Climate change got me into establishing and maintaining a website, so it’s fitting that I farewell the website (almost) with a comment about this vexed issue. As with defence, nothing much has changed since I first got interested in the issue twenty years ago. Very briefly, I was writing a book about Australia twenty years from now (= then = 2002), and it needed a chapter on ‘the environment’. That took me to global warming, and on the advice of a friend or two, including Ian Castles, the former Australian Statistician, I ploughed through the WGI paper of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. I became more and more sceptical as I read on, explored much more stuff and then started to give addresses and write essays on the subject. In 2012 I decided I might as well set up my own website, and did so.
As I wrote above, nothing much has changed except in detail. The orthodoxy is that carbon dioxide is being manufactured through human activity at a rate that threatens humanity and even the environment of the planet. CO2 is a villain, indeed, the villain, and no other issue is as important, not even Covid. The nations of the planet must band together to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, the source of this gas, and come to rely exclusively on alternative sources of energy, often named (erroneously) as ‘sustainable’. Governments, pressed by Green and other environmental groups to ‘do something’, have waffled on about ‘climate action’, which has led to a bewildering mix of energy sources, but fossil fuels remain the dominant provider, especially of electricity.
I thought that Working Group I paper was very short on good data and over-reliant on its basic premise, that CO2 was the villain, and its work was all about showing how that might be so, not about testing the hypothesis against data. Subsequent Assessment Reports from the IPCC, a political body, not a scientific one, have been no better, and there is a new one coming later this year, I understand. I don’t see much sign of improvement there. As the data become even more contingent, so the rhetoric of the orthodox and their media allies becomes even more strident.
I don’t see any compelling reasons to support the orthodoxy, despite the plethora of organisations that have now signed up to it. Here are a few reasons why I remain sceptical. I’ve written about all of them before.
First, the orthodox claim that what we are experiencing with our climate is quite ‘unprecedented’, and that is in part why there is a rush to find solutions, gain global agreements, ban fossil fuels, and so on. It is not always clear what it is that is said to have no precedent, but the historical evidence is that humanity has endured some cold periods, like the Little Ice Age and enjoyed some warm periods, like the Minoan and Roman eras. These eras were not marked by abrupt increases or decreases in carbon dioxide, at least so the proxies say. I find it hard to see anything truly unprecedented in our present climate.
Second, there is general acceptance that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead, of itself, to an increase of about one degree Celsius in global temperature. But the climate models, on which the orthodoxy relies, say that there is an additional factor, called ‘climate sensitivity’, that has to be considered. This factor multiplies the warming effect by 1.5 to 4.5 times, and could lead to ‘runaway warming’ and ‘tipping points’. Efforts to find and measure climate sensitivity have produced a wide range of results. For my part, this is the crucial weakness in the orthodox position. For a doubling of CO2 that produces a one-degree increase in global temperature is not worrying at all, and it will take a long time to generate that increase in temperature anyway. The only reason that we need a concept like ‘climate sensitivity’ is that the models demand something much more alarming. Climate sensitivity was created to provide it.
Third, what measures we have of global temperature do show an increase from about 1965 to 1998, a period in which the amount of CO2 certainly did increase, almost matching the shape of the increase in temperature. Many people found that agreement to be most alarming, and blamed it on the villainous gas. Between 1920 and 1950, however, there was a similar rise in global temperature, but no corresponding increase in CO2. What caused that increase? Ah, said the orthodox, that’s natural variation. Well, asks the sceptic, why isn’t the post-war increase also due to natural variation? That’s because of the extra CO2? Really? My judgment is that human activity has been part of the cause of the post-war increase, but it is not of much consequence. And in any case,
Fourth, all the orthodox anxiety about warming is based on the premise that warming is bad, and could get worse. In fact, there is no evidence that warming has been bad for anyone. On the face of it, the slight amount of warming that has occurred over the past century has been beneficial to plants and animals. Cold is the real worry. Similarly, the increase in carbon dioxide has not led to a ‘climate emergency’. What is the evidence for such an emergency? On the contrary, there has been a perceptible greening of the planet over the past forty years. Plants love CO2, and animals love plants. The greening has been a win/win.
Fifth, the orthodox have worries about sea-level rises, and ‘ocean acidification’. Sea levels have been rising for several centuries, and there does not seem to have been a recent sudden acceleration in that rise. Not one, anyway, that can be credited to extra atmospheric CO2. ‘Ocean acidification’ is an alarming (but mis-named) concept, but if there is a shift in the alkalinity of the seawater it is hardly measurable, and in any case the oceans possess a variety of hot spots and low spots, and sea creatures seem to survive, even flourish, in both extremes.The orthodox claim that extreme weather is the consequence of climate change, but there is no good evidence to support this claim.
There are other reasons to be sceptical, and I haven’t time or space to go into the awful mess we are in because of the desire to replace fossil fuels with ‘alternative’ energy sources, and the hype about electric vehicles. Enough is enough. My conclusion is that governments everywhere would love to be out of this bind, but they feel they can’t, because of possible electoral backlash. So I shake my head, and go on puzzling that what ought to be a matter of rational debate and good data has become a matter of passion and principle.
Join the discussion 349 Comments
The public debate on climate change and the public debate on defence is indeed very similar – evidence and reason play second fiddle to religious belief. Faith in the US Alliance is not affected by historical evidence – those who want to retain this faith will cling to it. Similarly, belief in climate change as an existential threat to humanity is not affected by historical or any other kind of evidence – those who want to believe this will cling to it. Few human beings have the courage to change their mindset as changes in evidence take place – that retort from JM Keynes about changing his mind as the evidence changes is illuminating because it is so rare in the real world.
