JoNova

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


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Australia installs more renewables than anywhere else but national emissions stay the same

Australians are installing renewable energy, per capita, faster than any place on Earth, or at least we were until 2020 when the subsidies and schemes ran out.

Per capita, Australia (all shades of red) is installing renewables

 

The Quarterly update for the Greenhouse Gas inventory is out and we can see just how much difference all those renewables make, which is almost nothing. Emissions have flatlined.

Australians are paying record prices, risking blackouts, buying batteries and synchronous condensors, building new billion dollar interconnectors, losing companies overseas, and suffering voltage spikes. We’re playing chicken with our smelters, and party games with PeakSmart timers and extra domestic circuits so that electricity companies can manage our pool pumps and our air conditioners.

And this is all we get?

Per capita, Australia (all shades of red) is installing renewables

After adding so many wind farms and solar panels the electricity sector decreased emissions by only 1.2% on the year before.

Electricity sector emissions decreased 1.8 per cent in the June quarter of 2019 on a ‘seasonally adjusted and weather normalised’P 8 P basis (Figure 6). This reflected strong increases in hydro and wind generation (42.0 and 14.8 per cent) and decreases in coal and natural gas generation (5.7 and 21.3 per cent) in the National Electricity Market (NEM). Over the year to June 2019, emissions from electricity decreased by 1.2 per cent compared with the year to June 2018.

The electricity sector is Australia’s largest single source of emissions, and some of the gains in the last decade have come from efficiency, not from renewables, and from making electricity so unaffordable that it scares people into not using their air conditioners.

Per capita, Australia (all shades of red) is installing renewables

Given all this, you might think the team at Reneweconomy might worry that renewables won’t save the planet and were a dismal and useless way to spend environmental money, but not so.  They were pretty happy with a 2 percent fall in electricity emissions from Sept 2018 to Sept 2019.

They were not impressed that as our electricity  emissions had fallen, our diesel emissions have gone up the other way. Mostly for truckers, they say.

How much of this is due to electrical generators?

Graph Australian Diesel emissions, decade, 2009 to 2019.

….

Per capita Australians are using 40% less CO2 than they were 30 years ago, and this is what the Opposition calls, “a policy vacuum”. Perhaps it is a vacuum — of achievement.

Australia has almost the fastest growing population in the West. Fifty percent population growth in 30 years, and we are aiming to cut emissions 27% on top of that?

Over the period from 1989-90 to June 2019, Australia’s population grew strongly from 17.0 million to around 25.4 million.P 16,17 P This reflects growth of 48.8 per cent.

Per capita, Australia (all shades of red) is installing renewables

The best way to keep Australian emissions down (apart from nukes) is to cut immigration, but left leaning politicians don’t want to discuss that, and nor apparently do left wing activist websites. Importing new left-leaning voters seems to be more important.

By picking the most expensive and ineffective methods it’s almost like none of the people driving renewables even care about the CO2 emissions.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (79 votes cast)
Australia installs more renewables than anywhere else but national emissions stay the same , 9.8 out of 10 based on 79 ratings

284 comments to Australia installs more renewables than anywhere else but national emissions stay the same

  • #
    pattoh

    As they say about heads & brick walls etc.;perhaps the end of this stupidity may well be the silver lining of the coming dose of economic reality.

    Clever Country NOT!

    Chastened Country SOON!

    220

    • #
      Vladimir

      Apologies for butting in – just got an invite to Heat, Fire & Flood community forum at Elwood College, Glen Huntly Rd., organised by Port Philip Emergency Climate Action Network.
      Prof. N. Tapper, L. Ramachandran, public servant, and R. Gell AM will speak to all concerned between 3:30 and 5:30 pm.
      Any chance someone who can lay out good argument is coming ?

      20

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Prepare for no more bushfires in Oz …

    Atlassian’s Cannon-Brookes tips in $12 million to power fire-hit towns

    “The aim is to replace the use of diesel generators, installed after the massive bushfires destroyed power lines and other equipment.”

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/atlassian-s-cannon-brookes-tips-in-12-million-to-power-fire-hit-towns-20200219-p5428o.html

    >> Only on the planet Itsacon can solar panels prevent climate change global warming induced bushfires.

    200

    • #
      John

      If we go for a while with bushfires they’ll probably claim the battery and solar panels are what saved us.

      I’m already hearing people claiming that SA runs on solar wind and battery. got rid of that dirty coal and gas they did . Battery happily does it all in the rare times the wind and sun aren’t delivering.

      161

    • #
      Chad

      Who falls for this crap !
      Whilst the 5b “Maverick “ system is clever ( portable /temporary solar systems)…..
      https://5b.com.au/solutions/
      …how can they (or the media) keep a straight face when they say this is better, quicker, cheaper, than a diesel generator ?
      $12.0m for 100 systems..($120k per install ?) for a max of 400kWh/day.
      That is equivalent to a 16.0kW genny ! ( which will fit in the back of a small ute !…..
      …… And cost less than $10k.
      Just more virtue signaling and attention grabbing !

      00

  • #

    If they would surround all of Australia’s thermometers with solar panels they would show extreme warming.

    If we did that all over the world we could really see some serious global warming.

    That’s the future plan isn’t it?

    Some real science:
    https://phzoe.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/

    135

  • #
    PeterS

    PM Morrison has let us down big time. He is now a firm believer in CAGW, or worse still he is not but he is following the emissions reduction campaign with a big lie for some other even more sinister reason. To be honest he lied to us just as Gillard lied to us when she said there would be no carbon tax during her election campaign but when her party won she implemented one. Shame on Morrison. He now can’t be trusted, which is a worry given another hot issue developing. If he allows the mass sale of many of our dairy farms to go ahead as far as I’m concerned it’s the last straw for him and his government. They have lost the next election even before it has started, and deservedly so. Wake up Morrison! Perhaps he is Turnbull 2.0 and he have been conned by a deceiver trained by Turnbull? I’m beginning to wonder given the way he has been acting (more like not acting) lately.

    242

    • #
      Dennis

      In my mind PM Morrison is difficult to assess, there are many mixed signals, and noting that as leader his position remains subject to the mood of the majority of Liberal MPs.

      Also, it is obvious that within the party, parliamentary and executives, there remains influential people beholding to the previous leader who continues to attempt to undermine PM Morrison. The Labor side also has factional disagreements. Both sides are beholden to some extent to influential lobby groups without whom the global warming by CO2 hoax would never have survived as long as it has. And they lobby groups are UN related with a number of agendas and objectives, the greenism politics and the crony capitalists for example, socialism globalism new world order.

      Former PM Morrison criticises the government at every opportunity and at least one of his reasons is what is identified in this article: “Australians are installing renewable energy, per capita, faster than any place on Earth, or at least we were until 2020 when the subsidies and schemes ran out.”.

      The Morrison Government last year advised the IPCC that there would be no more contribution to “green funds” and after that the flack from UN Officials commenced. Minister Taylor has been tasked with containing and hopefully reducing electricity pricing and to that end the government has announced that using company law they intend to force greater competition between electricity suppliers and various other initiatives. The Federal Government has been pushing for new power station baseload generators which need State Government support and approvals, an announcement was made a few months ago that two new gas fired power stations will be provided in SEQ and VIC. An Agreement with the NSW Government has been signed for a substantial increase in gas for the East Coast market and negotiations are continuing with the VIC Government for more gas.

      I read some time ago an opinion that PM Morrison is as determined, if not more determined than PM Abbott was to get our nation back on track for increasing national prosperity, in other words fix the adverse impact areas of the economy, like energy supply and pricing. But PM Morrison must tread carefully and watch his back. Example the fury and abuse directed at him during the 2019-2020 bushfire season which was far more about politics than environment. As PM Abbott once commented: socialism masquerading as environmentalism.

      Three final points about relationships.

      1. PM Morrison sent former PM Turnbull to represent the govrnmemt at two overseas functions where the former PM embarrassed the government with his comments. Later PM Morrison said that opportunity will not be given to him again.

      2. The Government has public opinion and perception to consider, a large minority of voters seem to have been indoctrinated by the climate hoax propaganda and the opposition groups are exploiting that concern and in younger people fear. To remain in government obviously a majority of votes are required and most often in Australia with our flawed preferential voting system the election results are very close. It’s on a knife edge and in my opinion why Labor are revisiting the climate agenda policies they had at the May 2019 federal election, believing that the bushfire propaganda has swung more voters into the “climate emergency” belief side.

      3. Most if not all of the State Governments to some degree support “climate action” and they have more powers to implement Paris Agreement measures, Agenda 30 measures, etc., than the Federal Government. In other words the PM is navigating a political minefield of internal and external making.

      The hostile left leaning media do not broadcast government achievements, maybe a mention, so unless we make it our business to follow current affairs and search for information, I do when I hear something and try to obtain more detail. I am very concerned about our political situation and the adverse impact on the nation, top of the list economic vandalism. It is not yet a year of this parliamentary term and PM Morrison has been in that role for less than two years.

      Openly criticising him and blaming him for everything, and ignoring the above factors and that he is one member of Cabinet is in my opinion counter productive.

      283

      • #
        PeterS

        To me Morrison is just another politician who has no conviction (other than his Christian belief). Otherwise, he would be doing a Howard and backing coal fired and/or nuclear power stations to the hilt, and taking it to the next election. I’ve suggested an alternative whereby he can effectively solve two issues in one go; go nuclear and aim to reduce emissions to 0% by 2050 with far less cost than ALP’s plan, and still provide a very reliable base load. Alas he is certainly no Howard so he’s taking the easy way out and doing nothing hoping technology will catch up, meaning that some other means of power generation will come to the science in a big way, such as Hydrogen. That’s a fatal move since such solutions won’t be viable until well after the next couple of elections at least.

        100

        • #

          To me Morrison is just another politician who has no conviction

          Peter, this is the simple and parsimonious explanation for what you wrote in your previous post.

          PM Morrison has let us down big time. He is now a firm believer in CAGW, or worse still he is not but he is following the emissions reduction campaign with a big lie for some other even more sinister reason.

          in other words nothing sinister – it is just politics and he is not a man of action one way or another.

          44

          • #
            el gordo

            Morrison is not action man, being of a conservative disposition, he will practice patience and perseverance to get the desired outcome.

            ‘Anthony Albanese has gifted Scott Morrison a climate change scare campaign that has been run so successfully before that the Coalition doesn’t even have to learn a new script.

            “Labor wants a carbon tax!”

            Dennis Shanahan / Oz

            60

            • #

              You are sort of saying the same thing. It seems likely that he will achieve his outcome by simply doing nothing much

              51

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Gee Aye,

                Doesn’t your comment apply to the vast majority of politicians?

                20

              • #

                RW, true but a prime minister is more conspicuous and they usually make some sort of an effort to appear more active.

                10

              • #
                el gordo

                He is going to let the Royal Commission decide the cause of this bushfire season and move on. The PM has determined that adaptation is better, so politically he is safe.

                In regards to energy policy, he will let the states decide for themselves, but won’t be underwriting renewables.

                10

              • #
                el gordo

                Scott is a millenarian and believes “in the premillennial, imminent and personal return of our Lord Jesus Christ” that will “set up his millennial reign on this earth”.

                The devil is in the detail, but its fair to say he believes in miracles and has faith in a deity.

                20

      • #
        PeterS

        I will give Morrison some slack though. Let’s wait and see what his grand “technology based” plan is all about to tackle emissions. Don’t forget though he is a committed emissions reduction believer. He has already stated he will set even more strict emissions reduction target than the current one we have signed up to with the Paris Agreement. That makes him either a deceiver or a true believe in the CAGW nonsense. Take your pick.

        80

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          He’s a politician.

          He’s a bit like the yaw drive on a nacelle waiting to make adjustments when the wind changes direction.

          If he gets it right, he gets re-elected. if he gets it wrong…..

          It’s called democracy.

          30

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        I agree with your comment, but the big issue is that He is modern politician first and foremost.

        He tells the U.N.collectors where to get off then he endorses more renewables for us to pay for and then he stacks the Royal Commission into fires/climate change.

        He must feel torn?

        KK

        20

      • #

        I can’t point to a conspiracy theory as such, but there’s no doubt Climate Change scratches a lot of backs..

        10

    • #
      WXcycles

      Morrison had the perfect opportunity and momentum to take down the ABC from its ideological perch when he won the unwinnable (climate) election last year and he conspicuously did nothing and just walked away from a bunch of people firing arrows at his back at every occasion since. He just let them off the hook. Plus he’s done nothing about serial corruption and the incredible incompetence, dishonesty and politicization at BOM. The opposite of a leader, his eye is not taken off the ball, he never saw the ball in the first place.

      40

      • #
      • #
        Dennis

        People need to learn that a PM is not the decision maker, Cabinet decides and votes, and as Cabinet stands and has done for all of the Coalition terms to date the left faction, now shrinking, is the PM’s stumbling block.

        The next point is that to change the ABC Act of Parliament would require support from a majority in the Legislative Assembly and the Senate, not very likely.

        The Act does not permit governments to directly get involved in ABC operational matters, the Board appoints the MD and that position manages the organisation, much like a public company board of directors. The difference is the we the people own the ABC through the government and the Minister represents, no additional shareholders.

        ABC is a hot potato issue and unfortunately a minority but very vocal section of the voting community would protest and oppose any major change to the Act.

        This is not new, I have been worrying about the powerful protected by an Act of Parliament public service for decades, and the UN Treaties and related tangles of red and green tape, Federal and State involvement and powers. It is a wicked web of influential unelected and foreign people.

        50

        • #
          Cookster

          You are correct. I think many people here think Morrison’s job is easy. It isn’t. Even Tony Abbott discovered this. It was under Abbott that Australia’s 26-28% Paris commitment was made. This was made because Abbott had to appease his cabinet which included people like Malcolm Turnbull. 26-28% was the lowest cabinet would accept.

          The other factors are an irresponsible media, a misinformed public which influences voting intensions and the inability of intermittent renewables to do the job. In Australia we are petrified of building new dams to provide a source of base-load renewable power. Petrified of nuclear energy. So we are stuck with D grade energy – wind and solar. This will never be a satisfactory alternative to the current base-load generation provided by coal.

          50

        • #

          From what I can see the ABC is the media arm of the CPSU

          10

  • #
    Tel

    Coal exports and LNG exports are included as “emissions” under the category “Stationary energy excluding electricity”.

    That’s why it keeps going up regardless of what individual Australians do.

    140

    • #
      Dennis

      So exported coal and gas emissions are counted twice, Australia and destination export market?

