s big employers.”…
Mr Kelly said international carbon credits would put an extra cost burden on Australian businesses that would not be borne by competitors in countries such as China, the US and India.
“We’d be doing this at a time when every Australian business that uses energy is under enormous international competitive pressure through the higher cost of energy and with the company tax cuts in the US,” Mr Kelly said.
“Businesses in Australia are going to be struggling to compete internationally without us effectively putting on a further new green tax, forcing them to buy pieces of paper from overseas.”…READ ON http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/carbon-war-tony-abbott-fires-up-for-battle/news-story/f6caa19237dcab70b5e2bc37eac59d1f
So faux Prime Minister Malcolm has given us g*y marriage, a new tilt at the Australian Constitution to remove Britain and appoint a President and now another foreign carbon tax by the EU/UN to add to the massive RET. None of these things were in his election platform. He is trying to please his real friends, Labor and the Greens.
Can anyone save us from utterly dishonest and untrustworthy politicians?
Well i’s up to the voters to decide at the next election to make the obvious decision not to vote for LNP, ALP nor Greens, but I’m almost certain that too many will still be asleep like zombies to understand that voting for those parties is a death sentence for our nation.
There is little chance the situation will change until Donald tweets CO2 does not cause global warming.
We need to get a debate going on the science and the MSM will vilify him. That is where we come in and turn the world upside down, assuming our side is given an opportunity to speak.
Ideally I would prefer we had a new scientific paradigm in our kitbag, a paper which takes in Stephen’s jet stream, David’s solar lag and Ian’s barycentric hypothesis.
“We need to get a debate going on the science and the MSM will vilify him. That is where we come in and turn the world upside down, assuming our side is given an opportunity to speak.”
No need for given, use instead ‘taken’, by force, with weapons, against this enemy!
“Ideally I would prefer we had a new scientific paradigm in our kitbag, a paper which takes in Stephen’s jet stream, David’s solar lag and Ian’s barycentric hypothesis.”
That will come about only if University communistic brainwashing academics can be shown to be more corrupt than the FBI agents Strzoking der Peter. 🙂
The science is already there to discredit the scam.
The UV in to Earth, then IR out to be trapped in CO2 mechanism is a scientific joke.
When the scammers could no longer deny this they invented the next leg of the lie and claimed that they knew it all along and that the real problem was the effect CO2 had on atmospheric water vapour.
Someone skilled in physics could destroy the CO2 is dangerous idea in less than 10 minutes.
But as they would have been working in a University they would then be jobless.
Kinky Keith January 4, 2018 at 2:14 pm
‘The UV in to Earth, then IR out to be trapped in CO2 mechanism is a scientific joke.’ Atmospheric CO2 has insufficient specific heat to trap anything measurable!The latent heat of airborne H2O is entirely different.
When the scammers could no longer deny this they invented the next leg of the lie and claimed that they knew it all along and that the real problem was the effect CO2 had on atmospheric water vapour. Someone skilled in physics could destroy the CO2 is dangerous idea in less than 10 minutes. But as they would have been working in a University they would then be jobless.
Just what is this imaginary effect of CO2 on WV? What is such claim? There is no one skilled in physics that would consider being employed by such corrupt University system.
All the best!-will-
Keith I’m fully versed in the history and the extraordinary situation we find ourselves in.
If coolists are so sure of their position then we should be able to come up with a comprehensive projection of climate in 2040, how hard could it be?
Over the 20th century we saw the climate shift in 1908, 1934, 1976 and 2000, when the AMO and PDO came into sync. This had an effect on ENSO behaviour and hence temperatures, but now the hiatus has thrown a spanner in the works for both the Klimatariat and Denialati.
Its the glorious uncertainty which makes the science so interesting.
If coolists are so sure of their position then we should be able to come up with a comprehensive projection of climate in 2040, how hard could it be?
At present no one is sure of weather anything! It is only the CO2 Klimate Klowns that make klaims! Just what actual science have we; in order to make such projection? The claim of scientific knowledge is the scam!!
2 Jan: AP: Deadly cold disrupts US; warming centers open in Deep South
By TAMMY WEBBER
Associated Press reporters Jeff Martin in Atlanta and Russ Bynum in Savannah contributed to this story
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Dangerously cold temperatures blamed for at least nine deaths have wreaked havoc across a wide swath of the U.S., freezing a water tower in Iowa, halting ferry service in New York and leading officials to open warming centers even in the Deep South.
The National Weather Service issued wind chill advisories and freeze warnings Tuesday covering a vast area from South Texas to Canada and from Montana through New England…
Indianapolis early Tuesday tied a record low of minus 12 degrees Fahrenheit (-24 Celsius) for Jan. 2 set in 1887, leading Indianapolis Public Schools to cancel classes. And the northwest Indiana city of Lafayette got down to minus 19 (-28 Celsius), shattering the previous record of minus 5 (-21 Celsius) for the date, set in 1979, the National Weather Service said. After residents there began complaining of a hum, Duke Energy said it was caused by extra power surging through utility lines to meet electricity demands…
With Chicago-area wind chills expected between -35 and -20 degrees (-37 and -29 Celsius), forecasters warned of frost bite and hypothermia risks and urged residents to take precautions, including dressing in layers, wearing a hat and gloves, covering exposed skin and bringing pets indoors.
In Tennessee, corrections officials at a maximum security prison were using portable heaters and extra blankets to keep inmates and employees warm. The facility lost hot water pressure Monday, causing its boiler to go offline…
Atlanta hospitals were seeing a surge in emergency room visits for hypothermia and other ailments as temperatures plunge well below freezing. The temperature in Atlanta fell to 13 degrees (-11 Celsius) before dawn in Tuesday…
Plunging overnight temperatures in Texas brought rare snow flurries as far south as Austin, and accidents racked up on icy roads across the state. In the central Texas city of Abilene, the local police chief said more than three dozen vehicle crashes were reported in 24 hours.
And in Savannah, Georgia — where the January’s average high is 60 degrees (16 Celsius) — the temperature hovered at 30 (-1 Celsius) at noon Tuesday, cold enough for icicles to dangle from the ornate wrought-iron fountain in Forsyth Park at the edge of the city’s downtown historic district…
“I’ve never seen icicles in Savannah, period,” said Sean Dempsey, a local restaurant manager who wore a hat, gloves and a thick coat to walk his dogs Tuesday. “I’m pretty sure last year at New Year’s lots of families were in the park playing catch, Frisbee football and stuff like that.”…
In New York, transportation officials suspended the Newburgh-Beacon commuter ferry service on Tuesday because of icy conditions on the Hudson River. Just north, the city of Poughkeepsie saw a record-breaking low of minus 10 degrees (-12 Celsius) on New Year’s Day.
30 Dec: Popular Mechanics: Why the Eastern U.S. Is So Cold Right Now
It gets cold in winter, but also: yes it’s climate change
by Avery Thompson
These maps show that air from the far north of Canada is flowing south into the American Midwest and Northeast, which is why it’s so cold outside right now. Normally the jet stream keeps that air confined to Canada, but thanks to climate change it’s taking a hard right after passing the Rockies and heading south almost to the Gulf Coast.
Temps expected to moderate somewhat by next week here in lower Midwest but bringing with it the possibility of rain/snow/sleet. Hospitals are full of people with flu and pneumonia. Good old global warming at its best.
Another comparison of UEA’s forecast areas in peril from dangerous 2C of warming with Al Gore’s graphic from pages 114-115 of the book An Inconvenient Truth, is with Northern Africa. There is no issue with North Africa. Yet according to Al Gore, in the 20th Century precipitation in parts of West Africa and Ethiopia decreased by 50%. Compare the Nobel Laureate’s graphic with the UEA’s forecast for 2C of warming.
Compare the graphics, the largest orange blobs on Al Gore’s graphic being 50% decreases in precipitation. https://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/s-eur-n-africa.jpg
In North-West Africa are located Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. Africagate – forecasts in AR4 of crop yields falling by up to 50% in some African countries by 2020 – were from 2001 country reports for these three countries, ostensibly based on climate models provided by the UEA. (See Richard North’s detailed analysis from 2010 here). Now the UEA’s models are saying there is no major problem with increased aridity in North Africa.
31 Dec: GWPF: from UK Telegraph: Christopher Booker: No, Wind Power Is Not The Cheapest Form Of Energy
A weird propaganda blitz, widely publicised again last week, is trying to persuade us that the cost of power from wind farms has been “tumbling” so fast that wind has now replaced coal as our “cheapest” source of electricity.
This began in October when Greenpeace and various wind companies plastered Westminster Underground station, the one most used by MPs, with posters claiming that the cost of offshore wind had halved in the past five years. This was so laughably untrue that the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that the claim was based only on figures that include “tentative future wind projects” that might not even be built.
Last week, the ASA emailed the GWPF to say that Greenpeace has now agreed not to repeat its claim; which means that the ASA does not now have to issue a formal ruling that this boast was bogus. In fact, official figures show that, far from falling, the price we all pay for offshore wind electricity can be up to £161 per megawatt hour, three-and-a-half times the current wholesale market rate. In the next four years, our offshore subsidy bill is due to more than double, from £1.4 billion a year to £3.1 billion.
As for the further boast that on 263 days this year wind contributed more electricity than coal, this is hardly surprising; the Government has been doing all it can with regulations and “carbon taxes” to close down our coal-fired power stations, which until two years ago were still supplying 30 per cent of our electricity. Yet on the coldest night of the year, two weeks before Christmas, those few coal plants that remain were still having to supply around 20 per cent of our needs, with nearly 50 per cent more coming from gas, the other fossil fuel that the Government wants to see phased out. Even this year there were times on windless days when all our 8,140 wind turbines – put together earning billions in subsidies – contributed barely one per cent to our needs.
Actually solar tubes work really well in the home, providing daytime light to dark areas in homes – I have three of them. The modern versions are very easy to install. Just have to make sure that the plastics used have a good UV long-life rating.
2 Jan: ABC America: Science Says: Why there’s a big chill in a warmer world
By Seth Borenstein, AP science writer
(AT BOTTOM) This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education)
Anchorage, Alaska, was warmer Tuesday than Jacksonville, Florida. The weather in the U.S. is that upside down.
That’s because the Arctic’s deeply frigid weather escaped its regular atmospheric jail that traps the worst cold. It then meandered south to the central and eastern United States.
And this has been happening more often in recent times, scientists say…
“This is not record-breaking for Canada or Alaska or northern Siberia, it’s just misplaced,” said (Judah Cohen, a winter storm expert for Atmospheric Environmental Research, a private firm outside Boston), who had forecast a colder than normal winter for much of the U.S…
IS THIS UNUSUAL?
Yes, but more for how long — about 10 days — the cold has lasted, than how cold it has been. On Tuesday, Boston tied its seven-day record for the most consecutive days at or below 20 degrees that was set exactly 100 years ago.
More than 1,600 daily records for cold were tied or broken in the last week of December, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For Greg Carbin of the National Weather Service’s Weather Prediction Center, the most meaningful statistics are how last week’s average temperature was the second coldest in more than a century of record-keeping for Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit and Kansas City, third coldest in Pittsburgh and fifth coldest in New York City…
IS IT JUST THE U.S.?
Pretty much…
The globe as a whole was 0.9 degrees (0.5 degrees Celsius) warmer than normal Tuesday and the Arctic was more than 6 degrees warmer than normal (3.4 degrees Celsius), according to the University of Maine Climate Change Institute’s analysis…
HOW CAN IT BE SO COLD WITH GLOBAL WARMING?
Don’t confuse weather — which is a few days or weeks in one region — with climate, which is over years and decades and global. Weather is like a person’s mood, which changes frequently, while climate is like someone’s personality, which is more long-term, (Jason Furtado, a University of Oklahoma meteorology professor) said.
“A few cold days doesn’t disprove climate change,” Furtado said. “That’s just silly. Just like a couple down days on the stock market doesn’t mean the economy is going into the trash.”… http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/science-big-chill-warmer-world-52104489
“This is not record-breaking for Canada or Alaska or northern Siberia, it’s just misplaced,” said (Judah Cohen…”
Oh really.
“It’s only the first day of the new year, but it’s already a historic one: Environment Canada has identified record-breaking temperatures in four Canadian provinces on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day.
Temperatures in parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan plummeted to an all-time low on New Year’s Eve, while Ontario and Quebec experienced historic overnight low temperatures on New Year’s Day.
The coldest new record low-temperature was in La Grande Rivière, Que., where the mercury dropped to -48.2 C early Monday.”
‘Philosophically it is interesting to consider the character of winter as reaching a fork where the outcome hangs in the balance of a single weather or synoptic event. This is the idea of chaos and the Lorenz attractor where two distinct branches or solutions for the same set of equations occur due to only slight differences or noise inherent in the system. If the climate system is considered as chaotic, then description of the winter approaching a fork with the outcome literally still up in the air is appropriate and physically meaningful.’
Nevertheless he thinks California will experience a cold air outbreak within two weeks.
Ambivalent. That’s a nice word for covering all the bases while saying nothing. Moreover, if a whole winter supposedly “hangs in the balance of a single weather or synoptic event,” what’s the difference between climate and weather, why is he supposedly researching the climate and what does CO2 have to do with it? Does CO2 cause these allegedly critical WEATHER events?
Total, meaningless mush from someone paid to spew it.
If the climate system is considered as chaotic, then description of the winter approaching a fork with the outcome literally still up in the air is appropriate and physically meaningful.’
Earth’s weather at any location remains 65% deterministic (from recent); 15% statical (thermal) noise; and 20% spooky (God not decided yet on future). Chaos is but a fool invention of communistic academia! 🙂
Cohen was being philosophical because its spooky, the science which eludes us.
There is this oscillation in the stratosphere above the equator, called the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO), which is in its easterly phase. Normally the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) would go negative at this time, but its not happening.
The UK Met Office don’t expect to see anymore snowy weather this winter, which will be proven correct if the NAO remains positive.
Abstract: This paper presents evidence of the disruption of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and finds the benefits forgone as a consequence are substantial. Learning rates are presented for nuclear power in seven countries, comprising 58% of all power reactors ever built globally. Learning rates and deployment rates changed in the late-1960s and 1970s from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment. Historical nuclear global capacity, electricity generation and overnight construction costs are compared with the counterfactual that pre-disruption learning and deployment rates had continued to 2015. Had the early rates continued, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost. …
Unfortunately when portraying the benefits of nuclear power, reference is made all too often to the CO2 emissions averted.
If one were considering conservation and the prudent use of resources, then one would frame the argument in terms of hydro-carbons made available or left as reserve as e.g. transportation fuels and synthetic materials such as plastics and carbon fibres. i.e. you can have more lycra shorts and “cheap” $3000 mountain bikes. 😉
Unfortunately Scientists often fail at a basic humanities subject ( ie written communication).
Lets just look again for a minute at the abstract of the paper which you have quoted in part:
This paper presents evidence of the disruption of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and finds the benefits forgone as a consequence are substantial.
Meaning?
Learning rates are presented for nuclear power in seven countries, comprising 58% of all power reactors ever built globally. Learning rates and deployment rates changed in the late-1960s and 1970s from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment.
Again meaning? Possibly an interesting point about the sudden reversal of costs but not elaborated.
Historical nuclear global capacity, electricity generation and overnight construction costs are compared with the counterfactual that pre-disruption learning and deployment rates had continued to 2015. Had the early rates continued, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost.?
? GobbeldeGook.
It could be that Nuclear Power should be a lot cheaper than it now is! Reasons possibly presented in the paper.
