How feasible are these 2050 targets?

The year 2050 is the target moment for those who want an end to greenhouse gas emissions, and a lot of countries have signed up to it. Ours hasn’t yet, thank goodness. The target year is a long way away, and nearly all of those who have signed up to it won’t be alive then, I should think. I shan’t be there — I’d be 113 if I were, and that is rather unlikely, to say the least. How is the process of transition going to work? I haven’t seen any detailed plans for implementation. I doubt there are any, at least in the world of publication. It all seems to depend on technological advances that are referred to as likely, R&D that is going to be funded on a gigantic scale, advances in the use of elements like hydrogen, and giant batteries, the like of which we do not have now. I am sceptical about all of this, but don’t really care, because I don’t think it will happen and to repeat, I won’t be here anyway.

Well, Vaclav Smil, a Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Manitoba, has written a clear and accessible article suggesting that 2050 is far too soon a target-year for all of this to take place. It’s an interesting piece in other ways, too, for it is built around the notion of ‘energy transitions’, the first of which was the shift from traditional biofuels (wood, charcoal and crop waste) and ‘animate prime movers’ (human and animal muscle) to inanimate energy converters like water-wheels and windmills. That transition took a thousand years or so. Then came the second shift, to the burning of fossil fuels for heat and to generate electricity. This second transition began in the 19thcentury and only after 1950 in most of Asia. The place of coal declined after 1900 as the use of oil and gas increased.

The author goes on: In contrast to previous energy transitions the unfolding quest for decarbonization is not primarily driven by resource shortages or technical imperatives (most of the existing conversions are highly efficient and also very reliable). Today’s quest for decarbonization has one dominant goal: limiting the extent of global warming. The goal is to establish a new global energy system devoid of any combustion of carbon-containing fuels or the world with net-zero carbon emissions where a limited amount of fossil fuel combustion would be negated by the removal and sequestration of the gas from the atmosphere resulting in no additional carbon releases…

 Later he adds this quirky thought: The most important fact of rising concerns about global warming is that the world has been running into fossil carbon, not moving away from it. He provides chapter and verse: China and India are responsible.

 And then this: Historians of energy transitions are not surprised by this development, as history shows that neither the dominant sources of primary energy nor the common energy converters can be displaced rapidly and completely in short periods of time. The high degree of the global dependence on fossil carbon and the enormous scale of the fuel-dominated global energy system mean that the unfolding energy transition will inevitably follow the progress of all previous large-scale primary energy shifts and that it will be a gradual, prolonged affair.

Smil argues that it really doesn’t matter how much more alternative energy we have. [Even] if the decarbonization of global electricity generation were to proceed at an unprecedented pace, only the availability of affordable, massive-scale electricity storage would make it possible to envisage a reliable system that could rely solely on intermittent renewable energies of solar radiation and wind… Even securing just three days-worth of storage for a megacity of more than 10 million people that would be cut off from its intermittent renewable sources (a common occurrence during the monsoonal season in Asia with heavily overcast skies and high winds) would be prohibitively expensive by using today’s commercial batteries.

It’s not on, he might have said. The only way to store electricity at gigawatt scale is pumped hydro, which is a lengthy business and not really efficient. Anyway, at a global level, electricity generation accounts for only twenty per cent of total final energy consumption. The other eighty per cent is much more challenging, and he goes on to set out why. He sees electric vehicles (EVs) as representing at best twenty per cent of all cars in 2040. But that’s just cars, so to speak.

Shipping and flying present particularly insurmountable challenges as only high energy density fuels can power massive container ships carrying more than 20,000 steel units on their long intercontinental routes (Smil2019) and high-capacity commercial airliners. He points out that while air-conditioning relies on electricity, heating in cold parts of Eurasia and North America now relies overwhelmingly on natural gas delivered by large-diameter trunk lines and dense networks of small-diameter distribution lines serving more than half a billion customers. Obviously, replacing this fuel supply and abandoning this extensive infrastructure will not be achieved over a single generation.

He has styled ammonia, cement, steel and plastics as the four pillars of modern civilisation, and all of them depend on fossil fuel stocks. Without the synthesis of ammonia, he argues, half of today’s global population would not be here. And there are no available non-carbon alternatives that could be readily deployed on mass commercial scales. There are innovations that the green dreamers rely on, but none of these innovations has been deployed even as pilot plant experiments, and once again, it is obvious that scaling up those processes that may eventually prove acceptable in order to reach annual outputs of hundreds of millions, even billions, of tonnes is a task that would take generations to accomplish.

And to conclude, Designing hypothetical roadmaps outlining complete elimination of fossil carbon from the global energy supply by 2050 (Jacobson et al. 2017) is nothing but an exercise in wishful thinking that ignores fundamental physical realities. And it is no less unrealistic to propose legislation claiming that such a shift can be accomplished in the US by 2030 (Ocasio-Cortez 2019). Such claims are simply too extreme to be defended as aspirational. The complete decarbonization of the global energy supply will be an extremely challenging undertaking of an unprecedented scale and complexity that will not be accomplished — even in the case of sustained, dedicated and extraordinarily costly commitment — in a matter of few decades.

This is tough stuff, and since it accords with my own thinking I am inclined to agree with him. It’s a good paper, and well worth a read. It makes me feel, yet again, that the whole 2050 target has nothing to do with science and technology and a great deal to do with politics. I hope that our PM, who must know all this, can be prevailed upon to stick to his current strategy — say as little and do as little as possible in this fraught domain.

 

 

Join the discussion 286 Comments

  • Neville says:

    I heartily agree Don and the entire idea is just more BS and fra-d and would bankrupt any country that was stu-pid enough to try.
    And it wouldn’t make any measurable difference to climate or temp by 2100 and beyond EVEN IF WE REDUCED HUMAN co2 EMISSIONS TO ZERO TODAY.
    Or for a thousand years, see The Conversation article, the Zickfeld study, The RS and NAS etc.

  • Tony Thomas says:

    The unfeasibility of newt zero targets is also spelt out here
    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/10/maths-is-hard-for-the-green-minded/

    • Neville says:

      Thanks for your Quadrant article Tony and both you and Roger Peilke are always good value and very accurate as well.

  • Neville says:

    And the CSIRO informs us that the entire SH is already net zero, so let’s leave it up to the NH countries to follow this BS and nonsense and leave us alone.

    • Stu says:

      Yes, a bit like Covid you seem to be suggesting. Good luck with that.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Better luck than consciously destroying our economy for zero effect on the climate, even if (a very big IF) the alarmists are correct.

        But don’t you worry Stu Micawber, wishful thinking will lead to something turning up!

  • Stu says:

    Quote “ I am sceptical about all of this, but don’t really care, because I don’t think it will happen and to repeat, I won’t be here anyway.” So there is an admission of that characteristic of the denier-sphere that I have been criticised here for suggesting exists.

    It is a rather loose comparison but the folk who served and died in WW2 did not see the outcome either but they made their contribution to it. A precautionary approach to AGW does seem to be sensible to some at least. And until the knockers come up with a good theory and models that can explain the changes going on, if they do not relate to CO2 I see every reason to proceed the way we seem to be heading. There is a great deal of classic reactionary thinking on the subject which I read somewhere, but cannot find the link, has a high correlation with advanced age.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Stu compares “the folk who served and died in WW2 did not see the outcome either but they made their contribution to it” with SJWs.

      What a stu-pidly shallow comment about heroic people who fully understood what was in store for their beloved country and culture if they were not prepared to put their lives on the line.

      Comparing their total understanding, love and commitment with your half baked, evidence-free “precaution” is obtuse arrogance.

      Did you really mean a loose comparison, stu, or a screw-loose comparison?

      • Aert Driessen says:

        Stu, you say “… come up with a good theory and models that can explain the changes going on, if they do not relate to CO2 I see every reason to proceed the way we seem to be heading.” Don’t you understand the meaning of a ‘one in a sixty year event’, or a ‘one in a hundred year event’? It means Stu, that all these things have happened before, and even more severely. Do some reading Stu, and do yourself a favour.

        • Stu says:

          “Don’t you understand the meaning of a ‘one in a sixty year event’, or a ‘one in a hundred year event’? It means Stu, that all these things have happened before, and even more severely.”

          That looks like a classic misunderstanding of what climate change is about and what the scientists are saying. Don’t you understand the reality of the climate system highs and lows? The issue is the shifting of the temperature curve to the right over time. There are plenty of places exhibiting more new extreme highs than extreme lows, but those lows will also continue.

          Back to your “one in sixty and one in a hundred” year events. There are also “one in longer time frame events” such is the nature of seasonal climate. And if you check you will find the weather (not climate) and town planning folks are talking about having to revise those numbers. This is because these “one in a hundred year” events are happening too often.

          • Aert Driessen says:

            Stu, As a geologist, I know more about climate and climate change than weather and weather change. We have good and reliable proxy data on Earth’s climate since the start of the Cambrian, 540 million years (Ma) before present (BP). Over that interval, there is absolute no correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2, nil. Indeed in that time span we are close to the lowest CO2 level, down to 400 ppm from around 6000 ppm or more over certain periods. We have cycled in and out of several ice ages, irrespective of CO2 levels. Indeed we are currently in an ice age, albeit in what is known as a (warm) interglacial epoch which, going by the duration of previous interglacials (roughly 10,000 years or more), must be close to ending (according to satellite data it hasn’t warmed for 20 years). All short-term climate variations (call them weather patterns if you like) since to last ice age 11 ka BP, lie within the limits of natural variation, meaning nothin unusual going on, and indeed on a downward (cooling) trend. You don’t have to read learned book about this. Just googling ‘Holocene climate optimum) will explain much and also show useful graphic plots. As for town planners, by all means look again at your data, but my general advise would be, don’t build on flood plains even though that is the cheapest place to build. Building dykes in strategic location might also help; ask the Dutch for advice on that. As for CO2 sequestration, be careful what you wish for. If atmospheric CO2 drops to around 180 ppm, we are all dead. All said and done, climate change is what happens between ice ages.

      • Stu says:

        You will see I wrote “ It is a rather loose comparison ”. Analogies are often like that. Do pay attention.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “And until the knockers come up with a good theory and models that can explain the changes going on”.

      It would be useful if the alarmists could “come up with a good theory and models that can explain the changes going on”. So far they haven’t. They come up with stuff that deludes the scientifically ignorant, but that is all.

      • Alessandro says:

        BJ you stole my comment! Yes the theorists have yet to provide the evidence not models (which turn out to be useless) or vapid predictions which never eventuate. Mankind never seems to learn from history but the new greens are inventing history so I guess they may learn that invented history is as useful as the above mentioned models.

  • Karabar says:

    As we slide from Western Civilisation and the Enlightenment back into the Dark Ages, the populace seems to thrive on myth and witchcraft.
    The entire drive against coal and other fossil fuels is based on the delusion that carbon dioxide plays any significant role in determining the weather.
    There is simply no reason to believe that it does. Nor is there any reason to think that the Earth and the atmopshere that surrounds it bears any resemblance whatsoever to a “greenhouse”.
    Yet as Edward Bernays so aptly pointed out, propaganda can shape an entire populace so long as the lies are enormous and repeated incessantly.
    So long as we continue to ignore reason and logic, the world populatioon will exhaust itself in pursuit of six impossible things before breakfast, “net zero” being one, and gene therapy that poses as a “vaccine” but which is actually intended to cause ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement) being another.

    • Stu says:

      “ As we slide from Western Civilisation and the Enlightenment back into the Dark Ages,”. Classic denialist ploy, emotion filled exaggeration and wrong.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        ” Classic denialist ploy, emotion filled exaggeration and wrong”

        That is classic alarmist technique, emotion filled exaggeration and wrong.

    • Chris Warren says:

      What a slow, slow learner…

      The entire drive against coal and other fossil fuels is based on the delusion that carbon dioxide plays any significant role in determining the weather. There is simply no reason to believe that it does. Nor is there any reason to think that the Earth and the atmopshere that surrounds it bears any resemblance whatsoever to a “greenhouse”.

      All of science and all data is showing a clear anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

      • spangled drongo says:

        You forgot to add; but only in climate models.

        • Aert Driessen says:

          Touche SD, and you could have added that there has been no warming since 2000 despite rising CO2, the latter a bonus in the form of a greening planet and increased crop yields.

      • Boambee John says:

        Chrissy

        I’m sure it is only your most becoming modesty that prevents you from telling us which branch of climate science you specialise in, but don’t be shy. Tell us now.

      • Karabar says:

        “All of science and all data is showing a clear anthropogenic greenhouse effect.”
        So let’s use that process called “science” to test the hypothesis.

        The hypothesis relies on the myth that a trace gas, CO2, elevates Earthly temperatures.
        But Geology is clear that changes in CO2 LAG changes in temperature by about 800 years.
        Hypothesis status: EPIC FAIL.

        The hypothesis relies on the idea that the mechanism by which the trace gas influences temperature because it “absorbs” IR energy. This means a higher proportion of CO2 leads to higher temperatures.
        However, this phenomenon is not linear and any such effect is null if CO2 is beyond about 200 ppm. Beyond that there is no effect whatsoever.
        Hypothesis status: EPIC FAIL.

        The hypothesis suggests that an increase from 390 ppm to 410 ppm would result in higher temperatures.
        Yet the very opposite has been the result since about 2006.
        Hypothesis status: EPIC FAIL

        The hypothesis maintains that a “doubling” of atmospheric CO2 would result in an increase of three degrees.
        The CO2 component of Earth’s atmosphere has changed from 250 ppm to over 400 ppm since 1850.
        Yet, if there is any difference in temperature since 1850, it is less than one tenth of that.
        Hypothesis status: EPIC FAIL.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s my last comment on the last issue and is another part of their so called reduction in co2 emissions. And of course just more BS and fra-dulent nonsense and at a cost of many more trillions $.

    I find it incredible that otherwise intelligent people are fooled by the fra-dulent carbon offsets market and others involved are in it only for the money. And other scumbags literally laugh about it as they rake in the dough.

    Who could forget some of these con merchants who laughed out loud during the Planet of the Humans video? Just fits the old saying “laughing all the way to the bank” and I’m sure China and other developing countries have many belly laughs to share.

    Way back I mentioned the Bernie Madoff scandal /fra-d/ponzi scheme that was quickly solved by Maths genius Harry Markopolous, but wasn’t acted on by the US SEC etc for a further 9 years and by then more financial ruin and untold damage to many more people.
    But all the different fra-dulent con merchants and schemes involved in their so called Climate crisis are a lot more complicated and involves govts of all persuasions across the globe. Of course today the fra-dulent schemes involve trillions $ and yet we’ve hardly started to have a serious conversation about this in our media.

    Here’s a few paragraphs about the carbon offsets BS and fra-d from “The Conversation” article linked to by SD a few days ago. Andrew Bolt covered this topic years ago, but nobody today seems to have the nerve to take this on, although it is just more BS and fra-d and this time literally makes money out of the air we breathe. And much laughter, illusion and fantasies as they sell their con tricks.

    “Its failures are already accounted for”

    “To help explain the new hype around carbon offsetting and its return to a central position in climate policy, I argue in a new paper in the journal Environmental Politics that one of the reasons carbon offsetting continues is because of fantasy. According to a psychoanalytic approach to the critique of ideology – which has been advanced prominently by the philosopher Slavoj Žižek – fantasy is a means by which ideology takes its failures into account, in advance.

    Fantasy helps explain why knowledge about intractable problems may not stop carbon offsetting: its failures are already accounted for within the ideological formation. To research this further, I linked psychoanalytic theory to transcripts of interviews that I conducted with 65 practitioners involved with carbon offset markets. My analysis suggests that many of those involved recognise, at different levels, the gap between the spectacular portrayals of carbon offsetting and its deficiencies in practice. Awareness of this gap is managed through cynical forms of reasoning and knowledge disavowal.
    Problems are known – but suppressed

    Cynical reasoning involves knowledge that one is perpetuating an illusion or a problem, but doing it anyway. It sometimes involves laughter which mocks the predicament of the self. For example, one person selling offsets told me they only partly believe in carbon offsetting, and then laughed. Knowledge disavowal involves knowing about the existence of problems, but suppressing that knowledge. Those involved in carbon offsetting need not laugh at themselves all the time – disavowal also works for them.

    Cynical reasoning and disavowal are not very disruptive to the social fantasy, which circulates through markets populated by experts who proclaim that offsets are genuine and legitimate. Figures of authority in the offset market – people with claims to expertise who talk about “high-quality” offsetting – reinforce fantasy. Doubts about offsetting are calmed, because even if one person does not (fully) believe, someone else will do it for them, in a process that repeats.

    Furthermore, fantasy shapes our desires, so this account helps explain the emotions, enthusiasm and hype. On some level, people want to believe in carbon offsetting because it offers to rekindle capitalism’s promise that we can enjoy consumerism without being too concerned about ecological crisis, by delivering a seductive story of power and status in which somebody else cleans up the mess. Even if you are already an offset sceptic, we had better recognise that this fantasy runs deep”.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Good and logical points, supported by evolutionary experience, Don.

    It’s interesting how the SJWs like our stu can adopt their line of wishful thinking without ever showing us their logic or how it will ever work.

    I wasn’t aware that back in his school days the kiddies were being brainwashed like today. He sounds like my grandchildren. You have to feel sorry for the little suckers.

    How long will it take for their true belief to be shattered?

    • Aert Driessen says:

      How long SD? Until snow fails to melt completely in the summer that follows, and the next winter adds more snow. That’s how glaciers and ice sheets form, and it will mark the end of the interglacial, and resumption of the ice age that we are already in.

      • Alessandro says:

        Maybe the Eugenisist Billy Gates should be patient and let the nutcases destroy our energy assets such that when the big freeze comes mankind will freeze to death. Except of course all those billionaires/trillionaires/godzillionaires who will be living above their privately owned gas fields.

  • Aynsley Kellow says:

    Good article Don – and a good link. Many are now realising that the basic physics are against replacing fossil fuels with renewables and batteries or pumped storage. MJ Kelly pointed to them in 2015 in ‘Lessons from technology development for energy and sustainability’. The land use implications alone involved in supplying megacities like Shanghai with solar and wind mean that they would be surrounded with many sq.km. of the things, displacing agriculture and all other uses. The low density and low load factors mean vastly expensive transmission infrastructure – huge demands for copper, etc to go with the huge requirements for battery chemicals. And then there are the waste implications: solar panels and composite turbine blades (and batteries) cannot be recycled so go to landfill.

    Even with nuclear, I think Lomborg has suggested the world would need to be commissioning a nuclear station every day to make that target. The basic physics cannot be changed.

    • Boambee John says:

      Aynsley

      Stu and I started (but did not finish) a discussion onnmoving from fossil to ruinables on the previous thread. I think some pounts are worth repeating here. It related to defining any sudden abandonment of current electric power supply systems.

      Since I think that the whole concept of grid scale energy based on solar, wind and batteries in their present state of development is a fantasy, my definition of “sudden” is any reduction in reliable supply before ruinables demonstrate that they are able to provide reliable, continuous, supply at all times and in all weather states – sunny, cloudy, night, day, at all wind states.

      For “abandonment”, I would say allowing the current capability to provide reliable, continuous supply to be reduced before solar, wind and batteries demonstrate that capability.

      Once the Australian East Coast fossil and hydro grid is not fully capable of maintaining supply in the absence of adequate ruinable systems, any further loss before new developments in solar wind and battery technology will constitute such sudden abandonment. Note that a major fossil plant in NSW is expected to close soon, and one in Victoria not long afterwards.