      80

    • #
      PeterS

      It’s much like a shell game. The game is to announce emissions reduction targets that are not achievable in the foreseeable future without fudging the figures, much like temperature readings are fudged to support eh CAGW myth. So the emissions targets they are announcing need to be measured using a different approach to have the illusion we are reducing our emissions. One way they will do it is to say we will plant more trees to soak up the CO2 generated by coal and gas powered plants. There are other ways as well.

      80

      • #
        Dennis

        Exactly the same as announcing installed capacity figures for new wind farms as if the capacity factor doesn’t apply or exist.

        “XXX MW added to the grid”.

        20

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Hmm…interesting title….the “Anti-Greta”

        Probably the only time the left will use anything remotely biblical in terms of a reference…

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/02/23/meet-anti-greta-young-youtuber-campaigning-against-climate-alarmism/

        “”For climate skeptics, it’s hard to compete with the youthful appeal of global phenomenon Greta Thunberg. But one U.S. think tank hopes it’s found an answer: the anti-Greta.

        “”Naomi Seibt is a 19-year-old German who, like Greta, is blond, eloquent and European. But Naomi denounces “climate alarmism,” calls climate consciousness “a despicably anti-human ideology,” and has even deployed Greta’s now famous “How dare you?” line to take on the mainstream German media.

        ““She’s a fantastic voice for free markets and for climate realism,” said James Taylor, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute, an influential libertarian think tank in suburban Chicago that has the ear of the Trump administration.

        “In December, Heartland headlined Naomi at its forum at the UN climate conference in Madrid, where Taylor described her as “the star” of the show. Last month, Heartland hired Naomi as the young face of its campaign to question the scientific consensus that human activity is causing dangerous global warming.

        30

    • #
      RickWill

      Coal exports and LNG exports are included as “emissions” under the category “Stationary energy excluding electricity”.

      No, they’re not. If that were true the Stationary Energy bar would be many times higher than the Electricity bar. Australian burns about 130Mtpa of coal while exporting 380Mtpa. Then there is the 52Mtpa gas exports compared with 35Mt total internal consumption of gas over all energy categories, electricity, stationary heating, transport etc.

      90

      • #
        Tel

        There’s a comment in the report linked above.

        Unadjusted emissions from stationary energy excluding electricity are estimated to have increased by 3.5 Mt COR2R-e in the year to June 2019 compared with the year to June 2018. This was driven primarily by a 1.4 Mt CO2-e increase due to the 21.3 per cent in LNG exports in the year to June 2019 (Figure 10).

        The figure shows LNG exports which have been steadily increasing but more rapidly increasing since 2015 and this is in the “Stationary energy excluding electricity” section (p13). It’s not clear from their comments how they calculate this, but it’s one heck of a big increase and you don’t hear the media talking about it while they kick around the Aussie consumer.

        In the “Overview” section they have a similar comment (p8):

        Emissions from total export industries increased by 6 per cent, mainly reflecting the increases in LNG exports (up 21.3 per cent). The increases in LNG exports contributed 1.4 Mt CO2-e to the 3.5 Mt CO2-e increase in stationary energy emissions and 4.8 Mt CO2-e to fugitive emissions due to flaring and the venting and leakage of methane and carbon dioxide.

        I understand the “fugitive emissions” simply means leaked fuel or any flared off gas. However the remainder I’m not sure, could be the LNG industry consumes a certain percentage of their own product to power their equipment.

        10

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Hmmm…..stupid is as stupid does….

    Living proof the climate loons own gaia “theology” doesnt appear to work…uh oh….

    90

    • #
      PeterS

      Indeed. We have both major parties leading us all over the cliff all for the sake of reducing our emissions for absolutely no benefit to anyone, other than perhaps for China.

      80

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    In all this there is one core thing that is wrong that underpins all the CAGW hand wringing and bed wettibg – namely that CO2 causes climate change.

    Wrong wrong wrong. Not supported by the scientific evidence.

    Right…now back to reality….like full dams and the reality that EVs wont stop aunt Ednas curtains from fading nor sea level from rising….

    130

    • #
      Dennis

      Another thing that is wrong is the Bureau of Meteorology misleading creatively accounted for warming trend.

      And other taxpayer funded organisations not providing accurate information.

      140

    • #
      John

      CO2 does cause climate change. Just not nearly as much as they say.

      Hence them trying categorise THESE fires as fundamentally different to previous fires, and THIS rain to be fundamentally different to previous rain (rain is now “extreme weather”). Hence them having to alter the historical records to make their predictions more correct.

      56

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        “CO2 does cause climate change. Just not nearly as much as they say.”

        Amazing!

        CO2, the all powerful, the god of all gases, the Gas Almighty.

        Contrary opinion has been expressed below at several points.

        KK

        81

      • #
        sophocles

        John asserted @ 7.3

        CO2 does cause climate change. Just not nearly as much as they say.

        An interesting assertion. Your supporting evidence is?

        40

        • #
          John

          It’s a greenhouse gas. It affects the climate. Just not in the catastrophic manner the alarmists say.

          29

          • #
            AndyG55

            “It affects the climate.”

            There is absolutely no empirical evidence for that scientifically baseless assertion.

            90

            • #
              John

              CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It affects the climate by radiative forcing. Just not in the ridiculous ways the IPCC says.

              26

              • #
                Dennis

                Perspective: 410 ppm in the atmosphere or 0.041 per cent.

                Reflect on that please.

                60

              • #
                John

                Dennis,

                The Alan Jones method of scientific argument: It’s only 0.04% so therefore it couldn’t do anything.

                24

              • #
              • #
                Graeme#4

                John, care to explain what you mean by “radiative forcing”? I think that a world expert in atmospheric physics may disagree with you, but I’ll wait until I see what your explanation is.

                40

              • #
                AndyG55

                Sorry, but there is absolutely ZERO evidence that CO2 affects the climate in any way.

                Produce the empirical evidence

                A tiny radiative emission, if it even actually occurs….

                (where is evidence of any “forcing”? its a non-science AGW terminology.)

                In a pressure/density controlled atmosphere it isn’t going to do anything.

                Produce the evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2

                We are still all waiting.

                40

              • #
                John

                Sorry, but there is absolutely ZERO evidence that CO2 affects the climate in any way.

                Skeptics like Jo say the greenhouse effect from CO2 diminishes as you add more and more CO2. Are you saying they’re wrong and that really there is no effect at all?

                11

              • #
                Graeme#4

                John, the point that Andy and I queried you on “forcing” has nothing to do with the logarithmic response of CO2. So we are still waiting for your explanation.

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                Produce the empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2 John.

                Anything else is meaningless. !

                20

              • #
                sophocles

                CO2 is called a greenhouse gas because it is known to absorb certain wavelengths of IR radiation. Note: IR radiation is a form of energy — it is not heat.

                John, you are suffering from a POD or Propaganda OverDose. If you wish to detoxify then start with this page:

                https://globalwarmingsolved.com/start-here/

                Did you see that headline: 1. We are not warming the planet ?
                It you did, then you are in the right place, so, settle down, READ and LEARN.

                20

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Not really.

              00

          • #
            peter

            A peer-reviewed research paper “https://www.allphyscon.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Allmendinger_Behaviour-of-Gases_IJPS-rev.pdf” published in Aug 2016, showed conclusively that CO2 is no more a greenhouse gas than air or even argon. Think gain about CO2 doing ANYTHING to climate?

            00

      • #
        AndyG55

        “CO2 does cause climate change.”

        No empirical evidence.

        No evidence at all.

        80

    • #
      PeterS

      PM Morrison disagrees with you. He is a committed emission reductionist, and all other issues, such as base load power, water, agriculture and farmers are not so important to him. Action speaks louder than words, and at the moment he lacks both on all those areas. He’s is certainly treating emission reductions as his number one priority.

      50

      • #
        Dennis

        The Roles and Responsibilities of Federal, State and Local Governments

        The Federal Government

        The Federal or Commonwealth Government is responsible for the conduct of national affairs. Its areas of responsibility are stated in the Australian Constitution and include defence and foreign affairs; trade, commerce and currency; immigration; postal services, telecommunications and broadcasting; air travel; most social services and pensions. The Federal Government is also involved, mainly through funding, in many things largely carried out by the States, such as health, education, environmental issues, industrial relations, etc.

        State or Territory Government

        Under the Australian Constitution, the States are responsible for everything not listed as a Federal responsibility. However, sometimes both levels are involved. Major State responsibilities include schools, hospitals, conservation and environment, roads, railways and public transport, public works, agriculture and fishing, industrial relations, community services, sport and recreation, consumer affairs, police, prisons and emergency services. Each state has its own constitution setting out its system of government.

        Local Government

        Local Government areas vary greatly in size and character. The Sydney area is divided into about 35 cities, municipalities or shires, each with its own local council. The bigger country centres such as Bathurst or Albury have city or municipal councils. Large but less populated country areas, with a number of small towns and large rural areas, are usually shires with a Shire Council based in one of the larger towns. The power of local governments is controlled by Acts of State Parliament such as the Local Government Acts. Local Councils are concerned with matters close to our homes, such as building regulations and development, public health, local roads and footpaths, parks and playing fields, libraries, local environmental issues, waste disposal, and many community services.

        Who Does What?

        It is not always easy to know which government is responsible for which service. Although the Federal Government is probably better known to many of us, the everyday things we do usually have more to do with our State or Local Governments.

        50

      • #
        PeterS

        What has all that to do with the issue in question? Both major parties are committing themselves to reducing our emissions. Get over it. We are reaching peak stupid at great speed.

        70

        • #
          Dennis

          It has much to with with the subject.

          Federal-State responsibilities and powers, eg; when people accuse the PM of not building power stations and dams they ignore that Federal has no planning approval and development powers. An example, it took ten years to get state governments to cooperate and agree to the Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme proceeding.

          You are ignoring the points I made in the lengthy comment I posted here earlier.

          20

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Dennis and Peter, you are both right but in the end it comes down to the problem that government at all levels has been hijacked by troughers, gougers and skimmers.

            This type of activity used to be known as Corr£ption.

            We Must make All levels of government accountable again.

            KK

            110

      • #
        John

        It’s a shame the way he’s capitulated.

        80

        • #
          PeterS

          Indeed. Both state and federal LNP have accepted emission reductions. The NSW LNP have a unity ticket with the ALP and are aiming for 0% by 2050. Everyone here has to catch up with what’s now happening. Both major parties are on a unity ticket of reducing our emissions drastically. Federal wise the LNP haven’t yet stated their new long term target. We will have to wait and see. Regardless of what it is, the facts still remains both major parties are committed to massive reduction in our CO2 emissions, real or fudged. That means we are going to waste billions upon billions on a fruitless exercise in pretending we can stop a mythical catastrophic global warming event that some are saying is only a few years away, which makes it doubly stupid. So our focus needs to be how to stop this madness. Just voting for the LNP won’t cut it any more.

          80

          • #
            Dennis

            So who would do better and why would they?

            10

            • #
              PeterS

              I’ve outlined my suggestion several times. We have the democratic right to voice our opposition to what both major parties are doing at the ballot box. If enough people vote for a minor party that opposes rigorously the emission reduction nonsense then we can block either major party from forming a majority ruling government. Then it’s up to one of them to agree with that minor party to stop playing games with energy policies. It worked for Gillard when she had to make some compromises to form government. It can work again but this time for the benefit of the nation. Of course it is predicated that enough voters see it all that way. I doubt they can. Too many are still focused on a two-party contest, which means we will just have to resign to the only other outcome; things will continue to deteriorate perhaps to the point of a crash and burn to learn the hard way. Not many things can beat a smack in the head and kick in the backside to wake people up.

              20

              • #
                WXcycles

                Thoroughly agree with that logic Peter. We’ll get nowhere backing the LNP from here. Even discarded Barney realizes there needs to be a genuine political opposition that can stand in the way of major political party agendas and force them to operate in the interests of the country.

                40

              • #
                Dennis

                Peter my plan for the 2019 election was to convince voters to choose a Coalition MP in their electorate that research told them was one of the traditional centre-right candidates, and if the Coalition candidate was a leftist choose a minor party candidate instead, and avoid Independents as they have become in most instances leftist lures.

                The aim would be for a 2010 election result, a hung parliament needing alliances to form a ministry government, as Gillard Labor had to do.

                But in my perfect result plan the Coalition-Alliance would have a vocal but supportive (disunity is death) group of alliance MPs.

                The flawed preferential voting system almost guarantees under normal circumstances that one of the two major sides will form government.

                So we do need those vocal alliance MPs to push for true democracy, upholding the Constitution and telling the UN to stop interfering into our sovereignty as a nation. President Trump has already put the wheels in motion during his addresses to the UN in New York.

                20

          • #
            John

            It will be very interesting to see what happens with Federal LNP. There are those who understand the importance of coal (and gas), but there are certainly progressive voices in their midst demanding we end it ASAP.

            10

            • #
              PeterS

              At the moment the Federal LNP is having a brawl amongst themselves with ministers and other MPs stating opposing views and some even saying heated words against their colleagues. This is reminiscent of what was happening when Turnbull was PM. How it ends up only time will tell. It could split the party, which would be a disaster for the nation. Then again if the current policy of the LNP to focus on reducing our emissions drastically is maintained it would be a disaster for the nation anyway. Take your pick.

              50

              • #
                Dennis

                The several Union Labor factions are also locking horns now with Union Movement backing.

                On the Coalition side, as you pointed out, there is a spit between fewer now than before the 2018 change of leadership and PM and the MPs we can trust to do the right thing, and they are trying.

                It remains however that the Union Labor & Greens would be far worse.

                By the way, another plus for PM Morrison, the appointment of Jim Molan to a winnable Senate position and he is of course now Senator Molan. He was given an unwinnable position in 2016 by the Turnbull Govrnment and Liberal HQ. So in my opinion the leftists are losing ground but unfortunately they are also in State Governments.

                And, and I know this comment would be swept aside as the ranting of an old bloke, there are now young under 40 years of age “woke” MPs and Ministers who know not what they are doing, like the NSW Minister for Energy and Environment who wants to allow the EPA to get rid of diesel-electric locomotives and, unforeseen consequence, put many B-Double trucks on the road to do their freight haulage. He also wants to convert public transport buses to pure electric power, and the cost has, I read, horrified the NSW Government.

                20

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    Its stupidity squared, isn’t it?
    Co2 doesn’t cause climate change, but that’s ok,
    because the folks flogging response to climate change aren’t serious about reducing Co2.