And it is also striking – and hardly needs saying – that human beings can lament the loss of reason and critical thinking in one area, even as they uphold an irrational, almost religious, belief about something else in the face of critical review. And they can do it seemingly without self-consciousness or embarrassment.
This “woke” world does not concern itself with history, reason, sound judgement, experimental and evidence based science. Even Maths is being challenged, it is just what you make of it.
The narritive is the only thing you have to know. Don’t give us facts, just the narrative. The narrative is anti-white, anti-male, anti-heterosexual, anti-western, anti-Australia, anti-carbon/hydrocarbon/nuclear, anti-everything that is seen as contributing to our high standard of life built on former generations. Everything now is a crisis and it is all our fault. Oh and let’s continue giving the free passes to China.
No facts please, just the narrative.
Vern said: “Few human beings have the courage to change their mindset as changes in evidence take place”
So true. I am looking forward to an announcement in Washington on Saturday (our time), it could upset scientific group-think, big time.
Based on Vern’s statement I am one of those few human beings. I am an ex-climate alarmist. True.
Don, I read your essays and feel that there is a breath of sanity, a measure of reason and a perspective that comes with time and experience. I know you are winding down your involvement on these matters I wish you well.
What you ignore is the rate of change (rather than just its scale). That is the unprecedented aspect. That is the main thing that underpins the world’s justified concern.
The main things that underpin the (unjustified) concern are hype by media outlets seeking ever more dramatic headlines and activism by so-called scientists who have long since forgotten (if they ever knew) the concept of the Null Hypothesis.
Ignore this troll.
Look in the mirror to see the troll.
Like we ignore you.
Yes Boambe John, and the Null Hypothesis has been supported, not only the once required to topple a hypothesis, but several times.
The rate of change, ie cooling to warming, at the end of the last glacial period, a mere 12k years ago was possibly 10 times the current rate of warming.
There is nothing happening today, climate-wise, that hasn’t happened in spades throughout civilisation.
Astonishing that the faulty logic of catastrophic AGW was identified by you and others two decades ago and empirical evidence has, in the meantime, further condemned the theory yet it is now established wisdom, overwhelmingly supported by elites in politics, bureaucracies, academia and business. This almost outcome’s incredibility is compounded by clear evidence that adopting emission restraints would be cost less has also been found wrong.
Don, you have done sterling service and I declare you an honourary member of the Energy Realists of Australia.
You have certainly hit the nail on the head with this essay, Don.
Your first concern underscores the typical confusion with ‘climate’ and ‘temperature’.
‘Climate’ is a regional parameter intended to allow comparison with the typical weather of one region with another. It is the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
Since there is no metric for ‘climate’, classification systems were created to define it. (Koppen-Geiger and Trewartha). The classification for a region is determined over a period of not less than three decades. Although such classification has a history of little more than a century, the concept of ‘climate change’ would therefore require significant changes for every region over that period. On examination of classifications for individual regions, there have been few since the late nineteenth century, (apart from changes due to land use), making the term ‘climate change’ in the vernacular to be total nonsense.
Your second and third concern are due to the silly notion that atmospheric CO2 is in any way related to the weather. The geologic record indicates no such correlation apart from an apparent lag in temperatures relative to CO2. There is no reason to think that CO2 even has a connection. Correlation is not causation. As for the “global temperature do show an increase from about 1965 to 1998”, the raw data shows nothing of the sort. The apparent “warming’ is simply die to the conditions reported from tortured data and the NOAA algorithm that increases measured and reported temperatures in accordance with changes in CO2.
As for seal level and ocean pH, there is so much obfuscation over sea level and subsidence, and comparisons of pH in one location with another, or comparisons with dates in history when little attention was paid to ocean pH that very little factual evidence can be determined for either.
It is all part of a manufactured “new normal”. Facts are not allowed to interfere with the woke ‘reality ; part of the process in which we are currently captured. Here is an explanation for the fear mongering associated with this advancement to a totalitarian system.
Manufacturing (New Normal) “Reality” – OffGuardian (off-guardian.org)
Admire your contribution on climate, Don
Great essay Don.All the best.John
This essay reminds me of Anna Russell’s immortal parody of Wagner’s Ring cycle “You’re exactly where you started 20 hours ago”.
As usual there is a torrent of comments from people, including Don, who are not climate scientists, but merely observers of the “debate”. That is quite acceptable for the average Joe here, but I think that people of influence ought to be more careful about their “opinions” in the public sphere as they can cause unwarranted belief in things which are not necessarily “truth”. One fact is that the “do nothings”, “deniers”, “sceptics” (call them whatever) have still not provided any credible explanation for how and why what they call a hoax has gained so much traction in the world. Collectively they are martyrs to a lost cause but cannot accept defeat. The dismissal of the science as outlined by Don carries no scientific weight, it is just more opinion.
It is BS to hide behind “natural variation” as the cause of current changes. The only scientific explanation so far put forward for the changes in the earths atmosphere and cryosphere etc is that it is a result of burning fossil fuels.
We need a few practicing climate scientists to comment on Don’s epistle but it won’t happen, they are too tired of wasting their time on such efforts, particularly when no actual science is referenced to respond to. So it remains true the only belief and religion in this area is that followed by the deniers.