  • Neville says:

    Now even Duke Uni has cancelled Lomborg and he was to deliver a speech on UN based data and evidence. And Lomborg like Shellenberger, Koonin etc only wanted to quote UN /IPCC data about their so called Climate Change and how much wealthier everybody will be in another 50 years.

    He quotes the UN data that tells us that unmitigated CC will reduce each persons wealth from about 3.6 times more than today to 3.5 times more. What a catastrophe or a loss of 0.1. And he wanted to show the area burnt in the last OZ fires compared to the last century and apparently the students wouldn’t have been able to cope with so much information? Of course Shellenberger and Koonin etc also quote the same numbers.

    Here’s the article from Jo Nova based on Lomborg’s column from the Australian. I’ve said it before but the so called mitigation of their so called CAGW has to be the most expensive con trick in world history.

    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/03/lomborg-50-years-of-unmitigated-climate-change-might-leave-us-only-356-richer-instead-of-363/

  • Neville says:

    So why do we need to have net zero emissions by 2040 or ’50 and how is this possible?
    Well Pres Biden the leader of the most powerful country tells us in this video that we are facing an existential threat for humans and he actually mentions this a number of times in a couple of minutes. He also tells us we can “feel this in our bones” , but I seem to have missed that feeling.
    I certainly understand the data since 1800, 1900, 1950, 1970, 1990 etc and of course the human race is today much healthier, wealthier and has a life expectancy of about 72 years. All 7.8 bn of us and that average is made up of Africa ( 64) China (76) wealthy countries like Australia ( 83) etc.
    And the Pres of the UN loves the EXIST….. word and always seems to use it in any number of interviews about SLR or whatever.
    But even if we get all our electricity ( mission impossible) from dirty, toxic S&W etc how does that help us with the remaining 70%+ ( at least) of our energy needs until 2050 or 2100?
    Don’t forget these loonies are telling us that the human race is threatened because of that extra 0.0065% of co2 in our atmosphere. Remember Dr Hansen and Bill McKibben etc ( 350.dot org) tell us we must reduce co2 levels to a safe 350 ppm.
    So at present we have about 415 ppm less 350 ppm= 65 ppm and that’s about 0.0065% too much co2 in our atmosphere.
    But don’t worry because China, India+ developing countries are happily building hundreds of new coal power stns and couldn’t care less about any of Biden’s, delusional, stu-pid BS and fra-d.
    Any sane comments?

    • Boambee John says:

      Neville

      “He also tells us we can “feel this in our bones”

      Biden is an old man, it’s probably arthritis.

  • Neville says:

    Here we have Boris Johnson and Corbyn clashing over their so called CAGW + emission reductions and just proves what a waste of space these people are and particularly Corbyn. Thankfully he lost everything at the last election and he should now listen to his brother and learn something.
    But Boris regularly tells us today that their so called CC is the greatest threat to humans and the planet, certainly a much greater threat than pandemics like CV-19. And he and Biden are the type of donkeys leading us into their dirty, toxic future of more S&W idiocy.

  • Pete S says:

    Very optimistic Don to think that our PM must know all this.

    • Neville says:

      Yes Pete S and I often worry about that point and wonder about our so called leaders ability to properly understand any of the data.
      Labor and Greens are completely clueless on the subject, but I always expect more from the Coalition, but perhaps that’s too optimistic in 2021? Who knows?

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    https://www.timelesstuvalu.com/
    Welcome to water world. Before it sinks.

  • Neville says:

    Perhaps the EU countries are starting to wake up and we may soon see Gas generation labelled as OK and GREEN.
    I’ll believe it when I see it, because these donkeys are some of the most stu-pid people on the planet. But we can only live in hope.

    https://www.rfi.fr/en/europe/20210323-alarm-over-leaked-eu-plans-to-label-gas-plants-as-green-taxonomy-fossil-fuel-environment?mc_cid=39bbe7a200&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b

  • Neville says:

    So how are some of their spooky stories about their so called CAGW holding up after 15+ years?
    Here’s a goody from their SMH in April 2005 and further nonsense from the Flannery donkey.

    https://www.smh.com.au/national/running-out-of-water-and-time-20050425-gdl6xe.html?mc_cid=39bbe7a200&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the latest Mauna Loa co2 levels comparing FEB 2020- 414.34 ppm to FEB 2021- 416.75 ppm or an increase of 2.41 ppm in the last 12 months.
    And this was during a lock down from so many of the world economies and during the worst global pandemic since 1918.
    And so far we’ve seen an increase in co2 levels of about 16.75 ppm since Paris COP 21 in DEC 2015. That’s at least 2.5 ppm per year since DEC 2015.
    As I’ve said before China, India and developing countries are laughing all the way to their banks. Here’s the NOAA link for Mauna Loa.

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

  • Hasbeen says:

    One point that is ignored by all greens, & often even those who see the stupidity of renewables, is that windmills have a useful life of a maximum of 20 years. Considering this the suggested number required to replace fossil fuel generation is much greater than realised.

    Every windmill existing today, & virtually any built in the next ten years would be dead by 2050.

    Any generating useful power in 2050 would have to be built after 2030. The number required to be built annually after 2030 thus becomes much more massive & 5% of that massive fleet would have to be replaced annually, just to tread water with capacity.

    This is totally unaffordable on going, but kids & politicians with no math will only see this when the lights go out.

    • Boambee John says:

      Considering also the environmental problem of disposing of old turbine blades (and also the massive concrete and steel foundations for wind generators) there should be an environmental levy placed on each one as it is being built, to pay for later disposal.

      Similarly for solar panels. Far from being subsidised, there should also be a disposal levy placed on them.

    • Neville says:

      Yes Hasbeen and I’ve been telling our blog donkeys that S&W are the dirtiest most toxic form of energy on the planet.
      And I always remind them that S&W only last about 20 years and the entire toxic mess has to be placed in landfill forever.
      And the area covered by this unreliable toxic mess is about 500 times the area of a good RELIABLE, BASE-LOAD power stn that lasts about 50 years. Add up the monster environmental coverage disaster + the landfill toxic mess every 20 years and you can easily see the disaster we are causing.
      But these crazy LW donkeys couldn’t care less.

  • Neville says:

    More from Jo Nova about the wonderful GREENING of the planet because of the extra co2.
    And yet the silly donkeys are trying to remove this life giving gas from our atmosphere and are willing to wreck the above ground environment as well as burying the entire TOXIC S&W mess underground every 20 years as well. What could possibly go wrong ?

    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/03/forget-implicit-subsidies-fossil-fuels-subsidize-the-whole-world-feeding-people-and-forests-for-free/#comments

  • Neville says:

    More on NOAA’s data ( all stations) on GLOBAL co2 increase DEC 2019 to DEC 2020 and the increase over the last 12 months was even higher than Mauna Loa.
    Mauna Loa was 2.41 ppm increase and GLOBAL co2 increase was 2.74 ppm.

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

  • Neville says:

    There seems to be recent study swings in world population trends by 2100 and now some studies estimate pop could drop from a high later this century to under 10 bn by 2100.
    But African countries and India seem to be the countries with by far the highest increases in pop by 2064 and by 2100.
    See graph for some countries at the link, but those estimates from a few years ago of 11 bn + by 2100 now seem to be too high. Who knows?
    So where is their climate crisis/ apocalypse etc or the Biden donkey’s claims of a looming EXISTENTIAL THREAT ? What a mob of jokers.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/15/world-population-in-2100-could-be-2-billion-below-un-forecasts-study-suggests

  • Boambee John says:

    Strange. Stu is cinvinced that the political momentum for ruinables is unstoppable, but is unwilling to comment on the feasibility of their being adequate for the task.

    The Mr Micawber policy? Live in hope that “something will turn up?

    • Neville says:

      Yes BJ and why would any sane govts or their leaders choose the dirtiest, most toxic form of energy and wreck their environments?

      • Boambee John says:

        Neville

        I saw an article suggesting that the US will use diplomatic and trade strategy to push through “carbon free” energy systems by 2035. This would include the major “polluters”, China and India.

        The sting in the tail is that the proposed solution, while partially based on ruinables (no more than 35%of total output) would principally be nuclear, with modular reactors and a big research push on fusion.

        Not sure how our local ratbags will swallow that!

  • Neville says:

    BJ I’m not sure that it’s true, but if Biden, Harris, AOC etc are behind this I’d be very surprised.
    It seems to require far too much intellectual depth than the stu-pid Biden+DEMS have shown so far. But if it’s true and Nuclear does become a major part of their energy mix in the USA and elsewhere I’ll be very surprised. Who knows, but surely that should allow them to immediately drop the Ruinables disaster today and have little impact on the underground and above ground environment forever?
    But I’ll believe it when I see it, because L W donkeys have shown ZIP ability to follow logic and reason up to now.
    Then again perhaps silly Biden feels this in his bones?

  • Neville says:

    Nick Cater from the Menzies Centre has recently produced polling showing Aussies are moving to a more sensible attitude to Nuclear energy.
    And even the LEFT Essential polling found more support for Nuclear in a 2019 Guardian article.

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/18/australians-support-for-nuclear-plants-rising-but-most-dont-want-to-live-near-one

    “Australians’ support for nuclear plants rising – but most don’t want to live near one.
    Essential poll finds 44% of Australians support nuclear power plants and 40% oppose them”.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s a part of Michael Shellenberger’s testimony before Congress last week. Just read the facts and shudder that we would even consider extending this clueless S&W disaster.
    And just proves the insanity of installing the dirty, toxic S&W disaster in the first place. And clueless batteries are just more super expensive, insane Mickey mouse fairy tales.

    “Testimony before the United States House of Representatives
    Committee on Energy and Commerce
    For a hearing on “Power Struggle: Examining the 2021 Texas Grid Failure”
    Written statement submitted by:
    Michael D. Shellenberger
    Founder and President Environmental Progress

    March 24, 2021

    Excerpts:

    “Shellenberger: California’s retail electricity prices rose eight times faster than the nationwide average in the 10 years between January 2011 and December 2020, due to its increased use of variable energy sources. This occurred despite falling prices for natural gas, which provides the biggest share of the state’s electricity production. Today, California households pay 55 percent more than the national average per kilowatt-hour of electricity. In 2020, California’s electricity prices rose 7.5 percent, compared to just 0.25 percent in the other 49 states.

    None of this is unique to the U.S. Germany, which has deployed more variable renewable energy than any other nation in Europe, has used various regulatory mechanisms and subsidies to prevent utilities from going bankrupt, and its electricity prices rose 50 percent in the 15 years after 2007. In the first half of 2020, German electricity prices were 43 percent higher than the European average.

    It is not the case that energy storage would have helped in Texas. Energy usage was so extreme above available capacity that even a large amount of batteries would have been drained only hours into an event lasting for four days. Instead, batteries would’ve had to be saved for weeks or even months only to dump their power in single-use discharge, a business model that cannot justify the cost of building and charging the batteries in the first place. Batteries must operate a very large number of times to pay for themselves.

    Part of the problem in Texas was that wind and solar farms set the price for the rest of the system. The total number of negative price hours, whereby power plants had to pay people to take unneeded electricity, grew dramatically between 2019 and 2020, just as they did in California during the same period, and have grown since. Some analysts claim those negative prices are a good thing because they are a market signal to buy batteries. But batteries help with minutes of electricity not days and would thus not have helped prevent the outages in Texas.

    The system in Texas in the end was based on the idea that a greater number of unreliable energy sources would add up to greater reliability. The idea in Texas was that electricity price spikes would somehow result in electricity generators, but there was a collective action problem. The monies and the costs were divided up into thousands of different parties, none with sufficient interest to guarantee the whole system’s reliability.

    We should be grateful to Texas and California for dramatically reminding us that less reliable elements of a system make the system, all else being equal, less reliable. Adding transmission and storage to systems that rely increasingly on variable energy sources will raise electricity’s costs, and
    those higher costs threaten, in turn, the grid investments we need to ensure resilience to extreme weather”.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Shellenberger’s FEB 2021 testimony to the House of Reps on farm+ forestry data/facts over the last 100+ years and even the ongoing recent improvements as well.
    Just about every paragraph yields new data and information that the majority of people I meet are unaware of and some become very hostile if you try to press the point.
    But Dr Rosling also found that at times the most ignorant people are the so called tertiary educated groups. It’s called confirmation bias and really annoys lefties when anyone tries to enlighten them about their so called climate crisis or their stu-pid existential threat or apocalypse or so called CAGW.
    I know this is a long read but it is worth the effort and he has links+ refs to support his testimony. Of course Lomborg has been documenting this data for decades and now Dr Koonin has joined them in their fight for common sense.

    https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2021/2/28/testimony-by-michael-shellenberger-before-the-house-agriculture-committee-on-climate-change-and-the-us-agriculture-and-forestry-sectors

  • spangled drongo says:

    2050 targets achieved with slave labour are very feasible:

    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/03/time-to-boycott-slave-made-solar-panels/

    But with incredible hypocrisy attached.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Even if the 2050 targets are feasible [which is a huge if] under reasonable and realistic assumptions for climate sensitivity, the social cost of carbon may effectively be zero or even negative.

    IOW, these targets are completely unnecessary:

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/03/19/the-social-cost-of-carbon-and-climate-sensitivity-is-model-manipulation-at-its-finest

    • Boambee John says:

      Sd

      The only way those targets are feasible with current technology and scientific knowledge (which is not the same as “the science”), is using nuclear power.

    • Neville says:

      SD thanks for the latest BS and fra-d about their so called SCC.
      I would back Dr Michaels to provide an honest summary, just like Dr Curry, Dr Christy, Dr Spencer, Prof Happer, Dr Lindzen, Dr McKitrick , etc.
      How anyone could fall for the DEMs and Biden garbage about any of this is beyond a joke and the Chinese etc will be very happy to rake in the dough and laugh at our expense.

  • Neville says:

    More left wing extremism from the UK climate con merchants. This would be what we’d expect from Stalin’s USSR or Hiltler’s Germany and China in 2021. Except even China has different priorities today and are not interested in enforcing the use of more toxic, clueless S&W energy. See the story and link.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/only-authoritarian-rule-can-deliver-net-zero-lord-deben-admits/

    “London, 30 March: The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) has condemned the chairman of the UK’s Climate Change Committee for demanding that a powerful group of unelected officials should enforce Net Zero policies, giving them the power to overrule Parliament”.

    “At a green investment event last week, Lord Deben praised the government’s climate policy objectives but referred to the delivery process as “crap” and demanded the creation of a new “powerful body” to force the private sector to act on policy. (Utility Week, 29 March 2021.)

    Lord Deben said:

    “I want to see a delivery system either within or outside the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). We need somebody doing the delivery direction […] You need to have a very clear and powerful body saying what has to happen, these are the priorities and get on with it. Unless we have that this whole thing will be policy strong, policy powerful and policy rich but delivery poor.”

    Lord Deben’s remarks are a clear admission that in spite of a vast web of subsidies and regulations forcing businesses and even the military towards low carbon technologies, these technologies and policies are so lacking in real attraction that progress towards Net Zero is faltering.

    A BBC survey published on Monday revealed that the vast majority of people in Scotland are not adopting low-carbon technologies and options because they “are financially out of reach for most Scots.”

    Lord Deben’s answer to the public reluctance to embrace costly behaviour changes and green technologies is authoritarian and undemocratic: “You need to have a very clear and powerful body saying what has to happen”. Critics might reply that the United Kingdom already has such a body in the democratically accountable Parliament, and that Lord Deben’s demands are an attempt to circumvent that accountability”.

    GWPF director Benny Peiser, said:

    “Lord Deben’s suggestion that Parliament should be bypassed by an all-powerful Committee of Climate Safety is repulsively anti-democratic and also an admission of policy failure.”

    “Deben’s authoritarian proposal confirms the recent warning by Deutsche Bank that Net Zero policies threaten to result in a “noticeable loss of welfare and jobs” and are unlikely to succeed without “a certain degree of eco-dictatorship.”

  • Neville says:

    More here from the Flannery donkey’s BS and severe loss of memory, when it suits him. And yet stu-pid L W fools still hang on his every word and would continue to support his lunacy and dopey ideas.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/tim-flannery-is-a-profit-of-doom-on-climate-scaremongering/

  • Neville says:

    Remember those numerous yarns about Kyoto cherry trees flowering earlier because of their GLOBAL warming nonsense?
    Willis looked up the data and found a very close correlation between flowering and the more recent population increase of the city. Big surprise NOT. So the UHI effect rules once again, check out his graph at the link.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/30/cherry-picking-real-cherries/

  • Neville says:

    China seems to be relishing its position of strength and could wreck Biden and Boris’s climate mitigation BS and COP 26 later this year.
    Let’s hope that they do wreck their garbage and COP 26 and then stay out of it forever.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56584575

  • Neville says:

    It looks like India will be unlikely to commit to net zero by 2060 and let’s hope they also have the strength to tell the Biden donkey to buzz off.

    https://www.hindustantimes.com/environment/india-cannot-bind-itself-to-net-zero-emission-target-chandrashekhar-dasgupta-101617103909208.html

    • Boambee John says:

      Neville

      Apparently Biden plans to push them to change, using trade and diplomatic power.

      WW III, here we come.

  • Neville says:

    This latest GWPF survey shows the UK public are abysmally ignorant about their so called climate change data.
    And with dopey extremists like Labor, Dems, Greens etc and so called leaders like the Binden and Boris donkeys it’s little wonder that people have ZIP knowledge or understanding.
    It seems like everyone is happy to waste endless trillions $ on completely fra-dulent data and for ZERO change by 2100 and beyond.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/perceptions-of-climate-impacts-at-odds-with-scientific-data/

  • Neville says:

    Germany’s NAT Audit Office finds a very real EXISTENTIAL threat that their country should worry about.
    And it’s Germany’s reliance on too much so called Green S&W idiocy and a failure to source more reliable base-load power for their future needs. Like RELIABLE Nuclear, Gas and Coal energy.
    Big surprise NOT, just do the sums and then tell the other world leaders. No need to tell China, India and developing countries, they’ve worked it out for themselves.

    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/04/green-energy-an-existential-threat-to-german-economy-declares-supreme-auditors/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Just how many lies have to be told to justify the 2050 targets.

    In spite of the fact that corals are most diverse in the tropics, our true believers prefer to make it up as they go:

    https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/damning-new-report-reveals-why-the-great-barrier-reef-is-destined-to-vanish/news-story/1cff83c952919db240dde42f44775465

  • Neville says:

    More on the environmental disaster caused by offshore wind farms in the UK. Yet these zombies still believe these environmental disasters are helping to save their planet?
    And the world still intends to waste endless trillions $ on this corruption and fra-d in the decades ahead? And all for ZERO change?

    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-rspb-wind-farms-and-a-change-of-direction/

  • Neville says:

    Gosh more evidence/data that it’s NOT co2 that’s causing so called global warming since 1950.
    The SP holds 89% of the planet’s ice and yet according to this recent NATURE study it hasn’t warmed for the last 70 years.
    And Willis has looked at the USA 48 state ( minus Alaska and Hawaii) temps since 2000 and found only a slight cooling trend. Here’s that recent study.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-020-00143-w#:~:text=Abstract,atmospheric%20concentration%20of%20greenhouse%20gases.

    • Chris Warren says:

      What sort of brain dead stupidity is this.