Your other points about hydrocarbons made available are also appreciated.
Bend Sinister¹ ca 1980: 4 yers ago i cudnt evun spel injunear, now i is won. 😉
You can follow the link to the full text of the paper. AFAICT, the message is that much has been lost and that nuclear power plants would be much cheaper to build nowadays and the usual bla bla about CO2 savings, lives lost to coal mining, etc.
[FWIW; blablameter.com only rates a low level of B.S. in the abstract.]
While I think the magnitude of the savings to be speculative, apparently based on extrapolation cost reductions when development was very active, putting the technology on the back burner for decades has prevented many thousands of skilled people being exposed to the technology; and there’s no rational way of determining what opportunities were never even created. It takes time for people to “put two and two together”; to come to realizations and to shift points of view so that they can see around obstacles. Insight takes time and something of an immersion.
___
¹ University Engineers’ Club (UWA) periodical; loathed by wimmin, etc.
“Disruption” is a technical term for the effects of a change in technology.
“Benefits forgone” is a technical term in economics.
For “learning rate”, think of the concept of “economy of scale”.
The third snippet you’ve quoted is perfectly clear: they’ve compared current reality against a modelled projection based on an earlier group of trends with the effects of a subsequent change removed.
I think you will find far less clear – in fact frequently completely meaningless – jargon in just about any “humanities”-related paper.
Essentially what you have just done is complain that somebody else is responsible for your ignorance.
I don’t want more mountain bikes and especially lycra made available. Not only are MAMILs ** a tiresome and time wasting menace on the local (narrow) main road but they are a nuisance off it. I went into the local bakery yesterday in a hurry and was held up by 3 lycra bike riders buying bread, by multiple loaves. One bought 3 loaves (of specialty bread) all to be sliced individually to his specification and then spent some time finding the payment in his tight shorts. It took me over 10 minutes to be served and out with an off the shelf loaf.
And don’t get me started on their habit of riding on the main road in groups ignoring the parallel Bike track.
**Middle Aged Men In Lycra for those fortunate enough not to have been hindered.
I have been looking at wind/gas generation in SA and any correlation to electricity prices.
– In December, when wind generated 200-400 MW, daily prices were higher (avge $90/MWhr)
– When wind generated 600-800 MW, daily prices were generally lower (avge $70/MWhr)
– When gas generation was less than 800 MW, daily prices were generally lower (avge $70/MWhr)
– When gas generation was above 900 MW, daily prices were generally higher (avge $90/MWhr)
– On average in December, wind provided 510 MW, gas 900 MW, and price averaged $84/MWhr.
Looking at the longer term covering monthly averages for 2016 and 2017:
– Average wind generation in SA was 420 MW in 2016 and 490 MW in 2017 (new generators added), an average capacity factor of 29%. Lowest months provided 250 MW, peak months 800 MW. Nameplate capacity is 1700 MW.
– Average gas generation was 650 MW in 2016 and 825 MW in 2017.
– Total SA generation averaged 1070 MW in 2016 and 1320 MW in 2017.
– Average prices were $69/MWhr in 2016, and $99/Mwhr in 2017, although the last quarter of 2017 averaged $80.
So presumably the closure of Hazelwood coal in Vic in Mar 2017 resulted in SA gas having to increase supply to meet demand, and when wind generation is high, SA exports surplus to Vic, but increased gas results in higher electricity prices.
Correct. SA has increased supply but mostly by running the CCGT gas plants full time. When wind is low the OCGTs start up and as they cost over $200 a MWh to run, up goes the average cost of gas supply. (Wait until the new diesel fuel ones start up to see a real jump in costs – and CO2 emissions and pollution).
When wind is strong then the excess electricity is directed to Victoria through the interconnector. When wind is really strong and the supply from wind turbines exceeds the interconnector capacity then some wind turbines are shut down by AEMO.
This Friday and Saturday with temperatures around 40℃ in Adlaide might provide some interesting figures for you.
Found this paper sitting next to the one on nuclear power.
Flow Adjustment Inside and Around Large Finite-Size Wind Farms
Abstract
In this study, large-eddy simulations are performed to investigate the flow inside and around large finite-size wind farms in conventionally-neutral atmospheric boundary layers. Special emphasis is placed on characterizing the different farm-induced flow regions, including the induction, entrance and development, fully-developed, exit and farm wake regions. The wind farms extend 20 km in the streamwise direction and comprise 36 wind turbine rows arranged in aligned and staggered configurations. Results show that, under weak free-atmosphere stratification ( Γ=1 K/km), the flow inside and above both wind farms, and thus the turbine power, do not reach the fully-developed regime even though the farm length is two orders of magnitude larger than the boundary layer height. In that case, the wind farm induction region, affected by flow blockage, extends upwind about 0.8 km and leads to a power reduction of 1.3% and 3% at the first row of turbines for the aligned and staggered layouts, respectively. The wind farm wake leads to velocity deficits at hub height of around 3.5% at a downwind distance of 10 km for both farm layouts. Under stronger stratification ( Γ=5 K/km), the vertical deflection of the subcritical flow induced by the wind farm at its entrance and exit regions triggers standing gravity waves whose effects propagate upwind. They, in turn, induce a large decelerating induction region upwind of the farm leading edge, and an accelerating exit region upwind of the trailing edge, both extending about 7 km. As a result, the turbine power output in the entrance region decreases more than 35% with respect to the weakly stratified case. It increases downwind as the flow adjusts, reaching the fully-developed regime only for the staggered layout at a distance of about 8.5 km from the farm edge. The flow acceleration in the exit region leads to an increase of the turbine power with downwind distance in that region, and a relatively fast (compared with the weakly stratified case) recovery of the farm wake, which attains its inflow hub height speed at a downwind distance of 5 km.
i.e. “wind farms” are less efficient than lone turbines and their environmental disruption can prevail for several kilometres downwind.
Those of us who remember our fluid mechanics will remember rules of thumb like 20 characteristic diameters to re-establish laminar flow after a turbulent disruption — “strictly” applicable to pipes, but nevertheless relevant to open-field flow. Spacing turbines at 20 diameters is prima facie the starting point for deployment to reap maximum power. Spacing is as close as 5 diameters in practice which guarantees turbulent turbine interactions, significantly reducing the efficiency of the airfoils (blades).
The simulations in the paper describe somewhat the “bow wave” produced by the wind farm obstacle; which further reduces efficiency and power output. This is predictable if one understands Le Chatelier’s Principle which can be paraphrased as “nature finds the easiest way to do things”. In this case; if the wind farm becomes sufficiently obstructive (corresponding to a large, nominal power output), wind would tend to go around or even over the top of the wind farm.
Lest you think that this is purely theoretical then spend some time sitting on a hill, watching how a rainstorm and clouds flow to follow the landscape.
I recently drove past the Hallett windfarm monstrosity in South Australia, stopped and had a sandwich while gazing at the environmental vandalism that the greenies had visited upon the area.
The Hallett windfarm complex was built between 2008 and 2012. It’s now owned by the hypocritical AGL.
Now, since its construction, the BoM records tell us that rainfall downstream from the prevailing wind that (occasionally) drives the windfarm has been below the median for the three BoM sites that lie within 10 kms of Hallet.
Almost year’s end for data collection for the U.S. power statistics (Rolling year to October) and China (Year to November)
Compare the two.
U.S.Total power generation 4004TWH – Coal fired power 30.37%, Natural Gas 31.62%, Nuclear 20.05%, Hydro 7.52%, Wind 6.27%, Commercial Solar (PV and CSP) 1.3%
China Total power generation 5712TWH – Coal fired power 73.05%, Hydro 17.69%, Nuclear 3.95%, Wind 4.75%
In China, solar power does not rate a mention, and the total for coal fired power is all thermal, which includes Natural Gas, but China has virtually no natural gas fired plants. When you have the state of the art coal fired plants, why would you bother.
Consider that it was only in 2012 that China overtook the U.S. as the largest power generator on Earth, and now they are at 142% of the U.S.
Also of note is that total generation in the U.S. fell marginally, by 1.3%, and coal fired power generation rose by 1.2%. Also of note is that those Nuclear power plants in the U.S. also increased their total power generation, and the Capacity Factor for the whole fleet of those U.S. Nukes was 91.7% for the year.
Tony, I think your statistics must be mistaken. I have heard repeatedly that China is now the new Climate Leader, leading the world toward a blissful stable not too windy, calm, hot or cold solar-powered planet where everyone would have just the right amount of energy and everything and live happily ever after.
Yet your stats seem to show otherwise. What’s up with that? Did they not mention their solar production because they didn’t want everyone else to be jealous?
It took me ages to find a good site for China power generation data, and that entailed chasing info, and then translating the pages I did find, but once I found the one I did, it was really comprehensive, sort of going against the idea that China was hiding information. The process took me a week or so, and some days I spent hours on it.
I then had to actually ‘drill down’ into the site I did find that actually looked to be the correct one, but once I did find it, I just saved the link for that page.
What I did find that in the ‘race’ (I suppose you could call it) to be the best site, (and here, for comparison’s sake, I’m using that monster U.S. site at the EIA with all its power generation data) China gives all its information with just a four to five week lead time, while the EIA uses 8 weeks for all its data. (So, here I mean that the current data for the U.S. is coming up to end of November’s details, while a week or so later, China will have its information for the end of December)
Then, within a couple of weeks after that, China will have the comprehensive list for that whole previous year.
Now, why I said all that is that in that Comprehensive yearly list, (the most recent one, for 2016) they actually do detail information for solar power,
So, according to that end of 2016 full data list, solar power contributed 66TWH of generated power for the year, which is only 1.1% of the total generated power for that whole year.
Now, while expressed as a percentage, it is such a tiny figure, so those greenie supporters would not want to use a number like that, so they would prefer to use the Nameplate Capacity which is in fact quite large at 78,000MW, more than anywhere else on Earth. The Maths for that show that the CF for commercial solar plants in China is as low as only 9.7% average for the year, lower than in most Countries.
I’m of the impression that China knows full well that when it comes to ‘seeming’ to be doing a lot on the solar power front, they know that green followers will always use that huge Nameplate figure, without having the slightest idea of how little power they actually do generate.
Something of a similar nature also applies for wind power, because all of the wind power in China is barely averaging a Capacity Factor of 18%, so again, the use of the seemingly ‘huge’ Nameplate makes it look like China is doing a lot on that front also, because, as you can see from the info in my earlier comment Wind only delivers 4.75% of China’s total generated power.
Tony.
Reference – China Electricity Council For the 2016 Summary, go to the Annual Data box, click on the top entry there, and when the new page opens, hover your mouse over the link in that top box, and when the drop up box opens, click on the top link there. The maths is poorly translated for some of it, so again, I had to work to get those totals right.
Thanks for those details Tony. I was being sarcastic about the claims of their ‘Climate Leadership,’ deservedly so given the actual source of their power. Now I know more.
A whopping 1.1% from solar! This just adds to my impression that the only leadership China does or wants to have is in the sales of solar panels. I understand that most of their ‘righteous’ solar installations are done mostly to use up their overproduction.
I also understand that China’s economic statistics are as accurate and convenient as Al Gore’s climate stats. Given how things are that could suggest that this ‘good’ solar production may be overstated while the ‘bad’ coal power may be understated but it wouldn’t matter in this case.
You can see why the greenie followers use that Nameplate figure when it comes to solar power.
That total is 3.4 times HIGHER than the total Nameplate for every coal fired power plant in Australia.
And yet from that tiny Nameplate for Australian coal fired power, those coal fired plants generate TWICE as much power as for all those Chinese Solar plants.
Australia’s coal fired power generation is greater by a factor of almost SEVEN.
Incidentally, at that link, and the extended link to those 2016 data figures, note near the bottom (7th line up from the bottom) that coal consumption for coal fired power decreased from 315 to 312grams/KWH. In 2009, that figure was 340 grams/KWH, so in the process of closing down literally hundreds of old small coal fired plants, and constructing those new tech USC plants, that figure has dropped markedly.
The average for Australia’s older SubCritical plants, and that’s all of them except the 4 SuperCritical plants in Qld, is above 400grams/KWH.
So, converting all of them to USC would see an emissions reduction in that coal fired power sector of 22% plus.
those Nuclear power plants in the U.S. also increased their total power generation, and the Capacity Factor for the whole fleet of those U.S. Nukes was 91.7% for the year.Tony.
Tony, have you numbers for the US Navy fleet of surface and subsurface reactors? No nuclear ‘accidents’ when ‘Captain’ lives aboard his own ‘reactor’. Expensive yes! perhaps Lessons to be learned 🙂
About 60 coal fired power stations are under construction in China, another dozen permitted, another some 30 in pre-permit stage and some 20 announced. That makes a total of well over 100 that China will have in due course while we will be reducing our count. Then there is the rest of the world – something like over 1,000 in total. I wonder when will Australians wake up and wonder why our major political parties want to shut down Australia’s economy?
China has slowed down the construction of those large scale coal fired power plants.
It’s now down to one new plant coming on line on average every eighteen days, down from one every fourteen days the year before.
Still, just in this last year China has opened almost 30000MW of new coal fired power, so that’s an addition of the Australian total for coal fired power every 40 weeks.
Yes I know they have scaled down their construction but at least they are still building lots of them. Also, China has 37 nuclear reactors with an additional 20 under construction.
We are going the wrong way, and if we continue to do so we will go over the cliff into the abyss, thanks to the LNP, ALP and Greens.
There is a further reduction in emissions as electricity becomes more widely available and newer housing is built, as the old low grade coal fired heater cum cooker is replaced by clean electricity. Don’t tell the Greens or their heads might explode.
“The heat that we are seeing through south-eastern Australia, we saw that coming a week out.
“I mean, last week was really cold, and to tell people we are going to see temperatures close to 40 this week they were like, ‘No it’s not going to happen’.
“So, we’re getting really good with four days, pretty good for seven days, and then it becomes fantasy land once you get more than around 10 days out.”
There are models that say we will be hit by a killer asteroid at some stage. I don’t hear anyone proposing we introduce a tax on space industries to better detect and defend ourselves. So why are coal plants forced to pay a “tax” for a global warming threat that’s at best much less likley and certainly far less catastrophic than a killer asteroid, and at worst is a hoax? I know – it’s all about the money. I look forward to the day when people are put in prison for perpetrating the biggest scam in history. I suggest we put them on a large asteroid to mine it.
2 Jan: Scientific American: E&E News: Chelsea Harvey: Scientists Can Now Blame Individual Natural Disasters on Climate Change
Extreme event attribution is one of the most rapidly expanding areas of climate science
As floodwaters from the swollen River Thames crept closer to the walls of Myles Allen’s south Oxford home in the United Kingdom, he was thinking about climate change—and if scientists could figure out if it was affecting the climbing water outside…
Nearly 15 years later, extreme event attribution not only is possible, but is one of the most rapidly expanding subfields of climate science.