I could knock off each of Don’s points quite easily (by quoting published science) but realise there is no point in this forum, it would just be a waste of time. And in conclusion “ Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (eg. land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse. Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming”. To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them – but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.” – James Wright.
Stu, you never do refer to much published science. OK, your privilege. But, if you would, a published article showing that the Roman and Minoan warm periods did not exist, nor the Little ice Age. Plus, an accepted paper anywhere showing that climate sensitivity exists, is not a function of models and is high. Plus a paper that shows convincingly that warming is bad, has been bad and will get worse.
That’s enough for starters. And, like many who support the orthodox view, you refer to a new paper as though it is the truth, and nothing but the truth. All published work, wherever it is published, is simply a contribution to a debate (this is a reference to the paper you cite further down).
“ All published work, wherever it is published, is simply a contribution to a debate”. And that contribution in support of AGW is enormous and growing, whereas on the other hand! And where did I write that previous warm and cold periods did not happen? Oh never mind, you stick with the Minoans. Like I said it appears none of us here are climate scientists (including you) and therefore everything here is just commentary. Indulging in a form of “he said/she said” by quoting scientific papers back and forth is not going to settle anything because 97% here have their minds firmly made up.
Your points 2 and 3 exhibit the common misrepresentation of the problem by concentrating on the narrow 1.5 to 3 degree average temperature change metric when the real issue is the extremes at both ends resulting from increased variability. A paper in the US said deaths from the heat waves there exceed those from cold and their heat this year seems to be fairly extraordinary. In similar fashion some players concentrate on the average SST in the Great Barrier Reef region to disprove change when the big issue is the increasing incidence of short term bleaching events. Such misdirection goes on right across the debate spectrum.
Stu in his self-imposed wisdom sez; “The dismissal of the science as outlined by Don carries no scientific weight, it is just more opinion.”
When anything he puts forward is simply model -based.
As in ~ 300% overstated:
And his; “It is BS to hide behind “natural variation” as the cause of current changes. The only scientific explanation so far put forward for the changes in the earths atmosphere and cryosphere etc is that it is a result of burning fossil fuels.”
But he ignores that “natural variation” covers greater climate change than anything that is currently occurring.
“ But he ignores that “natural variation” covers greater climate change than anything that is currently occurring.‘
Would you care to put some time frames around those post changes and now?
For someone who has NEVER provided any measurable evidence to support his climate religion belief that ACO2 is responsible for our current slight warming, I am still waiting for you to make your point other than by GCMs and hand-waving.
If you are so obtuse as not to understand the capacity of natural climate variation I am more than happy to oblige when you do so.
But in the meantime you could study Holocene high stand temperatures and sea levels and then go back to previous interglacial periods which were even higher.
But then stu, if you’re actually saying the minor difference between global incoming and outgoing heat fluxes is “unprecedented,” perhaps you can provide us with data from the last 4.6 billion years of Earth’s history to back up that claim.
Your usual platitudes.
“One fact is that the “do nothings”, “deniers”, “sceptics” (call them whatever) have still not provided any credible explanation for how and why what they call a hoax has gained so much traction in the world.”
Follow the money.
“ Follow the money.”. Exactly I could not agree more, there is so much profit at stake for the fossil industry that they pour billions into the negative cause. Get real, if any scientist could disprove the current stream of AGW evidence they would make a fortune and probably win a Nobel, but they cannot. But that is where the soft money is for the true believers of climate denial. Plus of course those who do it for religious reasons. I don’t mean the denier belief I mean the delusional god bothering types who follow creationism and cannot believe man can undo god’s perfect creation. There are plenty of them. Some even cloak themselves in the mantle of science. We even have some running our government.
Stu ignores the billions available from ruinable subsidy harvesting, and the huge sums going to participants in climate “research” (where the soft money is for the true believers of climate alarmism) to revert to his oft stated narrow minded religious bigotry.
Oh dear, stu thinks “soft money” is in private enterprise and is in serious denial of the huge “soft money” govt indulgences.
It’s easy to see that he doesn’t work in private business.
“We need a few practicing climate scientists to comment on Don’s epistle but it won’t happen, they are too tired of wasting their time on such efforts”
Poor perals, defending their proposals to turn the world economy on its head are just too hard for them.
Sad, low energy.
Poor petals. They are not anagrammatic pearls.
No, they just prefer to interact with actual scientists.
Except where those actual scientists present a different position, at which time the alarmists shut the dissenters out, even if they have to “redefine the meaning of the peer reviewed literature” (see the Climategate emails).
Open your eyes, even if you cannot open your mind.
The biggest problem is in all the essays and comments is that the most obvious item missing in all of these notes is when is the start date for the statistical measure. BOM uses 1910, CSIRO had another until recently; Dr Roy Spencer monthly excellent blog on slow warming trends starts about 1975; the Chinese start 4,000 years ago; If I start from my father’s birthday in 1896 we would have global cooling. If you then go to the recent article on Ice Follies (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/20/ice-follies/) you will find that measurable CO2 levels remain remarkably constant since 1 AD until the start of the industrial revolution (surely it must be a coincidence that the Little Ice Age ended just as the Industrial Revolution got underway) with the attendant rise in CO2 levels that have continued ever since. It is noticeable that the CO2 levels bear no relevance to the changes in climate over the same time. The back of the envelope calculation is unable to explain where the water went during the Ice Ages. The climate at both Antarctica and Greenland has been remarkably constant for the last 1,000,000 year or thereabouts enabling the constant accumulation of annual ice layers now intersected by cores up to 3,500 metres in length. The latter base data is remarkable in that the cores while measuring minor variations in the content of the Earth’s atmosphere present a remarkable record of the lack of change as represented by these deep core holes. No glacial movement here as these holes are drilled over several seasons not possible if there is any ice shift. Anyway, I am still backing Dr Zharkova with her forecast of cold climate for the next 40 years.