    120

    • #
      PeterS

      Sure is. NSW LNP now has a policy of 0% emissions by 2050 without any costing and methodology. We have idiots everywhere, on both sides of politics, state and federal. All we need now is for both parties to enter a fight as to who can reduce to 0% emissions the quickest, “meeting and beating” the 0% emissions target “in a canter” :-( Can we have negative % emissions? Sure can, if one is really stupid.
      We are being let down big time by both major parties at all levels of government.

      160

      • #
        GlenAustralia

        According to the Climate Council’s webpage about “BASELINE”:

        a baseline year is a reference point in time against which emission reductions in the future are measured. And emission targets are very sensitive to the baseline year chosen. For example, Australia currently has an emission reduction target of 5% by 2020 compared to 2000 levels.

        SO … we INDEED can have NEGATIVE emissions … given that emissions are defined as compared to 2000 if we have less emissions than we did in 2000 then we have negative emissions … SO … given that our population has increased from ~20m to ~25m between 2000 and 2020, we will need to “get rid of” about 5 million people AND close down any coal fired power plants that opened after 2000 … obviously this will bring us back to the 2000 level … so if we “get rid of” a few more million people and close a few more coal power plants THEN we will have negative emissions … I can see the GREENS (and maybe even LABOR) putting forward this plan.

        20

      • #
        Dennis

        In that example, don’t forgive them even though they know not what they do.

        In the positions they hold they are paid to know.

        00

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Population is increasing, emissions are flatlined. Ho can that be?

    In other news don’t mention the effect of the drought, particularly on stocking rates, a large source of emissions.

    313

    • #
      AndyG55

      Or the huge amount of CO2 released by natural bush fires.

      Or have you forgotten them already ?

      Drought has only been bad for the last couple of years (until it rained).

      As you can see from the second graph, no sign of your baseless conjecture.

      Stocking rates are just a part of the natural carbon cycle.

      They give out no more carbon than they take out.

      Flatlined CO2 emissions, not because of not using coal, is it. ;-)

      Considerably less, as they convert it to food.

      40

  • #
    Robber

    It’s a climate emergency – the sky is going to fall with all that evil CO2 weighing down our planet.
    Australia should immediately shut down those aluminium smelters, ban flying, ban interstate trucking, ban international shipping, ban petrol cars, ban coal.
    Isn’t that what you do in an emergency? Where are those extinction rebellion radicals? Come on, Turnbull and Albo and Bandt, lead by example.

    80

  • #
    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Ah yes…the noisy Left.

      Bit pathetic actually….thats all they have….run the country into the ground by trashing all industry and everyones standard of living.

      Not much of a winning election platform is it?

      If you vote for labor you need youre happy with the country committing economic suicide. Thats seriously messed up….

      10

  • #
    TdeF

    Chasing so called ‘emissions’ is classic misdirection. It reinforces the fallacy that we are responsible for the increase in CO2 levels.

    That is completely wrong. But it gives extreme left politics and Climatebaggers a way of avoiding any real science.

    After 32 years and millions of articles and endless reseaech does anyone have any actual evidence that the 50% increase in CO2 is man made? No.

    140

    • #
      PeterS

      So how do we get PM Morrison off the emissions reduction bandwagon? I’ve offered one approach several times in earlier threads to do with forcing a minority government to accept a change in policy driven by one of the minor parties. I like to know what else we can do.

      90

      • #
        TdeF

        I can only think to publish more on a fixed web site, hard evidence that emissions are a fr*ud in that they do not contribute except in the very short term to CO2 levels and then are sucked into the deep oceans as equilibrium is restored.

        No one really mentioned the vast CO2 output from the bushfires, because no one cares. They do not count. No one wonders how CO2 levels are maintained if the world is turning all the extra CO2 into extra vegetation and CO2 should go down, but it doesn’t. So what is setting the balance? No one asks.

        The second fallacy or sc*m run by Climate Scientists is that CO2 is NOT in constant equilibrium with the oceans. As is O2 and N2 and every other gas. Why would CO2 be exempt?

        Most gases are in the oceans, which is where so much animal and plant life exists. Where do they get their oxygen? Where does their CO2 go?

        And while rivers and lakes are generally not deep, they are also stuffed with life and gases. How?

        So my idea is to publish one figure, backed up by real science, the % of man made CO2 in the air. It is currently under 5% and whether CO2 is a problem or even warming is a problem, we have no control over CO2 levels, O2 levels, rain, snow, Antarctica or anything else.

        That is why we are told by the UN to cripple our industries. The head of Bluescope yesterday said his electricity prices had doubled in just three years. They are trying to use gas, but Labor/Green governments are forbidding that. Fracking, but that is forbidden. Nuclear but that is forbidden.

        It’s all so obviously nothing to do with ‘emissions’ as fracking and natural gas would lower ‘emissions’ and they are illegal.

        150

        • #
          TdeF

          In fact all electricity is forbidden except from earth, wind and fire. The prehistoric animist religion so beloved by the irrational, anti science Greens. It’s subsistence agricuture for us then. It seems we are supposed to live like *borigines. That was a hell of a life. And how will we feed 26 million people on kangaroos and yams?

          140

          • #
            TdeF

            And the only two rapid growth areas in Australia are public sector employment (Queensland and Victoria) and public sector wages.

            That is because Labor and the Greens have idi*tically killed off manufacturing and now depend on the public service for votes. So they are wildly hiring more Labor voters and just racking up state taxes.

            130

            • #
              PeterS

              Not sure where you are but the reality is the LNP has been killing manufacturing by allowing power prices to sky-rocket thanks to an ever increasing reliance on renewables at the expense of coal fired power. Before someone comes up with the state versus federal jurisdiction nonsense, remember that the federal government has committed the whole nation to reducing our emissions as per the Paris Accord and soon beyond.

              100

              • #
                Dennis

                But the state governments own the public land and waterways, the minerals and energy in the ground. And only they have the constitutional powers to control them, they are also responsible for energy supply and water supply and much more, as the post higher up explains.

                I believe that I am on the same page as you Peter but the blame game is counter productive unless the blame is placed where it takes place.

                Federal Governments signed all of the UN Treaties but State and Local Governments implement most of them. Agenda 30 – Sustainability covers a wide area and States with Councils implement because, for example, National Parks are on State public lands. In some parts of the Agenda the federal Government is in control, offshore Marine National Parks for example.

                PM Morrison as I have pointed out is working his government’s way through a minefield that includes UN Treaties signed and being implemented for decades, examples UN Lima Agreement 1975 (Whitlam Labor) transferring manufacturing industry to developing nations and UN Agenda 21, now Agenda 30 circa 1990 (Keating Labor).

                In other words the rot set in a long time ago.

                And of course I am angry that too many of the politicians today appear to be clueless woke people, and even when from the same side willing to publicly criticise the PM for daring to not join their mob.

                60

              • #
                Ted O’Brien.

                Peter, your history is a bit tangled. Do you not remember Al Gore standing on the steps of OUR parliament with Clive Palmer as Clive announced that the RET would be “protected”?

                It is PUP at Al Gore’s call, not the coalition, who bears responsibility for both the rising power prices and the reckless spending.

                40

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Ted,

                I liked the reminder about PUP, but look through some of the other comments which touch on political motivation: clue, John Hew, MalEx444 etc?

                KK

                30

              • #
                Brian

                I thought that Labor introduced the carbon tax and set an an extremely high RET. Against opposition Abbott managed to reduce that RET by 25%.

                20

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              More Outstanding comment. Thanks TdeF.

              Just to reinforce your point: Of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, less than 5% is of human origin.

              And when you acknowledge that total CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, that makes the human contribution less than 0.002%.

              Using the previous analogy, humans “own” 0.16 Marbles in 10,000.

              Are we the Dominant species or what.

              The U.N., EEU, John Hew, Mal and Alex; MalEx444, the Algorithm, all believe that we need to be Kontrolled comrade to stop this pollution.

              Democracy, was such a good idea.

              KK

              90

        • #
          PeterS

          I have no issue about maintaining our spread of the truth but that’s not enough. Most people go to sleep when they are given facts and figures. Blackouts would help but that’s not something we can induce, and nor should we as that would be criminal. We need to be clever than that.

          60

          • #
            TdeF

            If it was common knowledge that CO2 levels are natural, no one would stop coal power.

            The other problem is hiding Green cash giveaways in our electricity bills. That is Federally legislated theft, not taxation.

            70

        • #
          WXcycles

          If the CO2 level of the past 50 years is from exhalation of oceans as they warmed why is a similar CO2 rise not present within ice cores during the warmer periods of the current Holocene interglacial? Why was there not an equivalent rise in CO2 during the MWP’s warming of the oceans, for even longer? Critics only have to post this the the argument is lost.

          https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/c4u-chart.png

          It’s the obvious question to ask. You seem to be implying that the warming of the Holocene interglacial was cumulative and only during the most recent 50 years has such a rapid CO2 rise become possible from ocean exhalation. If such CO2 rise did not occur during the MWP what makes this time different, but not the last time oceans similarly warmed?

          Have the oceans even warmed below the thermocline transient layer? Why is a similar CO2 rise is absent from the MWP? Is there something wrong with the CO2 data? Until you can resolve that (and I don’t yet see how you can) I don’t think the ocean exhalation argument is going to become compelling.

          Wouldn’t it make far more sense to constantly point out that the CO2 level (as in the chart I linked) has an easy to demonstrate very poor correlation with surface T change, or ice-core proxy temp change over the long term? That’s actually a compelling fact which anyone can understand at a glance.

          20

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘I like to know what else we can do.’

        PM Morrison doesn’t have to do anything at the moment, subsidies have come to an end and the RC won’t discuss emissions. Its now a waiting game.

        Gerard Henderson has been dropped from Insiders, who will replace him?

        40

        • #
          Dennis

          Subsidies ended thanks to the Federal Government.

          RET of almost 30% was a Federal Government (Labor) decision based on the tiny by comparison post Kyoto Agreement emissions target based “trial basis” renewable energy part of the planning.

          30

    • #
      John

      What’s wrong is denying that emitting CO2 has any effect on CO2 levels. We’ve added 1500 gigatonnes and it’s gone up ~1000 gigatonnes. It’s not just a coincidence.

      That level of skepticism is flat earther stuff that the alarmists have a field day with. It’s a large part of why we fail to cut thru.

      Why even deny something so basic? Are you ashamed we might be raising CO2?

      46

      • #
        Chad

        It’s not just a coincidence…….

        Unless you can prove and quantify it,…it is just coincidence and speculation.
        The human CO2 contribution is far less than even the natural variation of CO2 emissions and sinks.

        31

        • #
          John

          “Unless you can prove and quantify it,…it is just coincidence”

          We’ve released 1500 gT over the past 100 years.
          Levels in the atmosphere have risen by 2/3 that amount (~1000 gT) over the same period, which is a greater and faster increase than any other time in the past 800,000 years at least.

          Maybe it is a coincidence. But in the absense of a more compelling alternative you’d have to be pretty thick to dismiss the obvious answer.

          13

          • #
            farmerbraun

            Ask me , ask me.
            Natural variation.
            Now do I get a prize?

            20

            • #
              John

              oh right. CO2 levels just happened to “naturally vary” in perfect lockstep with our emissions spike, despite having never done anything similar for the past million years.

              11

          • #
            Chad

            Correlation is not causation !
            Even if you believe the current increase is “greater and faster” than any other period in the last few thousand years. (Ithere is no data to prove that either !),.. then there are still other potential causes for the increase ….such as ocean warming
            In the absence of conclusive proof either way, you would have to be pretty thick not to keep an open mind rather than just accept an “ obvious answer” from somebody else !

            20

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      NASA, for one, disagrees

      Where does all the CO2 produced annually go then? Why has the concentration, after thousands of years of being stable, gone up so quickly?

      17

      • #
        WXcycles

        But is there any correlation between CO2 level change and temperature change?

        https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/c4u-chart.png

        Because if there’s not, then the whole climate-change via CO2 increasing voodoo is sh|t-out-of-luck, mate.

        70

      • #
        Chad

        So you, believe CO2 has never been higher than 300ppm previously ?

        40

      • #
        Dave in the States

        ” ….Why has the concentration, after thousands of years of being stable, gone up so quickly?”

        Some data sets and proxies indicate that it has not been stable for thousands of years. What about ice core data that indicates that co2 concentration change lags behind temperature change? The co2 concentration increase recently may be largely a result of the higher temps of the medieval warm period. As the world has warmed coming out of the little ice age, the oceans should out gas more too.

        40

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Good point, Dave.

          You beat me to it.

          Peter Fitzroy, it would seem, would believe that electricity in the local supply grid, simply disappears when he turns the light off.

          40

          • #
            sophocles

            Good to see you again, Rereke. You’ve been missed.

            The bad news is: We’ve been trying to educate Mr Fitzroy for over a year.
            The badder news is: He has resisted all attempts.
            The baddest news is: He continues to resist.

            [Snip] AD

            00

      • #
        James Poulos

        Quickly… when compared to what?

        20

      • #
        James Poulos

        The planet started warming again (after the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm period) from the middle of the Little Ice Age in about 1600.

        CO2 began rising when?

        30

        • #
          sophocles

          James:
          I would bring that 1600 forward to 1700. The coldest part of the LIA was c. 1690 – 1695

          just past the middle of the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715).

          10

      • #
        Crakar24

        To expand on Dave’s point.

        The MWP spans the years 900 – 1300 AD.

        CO2 lag is approx. 800 years.

        If theory is correct then we should see a rise in CO2 spanning the years 1700 – 2100

        Every graph presented on google shows the rise in CO2 began at 1800. Not sure if we even measured CO2 prior to this.

        Summary: the data fits the theory and as such Pete will ignore and continue with his religious diatribes

        60

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        No answers to the questions then, CO2 has rapidly increased in the last 100 years, as the link I posted shows. If it is not us, where did it come from? Why do the C14 etc ratios agree with the hypothesis that it was man made

        why did you all rush off to warming? that is a seperate question.

        14

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘ … where did it come from?’

          Its purely artificial, up until the 1960s it was taken from ice cores, then after that it was measured in the air. It beggars belief.

          30

        • #
          sophocles

          Where is the world’s largest reservoir of free CO2?
          (Hint: the content is about 52 x the atmospheric content.)

          C14 is created in the atmosphere by Galactic Cosmic Rays.
          Low levels of GCRs = Low Levels of C14
          Incidence of GCRs is controlled by the Solar Magnetic Field.
          (Does Svensmark clank any bells?)

          So what does that mean Fitzroy, when you put it all together?

          C’mon, show us you can think …

          10

      • #
        AndyG55

        Oh dear, all the same old twisted science of the AGW scam.

        Which part actually includes any empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO”

        You have been asked to be precise, rather than regurgitating links to propaganda non-science.