      Of course remaining ice does not warm up as other parts melt. The extra heat does not rise the temperature of remaining ice because it produces warmer melt-water.

      • Boambee John says:

        I see that our climate scientist Chrissy has branched out into thermodynamics. Needs more precision, however. Is it 0.09 degrees per day? Month? Year? Decade?

        Is this new skill in addition to your specialisation (so far not specified) in climate science?

    • Chris Warren says:

      Just how mischievous is Neville.

      Any one with half a brain knows that the air over south pole land is warming and you can see this from Spencer’s data which shows a trend of 0.09C warming.

      So our idiots try to distract attention to land (which is ice – and stays frozen until it melts).

      Denialists just peddle fake news.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Our blith thinks that a current warming trend of 0.02c for the lower troposphere of the south pole which has an average temperature of ~ -50c and where ice is increasing, is something we should financially destroy ourselves over.

        What personal sacrifices are you making to rectify that situation, blith?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Amazing how the climate religious create alarm out of nothing.

        A paper published on 30th Oct 2015 in the Journal of Glaciology by NASA researcher, Jay Zwally, reported an overall net gain of ice accumulation on Antarctica:

        “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea-level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away.”

  • Neville says:

    Here Willis asks whether the US is burning up?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/01/is-america-burning/

  • spangled drongo says:

    Well waddya know? If we used the nuclear solution in these targets we would solve so many other problems too.

    We’ve known this for nearly a century but the watermelons have been in denial all that time.

    Good to see the Israelis making a “rediscovery”:

    https://unitedwithisrael.org/stunning-israeli-discovery-about-reducing-cancer-mortality/

    • Stu says:

      I am not a gerontologist or a nuclear medicine specialist but that paper looks a little flaky. If you look at the associated map the very small proportion of USA shown as high background is also quite low in population. Second the difference between low and high is not very great. Third there is no distinction drawn between natural background radiation and that released by for example nuclear power creation. Fourth it is a classic huge jump from correlation to causation without any justification. Fifth, at least one of the authors has direct involvement with nuclear industry. Sixthly The greatest area of the US according to the map is the lowest radiation counties yet that is where the greatest concentration of nuclear fuel processing and power generation occurs. Seventh, that area is also the heaviest concentration of industry which would probably explain a cancer difference compared with the sparsely settled environmentally clean and supposedly “high radiation areas”. In short the article quoted is “stunning” but not for the reasons quoted by SD.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu, radiation is natural and found everywhere – it comes from outer space, the air we breathe, and the earth we tread. It’s even in our bodies; naturally occurring radioactive elements in our bones irradiate us on average 5000 times per second. Sleeping next to someone gives us a much higher radiation dose than living close to a nuclear power station – both of which are harmless. The world has known for a long time that radiation saves lives. It cures cancer and other life-threatening conditions

        In Ramsar (Iran), residents can receive doses of up to 260 mSv per year, about 100 times the global average, due to naturally occurring radioactive elements. However, there is no evidence of any adverse health effects in these areas. Often the reverse. Many of these areas actually have higher radiation levels than many parts of the evacuation zones around Chernobyl and Fukushima.

        It’s good to see some scientists spreading facts for a change instead of alarmism.

        You need to get out more and broaden your tiny mind.

        • Stu says:

          You miss the point entirely. Your powers of comprehension need sharpening. Of course there is radiation everywhere, including in the bricks in your house. That silly article you quote was trying to make another point badly. As for your Ramsar story you might want to compare with the Kakadu folk and their long knowledge of “sickness country”. You really should find a better source for your radiation stories. Yes medical radiation can save lives, but it does it by focusing on and destroying particular cells in the body. Trying to portray it as a life giving force is to say the least misguided. You might like to look up the story of the death of Marie Curie from radiation induced leukaemia. Next you will be telling us not to fear nuclear warheads!

          • spangled drongo says:

            Who’s really missing the point here, stueyluv?

            Do you possibly think that when mankind have been living with background radiation for the total length of their evolution, that it isn’t part of their basic structure?

            It’s unbelievable that you would naturally assume that Kakadu sickness is a negative result of this natural radiation yet you ignore science that says otherwise.

            Do you possibly think, like almost everything in life, excess is not to our advantage also applies?

            You little climate pansies need to wake up to the fact that what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger.

          • Boambee John says:

            I see that Stu’s knowledge of radiation is even less than his knowledge of power generation.

            Flying increases radiation exposure Stu. Are airline pilots dropping dead all over the world?

          • Stu says:

            Do wake up guys and leave your natural tendency to contradiction just for the sake of it behind for once. The point I made was that the “science” paper quoted seems poorly constructed and its conclusions questionable. Of course background radiation has been around for ever and yes if you fly at 40,000 feet you get more etc etc. But to leap to the position that the study proves radiation is a wonderful thing so let’s all have more of it is patently absurd. Did either of you actually go and read the full paper, not just the slick summation in the United with Israel rag? Probably not. Oh and by the way the next time you have an X ray note how much trouble the dentist or radiographer goes to in avoiding exposure, and how thick the walls of radiation oncology units are. They don’t seem to accept your hypothesis that soaking up more than the regular background is a good thing, healthy even, hah.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stueyluv sez “leave your natural tendency to contradiction just for the sake of it behind for once.”

            And then proceeds to contradict just for the sake of it.

            The point I made was that humans daily experience 100 times the recommended dose of radiation and not only survive but possibly survive better than those who don’t.

            That has been known since the 1930s and is born out in numerous other studies.

            Whereas this paper is being quite modest in reiterating their claims.

            To claim that we “leap to the position that the study proves radiation is a wonderful thing so let’s all have more of it” is just typical of so many of your ridiculous, unfounded claims.

            Stop waffling.

            And try absorbing the science for a change.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Like when they found that higher background radiation levels lead to lower levels of lung, pancreatic and colon cancers in men and women as well as lower rates of brain and bladder cancers in men and that with higher radiation levels, life expectancy increased, it is simply confirming what has generally been known for a long time but has been buried by the watermelons who choose to deny the great advantages of nuclear power for their own political reasons.

            The team used the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s radiation dose calculator, retrieved data about background radiation from the entire country, and compared it with cancer rate data and life expectancy.

            “All in all, it is reasonable to suggest that a radiation threshold does exist, yet it is higher than the upper limit of the natural background radiation levels in the U.S.,” the researchers wrote, concluding that it is time to revise the apparently outdated thinking that all radiation is bad.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “point I made was that the “science” paper quoted seems poorly constructed and its conclusions questionable.”

            Thank you for your scientific advice on the quality of the paper. Should we add nuclear physics to your other scientific qualifications?

            Unfortunately you seem to have missed the subtle difference between background radiation and the high powered sources used in some medical applications.

            Your knee jerk reaction is typical of your reaction to anything you don’t understand. Your attitude to climate change is similar.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Great to see the detailed, predictive “science” these targets are based upon:

    https://realclimatescience.com/2021/04/end-of-the-great-barrier-reef/

  • Stu says:

    BJ “ Thank you for your scientific advice on the quality of the paper. Should we add nuclear physics to your other scientific qualifications?”. Try again. You don’t need to be a nuclear physicist to comment on the basic methodology of a science paper. Nowhere in that paper do I see any justification for the conclusions beyond correlation of the figures. And if you look at the “background radiation” data they quote you will find the conclusion flaky. Not the actual data, but the way they use it. But it is an interesting map. Have you even read the paper?

    “ Unfortunately you seem to have missed the subtle difference between background radiation and the high powered sources used in some medical applications.” Are you really suggesting there is a “subtle’ difference there?

    And finally back on your hobby horse of climate change. Give it a break, it is tiresome.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “Nowhere in that paper do I see any justification for the conclusions beyond correlation of the figures.”

      Your favourite climate change doesn’t even have correlation between temperature and CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Strangely you don’t see any reason to doubt your faith in that.

      “you will find the conclusion flaky. Not the actual data, but the way they use it.”

      Do you have any self-awareness at all?

      ” Are you really suggesting there is a “subtle’ difference there?”

      No, I was highlighting your swift segue from background radiation levels to two completely unrelated examples oh higher intensity radiation use.

      “And finally back on your hobby horse of climate change. Give it a break, it is tiresome.”

      It might have escaped your attention, but the theme of this thread is an unachievable target for “nett zero”, purely hased on hysteria about climate change. The sub discussion followed on from whether nuclear might be an option to meet the target. Sleepy Joe Biden (or whoever is pulling his strings) seems to think that it is.

      • Stu says:

        But I note there is a certain synergy between your acceptance of high radiation figures and high CO2 ppm. Should we draw some conclusion from that? Given that, where do you stand on the evidence spectrum when we look at the acceptance of belief with no evidence (religious faith) versus no acceptance of scientific fact (climate change) with similar conviction?

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          Were you drinking when you composed this? Give it up. This is even more pathetic than your usual drivel.

          By definition, background radiation is lower than the high rate medical examples you cited. As for CO2 levels, if you genuinely believe that they are an issue, then you have two choices. Either continue with solar, wind and batteries, hoping for an unexpected technical break through, or go nuclear.

          The first of those is “belief with no evidence”, the second is scientific fact.

          • Stu says:

            “ By definition, background radiation is lower than the high rate medical examples you cited. ”
            So?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            So what was your point in citing them? A compulsion to be contrarian?

            Nothing to say on providing reliable, continuous, electricity on the way to nett zero? Still working on the Micawber principle? Or the ostrich principle?

        • spangled drongo says:

          BJ, is our stueyluv incredible or what?

          For someone who has never supplied any honest empirical evidence to support his religious belief in man made climate change to then say we refuse to believe his “scientific fact”- free claims of catastrophe requires a very abnormal attitude, to say the least.

          Any “evidence” he has produced has always been subject to:

          “You can prove almost anything with the evidence of a small enough segment of time. How often, in any search for truth, the answer of the minute is positive, the answer of the hour qualified, the answers of the year contradictory!” — Edwin Way Teale

  • spangled drongo says:

    A great statement about “scientific fact” from Richard Feynman:

    “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty—some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”

    But when that same “scientific fact” comes from computer modelling rather than measurable evidence, how much further does this devalue already doubtful knowledge?

    • Neville says:

      Yes SD and the first billion humans alive on the planet required at least 200,000 years and then their life expectancy was under 40 and everyone was poor and sick. See Rosling’s BBC video 1810 to 2010.
      But in just the last 50 years Africa has added another 1 bn people ( total now 1.34 bn) and their average age is about 64 and they have increasing health and wealth and increased urbanisation.
      Yet in 1970 their total pop was 363 mil and life exp was about 47. So where is their EXISTENTIAL threat or climate crisis etc ? And in 1970 co2 levels were way under Dr Hansen’s safe level of 350 ppm.

  • Neville says:

    Wonderful news that the Turnbull nut has been dumped from his job advising the NSW govt.
    He spoke out about new coal mines in the Hunter and all the new REAL jobs this would mean for their future.
    He also favours the use of the dirty, toxic, dilute S&W disasters that would wreck the above and below ground environment forever.
    Why any govt would appoint such a religious extremist is a mystery.

    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/malcolm-turnbull-is-dumped-from-nsw-climate-change-job/ar-BB1fkyfl

    • Stu says:

      “ Wonderful news that the Turnbull nut has been dumped from his job advising the NSW govt.”

      It appears Turnbull is far brighter, far more accomplished and far more successful than you so it is a big jump for you to label him a nut. Certainly he does not subscribe to the anti science agenda of News corp which aligns completely with your position and hence he is a continuing target of the News propaganda machine. You are in “great” company.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Turnbull’s greatest skills are in “failing upwards” and touting his own assessment of his brilliance.

        If only alarmists had an actual “science agenda”, they might be able to offer cogent arguments, rather than hand waving hysteria.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Wow! Great news Neville!

      Yes, hypos like stu and mal are all dowattisaynotwattidoers.

  • Neville says:

    Interesting comments from today’s Ray Hadley show on 2 GB. I wonder if Turnbull will respond?

    https://www.2gb.com/simply-disgraceful-ray-hadley-exposes-malcolm-turnbull/

    “Ray Hadley has accused former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of “making a narrative to suit his own argument” for his opposition to a planned expansion of a coal mine in the Upper Hunter region.

    Mr Turnbull and his wife Lucy put in a submission to the government about the Mount Pleasant Optimisation Project, citing concerns about poor air quality in the region”.

    “The Turnbulls own a property north of the site.

    “Their submission quoted two air quality readings on 1 and 8 March 2021, and described the 2333 postcode as having the “worst air quality in the state”.

    Ray Hadley has revealed the data as “anomalies”.

    “Unfortunately for Mr Turnbull, Mr Turnbull has been ill-advised, or loose with the truth, because on the 1 March 2021, the air quality, varied from -6 up to 113, and the only hour it reached this ridiculous figure, was the hour between 7-8pm at night.

    “We have spoken to experts who tell us that’s an anomaly.

    “At worst it’s a lie, at best it’s a bloke not doing any research and making a narrative to suit his own argument.

    “I am happy today to expose the bloke on the program for the nonsense he said to the Department of Planning.

    “The former PM is guilty by omission.

    “He has taken a rubbery, out of context figure to suit his own purposes, simply disgraceful that either through imbecility, or a deliberate act, he has used figures that are an obvious anomaly to support his flawed argument.”

  • Boambee John says:

    Some points for Stu about his favourite “Big Batteries”, from a commenter (research scientist) at Catallaxy.

    “processing of Australian lithium ore is messy. It has a high temperature step which requires coal or gas at about 1075 C. Then the aqueous extraction step requires acid or alkali, thereby producing a large amount of acidic or alkaline residue – up to 100 tonnes per tonne of extracted lithium. You can see why it’d be easier to do in China.”

  • Stu says:

    BJ “ If only alarmists had an actual “science agenda”, they might be able to offer cogent arguments, rather than hand waving hysteria.”

    But come on now you have to admit that the “alarmist” line of thinking is winning the argument. Why else do you need to keep banging on about it, when your “ reasoning” only exists in backwaters like this space. Who is the “believer”?

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      As you have previously suggested, the “alarmists” are winning the political battle. That is not the same as winning the technical battle, or doing the right thing. But please continue to keep your head buried in the sand, Mr Micawber.

      You continue to ignore the reality that solar, wind and batteries in their present state of development cannot provide reliable, continuous, electricity supply. Do you accept that, or are you a denialist?

      Once a couple more fossil fuel plants close down, in the next few years, that reality will become quite obvious to all but the most extreme deniers of engineering reality. Then the political climate is likely to change rapidly.

      How many times now have you declared victory, then returned to fight on?

      • Stu says:

        We have been down this track before. I am not saying either side is right or wrong. I am saying your side is losing (has lost) the argument. But your ego will not let you acknowledge that fact, instead you cling to the “technical battle”, just playing semantics. Admit it you are just a good old fashioned reactionary.

        “ Once a couple more fossil fuel plants close down, in the next few years, that reality will become quite obvious to all but the most extreme deniers of engineering reality. Then the political climate is likely to change rapidly”

        Yes they are reactionary words alright. Engineering is not a static thing, or we would still be using steam trains or maybe even horses.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          You still rest your hopes on the political victory which you (again) claim is yours (but you also acknowledge that you do not know which side is actually correct).

          Engineering facts are indifferent to politics. If you actually bothered to read my comments, and still had some memory, you would know that I have previously accepted that the political battle has been lost (at least until there are some more South Australian style blackouts).

          Still, since you mention engineering realities, I notice that you are still avoiding answering the question I have asked you many times. Do you accept that solar, wind and batteries, in their current state of development, are NOT able to provide reliable, continuous, electricity? Simple question, even you should be able to answer it, based on the available record. Or does the answer contradict your favoured “narrative”?

          On a separate but related matter, have you any comment on the negative externalities of lithium processing I mentioned yesterday? Or does that contradict the “narrative” too? Heaven forfend that you acknowledge any “negative externalities” of ruinables!

          • Stu says:

            “ You still rest your hopes on the political victory which you (again) claim is yours (but you also acknowledge that you do not know which side is actually correct).”. Are you sitting down, paying attention, no distractions? Yes, I say the science says we have a major problem and it is not natural variation. But for purposes of argument, just so you can say yes or no, I am saying, forget which is right or wrong and admit that yes the “do nothing people’ (that is you) have lost the argument. The world is still being killed by excess CO2 production but the world over, governments and science and science are working to reduce emissions to net zero, eventually. Now you tell me how your lot are doing in terms of anybody significant listening to your songbook.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            You clearly have reading comprehension difficulties as well as a memory problem. I have long accepted that, for the moment, the political battle is lost. That is not the same as the technical battle. Reality ignores the haverings of politicians.

            Again I ask, do you accept that solar, wind and batteries, in their current state of development, are NOT able to provide reliable, continuous, electricity? A simple Yes or No will be adequate.

            You are still ignoring the lithium issue, is it too hard for you to accept a scientific reality?

            As for your “science says we have a major problem and it is not natural variation”, and the “world is still being killed by excess CO2 production”, these are scientifically contested issues being fought by alarmists in a political campaign, because they can’t win the scientific argument. The apparent success of the political campaign does not alter scientific reality.

            Apart from your hysterical (in both senses) comments about matters nuclear recently, have you even noticed that the US seems to be pushing for nuclear power (with a limited level of ruinables as the only way to get to nett zero. I am on board with that, even if gerbil worming is actually a consignment of geriatric bootmakers. Do you support nuclear power as a solution?

          • Stu says:

            Bj you said “ Again I ask, do you accept that solar, wind and batteries, in their current state of development, are NOT able to provide reliable, continuous, electricity? A simple Yes or No will be adequate.”

            And the answer right now is No, so what? Apart from the ACT which also has copious access to hydro show me anywhere in Aus where they are trying to do what you say TODAY. Plus Engineering and technology is not at a standstill and is not a zero sum game. Look t history and how fast the transition from horse and buggy to motor vehicle took place in USA and Europe. Not long, such is the appeal of new technologies.

            As for Lithium etc, again so what? There are negatives with all forms of power and manufacture, some like batteries and EV’s come out better than gas guzzling. And the transition to electric vehicles is being driven by more than legislation and it is becoming an economic game. Start getting your head around driving one and while you are it, enjoy driving while you can. The age of autonomous self driving vehicles is coming fast. The payoff in terms of reduced death and injury on the roads, which will exceed the gains made with seat belts and air bags etc, means that in a relatively short time it will become mandatory. You will need to go to a race track, or third world country, to “drive”.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “And the answer right now is No, so what?”

            Finally an acknowledgement of reality. However, you miss the point. It is not what is being attempted that matters, it is what is going to happen in the near future. When a major fossil fuel plant closes in each of NSW and Victoria in the next few years, there will no longer be adequate back-up for windless nights. Then the politics will get interesting.

            On that subject, I note that you again avoid the nuclear question.

            “Apart from the ACT which also has copious access to hydro show me anywhere in Aus where they are trying to do what you say TODAY.”

            Pedantically accurate, as South Australia went down that path some years ago. That went so well when the Victorian interconnector went off-line, didn’t it?

            “Engineering and technology is not at a standstill and is not a zero sum game. Look t history and how fast the transition from horse and buggy to motor vehicle took place”

            Short in geological terms, but decades in reality. Engineers have been working on solar, wind and batteries for decades, but Nirvana remains elusive. Meanwhile, fossil fuel plants are not being replaced to cover the period until it is achieved.

            “As for Lithium etc, again so what? There are negatives with all forms of power”

            Good to see you so relaxed about the negative externalities of your favoured technologies. Hypocrisy, thy name is alarmist.