The problem of political idiocy has arisen because of lies by the IPCC and preceding claims – also lies – by people such as James Hansen, Ben Santer and AlGore. Basically, they claim that a suitable model of the earth, which permits a calculation of the globe without any greenhouse gases, ALSO HAS NO SOIL AND NO AIR. This is, QUITE OBVIOUSLY NOT A SUITABLE MODEL, and leads to a weightless shell receiving sunlight on one side which reaches a mean temperature on that side of 15 C (288 Kelvin) while on the opposite, night side, the temperature is absolutely zero, -273 C or 0.0 Kelvin representing zero energy. From this a fancy temperature (NOT THE MEN) is defined which is 255 K (-18 C) which requires a further 33 C in order to reach Earth’s known mean temperature, and of course, this is provided through the effects of carbon dioxide,
Taking a REALISTIC MODEL wit soil and air but NO greenhouse gasses, one easily shows that the temperature of 288 K from the sun’s warming in the day, is taken into the night, providing a MEAN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE of 288 K which is the same as the measured mean temperature – NOT A GREENHOUSE GAS IN SIGHT!!
Thus carbon dioxide can have absolutely NO effect on global temperature except to help cool the air in the top of the atmosphere!!!
Hear, hear Don. Models have consistently far exceeded actual measurements; they cannot be relied on. Warming and cooling have been constant in Earth’s history. Cooling is far worse than warming. Carbon dioxide levels show no correlation to temperature, with ice ages when CO2 was high, much higher than today. Bush fires in Australia and coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef are par for the course here, nothing unusual. Carbon dioxide is vital for plant and therefore all life and, as you point out, the Earth has greened in the slight warming we have recently experienced. The proponents of CAGW have fallen into the error of ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’. The case for coal is that it is a tried means of providing cheap, reliable energy and Australia has coal in abundance. The case against is that the carbon dioxide it produces is going to destroy the planet but actual measurements suggest otherwise. It is said that ‘renewables’ are cheap but everywhere they predominate, such as in California or Germany, electricity prices skyrocket.
E wrote “ Models have consistently far exceeded actual measurements”.
Another of the often repeated but unsubstantiated myths of the deniers. See below.
“In a study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.
The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.” – NASA
This is the orthodoxy congratulating itself. Zeke Hausfather is a staunch alarmist. And there are lots of diagrams showing the divergence of observational reality from the models’ projections. You can pick and choose, as you wish.
That is just one such paper.
Denialists echo themselves.
You cannot implicate the journal Geophysical Research Letters in merely publishing congratulatory material or being associated with mere congratulatory material.
This is slander.
The models have produced accurate outcomes not that it matters because the actual measurements, independently of models, show a demonstrable warming trend as predicted by EXXON scientists decades ago.
In which branch of climate “science” are your qualifications?
I have asked this question multiple times, perhaps Don’s likely final essay on the subject would be a suitable place to respond?
“This is slander.”
A lazy attempt at defending a common alarmist practice.
Stu may be unaware that well over 50% of peer-reviewed, published, scientific papers fail replication. That appalling figure is much worse in the soft sciences such as climate science, natural history and the like; the physical sciences, being more akin to mathematics, fare better.
There is widespread agreement on the modelling of the direct effect of increasing CO2 on the outgoing spectra of radiation at different latitudes, the recent paper by Winjgaarden and Happer being but the latest and most accurate.
Where there is huge disagreement is in the estimation of the temperature change resulting from an imbalance of 3(ish)W/m^2. I pointed out to one of the ANU professors that last year there were two published peer-reviewed papers on this subject – one claimed 0.5 degrees, the other 5.5 degrees. (Obviously I thought, here’s direct evidence of the 50% rule). No, no he said, the average of 3 degrees is just within the 2 sigma limit for both so both papers could be right and 3 degrees it is.
One can decide for oneself whether this is Piltdown/Phlogisten/Silent-Spring tripe being peddled as scientific truth. But one is on shaky ground when claiming, on the evidence of one paper which has a greater than even chance of being completely wrong, that the GC model predictions are kosher.
Yes, like I said!
HO HUM here we go AGAIN,trying to drum some common sense into the delusions of the silly know nothings.
Here Willis actually shows us the data from the real planet EARTH to try and dispel their silly fantasies.
There’s is no emergency or crisis or EXISTENTIAL threat and I’d be very interested if anyone can challenge his claims.
The data is the data whether we like it or NOT.
Here’s the world divided into countries and regions showing co2 emissions since 1950.
AGAIN it shows that EU 28 + other EU + the USA + Canada haven’t increased co2 emissions since 1970. This graph ends in 2018 but there’d be zip difference to 2020.
China, India + other developing countries’ co2 emissions have soared since 1970 and look certain to continue for decades into the future. WAKE UP.