“The public stance of the scientific community about individual event attribution in the year 2000 is that it’s not something that science does,” said Noah Diffenbaugh, a Stanford University climate scientist and attribution expert. “And so to go from that to now, that you’ll find a paper every week … that’s why we say there’s been an explosion of research. It’s gone from zero to 60, basically.”…
And as the science continues to mature, it may have ramifications for society. Legal experts suggest that attribution studies could play a major role in lawsuits brought by citizens against companies, industries or even governments…
“I think the public and many policymakers don’t really take those 100-year forecasts very seriously,” said (Myles) Allen, who is now one of the world’s leading experts in attribution science. “They are much more seriously interested in the question of what is happening now and why—which boils down to attribution.”…
According to Friederike Otto, an attribution expert at the University of Oxford, the progression of technology—namely, the improvement of climate models is driving the recent surge…
Today, scientists still generally agree that it’s impossible to attribute any individual weather phenomenon solely to climate change…
But what scientists can do is investigate the extent to which climate change has influenced a given event. Generally, researchers do this with the help of climate models…
Scientists have cautioned that the findings don’t necessarily overturn the existing narrative that no single event can be attributed to climate change…
(Myles) Allen, the Oxford scientist, had hinted at such litigation two years before Hurricane Katrina occurred. In his Nature commentary, he mused about the possibility of massive class-action lawsuits—carrying the potential for “up to six billion plaintiffs” around the world—attempting to hold greenhouse gas emitters liable for damages…
As a general rule, extreme event attribution studies don’t predict the likelihood of a future event. They focus on how climate change has affected events that have already happened. Even the National Academy of Sciences report warned, “Attribution studies of individual events should not be used to draw general conclusions about the impact of climate change on extreme events as a whole.”
But from a legal standpoint, the studies’ implications could be broader…
Some scientists hope to eventually launch a kind of standardized extreme event attribution service, similar to a weather forecasting service, that would release immediate analyses—with the same uniform methods used for each one—for every extreme event that occurs.
It’s still unclear what such a service might look like, but one could imagine receiving an email or smartphone notification each time an extreme heat wave or flood rolls through, explaining its connection to climate change.
The Met Office is already working on such a project, although it’s in early stages. The European Prototype demonstrator for the Harmonisation and Evaluation of Methodologies for attribution of extreme weather Events, or EUPHEME, is an ongoing project designed to “build the bridge between science and an operational service,” according to Nikos Christidis, one of the scientists involved…
Future floods are less likely to go uninvestigated. According to Christidis, the Met Office scientist, extreme event attribution is not only a matter of scientific advancement but a public obligation…
“The whole science of event attribution developed so that we can provide scientifically robust answers to these questions. If we the experts don’t do this, then there will be people who are not qualified who will go and fill in the gaps. So this is the very important challenge that we are called to face.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-can-now-blame-individual-natural-disasters-on-climate-change/
“said Noah Diffenbaugh, a Stanford University climate scientist and attribution expert. “And so to go from that to now, that you’ll find a paper every week … that’s why we say there’s been an explosion of research. It’s gone from zero to 60, basically.”…
An “attribution expert”! LOL.
Gee, I wonder why there has been this “explosion of research”?
“(Myles) Allen, the Oxford scientist, had hinted at such litigation two years before Hurricane Katrina occurred. In his Nature commentary, he mused about the possibility of massive class-action lawsuits—carrying the potential for “up to six billion plaintiffs” around the world—attempting to hold greenhouse gas emitters liable for damages…”
I guess they’ll be calling in the “attribution experts” as expert witnesses, right after the 97% testify that CO2 causes EVERYTHING and the Gender Studies experts testify that if you don’t believe that you hate women and men and everything in between, and puppies of course.
… he mused about the possibility of massive class-action lawsuits—carrying the potential for “up to six billion plaintiffs” around the world—attempting to hold greenhouse gas emitters liable for damages …
Those “six billion plaintiffs” would be suing the wrong parties, they should be suing themselves.
Seriously, for instance in tobacco litigation there are two Common Law defences: Volenti non fit injuria or “to a willing person, no injury is done” and contributory negligence i.e. the plaintiff himself has contributed to his own injury as he has prior knowledge of the harm (Wiki).
In the case of any attempted Climate Change™ litigation, in the unlikely event that any harm can be directly attributed to CO2 emissions due to fossil fuel use, there would hardly be a sentient being on the planet unaware of Climate Change™ horror stories.
It’s a question I ask of alarmists I come across: ‘if I thought fossil fuel use was so dangerous I would stop using them, why don’t you?’.
Statistics for 2017 global temperatures are starting to roll in, for example Roy Spencer has 2017 as third warmest year in the satellite record (with no El Nino!). So it’s time to remind AndyG55 again of our bet 4 years ago.
AndyG55 said on 4 Jan 2014 that temperatures were:
almost certainly going to start heading down hill.
So I challenged Andy to a bet about the direction of temperatures over the following few years. I said I’d revise my thinking on drivers of global climate if temperatures went down, he said he’d revise his thinking if temperatures went up.
Let’s see where the go over the few months shall we.
So, when we made the bet at the start of 2014, these are the global anomalies above the 1981-2010 average according to UAH-LT:
2013: +0.13°C
2014: +0.18°C
2015: +0.26°C
2016: +0.51°C
2017: +0.38°C
That is, at no point have yearly average global temperatures dropped below the base point of the bet: +0.13°C.
So my question for AndyG55 is – will you keep your side of the bargain? Will you accept you lost the bet and revise your thinking?
Jo, we are not betting on El Nino occurrences, we are betting on a warming or cooling trend from 2013. This year we have been in a La Nina, but that hasn’t stopped near record warmth.
I proposed the bet because I was getting tired of people on the site saying every year that ‘cooling was just around the corner’, but pushing it out another year when it didn’t occur. So I called Andy out on his prediction in 2014. You and David have made similar predictions, for which I applaud you. And I do hope that if they happen not to eventuate, you will also rethink your ideas of what drives global climate.
Calling out Andy on anything he says is a bit like yelling at a dog to stop barking. Complete waste of time. He is completely immune to facts and reason.
So, Andy, you want to push your predictions of cooling out another year?
I think I’ve pointed out before the altered graph you linked to is trying to compare troposphere temperature estimations with surface temperature observations. That’s not a valid comparison, they are different parts of the Earth system. But the graph does show the model predictions are pretty bang on – thanks for posting that!
And yes, I’ve read the notrickszone post… just like always “this year is gonna be the year!”
And finally, no, I’ve never said I think El Nino’s are anthropogenically driven. But the background warming is, over which El Nino spikes.
Which means that the GCM should be compared NOT to the highly corrupted surface non-data, but to the atmospheric data. ie the red line
Andy, you’re wrong. See Roy Spencer’s description here, particularly Figure 7 which shows his UAH temperature estimation is from the surface all the way up to 14km for V6 LT product.
On the other hand, the plot you showed are the temperature of air that models predict at 2 metres above the surface. They are not comparable. There are known issues for comparing surface observations (i.e 2m above the surface) and model output, but they have been addressed here.
Your snide comments combined with your ignorance don’t put you in a good light.
Can anybody please help advise which pharmaceuticals I must ingest in order to spot this “step change” which at this stage only Andy has been able to see?:
From a scientific perspective nobody is certain what will happen with ENSO in the near future, yet the general consensus is that it’ll slip into balance and harmony.
Not sure about that, but warm La Ninas must give hope to the warmest brigade.
2017 ended up being the 3rd warmest year in the satellite record for the globally-averaged lower troposphere, at +0.38 deg. C above the 1981-2010 average
so I used his quote for 2017 and calculated the others.
I have a copy of Scientific American in which it is stated that “within 6 years Solar PV will be so cheap that no new coal fired power stations would be built, and in 8 years the first large scale solar PV power station would be built”.
It is the October edition, 1987.
A “Bomb Cyclone” Is Set To Detonate Off The East Coast
“This storm developing off the Southeast coast will meet the meteorological criteria of a “bomb” as it rapidly intensifies. The signal for a storm has been evident since last week, but as the track has been fine-tuned, impacts to the I-95 corridor are now expected. Snow, strong winds, and very cold temperatures are expected particularly the further east one heads,” said Ed Vallee, meteorologist at Vallee Weather Consulting LLC.”
And up pops ‘scientist’ Judah Cohen again: ““This is only the appetizer – the main meal comes over the weekend,” said Judah Cohen, director of seasonal forecasting for Atmospheric and Environmental Research, a Verisk Analytics Inc. business in Lexington, Massachusetts. “This is about as intense a cold as I can remember.”
As “cold as I can remember.” That’s much better than consulting weather history data, unless he’s a very, very old man with a perfect memory.
2 Jan: UPI: Carbon levy increased by 50 percent in Alberta
The provincial government estimates it committed more than $1 billion last year to green infrastructure.
By Daniel J. Graeber
Canada’s oil-rich province of Alberta rang in the New Year with a 50 percent increase in a carbon levy that supports green investments, a minister said.
The provincial government said Monday the carbon levy increased from $16 (USD) to $24 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions. More than $1 billion in funds from Alberta’s provincial climate plan were used last year to back a light-rail transit system that the government said would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 30,000 tons, the equivalent of taking 6,000 vehicles off the road during its opening day of service…
Construction on the first 12 miles of the light-rail system begins in 2020.
(Environment Minister Shannon) Phillips last year made up to $7,500 in rebates for homeowners and up to $375,000 for businesses and non-profit organizations available to help cover some of the costs tied to solar panel installation.
Without the program, the government estimates solar uptake could grow from 2 megawatts to 30 MW by 2022. That quadruples with the program in place, with solar uptake reaching a potential 140 MW during the next five years…
Revenue from the carbon levy supports green infrastructure across the province. Low-and middle-income residents get rebates, which should total about $245 million…
2 Jan: NationalObserver: Alberta carbon tax jumps, but NDP says it’s connected to improving economy
By Rob Drinkwater, Canadian Press
Deputy premier Sarah Hoffman told reporters there was a clear link between the approval of several pipelines last year and the tax that Alberta first introduced on carbon on January 1, 2017.
Hoffman noted the federal government was clear that its approval for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion from Alberta to the B.C. coast was due to Alberta putting a price on carbon, as well as other pieces of its climate change policy…
(Opposition Leader Jason Kenney of the United Conservative Party) says the tax has already killed thousands of good paying jobs, put entrepreneurs out of business and made life more expensive for families.
“The carbon tax is all economic pain with no environmental gain,” Kenney said Monday in a statement…
Kenney, however, noted that since the NDP announced its climate change plan, the prime minister vetoed the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, former U.S. president Barack Obama vetoed Keystone XL and the National Energy Board effectively killed Energy East.
He added the NDP government in B.C. was also trying to stop Trans Mountain from proceeding.
“Not one single government, party or special interest group has gone from ‘no’ to ‘yes’ on pipelines as a result of the NDP’s failed tax on everything,” Kenney said in the statement…
“This is the carbon tax they claimed they had no intention of imposing in the last provincial election,” Kenney said in the video…
Because they have greater resistance to speeding cars.
Because they demonstrate how quickly steel rusts when adjacent to concrete.
Because they demonstrate how quickly concrete deteriorates when adjacent to steel.
Because they are so ugly.
How many reasons do you want?
Stobie poles are apt for a powerless state with a hopeless premier.
In a word, termites. Stobie poles are two lengths of RSJ with concrete in between. Very good poles, except if you crash into them in your car or motor bike.
They still rust though. They claim to get about 80 years out of the life of Stobie pole – almost twice that for a wooden one. However, Stobie poles can and do rust a lot quicker depending on the surrounding conditions.
I had the opportunity to visit the UN building in New York city about 6 months ago. I found the whole place to be a hotbed of Environmentalism. It was quite disturbing actually. This is supposed to be the instrument by which the world tries to keep the Peace. That aim seems to have been forgotten.
I was going to say that I was also surprised to see what the ABC was accused of not telling us. The US media is uniformly hysterical about Iran, falsely claiming that the state sponsors terrorism, some going as far as the president and claiming that it’s the main sponsor of terrorism in the world. In fact, it is the main opponent of the groups which attack western civilians – ISIS and al Qaeda. Its ally, Hezbollah, is also heroically fighting these terrorists. The only reason the US lies about Iran is because Israel does too.
This means that you can’t trust the news about Iran, but in the opposite way to the way this article claims.
Hezbollah = the Party of God (not mine I rush to add)
So, Hezbollah doesn’t fire rockets into Israel?
Between 1982 and 1986, there were numerous Hezbollah conducted or inspired suicide attacks in Lebanon directed against American, French and Israelis forces by Hezbollah, killing 659 people. These include:
The 1982–1983 Tyre headquarters bombings;
The April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing;
The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which killed 241 U.S. marines, 58 French paratroopers and 6 civilians at the United States and French barracks in Beirut;
The 1983 Kuwait bombings in collaboration with the Iraqi Dawa Party;
The 1984 United States embassy annex bombing, killing 24;
A spate of attacks on Israel Defence Force troops and SLA militiamen in southern Lebanon;
Hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985; and,
The Lebanon hostage crisis from 1982 to 1992.
Since 1990, terror acts in which Hezbollah has been involved include the following bombings and attacks against civilians and diplomats:
The 1992 Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires, killing 29. Hezbollah operatives boasted of involvement.
The 1994 AMIA bombing of a Jewish cultural centre, killing 85, in Argentina. Hezbollah claimed responsibility.
The 1994 AC Flight 901 attack, killing 21, in Panama. Hezbollah claimed responsibility.
The 1994 London Israeli Embassy attack, injuring 29, in the United Kingdom.
The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, killing 19 US servicemen.
In 2002, Hezbollah was involved in recruiting Singaporeans in a failed 1990s plot to attack U.S. and Israeli ships in the Singapore Straits.
The 15 January 2008, bombing of a U.S. Embassy vehicle in Beirut.
In 2009, a Hezbollah plot in Egypt was uncovered, where Egyptian authorities arrested 49 men for planning attacks against Israeli and Egyptian targets in the Sinai Peninsula.
The 2012 Burgas bus bombing, killing 6, in Bulgaria.
Nope. It’s clear Hezbollah is no terrorist group. It’s just a pack of psychopaths who believe that Allah loves killing Human Beings.
“The only reason the US lies about Iran is because Israel does too.”
S Sam has given you a few details of the sins of Hezbollah.
I would suggest a bit of light reading BEFORE you suffer from “foot in mouth” disease again.
I find it interesting how many people with SFA knowledge about Israel continually blame Israel for EVERYTHING that goes wrong in the Middle East (the World).
You must be taking too much heed of some of the resolutions passed by the DESPOTIC members of the UN.
Grow up and do a TINY bit of research BEFORE you run off at the mouth in future!
“Hezbollah = the Party of God (not mine I rush to add)… Your god Rod. And you’re welcome to him.”
I’m an atheist. I’m quite aware of what ‘Hezbollah’ means. I’m not talking about its ideas, but its actions. On balance, they are helpful to the fight against Sunni Islamic terrorism, by far the most important form of terrorism from the viewpoint of the inhabitants of western countries.
“So, Hezbollah doesn’t fire rockets into Israel?”
I didn’t claim it doesn’t.
“A spate of attacks on Israel Defence Force troops”
I’m shocked. Shocked!
“The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which killed 241 U.S. marines, 58 French paratroopers and 6 civilians at the United States and French barracks in Beirut”
What were these American and French soldiers doing in Beirut? But I agree with you about the civilians – the USA never, ever bombs anywhere where they are present.
“The 2012 Burgas bus bombing, killing 6, in Bulgaria”
I’ll grant you that. That was a war crime by Hezbollah. But the USA has never had qualms about supporting war criminals who fight its enemies. Why not Hezbollah, which fights against ISIS and al Qaeda?
“continually blame Israel for EVERYTHING that goes wrong in the Middle East”
Not at all. I also blame Saudi Arabia, the USA for its prone attitude toward Israel and the Sunni states, France, Britain – and the retarded cultures of the Middle East, including both Sunni and Shi’ite fundamentalism.