        Be every glad that there is now sufficient atmospheric CO2 for most plant life.

        It is the ONLY effect that highly beneficial extra CO2 has.

        And if, as you choose to “believe”, despite no actual evidence, that humans are responsible for most of that rise, ..

        …then just consider the HUGE future rises in emissions in China, India, Asia, and several African countries.

        And there is NOTHING the CO2 haters can do about it.. :-)

        Nothing we do in Australia is going to make even the slightest difference to global CO2 levels, EVER. !!

        40

      • #
        AndyG55

        “after thousands of years of being stable”

        It has been right at the very bottom of plant life existence concentrations for many thousands of years.

        Do you really think that is desirable ?

        And it started climbing well before any human influence.

        Been climbing all during the Holocene, including during the Neoglaciation that led down to the coldest period in 10,000 years.

        A lot of stuff died during the LIA, and a lot of new life and expanded growth, termites etc etc happened afterwards.

        Be very glad that CO2 levels are slightly above plant subsistence levels..

        … it has probably saved a lot of life on this planet.

        40

      • #
        Dave in the States

        The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.

        http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

        The assertion of a stable pre-industrial 270-280 ppmv is flat-out wrong.

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/

        00

  • #
    Rosco

    What I never get is that no matter what all the statistics show about tonnes of emissions there are still only ~400 molecules of CO2 and less than 2 molecules of Methane in every MILLION molecules of ordinary air !

    The difference in heat capacity between CO2 and air is of the order of 15% whilst Methane requires more than twice the energy of ordinary air to increase by 1°C in temperature.

    Given that CO2 is non reactive, both have trivial absorption across the spectrum evidenced at ambient temperatures and both have trivial concentrations in the atmosphere climate alarmism is completely anti scientific on any rational measure.

    And now our chief “scientist (??)” thinks that squandering perhaps 20 – 50% of the energy available in coal and natural gas to produce hydrogen with the net result that we will be replacing CO2 and CH4 with their trivial IR properties with emissions of the most powerful GHG (if such things are even real) while there is presently more than 50 times the amount of water vapour already present is some how going to reduce the greenhouse effect (if such things are even real) ??

    Further people need to think that if electricity is only ~30% or so of emissions the rest of the emission cuts must come from transport, agriculture and mining.

    I said to friends Shorten’s 45% target had to mean $5 a litre petrol but this new nonsense means no cars. Some may think that is a ggod thing but this also means no economy and the worst austerity imaginable.

    Stupid beyond belief !

    The only argument they have is “the cost of doing nothing will be worse”.

    Wrong !

    The costs will be the same because their stupidity will change nothing – the climate is controlled outside of Earth – the only effect we may have had is reducing the albedo by cleaning up the atmosphere after the acid rain and Ozone hole scares and allowing more sunshine in from cleaning up particulate emissions from the late 60′s on !

    190

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Outstanding.

      Can I say that again: Outstanding!

      Your focus on one issue, may however get you censored, in places you would not believe.

      To anyone trained in the physical sciences the deconstruction of the core mechanism behind this is obvious from several approaches.

      But.

      For the rest of humanity even here on this forum, there seems to be a “belief” that the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere is Not Insignificant.

      I was shocked to learn this only a few days ago.

      The world is a strange place.

      We have to face the fact that there are now two world governments: one in New York and one in Bruxelles.
      We are ruled by the U.N. and EEU.

      Functioning democracies like the USA, Britain, New Zealand and Australia have seen terrible things happen to democratic process in recent times: Europe has been ripped and torn apart by the undemocratic “migration” process that has done nothing to right the wrongs in the countries of origin.

      It, the doogooderism, was just a cover to exert Kontrol, comrade.

      Ultimately there’s no such thing as a free lunch in politics: eventually everyone gets to the trough and it all collapses.

      Thankfully we have some interim hope coming from Trumpit and Brexit but can we AusUNexit, can we get rid of this Renewables ball and chain: Can we eventually make our politicians accountable?

      It seems, No, not yet.

      KK

      170

    • #
      Brian

      “Given that CO2 is non reactive”? CO2 is an infrared active molecule, as is water vapor. It will absorb long wave infrared (the wavelength emitted by the warm surface) by excitation or molecular bending and then re-radiate it. An increased CO2 partial pressure means that this activity is increased and more infrared is returned to the surface rather than escaping into space and so the cycle goes. The effect is small but cumulative, something like compound interest. Since Earth exists in a vacuum, radiation is the only way that energy can escape from Earth to maintain an energy balance with incoming solar radiation. One basic fact is that the atmosphere cannot remove heat from the system. It can move it around but only within the vertical bounds of the inversion layer at the stratosphere and the surface of the Earth.

      26

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        No Brian.

        Once CO2 gets above 30 metres altitude it is constrained by the fact that it is part of the atmosphere.

        And no, you can’t shoot everybody’s favourite, photons, back down to the earth.

        That concept is a Thermodynamic Impossibility.

        Like putting a marble into a shanghai and firing it vertically in the air. It will return.

        So will the photon.

        And it won’t go as far as the marble.

        KK

        42

        • #

          Can I have an off topic turn at proving something with an analogy. Your theorum is so full of holes it is hard to know where to start. Here are questions to address in an unthreaded.

          In what direction can the EMR be emitted so as to not go towards a more energetic object (or whatever terminolgy you use) somewhere in its path?

          What is the difference between 29 metres and 30m and what happens on hills 1000s of metres with sloping sides?

          Where is the observational evidence for returning energy?

          22

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            “Where is the observational evidence for returning energy?”

            Exactly. There is none!

            KK

            32

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            And thank you for so clearly demonstrating the difference between education and indoctrination.

            32

            • #
              Brian

              Oh Keith. You posit the most ridiculous scenarios based on pseudoscience that I am almost positive that you do not in fact believe. I suspect your absurdities are mischievous in nature. CO2 below 30 metres elevation is not be part of the atmosphere? Ludicrous, and where did the 30 metres come from anyway? Radiation occurring from the warmed surface of the Earth or by re-radiation from a IR active molecule is not constrained by elevation. You do realise that IR radiation or photons travel at 3 x 10^8 m/s and the re-radiation from CO2 is omnidirectional? All re-radiated energy will have an outwards (away from the surface) or downwards vector.

              Yet again you attack another poster on the bounds that because your fabrications are questioned the person must be uneducated.

              21

              • #
                Graeme#4

                Again, KK is correct. Altitude DOES play a major part in how CO2 behaves, because it’s behaviour is influenced by surrounding gas molecules. It’s well known that a CO2 molecule’s ability to radiate energy, and the direction of the radiation, is altitude dependent.

                41

              • #

                Well known by who? Who did the experiment that shows this height dependent behavior? What did they find and where can I read about it?

                KK couldn’t answer this one – where is this 30m measured from? If you have an average 45 degree slope that rises the hill/mountain 1000m above a plane- where is this different behavior? is it 30m out perpendicular to the angle of the slope?

                11

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Ground origin IR is apparently mostly absorbed by water and CO2 if the so called greenhouse mechanism gets a look in by 30 metres.

              Even then it may be that water and CO2 are given so much energy by conduction that the greenhouse effect is minor.

              When the IR runs out at 30 metres those greenhouse gases must behave like all the other gases around them and engage in convection.

              The idea that CO2 sprays photon marbles in a spherical pattern was dissed by Will Janoshka when he described the perpetuating mechanism in detail.

              It’s a scientific principle that energy coming from different directions will only move in the direction of the greater power. It doesn’t move both ways.

              Uneducated activism is a sad hobby.

              KK

              03

      • #
        Graeme#4

        No Brian, KK is correct. CO2 won’t re-radiate, simply because it’s going to be bombarded by the majority of other gas molecules in the atmosphere well before it has a chance to re-radiate its acquired energy. Everybody seems to ignore these other gases simply because they don’t acquire IR energy, but they still have a major part to play in the atmosphere.

        21

        • #

          keith is not talking about that at all. You are just saying that convection will be the dominating factor at higher air pressure – the energy will be transferred before it can be re-radiated.

          He is saying that CO2 will not radiate towards the ground because it can’t. It is forced to radiate in a direction where it knows there is no high energy object.

          I have a strong sense of deja vu about this.

          20

        • #
          AndyG55

          I don’t think Brian understands some of the basic physics of the atmosphere.

          And he doesn’t want to learn.

          Things like the fact that, in the lower atmosphere, the re-emission time is some magnitudes slower than the collisional time.

          Or like the proven fact that the atmosphere is governed by pressure/density differences.

          31

        • #
          Brian

          Let me try and explain this. Indeed it is quite possible that an energised CO2 molecule could interact with several other non greenhouse gas molecules before re-emitting the infrared photon. Note that not all impacts result in a transfer of internal energy any more than a very minor bump in a car park will do structural damage. But if the CO2 molecule transferred the energy from the absorbed photon during a collision it is a kinetic function which would increase the speed of that molecule. Since the temperature of a gas is a measure of the speed of the molecules in the gas, so lots of collisions with IR excited greenhouse molecules would contribute to raising the temperature of the atmosphere. That is where elevation does influence the greenhouse gas effect because as the atmosphere rarefies with elevation the probability of molecular collisions drops.

          At sea level the atmosphere is 99.9% empty space or vacuum but there are a lot of molecules and the mean free path or distance a molecule will travel before colliding with another is on average 750 molecular radii with up to 5 molecular interactions every nanosecond varying with atmospheric temperature. Now the decay time for a CO2 molecule to emit a photon is much longer than a nanosecond so initially there is a high probability that it will pass the energy as kinetic energy to an atmospheric molecule that can only transfer energy via collision. So the atmosphere heats up. But the CO2 (or water vapor) molecule will be replenished either by IR radiation or from collision (and the atmosphere is cooled )and again gets its chance to re-radiate the energy as long wave IR. With me so far?

          Now increased altitude = more distance between molecules = cooler atmosphere at least until the thermosphere = more likelihood of immediate re-radiation of IR energy rather than by collision. So as re-emitted IR works its way towards space in a method analogous to three dimensional billiards the probability of encountering a CO2 molecule diminishes and the probability that if it does it will be re-emitted increases. But we are talking up to 30 kilometres, not 30 metres. As far as altitude affecting the emission vector I suggest you are possibly incorrectly remembering something you read because there are no such constraints.

          41

          • #
            Graeme#4

            Brian, the collisions are mostly with non GHG gases, not with GHG gases, simply because there is a heck of a lot more of them in the lower atmosphere. And it’s more than possible according to the experts in atmospheric physics. They estimate the odds of re-radiation as between 1 in 100,000 to 1 in one billion.

            20

            • #
              Brian

              Read the first sentence. Given the massive number of CO2 molecules in a cubic centimeter, around 7 x 10^14 even a basic grounding in probability theory will explain why energy will be re-radiated.

              11

            • #
              sophocles

              There are 4 CO2 molecules for every 10,000 atmospheric molecules …

              00

          • #
            el gordo

            The stratosphere is up to 30 kilometres high and warming, healing the depleted ozone. How are the CO2 molecules coping in this changed environment?

            12

            • #
              Brian

              You realize how ozone is formed in an exothermic process energised by UV radiation. So perhaps you understand how increased CO2 in the stratosphere could result in more of the IR heat generated by ozone formation exciting CO2 and being radiated out of the atmosphere resulting in cooling of the stratosphere? Yes this effect has been duly recorded.

              20

          • #
            kinkykeith

            there’s no such entity as a photon.

            00

        • #
          AndyG55

          Brian, stop with the attempted explanation.

          They are showing up all the missed or wrong arguments you keep putting forward.

          You are NOT helping yourself.

          Ratio of CO2 to other gases is ?

          Mean free path of CO2 emission wavelength in lower atmosphere is ?? (Hint: KK is approximately correct)

          What happens to the atmosphere if it heats up?

          What GOVERNS the transfer of energy in the atmosphere?

          Produce empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2…. or don’t. !!

          21

          • #

            time to put up or shut up Andy.

            Shouting down and invective free explanation. No claims that I or someone else is ignorant or whatever. Just your evidence.

            21

            • #
              • #

                asking for you to do the same for your “empirical evidence ” and I was specific and but I asked first; so after you.

                22

              • #
                AndyG55

                [Snip personal insults- Jo]

                I have been asking for that empirical evidence for many years, and YOU and your fellow “believers” and “lukewarmers” have produced nothing.

                The empirical work of the Connellys, in analysing 2 million balloon data sets, proves that the atmosphere is controlled by the gas laws, ie, the gravity based pressure gradient RULES

                The hot spot cannot exist, it is a junk model figment.

                Any spurious warming is immediately countered.

                That is why you and your fellow CO2 haters cannot produce any empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2..

                Because, to all intents, it does not and can not exist.

                Basic science, proven by empirical measurements, GA.

                You have nothing, as usual, GA.

                20

              • #

                I expected and got nothing but the usual shouting.

                The only sciency thing you gave me was an unpublished analysis consisting of fitting temperature data to a model. No experiment. No measurement of the supposed cause.

                00

          • #

            love the “approximately correct” too. Obviously the thinking photon hypothesis is not yours but you are on his side because his alt physics is in opposition to the same as your alt-physics even if it is completely at odds to you alt universe.

            22

          • #
            Brian

            What rubbish. If the free path were 30 metres we would still be in the middle of an ice age. Try 3 cm. Do you have a clue about molecular dynamics? No, I didn’t think so. You, Keith and a couple of your cohorts have never once once presented anything except pseudo-scientific rubbish and abuse and are totally incapable of reasoned debate. I appreciate that you do not understand the physics or math involved and I understand that resorting to personal abuse lets you hide that fact. [Snip insults - J]
            Put it this way Andy. If I were not right we would have a snowball Earth and you would not exist.

            33

            • #
              el gordo

              Is this true?

              ‘Earth’s upper atmosphere controls the radiation that escapes to space. The upper atmosphere is much less dense and contains much less water vapor than near the ground, which means that adding more carbon dioxide significantly influences how much infrared radiation escapes to space.’

              Science Alert

              20

            • #
              AndyG55

              And STILL, you produce no empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

              Is it your ignorance, or your incompetence, Brain?

              10

            • #
              Brian

              Actually Andy I have never seen you provide sustainable facts or even logical argument in your maundering. Ad hominem approaches seem your forte. The increase in longwave IR flux reaching the surface has been recorded over decades. IR in the solar spectrum is short wave. Just as an example a paper published in Nature.

              https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

              Now I fully expect that you will again froth at the mouth and reject evidence no matter what the source and go back to your day job as secretary of the flat Earth society.

              12

            • #
              Brian

              oops. that was 3 nm (nanometres).