So they have not “increased”, but they are still belching out great quantities and helping to raise the overall level. This is one of the things that you “stick with the past” folk overlook all the time. The earths atmosphere is a thin and fragile layer which allows heat from the sun to come in and go out. It is loosely considered to be like the glass walls of a greenhouse and works because of the particular mix of elements. Over a very long time, which you guys love to quote, there have been significant changes, for example the CO2 which has had a wild ride. The period leading to the carboniferous period was very high in CO2 and then during that era much of it was laid down to form the coal we love to burn. And this is the point. In just over a hundred years we have consumed a commodity that took the earth 100 million years to form and bury. Yet you continue to insist that it is no big deal, that putting that carbon back in the air cannot have any effect on the atmosphere and climate etc. That is like saying you don’t believe in gravity or evolution, which I find amazing.
“And this is the point. In just over a hundred years we have consumed a commodity that took the earth 100 million years to form and bury.”
More pseudo “accuracy” from an alarmist. How do you know that the coal so far burned took 100 million years to form and bury? How long did it take to form and bury the coal not so far dug up and burned? How do you even know how much remains?
Or did you just make that number up?
“So they have not “increased”, but they are still belching out great quantities and helping to raise the overall level.”
But you are quite comfortable with China and India and others continuing to INCREASE their CO2 emissions because it is their turn?
There is either a problem, in which case every nation needs to act, or some nations can continue to increase emissions, and you accept that there is no problem.
And, of course, thete is no need for you personally to take action, other than babbling on here.
Dr Humlum’s GWPF’s climate report in 2020 covers most of the issues covered by Willis 2021 and AGAIN shows no room for their EXISTENTIAL threat or whatever.
Since that time we’ve seen some global cooling brought on by the moderate la nina event. His 10 points are a quick summary of the report.
I remind you that the GWPF is not a scientific body or publisher.
I remind you that the IPCC is a political body. It receives some scientific support, but its Summary for Policymakers is a purely political document.
AGAIN more REAL DATA from the BOM about Aussie region cyclone trends since 1970.
The trends for both SEVERE and non SEVERE cyclones are DOWN since 1970 and only the 2015 to ’16 season shows NO SEVERE cyclones over that period of time. So much for the Labor+ Greens BS and fra-d.
Yet ignorant people still vote for these liars and con merchants.
You are cherry picking again. Remember my post above “ Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (eg. land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse. Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming”. To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them – but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.”
Those words are not a reflection of your wisdom, they are the defensive words of an alarmist. Try again.
Denialist “The Great Barrier Reef is still there, and apparently the coral is recovering quickly, or was never in real trouble.”
Science and UNESCO: Great Barrier Reef is “in danger”.
Some people look for themselves, others prefer to indulge in climate religion promoted by those with an axe to grind.
And they just aren’t aware of their own stupidity:
I am beginning to think that your credentials might be in political science, not physical science. The UNESCO “declaration” seems more like a chapter in a trade war than science.
More NOAA co2 DATA TRENDS over the last 60 years for our delusional stu. And the decadal trends are highlighted since 1960.
And NOAA also shows a May 2020 to May 2021 co2 increase of 2.8 ppm. Just some more data for him to digest and THINK about during the world’s so called LOCK DOWN period. THINK ABOUT IT.
The CSIRO reported on our GREENING planet and attribute the co2 increase for much of this wonderful news.
OH but of course our GREENING planet is not good news according to these so called scientists. So why aren’t they hammering China , India and other developing countries for their soaring co2 emissions since 1970 or 1990 and decades more of soaring emissions into the future???
Willis, Christy, Pielke etc have covered global rainfall trends over a long period of time and the BOM has graphs since 1900 to 2020.
Here’s overall Aussie trends and NOTE that there’s been higher rainfall since 1970 compared to the 1900 to 1970 period. So who would want to swap that earlier drier period compared to our rainfall after 1970?
More to come using the very latest data for our SAM, ENSO, IOD etc and the very recent O’Donnell dendro study for SW WA.
Nev I remind you again the global warming issue is not about Dubbo, or Australia, it is, as the words suggest a Global issue. You are cherry picking.
So you admit that your delusions are just more BS and fra-d and we’ve seen no negative impact at all?
And what were the Flannery + ABC droughts idiocy about for decades? And at what cost to Australia??
Then the globe should act in unison. But you have said that China can continue to expand its CO2 emissions because they should be able to “catch up” with the west.
The latest 2021 study on rainfall in the SW of WA by O’Donnell et al has found that rainfall since 1900 is the highest for the last 700 years. And the 1830s to 1840s measured rainfall matches that part of their very long study.
IOW wheat farmers since 1900 have been growing wheat during the very best of times. Although rainfall has dropped by about 20% overall in the more recent decades. Again that’s for just SW WA.
OH and the entire WA state area has had much higher rainfall over the last 50 years. See the BOM data since 1900.
“Declining winter rainfall coupled with recent prolonged drought poses significant risks to water resources and agriculture across southern Australia. While rainfall declines over recent decades are largely consistent with modelled climate change scenarios, particularly for southwest Australia, the significance of these declines is yet to be assessed within the context of long-term hydroclimatic variability. Here, we present a new 668-year (1350–2017 CE) tree-ring reconstruction of autumn–winter rainfall over inland southwest Australia. This record reveals that a recent decline in rainfall over inland southwest Australia (since 2000 CE) is not unusual in terms of either magnitude or duration relative to rainfall variability over the last seven centuries. Drought periods of greater magnitude and duration than those in the instrumental record occurred prior to 1900 CE, including two ‘megadroughts’ of 30 years duration in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. By contrast, the wettest decadal periods of the last seven centuries occurred after 1900 CE, making the twentieth century the wettest of the last seven centuries. We conclude that the instrumental rainfall record (since 1900 CE) does not capture the full scale of natural hydroclimatic variability for inland southwest Australia and that the risk of prolonged droughts in the region is likely much higher than currently estimated.”