“do a TINY bit of research BEFORE you run off at the mouth in future!”
My suggestion Rod would be to talk to actual Israelis who live thier reality and what its like to be dealing with rabid groups of people who want them and thier kids dead. Normal stuff like stabbings, bombs on buses, the daily barrage of rockets, that sort of stuff.
Once you talk to normal Israelis, you get the “life on the ground” reality and realise why the IDF does what is does and why. If certain mid east countries have been identified as coordinators of state terrorism then you can bet the Mossad are correct in the intel they pass on to the IDF.
There has been some ongoing very record breaking cold weather here in Canada and the US. Well it is caused by “climate change”, “Global Warming”. Yes it is true the CBC says so. The CBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corp is like your ABC, a taxpayer funded PR machine for the liberal left government. The Trudeau government who promised a carbon tax, to feed its expanding bureaucracy, is going to initiate one in the near future. It is being aided by the CBC which is increasing the frequency of “climate change” articles so that a new tax will make the people feel warm while freezing their collective butts off.
Also in the article it is mentioned the cold is not record breaking, well records are breaking. Interesting statement of defection.
“A few cold days doesn’t disprove climate change,” Furtado said. “That’s just silly. Just like a couple down days on the stock market doesn’t mean the economy is going into the trash.”
After looking through all of this I’m wondering if we can somehow get Donald Trump made Secretary General of the United Nations. Would that help? I think so.
But naw! Roy, you’re still asleep and just dreaming. Nice dream though.
Your post on the ABCs reporting of the Iran protests is yet another example of how our tax payer funded media monster has given up even the pretence of unbiased news coverage.
Look at how they have (not) covered the record low temperatures in the USA. I listen to the ABC news radio station on my hour long drive to work every day and they have not mentioned it once. Instead all I hear is them huffing and puffing hysterically about how it might reach 41 C in Adelaide today or tomorrow or the weekend or sometime soon. Hot weather in Australia, in summer, gee that wouldn’t have happened before would it?
Not only will they not give the non-warmist side of the climate debate a fair go but now they will not even report actual news events that do not fit into their favored view of the world. A lot of people say we should privatise the ABC but I seriously doubt there would be anyone willing to spend money on it in its current degraded state. Better to just shut it down (maybe keep some of regional services going if needed) and let the market fill the space as it sees fit.
I’m a little late to this party, but have a question, best posed to those in the SH:
Over at WUWT, Anthony maintains an ENSO page, tracking the development(s) of La Ninas and El Ninos. For much of the NH fall and winter, we’ve watched a weak La Nina develop, which tends to portend a generally cold (or colder-than-normal) winter for the Western U. S. (where I live).
I am attempting to start some planning for the (NH) summer Field Season, and have watched over the past month as a pool of ‘warm’ water begins to form in the western Pacific. This pool appears to have some impetus behind it; for my neck of the woods, this would tend to mean a wet Spring, and an even wetter Summer (higher probability of a monsoon impacting much of the Western U. S. in July/August). While the vast majority of us would welcome increased rainfall and such, it does not help those of us who need to be out in places where tow trucks can cost nearly four figures to come pull one out of a mud hole … … …
Regardless of the political leanings and incompetencies of the BOM, are we starting to see forecasts of an El Nino for the first half of 2018?
Thanks in advance for any info anyone is able to provide, and my regards to all, and a very Happy New Year,
The Mostest Deplorablest Vlad the Impalerest, a crashing bore-est, and an even bigger bully-est (according to C.T.)
The UEA has a map of the areas where there will be massively increased aridity if warming hits 2C. One major area that could be affected is Southern Australia – from Perth to Sydney. Al Gore, on pages 114-115 has a graphic of where global precipitation increased and decreased in the 20th century. In most of Southern Australia it increased significantly – 30% or more. The earth warmed by a third of the way to the dangerous 2C warming barrier.
Compare the graphics.
https://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/southern-australia.jpg
More details are here.
112
More modelling rubbish.
When they get a model that works let us know.
In the mean-time, stop wasting our time.
120
Kevin, I’ve just reread my post and its ambiguity.
I’m talking about them, not you, wasting our time. 🙂
170
Sceptical Sam,
The purpose of this rubbish is not to waste our time. It is to scare politicians into putting more onerous policies to combat dangerous global warming. But whatever policies are enacted in Australia, Canada or the EU, there are two economic reasons why global GHG emissions will not be reduced.
On the Demand side, 80% of the world’s population live in countries whose government’s have no intention of enacting policies to significantly reduce their emissions. The Policy Gap will not be closed.
On the Supply side, to meet the emissions targets, at least 75% of global proven reserves of oil, gas and coal must be left in the ground – and any future discoveries. Countries with major reserves of fossil fuels include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Qatar and China. Do anyone seriously think these countries will sign binding agreements to eliminate a major part of their GDP’s within the next 20 years?
230
More onerous policies which coincidentally break down and eventually destroy our capitalist system.
In order to replace it with the model used in Venezuela.
80
I can just imagine how a ticked off australian population will handle that…they wont. At that point, the Elite will either have to fomd, or deploy draconian riot control measures that coukd easily escalate into civil war in this country.
People think it cant happrn here, but any population deprived of Liberty with a proven track record of being able in times of conflict to harness its “inner mongrel” and use things like bayonets in jungle warfare as its preferred weapon as Australians can, is a population not to be messed with.
The Elite rely on bluff, because unless they exterminate chunks of the population to maintain control, they wont want to pick a fight with Australians internally…it will go very badly and the Mad Max scenario will likely become very real very quickly.
11
Ah yes, Ted.
That puts me in mind of Mao Tse Tung’s 1958 sparrow elimination policy as part of his “Four Pests Campaign” and its unintended consequence.
Starvation and the death of 25 million Chinese was the result of the compounded stupidity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign
11
Kevin Marshall (Manicbeancounter)January 3, 2018 at 10:22 am
Kevin, I agree with your utterance describing the ‘scare policies’ involved to adversely influence politicians against citizens\voters. Why do you accept the deliberate stupidity of your fake GHG emissions. Please use your bean-counter\statistical learning to help identify why ‘Green House anything’ is but a scam!
50
Will,
Try looking at the logical economic method of Ludwig von Mises in his magnum opus Human Action, or the more mathematically formal neo-classical economics. Both make logical assumptions and then examine the internal logic of those assumptions. In so doing it is possible to say either certain situations will not arise, or give explanations of certain real world and complex situations. It does not mean that economists accept the homo-economicus is a species.
Similarly for climate policy, I do not accept the assumption that a doubling of CO2 levels will lead to 3C of warming, or that 2C of warming is the boundary of climate apocalypse, but the IPCC does. If you take their beliefs and apply it climate mitigation, I know they will not achieve their aims. The reasons I lay in #1.1.1.1. I have simply worked through the logic. Asking the “What if” questions does not mean accepting the scenarios as being true.
30
I disagree! Your “logical economic method of Ludwig von Mises” is not applicable to this UN political scam. Such nonsense may be acceptable at (politics not science), https://cliscep.com/. Please explain why you wish to promote such scam at Joanne’s blog? Where is any science in support of your fake CO2 “What ifs”?
10
Will,
As an example of the failure of the internal logic of the climate alarmists, take claim of 1000 GtCO2e of emissions being sufficient to generate 2C of warming.
1. The core assumption of that a doubling of CO2 will lead to 3C of warming.
2. Therefore a rise of CO2 from 280 to 450ppm will generate roughly CO2 of warming.
3. At the end of 2011 CO2 was already at 390ppm.
4. It takes around 15-17 GtCO2 (4 GtC) of emissions to raise CO2 levels by 1ppm from data of the last 50 years.
5. Therefore 1000 GtCO2 of emissions will result in CO2 levels of 449 to 457ppm
This is logically consistent except
a. There should have been more warming already from CO2 alone. Having “prepaid” warming is fine, but you must allow for it in policy.
b. There are other GHG gases.
The 2006 STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change stated in the Executive Summary page iii summed up the conundrum quite nicely.
Other GHG rises were equivalent to 40ppm of CO2 rises and at least 0.5C of warming was in the pipeline. With CO2 rising by 2ppm we already have 2 degrees of warming in the pipeline, and there was already well over 1.5C in the pipeline back in 2006 if one assumes that a doubling of CO2 will eventually lead to 3C of warming.
Logically the argument for climate mitigation fails, just as the policy case for reducing global emissions fails, as I lay out in comment #1.1.1.1.
10
1. What do you mean by your intentionally ambiguous ‘warming’? Is the application of additional power to already boiling water, considered ‘warming’ with no increase in temperature or not?
2. You spout nonsense of 1000 GtCO2e of emissions as though such had meaning but you provide no such meaning! Even if an atmospheric mass of 10^15 Kg gaseous carbon dioxide meant something such cannot be some sort of ’emission’ as the largest part of that 10^15 Kg was already atmospheric oxygen.
3. Atmospheric CO2 ratio in ppmv can be a quite accurate measurement, but the way you promote it is but nonsense. You insist on conflating total atmospheric mass, sea-level pressure, and gravitational accelerative force (weight). Your institutionalized academic meteorological professors have demonstrated over and over again that they lack the mathematical and geometric skill required to calculate the mass of Earth’s atmosphere; let alone even attempting to provide some reason for just that atmospheric mass!!
10
janoschka
Your comments are like sledgehammers.
You could be a little nicer — just regular hammers.
I think it was your sledgehammer style comments sent me away
from this blog for a few years — unless there is someone
else who talks like you.
I agree with most of what you say
but not with the way you character attack.
I’m back after a few years,
armed and dangerous,
and wanted to hunt you down
and tell you what I really think
of your sledgehammer comments:
— Up your nose with a rubber hose.
00
Would this link explain what goes on behind the scenes of government & their dealings with the Fearful Master, (th UN).
I bet Australian government is up to it’s eyeballs in similar “agreements” signed without the knowledge of the electorate.
https://youtu.be/8a7kX8w7wY4
If it’s factual, it’s truely frightening
20
I wish I had the time and computing power to create models of my own to predict a mini ice age, which is just as likely if not more so than any of the garbage models suggesting massive global warming. We can then have Betsar and others getting into the act to see which models would become the favourite. I bet mine would be 🙂
70
The Klimatariat have been pushing the meme that the intensification of the subtropical ridge (STR) is a global warming signal and southern Australia would become droughty under AGW, so the politicians built desalination plants in preparation for the worst.
China has ghost cities and Australia has desalination plants.
In the real world the STR has collapsed and southern Australia can expect good winter rains for at least a couple of decades.
90
Stange – I thought that a colder climate would be drier and a warmer climate wetter. But it seems that with the recent claims that Global Wafming causes cooling, then I suppose Global Warming can also cause droughts – it seems to be responsible for everything else.
40
As we enter a cool regime it becomes cool and wet, this is clearly visible during the LIA which lasted roughly 600 years.
On the other hand the descent into a major glaciation takes around 400 years and is cold and arid.
20
Which “cool regime” is that?
The failed prediction by John McLean, which failed to eventuate? The failed prediction by Lindzen? David Evans’ prediction which we are told hasn’t failed yet, although it hasn’t come to pass…..
Maybe you should have been more sceptical of this “cool regime” narrative that has been put about, El Gordo?
02
If I can speak for el Gordon, I believe they are referring to geolocation evidence and perhaps ice core evidence of matching drier periods in the past and not to any future predictions.
10
Sorry el gordo, the magical AGW spell corrector has struck again.
10
In the context of Australia, variability caused by El Nino/La Nina cycles has the dominant effect on our precipitation tallies.
So the question is – “how does the warming of the oceans and atmosphere affect the El Nino/La Nina cycles?”
We’ve always had periodic droughts – the main thing of interest to us from a water security point of view is whether the La Nina events become less frequent or less intense, because that will have a massive effect on our rainfall trends.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/elnino/lanina-faq
02
Then if you believe that El Niño/La Nina is a dominant effect, how come the magical IPCC GCMs don’t include their effects in their modelling?
10
Could you possibly provide a reference for the map with blue dots on it?
I ask, because I am sceptical, and factchecking the “blue dots” map against the data recorded by BoM would appear to show the “blue dots” is wildly inaccurate:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ=map%3Drain%26area%3Daus%26season%3D0112%26period%3D1970
02
My comment in the “Janoschka style”.
No one censors him here.
So I assume I can comment like he does?
.
.
MagicBeanCounter
.
I looked at your blog
.
and saw this statement:
.
“Now, having read Al Gore’s authoritative book An Inconvenient Truth …”
.
.
.
You might as well wear a T-shirt
.
that says “I am an idiot”.
.
.
.
Our planet is starved for CO2,
.
and needs more CO2
.
.
.
Plants used for food would have optimum growth
.
at 800 ppm to 1,200 ppm, at a minimum
.
.
Adding CO2 to the air is great news
.
— greening our planet.
.
.
.
If the CO2 causes any warming
.
it would be a harmless +1 degree per doubling,
.
which would take 133 to 200 years,
.
(assuming 3 ppm or 2 ppm CO2 increase every year),
.
(the +1 degree is based on simple lab experiments) —
.
there is no other science to predict what CO2 does,
.
.
,
Climate models are not real science
.
.
They are not even real models.
.
.
.
Real models would make accurate predictions !
.
.
.
There is NO SCIENCE to support
.
+3 degrees warming from CO2 doubling,
.
and runaway global warming is complete
.
nonsense, since CO2 levels in the past 4.5 billion years
.
were almost always higher than today,
.
up to 20x higher.
.
yet there was never any runaway warming.
.
or none of us would be alive today,
.
reading your nonsense.
.
.
.
NO historical proxy data,
.
and no historical instrument data,
.
even suggests that CO2 controls the climate now,
.
or ever has !
.
.
.
CO2 is a minor variable.
.
.
.
Only the brief period from the early 1990s’
.
to the early 2000s, had rapidly rising CO2
.
and rapidly rising average temperature
.
at the same time
.
just one decade of “proof”
.
in the past 4.5 billion years ?
.
.
.
If CO2 caused mild harmless warming.
.
which is possible based on lab experiments
.
that would be beneficial,
.
because greenhouse warming
.
would be mainly at night,
.
in high latitudes,
.
where it would be welcome !
.
.
.
CO2 is a false boogeyman
.
used by smarmy leftists.
.
like you
.
to scare and control people.
.
.
.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
.
for thinking you know ANYTHING,
.
about real climate science.
.
.
,
You are a left-wing mindless parrot
.
repeating what your leaders tell you:
.
(scare the people, to grow the government)
.
.
.
Please stay away from my climate blog at
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
… because real science, logic and common sense
.
would give you high blood pressure !
00
This is my local member of the Federal Parliament, Julie Bishop MP, bowing her head to the ideological dictator of Iran just before she hands over a multi-million dollar cheque.
http://michaelsmithnews.typepad.com/.a/6a0177444b0c2e970d01b7c941c15a970b-pi
Get rid of her and Turnbull.
180
She projects far beyond any Chamberlainesque obsequiousness or postural weakness when least he could be accused of trying to buy time.
On the other hand as a minister of the crown, an elected leader, and a woman she lowers her over inflated head before a humanity crushing medieval theocracy hell bent on nuclear weapons. Dear God, is that what the behaviour of a new age traitor looks like? What next, will the Australian and New Zealand political class be genuflecting on command from the UN and EU?
190
I thought they did already Manfred.
100
Sort of like the numerous meetings and handshakes that Chamberlain did with Hitler. I can already sense the day when the likes of Bishop will regret the day they were seen with dictators like those in Iran.