            “And the transition to electric vehicles is being driven by more than legislation and it is becoming an economic game.”

            Yet you accept that your favoured power sources are not even adequate for current demand, much less for an expanding EV fleet?

            You would be worth a chapter of your own in the next edition of Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

  • Stu says:

    Regarding CO2.

    “For the first time in recorded history, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, or CO2, was measured at more than 420 parts per million at the Mauna Loa Observatory on the Big Island of Hawaii. It’s a disconcerting milestone in the human-induced warming of the planet, around the halfway point on our path toward doubling preindustrial CO2 levels.
    Pace of climate change shown in new report has humanity on ‘suicidal’ path, U.N. leader warns
    The research station, at an elevation of 11,135 feet on the summit of a picturesque volcano, has been monitoring the weather and chemistry of the atmosphere continuously since the 1950s. Its location allows it to sample some of the purest air available, providing scientists an untainted representation of how humans are irreversibly influencing climate systems.
    When the station began collecting CO2 measurements in the late 1950s, atmospheric CO2 concentration sat at around 315 parts per million. On Saturday, the daily average was pegged at 421.21 parts per million — the first time in human history that number has been so high. Previously, it had never exceeded 420 parts per million.
    “We’re completely certain that the increase in CO2 is warming the planet,” Kate Marvel, an associate research scientist at Columbia University, wrote in an email. “I’m even more certain CO2 causes global heating than I am that smoking causes cancer. The world is already more than 2 [degrees Fahrenheit] warmer than it was before the Industrial Revolution.”
    In addition to the temperature increase, a warmer atmosphere supports more instances of drought in some areas and flooding in others, along with stronger hurricanes and typhoons and the potential for more storms to rapidly intensify in dangerous, unpredictable ways.
    “CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere,” Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the Breakthrough Institute in California, wrote in an email. “The amount of warming that the world is experiencing is a result of all of our emissions since the industrial revolution — not just our emissions in the last year.”
    He noted that’s why CO2 levels at Mauna Loa continued climbing and setting records despite a brief, dramatic reduction in global emissions stemming from the coronavirus pandemic. Emissions have since returned to near pre-pandemic levels.
    Data obtained from glacial ice cores indicates that modern-day CO2 levels are higher than at any point in at least the past 800,000 years.

    But don’t worry Neville, the population is growing, all good eh!

    Article By
    Matthew Cappucci and
    Jason Samenow. Washington Post
    April 6, 2021 at 6:59 a.m. GMT+10

    • spangled drongo says:

      After providing us with all that wisdom stu, like, er, “We’re completely certain that the increase in CO2 is warming the planet,” Kate Marvel, an associate research scientist at Columbia University, wrote in an email. “I’m even more certain CO2 causes global heating than I am that smoking causes cancer. The world is already more than 2 [degrees Fahrenheit] warmer than it was before the Industrial Revolution.”

      So now give us the science that explains why it was warmer during the Holocene [and earlier] when temperatures were higher than now with much lower CO2.

      If you can’t do that you [and they] are just blithering.

      • Stu says:

        “ So now give us the science that explains why it was warmer during the Holocene [and earlier] when temperatures were higher than now with much lower CO2.”. Go and do some reading. The fact that temperatures were claimed to be higher back then with much lower CO2 is the canary in the coal mine. That is the warning about future temperatures we are headed towards. But don’t you worry, you will certainly be dead.

        • spangled drongo says:

          As usual, when I ask our stu for evidence he fails dismally. “go and do some reading” he sez.

          I have been, stueyluv, and in the last 40 years have not been able to find anything other than Nat Var going back millions of years. But if you have, why are you so reluctant to tell us?

          It’s no wonder we have to conclude that you are simply a true believing catastropharian that refuses to see that we have never had it so good.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu, even if you manage to come up with any evidence that CO2 actually does warm the earth, do you ever remember even your true believer mates admitting to the rapid logarithmic diminution effect of CO2?

    This logarithmic effect is an inconvenient fact for Global Warming advocates and alarmists, nonetheless it is well understood within the climate science community. It is certainly not much discussed. This diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv.

  • Neville says:

    Another new study that ties solar variability to the onset of decadal la nina events . Who knows the entire or precise mechanism but energy from the Sun does ultimately drive our climate system.

    And over decades, centuries and thousands of years energy is stored in the oceans and oscillations change and of course over time our climate also changes. Sometimes we have more agreeable climate (since end of the LIA) and life + humans + new tech can flourish.

    See link and summary of the study.

    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-04/ncfa-nst040221.php?mc_cid=ae7ffba38b&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b

    NEWS RELEASE 5-APR-2021
    “New study ties solar variability to the onset of decadal La Nina events”

    Authors apply a 22-year solar clock to find an elusive correlation

    NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH/UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH

    Research News

    “A new study shows a correlation between the end of solar cycles and a switch from El Nino to La Nina conditions in the Pacific Ocean, suggesting that solar variability can drive seasonal weather variability on Earth.

    “If the connection outlined in the journal Earth and Space Science holds up, it could significantly improve the predictability of the largest El Nino and La Nina events, which have a number of seasonal climate effects over land. For example, the southern United States tends to be warmer and drier during a La Nina, while the northern U.S. tends to be colder and wetter.

    “Energy from the Sun is the major driver of our entire Earth system and makes life on Earth possible,” said Scott McIntosh, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and co-author of the paper. “Even so, the scientific community has been unclear on the role that solar variability plays in influencing weather and climate events here on Earth. This study shows there’s reason to believe it absolutely does and why the connection may have been missed in the past.”

    The study was led by Robert Leamon at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County, and it is also co-authored by Daniel Marsh at NCAR. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, which is NCAR’s sponsor, and the NASA Living With a Star program.

    Applying a new solar clock

    The appearance (and disappearance) of spots on the Sun — the outwardly visible signs of solar variability — have been observed by humans for hundreds of years. The waxing and waning of the number of sunspots takes place over approximately 11-year cycles, but these cycles do not have distinct beginnings and endings. This fuzziness in the length of any particular cycle has made it challenging for scientists to match up the 11-year cycle with changes happening on Earth.

    In the new study, the researchers rely on a more precise 22-year “clock” for solar activity derived from the Sun’s magnetic polarity cycle, which they outlined as a more regular alternative to the 11-year solar cycle in several companion studies published recently in peer-reviewed journals.

    The 22-year cycle begins when oppositely charged magnetic bands that wrap the Sun appear near the star’s polar latitudes, according to their recent studies. Over the cycle, these bands migrate toward the equator — causing sunspots to appear as they travel across the mid-latitudes. The cycle ends when the bands meet in the middle, mutually annihilating one another in what the research team calls a terminator event. These terminators provide precise guideposts for the end of one cycle and the beginning of the next.

    The researchers imposed these terminator events over sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific stretching back to 1960. They found that the five terminator events that occurred between that time and 2010-11 all coincided with a flip from an El Nino (when sea surface temperatures are warmer than average) to a La Nina (when the sea surface temperatures are cooler than average). The end of the most recent solar cycle — which is unfolding now — is also coinciding with the beginning of a La Nina event.

    “We are not the first scientists to study how solar variability may drive changes to the Earth system,” Leamon said. “But we are the first to apply the 22-year solar clock. The result — five consecutive terminators lining up with a switch in the El Nino oscillation — is not likely to be a coincidence.”

    In fact, the researchers did a number of statistical analyses to determine the likelihood that the correlation was just a fluke. They found there was only a 1 in 5,000 chance or less (depending on the statistical test) that all five terminator events included in the study would randomly coincide with the flip in ocean temperatures. Now that a sixth terminator event — and the corresponding start of a new solar cycle in 2020 — has also coincided with an La Nina event, the chance of a random occurrence is even more remote, the authors said.

    The paper does not delve into what physical connection between the Sun and Earth could be responsible for the correlation, but the authors note that there are several possibilities that warrant further study, including the influence of the Sun’s magnetic field on the amount of cosmic rays that escape into the solar system and ultimately bombard Earth. However, a robust physical link between cosmic rays variations and climate has yet to be determined.

    “If further research can establish that there is a physical connection and that changes on the Sun are truly causing variability in the oceans, then we may be able to improve our ability to predict El Nino and La Nina events, McIntosh said”.

  • Neville says:

    Geeeeeezzzzz now even Prince William is advising us to hit the reset button so we can avoid their so called climate disaster.
    His lifestyle hardly puts him in the best position to lecture us on how to cut back and live a more frugal way of life. And ditto to his clueless Dad down in his garden playing with the fairies.

    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/04/royal-in-range-rover-asks-everyone-else-to-reset/#comment-2418648

  • Boambee John says:

    The joys of being “100%” renewable, from Their ABC’s Markus Mannheim.

    “Now, the market price is falling below the ACT’s negotiated prices, which means the ACT must pay extra to fulfil its contracts.

    And that’s the main reason Canberrans’ bills will increase — EvoEnergy says it expects its payments to renewable suppliers to more than triple from $42 million this financial year to $127 million in 2021-22.

    There are also differences between the market prices in South Australia (where a lot of the ACT’s contracted supply comes from) and New South Wales (where the ACT’s actual electricity comes from). Those differences are currently disadvantaging Canberra consumers.”

    Renewables are cheaper except when they are dearer. Eric Blair eat your heart out!

    The 2050 “targets” are only feasible with a giant three card trick and nuclear back-up.

  • Boambee John says:

    More alarmist insanity.

    “The idea of artificially cooling the planet to blunt climate change — in effect, blocking sunlight before it can warm the atmosphere — got a boost on Thursday when an influential scientific body urged the United States government to spend at least $100 million to research the technology.

    That technology, often called solar geoengineering, entails reflecting more of the sun’s energy back into space through techniques that include injecting aerosols into the atmosphere. In a new report, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine said that governments urgently need to know whether solar geoengineering could work and what the side effects might be.”

    Well, for a start, it is likely to degrade the already poor performance of solar panels.

  • Neville says:

    We’re told this morning that the Vic govt’s advisory panel has recommended that only EVs should be sold after 2030.
    The cheapest EV is about 45 K and don’t expect to go very far if you want to tow a trailer, caravan or boat. And the toxic EV battery lasts about 7 years and the cost of new charging stns and availability will also be a heavy drain on govts and taxpayers + burying the toxic mess as well, FOREVER.
    Here Andrew Bolt talks to Alan Moran about this crazy push for more toxic ruinables and how China is riding a wave of cheap coal fired energy while crazy western countries wreck their economies with more toxic S&W idiocy that will change nothing and of course ZERO change to climate or temp.
    IOW going woke and going broke and don’t the lefty loonies just love it? And why don’t the L W donkeys ever show us their data and a proper cost benefit analysis? We all know why.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/going-broke-by-being-woke-not-embracing-coal-undermines-our-economic-superiority/video/458855a63331af57993d522895634343

  • Neville says:

    Remember when the Steffen Donkey told us we are seeing the emergence of climate change during the recent NSW floods? And other LW loonies told us that we’re seeing once in 100 year floods?
    Well here’s a quick analysis from Paul Homewood and he uses BOM data and old videos of the 1956 floods to support his claims. Also he uses all the old trove records of drought/floods since settlement of OZ for further support .
    And the 1870 floods were higher than 1956 and this has been recorded at Mildura showing the two flood levels. And co2 levels were 288 ppm in 1870 and 314 ppm in 1956 and WAY below Dr Hansen’s so called safe level of 350 ppm.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/07/australian-floods/

  • Neville says:

    A recent Norwegian study has tried to measure any warming from co2 and seems to be very thorough and with a number of checks and balances. BTW they conclude that co2 warming may be 0.5% and I think that would be about 0.07c of warming if the global average temp ( for example) was about 14.5 c. Here’s the link and abstract and their conclusions. Who knows?

    https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs_2020041718295959.pdf

    Abstract” The Greenhouse Effect was simulated in a laboratory setup, consisting of a heated ground area and two chambers, one filled with air and one filled with air or CO2. While heating the gas the temperature and IR radiation in both chambers were measured. IR radiation was produced by heating a metal plate mounted on the rear wall. Reduced IR radiation through the front window was observed when the air in the foremost chamber was exchanged with CO2. In the rear chamber, we observed increased IR radiation due to backscatter from the front chamber. Based on the Stefan Boltzmann’s law, this should increase the temperature of the air in the rear chamber by 2.4 to 4 degrees, but no such increase was found. A thermopile, made to increase the sensitivity and accuracy of the temperature measurements, showed that the temperature with CO2 increased slightly, about 0.5%”.

    5.” Conclusion The results of our study show the near-identical heating curves when we change from air to 100% CO2 or to Argon gas with low CO2 concentration. Nevertheless, we observed absorption of IR radiation in the front chamber. We also observed the increased radiation density in the rear chamber due to the backscatter from CO2. The change in observed backscatter radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2.4 to 4 K by using the Stefan Boltzmann law. But we only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter. This indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b). The near-identical heating curves for all the three gases indicate that the thermal energy transfer is only driven by the temperature of the back wall of the rear chamber. Without extra heating of the walls in the rear chamber, the air temperature cannot increase. These findings might question the fundament of the forcing laws used by the IPCC. Another possibility is that our setup has unexplained heat losses that cancel the effect of the increased backscatter IR and prevent higher temperatures in the rear chamber, but after testing this and finding only slight losses, we do not see that this could be the case”.

  • Boambee John says:

    Germans losing their enthusiasm for wind.

    “At the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) Andreas Demmig writes about a recent report on wind energy appearing on NDR German public television: “New energy act: More and more wind turbines going off the grid”.

    NDR featured the dismantling of three wind turbines in Altenstedt (Lower Saxony) after having been in operation for 20 years. “They are no longer profitable to operate” after the expiry of the 2o years of guaranteed feed-in tariffs to their operators.

    No longer economical without the subsidy

    The three wind turbines together generated 2 million kWh of electricity annually, meaning 666,666 kWh/ turbine per year. But now that the subsidies have ended, owner Horst Mengels explains he can no longer operate the turbines economically at electricity market prices of less than three, sometimes even one cent. Menawhile private consumers of electricity now have to pay 30 cents and more for a kWh. Repair and maintenance of the turbines are no longer possible at the low market prices.

    Last year, only 200 new wind turbines were built. At the current rate, more turbine capacity will be coming offline than what is being added.

    Prof. Volker Quaschning, expert on green energies, says that the dismantling of wind (and PV) plants, spurred on by the expiry of subsidies, sets back the energy turnaround by years. “If you look back, 20 years ago more was built than what we see today. There is a danger that at some point we will end up with zero new construction, or even a net reduction. – Then we won’t need to talk about climate protection in Germany any more.”

    From No Tricks Zone.

    • Stu says:

      That is a very superficial argument to say “ If you look back, 20 years ago more was built than what we see today. There is a danger that at some point we will end up with zero new construction, or even a net reduction”. Simply put he is referring to the raw number of wind turbines. Given the enormous change in the power of the average turbine 20 years ago and today it would therefore be much more meaningful to consider total generator capacity rather than “number of towers”. It can be argued the reason for the error is self explanatory given the intent of the author. Turbines are now up to 10 times the power of those completed 20 years ago. The very latest are 12MW beasts capable of generating 67 GWh of electricity per year. This is why Germany is now way ahead of their original projections for renewable energy.

      • Boambee John says:

        Good old Stu, always guaranteed to be goggle-eyed about technology.

        “. The very latest are 12MW beasts capable of generating 67 GWh of electricity per year. This is why Germany is now way ahead of their original projections for renewable energy.”

        Nameplate output is an interesting concept, but average output (generally between 30 and 40 percent of nameplate on an annual basis) is more useful. That might be why the Germans have recently built some coal plants.

        Then there is the minor problem of extended periods of too low or too high wind. How are the battery developments coming on? No problems with negative externalities?

        • Stu says:

          Why do you always miss the point completely? If as you say the “ average output (generally between 30 and 40 percent of nameplate on an annual basis) is more useful” then you have not invalidated my point about power versus simple number of towers. This is because you need to apply the same logic to the 20 year old lower “nameplate” towers. Try again.

          How is your list of negative externalities for coal going? Have you read about the number of air quality breaches by mines in the Hunter last year? The by-election in upper Hunter promises to be very interesting. The emerging issue seems to be limiting new mines rather than any change to the existing ones, so the “coal miners employment” issue may be negated. The shooters might come out on top.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “How is your list of negative externalities for coal going?”

            As well as your list of the negative externalities of ruinables.

          • Stu says:

            BJ that has been done many times and coal is the loser. The fossil fuel industry has only prospered through the failure of society to require compensation for the pollution.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu, society has been compensated enormously for the initial “pollution” from fossil fuels.

            If you can’t see how far we have come because of f/fs that simply your ignorance.

            There is nothing in your unobtainium that even comes close.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            That statement “has been done many times” has about the same validity as the statement that “XXX has been refuted” unless you provide evidence (and evidence is not propaganda cherry picked from unreliable alarmist sources).

  • Neville says:

    Thanks for linking to this clueless Wind BS story and I nearly linked to it yesterday.
    But note the last sentence and just proves what a delusional mob of whack jobs these people are. What climate protection are these idiots yapping about???
    “There is a danger that at some point we will end up with zero new construction, or even a net reduction. – Then we won’t need to talk about climate protection in Germany any more.”

  • Neville says:

    More stu-pidity from the Kerry donkey as he jets around the world preaching his dopey, fanatical religion.
    And China, India, Asia, Africa are now building 100s of new coal fired stns and by 2030 to 2050 co2 emissions will be higher than they are today. Kerry + Biden+ the DEMS are totally clueless.

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/drama-queen-john-kerry-climate-action-needed-to-avoid-global-suicide-pact/

    • Chris Warren says:

      You are the fanatical dopey donkey peddling stuff from Trumpy Breitbart propaganda machines.

      • Boambee John says:

        Chrissy brings out the twin boogeymen – “Twumpy” and “Breitbert”.

        Show us on the globe of Gaia where the nasty boogeymen touched you.

  • Neville says:

    More contradictory results from the L W Lowy polling group. People have been conned by our con merchants and L W media, but they still get it correct 50% of the time.

    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/04/making-people-believe-nonsense-the-imaginary-decline-of-fossil-fuels/#comments

  • Neville says:

    More wonderful news on the booming Humpback whale population since 1970.
    Numbers have increased to 40,000 compared to 1500 just 50 years ago. A lot of food for thought in those numbers, because we are told repeatedly by our media that we’re ruining the ocean environment.

    https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/australian-humpback-whale-numbers-surge-scientists-warn-climate-change-threat

    • Stu says:

      It is simple really, if you stop killing them and have not already reduced their numbers below a sustainable level they can bounce back.

      • spangled drongo says:

        If you were a serious sailor, stueyluv, and not just a flat water warrior, you would know that whales are in plague proportions.

        • Stu says:

          “whales are in plague proportions”, Really! Are you sure it is not just “natural variation”?

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            See your earlier point about stopping hunting them. You have already invalidated your attempted “gotcha” about natural variation.

            Try again.

          • spangled drongo says:

            It would be natural variation if we still hunted them more. That’s natural.

            Thank goodness the Japanese still do. They are a great food source.

            Just think of the emissions that would be saved if we did.

            BTW, how many whales have you hit while sailing at night, stueyluv?

            Or don’t you sail off-shore at night?

          • Stu says:

            It was sarcasm for you guys who bang on about NV all the time.