“ rainfall since 1900 is the highest for the last 700 years. ”. But you say there is no climate change!
Stu you really are beyond any hope. AGAIN I’ve shown years of studies of much higher SLs and Borel forests that have grown up to the Arctic circle thousands of years ago in the earlier much warmer Holocene optimum.
I’ve even linked to ABC reporting of much higher east coast SLs about 4,000 years ago. So yes I believe the climate changes, BUT the so called tiny change since 350 ppm in about 1990 has been very good for our GREENING planet and the data and evidence supports my claims. WAKE UP.
Re-defining the issue again.
As you have been told on many occasions, there is no sentient being who does not accept that the climate changes. It has been changing for millions of years, and will continue to do so.
The issue is the validity of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis. This is challenging the Null Hypothesis of natural variation. So far it has yet to demonstrate that the anthropogenic element (which does exist, see the UHIE) is both stronger than the natural element, AND potentially catastrophic.
But you keep crying in your macrobiotic beer.
Come now guys stick with the current meaning and impact of climate change. You know very well what I was referring to. Once again you rely on more of the standard denialist playbook arguments, in this case the standard “of course the climate has always changed”. Well done you have now nearly used all of them. You are correct it is potential catastrophe. But unlike your house, which I am sure you take out insurance to cover unlikely events for, you propose to ignore the potential climate problems because they are beyond your horizon. Puts you in the same category as vaccine resisters and covid. Go for it, you both sound like SOM.
No. You were using sloppy terminology. It is no wonder that you are so easily taken in by the charlatans of alarmism.
Today’s issue is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change. Every sentient being concedes the climate change part. It is up to the alarmists to demonstrate that the current change is predominantly (they claim completely) anthropogenic, and that the results will be catastrophic.
Apart from computer models and homogenised (= fudged) temperature records, they have no actual evidence to support those two elements.
Produce empirical evidence or admit that you have been (willingly) conned.
“you propose to ignore the potential climate problems because they are beyond your horizon”
No. To the extent that (natural) climate change might cause a problem, we believe that adaptation is a more effective and less costly solution.
You bleat about politicians’ religious beliefs, but have the intellectual arrogance to believe that humans have the power of gods to control the climate by tweaking the levels of a trace molecule in the atmosphere.
PS, I did NOT say it was a potential catastrophe. I saud it was up to the alarmists to do so. So far they have only homogenised temperature records and computer models. That isn’t enough.
“ Apart from computer models and homogenised (= fudged) temperature records, they have no actual evidence to support those two elements.”. So you completely ignore all the physical science observations and conclusions from places like the Arctic, which are one of the major causes of concern. That is just one such area, it is not all about models, a big chunk is observed change. The IPCC is not just about models, but I know you are obsessed by them, like you are obsessed with old technology and totally resistant to even the idea of change.
Stu-pid stu sez; “So you completely ignore all the physical science observations and conclusions from places like the Arctic, which are one of the major causes of concern. That is just one such area, it is not all about models, a big chunk is observed change.”
What “observed change” is that, stueyluv?
Does it ever cross your tiny mind that if sea levels are not doing anything different [and they aren’t]:
then all your other “warming evidence” is meaningless hype.
But by all means fill us in on your “observations”.
“completely ignore all the physical science observations and conclusions from places like the Arctic, which are one of the major causes of concern.”
Would that be the Arctic ice which was supposed to have completely melt3d some years ago? Or the Greenland ice cap that even some alarmists have admitted would take centuries to melt?
Still, if the situation is as critical as you suggest, do you still think that China should be permitted to keep increasing its CO2 emissions for decades into the future? Because they should be allowed to “catch up”?
Or are simply an ill informed hypocrite with a fascination for new gadgets?
SD writes (again) “ Stu-pid stu sez”, so does that mean I should refer to him as Bird Brain, or would that be as childish as he is?
I’d be happy if you’d just deal with the message for a change, stueyluv.
Here’s the BOM full WA state rainfall since 1900 and of course much higher rainfall since 1970.
Since 1950’s, Australia has warmed some 1.5 degrees Celsius.
This trend will continue while ever GHG trends continue, until a real catastrophe is visited on future generations.
Raw temperature data, or homogenised? There is a difference.
Yes BJ. Remember NIWA’s adjustments in New Zealand?
Your second point about climate sensitivity drives my scepticism.
The earth is a fairly robust system, the biosphere and atmosphere have suffered some very traumatic assaults in the past from volcanoes and asteroids, yet it still manages to return to a well functioning environment.
I can’t believe such a system is prone to positive feedback and tipping points. I would hazard a guess, and say poorly understood negative feedback processes would keep global warming in check, with only modest amounts of warming.
I am willing to say I could be wrong, and there is a possibility we could be headed for runaway global warming. But you never hear “I could be wrong” from the scientists pushing this alarmism, they are 100% certain.
Yeah sure? …… Doesn’t sound like scientists speaking to me.