40
They hold elections in Iran so how is it a dictatorship?
21
Crakar24:
It is like Australia, where whoever you vote for agrees on everything that you don’t want.
70
Well Hitler also had elections but everyone calls him a dictator. You disagree?
30
Didn’t the USSR also have elections?
As I recall, East Germany was called the “DDR” – one of those “D”s representing the word “Demokratisches”. You would want to be fairly sceptical of dictatorships that try to tell you they are “Democratic”.
02
Who selects the candidates?
30
3 Jan: Australian: Carbon war: Tony Abbott fires up for battle
by Rachel Baxendale & Joe Kelly
Malcolm Turnbull is facing a backlash over his energy policy as conservative MPs including Tony Abbott condemn a proposal to allow power companies to meet emissions targets by buying permits from overseas as a “carbon tax” by stealth.
Mr Abbott has slammed the government’s in-principle support for including international carbon credits in Australia’s energy policy, arguing that the move will see Australian businesses and consumers shovelling money to foreign carbon traders, with huge potential for rorts…
Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly has joined Mr Abbott in voicing strong opposition to the government’s move, while the Nationals’ George Christensen has previously expressed concerns about the international trading of carbon credits.
Mr Abbott said his position on international carbon credits remained the same as it had been when he was prime minister and party leader…
Mr Frydenberg hit back last night, saying the role of international carbon credits had been on the table since Mr Abbott’s government announced in 2015 Australia’s Paris commitment.
‘’Since then we have conducted a major climate review in which industry groups representing energy intensive businesses across the economy including the BCA, AiG and the Minerals Council have made it very clear they strongly support the use of international permits,’’ he said. “It is worth noting that Mr Abbott’s position on international permits is closer to the Greens than that of Australia’s big employers.”…
Mr Kelly said international carbon credits would put an extra cost burden on Australian businesses that would not be borne by competitors in countries such as China, the US and India.
“We’d be doing this at a time when every Australian business that uses energy is under enormous international competitive pressure through the higher cost of energy and with the company tax cuts in the US,” Mr Kelly said.
“Businesses in Australia are going to be struggling to compete internationally without us effectively putting on a further new green tax, forcing them to buy pieces of paper from overseas.”…READ ON
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/carbon-war-tony-abbott-fires-up-for-battle/news-story/f6caa19237dcab70b5e2bc37eac59d1f
120
Goldman Sachs, sucks !!
92
So faux Prime Minister Malcolm has given us g*y marriage, a new tilt at the Australian Constitution to remove Britain and appoint a President and now another foreign carbon tax by the EU/UN to add to the massive RET. None of these things were in his election platform. He is trying to please his real friends, Labor and the Greens.
Can anyone save us from utterly dishonest and untrustworthy politicians?
160
Well i’s up to the voters to decide at the next election to make the obvious decision not to vote for LNP, ALP nor Greens, but I’m almost certain that too many will still be asleep like zombies to understand that voting for those parties is a death sentence for our nation.
100
Maybe your death sentence is what is needed before your walking dead wake up to their culpability.
50
Actually I am expecting to be martyred for my beliefs.
50
There is little chance the situation will change until Donald tweets CO2 does not cause global warming.
We need to get a debate going on the science and the MSM will vilify him. That is where we come in and turn the world upside down, assuming our side is given an opportunity to speak.
Ideally I would prefer we had a new scientific paradigm in our kitbag, a paper which takes in Stephen’s jet stream, David’s solar lag and Ian’s barycentric hypothesis.
30
el gordo January 4, 2018 at 10:26 am
“We need to get a debate going on the science and the MSM will vilify him. That is where we come in and turn the world upside down, assuming our side is given an opportunity to speak.”
No need for given, use instead ‘taken’, by force, with weapons, against this enemy!
“Ideally I would prefer we had a new scientific paradigm in our kitbag, a paper which takes in Stephen’s jet stream, David’s solar lag and Ian’s barycentric hypothesis.”
That will come about only if University communistic brainwashing academics can be shown to be more corrupt than the FBI agents Strzoking der Peter. 🙂
20
Donald has to tweet heresy, otherwise the pseudo Marxist western politicians will continue to follow the accepted scientific paradigm.
30
El Gordo
The science is already there to discredit the scam.
The UV in to Earth, then IR out to be trapped in CO2 mechanism is a scientific joke.
When the scammers could no longer deny this they invented the next leg of the lie and claimed that they knew it all along and that the real problem was the effect CO2 had on atmospheric water vapour.
Someone skilled in physics could destroy the CO2 is dangerous idea in less than 10 minutes.
But as they would have been working in a University they would then be jobless.
KK
30
Kinky Keith January 4, 2018 at 2:14 pm
‘The UV in to Earth, then IR out to be trapped in CO2 mechanism is a scientific joke.’ Atmospheric CO2 has insufficient specific heat to trap anything measurable!The latent heat of airborne H2O is entirely different.
Just what is this imaginary effect of CO2 on WV? What is such claim? There is no one skilled in physics that would consider being employed by such corrupt University system.
All the best!-will-
20
Keith I’m fully versed in the history and the extraordinary situation we find ourselves in.
If coolists are so sure of their position then we should be able to come up with a comprehensive projection of climate in 2040, how hard could it be?
Over the 20th century we saw the climate shift in 1908, 1934, 1976 and 2000, when the AMO and PDO came into sync. This had an effect on ENSO behaviour and hence temperatures, but now the hiatus has thrown a spanner in the works for both the Klimatariat and Denialati.
Its the glorious uncertainty which makes the science so interesting.
20
el gordo January 4, 2018 at 4:01 pm
At present no one is sure of weather anything! It is only the CO2 Klimate Klowns that make klaims! Just what actual science have we; in order to make such projection? The claim of scientific knowledge is the scam!!
10
2 Jan: AP: Deadly cold disrupts US; warming centers open in Deep South
By TAMMY WEBBER
Associated Press reporters Jeff Martin in Atlanta and Russ Bynum in Savannah contributed to this story
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Dangerously cold temperatures blamed for at least nine deaths have wreaked havoc across a wide swath of the U.S., freezing a water tower in Iowa, halting ferry service in New York and leading officials to open warming centers even in the Deep South.
The National Weather Service issued wind chill advisories and freeze warnings Tuesday covering a vast area from South Texas to Canada and from Montana through New England…
Indianapolis early Tuesday tied a record low of minus 12 degrees Fahrenheit (-24 Celsius) for Jan. 2 set in 1887, leading Indianapolis Public Schools to cancel classes. And the northwest Indiana city of Lafayette got down to minus 19 (-28 Celsius), shattering the previous record of minus 5 (-21 Celsius) for the date, set in 1979, the National Weather Service said. After residents there began complaining of a hum, Duke Energy said it was caused by extra power surging through utility lines to meet electricity demands…
With Chicago-area wind chills expected between -35 and -20 degrees (-37 and -29 Celsius), forecasters warned of frost bite and hypothermia risks and urged residents to take precautions, including dressing in layers, wearing a hat and gloves, covering exposed skin and bringing pets indoors.
In Tennessee, corrections officials at a maximum security prison were using portable heaters and extra blankets to keep inmates and employees warm. The facility lost hot water pressure Monday, causing its boiler to go offline…
Atlanta hospitals were seeing a surge in emergency room visits for hypothermia and other ailments as temperatures plunge well below freezing. The temperature in Atlanta fell to 13 degrees (-11 Celsius) before dawn in Tuesday…
Plunging overnight temperatures in Texas brought rare snow flurries as far south as Austin, and accidents racked up on icy roads across the state. In the central Texas city of Abilene, the local police chief said more than three dozen vehicle crashes were reported in 24 hours.
And in Savannah, Georgia — where the January’s average high is 60 degrees (16 Celsius) — the temperature hovered at 30 (-1 Celsius) at noon Tuesday, cold enough for icicles to dangle from the ornate wrought-iron fountain in Forsyth Park at the edge of the city’s downtown historic district…
“I’ve never seen icicles in Savannah, period,” said Sean Dempsey, a local restaurant manager who wore a hat, gloves and a thick coat to walk his dogs Tuesday. “I’m pretty sure last year at New Year’s lots of families were in the park playing catch, Frisbee football and stuff like that.”…
In New York, transportation officials suspended the Newburgh-Beacon commuter ferry service on Tuesday because of icy conditions on the Hudson River. Just north, the city of Poughkeepsie saw a record-breaking low of minus 10 degrees (-12 Celsius) on New Year’s Day.
Now forecasters are tracking a storm that could bring snow and ice to the East Coast later this week.
https://apnews.com/87294705618f44c78e95b2b518a718e1/Deadly,-bone-chilling-cold-grips-wide-swath-of-US
30 Dec: Popular Mechanics: Why the Eastern U.S. Is So Cold Right Now
It gets cold in winter, but also: yes it’s climate change
by Avery Thompson
These maps show that air from the far north of Canada is flowing south into the American Midwest and Northeast, which is why it’s so cold outside right now. Normally the jet stream keeps that air confined to Canada, but thanks to climate change it’s taking a hard right after passing the Rockies and heading south almost to the Gulf Coast.
So if you’re stuck outside on the East Coast this week freezing your extremities off, you can thank global warming.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a14517105/why-the-eastern-us-is-so-cold-right-now/?src=nl&mag=pop&list=nl_pnl_news&date=010218
30
Temps expected to moderate somewhat by next week here in lower Midwest but bringing with it the possibility of rain/snow/sleet. Hospitals are full of people with flu and pneumonia. Good old global warming at its best.
50
Another comparison of UEA’s forecast areas in peril from dangerous 2C of warming with Al Gore’s graphic from pages 114-115 of the book An Inconvenient Truth, is with Northern Africa. There is no issue with North Africa. Yet according to Al Gore, in the 20th Century precipitation in parts of West Africa and Ethiopia decreased by 50%. Compare the Nobel Laureate’s graphic with the UEA’s forecast for 2C of warming.
Compare the graphics, the largest orange blobs on Al Gore’s graphic being 50% decreases in precipitation.
https://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/s-eur-n-africa.jpg
In North-West Africa are located Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. Africagate – forecasts in AR4 of crop yields falling by up to 50% in some African countries by 2020 – were from 2001 country reports for these three countries, ostensibly based on climate models provided by the UEA. (See Richard North’s detailed analysis from 2010 here). Now the UEA’s models are saying there is no major problem with increased aridity in North Africa.
60
31 Dec: GWPF: from UK Telegraph: Christopher Booker: No, Wind Power Is Not The Cheapest Form Of Energy
A weird propaganda blitz, widely publicised again last week, is trying to persuade us that the cost of power from wind farms has been “tumbling” so fast that wind has now replaced coal as our “cheapest” source of electricity.
This began in October when Greenpeace and various wind companies plastered Westminster Underground station, the one most used by MPs, with posters claiming that the cost of offshore wind had halved in the past five years. This was so laughably untrue that the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that the claim was based only on figures that include “tentative future wind projects” that might not even be built.
Last week, the ASA emailed the GWPF to say that Greenpeace has now agreed not to repeat its claim; which means that the ASA does not now have to issue a formal ruling that this boast was bogus. In fact, official figures show that, far from falling, the price we all pay for offshore wind electricity can be up to £161 per megawatt hour, three-and-a-half times the current wholesale market rate. In the next four years, our offshore subsidy bill is due to more than double, from £1.4 billion a year to £3.1 billion.
As for the further boast that on 263 days this year wind contributed more electricity than coal, this is hardly surprising; the Government has been doing all it can with regulations and “carbon taxes” to close down our coal-fired power stations, which until two years ago were still supplying 30 per cent of our electricity. Yet on the coldest night of the year, two weeks before Christmas, those few coal plants that remain were still having to supply around 20 per cent of our needs, with nearly 50 per cent more coming from gas, the other fossil fuel that the Government wants to see phased out. Even this year there were times on windless days when all our 8,140 wind turbines – put together earning billions in subsidies – contributed barely one per cent to our needs.
So if we still have to rely on those hated fossil fuels when the wind isn’t blowing, how can we guarantee that our lights will stay on when they are gone? The only response we get from those propagandists is that they want even more subsidies for “renewables”…(LINK)
https://www.thegwpf.com/christopher-booker-no-wind-power-is-not-the-cheapest-form-of-energy/
50
On burning coal, the Chinese must get right,
To end P.M. pollution and frostbite.
On energy, the Greens force up the cost,
Without regard for all the jobs then lost.
Twin giant whirlpools move across the ocean,
And join beneath the waves in vortex motion.
Australia tries too hard to top the class,
By needlessly reducing ‘carbon’ gas.
110
Coal\coke need be employed to reduce metal oxide to useful ‘metal’. Vast skill is needed to make such rhyme!:-)
21
“Vast skill is needed to make such rhyme!”
As with getting to use Aberystwyth in a limmerick
30
“Australia tries too hard to top the class
By needlessly reducing carbon gas.’
Whereas we should decisively by-pass
The UN/EU/IPCC Grand-Farce-
War on efficient energy. – Alas,
We don’t, and when the Ice Man Cometh there’s
No gas! – Brrrr.
40
Beth
You have invented the Limerku.
20
on Chinese secret agreement with N. Korea!: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/2/china-covertly-offering-north-korea-missiles-aid-t/
on bypassing electricity–revolution in lighting: http://balance10.blogspot.com/2018/01/bypassing-electricity-solar-tube-of.html
10
OK….riight….daytime, yes. NIghttime?
We planned to use a solartube in our kitchen area but haven’t. We’ll stick with the LEDs.
10
Actually solar tubes work really well in the home, providing daytime light to dark areas in homes – I have three of them. The modern versions are very easy to install. Just have to make sure that the plastics used have a good UV long-life rating.
00
2 Jan: ABC America: Science Says: Why there’s a big chill in a warmer world
By Seth Borenstein, AP science writer
(AT BOTTOM) This Associated Press series was produced in partnership with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education)
Anchorage, Alaska, was warmer Tuesday than Jacksonville, Florida. The weather in the U.S. is that upside down.
That’s because the Arctic’s deeply frigid weather escaped its regular atmospheric jail that traps the worst cold. It then meandered south to the central and eastern United States.
And this has been happening more often in recent times, scientists say…
“This is not record-breaking for Canada or Alaska or northern Siberia, it’s just misplaced,” said (Judah Cohen, a winter storm expert for Atmospheric Environmental Research, a private firm outside Boston), who had forecast a colder than normal winter for much of the U.S…
IS THIS UNUSUAL?
Yes, but more for how long — about 10 days — the cold has lasted, than how cold it has been. On Tuesday, Boston tied its seven-day record for the most consecutive days at or below 20 degrees that was set exactly 100 years ago.
More than 1,600 daily records for cold were tied or broken in the last week of December, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For Greg Carbin of the National Weather Service’s Weather Prediction Center, the most meaningful statistics are how last week’s average temperature was the second coldest in more than a century of record-keeping for Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit and Kansas City, third coldest in Pittsburgh and fifth coldest in New York City…
IS IT JUST THE U.S.?
Pretty much…
The globe as a whole was 0.9 degrees (0.5 degrees Celsius) warmer than normal Tuesday and the Arctic was more than 6 degrees warmer than normal (3.4 degrees Celsius), according to the University of Maine Climate Change Institute’s analysis…
HOW CAN IT BE SO COLD WITH GLOBAL WARMING?
Don’t confuse weather — which is a few days or weeks in one region — with climate, which is over years and decades and global. Weather is like a person’s mood, which changes frequently, while climate is like someone’s personality, which is more long-term, (Jason Furtado, a University of Oklahoma meteorology professor) said.