            As for their “plague” proportions please explain what might cause that. They are not mice or locusts benefitting from mankind’s over use of the land.

            And while you are it include the fact that they were not hunted in the southern ocean in a major (industrial scale) till the beginning of the 20th century. The Nantucket guys were here in the 19th but not in a major way with shore based processing.

          • spangled drongo says:

            And there you were telling us you were a sailor.

            If you really were, you would know about those whale numbers.

            Just as you would know about [non] SLR and “climate change”.

            Going outside, experiencing the real world and paying attention improves your tiny mind no end.

            It’s time you started.

          • Stu says:

            “ If you really were, you would know about those whale numbers.”

            Have I said anything about the numbers? Yes there are lots of whales. Are there more, a plague, than before we butchered them? No One knows, we were not around. Sorry, I concede you probably were, you fossil.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu sez:

            “It is simple really, if you stop killing them and have not already reduced their numbers below a sustainable level they can bounce back.”

            And then:

            “Have I said anything about the numbers? Yes there are lots of whales.”

            Do you ever know what you are talking about, stu?

          • Stu says:

            SD writes “Do you ever know what you are talking about, stu?”

            Well you clearly don’t and appear incapable of normal comprehension of the written word. You are the master of misinterpretation, a twister of words, hail Caesar.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu doesn’t even get when he is contradicting himself.

            But you get that when people make no observations for themselves and live in evidence-free vacuums.

  • Neville says:

    More news that India is increasing coal production and will be using coal for a very long time.
    Meanwhile our BS media continues to tell lies to anyone or any group who are stu-pid enough to listen to them about their so called net zero idiocy.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/11/india-ignores-media-preaching-on-net-zero-carbon/

    • Chris Warren says:

      The lies you cry about are all yours.

      • Boambee John says:

        Chrissy re-enters the discussion with a reasoned debate founded on his (so far unidentified) qualifications as a climate scientist.

        We are all convinced; I’ll have a kilo of the cherries thanks.

        • Chris Warren says:

          You would not know what to do with a kilo of cherries and you need to get them yourself.

          • Boambee John says:

            Chrissy

            We used to have a couple of cherry trees.

            They are good fresh, or stewed, or preserved for later. Given the amount of cherry picking you do, I thought you would know that.

          • Chris Warren says:

            So you were always a cherry-picker.

          • Boambee John says:

            Real ones, not the pseudo ones you pick.

  • Boambee John says:

    Debate continues in Canadia.

    “Arctic sea ice grew 27 percent last year, the Department of Environment reported yesterday. The figures contradicted claims by then-Environment Minister Catherine McKenna that the Arctic “is literally melting”

    • Stu says:

      Where do you find rubbish like that. Here is what environment Canada say about 2020.

      “ Again, this year, the early onset of ice melt occurred in the Eastern Arctic as well as northern Hudson Bay and Hudson Strait at the beginning of June. A more modest ice melt event occurred at the same time in the southern Beaufort Sea area. Near to below normal temperatures were observed during the melt season (June to September) along the coast from the northern Alaskan coast to western Amundsen Gulf, around Baffin Island and southwestern Hudson Bay. Elsewhere in the Arctic, temperatures were above to much above normal, particularly over the Arctic Ocean. The ice in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait continued to melt so that by the end of July, they completely cleared except for some lingering ice along the southeastern Baffin Island coast. The ice melt in Eastern Arctic was not record setting like last year however, it ranked around the top three ever since 1968. Meanwhile the southwestern Hudson Bay and southeastern Beaufort Sea areas were a little slower than normal, particularly compared to conditions during the past decade. Certain parts of Hudson Bay, southern Davis Strait as well as the southeastern part of the Beaufort Sea experienced slower than normal ice melt. A similar scenario developed in the southwestern part of Hudson Bay during the mid-period of the shipping season where higher than normal ice concentration covered that area. The impact caused a delay in the development of open water conditions in the area by about one to two weeks.
      Some lingering ice in Victoria Strait from around mid-August to early September required some Coast Guard escorts.
      Freeze up this past fall was significantly later than normal across much of the Canadian Arctic. For the most part, the substantial level of ice melt throughout the Arctic and in particular, the near record setting melt in the eastern section of the Arctic certainly contributed to the delay in ice formation. In fact, by mid-October, freeze-up was five weeks later than normal.
      The minimum sea ice coverage near mid-September was below the median, similar to the minimum from 2010 (see figure 1).”

      https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/eccc/cis-scg/seasonal_summaries/20210118_sumarsue_summer2020.pdf

      There are plenty of other sources showing the downward trend line of Arctic ice over decades. You would do better to stick with your pathetic “there was less ice in the past” waffle. BTW the current thaw is not looking too good.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Poor silly stu is in denial of Nat Var, just like he is in denial of evidence.

        • Stu says:

          Yep, natural variation also includes the effects of varying CO2 concentrations and temperature. I note your Ridley article agrees that increased CO2 is changing the world, but only wants to acknowledge that in one dimension, notably plant growth. If you want to claim that one you have to also allow other effects, don’t you think? And CO2 levels are now where they have not been for over million years and you say no problem.

          • spangled drongo says:

            If you are so certain that CO2 has other effects please explain why, historically, we have had a far greater range of climate extremes with much lower CO2.

            You have been asked this question so many times, stu, but you can never answer it.

            Either answer it or stop making your stu-pid claims.

          • spangled drongo says:

            And BTW, stu at last just admits above that he really is in denial of evidence.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          The evidence that Scientific American offers for declaring a “climate emergency” includes the statement:

          “a sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas”

          It seems that we need no longer worry about the world stewing in its own juice. Now the New Ice Age seems to be (again) the threat.

          Perhaps we need to burn more coal to raise the temperature, as the BBC proposed in the 2970s, the last time a New Ice Age was the perceived threat?

  • Boambee John says:

    It doesn’t always go the way the technology dreamers hope.

    A German “phaseout” of 11 coal fired power plants from January 1 lasted just eight days, after which several plants had to be re-connected to the grid after a prolonged low-wind period.

    Via NoTricksZone. Ain’t Karma a baitch?

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Matt Ridley’s 2016 talk from the GWPF concerning GLOBAL WARMING and GLOBAL GREENING. About 40 minutes.
    You can read the transcript or watch the video at this link and it should wake up everyone about how lucky we are and the wonderful GREENING world we live in today.
    Again this should be compulsory viewing for our kids and every so called adult would benefit as well. So when will the donkeys WAKE UP and why do they insist that we WASTE TRILLIONS of $ every year for a GUARANTEED ZERO RETURN?

    https://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/

  • Neville says:

    This quote from Ridley’s talk about co2 warming and clouds is very interesting. What if higher temps lead to more cloud cooling? Here’s Ridley’s quote.

    “The sensitivity of the atmosphere to CO2 is about 1.2C per doubling. That is the consensus, spelled out clearly (if obscurely) by the IPCC several times over the years. And that’s what we are on course for at the moment.

    So what is the problem? Well, the theory of dangerous climate change depends on a whole extra step in the argument, one that very few politicians and journalists seem even to know about – the supposed threefold amplification of carbon dioxide’s warming potential, principally by extra water vapour released into the atmosphere by a warming ocean, and accumulating at high altitudes.

    This is where the evidence is much more shaky. Some studies find an increase in water vapour high in the atmosphere, others do not. One complication is that water vapour condenses into clouds and we cannot either measure or model clouds anything like adequately yet.

    We know that clouds keep the surface warm at night, while low clouds in particular cool it during the day by reflecting sunlight back into space. But whereas the models generally claim that there is a positive correlation between the net cloud radiative effect and temperature, boosting the water vapour amplification, NASA’s CERES data show that there is a strong and significant, negative correlation: that higher temperatures lead to more cloud cooling. That’s a glaring discrepancy between models and data.

    Consistent with these discrepancies, recent attempts to measure the sensitivity of the climate system to carbon dioxide using real data nearly all find that it is much lower than the models assume, as Nic Lewis, Marcel Crok, Judith Curry and Pat Michaels have shown in recent years”.

  • Neville says:

    This 5 minute BBC video from Dr Rosling should be compulsory viewing for every school child around the world. But then again Dr Rosling’s TED Q&A talks showed that some of the most ignorant, clueless answers were sourced from so called tertiary educated people. Unbelievable but true.

  • Stu says:

    So nifty Neville is back to dragging out old discredited reports.

    “The 5th Viscount Ridley, to give him his official title, is a Times columnist who sits on the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He is also an hereditary Tory peer* a well-known science writer, a leading light in the climate change denial movement, the owner of England’s largest open-cast coal-mine, and brother-in-law of the former environment secretary Owen Paterson.

    His main scientific qualification is a PhD in the mating habits of pheasants, but he “resumed his career in science” in 2007 after a period as chairman of Northern Rock, a position his father held before him, ended in calamity.

    Regular readers will know that Viscount Ridley’s name has appeared on the pages of this website before. And in this context, openDemocracy has nine questions for the paper about this columnist. We have spent many hours trying to get hold of the paper. But they would neither pick up the phone to us nor answer our emails.

    1) Why does the Times allow Ridley to repeat scientific claims which are either untrue or deeply misleading, and which have been widely debunked?

    Ridley has a habit of making claims about climate science which aren’t true. And he has a more frequent habit of saying things which are clearly misleading. For example, he has claimed that “there has been less than half a degree of global warming in four decades”. In fact, the figure is, as Dana Nuccitelli points out, between 0.6 and 0.7°C.

    Likewise, he has a habit of making his beliefs seem reasonable by saying that they fall within the range of outcomes predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As he has written: “My best guess would be about one degree of warming during this century, which is well within the IPCC’s range of possible outcomes.”

    But this is only within the IPCC’s range of possible outcomes if greenhouse gas emissions are drastically cut. So predicting one degree of warming without a vast global effort is absolutely outwith the range of the scientific consensus, and to pretend otherwise is to willfully mislead his readers.

    (Nuccitelli has a full list of these).

    Similarly, Bob Ward, communications director for LSE’s Grantham Institute points out another list of occasions in which the Viscount seems to have misled his readers. For example, Ridley used his column to say that “forest cover is increasing in many countries”: something which, while it technically may be true, is deeply misleading: overall global forest cover has fallen significantly in recent years.

    These are the sorts of untruths which would normally be picked up in basic fact checking. And as Carbon Brief demonstrated in December, when they got a group of climate scientists to go through the transcript of one of Ridley’s most comprehensive interviews and point out his errors, his statements are absolutely littered with them. In any other context, a notable newspaper publishing scientific claims which are simply untrue or deeply misleading would be considered extraordinary. Does the paper fact-check Viscount Ridley’s columns? If so, why does it let him write things which are demonstrably untrue?

    2) Why has the paper repeatedly failed to publish letters from the Grantham Institute’s Communications Director, correcting Ridley’s inaccuracies on the matter?

    In the article above, Bob Ward makes another surprising claim. He outlined two occasions on which he had written to the paper correcting Ridley’s mistakes. Both times, the paper refused to publish. As Ward says: “the newspaper would not agree to publish any letters that drew attention to Ridley’s mistakes”.

    I spoke to Ward for this article. After outlining his frustration on the phone, he sent me the following statement:

    “The regular rants by Viscount Ridley about climate change in ‘The Times’ usually contain inaccurate and misleading statements, which breach the Editors’ Code of Practice. The newspaper rarely publishes letters from me or other members of the climate research community which point out these errors. By censoring dissent from the research community in order to shield Viscount Ridley’s daft columns from ridicule, ‘The Times’ is harming both its readers and the public interest.”

    The Times has no obligation to publish any letter. But it does have an obligation to ensure it reports facts accurately, and corrects any errors. The LSE Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the Environment is a significant scientific institution with notable expertise on the subject. When its communications director alleges that a national newspaper is in breach of the editors’ code, it has serious questions to answer.

    3) Why is the Times failing to correct Matt Ridley’s false claims?

    Late last year, Matt Ridley falsely claimed that a campaign group’s paper was peer-reviewed. Writing about a Global Warming Policy Foundation report which claimed CO2 emissions are good for agriculture, Ridley called the report “thoroughly peer reviewed”. It later transpired that the ‘peer review’ process consisted of the Foundation emailing the paper round their advisory board.

    openDemocracy asked the leading scientific journal Nature if Matt Ridley could reasonably claim that the Global Warming Policy Foundation paper he wrote about was peer-reviewed. Their answer was clear:

    “No. The review process received by this paper is not what would generally be described as peer–review. I have not encountered other instances of similar publications being cited as peer–reviewed in either academia, or science journalism.”

    In this context, why won’t the paper issue a correction?

    4) Did Ridley put pressure on the editor to wrongly correct a news story saying this Global Warming Policy Foundation report wasn’t peer reviewed?

    As well as Ridley’s comment piece, the Times also published a news story about the Global Warming Policy Foundation report. Ridley is an advisor to the group, and helped edit the paper.

    As I explained here, the initial version of the news story said that the report wasn’t peer-reviewed. This was then corrected with a form of words implying that it was peer-reviewed, though not published in a peer-reviewed journal.

    openDemocracy has spoken to sources close to the events who say that Ridley discussed the story with the editor of the paper before this incorrect ‘correction’ was issued. Did Ridley pressure the editor to wrongly correct his own reporter?

    5) How much money does Matt Ridley make from coal?

    The biggest open cast coal mine in England is on Matt Ridley’s land. He says on his website that: “I receive no financial benefit other than a wayleave fee in exchange for providing access to the land. The details are commercially confidential and involve several parties, but the wayleave is very small indeed in relation to the value of the coal mined from my family’s land.”

    He has consistently refused to divulge how small ‘very small indeed’ is, but DesmogUK have done some digging, and estimate that he’ll receive £35.8m from the mines on his estate, over their lifetime. Is this figure accurate? And, if so, is Ridley misleading his readers when he implies that his income from coal is ‘very small indeed’?

    6) Should Matt Ridley always declare his interest when he writes about climate change?

    Matt Ridley writes regularly about climate change. Whilst he often refers to his coal mining interests when he does so, he certainly doesn’t always. Is the Times confident that its readers are clear that they are reading the opinions of someone with a financial interest in the subject about which he is writing?

    7) Should Matt Ridley declare his relationship with Owen Paterson?

    Matt Ridley is the brother in law of the former environment secretary Owen Paterson. He also writes approvingly about the politician fairly regularly. For example, in February, he wrote:

    “The leaders of the Leave campaign are mostly people who get this. Boris included, they are radicals who want to see change, who think the world is a vale of tears compared with what we could make it: people such as Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan, who want to create digital politics, to Frank Field, who thought the unthinkable about welfare reform, to Sir James Dyson who repeatedly causes creative destruction in established industries. Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Gove are Tory radicals, the two ministers who achieved most reform during the coalition years (and therefore incurred the most fury from the vested interests). The same would have been true of Owen Paterson if the vested interests had not managed to get him fired.”

    Ridley has also been shown to have written speeches for Paterson. And he has also used his Times column to write positively about at least one of Owen Patterson’s speeches. In November 2014, Ridley wrote:

    “In today’s speech on the European Union, previewed in this morning’s Times, Owen Paterson, the former environment secretary, will make a surprising and telling point.

    “It is that many of the rules handed down to British businesses and consumers by Brussels have often (and increasingly) been in turn handed down to it by higher powers. This means, he argues, that we would have more influence outside the EU than within it. We could rejoin some top tables.”

    Can the Times clarify whether Viscount Ridley was involved in the writing of the speech he then wrote approvingly about? Do they think he ought to declare his family relationship with a politician about whom he often writes approvingly?

    8) Should Ridley declare his involvement in the ‘think tank’ he often writes about?

    Matt Ridley has written a number of times about the reports produced by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (such as here, on 4 April). The GWPF is a campaign group set up by Nigel Lawson to undermine climate science, whose dodgy ‘peer-review’ practices were exposed in a Greenpeace ‘scientists for hire’ sting late last year. If Ridley is going to use his Times column to lend credence to a generally discredited organisation, should he not declare his interest as one of their official advisors?

    9) Who funds the Global Warming Policy Foundation?

    The Times has, on a number of occasions, allowed Matt Ridley to write about ‘evidence’ produced by the now deeply discredited ‘think tank’ the Global Warming Policy Foundation, who have been shown to have strong links with the coal industry. Does the paper know who funds this group? Is it any more than a misnamed firm doing public relations for big polluters? And if so, doesn’t its readers have a right to know?

    *Ridley was ‘elected’ to the House of Lords in 2013 by his now fellow hereditary Tory peers after his disastrous career at Northern Rock ended. The candidate he narrowly beat, by 14 votes to 11, was Douglas Hogg, famous for ‘falling on his sword’ after he was caught claiming parliamentary expenses for the cleaning of his moat.”

    © openDemocracy 2021

    • spangled drongo says:

      And stu cut-n-pastes endless blurb from Ridley-hating Nuccitelli and Ward from a Ridley-hating, fact-free site.

      Now go and read Matt Ridley and see who’s the most believable.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      I got as far as “have been widely debunked”, and “now deeply discredited ‘think tank’ the Global Warming Policy Foundation”, when I realised that this is just the usual alarmist claptrap.

      But I did like the bit about “censoring dissent from the research community”. Pots, meet kettles!

  • Don Aitkin says:

    Stu, when I got to ‘denial movement’ in the long piece you provided I decided the rest wouldn’t be worth much, but I went on. What you have provided is an attack on the messenger. As far as I know, what he said about CO2 and doubling is correct, and I’ve done a good deal of work on climate sensitivity, as you might remember. Why don’t you see what’s wrong with the message, and attack that? Most of the criticism of Ridley you set out is trivial, as well as beside the point.

    • Stu says:

      Don, sorry I have to disagree. The criticism of Ridley is not trivial, it is that he has no grounds for pontificating, he is not a recognised player in the field. The difference is that Ridley, like you is a commentator, sometimes regurgitator of claims, whereas to have impact you need the authors of the research. Yes, I know I don’t always do that, but I try and provide meaningful links to actual publications for fact checking. A paper by someone with lots of graphs and conclusions but no source material, like the 2016 Ridley paper is not convincing. (Has he no meaningful update on all that). So it is no use putting up Ridley, making broad statements, try putting up recognised publishing scientists. Yes we here are just bit players and commentators, but we are not creating claimed science papers on the subject. That was the point of the article criticising the Times. Do you for example take great notice of the words of Andrew Bolt on the science of climate change?

      It is a bit like the Peter Ridd story. He may well win his High Court case, fought on employment contract issues, but the fact remains he had ten years unimpeded of spouting his disputed claims about coral bleaching, the issue eventually was ignoring repeated requests to tone down his attacks on colleagues. His claims were answered and refuted in science journals but all that has been lost in the free speech debate he has turned it into. Of course if he does win it will be a “win for climate change denial’, won’t it?

      Meantime, good to know you are following the debate here. I hope you are doing well on all fronts.

      P.S. I am back in Canberra this week rediscovering what a frost feels like. I hope you are warm and cosy in your place.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “His claims were answered and refuted in science journals”

        You spelled “notorious alarmist journals” incorrectly.

  • Neville says:

    Ridley is not a climate denier or an alarmist, in fact he is very accurate and always checks the data.
    Lomborg, Shellenberger, Koonin, Christy, Spencer, Pielke, McIntyre, McKitrick etc would all agree with Ridley because they always use and follow the data.
    Koonin and Shellenberger both worked with the Obama administration but now accept that there is no apocalypse, crisis or existential threat etc at all.
    Lomborg, Shellenberger, Koonin have written similar books recently and all endorse what Ridley has to say in his talk and Dr Christy also quotes the same published data as well.
    And even after Shellenberger apologised for his extreme ideas about climate and energy he was asked to be an IPCC reviewer and he has now accepted that position.