For what it’s worth I have a BSc Hon in environmental science. I must be part of the 3% 🙂
Thank you for all of your efforts to educate, not only in this area but over your working lifetime as well. When you came to the CCAE/UC you followed a few duds in your role. I’m not sure what it has been like since I retired in 2002. Sam Richardson was the right person for his time there. You were right for yours.
My interest in global warming/climate change began in 2010 when I heard Ian Plimer address a meeting of farmers and graziers in Nimmitabel. I was reading his “Heaven + Earth” at the time and I was interested in assessing his credibility.
I was also a subscriber to the Australian Skeptics magazine at the time, until I realised that they were not “skeptical” enough.
Climate alarmism, to me, is a concerted effort to disrupt the major economies of the world; to bring them to their knees and then to rebuild them in a totalitarian mould. I am more afraid of the influence of people like Christiana Figueres than of anything the climate might throw at us.
There is one aspect of the climate discussion that has intrigued me. I read that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million around the 1850s, and that the level at which plant life would struggle to avoid extinction is about 140 ppm. That does not seem much of a safety margin to me but it rarely rates a mention.
Anyway, thank you for maintaining your web site. I think I had only one area of disagreement with you – I think apostrophes are important for clarity in the written language.
Anthropologists tell us that fully evolved Humans have been on our planet for about 200,000 years and had a life expectancy of under 40 years until 1800. Global pop then about 1 billion.
Then the UK started the Industrial REV and there has been remarkable progress in the last 200+ years for both global health and wealth.
Today life expectancy is about 73 for the 7.8 bn humans today. Certainly no EXISTENTIAL threat or crisis or emergency in any of the data for the last 200+years. Obviously the reverse is true, but check the data for yourselves and prove me wrong.
YET today in 2021 fossil fuels STILL generate over 80% of BASE-LOAD , RELIABLE TOTAL GLOBAL energy and TOXIC, UNRELIABLE S&W generate ZIP.
That our blog donkeys don’t understand any of this is just infantile stu-pidity and proves that they are a waste of our time.
Here’s a OWI DATA link for these donkeys to try and catch up. But don’t hold your breath.
“That our blog donkeys don’t understand any of this is just infantile stu-pidity and proves that they are a waste of our time.”
How come it is Neville who is hee-hawing all over the place?
Another well argued contribution to the debate.
Oh dear “ 2021 fossil fuels STILL generate over 80% of BASE-LOAD , RELIABLE TOTAL GLOBAL energy and TOXIC, UNRELIABLE S&W generate ZIP.”
I am so amused by the blindness and falsity of this statement. To label S&W as TOXIC while apparently giving a clear pass to fossil fuels is mind bending to say the least. Never mind the climatic effects of the emitted CO2, the general pollution is acknowledged by all sensible people as being a significant cause of health problems in populations exposed to it. And have I mentioned the TOXIC waste ponds around coal fired power stations? Oh yes I have.
Yes once again the nifty Nev wins the prize for tunnel vision, partial blindness and spreader of a false narrative.
Here’s Dr Rosling’s 200 countries over 200 years BBC video AGAIN and only takes about 5 minutes.
The video starts at the poor and sick bottom corner of 1810 ( life exp under 40) and ends at the top R H diagonal corner in 2010, where the human population is wealthier and healthier than at any time in history. And life exp is about 70 in 2010.
The remarkable truth is that life exp has improved since 2010 according to the latest UN data and is now about 73 in 2021.
Deflection in use again, another denialist play book case.
Sad, low energy.
The only thing that is denying, stueyluv, is that there is any credibility in your catastrophe religion.
Consider all the other catastrophists that have preached the same rubbish as you do during this same period Rosling discusses.
How many were correct?
But still you carry on with your unreasoned stu-pidity.
As an ex alarmist, Stu, start applying critical thinking. Open the eyes, mind and outlook. Just move away from the misery of catastrophism. Broadly, we have 2 options. Accept the catastrophism and be miserable until we fry or, ignore it or realise it is BS and live your life happily. If the catastrophists are right at least you have been happy until the end, if they are wrong you have been miserable for nothing. My advice is follow Voltaire’s statement – we must cultivate our own garden.
I am not miserable at all, in fact I get great fun and joy out of reading the bull that you denier people put about, twisting reality and misquoting science to suit your strange purpose. And life is good. What I don’t quite understand though is the wholesale reactionary view of new energy developments. If you were around in the 1800’s you would have been hand wringing about the terrible consequences of riding fast on new fangled steam contraptions and later still sticking doggedly to your horse and cart and refusing to consider machines powered by internal combustion engines. But we have always had such laggards and fortunately they have never prevailed.
“What I don’t quite understand though is the wholesale reactionary view of new energy developments”
That’s because, unlike you, whose understanding of engineering and science could be written on a postage stamp with a whiteboard marker, some of us have some understanding of the complexities involved in making solar, wind and batteries come together to provide reliable, continuous, power.
How do you think all this angst about CAGW will play out? I’ve been following this “debate” (if one can call it that), for the last decade and a bit, significantly less than your own pursuit. The dialogues above have followed the usual pattern; sometimes I wonder why each side bothers. Not much has changed, and I doubt any avowed “warmists” or “sceptics” have changed their position.
Why is this so? While I have learned a great deal about climate and its changes over thousands of years, I have more recently considered why people of good education can hold such divergent views about climate, its changes and the risks of change, its causes, and its benefits and costs. Well, I have similar questions about differing religious and political convictions.