              00

              • #

                A plea to all commenters: Please turn down the invective and read each others comments more carefully. Start with respect, stop the flamewars, and be very careful about posting absolutist 100% statements because they are often wrong. (Eg saying “CO2 does X” without stipulating altitude, temperature, caveats anything.). Bell, normal, Gaussian etc curves are everywhere. I’m seeing three different conversations here about different things.

                KK: ” Thermodynamic Impossibility.” Are you talking about “second law type thermodynamics”? If so, please read http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/a-discussion-of-the-slaying-the-sky-dragon-science-is-the-greenhouse-effect-a-sky-dragon-myth/. We’ve done that conversation, I don’t want to go through it again. Photons go in every direction, they don’t have steering. But am I misunderstanding your point, after all the years of commenting here this is not your usual line of argument?

                AndyG: Yes, obviously there is no conclusive empirical evidence that CO2 controls temperature, you are right. But can we also admit that if CO2 had a small effect it would be difficult to detect without a lot more data? I think people should be free to speculate on this small possible but as yet undetectable effect without someone demanding evidence for a significant warming (which is something different). The increase in CO2 may well have some effect on the atmosphere or ocean and it’s useful to discuss exactly what situation that might happen in.

                One day, when the GCM models include solar factors (magnetic, particles, spectral for starters) and perhaps geothermal factors (we don’t even have the data) then they might work and be able to estimate what the climate sensitivity of CO2 is. Best estimates I’ve seen independently put it at 0.25 – 0.5C which is probably almost entirely beneficial.

                Gee Aye, it would help if you could admit you haven’t provided any empirical evidence that CO2′s effect is detectable. The conversation might move forward instead of repeating.

                Brian, #13.2.2.3 — on a quick read , I agree.

                Can we all settle a few basics. CO2 is a GHG. CO2 absorbs IR. It can then either re radiate in any direction or lose it via kinetic collision to another molecule (odds are not a GHG). Kinetic collision will heat the local atmosphere — most like in the lower troposphere. Above a certain height it will more likely emit to space.

                30

              • #

                CO2′s effect has been measured, studied, quantified and verified in so many different ways I have no idea which new verification is needed.

                If someone rejects the notion that CO2 has a measured and well documented absorption and emission spectra, and that experimental and atmospheric observational data are completely in accordance with expectations based on the physical properties of CO2 then there is nowhere to go and nothing to admit to.

                00

              • #
                robert rosicka

                Gee Aye the verification that CO2 causes climate change is the bit that’s missing .
                Yes there’s a theory and yes there’s a computer model but please point me in the right direction for something that’s provable and not a guess or a game .
                Also in your opinion is CO2 a well mixed gas ?

                00

              • #

                Do you mean is CO2 well mixed in the atmosphere? I’d like to see the measurements. If you have access to some then you wont need an opinion. The not so good mixing I know about is on a global scale with between hemispheres and within the hemispheres differences due mainly to seasonal and regional photosynthesis differences.

                As for cause of warming at what point do you permit extrapolation from measured properties and observation? We can’t measure every molecule’s activity and we can’t create a second GHGless earth so we are stuck with our limitations – limtiations that apply to everyone no matter what their theory (e.g. magic photons and gravity). As with all (bold and underline) science you have to rely on assumptions at some point.

                00

            • #

              well I was getting a bit bored moderating my own blog. You know how popular it is

              10

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Malcolm Roberts is stirring the pot in the senate by getting Corman to admit where the govt gets its “science” from .

    https://m.facebook.com/malcolmrobertsonenation/photos/a.870560929754455/1942899755853895/?type=3&source=48

    110

    • #
      AndyG55

      And we all know just how BADLY the “believers” and “lukewarmers” go when asked to produce empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2 ;-)

      41

  • #

    The way to reduce emissions is the way to increase emissions.

    You come up with a bunch of simplistic standards which mean nothing much, use them to cook up some superficial data…and just remember to twiddle the knobs so the result goes the way you want. Once you’ve twiddled the science knobs you then hit the emotion buttons. That’s what the media are for, right? Your work is done here.

    In an age when something as straightforward as daily rainfall can no longer be measured, think anybody is going to check?

    The globsters who now own all media have a motto: Stulti numquam verificant. Mugs never check.

    141

  • #
    Dennis

    ABC Fact Check

    In a recent speech to the United Nations, Prime Minister Scott Morrison sought to downplay Australia’s contribution to world greenhouse gas emissions, arguing the nation is responsible for just 1.3 per cent of the global total.

    An alternative view is that Australia’s culpability is in fact much greater — after billions of dollars’ worth of fossil fuel exports are factored in.

    IT entrepreneur and outspoken climate change commentator Mike Cannon-Brookes issued a recent tweet claiming that Australia’s share of the global total rises to more than 5 per cent once the emissions embedded in its exports are included.

    Mike Cannon-Brookes

    22

  • #
    David Maddison

    Almost no other country is as fanatically committed to destroying their economy as Australia is.

    110

    • #
      Serp

      Yes, priding itself in keeping ahead of the wave; this national sickness became evident at the time of the GATT shenanigans and has matured sufficiently to be producing the decarbonization to zero policy monstrosity and all the other Green New Deal phantasmagoria being promoted as the latest hard left fad.

      Where this torrent of malfeasance shall eventually disembogue its involuntary passengers, us, the populace, is anybody’s guess but let’s not kid ourselves we’re past the worst of this miserable globalist adventure.

      30

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Via ryan [email protected]: Washington Post editorial board calling Bernie Sanders a climate denier.

    This is a signal to Democrats that the coast is clear to finally criticize Bernie’s dangerous, doomsday preaching about climate change which is unhinged from actual science.

    How Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both reject the reality of climate change

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-both-reject-the-reality-of-climate-change/2020/02/23/cc657dcc-54de-11ea-9e47-59804be1dcfb_story.html

    SloMo and each-way-Albo are also fellow travellers with Bernie, not President Trump.

    50

  • #
    Chad

    Why is the emissions data presented in such an “obscure” way ?
    MTons/Qtr ??..MTns/Capita. ???
    Should there not be some “specific” measurement , ?..IE. Mtons/ TWh ?
    A 1.2% reduction in emissions might not exist at all if compared to the corresonding Electricity generation. ?
    I suspect there is easily a +_ 1% variation in the electricity generation qtr to qtr !

    11

    • #
      Chad

      Further,.. these “% change”. Figures are utter garbage !..probably deliberately contrived to confuse the average reader/punter.

      Electricity sector emissions decreased 1.8 per cent in the June quarter of 2019 on a ‘seasonally adjusted and weather normalised’P 8 P basis (Figure 6). This reflected strong increases in hydro and wind generation (42.0 and 14.8 per cent) and decreases in coal and natural gas generation (5.7 and 21.3 per cent) in the National Electricity Market (NEM)..

      % of what ?.. certainly not to any common base reference ( such as total generation), no , most likely as a % change on its own individual previous result ( highly variable)

      21

  • #
    pat

    4RPH community radio in Brisbane (ABC on CAGW steroids) is still running the following twice a day. totally partisan, fact-free nonsense:

    AUDIO: 3m30s: 20 Feb: The Wire: Australian multi-faith leaders pen open letter to PM to act on climate change
    A group of Australian affiliated religious leaders has penned an open letter urging Prime Minister Scott Morrison to heed climate science and transition Australia away from fossil fuel burning, animal agriculture, and land clearing.
    Speaking out on behalf of the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change (ARRCC), they call on Morrison to show leadership, wisdom, humility, and courage as a ‘fellow person of faith’ and to enact climate policy measures preventing further climate change-fuelled natural disasters including the recent bushfires which caused catastrophic devastation and destruction across the country.
    Produced By Jarad McLoughlin
    Featured: Thea Ormerod – President of the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change’s (ARRCC) Management Committee
    http://thewire.org.au/story/australian-multi-faith-leaders-pen-open-letter-to-pm-to-act-on-climate-change/

    Thea on ABC:

    12 May 2019: ABC: Federal election 2019: Why Christians on the left are a growing voting bloc
    By Karen Tong
    Photo: ***Thea Ormerod (WITH STOP ADANI SIGN) is the president of the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change
    The religious left may not wield the same political power as the Christian right, but it is emerging as a diverse, passionate and active voting bloc in Australia…

    Thea Ormerod is Catholic and the president of the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change. The group’s management committee includes a Buddhist, a rabbi and an Anglican priest.
    “The Hindu and Buddhist traditions are very much about respecting animal life and therefore tend to be vegetarians or even vegan,” Ms Ormerod said.
    “We were probably one of the first environmental campaigners, and probably still one of the few, who emphasise eating less meat as a way of addressing climate change.”
    In March, they held “funerals” for coal outside the offices of Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and other shadow ministers, and announced willingness to blockade Adani’s Carmichael mine project…

    So who will get their vote?…
    The natural fit for many would be the Greens…
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-12/federal-election-christian-left-on-the-rise/11103838

    April 2017: ABC Religion & Ethics: Support for the Adani Coal Mine is Scientifically and Morally Unjustifiable
    Authors:
    Right Rev. Professor Stephen Pickard is Executive Director of the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture, Charles Sturt University. ***Thea Ormerod is President of the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change.
    Huge marches are happening this last weekend in April in Washington, D.C., and numerous cities across the United States, protesting the Trump administration’s climate policies, with significant participation by faith communities…
    Here in Australia, faith communities have a less brash Prime Minister (TURNBULL) than the present U.S. incumbent but we are grappling with similarly destructive policies…

    Federal government support for the Adani “mega coal mine” is the target of an open letter released today, signed by prominent leaders from Australia’s faith communities – including Uniting Church, Buddhists, Quakers and Catholic…
    The letter resonates with recent pro-science marches, which highlighted the gap between policy makers and scientific evidence. The world’s spiritual traditions place a high value on truthfulness, and the truth about climate change is no exception…Truth is sacrificed in favour of ideology…

    For example, from the outset, the government was informed that the blackouts in South Australia last year were primarily due to storm damage, yet their commentary attacked the “intermittency of renewables” at every opportunity…

    The government justifies its pro-coal stance by arguing that India and other nations need coal to raise their people out of energy poverty. The truth is that the grid infrastructure needed for centralised coal-fired power is too expensive for impoverished populations, when cleaner, cheaper, decentralised renewable options are available…

    For Australia to embark on a new and enormous coal project flies in the face of science which tells us we are in a climate emergency…

    When evidence and truth are so poorly regarded, we cannot expect reasonable policy. One is reminded of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s remark made amid his struggles against Nazism…
    https://www.abc.net.au/religion/support-for-the-adani-coal-mine-is-scientifically-and-morally-un/10095830

    30

  • #
    Furiously curious

    Looking at nuclear, the Sth Koreans are building the 5600MW Barakah plant in UAE – build cost A$38 billion, continued operation, maintenance, and fuel another A$31 billion – 12 yrs build. Egypt is building, with the Russians about the same size, A$33 billion. Good luck pushing that through in Aus, with all the regulations and labour costs. We definitely need massive breakthroughs.

    70

  • #
    TedM

    OT I know but SO2 has blown out again around Wuhan. 837 microgm/m3.

    30

  • #
    pat

    24 Feb: LaCorteNews: Twitter suspends users after The Guardian reports they’re bots spreading climate misinformation
    by Penka Arsova
    Twitter has locked the accounts of two users with more than 60,000 collective followers after The Guardian reported they could be bots designed to push misinformation about climate change.

    The Guardian’s story, penned by Oliver Milman, centers on an unpublished draft study, which hasn’t been peer-reviewed, but claims that a quarter of all tweets about climate come from bots. It then cited a tool called Botometer, to identify Twitter users @sh_irredeemable and @petefrt as likely bots.

    Milman wrote that @sh_irredeemable “ranks highly on the Botometer score” and referred to @petefrt as a “suspected bot.”
    You can read the full piece here (LINK).

    Twitter then swiftly suspended the accounts, on the same day The Guardian’s article was published.

    Pushback: Alex Griswold, a reporter at the Washington Free Beacon, disputed the characterizations of the Twitter accounts in question…ETC

    It only took a few years for mainstream reporters to go from being biased to outright activists…READ ON
    https://www.lacortenews.com/n/twitter-suspends-users-after-the-guardian-reports-theyre-bots-spreading-climate-misinformation

    10

  • #

    [...] NOVA’S LATEST. More RE installed in Australia but no reduction in emissions. Anything Germany can we, we can do as well or [...]

    00

  • #
    frednk

    I’d say the data reflect the appalling results of the Liberals pollution policies. That a market based approach used before 2016 works and government intervention as adopted by the Liberals doesn’t.

    21

  • #
    pat

    24 Feb: Breitbart: Woke Royal Harry Will Take Jet to Speak in Britain About Holidaymakers… Who Take Jets
    by Kurt Zindulka
    The Duke of Sussex will head to Edinburgh on Wednesday to host a conference for Travalyst, an online scoring system that will rank flights, hotel accommodations and tourist attractions by how climate-friendly they are.

    Travalyst was launched in September of last year, in partnership with leading travel brands including Booking.com, Visa, Tripadvisor, and Chinese owned sites Trip.com and Skyscanner.
    “Our ambition is to transform travel and tourism so that every holiday people take, every trip they book, will have a positive impact and better protect the destinations and communities they visit,” a spokesperson for the organisation said per (LINK) the Evening Standard…
    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/02/24/prince-harry-to-fly-to-the-uk-to-promote-climate-change-scoring-system/

    30

  • #
    Surftilidie

    It appears there are two catastrophes occurring on the planet at the moment, i.e. coronavirus and climate change. It is interesting to observe humanity’s reaction to these two disasters. Re the first: I am not sure what it is like in other capitals, but in Perth, you can’t buy face masks and/or hand sanitiser. They have all been bought out by the hoi polloi. I am certainly getting ready to “run for the hills” if Perth becomes a coronavirus hot spot. Re the second: the same hoi polloi are taking no notice of the climate change catastrophe. They are using their fossil fueled cars, phones, air con units, and all the other labour saving devices that fossil fuels have visited upon us, with impunity. They are not cutting back on air travel, train travel. They are virtually not adjusting their lifestyles in any way at all. Why is this so? Why does one invisible virus bring about such fear, while another invisible molecule is treated with disdain. Methinks the reason is the hoi polloi, in the main, don’t believe a word of it when it comes to CO2. They might sit around at dinner parties and criticise governments or exclaim “rest my beating heart” over the climate change so-called disaster, but they don’t really believe it.

    40

  • #

    While it is quite understandable that efficiencies have been made across the years due to better technology resulting in less power consumption in virtually everything of an electrical nature, then it would stand to reason that power consumption would fall across the years.