  • Neville says:

    France has declared a farming disaster after some of the coldest temperatures for 90 years in grape growing areas.
    Other cold temp records have been broken across southern France for this time of the year.

    https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/France-declares-calamite-agricole-after-record-cold-What-is-it-We-explain-as-cold-continues

  • Neville says:

    BTW here’s the 2020 invitation from the IPCC to M Shellenberger to become an expert reviewer for the new upcoming IPCC report.
    He has agreed and has already submitted his review by the due date.

    https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/7/6/my-invitation-to-become-an-expert-reviewer-to-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change

  • Stu says:

    You guys keep quoting the likes of Lomborg and Shellenberger etc who are not physical scientists. Much of their argument concentrates on narrow elements of the vast climate picture. And in general they can be seen to have an agenda. On the other hand there are thousands of scientists working in the field whose totality of evidence leads ultimately to science based articles like those below which look at the big picture. You come up with numbers saying “temperature leads CO2” or “it was hotter in the past” or “what is global temperature anyway”. Stop and think. As the articles below show there are links but the difference now is that humans have changed the world and it is reasonable to reflect on how the changes and rates of change in the past are quite likely very different now. We have given the temperature/CO2 gig a kick start. Things are changing faster than ever before.

    You need to follow the links to see the graphs etc. I am travelling and it is not possible to copy all that stuff on a smartphone.

    “Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

    When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.”

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

    “When we think about the problem of global warming, a temperature rise of 1? can seem small and insignificant.

    Not only is it true that 1? of rapid warming itself can have significant impacts on climate and natural systems, but also that this 1? figure masks the large variations in warming across the world.

    In the map shown – taken from the Berkeley Earth global temperature report – we see the global distribution of temperature changes in 2019 relative to the period 1951 – 1980.7 This period of 1951 to 1980 is similar to the period global average time-series shown in the section above.

    There are a couple of key points that stand out.

    Firstly, the global average temperature rise is usually given as the combined temperature change across both land and the sea surface. But it’s important to note that land areas change temperature, both warming and cooling much more than oceanic areas.8 Overall, global average temperatures over land have increased around twice as much as the ocean. Compared to the 1951 – 1980 average, temperatures over land increased by 1.32 ± 0.04 °C. Whereas, the ocean surface temperature (excluding areas of sea ice) increased by only 0.59 ± 0.06 °C.

    Since the Northern Hemisphere has more land mass, this also means that the change in average temperature north of the equator has been higher than the south.

    Secondly, from the map shown, we see that in some regions the temperature change has been much more extreme. At very high latitudes – especially near the Poles – warming has been upwards of 3°C, and in some cases exceeding 5°C. These are, unfortunately, often the regions which could experience the largest impacts such as sea ice, permafrost and glacial melt.

    Monitoring the average global temperature change is important, but we should also be aware of how differently this warming is distributed across the world. In some regions, warming is much more extreme.”

    https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    Past temperature of earth and CO2

    “First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that any data on global temperatures before about 150 years ago is an estimate, a reconstruction based on second-hand evidence such as ice cores and isotopic ratios. The evidence becomes sparser the further back we look, and its interpretation often involves a set of assumptions. In other words, a fair amount of guesswork.

    It is certainly true that Earth has experienced some extremes that were warmer than today, as well as much colder periods. In some cases the main factors that caused these past warm periods – and the ebb and flow of ice ages over recent millennia – are well understood, though not in all. Many of the details remain unknown.

    Within the past billion years, there may have been one or more periods when the whole planet was covered in ice. This “snowball Earth” phenomenon remains controversial, with some evidence suggesting that there were at least some areas of unfrozen land and water even at the height of the freezing (read more here, here and here). It is clear, though, that from about 750 million to 580 million years ago, the Earth was in the grip of an ice age more extreme than any since.

    Why did it happen? The spread of ice produces further cooling by reflecting more of the Sun’s energy back into space. But ice on land blocks the chemical weathering of rocks that removes CO2 from the atmosphere, which leads to warming as levels rise.

    Snowball Earth may have been possible only because the continents were clustered on the equator, meaning CO2 removal would have continued even as ice sheets spread from the poles. Only when most of the land was covered would greenhouse gases have started to build up to levels high enough to overcome the cooling effects of the extensive ice cover.

    Mass extinctions

    After this deep freeze, there were several “hothouse earth” periods when the temperature exceeded those we experience today. The warmest was probably the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which peaked about 55 million years ago. Global temperatures during this event may have warmed by 5°C to 8°C within a few thousand years, with the Arctic Ocean reaching a subtropical 23°C. Mass extinctions resulted.

    The warming, which lasted 200,000 years, was caused by the release of massive amounts of methane or CO2. It was thought to have come from the thawing of methane clathrates in deep ocean sediments, but the latest theory is that it was caused by a massive volcanic eruption that heated up coal deposits. In other words, the PETM is an example of catastrophic global warming triggered by the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    Since then, the Earth has cooled. For the past million years or so, the climate has switched between ice ages and warmer interglacial periods with temperatures similar to those of the past few millennia. These periodic changes seem to be triggered by oscillations in the planet’s orbit and inclination that alter the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth.

    However, it is clear that the orbital changes alone would not have produced large temperature changes and that there must have been some kind of feedback effect (see the section on Milankovitch cycles in this article).

    Inundated cities

    In between ice ages, some lesser peaks of temperature have occurred a number of times, especially around 125,000 years ago. At this time, temperatures may have been about 1°C to 2°C degrees warmer than today. Sea level was 5 to 8 metres higher than today – a rise sufficient to inundate most of the world’s coastal cities (IPCC report, pdf format). This peak was triggered by the orbital cycles.

    After the last glaciation ended, global temperatures appear to have peaked around 6000 years ago, called the Holocene Climatic Optimum. The warming appears have been largely localised, concentrated in the northern hemisphere in summer, and average global temperatures did not exceed those of recent decades by much, if at all. Again, orbital variations were the trigger, but these led to changes in vegetation and sea-ice cover that produced marked regional climatic alterations.

    From about AD 800 to AD 1300, there was a minor peak called the medieval warm period, but it was not as warm as recent decades (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period).

    Thermal insulation

    What is clear from the study of past climate is that many factors can influence climate: solar activity, oscillations in Earth’s orbit, greenhouse gases, ice cover, vegetation on land (or the lack of it), the configuration of the continents, dust thrown up by volcanoes or wind, the weathering of rocks and so on.

    The details are seldom as simple as they seem at first: sea ice reflects more of the Sun’s energy than open water but can trap heat in the water beneath the ice, for example. There are complex interactions between many of these factors that can amplify or dampen changes in temperature.

    The important question is what is causing the current, rapid warming? We cannot dismiss it as natural variation just because the planet has been warmer at various times in the past. Many studies suggest it can only be explained by taking into account human activity.

    Nor does the fact that it has been warmer in the past mean that future warming is nothing to worry about. The sea level has been tens of metres higher during past warm periods, enough to submerge most major cities around the world (see box at end of this article).”

    Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-climate-myths-its-been-far-warmer-in-the-past-whats-the-big-deal/#ixzz6s3ANZUbI

  • Stu says:

    You guys keep quoting the likes of Lomborg and Shellenberger etc

    “Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

    When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.”

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

    “When we think about the problem of global warming, a temperature rise of 1? can seem small and insignificant.

    Not only is it true that 1? of rapid warming itself can have significant impacts on climate and natural systems, but also that this 1? figure masks the large variations in warming across the world.

    In the map shown – taken from the Berkeley Earth global temperature report – we see the global distribution of temperature changes in 2019 relative to the period 1951 – 1980.7 This period of 1951 to 1980 is similar to the period global average time-series shown in the section above.

    There are a couple of key points that stand out.

    Firstly, the global average temperature rise is usually given as the combined temperature change across both land and the sea surface. But it’s important to note that land areas change temperature, both warming and cooling much more than oceanic areas.8 Overall, global average temperatures over land have increased around twice as much as the ocean. Compared to the 1951 – 1980 average, temperatures over land increased by 1.32 ± 0.04 °C. Whereas, the ocean surface temperature (excluding areas of sea ice) increased by only 0.59 ± 0.06 °C.

    Since the Northern Hemisphere has more land mass, this also means that the change in average temperature north of the equator has been higher than the south.

    Secondly, from the map shown, we see that in some regions the temperature change has been much more extreme. At very high latitudes – especially near the Poles – warming has been upwards of 3°C, and in some cases exceeding 5°C. These are, unfortunately, often the regions which could experience the largest impacts such as sea ice, permafrost and glacial melt.

    Monitoring the average global temperature change is important, but we should also be aware of how differently this warming is distributed across the world. In some regions, warming is much more extreme.”

    https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

    Past temperature of earth and CO2

    “First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that any data on global temperatures before about 150 years ago is an estimate, a reconstruction based on second-hand evidence such as ice cores and isotopic ratios. The evidence becomes sparser the further back we look, and its interpretation often involves a set of assumptions. In other words, a fair amount of guesswork.

    It is certainly true that Earth has experienced some extremes that were warmer than today, as well as much colder periods. In some cases the main factors that caused these past warm periods – and the ebb and flow of ice ages over recent millennia – are well understood, though not in all. Many of the details remain unknown.

    Within the past billion years, there may have been one or more periods when the whole planet was covered in ice. This “snowball Earth” phenomenon remains controversial, with some evidence suggesting that there were at least some areas of unfrozen land and water even at the height of the freezing (read more here, here and here). It is clear, though, that from about 750 million to 580 million years ago, the Earth was in the grip of an ice age more extreme than any since.

    Why did it happen? The spread of ice produces further cooling by reflecting more of the Sun’s energy back into space. But ice on land blocks the chemical weathering of rocks that removes CO2 from the atmosphere, which leads to warming as levels rise.

    Snowball Earth may have been possible only because the continents were clustered on the equator, meaning CO2 removal would have continued even as ice sheets spread from the poles. Only when most of the land was covered would greenhouse gases have started to build up to levels high enough to overcome the cooling effects of the extensive ice cover.

    Mass extinctions

    After this deep freeze, there were several “hothouse earth” periods when the temperature exceeded those we experience today. The warmest was probably the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which peaked about 55 million years ago. Global temperatures during this event may have warmed by 5°C to 8°C within a few thousand years, with the Arctic Ocean reaching a subtropical 23°C. Mass extinctions resulted.

    The warming, which lasted 200,000 years, was caused by the release of massive amounts of methane or CO2. It was thought to have come from the thawing of methane clathrates in deep ocean sediments, but the latest theory is that it was caused by a massive volcanic eruption that heated up coal deposits. In other words, the PETM is an example of catastrophic global warming triggered by the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    Since then, the Earth has cooled. For the past million years or so, the climate has switched between ice ages and warmer interglacial periods with temperatures similar to those of the past few millennia. These periodic changes seem to be triggered by oscillations in the planet’s orbit and inclination that alter the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth.

    However, it is clear that the orbital changes alone would not have produced large temperature changes and that there must have been some kind of feedback effect (see the section on Milankovitch cycles in this article).

    Inundated cities

    In between ice ages, some lesser peaks of temperature have occurred a number of times, especially around 125,000 years ago. At this time, temperatures may have been about 1°C to 2°C degrees warmer than today. Sea level was 5 to 8 metres higher than today – a rise sufficient to inundate most of the world’s coastal cities (IPCC report, pdf format). This peak was triggered by the orbital cycles.

    After the last glaciation ended, global temperatures appear to have peaked around 6000 years ago, called the Holocene Climatic Optimum. The warming appears have been largely localised, concentrated in the northern hemisphere in summer, and average global temperatures did not exceed those of recent decades by much, if at all. Again, orbital variations were the trigger, but these led to changes in vegetation and sea-ice cover that produced marked regional climatic alterations.

    From about AD 800 to AD 1300, there was a minor peak called the medieval warm period, but it was not as warm as recent decades (see Climate myths: It was warmer during the Medieval period).

    Thermal insulation

    What is clear from the study of past climate is that many factors can influence climate: solar activity, oscillations in Earth’s orbit, greenhouse gases, ice cover, vegetation on land (or the lack of it), the configuration of the continents, dust thrown up by volcanoes or wind, the weathering of rocks and so on.

    The details are seldom as simple as they seem at first: sea ice reflects more of the Sun’s energy than open water but can trap heat in the water beneath the ice, for example. There are complex interactions between many of these factors that can amplify or dampen changes in temperature.

    The important question is what is causing the current, rapid warming? We cannot dismiss it as natural variation just because the planet has been warmer at various times in the past. Many studies suggest it can only be explained by taking into account human activity.

    Nor does the fact that it has been warmer in the past mean that future warming is nothing to worry about. The sea level has been tens of metres higher during past warm periods, enough to submerge most major cities around the world (see box at end of this article).”

    Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-climate-myths-its-been-far-warmer-in-the-past-whats-the-big-deal/#ixzz6s3ANZUbI

  • Stu says:

    It appears we have entered a new age of repressing dissent.

  • spangled drongo says:

    We have entered a new age of more fakery at the bakery.

    NASA, who have only ever been capable of modelling climate to achieve their estimates, now claims it “measures” direct evidence that humans are causing climate change.

    The paper says that previously the Earth’s energy imbalance was detected by models, but now says that it is detected by “radiative kernels” – which are also simply models.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091585

    • Stu says:

      It also says “We confirm that rising greenhouse gas concentrations account for most of the increases in the radiative forcing, along with reductions in reflective aerosols. This serves as direct evidence that anthropogenic activity has affected Earth’s energy budget in the recent past.”

      But they admit the forcing is hard to measure, so what?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu, like you, they haven’t a clue!

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        So NASA’s new models confirm NASA’s old models? Surprise!

        But the results depend on estimates of forcing, which is “hard to measure”.

        But, trust the models! Change the global economy! Re-distribute wealth!

        You know it makes sense.

  • Stu says:

    A reminder, all the people participating here are commentators not specialists in the subject (climate science). And we should be careful to distinguish between facts and opinions. Much of the quoting is of other commentators spouting opinion rather than scientists actually working in the field. The nearer you get to source material of actual scientists, the closer you get to the truth rather than swallowing more opinions. The science is under represented here. And conflicting posts referring to that science seem to be being censored in recent days. So be it. But fact remains fact.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Instead of “evidence”, from now on stu is going to say “radiative kernels”.

    That should do it.

    • Stu says:

      You still have not explained how such a huge scientific mistake could have happened. If your story is to be believed it is the most massive fraud in history, involving a vast number of participants, including governments, scientists, businesses and yet only a tiny number of people including you can see the truth and are fighting to save the world from this scam. Sounds like you are part of a cult following to me, certainly you demonstrate religious fervour in the belief system. I am surprised you have not activated the Galileo defence.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Initial scientific error (think the 1970s “New Ice Age” scare, which involved some of the same people), combined with overweening pride and refusal to admit error, plus bureaucratic empire building.

        • Stu says:

          Therefore “the biggest scientific mistake in history”. Really!

          “ overweening pride and refusal to admit error, plus bureaucratic empire building.” That could also apply to the other side. The fact that the “mistake’ has not been corrected in 50 years indicates it is not a mistake but in fact continually reinforced science. The “No’s” continue to fail.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu lives in a dream world where arrogant pride and bureaucratic empire building have been abolished.

            Check out Upside Down Mann’s hypersensitivity to any aspersions cast upon his (flawed, see Hockey Stick) “scientific” reputation. Writs at 10 paces!

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            What bureaucratic empire comparable to the IPCC, and the many climate research organisations and weather “forecasters” are the sceptics building?

  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova has just commented on the German’s mad panic to bring back a number of coal fired stns to cover for their clueless RUINABLES. What a fra-d and con trick and these donkeys just make it up as they go along and ignore proper science+ maths and engineering.
    I’m more convinced today that it will need a major ongoing crisis in electricity generation to wake up our donkeys to their ignorance
    and stupidity.
    How anyone believes this religious fanaticism is beyond my understanding and even Rosling, Ridley, Shellenberger, Lomborg, Lindzen, Christy,Spencer, Happer etc seem to have zero impact on the clueless media.
    Certainly we know we are dealing with some of the most stupid people on Earth and Biden’s EXISTENTIAL threat nonsense is just more proof that our western so called leaders have completely lost the plot.
    Meanwhile China, India, Africa etc are building 100s of new coal fired stns and Germany will be at the mercy of Putin and his Russian gas pipelines. Will they ever wake up?

    • Stu says:

      You still have not explained how such a huge scientific mistake could have happened. If your story is to be believed it is the most massive fraud in history, involving a vast number of participants, including governments, scientists, businesses and yet only a tiny number of people including you can see the truth and are fighting to save the world from this scam. Sounds like you are part of a cult following to me, certainly you demonstrate religious fervour in the belief system. I am surprised you have not activated the Galileo defence.

      Certainly as your obvious frustration shows you continue to fail spectacularly, don’t you?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Our obtuse stu is away with the fairies again.

    Scientific “projections” are not legally fraud and that’s why they get away with their BS.

    Plus, even if they don’t how to measure future climate, they sure know where the treasure is buried.

    Does it not occur to you that if they can do this they could have “projected” climate warming accurately for a doubling of CO2 awa all the other climate catastrophe they are claiming but, like you, they haven’t got a clue, stu.

    Their “evidence” is just like yours.

    Non-existent!

    But it is interesting how easily conned you are into believing this BS when it suits your political and philosophical outlook.

  • Neville says:

    I know I’m wasting my time because I’ve shown these fools the data over and over again and it still doesn’t sink in.
    AGAIN the world co2 emissions have increased by 63.5% from 1990 to 2017 and during the last 30 years the USA + EU co2 emissions have reduced by -19.1% and China, India + other countries have increased by an enormous percentage and I’ve included the graph AGAIN.

    BTW the EU + USA co2 emissions are lower in 2017 than they were in 1970. Look at the graph. And China, India , Africa, Asia etc will be building coal power stns for decades to come. Please wake up.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png

    • Stu says:

      “ I know I’m wasting my time because I’ve shown these fools the data over and over again and it still doesn’t sink in.”. Exactly, you have failed and will continue to fail because you are wrong. A martyr in the wilderness. You are classic cartoon character calling the wife to say “look honey I found this stuff on the internet that all these thousands of researchers have missed”. You are like Lord Monckton and his great discovery that we are still waiting years later to see in print. Forget your “forcings” and model distrust and look at the big picture. The climate system is a giant puzzle and it is easy to find little bits with inconsistent results or contradictions over time, but the big jig saw is only solved one way.

      • Neville says:

        As I said , I’m wasting my time. I’ve given you the data from 1970, 1990 to 2017 and you STILL don’t understand.
        I’ll leave you to your fantasy world because you certainly don’t belong in the real world.
        OH and there is no EXISTENTIAL threat or APOCALYPSE or CRISIS at all. Just look at the data since 1800, 1900, 1950, 1970 or 1990. Check health, wealth, life expectancy etc and please wake up.
        And abandon your silly fantasy world ASAP.

        • Stu says:

          It is not me you need to convince. But do keep trying.

          • spangled drongo says:

            It’s not just you, stu, it’s all the other similar stu-pids who refuse to see the advantages and benefits of today’s mild climate and insist that we must send ourselves bankrupt to fix not just a non-problem but a clear benefit.