“A few cold days doesn’t disprove climate change,” Furtado said. “That’s just silly. Just like a couple down days on the stock market doesn’t mean the economy is going into the trash.”…
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/science-big-chill-warmer-world-52104489
30
“This is not record-breaking for Canada or Alaska or northern Siberia, it’s just misplaced,” said (Judah Cohen…”
Oh really.
“It’s only the first day of the new year, but it’s already a historic one: Environment Canada has identified record-breaking temperatures in four Canadian provinces on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day.
Temperatures in parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan plummeted to an all-time low on New Year’s Eve, while Ontario and Quebec experienced historic overnight low temperatures on New Year’s Day.
The coldest new record low-temperature was in La Grande Rivière, Que., where the mercury dropped to -48.2 C early Monday.”
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/new-year-begins-with-record-breaking-cold-for-4-canadian-provinces-1.3741419
30
Judah Cohen is ambivalent at the moment.
‘Philosophically it is interesting to consider the character of winter as reaching a fork where the outcome hangs in the balance of a single weather or synoptic event. This is the idea of chaos and the Lorenz attractor where two distinct branches or solutions for the same set of equations occur due to only slight differences or noise inherent in the system. If the climate system is considered as chaotic, then description of the winter approaching a fork with the outcome literally still up in the air is appropriate and physically meaningful.’
Nevertheless he thinks California will experience a cold air outbreak within two weeks.
20
“Judah Cohen is ambivalent at the moment.”
Ambivalent. That’s a nice word for covering all the bases while saying nothing. Moreover, if a whole winter supposedly “hangs in the balance of a single weather or synoptic event,” what’s the difference between climate and weather, why is he supposedly researching the climate and what does CO2 have to do with it? Does CO2 cause these allegedly critical WEATHER events?
Total, meaningless mush from someone paid to spew it.
60
Judah is seriously worried that his models don’t give him a clear picture.
Anyway its not all mush.
20
Forgot the link.
http://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation
20
Earth’s weather at any location remains 65% deterministic (from recent); 15% statical (thermal) noise; and 20% spooky (God not decided yet on future). Chaos is but a fool invention of communistic academia! 🙂
21
Cohen was being philosophical because its spooky, the science which eludes us.
There is this oscillation in the stratosphere above the equator, called the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO), which is in its easterly phase. Normally the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) would go negative at this time, but its not happening.
The UK Met Office don’t expect to see anymore snowy weather this winter, which will be proven correct if the NAO remains positive.
20
You get the sense some people when drowning, if told that bricks float, would hold onto the brick regardless of what common sense says it would do….
40
[WA Premier Sir Charles Court’s government proposed a site for a nuclear power plant near Gingin in 1979.]
Australia squandered its nuclear energy advantage, surrendering to the anti-nuclear movement around 1980.
Unfortunately when portraying the benefits of nuclear power, reference is made all too often to the CO2 emissions averted.
If one were considering conservation and the prudent use of resources, then one would frame the argument in terms of hydro-carbons made available or left as reserve as e.g. transportation fuels and synthetic materials such as plastics and carbon fibres. i.e. you can have more lycra shorts and “cheap” $3000 mountain bikes. 😉
90
Thanks Bernd,
Unfortunately Scientists often fail at a basic humanities subject ( ie written communication).
Lets just look again for a minute at the abstract of the paper which you have quoted in part:
Meaning?
Again meaning? Possibly an interesting point about the sudden reversal of costs but not elaborated.
? GobbeldeGook.
It could be that Nuclear Power should be a lot cheaper than it now is! Reasons possibly presented in the paper.
Your other points about hydrocarbons made available are also appreciated.
50
Bend Sinister¹ ca 1980: 4 yers ago i cudnt evun spel injunear, now i is won. 😉
You can follow the link to the full text of the paper. AFAICT, the message is that much has been lost and that nuclear power plants would be much cheaper to build nowadays and the usual bla bla about CO2 savings, lives lost to coal mining, etc.
[FWIW; blablameter.com only rates a low level of B.S. in the abstract.]
While I think the magnitude of the savings to be speculative, apparently based on extrapolation cost reductions when development was very active, putting the technology on the back burner for decades has prevented many thousands of skilled people being exposed to the technology; and there’s no rational way of determining what opportunities were never even created. It takes time for people to “put two and two together”; to come to realizations and to shift points of view so that they can see around obstacles. Insight takes time and something of an immersion.
___
¹ University Engineers’ Club (UWA) periodical; loathed by wimmin, etc.
30
“Disruption” is a technical term for the effects of a change in technology.
“Benefits forgone” is a technical term in economics.
For “learning rate”, think of the concept of “economy of scale”.
The third snippet you’ve quoted is perfectly clear: they’ve compared current reality against a modelled projection based on an earlier group of trends with the effects of a subsequent change removed.
I think you will find far less clear – in fact frequently completely meaningless – jargon in just about any “humanities”-related paper.
Essentially what you have just done is complain that somebody else is responsible for your ignorance.
03
Bernd Felsche:
I don’t want more mountain bikes and especially lycra made available. Not only are MAMILs ** a tiresome and time wasting menace on the local (narrow) main road but they are a nuisance off it. I went into the local bakery yesterday in a hurry and was held up by 3 lycra bike riders buying bread, by multiple loaves. One bought 3 loaves (of specialty bread) all to be sliced individually to his specification and then spent some time finding the payment in his tight shorts. It took me over 10 minutes to be served and out with an off the shelf loaf.
And don’t get me started on their habit of riding on the main road in groups ignoring the parallel Bike track.
**Middle Aged Men In Lycra for those fortunate enough not to have been hindered.
50
I have been looking at wind/gas generation in SA and any correlation to electricity prices.
– In December, when wind generated 200-400 MW, daily prices were higher (avge $90/MWhr)
– When wind generated 600-800 MW, daily prices were generally lower (avge $70/MWhr)
– When gas generation was less than 800 MW, daily prices were generally lower (avge $70/MWhr)
– When gas generation was above 900 MW, daily prices were generally higher (avge $90/MWhr)
– On average in December, wind provided 510 MW, gas 900 MW, and price averaged $84/MWhr.
Looking at the longer term covering monthly averages for 2016 and 2017:
– Average wind generation in SA was 420 MW in 2016 and 490 MW in 2017 (new generators added), an average capacity factor of 29%. Lowest months provided 250 MW, peak months 800 MW. Nameplate capacity is 1700 MW.
– Average gas generation was 650 MW in 2016 and 825 MW in 2017.
– Total SA generation averaged 1070 MW in 2016 and 1320 MW in 2017.
– Average prices were $69/MWhr in 2016, and $99/Mwhr in 2017, although the last quarter of 2017 averaged $80.
So presumably the closure of Hazelwood coal in Vic in Mar 2017 resulted in SA gas having to increase supply to meet demand, and when wind generation is high, SA exports surplus to Vic, but increased gas results in higher electricity prices.
70
Robber:
Correct. SA has increased supply but mostly by running the CCGT gas plants full time. When wind is low the OCGTs start up and as they cost over $200 a MWh to run, up goes the average cost of gas supply. (Wait until the new diesel fuel ones start up to see a real jump in costs – and CO2 emissions and pollution).
When wind is strong then the excess electricity is directed to Victoria through the interconnector. When wind is really strong and the supply from wind turbines exceeds the interconnector capacity then some wind turbines are shut down by AEMO.
This Friday and Saturday with temperatures around 40℃ in Adlaide might provide some interesting figures for you.
20
Why Wind Farms Suck
Found this paper sitting next to the one on nuclear power.
i.e. “wind farms” are less efficient than lone turbines and their environmental disruption can prevail for several kilometres downwind.
Those of us who remember our fluid mechanics will remember rules of thumb like 20 characteristic diameters to re-establish laminar flow after a turbulent disruption — “strictly” applicable to pipes, but nevertheless relevant to open-field flow. Spacing turbines at 20 diameters is prima facie the starting point for deployment to reap maximum power. Spacing is as close as 5 diameters in practice which guarantees turbulent turbine interactions, significantly reducing the efficiency of the airfoils (blades).
The simulations in the paper describe somewhat the “bow wave” produced by the wind farm obstacle; which further reduces efficiency and power output. This is predictable if one understands Le Chatelier’s Principle which can be paraphrased as “nature finds the easiest way to do things”. In this case; if the wind farm becomes sufficiently obstructive (corresponding to a large, nominal power output), wind would tend to go around or even over the top of the wind farm.
Lest you think that this is purely theoretical then spend some time sitting on a hill, watching how a rainstorm and clouds flow to follow the landscape.
80
Now that is interesting Bernd.
I recently drove past the Hallett windfarm monstrosity in South Australia, stopped and had a sandwich while gazing at the environmental vandalism that the greenies had visited upon the area.
The Hallett windfarm complex was built between 2008 and 2012. It’s now owned by the hypocritical AGL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_farms_in_South_Australia
Now, since its construction, the BoM records tell us that rainfall downstream from the prevailing wind that (occasionally) drives the windfarm has been below the median for the three BoM sites that lie within 10 kms of Hallet.
Hallett
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=021023&p_nccObsCode=139&p_month=13
Hallet (Ashrove)
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=021067&p_nccObsCode=139&p_month=13
Hallett (Ulooloo)
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=021085&p_nccObsCode=139&p_month=13
I wonder?
30
I wrote a blog article based on my comment above.
Look at the picture and think about where that moisture would have precipitated had it not been for the wind farm. Perhaps onshore?
Man-made climate change. Illustrated.
30
Almost year’s end for data collection for the U.S. power statistics (Rolling year to October) and China (Year to November)
Compare the two.
U.S.Total power generation 4004TWH – Coal fired power 30.37%, Natural Gas 31.62%, Nuclear 20.05%, Hydro 7.52%, Wind 6.27%, Commercial Solar (PV and CSP) 1.3%
China Total power generation 5712TWH – Coal fired power 73.05%, Hydro 17.69%, Nuclear 3.95%, Wind 4.75%
In China, solar power does not rate a mention, and the total for coal fired power is all thermal, which includes Natural Gas, but China has virtually no natural gas fired plants. When you have the state of the art coal fired plants, why would you bother.
Consider that it was only in 2012 that China overtook the U.S. as the largest power generator on Earth, and now they are at 142% of the U.S.
Also of note is that total generation in the U.S. fell marginally, by 1.3%, and coal fired power generation rose by 1.2%. Also of note is that those Nuclear power plants in the U.S. also increased their total power generation, and the Capacity Factor for the whole fleet of those U.S. Nukes was 91.7% for the year.
Tony.
120
Tony, I think your statistics must be mistaken. I have heard repeatedly that China is now the new Climate Leader, leading the world toward a blissful stable not too windy, calm, hot or cold solar-powered planet where everyone would have just the right amount of energy and everything and live happily ever after.
Yet your stats seem to show otherwise. What’s up with that? Did they not mention their solar production because they didn’t want everyone else to be jealous?
10
It took me ages to find a good site for China power generation data, and that entailed chasing info, and then translating the pages I did find, but once I found the one I did, it was really comprehensive, sort of going against the idea that China was hiding information. The process took me a week or so, and some days I spent hours on it.
I then had to actually ‘drill down’ into the site I did find that actually looked to be the correct one, but once I did find it, I just saved the link for that page.
What I did find that in the ‘race’ (I suppose you could call it) to be the best site, (and here, for comparison’s sake, I’m using that monster U.S. site at the EIA with all its power generation data) China gives all its information with just a four to five week lead time, while the EIA uses 8 weeks for all its data. (So, here I mean that the current data for the U.S. is coming up to end of November’s details, while a week or so later, China will have its information for the end of December)
Then, within a couple of weeks after that, China will have the comprehensive list for that whole previous year.
Now, why I said all that is that in that Comprehensive yearly list, (the most recent one, for 2016) they actually do detail information for solar power,
So, according to that end of 2016 full data list, solar power contributed 66TWH of generated power for the year, which is only 1.1% of the total generated power for that whole year.
Now, while expressed as a percentage, it is such a tiny figure, so those greenie supporters would not want to use a number like that, so they would prefer to use the Nameplate Capacity which is in fact quite large at 78,000MW, more than anywhere else on Earth. The Maths for that show that the CF for commercial solar plants in China is as low as only 9.7% average for the year, lower than in most Countries.
I’m of the impression that China knows full well that when it comes to ‘seeming’ to be doing a lot on the solar power front, they know that green followers will always use that huge Nameplate figure, without having the slightest idea of how little power they actually do generate.
Something of a similar nature also applies for wind power, because all of the wind power in China is barely averaging a Capacity Factor of 18%, so again, the use of the seemingly ‘huge’ Nameplate makes it look like China is doing a lot on that front also, because, as you can see from the info in my earlier comment Wind only delivers 4.75% of China’s total generated power.
Tony.
Reference – China Electricity Council For the 2016 Summary, go to the Annual Data box, click on the top entry there, and when the new page opens, hover your mouse over the link in that top box, and when the drop up box opens, click on the top link there. The maths is poorly translated for some of it, so again, I had to work to get those totals right.
90
Thanks for those details Tony. I was being sarcastic about the claims of their ‘Climate Leadership,’ deservedly so given the actual source of their power. Now I know more.
A whopping 1.1% from solar! This just adds to my impression that the only leadership China does or wants to have is in the sales of solar panels. I understand that most of their ‘righteous’ solar installations are done mostly to use up their overproduction.
I also understand that China’s economic statistics are as accurate and convenient as Al Gore’s climate stats. Given how things are that could suggest that this ‘good’ solar production may be overstated while the ‘bad’ coal power may be understated but it wouldn’t matter in this case.
50
You can see why the greenie followers use that Nameplate figure when it comes to solar power.
That total is 3.4 times HIGHER than the total Nameplate for every coal fired power plant in Australia.
And yet from that tiny Nameplate for Australian coal fired power, those coal fired plants generate TWICE as much power as for all those Chinese Solar plants.
Australia’s coal fired power generation is greater by a factor of almost SEVEN.
Tony.
40
Incidentally, at that link, and the extended link to those 2016 data figures, note near the bottom (7th line up from the bottom) that coal consumption for coal fired power decreased from 315 to 312grams/KWH. In 2009, that figure was 340 grams/KWH, so in the process of closing down literally hundreds of old small coal fired plants, and constructing those new tech USC plants, that figure has dropped markedly.
The average for Australia’s older SubCritical plants, and that’s all of them except the 4 SuperCritical plants in Qld, is above 400grams/KWH.
So, converting all of them to USC would see an emissions reduction in that coal fired power sector of 22% plus.
Tony.
80
Tony, have you numbers for the US Navy fleet of surface and subsurface reactors? No nuclear ‘accidents’ when ‘Captain’ lives aboard his own ‘reactor’. Expensive yes! perhaps Lessons to be learned 🙂
21
FWIW: Capacity factor isn’t nearly as important as availability in maritime applications.
30
About 60 coal fired power stations are under construction in China, another dozen permitted, another some 30 in pre-permit stage and some 20 announced. That makes a total of well over 100 that China will have in due course while we will be reducing our count. Then there is the rest of the world – something like over 1,000 in total. I wonder when will Australians wake up and wonder why our major political parties want to shut down Australia’s economy?
50
China has slowed down the construction of those large scale coal fired power plants.
It’s now down to one new plant coming on line on average every eighteen days, down from one every fourteen days the year before.