    That actually happened.

    The highest power consumption for Australia was in 2010 when it was 207TWH. Then, as those efficiencies with better power consumption kicked in, then overall power usage fell, gradually, and in 2014, it reached the low point of 197TWH, and while 6TWH may not seem much (3%) be aware that when you look at your residential power bill, it is expressed in KWH, and you might use an average of (around) 17KWH per day, that figure of 6TWH is 6,000,000,000KWH.

    However, since 2014, and despite the increasing power efficiencies, overall power consumption across Australia is increasing, around half a percent per year, and at the end of 2019 (December) yearly power consumption was back up to a tick over 205TWH, so we are almost back to what it was in 2010, when it started to fall.

    So while efficiencies are ongoing, we are actually consuming more power.

    Now, look at this.

    Some of you might remember that I have (quite regularly now) mentioned that when wind power is high, that is reflected in hydro and natural gas being low, and vice versa, and what wind generation does, high or low, has no effect at all on coal fired power, as it just hums along as it always has done.

    Well, over the last 18 Months, a number of wind plants have been added to the grid, resulting in an increase in Nameplate for wind power of 1690MW, a Nameplate increase of 31%. (from 5300MW to 6960MW) Even with that increase, the Capacity Factor is still stubbornly at 29.5%. However, with that increase in wind Nameplate, then it stands to reason that the percentage of total supply delivered by wind has increased and that is the case, as wind generation has increased from 7% to 8.2% of the total in that same time of Nameplate increase. So wind generation has shown an increase of 1.2% overall.

    Hydro power’s percentage of the overall has fallen by 1.5%. (so, wind up, hydro down)

    Now go back to 2014, the year of lowest power consumption 197TWH.

    The black coal component (NSW and Queensland, the two largest power consuming states, 65% of all power consumption, almost two thirds) of that total was 96TWH just lower than 49%.

    Now, roll forward to 2019, total of 205TWH and the black coal component of that is now 106.8TWH, and 52.3%. Each year from 2014, that black coal component increased.

    So, while wind plants increased in number, and NO NEW coal fired plants were added, they got more from black coal than any other source, so, an increase in the overall of 8TWH, and an increase from black coal of 10.8TWH.

    So much for those ‘old clunkers’ becoming more inefficient as they age.

    In fact what is happening is the opposite. They’re getting more power from them than they did.

    Wind power, and solar power, and in fact rooftop solar power is NOT replacing coal fired power at all.

    And overall power consumption is steadily rising, no matter what efficiencies are implemented.

    Tony.

    161

    • #
      robert rosicka

      How much of the efficiency is actually people not using aircons or heating because they can’t afford the electricity bill ?

      30

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Since 2010 many substantial industrial power consumers have shut down because government has made electricity too expensive here.

      Factories are now relocating to the USA.

      Power consumption increase since 2010 has been due to the increase in mobile phone charging which is extremely inefficient. Every university student, Australia’s only current industry, needs air conditioning and a mobile phone.

      KK

      40

      • #
        TdeF

        Precisely. Manufacturing uses energy to make things, rather than labour. If it is too expensive or difficult or unreliable, people stop making things. Smelting for example is the removal of oxygen from bauxite, iron ore, galena (lead) and this takes two things, a lot of energy and Carbon to run the oxygen into carbon dioxide. So that is stopped. Sure it’s continuing with at least a billion in taxpayer money every year paid secretly to Port Pirie, Whyalla, Alcoa. And when Alcoa want more cash, they just threaten to close the factory. Just like Holden, Ford, Toyota.

        Australia is becoming an open cut mine again. Refining has stopped. Smelting. Fabrication.

        Wilson Transformers, perhaps the biggest business in Wangaratta saw the electricity bill rise by $1Million in just one year. But they are making money from renewables, so they cannot protest too much. But they are already an international company and must be looking hard at relocation overseas.

        The simple fact is that the world does not want Australia building cars and aircraft and ships and transformers and refining metals and oil. So they tell us to jack up our electricity prices to give cash to their friends selling German windmills and to buy French desalination plants on the long term plan. Because it’s all our fault.

        100

    • #
      TdeF

      “Wind power, and solar power, and in fact rooftop solar power is NOT replacing coal fired power at all.”

      Far too sensible and factual. Great work.

      80

    • #
      bobl

      I might also point out that 0.5% increase P/A over 18 months is 0.75% meaning that the 1.2% wind capacity increase represents a Net increase of just 0.45% over 18 Months. All that money and effort on wind and it is only barley offsetting just the increase in demand. As efficiencies end (and they inevitably will) the increase in demand will approach population growth and renewables expansion won’t be able to meet demand increase.

      Don’t forget that in just a few years time those thinly spread rusting windmills and Solar Panels will all need replacing. Increasing supply is easy now but once you need to do lifecycle replacement AND capacity expansion it all becomes MUCH harder.

      40

    • #
      WXcycles

      Australia Pop 2010 = 22,154,686
      Australia Pop Feb 2020 = 25,394,719

      Population rose 12. 75% over the period.

      30

    • #
      Graeme#4

      Very interesting facts Tony. Many thanks for the data.

      30

  • #
    Cactus

    Just a small point. I think most of the increase in diesel use would be from mining.
    - Australian iron ore exports have lifted to ~900Mtpa from ~400Mtpa in 2010
    - Thermal coal exports are now ~210Mtpa up from ~140Mtpa in 2010
    - Met Coal exports are now ~190Mtpa, up from ~160Mtpa in 2010.

    Coal exports are likely to be more diesel consumptive than iron ore because strip ratios there are 5-15x, whereas iron ore is mostly 2-3x.

    Now all these extra mining output which is pushing our emissions up is mostly going into products the rest of the world use. So in a way – much of it isnt our own underlying emissions…

    80

    • #

      Good points Cactus. Thanks.

      50

    • #
      Brian

      The other influence is the need for more heavy trucks to move food and products into the expanding cities and take the garbage out. This requires the torque that diesel can provide. Diesel usage in transport is proportional to the urban population.

      10

      • #
        Chad

        And dont forget all those millions of aussies who have traded in their petrol fords and holdens for a nice trendy diesel dual cab ute !

        10

    • #
      RickWill

      much of it isnt our own underlying emissions…

      If you discount the energy that went into exports then it would be appropriated to account for the energy in all the imports. Solar panels and wind generators require a massive amount of energy in their creation. They can only recover that energy when they are connected to a system that has ample dispatchable generation. Motor vehicles are also energy intensive in their production and more than 1M of those arrive each year.

      20

    • #
      Graeme#4

      I believe that most of the NW minesites obtain their power from gas.

      10

  • #
    TdeF

    I made a mistake. In looking at the decay of C14 since 1965, I calculated the half life of the excess of C14 and this was 14 years. Simple enough. Time to half height. However at the same time as much original CO2 was exchanged, so the speed of exchange is double an and that means the half life is a mere 7 years for half of all CO2 to be exchanged with the ocean.

    How then can anyone maintain that CO2 is trapped in the atmosphere, allegedly causing global warming? CO2 comes from the ocean all day, every day. This exchange is massive and our puny contribution, our ‘emissions’ are of no consequence.

    60

    • #
      bobl

      Its not TDef, indeed an amount equal to half human emissions disappears into the biosphere every year this represents a turnover of 400 years but a half-life of just 1 year for amounts of CO2 equivalent to human emissions. The biosphere doesn’t care where the CO2 comes from.

      In the end if humanity just held emissions constant the biosphere would expand to reach equilibrium – it MUST. Any growth in CO2 levels from us has to come from Growth in emissions because it can’t come from a steady state excess if the system is dynamic (IE the Plant kingdom can expand). Growth in emissions at the moment is mostly coming from warming oceans.

      20

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        A year or so back I recall studies that suggested that any “emitted” CO2 molecule would be gone/used by plants/naturally sequestered(oceans) etc after only four and a half years.
        How that might relate to half life I don’t know, but it makes human expression of CO2 inconsequential.

        Totally undeniable are the CO2 variations measured above crops in the 24 hour cycle. Presumably the nominal 400 ppm during operating hours and 1250 in the other phase.

        Just think of the turnover from plants, microbes etc on land and add it to the CO2 movement in and out of the oceans described by TdeF.

        It’s a big churn and our part in it is so small as to be irrelevant.

        WHY are we putting up with this serious breach of democratic process?

        KK

        20

      • #
        TdeF

        Sorry, I do not follow this at all. I am talking about equilibrium at the air/water boundary for gases between the oceans and the sky. By far the bulk of CO2 is in the oceans, 50x as much as in the thin air above. It is this equilibrium which has a half life of 7 years.

        The ‘biosphere’ as defined by the IPCC explicitly excludes the bulk of CO2 in the ocean and deals only with the top 100 metres. And they do this without proof. They also claim the half life of CO2 is 80 years or ‘thousands of years’ which is how they manage to argue that human CO2 is significant. So the land, sky and plants form their biosphere and the ocean is comparable, which gives rise to the famous Bern diagram.

        What the vanishing of the trace gas C14O2 from 1965 tells us is that they are completely wrong.

        20

        • #
          TdeF

          Or try this diagram

          Where the C14 data has proven it wrong is that it claims the Intermediate or Deep Ocean is involved only to the exchange of 10Gtonnes per year compared to human output of 3700Gtons. Therefore human output is significant.

          In fact in comparison to the Deep ocean, the entire biosphere is insignificant.

          The speculation that the deep ocean is disconnected cannot explain the removal of excess C14 from the entire atmosphere in just 55 years.

          And as the deep ocean is demonstrably in rapid exchange with the air, all bets are off. CO2 levels are utterly independent of our tiny output or even plant life. It is rather the other way around. If CO2 goes up, plant life increases.

          The only reason there is any fossil fuel in the air at all is that it has not vanished yet.

          20

    • #
      TdeF

      So with total atmospheric CO2 at 3210 Gigatons, half exchanged every year, the amount which goes into the oceans per year is 229 Gigatons into the oceans and out of the oceans.

      Man’s output is 36Gtons of CO2, which is absolutely dwarfed by the amount exchanged in gaseous exchange based on equilibrium.

      What this means is that while it will take 7 years for half of this year’s fossil fuel CO2 to vanish completely from the atmosphere, it is doing absolutely nothing to affect the total amount of CO2 in the air.

      So what’s this about measuring human emissions?

      70

      • #
        Chad

        BUT… the “natural” CO2 flux , in and out of the oceans and land sinks etc, can only ever be “estimated” from experimental measurements., and are known to vary significantly with surface conditions , temps , etc.
        The potential errors in those estimates are significant ,..easily +_10% in each direction, so even those estimate variations outweigh the total of mans contribution

        20

        • #
          TdeF

          Again the collapse of C14 levels after 1965 shows that there is only one huge sink, far larger than all these sinks of plants, land, the top of the ocean. And it is all gone, so the entire CO2 from 1965 has been replaced with new CO2 from the ocean. There is no error in that measurement because radioactive C14 can be measured so easily. It’s as if there was one huge global experiment with C14 in 1965, an experiment which gave us a real understanding of where CO2 goes. No laboratory experiment could possibly prove what has been proven and known with certainty. We and our fossil fuels are insignificant.

          10

          • #
            TdeF

            And ask yourself, why isn’t the CO2 level going down if new plants are grabbing the extra CO2? Because the biosphere is tiny and irrelevant on a global scale, even if it is everything to us.

            10

      • #
        John

        Total atmospheric CO2 is as you say 3200 gigatonnes.

        We’ve released 1500 gigatonnes.

        And you claim adding 1500 to 3200 is too small to make a difference

        And you wonder why people called deniers idiots….

        01

        • #
          farmerbraun

          36 Gigatons seemsto me to be small compared to 229 Gigatons . What am I doing wrong?

          00

          • #
            John

            Total atmospheric CO2 balance was ~2200 Gt before we started emitting. We emitted 1500 Gt, after which atmospheric CO2 is 3200 Gt.

            1500 is not “too small” to raise 2200 to 3200.

            10

          • #
            TdeF

            A lot of the numbers are in Gigatons of CARBON, GtC. Others are in Gigatons of Carbon Dioxide, GtCO2. These seem to be mixed up. The difference is 12 to 12+32=44 , two Oxygens from O2 for a weight difference of about 3.6:1.

            Roughly total man made CO2 is about 1% of the entire amount of CO2 in the system. This would add 50% to the 2% in the air, assuming none went in the water. However it does. Rapidly.

            If CO2 was pollution, the earth is self cleaning.

            10

      • #
        Brian

        That is 36 Gt per year, increasing every year every year in addition to the natural cycle. Over the next 10 years 11% of total CO2 in the atmosphere added in addition to the natural cycle. Enough to saturate carbon sinks. CO2 in 1900 296 ppm. CO2 ppm in 2019 411 ppm. Argue the impact of such a massive change by all means. Pros could well outweigh cons. But let’s not put heads in sand and pretend that the current 32 Gt additional every year is not having any effect.

        10

        • #
          John

          “Pros could well outweigh cons.”

          They sure do.

          11

        • #
          Chad

          But let’s not put heads in sand and pretend that the current 32 Gt additional every year is not having any effect.

          What effect do you believe it is having ?

          30

        • #
          AndyG55

          “But let’s not put heads in sand and pretend that the current 32 Gt additional every year is not having any effect.”

          Do you have ANY empirical evidence that this very small increase in plant life food has had any affect on climate whatsoever.?

          20

    • #
      John

      “How then can anyone maintain that CO2 is trapped in the atmosphere”

      Noone is claiming that. At least understand what it is you’re criticising.

      They aren’t saying it’s the exact same molecules in the atmoephere. The point is our cumulative emissions, which accumulate in the atmospehre/ocean/land reservoirs, leading to a larger balance in the atmosphere over time. The same as the amount of money in your wallet can grow over time despite any particular banknote only having been there a few days.

      10

      • #
        Chad

        John, you are assuming that there is a fixed limit to the amount of CO2 that will transfer from the air to the ocean and land sinks.
        That is pure speculation , and has never been observed or measured.
        The experimental results for “Sink rates” are very vague, variable, and far from accurate.
        There is no hard data on these global scale events..only theorys !

        10

        • #
          John

          Of course there’s a limit to how much CO2 the land and ocean will hold. Hence why there is CO2 in the atmosphere. The oceans and land only absorb so much before they reach their equilibrium limit.

          You can’t emit 1500 Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere and expect it’ll just vanish into the oceans and land without leaving a trace and without altering the balance of CO2 in the land/sea/atmosphere..

          Tell me, if the recent 1000 Gt increase in atmospheric CO2 has nothing to do with our recent emission of 1500 gt of CO2 into the atmosphere, then where did our 1500 Gt go?