            But you might try for once in your life to offer some facts to support your claims.

            You could start by listing anything that is happening in today’s climate that hasn’t happened in the past when CO2 levels were much lower.

            What? Not able to, stu?

            Why is it that you can not only never answer a simple, direct question on climate, but also fail to supply any measurable evidence to back your case?

            Has the penny dropped yet?

          • Stu says:

            Yes but there are just so many of us “stupids” that you have no chance. Game over. Did you see Scientific American now using the term “climate emergency” for headlines, based on “strong evidence”.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Stu sez; “Yes but there are just so many of us “stupids” that you have no chance.”

            So your best “evidence” is simply the number of bed-wetters and blitherers?

            No facts?

            Oh dear!

            But maybe you can still tell us something that is happening in today’s climate that hasn’t happened in the past when CO2 levels were much lower?

            With all that “evidence” you must be able to list endless instances of that data.

            With “Scientific American now using the term “climate emergency” for headlines, based on “strong evidence” you can surely tell us just what that “strong evidence” really is.

            Show us you do possess honesty just for once, in the lifetime of this blog, stu.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          “there are just so many of us “stupids” that you have no chance. Game over”

          Stu reverts to his comfort zone – “science” by popular vote. Yes, Stu, we know that the populace has been frightened by the exaggerations of the alarmists. That “success” does not alter reality, as eastern Australia will discover when Liddell and a Victorian station (Yallourn?) close in the next few years. Barring an unexpected technical breakthrough, at that time electricity supply there will cease being reliable and continuous.

          Good luck with keeping the support of the populace then.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “Exactly, you have failed and will continue to fail because you are wrong.”

        Look in the mirror to see the failure. How long have you been here? How many have you convinced of your immutable truth? You haven’t moved Don, nor anyone else.

  • Neville says:

    AGAIN here’s the CSIRO Cape Grim co2 data and this CSIRO useful quote. See under seasonal variation and NH is the net SOURCE and SH is the NET SINK of co2. IOW we’re already NET ZERO.

    https://www.csiro.au/en/research/natural-environment/atmosphere/Latest-greenhouse-gas-data

    So why do just 0.8 bn people ( just 7% of emissions) have to do anything at all? Let’s leave it up to Biden and Boris etc and the 7 bn luvvies in the NET SOURCE NH ( 93% of emissions) if they’re so worried about it.
    “Seasonal variation”

    “Carbon dioxide concentrations show seasonal variations (annual cycles) that vary according to global location and altitude. Several processes contribute to carbon dioxide annual cycles: for example, uptake and release of carbon dioxide by terrestrial plants and the oceans, and the transport of carbon dioxide around the globe from source regions (the Northern Hemisphere is a net source of carbon dioxide, the Southern Hemisphere a net sink)”.

    Amazing how hostile some L W loonies become when you mention this CSIRO Cape Grim data.

  • Neville says:

    Perhaps more hope of burying their RCP 8.5 fantasies and they should use this as an incentive to only follow proper data and evidence in the future.
    And Aussies should start building new coal powered reliable, HELE power stns ASAP. I’ve had a gut-full of their Sci-Fi nonsense.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/15/media-finally-notices-that-the-rcp-8-5-climate-model-is-over-hyped-science-fiction/

  • Stu says:

    Neville, try and comprehend that there is only one planet earth. There are northern and southern hemispheres and yes in terms of CO2 the SH is a net sink. But if you think that means SH people can just shrug the shoulders and say it is a NH problem then your approach is both simplistic, selfish and childlike.

    Did you ever watch “On the beach”? Of course it was fiction but based on the fact that there is intermixing of the atmosphere from north and south. Net result was the nuclear cloud eventually moved south.

    I suggest the same goes with CO2, if not, how do you explain the SH being a net sink yet there is still CO2 in the air. In other words, NH is the major source of Anthropogenic CO2 yet the ppm for North and South are very similar and moving in the same upward direction. Based on your theory the ppm of the SH should be shrinking.

    Once again you have probably seized on the headline and not considered the full article.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Well perhaps the “Big Polluders”, as a former prime minister described then should put their shoulder to the wheel, their best foot forward, and their nose to the grindstone and work on the problem. Biden wants the world to move to nuclear power. Are you with him or against him?

      PS, I am working on your special chapter for the next edition of Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. You should love it.

      • Stu says:

        Actually the yanks are against proliferation of nuclear technology except for very trusted (in their eyes not mine) allies. So your statement is a bit grand.

        And presumably your proposed book will be in either the fiction section or humor, perhaps religion but certainly not science or reality.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Stu sez; “Did you see Scientific American now using the term “climate emergency” for headlines, based on “strong evidence”, to back his argument but when asked for any of this “strong evidence” he runs and hides.

          Again.

          As they say in the classics stu; put up or shut up.

        • Boambee John says:

          Stu

          Things change. The US is pushing for nuclear, led by a big investment firm (might be BlackRock), and Biden seems to be on board.

          Don’t worry, they will have a firm grip on who gets how much technical detail, but big donors to the DemonRats will profit.

          • Boambee John says:

            PS, I am surprised (or perhaps not) that you seem unfamiliar with that title. Look it up.

  • Stu says:

    It is not for me to provide evidence to you die hard do nothings. Go look for yourself, at NASA, NOAA, IPCC, all the science mobs, practically every climate scientist etc, etc, etc. Even if I listed it all for you, it would make no difference, you are too far down in the trenches fighting your rear guard campaign, and you would not accept it so why should I bother. As I have written many times it is only in this space where you have standing, not exactly a great claim to provenance. You only quote weirdo “scientists” like Willie Soon or non scientists like Lomborg et al. But you stick with it if it makes you happy. You will not convince anyone beyond your true believers already in the trench here with you. For my part I accept it is impossible to reason with people like you and certainly don’t expect to find open minds here, beyond Chris who makes a good contribution. But this is not where it is at. I acknowledge there is no agreement with mainstream climate science here, and I don’t expect to convince anyone, but the exercise has solidified my knowledge and understanding of the issue by following all your sources as well as the scientific ones, so thank you for the help. Out in the real world your group has no standing and is getting less and less relevant.

    Finally some of you guys have such a charming way of presenting your case (e.g. “ So your best “evidence” is simply the number of bed-wetters and blitherers?” ) that it is even easier to dismiss your claims.

    Given that a science question has become bogged down in politics it is reasonable to label your position as reactionary, as you advocate sticking with steam, ignoring new technology, refusing to advance etc. Oh, the past is so warm (pun intended) and cosy it is easy to sit on your hands.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      “But this is not where it is at.”

      So why do you waste so much time here with your proselytising? Is it some urge to gain converts (and don’t come with that “refining your arguments” crap)?

    • spangled drongo says:

      “It is not for me to provide evidence”

      Who need evidence when you have consensus?

      Can’t put up and can’t shut up.

      If you’d prefer not to be seen as an evidence-free hand-waver, blitherer and bed-wetter, stu, I’ll give you a tip:

      It is always better to say nothing and let people suspect you are ignorant, than to open your mouth and prove it.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Climate-wise, we have never had it so good.

    Jo shows us that less people are dying from climate than ever:

    https://joannenova.com.au/2021/04/climate-emergency-is-this-years-new-black-in-fearspeak/

  • Neville says:

    Thanks SD , you beat me to it, but don’t mention this to our stu-pid donkey because he doesn’t understand the most basic data or evidence.
    Don’t forget the world pop was only about 1.6 bn in 1900 and 2bn in 1927 and about 3.7 bn in 1970.
    So those deaths are even more remarkable because today there are about 7.8 bn and for the last couple of decades earthquakes make up more than 50% of those deaths.
    But deaths from extreme weather events today are tiny. Little wonder that Shellenberger, Lomborg, Koonin etc highlight the fact that extreme weather deaths have dropped by about 95+% over the last 120 years.
    But our lying media will always close ranks and refuse to mention this good news. And of course our stu-pid donkey would agree with his clueless L W media mates.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Absolutely, Neville. Very good points. Let’s just hope that the coming generations can see the media and cli-sci in the light that they deserve.

  • Neville says:

    BTW here’s the quote from OWI Data site. Trust me that only a few people understand this good news and of course our clueless L W media liars and con merchants couldn’t care less. See the link at Jo’s story link from SD.

    Summary
    Natural disasters kill on average 60,000 people per year, globally.
    Globally, disasters were responsible for 0.1% of deaths over the past decade. This was highly variable, ranging from 0.01% to 0.4%.
    Deaths from natural disasters have seen a large decline over the past century – from, in some years, millions of deaths per year to an average of 60,000 over the past decade.
    Historically, droughts and floods were the most fatal disaster events. Deaths from these events are now very low – the most deadly events today tend to be earthquakes.
    Disasters affect those in poverty most heavily: high death tolls tend to be centered in low-to-middle income countries without the infrastructure to protect and respond to events.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    The evidence that Scientific American offers for declaring a “climate emergency” includes the statement:

    “a sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas”

    It seems that we need no longer worry about the world stewing in its own juice. Now the New Ice Age seems to be (again) the threat.

    Perhaps we need to burn more coal to raise the temperature, as the BBC proposed in the 2970s, the last time a New Ice Age was the perceived threat?

    Do you agree? After all, Scientific American says the problem now is cold?

    • spangled drongo says:

      BJ, here’s one specially for our stu:

      Tim Flannery’s latest climate triumph:

      “Each study of apocalyptic prediction shares one common element: as far as we can tell, the apocalypse has not actually occurred (yet). However, receipt of disconfirming evidence (the apocalypse not occurring as scheduled), did not diminish belief in the prediction. Rather, it tended to strengthen it”:

      https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2021/04/152721/

  • Neville says:

    SD last Sunday the Outsiders held up the letter from Prince Phillip to Prof Ian Plimer where he spelt out his wind farm concerns.

    Here’s the latest data from the latest Wind energy report from the GWPF. Here’s the quotes from Lord Lawson and Dr Benny Peiser. See graphs etc at the link.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/high-wind-subsidies/

    Lord Lawson, GWPF director, said:

    ” We are in the middle of an economic crisis and consumers are hit with astronomical costs for unreliable wind energy. These multi-billion subsidies are not only a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, but are damaging the UK economy as a whole. This madness has to stop.”

    Dr Benny Peiser said:

    ” The level of handouts is an obscenity. Every time a new windfarm comes on stream, the consumer is hit with a double whammy – a relentless increase in annual subsidy payments to windfarm operators and an annual bill for fixing the damage that is done to grid stability. This can’t be kept hidden for much longer. The chickens are coming home to roost very soon, and there will be a big political price to pay”.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Thanks Neville. Very interesting. You just can’t believe what’s happening in UK. I bet Philip was pleased to go.

    • Stu says:

      You quote the GWPF as though they are some leading authority on climate change. They are not. The organisation is somewhat akin to the Australian Christian Lobby which dresses itself up as some peak body of the Christian faith where in fact they are a very small and light weight bunch of self serving evangelical proponents, not that popular with mainstream churches.

      I admit that for some obscure reason, mainly the media, they do punch above their weight in proposing ultra conservative values and being listened too by the over represented evangelical cult in Federal parliament, even the Ministry. As I indicated the GWPF fits in the same category very well. Try quoting an actual science body for once not a very biased “policy” outfit pushing an anti action stance while claiming to be neutral on the subject of climate change.

      It is interesting that the Foundation is a registered charity involved in broadly educational pursuits while it’s wholly owned subsidiary the FORUM undertakes the activities that might endanger the charitable status of the Foundation.

      But for a self declared unaligned outfit there is a dearth of work and published material on the plus side of the issue while almost totally pushing the negative arguments.

      • spangled drongo says:

        What is it about the fundamentals of science debate that you refuse to understand, stu?

        The message is what is debated.

        As in the subject under discussion.

        Not the messenger, as in the person or group delivering the message.

        Because you simply can’t cope with someone’s POV you always lapse into that ignorant and stu-pid response.

        Now, have you got any point to make?

        • Stu says:

          Remember “the medium is the message”. In this case the motive and the method of the source quoted certainly affect the impact and the trustworthiness of the message. The GWPF Foundation and .ORG are one way streets.

          • Boambee John says:

            A bit like many alarmist sites, then?

          • Stu says:

            Perhaps for some, but it applies to all the denierdom sites, just looks at the 100 to zero track record of GWPF.

          • Boambee John says:

            Poor old Stu still on science by popular vote.

            Sad, low energy.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Yes BJ, when you can’t make any valid points or produce any measurable evidence in your favour, the only resort is to bring out the gun and shoot the messenger. Desperate stuff!

            And stu thinks his side is winning.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “it applies to all the denierdom sites”

            Is that the “scientific” consensus of all alarmist sites? Sounds like the Mandy Rice-Davies system.

          • Stu says:

            “And stu thinks his side is winning.

            Show me some evidence you are winning in tbe real world, not here

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            You have previously written that “this is not where it is at”. Yet here you are, still making your sad assertions of triumph, still whining about deniers, still striving for relevance.

            It seems that either you have a pseudo-religious urge to preach to the heathen “denialists” the one true alarmist message, or that your life is so sad that you come here for company.

            Perhaps you should grow some roses instead? At least you would have some chance of success. You’re not getting much of that here.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Here stu, read and learn some facts about the real world you live in, and what your religion is doing to achieve your political ends :

    “The greatest expansion of life on Earth occurred 540 million years ago, when CO2 was at its peak. Atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 15 times higher than they are now. Corals and shellfish evolved during that time. If high levels of CO2 were a real problem, there would have been no sea life, rather than a massive expansion of life in the oceans..”

    https://realclimatescience.com/2021/04/primal-fear/#comments

    • Stu says:

      That is such simplistic unscientific bullshit I am amazed. Such a collection of assumptions from an extremely small premiss. You are truly astounding. Remind me again, how many humans were around 540 million years ago and what shape were the continents in.

      • spangled drongo says:

        And stu blatantly denies the fact that our basic ecology evolved with CO2 levels 15 times higher than now.

        Totally destroying all the stu-pid woke arguments that he and his crazy mates bring forth.

        Yet he waves it away as “unscientific bullshit”.

        No wonder he can’t come across any evidence of anything scientific.

        But with this sort of stu-pid logic it’s easy to see why climate models come up with the answers they do.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “That is such simplistic unscientific bullshit I am amazed. Such a collection of assumptions from an extremely small premiss.”

        So, pretty much like most alarmists. Go away and re-read some if the crap from Mann, Flymmery, Garnaut, AlGore and their ilk.

        “how many humans were around 540 million years ago and what shape were the continents in.”

        Still, it’s good to see you recognising the power of natural forces. They can move continents, so varying the climate is a doddle. How effective are humans in moving cojtinents?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Here is an example of the lies the MSM tell about “climate change” and what they do to cover up when they are found out:

    https://realclimatescience.com/2021/04/rewriting-and-hiding-history-at-the-new-york-times/

  • Stu says:

    SD wrote “ And stu thinks his side is winning.”

    Tell me did you read anything about the agreement announced yesterday that China and USA have agreed to work to address the global climate crisis. Here is a clip

    Copyright © 2021 The Sydney Morning Herald
    Singapore: China and the United States will push for stronger international climate change commitments by the end of the year in a show of solidarity that will put further pressure on Australia to take more action on emissions reduction.

    In a breakthrough after hostile negotiations between the nations’ foreign affairs arms in March, the two governments will work together on developing carbon capture, energy storage and hydrogen targets , while also providing funding for developing countries to switch to greener energy sources.

    ‘‘ The United States and China are committed to co-operating with each other and with other countries to tackle the climate crisis , which must be addressed with the seriousness and urgency that it demands,’’ the joint statement from the two negotiators released yesterday morning said.

    Now, tell me again your argument is being taken seriously.

    • spangled drongo says:

      If you don’t believe that is pure window-dressing on China’s behalf to fool you greentwits then there’s absolutely no hope for you.

      China uses more than half the world’s coal and has no intention of stopping.

      Kerry will pretend that China is cooperating with Biden on climate “solutions” and China will pretend it is going green.

      And that outcome will be just perfect for you hypocrite hand-wavers.

      • Boambee John says:

        SD

        “Kerry will pretend that China is cooperating with Biden on climate “solutions” and China will pretend it is going green.”

        Traditional “progressive”/communist tactics. Reminds me of the joke from the old Soviet Union: “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us”. Both sides will pretend to believe in Unreliable Energy, while continuing to utilise Reliable (not Ruinable) Energy.

    • Stu says:

      Oh that is vintage stuff guys. You never fail to amaze with your profound cynicism and negative thinking. BZ. And what will you say when Morrison buckles and goes along with it? More FUD I suppose.

      • spangled drongo says:

        You don’t really believe that China will “buckle and go along with it” do you?

        That’s the point under debate, stu.

        Get your mind right.

        • Stu says:

          Yes I do believe they will follow through. They have a realistic view of what the threat means to them and a valid reason to be making haste slowly with the energy transition as they complete the modernization of their economy and lift the remaining peasants out of poverty. Meantime they are making greater strides with renewable energy than any country. Only a cynic would think otherwise.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            “they will follow through. They have a realistic view of what the threat means to them and a valid reason to be making haste slowly with the energy transition as they complete the modernization of their economy and lift the remaining peasants out of poverty”

            So you agree that there is no need to hurry? After all, if the world’s greatest CO2 emitter can continue “to be making haste slowly with the energy transition”, there is no urgent need for minor emitters like Australia to rush in like fools?

            “Meantime they are making greater strides with renewable energy than any country. Only a cynic would think otherwise.”

            Speaking of fools, are you really foolish enough to believe this?

  • Neville says:

    The impact of their so called Existential threat, or crisis or emergency etc by 2070 will be ZIP and by then everyone will be much wealthier and healthier and Lomborg AGAIN uses UN data for this quote. Ditto Shellenberger, Ridley, Koonin, Goklany, Humlum, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Rosling, McIntyre, McKitrick etc.

    You can watch this video or read the full transcript at the link. Uncommon KNOWLEDGE indeed. If the real data about their so called climate crisis was put on trial it would be thrown out of court and costs awarded against the religious fanatics. Lomborg is correct, their BS is a FALSE ALARM.

    https://www.hoover.org/research/bjorn-lomborg-declares-false-alarm-climate-hysteria-1

    “Bjorn Lomborg: They expect that by 2075, the average person on the planet will be 2.63 times richer than he or she is today. So what climate change will mean, is instead of being 2.63 times richer, we will only be 2.56 times richer. That’s a problem, it is not the end of the world. And you then asked me, “why is this happening?” Well, I think there’s a confluence of different things here. First of all, media loves terrible stories. They’ve always done that”.

  • Neville says:

    Using that OWI data graph again for deaths from extreme weather + other events since 1900, it is clear that the period from the 1920s to the 1960s was horrendous and loss of life was in the millions of people over some decades. Mostly from floods and droughts.
    And last 20 years we have very few deaths from Fs & Drs and over half of deaths are from earthquakes. And extreme temp deaths today are mainly from moderate to extreme cold. See Lancet 70 mil + study data I’ve linked to before.
    YET the Steffen donkey told us we are seeing more floods today because of their CAGW crisis. Unbelievable garbage from Flannery’s Climate Council.

    https://joannenova.com.au/wp-content/natural-disasters-global-deaths.gif

  • Neville says:

    The idea of net zero by 2050 is the greatest fairy story of the last 2000 years and boy there’s been some delusional BS for comparison over that long period of time.
    Here Willis tries to show how impossible net zero would be, just for electricity generation. Of course he uses proper data to try and wake up the stu-pid, crazy fanatics, but most of these only care about the politics and certainly not science or maths or the ruination of the environment by the toxic S&W disaster.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/16/us-green-impossibilities/

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu sez

    “Did you see Scientific American now using the term “climate emergency” for headlines, based on “strong evidence”.