Still, just in this last year China has opened almost 30000MW of new coal fired power, so that’s an addition of the Australian total for coal fired power every 40 weeks.
Tony.
50
Yes I know they have scaled down their construction but at least they are still building lots of them. Also, China has 37 nuclear reactors with an additional 20 under construction.
We are going the wrong way, and if we continue to do so we will go over the cliff into the abyss, thanks to the LNP, ALP and Greens.
30
Tony:
There is a further reduction in emissions as electricity becomes more widely available and newer housing is built, as the old low grade coal fired heater cum cooker is replaced by clean electricity. Don’t tell the Greens or their heads might explode.
P.S. I see you are on Tallbloke’s blog.
10
Yep, in countries that use local biofuel as their major energy source, (or local coal/wood in unfiltered fired places)
…. the very best way to reduce both CO2 emissions and REAL pollution, is to move the energy supply to out of town, modern, CLEAN coal power stations.
23
“The heat that we are seeing through south-eastern Australia, we saw that coming a week out.
“I mean, last week was really cold, and to tell people we are going to see temperatures close to 40 this week they were like, ‘No it’s not going to happen’.
“So, we’re getting really good with four days, pretty good for seven days, and then it becomes fantasy land once you get more than around 10 days out.”
Dean Narramore (BoM)
40
So what do you call it when it’s 100 years out?
40
What do I call it when it is 10, 20, or 50 years out? Please, there are ladies present.
30
Models, models everywhere
“Study predicts a significantly drier (or wetter) world at 2ºC (Warning: ‘robust’ model output)”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/02/study-predicts-a-significantly-drier-or-wetter-world-at-2oc-warning-robust-model-output/
Resulting in another muddle
10
Well, some models are better than others.
https://www.wonderslist.com/10-hottest-modern-fashion-models/
Sorry. I confess. I am a white male. I’ll leave it to others to find the equivalent male list.
11
Flanders and Swan had some words around this IIRC
“Such models of friendship are fair to behold
But the friendship of models is not”
30
There are models that say we will be hit by a killer asteroid at some stage. I don’t hear anyone proposing we introduce a tax on space industries to better detect and defend ourselves. So why are coal plants forced to pay a “tax” for a global warming threat that’s at best much less likley and certainly far less catastrophic than a killer asteroid, and at worst is a hoax? I know – it’s all about the money. I look forward to the day when people are put in prison for perpetrating the biggest scam in history. I suggest we put them on a large asteroid to mine it.
30
“can now” or “cannot now” – you decide:
2 Jan: Scientific American: E&E News: Chelsea Harvey: Scientists Can Now Blame Individual Natural Disasters on Climate Change
Extreme event attribution is one of the most rapidly expanding areas of climate science
As floodwaters from the swollen River Thames crept closer to the walls of Myles Allen’s south Oxford home in the United Kingdom, he was thinking about climate change—and if scientists could figure out if it was affecting the climbing water outside…
Nearly 15 years later, extreme event attribution not only is possible, but is one of the most rapidly expanding subfields of climate science.
“The public stance of the scientific community about individual event attribution in the year 2000 is that it’s not something that science does,” said Noah Diffenbaugh, a Stanford University climate scientist and attribution expert. “And so to go from that to now, that you’ll find a paper every week … that’s why we say there’s been an explosion of research. It’s gone from zero to 60, basically.”…
And as the science continues to mature, it may have ramifications for society. Legal experts suggest that attribution studies could play a major role in lawsuits brought by citizens against companies, industries or even governments…
“I think the public and many policymakers don’t really take those 100-year forecasts very seriously,” said (Myles) Allen, who is now one of the world’s leading experts in attribution science. “They are much more seriously interested in the question of what is happening now and why—which boils down to attribution.”…
According to Friederike Otto, an attribution expert at the University of Oxford, the progression of technology—namely, the improvement of climate models is driving the recent surge…
Today, scientists still generally agree that it’s impossible to attribute any individual weather phenomenon solely to climate change…
But what scientists can do is investigate the extent to which climate change has influenced a given event. Generally, researchers do this with the help of climate models…
Scientists have cautioned that the findings don’t necessarily overturn the existing narrative that no single event can be attributed to climate change…
(Myles) Allen, the Oxford scientist, had hinted at such litigation two years before Hurricane Katrina occurred. In his Nature commentary, he mused about the possibility of massive class-action lawsuits—carrying the potential for “up to six billion plaintiffs” around the world—attempting to hold greenhouse gas emitters liable for damages…
As a general rule, extreme event attribution studies don’t predict the likelihood of a future event. They focus on how climate change has affected events that have already happened. Even the National Academy of Sciences report warned, “Attribution studies of individual events should not be used to draw general conclusions about the impact of climate change on extreme events as a whole.”
But from a legal standpoint, the studies’ implications could be broader…
Some scientists hope to eventually launch a kind of standardized extreme event attribution service, similar to a weather forecasting service, that would release immediate analyses—with the same uniform methods used for each one—for every extreme event that occurs.
It’s still unclear what such a service might look like, but one could imagine receiving an email or smartphone notification each time an extreme heat wave or flood rolls through, explaining its connection to climate change.
The Met Office is already working on such a project, although it’s in early stages. The European Prototype demonstrator for the Harmonisation and Evaluation of Methodologies for attribution of extreme weather Events, or EUPHEME, is an ongoing project designed to “build the bridge between science and an operational service,” according to Nikos Christidis, one of the scientists involved…
Future floods are less likely to go uninvestigated. According to Christidis, the Met Office scientist, extreme event attribution is not only a matter of scientific advancement but a public obligation…
“The whole science of event attribution developed so that we can provide scientifically robust answers to these questions. If we the experts don’t do this, then there will be people who are not qualified who will go and fill in the gaps. So this is the very important challenge that we are called to face.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-can-now-blame-individual-natural-disasters-on-climate-change/
20
That’s a real beauty pat!
“said Noah Diffenbaugh, a Stanford University climate scientist and attribution expert. “And so to go from that to now, that you’ll find a paper every week … that’s why we say there’s been an explosion of research. It’s gone from zero to 60, basically.”…
An “attribution expert”! LOL.
Gee, I wonder why there has been this “explosion of research”?
“(Myles) Allen, the Oxford scientist, had hinted at such litigation two years before Hurricane Katrina occurred. In his Nature commentary, he mused about the possibility of massive class-action lawsuits—carrying the potential for “up to six billion plaintiffs” around the world—attempting to hold greenhouse gas emitters liable for damages…”
I guess they’ll be calling in the “attribution experts” as expert witnesses, right after the 97% testify that CO2 causes EVERYTHING and the Gender Studies experts testify that if you don’t believe that you hate women and men and everything in between, and puppies of course.
30
Those “six billion plaintiffs” would be suing the wrong parties, they should be suing themselves.
30
Seriously, for instance in tobacco litigation there are two Common Law defences: Volenti non fit injuria or “to a willing person, no injury is done” and contributory negligence i.e. the plaintiff himself has contributed to his own injury as he has prior knowledge of the harm (Wiki).
In the case of any attempted Climate Change™ litigation, in the unlikely event that any harm can be directly attributed to CO2 emissions due to fossil fuel use, there would hardly be a sentient being on the planet unaware of Climate Change™ horror stories.
It’s a question I ask of alarmists I come across: ‘if I thought fossil fuel use was so dangerous I would stop using them, why don’t you?’.
50
Just read this and was about to link this story. I can see the lawyers visualising massive troughs of litigation monies overflowing right now.
20
Statistics for 2017 global temperatures are starting to roll in, for example Roy Spencer has 2017 as third warmest year in the satellite record (with no El Nino!). So it’s time to remind AndyG55 again of our bet 4 years ago.
AndyG55 said on 4 Jan 2014 that temperatures were:
So I challenged Andy to a bet about the direction of temperatures over the following few years. I said I’d revise my thinking on drivers of global climate if temperatures went down, he said he’d revise his thinking if temperatures went up.
On 8 Jan 2017, I brought this to Andy’s attention, but he didn’t revise his thinking, he doubled down and stated:
So, when we made the bet at the start of 2014, these are the global anomalies above the 1981-2010 average according to UAH-LT:
2013: +0.13°C
2014: +0.18°C
2015: +0.26°C
2016: +0.51°C
2017: +0.38°C
That is, at no point have yearly average global temperatures dropped below the base point of the bet: +0.13°C.
So my question for AndyG55 is – will you keep your side of the bargain? Will you accept you lost the bet and revise your thinking?
85
Why would anyone bet on an El Nino occurrence? Pointless.
106
Jo, we are not betting on El Nino occurrences, we are betting on a warming or cooling trend from 2013. This year we have been in a La Nina, but that hasn’t stopped near record warmth.
I proposed the bet because I was getting tired of people on the site saying every year that ‘cooling was just around the corner’, but pushing it out another year when it didn’t occur. So I called Andy out on his prediction in 2014. You and David have made similar predictions, for which I applaud you. And I do hope that if they happen not to eventuate, you will also rethink your ideas of what drives global climate.
93
Calling out Andy on anything he says is a bit like yelling at a dog to stop barking. Complete waste of time. He is completely immune to facts and reason.
52
Temperatures of basically ALL the world’s oceans are dropping quite quickly.
I might have been a few months out because of the El Nino (more solar energy stored in the oceans than I expected.)
You do know where all that energy came from that caused the atmosphere to warm like that, don’t you Mat.? (hint: it was an ocean COOLING event)
The transient has almost gone. Taking a bit longer than normal because it was such a large release.
Temperature is almost down to the level of the ZERO TREND from 2001-2015.
UAH temperatures are FAR below the CHIMP5 models by supposed “climate scientists”.
https://s19.postimg.org/dn495r4w3/biggerfail2.png
Some reading for you Mat.. do try to learn something this time.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/02/global-cooling-expected-for-2018-warming-projection-may-be-one-of-the-great-scientific-blunders-of-modern-times/#sthash.azyrGva3.dpbs
78
ps, and please, Mat, don’t try to pretend that the recent El Nino was ANYTHING to do with Anthropogenic Warming or CO2.
Even you are not that nil-educated. Or are you ?
68
So, Andy, you want to push your predictions of cooling out another year?
I think I’ve pointed out before the altered graph you linked to is trying to compare troposphere temperature estimations with surface temperature observations. That’s not a valid comparison, they are different parts of the Earth system. But the graph does show the model predictions are pretty bang on – thanks for posting that!
And yes, I’ve read the notrickszone post… just like always “this year is gonna be the year!”
And finally, no, I’ve never said I think El Nino’s are anthropogenically driven. But the background warming is, over which El Nino spikes.
72
It so good that I am permanently on your mind.
I must be VERY important to you, sweetie.
“I’ve never said I think El Nino’s are anthropogenically driven But the background warming is”
You see, that is where you are totally WRONG
The ONLY warming has come from those El Ninos. haven’t you figured that out yet?
I know basic maths is difficult for you but…
From 1980-1997… NO WARMING
https://s19.postimg.org/iwoqwlg1f/UAH_before_El_nino.png
From 2001-2015… NO WARMING
https://s19.postimg.org/b9yx58cxf/UAH_after_El_nino.png
El Nino events have no CO2 or human forcing, they are PURELY NATURAL.
That means there is NO CO2 or human forcing in the whole of the satellite temperature
That means there is NO “Global warming™” in the satellite record.
Furthermore, in place unaffected by El Nino EVENTS, there is no warming at all.
Look at Australia, for instance.
No real warming for 20 years.
https://s19.postimg.org/dbjwm4dwj/UAH_Australia.png
Southern Ex trops
https://s19.postimg.org/4khzxrbzn/UAH_So_Extropical.png
Japan
https://s19.postimg.org/s9bwikr0z/Japan_post_1998.png
Bit much for you to take in, isn’t it, sweetie.
How are those climate “experts” going, by the way.
https://s19.postimg.org/vju0f7neb/biggerfail.png
Tell you what you could do to persuade me.
Present a paper that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in our convective atmosphere.
Or remain an empty stalker.
37
“But the graph does show the model predictions are pretty bang on”
ROFLMAO.. now I know you are hallucinogenics !!!
38
Or totally incapable of understand basic graphs …… or both
37
Also seems that you don’t know what GCMs are..
“global coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models ”
Oh dear, sweetie.. you need to do some learnin’ !!!
26
Which means that the GCM should be compared NOT to the highly corrupted surface non-data, but to the atmospheric data. ie the red line
36
Andy, you’re wrong. See Roy Spencer’s description here, particularly Figure 7 which shows his UAH temperature estimation is from the surface all the way up to 14km for V6 LT product.
On the other hand, the plot you showed are the temperature of air that models predict at 2 metres above the surface. They are not comparable. There are known issues for comparing surface observations (i.e 2m above the surface) and model output, but they have been addressed here.
Your snide comments combined with your ignorance don’t put you in a good light.
81
Do you know what this is, sweatie. ?
https://s19.postimg.org/6s3epd0ab/Whatis.png
37
Simple question, Mat, if you dare to answer.
Do you REALLY think that the recent El Nino was anything to do with CO2 or any other anthropogenic forcing?
57
Could you supply a temperature graph minus ENSO?
50
easy peasy.
Here is RSS with the step change at the 1998 El Nino
Without that step change
NADA, Nothing
https://s19.postimg.org/v9zxq3zzn/RSS_El_Nino_step..png
46
That link didn’t work, do you have another?
20
Sorry about that, for some reason there is a double dot in the link before the suffix.
https://s19.postimg.org/v9zxq3zzn/RSS_El_Nino_step.png
44
Hi Andy
If you get a step up change from El Niño why don’t you get a step down change from La Niña?
81
Thanx Andy.
21
Good catch Ghibli, we now have warm La Nina.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/enso-global-temp-anom/201213.png
There must be a rational answer, but it escapes me at present.
20
Can anybody please help advise which pharmaceuticals I must ingest in order to spot this “step change” which at this stage only Andy has been able to see?:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/gistemp_graph_2015.png
43
Hi Gordo,
Yeah, it looks like it’s escaped Andy as well. And I thought he was the expert around here.
I can wait a little longer, maybe he’ll pop by with a few pearls of wisdom.
41
La Nina as a recharge stage.
Flat trend, unless other factors allow cooling, like a cooler sun.
24
Looks like your recharge is coming with a pretty steep interest rate, Andy.
If Gordo’s graph is correct, things are starting to look a bit crook.
And that sun’s not likely to cool off for a few million years.
40
Just read the latest ENSO report from the BOM, Andy.
Things aren’t looking good.
It looks like it’s a Malcolm Turnbull La Niña: weak and short lived says the BOM.
According to the boffins some guy called Kelvin Wave is moving across the Pacific and he’s gonna turn this La Niña into a fizzer.
Where oh where is the next Great Cooling going to come from?
31
How ’bout clouds?
21
From a scientific perspective nobody is certain what will happen with ENSO in the near future, yet the general consensus is that it’ll slip into balance and harmony.
Not sure about that, but warm La Ninas must give hope to the warmest brigade.
20
OK Mat,
You say “according to UAH-LT:
2013: +0.13°C
2014: +0.18°C
2015: +0.26°C
2016: +0.51°C
2017: +0.38°C”
So my question is; AUH December temperature is not in yet, How did you get +0.38C?
41
Roy Spencer has stated here:
so I used his quote for 2017 and calculated the others.
51
Spencer gave the figure of +0.38C on his blog.
He also advised the V6 files have not yet been updated.
Go have a look for yourself.
40
UAH is in, +.41C, Next couple of months will be interesting indeed.