          10

          • #
            farmerbraun

            ” the amount of CO2 that will transfer”.
            You’re tilting at windmills.

            10

          • #
            robert rosicka

            I’m curious John exactly what is the limit ? , as far as I was aware CO2 levels have been a lot higher than today’s .

            10

          • #
            Chad

            John, you are fooling yourself with numbers.
            The 3200GT is just the average permanent amount in the atmosphere which theoretically has a “exchange “ or turnover flux rate of approx 800GT per year from natural processes …800GT added and 800 GT re adsorbed to oceans and land.
            ( all numbers are very approx, +-10%,…since exact measurement is impossible and highly variable) ..
            Mans contribution of approx 35GT per year is lost within the margin of error (160GT) for the total flux movement.
            If this “Carbon Cycle” was in balance as claimed , prior to mans actions, how is it that it can now manage to remove an extra 50% (17GT) of mans efforts but only that much ?
            No the reality is that the fauna/ flora have huge potential for “adjusting” to the available CO 2 to compensate for such changes.

            10

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            My mates and I ate 10 tonnes of sausages once.

            00

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Staggering figures without context, but it took ten days and there were over 10,000 of us.

              The big numbers you quote are meaningless.

              00

        • #
          Brian

          Er Chad. if the carbon sinks could absorb the cumulative increase in CO2 then the partial pressure would not have increased by 30%.

          00

          • #
            sophocles

            John alleged (erroneously):

            there’s a limit to how much CO2 the land and ocean will hold

            The limit John, is all the free CO2 in existence now, especially that in the oceans.
            The oceans are the big regulator. They turn the excess CO2 into stone by adding it to Calcium and precipitating it as Calcium Carbonate. It happens constantly. All the Time.

            Find photos of all those nice pretty pure white monumental buildings in all the cities around the world. Those buildings were once atmospheric carbon dioxide some 300 million (give or take 150 million) years ago.

            That’s why the CO2 content of the oceans and the atmosphere is so constant.

            (I’m surrounded by idjits and dummies, or is that idiots and dunnies?
            Just had to throw that Ad Hom in :-D ).

            Neither the atmosphere nor the oceans can fill up. But both can empty out. Excess CO2 is just turned to rock. (It’s helped along by all the foraminifera and other plankton in the oceans building their shells too. When you run out of Monumental Megaliths to Think about, think about the chalk cliffs around the world …)

            One day, the world will end: there will be no CO2 left in the oceans or the atmosphere and earth will be dead. That day is not too far away — maybe about 200 – 300 MY to go. None of us here now will be alive by then but there’s no need whatsoever to hurry it up and hasten it with Carbon Capture programs. They are suicidal.

            In Memorium: Homo Sapiens Sapiens, the species which killed its planet.

            Life is a Gas — CO2 — the Gas of Life..

            10

            • #
              sophocles

              This is why we need to recycle “fossil fuels.” It keeps the last day of Earth farther away so don’t listen to the “fossil fuel fools.”

              00

      • #
        TdeF

        John, firstly in at least one place in the IPCC report they talk of fossil fuel CO2 being in the atmosphere for ‘thousands of years’.

        Secondly, the assumption that you can put more on one side of a permeable barrier and it stays there is not what happens. You get this even in water barriers and it is called osmosis. Equilibrium ratios will be set by physical variables like temperature, pressure and not by quantity.

        You propose that a single CO2 molecule may be replaced with another molecule and still be there, but once you allow molecules to move between air and water, you have a question to answer. What decides how much is eventually on each side? Science has an answer for that, surface temperature.

        Further consider that our entire industrial CO2 output is tiny compared with the amount of CO2 in the ocean. 98% of all CO2 is in the water. So if you believe we have added 50% to the CO2 in the air, this only adds 1% more to the total. And in time it will still be distributed 98% to 2% but of 1% more CO2.

        Equilibrium is unstoppable, a fact of life. How much CO2 is in the air is not controllable by man. Even the IPCC admit that tacitly. However they try to say it will take hundreds, even thousands of years to happen. The accidental experiment with doubling C14 shows that is wrong. All the 1965 CO2 is gone in just 55 years.

        And without the deep ocean, radioactive C14 cannot just vanish completely from the biosphere.

        40

  • #
    pat

    AUDIO: 4m41s: 24 Feb: ABC AM: Australia’s power grid at ‘critical’ status, Energy Security Board says
    By Peter Ryan
    In its annual health check of the grid, the Board says extreme weather over the summer and strain on ageing coal fired power stations have stretched the capacity of the system.
    On the upside, the rapid growth in wind and solar generation could see renewable energy account for 40 percent of consumption by 2040, but that is also posing a threat to keeping the lights on.
    Featured:
    Dr Kerry Schott, Chair, Energy Security Board
    https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/australias-power-grid-at-critical-status/11993346

    if u don’t want to listen to above:

    24 Feb: ABC: Solar power contributes to cheaper energy but also ‘critical’ grid instability, warns ESB
    By senior business correspondent Peter Ryan and finance correspondent Phillip Lasker
    The security and reliability of Australia’s power grid is now at a “critical” status, according to a report out this morning from the Energy Security Board (ESB), even as power prices start falling…

    ESB chair Dr Kerry Schott told the ABC’s AM program that the surge in wind and solar generation has been an added complication in the grid’s ability to handle new energy sources.
    ***”The difficulty that we’ve had with reliability has been with the very severe temperature events over the summer and high temperature days concurrently in a number of states,” Dr Schott said.
    “The last resort is to start shedding load, which cuts demand involuntarily, which did happen two or three times over the summer.”

    Dr Schott said climate change was a factor in the extreme weather events and has warned of more to come.
    “Particularly over the summer, it has certainly been an issue and that’s appearing to be more likely than it once was,” she explained.
    “The weather events are expected to continue to become extreme [though] not necessarily consistently. There’s no doubt that temperatures are going up and that is a stress.”

    While climate change is expected to worsen, the ESB report also highlights “remarkable growth” in renewable energy generation driven by falling technology costs, government programs and consumer preferences, with rooftop solar now accounting for 5 per cent of energy production.
    In its annual health report on the national energy market, the ESB forecasts that renewable generation will expand from 16 per cent of the market in 2018-19 to 27 per cent by 2022, before surging to 40 per cent in 2040…

    “The grid is congested, it’s weighed down and it’s not coping with the rapid change that’s occurring across the energy system at the moment,” added Mr Thornton.
    Dr Schott warned that the surge in renewables also posed a return threat to the grid and its ability to consistently keep the lights on.
    “The system wasn’t built for it [renewables], but neither was anyone else’s system in the world and everyone is going through the same type of change,” she said…

    However, there is also another threat to both renewable energy and the national electricity grid.
    The chief executive of Pacific Hydro Australia, Rachel Watson, said that this was a lack of certainty about which technologies would receive Federal Government backing…

    Others argue the renewables sector is a victim of its own success.
    Many more homes have solar panels generating electricity, and people are using energy more efficiently, meaning electricity demand has flattened out since 2010.
    “If you’ve got flat demand and not a lot of need for energy in general there’s not going to be a lot of need for renewable energy,” Matt Harris, head of Renewables and Climate Change at Frontier Economics, observed.

    The renewable energy sector wants the Federal Government to increase its energy market mandate by lifting the Renewable Energy Target to prepare for the phasing out of coal plants…
    The ESB report forecast that, by 2042, almost all of the ageing coal fired power stations will be replaced by wind and solar combined with pumped hydro and battery storage…
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-24/solar-power-means-cheaper-energy-but-grid-instability/11993776

    40

  • #
    pat

    lengthy, read all:

    24 Feb: The Oregonian: Oregon Senate Republicans walk out over climate cap-and-trade bill
    By Hillary Borrud; Editor Betsy Hammond contributed to this report
    SALEM — Republicans in the Oregon Senate fled the Capitol on Monday to stop Democrats’ bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions after the plan cleared a legislative budget committee earlier in the day.

    At Monday’s 11 a.m. Senate floor session, just one Republican showed up: Sen. Tim Knopp of Bend. Democrats waited as sergeants at arms searched Capitol offices to see if they could round up any other Republicans. But they were unable to find any, so Senate President Peter Courtney, D-Salem, adjourned the chamber until Tuesday.
    https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/02/oregon-senate-republicans-announce-walkout-over-climate-cap-and-trade-bill.html

    20

  • #
    pat

    25 Feb: ABC: South-west Queensland watching floodwaters rise after rain drenches the state
    By ABC reporters
    An emergency flood declaration has been declared for the township of St George in the southern inland as floodwaters continue to rise in south-west Queensland.
    The Balonne, Maranoa and Warrego rivers have major level flood warnings with flood levels expected to peak at St George on Wednesday night.
    St George is on flood alert with residents in low-lying parts of the town preparing to evacuate…

    Expected flooding could match 1950 level
    The Balonne River is expected to exceed 12 metres late on Wednesday, impacting homes outside the town’s levee.
    When it does, it will be on par with the 1950 flood level, which remains as the fifth-largest flood recorded in the small rural community since 1890…

    Severe weather warning follows ex-TC Esther
    The system has transitioned to a tropical low and will continue to bring heavy rain and damaging wind as it weakens.
    It made landfall as a category one system on Monday afternoon and is now moving west through the Northern Territory.
    Queensland Fire and Emergency Services’ Emergency Management Coordinator, Elliot Dunn, said dozens of properties on Mornington Island lost power, but structural damage from the system was minimal.
    ***”As far as cyclones go it was quite a well- behaved one,” he said…

    Floodwaters in the Warrego River at Charleville are falling after peaking lower than expected overnight.The river reached 5.7 metres on Monday night, below the expected 6.3 metres…
    Additional swiftwater rescue crews are being stationed at regional locations following heavy rainfall across north and central Queensland…
    Thunderstorms likely in south-east…
    “With the next upper trough we will see a little bit of severe thunderstorm activity,” (BoM forecaster Gabriel Branescu) said.
    “Just after we saw those hundreds of millimetres over the weekend over the southern interiors the rivers are responding quite quickly.”
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-25/flood-alert-for-parts-of-queensland-following-weekend-rains/11997328

    30

  • #
    pat

    5mins in, Fran says CEOs who speak out risk retribution from the media!!!

    AUDIO: 10m31s: 25 Feb: ABC Breakfast: Call for CEOs to speak out on climate change
    PIC: DUSK, CHIMNEYS, “SMOKE”
    Meanwhile, it’s back to the future with yet another round of the climate wars in Canberra, with the Morrison Government slamming Labor’s target of net zero emissions by 2050.
    But now a group that drives business action on climate change is pushing CEOs to speak out more on the issue, claiming they’ll be punished if they don’t plan for a lower-emissions future.
    Guest: Kylie Porter, executive director, ***Global Compact Network Australia
    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/call-for-ceos-to-speak-out-on-climate-change/11997188

    ABC’s summary leaves out the most telling bit about Kylie’s org – the UN:

    ***UN Global Compact Network Australia: Kylie’s career includes working for ANZ Banking Group, National Australia Bank (NAB), Standard Chartered, KPMG and Save the Children…
    Kylie was also a member of the Climate Principles and Chair of the Project Finance and Corporate Banking Working Group; a set of principles for the management of climate change within the financial services sector.
    Before joining the GCNA, Kylie was the Stakeholder Engagement Manager for Corporate Responsibility at NAB where she held responsibility for internal and external engagement on NAB’s corporate responsibility strategy and management of reputation risk issues…

    27 Jan: SMH: Government urged to set ‘more aggressive and ambitious’ climate goals
    by Mike Foley
    Kylie Porter, the executive director of ***United Nations affiliate Global Compact Network Australia, said the federal government must set “more aggressive and ambitious” climate targets before the 2020 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow in November.
    “If we don’t come up with some pretty strong policy before the next international climate change conference … it’s highly likely that Australia’s reputation will get worse,” Ms Porter said…
    Global Compact Network Australia is an arm of the UN Global Compact for sustainable development, with more than 12,000 corporate signatories including a number of leading Australian companies such as BHP, ANZ, Coles and Australia Post. It is calling for a commitment to limit warming to 1.5 degrees…
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-urged-to-set-more-aggressive-and-ambitious-climate-goals-20200127-p53v3l.html

    20

    • #
      Furiously curious

      On Paul Murray’s show last evening he showed ANZ’s woke adds that had stirred up a storm from the LGB… crowd, through they’re trying to be so woke, and pointing out, maybe they should concentrate a bit more on their core business, where they have managed to incur a large number of fines. Maybe Coles the same?

      30

  • #
    bobl

    Jo,
    This article desperately needs a correction, while emissions are steady the renewables are manufactured elsewhere and you haven’t accounted for those manufacturing emissions. Nor have you really accounted for removing CO2 sinks to make way for them or for losses and self consumption of the energy they make.

    10

  • #
    pat

    Youtube 6m21s: 24 Feb: Sky News: Chris Kenny: Waleed Aly is ‘unashamedly woke on climate change’
    Sky News host Chris Kenny says Channel 10′s The Project is “unashamedly woke, pitching its program and what it calls news at the young, and presumably, the ill-informed”.
    Mr Kenny referenced a recent report by Waleed Aly where the host presented Germany “as an exemplar on climate change action and sensible, efficient energy policies”.
    In comparison, Australia was contrasted as a country that wasn’t “doing anything” to combat the issue.
    “The Project claimed Germany is showing Australia the way in the here and now,” he said.
    Mr Kenny referenced recently released reports which showed German electricity prices were “the highest of the major world economies at 34c a kilowatt hour”.

    He said Germany’s power prices were 41 per cent higher than Australia’s at 24 cents per kilowatt hour and 126 per cent higher than the United States.
    “Waleed Aly and The Project say we should be emulating the wonderful climate action success story of Germany,” Mr Kenny said.
    “Is that what The Project is arguing for, or do they really think they can just pump out fake news and no one will ever check out the actual facts.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y0iA21eYsc

    40

  • #
    Furiously curious

    Bjorn Lomborg conversing with John Anderson. Pretty pertinent.

    https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=FahqlByHXM&t=49s

    00

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    25 Feb: Dubbo Daily Liberal: Dubbo Regional Council votes on renewable energy target
    by Orlander Ruming
    Dubbo Regional Council aims to make half of its energy consumption renewable by 2025…

    25 Feb: RenewEconomy: Queensland not on target on renewable target, says advocacy group
    by Sophie Vorrath
    The report card from Solar Citizens finds the Sunshine state lagging behind on all measures of its renewable energy goal, including – remarkably – rooftop solar, which fell just short of its 2020 target of 3GW.
    Of greater concern, however, is a lull in the development large-scale renewables projects, which last year prompted Green Energy Markets analyst Tristan Edis to describe Queensland as “almost dropped off the planet” in terms of big solar and wind commitments and power purchase agreements.