    Stu also sez that China has a

    “realistic view of what the threat means to them and a valid reason to be making haste slowly with the energy transition”

    So is there a “climate emergency”, or do we have the time to make “haste slowly with the energy transition”?

    You can’t have it both ways.

    • Stu says:

      BJ “ So is there a “climate emergency”, or do we have the time to make “haste slowly with the energy transition”?

      You overlook the political imperatives and size of the China development juggernaut. They have committed to lift all their people out of poverty and into the 21st century. Something you overlook is that to achieve that goal they effectively are claiming a right to use a share of the global carbon budget that we in the west have consumed over the last 200 years. The onus is on the west to lead the way. The economies of the west are developed, have put a huge quantity of CO2 into the air and are in a position to make the changes. The development of new energy sources is a massive business opportunity for the countries and companies smart enough to be the leaders, e.g. FORTESCUE.

      Do you still reckon you are winning the battle?

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “Something you overlook is that to achieve that goal they effectively are claiming a right to use a share of the global carbon budget that we in the west have consumed over the last 200 years.”

        But is the “claim” valid? If you are comfortable with China getting its “share” of CO2 emissions, then there is no “climate emergency”. Either ALL CO2 emissions are damaging, or none are. And you are even more stupid than you appear to be.

        PS, China is already the world’s biggest emitter. How much is their “share”?

        • Stu says:

          BJ wrote “ China is already the world’s biggest emitter. How much is their “share”?”

          So BJ do you want to give is the figure for emissions of Europe and North America since 1800 versus China? To put it another way we buggered the atmosphere and they are a long way behind us, we have a bigger obligation.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            So your conclusion is that we should revert to the lifestyle of pre-industrial times, so that China can have a modern lifestyle?

            You are either missing or ignoring my point. China is a major emitter, and will continue to increase its emissions for decades to come. You seem comfortable with this increase in CO2 emissions, which are unlikely to be offset (particularly when added to those of India and the Third World) even if the west went CO2 neutral tomorrow.

            By your special pleading on China’s behalf, you demonstrate that you do NOT believe that there is a climate emergency. If you genuinely believe that “we buggered the atmosphere”, then everyone must stop emitting CO2 now, not in several decades time.

          • Boambee John says:

            PS who is this “we” of whom you write? In absolute terms, even since 1800, Australia is a rounding error.

          • Stu says:

            “ So your conclusion is that we should revert to the lifestyle of pre-industrial times, so that China can have a modern lifestyle?. “

            Please explain? Your statement is typical of the reactionary bull of the do nothing movement. How exactly are we reverting to pre-industrial lifestyles? Your statement is a classic mix of exaggeration (huge) and misinformation trying to score a tacky point. Do try and be serious for once

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            See my comments further down.

  • Neville says:

    EVERY DAY we should link to the Wiki graph showing world co2 emissions . Please look at China + other countries+ India and then start to WAKE UP.
    It’s no effort to link to this graph every day, but once should be enough. Again note that combined EU + USA emissions are lower today than in 1970 or 50 years ago.
    OH and USA pop in 1970 was about 223 mil and today about 331 mil or an increase of about 108 mil in just 50 years.
    We know our resident donkey loves his fantasy world but we should always insist on proper data and evidence from the real world.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png

  • Neville says:

    Another new study showing the chaotic Greenland swings in temp during the last full glaciation. Our Holocene looks very stable and serene compared to that very long period of time.

    Here’s a couple of interesting comments from two of the most informed people at WUWT. See the link to study below.
    Rud Istvan
    April 19, 2021 2:24 pm

    “BUT Mann’s latest paper just said there is no internal climate variability. Those rascally Greenland ice cores. How dare they show Mann wrong again”.

    Mike Jonas
    Editor
    April 19, 2021 4:44 pm

    “Our results hint that during these abrupt events, it may not be possible to infer statistically-robust leads and lags between the different components of the climate system because of their tight coupling.”.

    That statement goes nicely with the IPCC’s “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/19/the-anatomy-of-past-abrupt-warmings-recorded-in-greenland-ice/

  • Neville says:

    Last night the Bolter and Senator Matt Canavan discussed the PM’s net zero BS and con trick and the threat from China.
    And nobody is told the cost or benefits ( ZERO benefits) from such fra-dulent nonsense. Meanwhile China will build up its weaponry, military , influence etc and doesn’t have to cut back emissions for another 40 years.
    The Biden donkey is clueless and seems to be doing his best to weaken the West ASAP and plenty of other so called leaders are happy to go along with him.

  • Beth Cooper says:

    Posted at Cliscep.
    CNN: ‘We’ll Milk Climate Change, Fear Sells.’
    https://cliscep.com/2021/04/13/cnn-well-milk-climate-change-fear-sells/

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu sez

    “The development of new energy sources is a massive business opportunity for the countries and companies smart enough to be the leaders, e.g. FORTESCUE.”

    So you finally admit it is all about the money?

    You are happy for China to continue to be the world’s biggest CO2 emitter, increasing emissions for decades to come, as long as there are business opportunities?

    How about some disclosure. What investments do you have in UR (that’s Unreliable Energy, as different to RE, Reliable Energy)? Are you long on wind generators? Big into batteries? Sure about you future solar returns?

  • spangled drongo says:

    When all these “scientific” bodies [awa stu-pids] are telling us how the climate crisis is upon us, I can’t help but wonder how they came to notice.

    Almost every aspect of our current climate is better than it was 50 years ago.

    But I suspect it would not matter whether the climate gets colder or hotter, it’s the big reset that counts, not the facts or the evidence.

    • Neville says:

      SD you’re correct and the data supports us as I’ve shown our stu-pid L W donkey a number of times.
      50 years ago the world population was 3.7 bn and today 7.8 bn and today everyone is healthier, wealthier and life exp has increased from 59 to 72 years. Even our poorest continent has increased by another billion people and their life exp increased from 46.5 to 63.5 and yet the Biden donkey etc tells us we now face an EXISTENTIAL threat.
      And he’s supported by the EU 27 , UK etc and any number of loonies who are happy to see us carpet the planet with the dirty, toxic S&W disaster that have to be replaced every 20 years.
      Yet we’re supposed to believe in this garbage and so many of their so called scientists are content to lend support to this corruption and fraud?

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu

    “development of new energy sources is a massive business opportunity”

    Before you get too excited about your investments in UR, you might look up the Modern Slavery Act 2018. Apparently the implementation is being worked on, and one matter receiving attention is the “purity” of supply chains.

    Given how much of the Unreliable Energy supply chain comes through China, where slavery is recognised as a problem, how will suppliers of exocitic materials be able to guarantee that there is no slave labour input, as will eventually be required?

    I leave aside the issue of cobalt mining in the Congo. Guaranteeing the purity if a supply chain from there would be interesting. I wonder will it get the same publicity as “Blood Diamonds”?

  • Stu says:

    Come on guys, just give up. Admit you have lost the argument. If not show how your line of reasoning is convincing anyone beyond the rest of your small band of resistors. These WUWT pieces etc do not cut it in the real world. You might do better arguing for the use of hydroxycloraquine.

    • spangled drongo says:

      And our silly stu once again launches into his belief-evidence.

      He has allowed the marxists to strike his delicate conscience and has embraced their brainwash.

      Before you go down that road completely, stu, check the real science from the best scientists:

      http://co2coalition.org/

      And then give us your argument based on facts.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Again you (deliberately?) confuse the scientific and political battles in your desire to trumpet your triumphalism.

      The political battle is lost for the moment, but that “victory” is fragile. Look at surveys showing how much individuals are willing to pay to “offset” CO2 emissions. Ask yourself how long that political victory will last with a few major blackouts.

      Meantime, a major US environmental group assessed California, and concluded that solar, wind (both described as “mature technologies” – so much for their hope for technical breakthroughs) and batteries will never be adequate to power California. There solution: they also need nuclear and geotgermal. A pity we are a bit short on geothermal, so we will have to go nuclear.

  • Stu says:

    “ The political battle is lost for the moment, but that “victory” is fragile”. Rubbish, the political victory is gaining strength and the science angle has been settled for some time, get over it.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu

      Asserting repeatedly that “The” science is settled doesn’t make it so. It simply demonstrates your well known ignorance of the scientific method.

  • Neville says:

    Dr Roy Spencer updated his Global Warming 101 in 2019 and here’s the last few paragraphs and the link. Models have been run then adjusted or fudged to produce what the modeler thinks is the correct outcome. THEN THEY HAVE THE PROOF THAT INCREASING co2 HAS CAUSED THE RECENT WARMING. What a load of BS and this is why they’ve wasted trillions $ on their fraudulent nonsense and continue to do so?
    CIRCULAR REASONING 101.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

    “Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about one candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which reflects whether we are in a multi-decadal period of stronger El Ninos (which produce global warmth) or La Nina (which produces global coolness). Other possibilities for natural changes in the climate system also exist.

    The most important thing to remember about climate models which are used to project future global warming is that they were “tuned” with the assumption I started this article with: that the climate system is in a natural state of energy balance, and that there is no long-term climate change unless humans cause it.

    This is an arbitrary and illogical assumption. The climate system is an example of a “nonlinear dynamical system”, which means it can change all by itself. For example, slow changes in the rate of vertical overturning of the world’s oceans can cause global warming (or global cooling) with no “external forcing” of the climate system whatsoever.

    Instead, the climate models are “tuned” to not produce natural climate change. If a 100-year run of the model produces change, the model is adjusted to removed the “drift”. The models do not produce global energy balance from “first physical principles”, because none of the processes controlling that balance are known to sufficient accuracy. Instead, the models are “fudged” to produce energy balance, based upon the modelers’ assumption of no natural climate change. Then, the models are used as “proof” that only increasing CO2 has caused recent warming.

    This is circular reasoning.

    I am not against modeling; models are necessary to understand complex processes in the climate system. But, while the models are useful and necessary tools for studying climate change, I do not think they can yet be relied upon for major changes in energy policy”.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu has still not explained how if CO2 emissions have caused a “climate emergency”, then it is acceptable for China to keep increasing its emissions for decades to come without (under his “settled science” this causing catastrophic global worming.

    Apparently Chinese CO2 doesn’t affect the climate because it’s their turn to pollute the atmosphere because of equity or something.

    • Stu says:

      Simple. The “emergency” is the need for action now to prevent problems in the future. The scientists have concluded that if we start to limit emissions now and achieve a net zero position by 2050 we can avoid some if the worst of the effects. But as they repeatedly warn even if we achieved net zero today the earth would continue to warm for quite some time because of the lasting effects of the past emissions. I remind you that mankind has in 100 years burned the carbon that the earth took 100 million years to sequester in the carboniferous period. And go back and ask Spencer how the “ …..multi-decadal period of stronger El Ninos (which produce global warmth) or La Nina (which produces global coolness).” actually works. Where does the energy come from and go to in those periods or is there something else? Or as he says “ Other possibilities for natural changes in the climate system also exist.”. Ok then what are they? As usual we have the knockers criticising the science but they never seem to have an alternative explanation, apart from the beloved “natural variation” of BJ, Nev and company.

      • Neville says:

        Stu Dr Spencer lists some of them at the link and a slight % change in clouds or the Med W P ocean memories( see Dr Wunsch’s research). Then whatever changed the much warmer HOL optimum for thousands of years or wild temp swings during the much longer glaciation after the much warmer Eemian inter-glacial.
        Of course all these Int-Glacial WARMINGS HAPPENED WHEN Co2 LEVELS WERE about 280 ppm and the 90,000+year last full glacial had incredible swings in temp when co2 levels sometimes dropped to 180 ppm. Look it up.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        “Simple. The “emergency” is the need for action now to prevent problems in the future”

        If action is needed now, then it is needed by the whole world, particularly the major emitters. These include China.

        If you are willing to allow China to keep increasing its already high emissions for decades, and thus (in the alarmist view) to increase the threat of the “climate emergency”, then you are not serious. Reasoning that it is their turn to catch up again shows that the so-called “emergency does not exist.

        I could Fisk the rest of your blither, but it is not worth the effort.

  • Neville says:

    Andrew Bolt last night talked to Alan Moran about Scomo’s window dressing about the super expensive Hydrogen BS and fra-d plus their so called CC& storage money SUPER sink.

    Here’s the link and some pertinent info about Aussie’s extreme effort to use more toxic S&W than the USA (2 times more) and China ( 6 times more). That’s as a percentage of our spending on our total electricity generation. See last sentence below of transcript.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp-QwQsEbEc

    “Energy Economist Alan Moran says Prime Minister Scott Morrison is “window dressing” climate policy through the hydrogen and carbon capture investment so Australia doesn’t “show up empty-handed” to Joe Biden’s climate summit.

    “He’s basically window dressing for a government that’s spooked it might be showing up empty-handed to the Biden meeting,” he said.

    “He’s paying blackmail money for coal because he knows we can’t divest ourselves of coal. It’s the only basic level of competitive energy we have.

    “He’s looking around at other things we can do to persuade the world we’re doing as much as we’re doing. In fact, we are spending a great deal on renewable largesse… roughly twice that of the US and six times as much as China.”

  • Neville says:

    Because of the NSW Hunter by- election pressure we now have Labor telling the electorate that they really support coal mining and FUTURE COAL exports and jobs.
    Let’s hope the voters don’t fall for these lying, desperate con merchants.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s my comment & question from a fortnight ago. I just thought I should ask again and don’t forget their thirty + year fra-d & con trick is all over that extra 0.0065% of co2 in our planet’s atmosphere.
    But even if we get all our electricity ( mission impossible) from dirty, toxic S&W etc how does that help us with the remaining 70% ( at least) of our energy needs until 2050 or 2100?
    Remember Dr Hansen and Bill McKibben etc ( 350.dot org) tell us we must reduce co2 levels to a safe 350 ppm.
    So at present we have about 415 ppm minus 350 ppm= 65 ppm and therefore that’s about 0.0065% too much co2 in our atmosphere. Or so says the Biden Donkey + most of the world’s so called leaders + Dr Hansen and the “upside down Mann” fool etc.
    But don’t worry because China, India+ developing countries are happily building hundreds of new coal power stns and couldn’t care less about any of Biden’s, delusional, stu-pid BS and fra-d.
    Any sane comments?

    • Stu says:

      I love the way S&W is “dirty and toxic” but never any mention of coal, which is filthy and landscape destructive in production and toxic in use. Just slipped the mind I suppose, very convenient.

      • Boambee John says:

        Stu

        Apparently it has escaped your very limited attention span that large scale solar and wind are very damaging to the landscape. Large scale wind is also highly dangerous to birds and bats ( even putting aside the contested question of low frequency infra-sound).

        And of course, you do not see the environmental damage caused by mining and processing the minerals needed for solar and wind because that happens overseas. Australian environmental regulations prevent it happening here.

        But do carry on burying your head in the sand about these negative externalities of your favourite unreliable and discontinuous power source.

        • Stu says:

          Bj “ But do carry on burying your head in the sand about these negative externalities”

          Ahem, where is your response about the negative externalities of coal and oil? Who has a head in the sand? Your cognitive dissonance is astounding. Come to the Hunter region for a peek.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Could be radically improved with the construction of HELE power stations, but they would both provide reliable and continuous power (possibly even enough to power a fleet of EVs, which solar and wind at their current state of development have no chance of doing), while removing the current morass of subsidy harvesting.

            I guess we are at the point of “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours”, but much of yours is out of sight, out of mind.

          • Stu says:

            “ but much of yours is out of sight, out of mind.” Come to the Hunter and I will show you the stuff you promote. They try and keep a lot of it out of sight, but that fails dismally when they are blasting and much is glaringly ugly. Very little has been rehabilitated and the rest probably never will with the ongoing “extend our licence for ten more years” trick or selling the licence near its end to a small outfit with no prospect of meeting the requirements. The latter often breach the emissions targets in that period also. The lack of escrow required by the government when granting the licences is proof of the lobbying power of the sector.

            As is being argued in the current by-election the return to the region of its share of the fairly poor royalty payments is paltry and enlightening. And then of course the 100 million tons per year pours CO2 into the atmosphere when burned. But you don’t care about that do you because it is in the northern hemisphere?

            Remember there is only one habitable planet we know of and the precautionary principle says lets us do what we can now to keep it safe, even if as you say, “the risk is small’.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Classic NIMBY. You can see the effects on the Hunter Valley, so oppose their cause. You cannot see the effects in Africa and China, so are unconcerned by their effect on the (non-white) inhabitants there.

            As for the “precautionary principle, if you truly accept it, you should be demanding that China, India et al, stop increasing their CO2 emissions now, not in several decades time.

          • Stu says:

            “ You cannot see the effects in Africa and China, so are unconcerned by their effect on the (non-white) inhabitants there”. Oh please that is a disgusting affront and you know it.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            That is a bit rich coming from someone who has previously accused me of not caring about the future of my grandchildren, of being a racist (the word you actually used), and of being a paid propagandist for fossil fuel companies.

            To use the words of your mate Chris, consider yourself “repaid in your own coin”.

            Now how about you focus on the issue at hand. To wit the (overseas) negative externalities of wind, solar and batteries. Just because you can’t see them, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

          • Stu says:

            If you actually do have concern for the future world of your grandchildren please explain your easy acceptance of the do nothing principle which seems to be based on the idea that there is nothing to fear, all will be well post 2070 because rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is actually a good thing. I really am curious how you rationalise that while claiming to care for their welfare. In my experience it is the younger generations most concerned because it is they not us who will experience that future.

            As to externalities, of course there are adverse effects from all human activity, including hydro. But the difference is that the fossil fuel industry has had a free hand for 150 plus years to pollute the atmosphere with no cost. I can’t be bothered quoting the papers which you will dismiss anyway that count the deaths from atmospheric particle pollution, not to mention the climate effects. On that score there are current papers on the excess deaths from respiratory illness in the Hunter Valley from coal digging and coal burning. The scale of coal mining and burning and its negative health results far exceeds the negative results of illicit mining of certain rare earths, meantime the bulk of which are not mined in such poor conditions. But all lives matter.

            I did consider posting this in two parts separated by time for you to reply. So please respond to the first para as I am curious and don’t just race off on a tangent responding only to the second para as you usually do.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu

            Your position is based on alarmist modelling that “projects” a catastrophe based on assumed “feedbacks” (even alarmists are slowly coming to recognise that each CO2 doubling in the atmosphere has only a logarithmic effect). The evidence for those feedbacks is yet to be found.

            As for the beneficial effect of additional CO2 on plant growth, they have been discussed before, and rejected before by you. Putting aside your reasonable contention that improved plant varieties have helped with crops, before you again repeat yourself, perhaps you can explain how those improvements in crop varieties have also spilled over into forests, which are spreading into previously desert areas.

            BTW, you have still not responded as to why the precautionary principle does not apply to CO2 emissions from China, India and Africa.

            Perhaps you might also do some research into deaths worldwide from smoke and animal dung fumes used for cooking in many regions where reliable (sometimes even unreliable) electricity is not available.

            All of these points have been raised here many times before, and you have always ignored them (as you probably will also this time).

Leave a Reply