Not much of the El Nino energy release from the oceans left.
Oceans cooling quite a bit.
La Nina definitely forming well.
56
Apparently Not.
73
See no reason to.
I’ve always said “around 2017”
Looks like I may be only a few months out.
Compare that to “the climate scientists” and their models. 😉
77
I was reading “Wired”‘s future projections booklet in the newsagent today, in it they said wind and solar would be the cheapest power in future.
As i said to my 12 yo while walking out of the newsagent, the price of coal is inflated politically, and solar and wind are unviable.
Shes smart…she gets it….
40
So is the price of “Wired” with that sort of rubbish in it.
The copy you browsed is still on the shelf no doubt?
I can only hope that greenies buy them at their inflated prices and continue to be victims of the scam.
10
Original Steve:
I have a copy of Scientific American in which it is stated that “within 6 years Solar PV will be so cheap that no new coal fired power stations would be built, and in 8 years the first large scale solar PV power station would be built”.
It is the October edition, 1987.
40
Love the 1980s…kind if reads like the rose coloured glasses employed by 1914 newspapers which predicted Ww1 would by over by xnas….
10
Prepare for massive EXTREME WEATHER headlines!
A “Bomb Cyclone” Is Set To Detonate Off The East Coast
“This storm developing off the Southeast coast will meet the meteorological criteria of a “bomb” as it rapidly intensifies. The signal for a storm has been evident since last week, but as the track has been fine-tuned, impacts to the I-95 corridor are now expected. Snow, strong winds, and very cold temperatures are expected particularly the further east one heads,” said Ed Vallee, meteorologist at Vallee Weather Consulting LLC.”
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-02/bomb-cyclone-set-detonate-east-coast
And up pops ‘scientist’ Judah Cohen again: ““This is only the appetizer – the main meal comes over the weekend,” said Judah Cohen, director of seasonal forecasting for Atmospheric and Environmental Research, a Verisk Analytics Inc. business in Lexington, Massachusetts. “This is about as intense a cold as I can remember.”
As “cold as I can remember.” That’s much better than consulting weather history data, unless he’s a very, very old man with a perfect memory.
90
oops.. I read BOM cyclone.. and couldn’t stop laughing. !
52
up, up and away…
2 Jan: UPI: Carbon levy increased by 50 percent in Alberta
The provincial government estimates it committed more than $1 billion last year to green infrastructure.
By Daniel J. Graeber
Canada’s oil-rich province of Alberta rang in the New Year with a 50 percent increase in a carbon levy that supports green investments, a minister said.
The provincial government said Monday the carbon levy increased from $16 (USD) to $24 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions. More than $1 billion in funds from Alberta’s provincial climate plan were used last year to back a light-rail transit system that the government said would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 30,000 tons, the equivalent of taking 6,000 vehicles off the road during its opening day of service…
Construction on the first 12 miles of the light-rail system begins in 2020.
(Environment Minister Shannon) Phillips last year made up to $7,500 in rebates for homeowners and up to $375,000 for businesses and non-profit organizations available to help cover some of the costs tied to solar panel installation.
Without the program, the government estimates solar uptake could grow from 2 megawatts to 30 MW by 2022. That quadruples with the program in place, with solar uptake reaching a potential 140 MW during the next five years…
Revenue from the carbon levy supports green infrastructure across the province. Low-and middle-income residents get rebates, which should total about $245 million…
Based on reserves for oil sands, a thicker type of oil, Alberta by itself ranks third in the world behind Venezuela and Saudi Arabia with a 2016 reserve estimate of 165.4 billion barrels.
https://www.upi.com/Energy-News/2018/01/02/Carbon-levy-increased-by-50-percent-in-Alberta/4851514888223/?utm_source=fp&utm_campaign=ts_eng&utm_medium=22
2 Jan: NationalObserver: Alberta carbon tax jumps, but NDP says it’s connected to improving economy
By Rob Drinkwater, Canadian Press
Deputy premier Sarah Hoffman told reporters there was a clear link between the approval of several pipelines last year and the tax that Alberta first introduced on carbon on January 1, 2017.
Hoffman noted the federal government was clear that its approval for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion from Alberta to the B.C. coast was due to Alberta putting a price on carbon, as well as other pieces of its climate change policy…
(Opposition Leader Jason Kenney of the United Conservative Party) says the tax has already killed thousands of good paying jobs, put entrepreneurs out of business and made life more expensive for families.
“The carbon tax is all economic pain with no environmental gain,” Kenney said Monday in a statement…
Kenney, however, noted that since the NDP announced its climate change plan, the prime minister vetoed the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, former U.S. president Barack Obama vetoed Keystone XL and the National Energy Board effectively killed Energy East.
He added the NDP government in B.C. was also trying to stop Trans Mountain from proceeding.
“Not one single government, party or special interest group has gone from ‘no’ to ‘yes’ on pipelines as a result of the NDP’s failed tax on everything,” Kenney said in the statement…
“This is the carbon tax they claimed they had no intention of imposing in the last provincial election,” Kenney said in the video…
Hoffman responded the NDP was clear during the 2015 campaign that it was going to take leadership on the environment and that it was working on details of a plan…
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/01/02/news/alberta-carbon-tax-jumps-ndp-says-its-connected-improving-economy
30
Why does South Absurdistan use Stobie poles for suburban distribution of power and not the more traditional wooden poles as used in other states?
32
Because they have greater resistance to speeding cars.
Because they demonstrate how quickly steel rusts when adjacent to concrete.
Because they demonstrate how quickly concrete deteriorates when adjacent to steel.
Because they are so ugly.
How many reasons do you want?
Stobie poles are apt for a powerless state with a hopeless premier.
90
Love your answer TRM.
40
Stobie used materials easily at hand due to the shortage of suitably long, strong, straight and termite-resistant timber in South Australia.
50
In a word, termites. Stobie poles are two lengths of RSJ with concrete in between. Very good poles, except if you crash into them in your car or motor bike.
30
And they are too stubborn to change
30
So are the termites.
40
They still rust though. They claim to get about 80 years out of the life of Stobie pole – almost twice that for a wooden one. However, Stobie poles can and do rust a lot quicker depending on the surrounding conditions.
10
Also used a lot in the NW of WA, due to termite problems.
00
Almost Unbelievable,
Climate Science is now a Gender Issue according to the UN:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXYcf4FOYhs&feature=youtu.be
I had the opportunity to visit the UN building in New York city about 6 months ago. I found the whole place to be a hotbed of Environmentalism. It was quite disturbing actually. This is supposed to be the instrument by which the world tries to keep the Peace. That aim seems to have been forgotten.
60
I was surprised to see comments are disallowed on Jo’s piece
“You mean the ABC isn’t telling us all the news on Iran?”
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/you-mean-the-abc-isnt-telling-us-all-the-news-on-iran/
I was going to say that I was also surprised to see what the ABC was accused of not telling us. The US media is uniformly hysterical about Iran, falsely claiming that the state sponsors terrorism, some going as far as the president and claiming that it’s the main sponsor of terrorism in the world. In fact, it is the main opponent of the groups which attack western civilians – ISIS and al Qaeda. Its ally, Hezbollah, is also heroically fighting these terrorists. The only reason the US lies about Iran is because Israel does too.
This means that you can’t trust the news about Iran, but in the opposite way to the way this article claims.
24
Not worth tempting Section 18c with a [snip].
[Right!]ED
21
Turn it up Rod.
Hezbollah = the Party of God (not mine I rush to add)
So, Hezbollah doesn’t fire rockets into Israel?
Between 1982 and 1986, there were numerous Hezbollah conducted or inspired suicide attacks in Lebanon directed against American, French and Israelis forces by Hezbollah, killing 659 people. These include:
The 1982–1983 Tyre headquarters bombings;
The April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing;
The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which killed 241 U.S. marines, 58 French paratroopers and 6 civilians at the United States and French barracks in Beirut;
The 1983 Kuwait bombings in collaboration with the Iraqi Dawa Party;
The 1984 United States embassy annex bombing, killing 24;
A spate of attacks on Israel Defence Force troops and SLA militiamen in southern Lebanon;
Hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985; and,
The Lebanon hostage crisis from 1982 to 1992.
Since 1990, terror acts in which Hezbollah has been involved include the following bombings and attacks against civilians and diplomats:
The 1992 Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires, killing 29. Hezbollah operatives boasted of involvement.
The 1994 AMIA bombing of a Jewish cultural centre, killing 85, in Argentina. Hezbollah claimed responsibility.
The 1994 AC Flight 901 attack, killing 21, in Panama. Hezbollah claimed responsibility.
The 1994 London Israeli Embassy attack, injuring 29, in the United Kingdom.
The 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, killing 19 US servicemen.
In 2002, Hezbollah was involved in recruiting Singaporeans in a failed 1990s plot to attack U.S. and Israeli ships in the Singapore Straits.
The 15 January 2008, bombing of a U.S. Embassy vehicle in Beirut.
In 2009, a Hezbollah plot in Egypt was uncovered, where Egyptian authorities arrested 49 men for planning attacks against Israeli and Egyptian targets in the Sinai Peninsula.
The 2012 Burgas bus bombing, killing 6, in Bulgaria.
Nope. It’s clear Hezbollah is no terrorist group. It’s just a pack of psychopaths who believe that Allah loves killing Human Beings.
Your god Rod. And you’re welcome to him.
May you continue to lie in its name.
60
Sceptical:
.
You forgot to write:
.
Islam is a religion of peace”.
00
Rod Mc
“The only reason the US lies about Iran is because Israel does too.”
S Sam has given you a few details of the sins of Hezbollah.
I would suggest a bit of light reading BEFORE you suffer from “foot in mouth” disease again.
I find it interesting how many people with SFA knowledge about Israel continually blame Israel for EVERYTHING that goes wrong in the Middle East (the World).
You must be taking too much heed of some of the resolutions passed by the DESPOTIC members of the UN.
Grow up and do a TINY bit of research BEFORE you run off at the mouth in future!
BTW – I’m not a Jew!!
Cheer.
70
“Hezbollah = the Party of God (not mine I rush to add)… Your god Rod. And you’re welcome to him.”
I’m an atheist. I’m quite aware of what ‘Hezbollah’ means. I’m not talking about its ideas, but its actions. On balance, they are helpful to the fight against Sunni Islamic terrorism, by far the most important form of terrorism from the viewpoint of the inhabitants of western countries.
“So, Hezbollah doesn’t fire rockets into Israel?”
I didn’t claim it doesn’t.
“A spate of attacks on Israel Defence Force troops”
I’m shocked. Shocked!
“The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which killed 241 U.S. marines, 58 French paratroopers and 6 civilians at the United States and French barracks in Beirut”
What were these American and French soldiers doing in Beirut? But I agree with you about the civilians – the USA never, ever bombs anywhere where they are present.
“The 2012 Burgas bus bombing, killing 6, in Bulgaria”
I’ll grant you that. That was a war crime by Hezbollah. But the USA has never had qualms about supporting war criminals who fight its enemies. Why not Hezbollah, which fights against ISIS and al Qaeda?
“continually blame Israel for EVERYTHING that goes wrong in the Middle East”
Not at all. I also blame Saudi Arabia, the USA for its prone attitude toward Israel and the Sunni states, France, Britain – and the retarded cultures of the Middle East, including both Sunni and Shi’ite fundamentalism.
“do a TINY bit of research BEFORE you run off at the mouth in future!”
I’ve done a [snip]. May I recommend one example?
“State of Terror” by Thomas Suarez:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/State-Terror-Thomas-Suarez/dp/191107203X
24
My suggestion Rod would be to talk to actual Israelis who live thier reality and what its like to be dealing with rabid groups of people who want them and thier kids dead. Normal stuff like stabbings, bombs on buses, the daily barrage of rockets, that sort of stuff.
Once you talk to normal Israelis, you get the “life on the ground” reality and realise why the IDF does what is does and why. If certain mid east countries have been identified as coordinators of state terrorism then you can bet the Mossad are correct in the intel they pass on to the IDF.
50
Rod, your response smacks of the thinking of, at best, an apologist.
Golda Meir had it right when she said: “We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”.
https://www.biography.com/people/golda-meir-9404859#!
30
There has been some ongoing very record breaking cold weather here in Canada and the US. Well it is caused by “climate change”, “Global Warming”. Yes it is true the CBC says so. The CBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corp is like your ABC, a taxpayer funded PR machine for the liberal left government. The Trudeau government who promised a carbon tax, to feed its expanding bureaucracy, is going to initiate one in the near future. It is being aided by the CBC which is increasing the frequency of “climate change” articles so that a new tax will make the people feel warm while freezing their collective butts off.
Also in the article it is mentioned the cold is not record breaking, well records are breaking. Interesting statement of defection.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/extreme-cold-1.4471078?cmp=rss
Now here is the fun part of the article,
“A few cold days doesn’t disprove climate change,” Furtado said. “That’s just silly. Just like a couple down days on the stock market doesn’t mean the economy is going into the trash.”
20
Mr Furtado is in for a huge shock.
Stock market fundamentals are sound at the moment, but not so much climate change.
20
After looking through all of this I’m wondering if we can somehow get Donald Trump made Secretary General of the United Nations. Would that help? I think so.
But naw! Roy, you’re still asleep and just dreaming. Nice dream though.
Color me sad, whatever color that is… 🙁
30
In the end, all I can do is cope with the world as it is. Nuts! 🙁
20
Nice idea, Roy. But he cannot be the “leader of the free world”, and the Secretary General of the United Nations … oh, now I get your point.
30
🙂
10
Hi Jo
Your post on the ABCs reporting of the Iran protests is yet another example of how our tax payer funded media monster has given up even the pretence of unbiased news coverage.
Look at how they have (not) covered the record low temperatures in the USA. I listen to the ABC news radio station on my hour long drive to work every day and they have not mentioned it once. Instead all I hear is them huffing and puffing hysterically about how it might reach 41 C in Adelaide today or tomorrow or the weekend or sometime soon. Hot weather in Australia, in summer, gee that wouldn’t have happened before would it?
Not only will they not give the non-warmist side of the climate debate a fair go but now they will not even report actual news events that do not fit into their favored view of the world. A lot of people say we should privatise the ABC but I seriously doubt there would be anyone willing to spend money on it in its current degraded state. Better to just shut it down (maybe keep some of regional services going if needed) and let the market fill the space as it sees fit.
60
I’m a little late to this party, but have a question, best posed to those in the SH:
Over at WUWT, Anthony maintains an ENSO page, tracking the development(s) of La Ninas and El Ninos. For much of the NH fall and winter, we’ve watched a weak La Nina develop, which tends to portend a generally cold (or colder-than-normal) winter for the Western U. S. (where I live).
I am attempting to start some planning for the (NH) summer Field Season, and have watched over the past month as a pool of ‘warm’ water begins to form in the western Pacific. This pool appears to have some impetus behind it; for my neck of the woods, this would tend to mean a wet Spring, and an even wetter Summer (higher probability of a monsoon impacting much of the Western U. S. in July/August). While the vast majority of us would welcome increased rainfall and such, it does not help those of us who need to be out in places where tow trucks can cost nearly four figures to come pull one out of a mud hole … … …
Regardless of the political leanings and incompetencies of the BOM, are we starting to see forecasts of an El Nino for the first half of 2018?
Thanks in advance for any info anyone is able to provide, and my regards to all, and a very Happy New Year,
The Mostest Deplorablest Vlad the Impalerest, a crashing bore-est, and an even bigger bully-est (according to C.T.)
60