    The lull has been blamed on a mix of issues, including significant downgrades in marginal loss factors and strict new connection and commissioning guidelines that are causing lengthy delays and major cost over-runs for projects in the development pipeline…READ ON
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/queensland-not-on-target-on-renewable-target-says-advocacy-group-56197/

    25 Feb: RenewEconomy: Renewable transition happening, despite lack of federal policy
    by Giles Parkinson
    “We are moving forward,” says Rick Francis, the CEO of Spark Infrastructure, which owns distributed networks in South Australia and Victoria, is a part owner of transmission company Transgrid, and is developing a new business that has direct ownership in large scale renewable energy projects and possibly batteries…
    Over the next 12 years, another 8GW of coal capacity will retire due to old age, much of this in NSW which will be left with just 13 per cent of its current fleet…

    “Existing coal generation is becoming less reliable and more costly to operate,” the company says…READ ON
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/renewable-transition-happening-despite-lack-of-federal-policy-84047/

    20

  • #
    pat

    25 Feb: Reuters: Europe’s top firms must double low-carbon investment: study
    by Simon Jessop
    LONDON – Europe’s top companies need to more than double their current level of spending on low-carbon projects to meet the European Commission’s flagship goal of ‘climate neutrality’ by 2050, according to a report released on Tuesday.
    The major study of 882 publicly-traded companies across multiple sectors by climate research provider CDP and consultancy Oliver Wyman showed they spent 124 billion euros ($134.1 billion) on capital investment and research and development in 2019.
    That amounted to around 12% of total investment. To be on track to meet the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 however, that figure needs to jump to 25%, said CDP Europe’s Managing Director Steven Tebbe.

    The biggest areas for new investment were electric vehicle technologies, with spend of some 43 billion euros, renewable energy, at 16 billion euros, and energy grid infrastructure, at 15 billion euros, the report said…
    While doubling capex spend was “a big ask”, Tebbe said the costs of inaction were higher stil…READ ON
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-europe-carbon/europes-top-firms-must-double-low-carbon-investment-study-idUSKCN20I2KX

    20

    • #
      Maptram

      They keep saying “investment” in renewables. Investment normally means a positive return, on the money spent.

      10

      • #
        sophocles

        They keep saying “investment” in renewables. Investment normally means a positive return, on the money spent.

        Right.
        That’s the only warning you will get. All `returns’ on their `investments’ are theft … from you and yours.

        00

  • #
    pat

    23 Feb: KPTV Oregon: Electrical box causes house fire in Crook County
    When deputies arrived, they found the owner and ranch workers trying to get some personal items out of the house before it became engulfed in flames…
    An investigation revealed that the fire likely started in the solar electrical box located outside of the home’s attached garage, deputies said.
    Firefighters with BLM were called as a precaution in the event the fire spread and became a wildfire, deputies said. Community members also assisted with fire trucks to help extinguish the fire.
    The residence was a total loss.

    21 Feb: OilPrice: Natural gas is crushing wind and solar power
    By Tom Kirkman
    For some reason, the media complains lately that Natural Gas is a reliable, cheap and abundant competitor to wind and solar – which are unreliable, expensive, and require backup systems for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.
    Seems to me that Natural Gas being reliable, cheap and abundant is a GOOD thing, not something to complain about.

    Meanwhile, the United States continues to reduce its carbon emissions into the atmosphere at a faster pace than virtually every other country in the world. This is because natural gas is not just cheap. It is one of the cleanest ways to produce scalable and dependable electric power for a nation of 320 million people. We don’t need brownouts in America as we saw in California, and natural gas is an excellent way to make sure the lights don’t go out.
    It would be hard to find anything NOT to like about this great American success story: energy independence, reliable and inexhaustible supply, low prices, reduced power of the Middle East, Russia, and other OPEC nations, and cleaner air than at any time in at least a century…

    A recent Bloomberg news story exclaims in its headline: “Cheap Gas Imperils Climate Fight by Undercutting Wind and Solar Power.”
    “Gas is such a bargain that it’s being viewed less as a bridge fossil fuel driving the world away from dirtier coal toward a clean-energy future,” the story tells us, “and more as a hurdle that could slow the trip down. Some forecasters are predicting prices will stay low for years, making it tough for states, cities, and utilities to achieve their goals of being zero-carbon in power production by 2050 or earlier.” Ravina Advani, head of renewable energy at BNP Paribus, complained: “The fact that there’s an abundance of it makes the move to complete decarbonization much harder … Gas is a tough competitor. It’s reliable, and it’s cheap.”
    And that is bad news, why, exactly? It’s like saying a cure for the coronavirus is bad for hospitals and doctors…

    The Left talks about eradicating “poverty,” but “energy poverty” is a primary source of deprivation around the world…
    Instead, politicians and government bureaucrats around the world are trying to force-feed the world expensive, unreliable, and unscalable wind and solar power. The African Development Bank, for example, is only financing “green energy” projects, not coal or natural gas. It is substituting a cheap form of clean energy for a costly “green” alternative. Why?…
    Let the market, not politicians and environmental groups, choose the safest and most reliable and affordable energy source…

    https://community.oilprice.com/topic/9737-natural-gas-is-crushing-wind-and-solar-power/

    22 Feb: StopTheseThings: Scotland’s Wind Industry Clear-Fells 17,283 Acres & Wipes Out 14,000,000 Trees To ‘Save’ Planet
    Across Germany, millions of acres of forest have been clear-felled and great swathes cut through others, to allow some 30,000 of these things to be speared across Deutschland.

    The same wanton destruction has been integral to Scotland’s wind power disaster, where, so far, 13,900,000 trees have been chainsawed and/or bulldozed out of existence. All, of course, in order to ‘save’ the planet. Where phony eco-warriors jump for joy, real environmentalists are left to weep as natural habitats for all manner of birds and animals are turned into industrial wastelands.

    More than 13.9 million trees felled in Scotland for wind development, 2000–2019
    National Wind Watch
    Scottish Forestry
    16 January 2020
    A Scottish citizen made a freedom-of-information request, to which Scottish Forestry replied as follow…READ ON
    https://stopthesethings.com/2020/02/22/scotlands-wind-industry-clear-fells-17283-acres-wipes-out-14000000-trees-to-save-planet/amp/

    10

  • #
    Robber

    If, as we keep getting told, “renewables” are so much cheaper than coal or gas, then why do we need targets? Surely the market will move in that direction as investors look at maximising their profits, with no need for any incentives.

    30

  • #
    pat

    ???

    25 Feb: AFR: Myopic Australia looks at the wrong climate number
    It’s not our small carbon contribution that matters, it’s the disproportionate damage Australia will suffer in a warmer world.
    by Adrian Blundell-Wignall
    (Adrian Blundell-Wignall writes on the world economy and is a former director of the OECD)
    Australia’s government is fond of saying there is no evidence that our domestic greenhouse gas emissions are linked to the fires and floods…
    It’s true that Australia’s domestic CO2 emissions are only 1.3 per cent of the global total, and this pales in comparison to the rest of the world. Mere annual increases in China’s CO2 emissions account for another Australia about every 13 months. But it is precisely this situation that underscores why we need to be at the very forefront of action on climate change. Let me explain why.

    At the OECD I had the pleasure of dealing with Munich Re in our insurance meetings on catastrophic risk. Their professionalism with data collection and modelling is the benchmark. According to Munich Re data, Oceania (Australia, New Zealand and smaller island states) accounts for 5.9 per cent of the relevant global loss-events related to climate change – disproportionate compared to our 1.3 per cent CO2…
    Support for coal is untenable. It counts for 45 per cent of Australia’s domestic C02 emissions…

    Getting the right price on carbon will equally speed the innovations on the PM’s wish list. Jobs in renewable energy and upstream and downstream ancillary activities would quickly come to outpace coal jobs. And as I have stressed before, a carbon equalisation tax at the border helps to protect and create jobs outside of the coal industry, while incentivising other countries to follow suit…

    As it stands, Australia is regarded with disdain on the global stage for using clever arithmetic while leaving emissions untouched. At the same time, we busily promote and subsidise the sale of coal to developing countries while stating, cynically, that it is not Australia’s place to lecture them.

    Look again at the graph. Think about the bushfire and floods we experienced recently. Then try to picture what “worse” might look like in the future.
    https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/myopic-australia-looks-at-the-wrong-climate-number-20200225-p5443r

    The Conversation: Adrian Blundell-Wignall, Adjunct Professor, School of Economics, University of Sydney
    Dr. Adrian Blundell-Wignall was the Special Advisor to the OECD Secretary-General on Financial Markets and Enterprise Affairs until October 2018…
    He has a 1st class Honours degree and PhD in Economics from Cambridge University, UK.
    He is the author of extensive publications on financial markets and monetary policy in learned journals and books, as well as broker analyst studies and reports.
    Senior Positions LIST
    http://theconversation.com/profiles/adrian-blundell-wignall-764663

    10

    • #
      pat

      read all:

      25 Feb: BBC: Africa grapples with clean energy conundrum
      By ***Serusha Govender, Johannesburg
      PIC: African climate protest – coffin, Coal Kills
      Africa is both the world’s least electrified continent and the most vulnerable to climate change…
      There is a large amount of investment, much of it from overseas, going into renewable sources. But the continent also has untapped reserves of oil and natural gas, which it aims to exploit…

      ***CHART Powering Africa Major sources of electricity in 2017 (WIND AT BOTTOM; SOLAR NOT EVEN LISTED)

      South Africa, the continent’s most developed economy, has been labouring through crippling power cuts for several years. It is also struggling to move away from its dependence on coal, which is a cheap source of energy for the country…
      CHART

      The problem for the government is the need to preserve employment in the coal mining sector while also decommissioning the ageing coal-fired power stations…
      Focus on Africa will be debating the future of the continent’s energy needs on Tuesday at 1730 GMT on the BBC World Service.
      https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-51615647

      the writer:

      ReutersInstitute/Uni of Oxford: ***Serusha Govender Freelance Journalist/Producer South Africa
      Thomson Reuters Foundation
      She’s also covered energy policy from Capitol Hill in Washington D.C., has acted as an expert facilitator for renewable energy dialogues hosted by the US Embassy and the South African Environmental Affairs Department…
      Her feature work has appeared in publications including CNNHealth.com, eNews Channel Africa, Huffington Post, Guardian US, Foreign Policy, AfroBeat Radio, Africa.com, RealHealth Magazine, IPS Africa, The Daily Meal, and Applause Africa. She has been featured on CNN International, NPR, Mix 102.3 (Australia), SABC News Radio, Arise America, ABCNews.com, and FoxNews.com. Serusha also reports for Channel News Asia, MENA News, TRUE Africa, GOOD magazine and VOA News.

      Serusha holds two masters degrees: an MA in Science Journalism from Columbia University in New York City and an MPhil in Ancient Cultures from the University of Stellenbosch…
      In addition, she’s a Robert Wood Johnson fellow, a CNN International Journalist fellow (CJF), an IWMF fellow, and Carnegie Foundation grantee…
      https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/people/serusha-govender

      20

  • #
    Zane

    Net Zero 2050. Another meaningless political slogan, like the ” War on Poverty “, etc. The idea is to impoverish the West while the Chinese, Arabs, and Russians go to town.

    10

  • #
    pat

    open access:

    25 Feb: Australian: NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service in bushfire hazard burning U-turn
    Exclusive by Yoni Bashan, NSW Political Correspondent
    After months spent defending its annual hazard reduction target of 135,000ha during the devastating summer bushfire season, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service has asked for more money to increase its burning operations on the state’s crown lands and ­national parks.
    By submitting a budget request for additional funds to enable it to reduce fuel loads on forest floors, the service has, in effect, conceded its recent efforts to control the bushfires did not go far enough and more work will be required to prevent a repeat of the calamity this year.

    The Australian has been told the business case calls for a significant increase to the amount of hazard reduction the agency undertakes around homes, properties and environmental assets.
    The revelations jar with accusations made by Deputy Premier and Nationals leader John Barilaro earlier this year that the agency was “ideologically opposed” to ­increasing controlled burning.

    An official familiar with the matter said NSW Environment Minister Matt Kean instructed ­officials to nominate whatever figure they thought necessary to prevent a repeat this summer’s fire conditions.
    The request is being assessed by Treasury officials.
    “Our submission has been ­developed by experts and the best science,” the official said…

    According to its annual report figures, the NSW NPWS reached its hazard reduction target of 135,000ha in 2018-2019, but fell short during its previous two years, by 29 per cent and 35 per cent respectively…

    For Mr Kean, any move to increase hazard reduction activities is likely to play well with his ­Nationals colleagues, some of whom have criticised his response to the fires and accused him of pushing a “green ideology” by linking the fires to climate change…
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/nsw-national-parks-and-wildlife-service-in-bushfire-hazard-burning-uturn/news-story/da26cb0b66a21591e4065cda87a6bb73

    10

  • #
    Zigmaster

    The proof that it’s not about emissions and not about dangerous climate change is that most alarmists refuse to consider Nuclear energy. If you genuinely believed the world would end without drastic measures, then nuclear is the only choice. From a cost point of view it’s ok but from emissions and reliability point of view nothing comes near it. If all the money wasted on renewables had been put into nuclear generation you would have a reliable energy system with zero emissions.
    The real story is about bringing about political and societal change and it is important that this retrograde step is resisted at all levels.

    20

  • #
    observa

    Spot the pea and thimble trick as even Aunty can’t ignore the bleeding obvious much longer

    10

  • #
    grant

    You are spinning this information all wrong! You should be saying that the efforts towards a renewable source of energy have resulted in Australia blocking any increases in CO2 generation….its a positive thing that CO2 has been kept from rising (to levels that might help plants better survive in times of drought). /sarc

    20

  • #
    Drapetomania

    John
    February 25, 2020 at 2:45 pm · Reply
    “And you wonder why people called deniers idiots….”

    And you wonder why people call $CAGW$ Cult obnoxious hypocritical drones who use cars and are connected to the grid and think virtual signalling will save the planet.
    Go back to sleep..

    00

  • #
    sophocles

    Astronomical Update:

    We’ve got an incoming comet: Comet Atlas.

    It will be quite an eyeful (naked eye visible) in both hemispheres during late May as it passes through Taurus and the Pleiades
    This is its projected flight plan:
    https://www.universetoday.com/145036/comet-y4-atlas-in-outburst-first-good-comet-for-2020/

    00