For example, were I to hold a purely “socialist” view of the world, where each should receive according to need, each contribute according to ability, I am hardly likely to entertain a free enterprise model. On the other hand, were I to hold a fundamentally “capitalist” view of human nature and society, I would consider the socialist view unrealistic, indeed foolhardy, just as the socialist may consider the capitalist greedy and uncaring of others. I have concluded that while many of our political views are influenced by our upbringing (i.e. the world view we have come to absorb as real), a major contributor is the extent of our limbic function. I think there are many people who demonstrate greater empathy for others than the average, and the inverse is also true. The former are more likely to be more caring of others, if not in practice, at least in theory; practice takes sacrifice, while theoretical support is personally reassuring, without too much inconvenience. For example, a CEO sleepout leaves you stiff and tired, but virtuous. it is not that the “capitalists” are heartless, with shrivelled limbic systems; rather, they are working from a more cynical paradigm. “Cynical”? Maybe that’s a bit tough; they would say “realistic”.
Associated with that “socialist” view (and I am using the term in non-politically and not pejoratively), there can be a strong feeling of compulsion, of what one ought to do. To not do so, invites guilt. Where the collective society does not behave according to that view, the society as a whole is therefore guilty. When I consider movements such as Extinction Rebellion, I wonder how many of its supporters have joined for deep emotional reasons that they have to make the world a better place. Through protest, guilt is expunged, or at least alleviated.
As with religion and politics, I have concluded that emotion drives the CAGW tumbrils.
Meanwhile, the instigators and the harriers keep goading on the mob, quietly taking profits as the carts roll on.
Don, what do you think will be the end game? For there will be an end game.
Maybe denialists are driven by something other than science?
Maybe alarmists are driven by something other that rationality and reason?
Maybe L W donkeys are very easily fooled by dopey con merchants?
In fact thousands of ABC employees + all of their reporters + the top draw executives etc failed to called out the Pascoe con and fra-d for years. NOT ONE called out the most obvious con and fra-d trick in recent Aussie history.
And 100s of thousands of school kids have been brainwashed by this idiocy PROMOTED and SUPPORTED by their ABC. For years. WAKE UP TO YOURSELF.
We’re told repeatedly today by US Pres Biden, the UN, the world MSM and most of the world leaders that our greatest EXISTENTIAL threat is “Climate change”.
We only have a very short window of opportunity and some say only 10 years, before we reach the APOCALYPSE. Of course this is delusional nonsense and we only have to check the DATA for human health and wealth over the last 200 years or 100 years or 50 years or 20 years or 10 years or etc. Here’s a very interesting quote from OWI DATA ….
“Now, let’s look at the change since 1950. Many of us have not updated our world view. We still tend to think of the world as divided as it was in 1950. But in health — and many other aspects — the world has made rapid progress. Today most people in the world can expect to live as long as those in the very richest countries in 1950. The United Nations estimate a global average life expectancy of 72.6 years for 2019 – the global average today is higher than in any country back in 1950. According to the UN estimates the country with the best health in 1950 was Norway with a life expectancy of 72.3 years”.
So the global average life exp today is higher than the highest ( Norway) was in 1950. OBVIOUSLY NO EXISTENTIAL THREAT and in FACT the REVERSE is true.
So how much longer must we suffer their lies or stupidity and their refusal to follow the DATA ??
Some more of the DATA from the UN since 1950.
In 1950 L Ex was 45.5 years
In 1970 ” ” 56.5 yrs.
In 1990 ” ” 64 yrs
In 2010 ” ” 69.7 yrs
In 2021 ” ” 72.8 yrs.
And today Africa has about the same life exp (63.5) as the world life exp in 1990. And of course a billion more people to feed, house, educate + health care etc since 1970. And IMPROVING EVERY YEAR.
Plus more African people living an urban lifestyle today. So an EXISTENTIAL THREAT, OR just more of their BS and fra-d??? WAKE UP.
Most climate sceptics agree with the settled science that increased CO2 slightly (and logarithmically, not linearly) increases the opacity of the atmosphere, leading to warming of the air very close to the surface (the only temperature we are interested in.) The unsettled science is how much warming will result from the tiny change in opacity, and this is an academic bunfight. Most of the recently published papers go for a low outcome (0.5 to 2 DegC) for a doubling of CO2. But we should note that over 50% of these papers on this subject will not be replicated.
I consider the lowball estimates are correct. Simple surface energy balance physics gives answers in the range 0.3 to 0.5 DegC. Where I live, the difference in insolation between summer and winter averages 150W/m^2, and the difference in temperature averages 15DegC, so we get a sensitivity to forcing of 0.1DegC/w/m^2, translating to 0.4DegC for a doubling of CO2. If the warming so far has been greater than this, a natural cause (possibly solar magnetic variation) is likely.
As Don points out the other direct effects are ocean neutralisation and the effect on living organisms.
Ocean neutralisation will be a small effect – the ocean already contains at least 50 times the CO2 that is in the atmosphere. The pH of the ocean averages around 8, but varies from 7.3, (the most neutral, found in the cold but very fertile water in polar regions) to about 8.3 (the most basic, found in the more sterile waters of the tropics.) Note that the regions with the most dissolved CO2 have the most life. The natural experiment conducted by CO2 bubblers in Milne Bay shows that sea grasses, snails, crabs and corals thrive in tropical waters when more CO2 is added.
The effect of more CO2 on living organisms is very well researched, and the science I thrive on more CO2. The CSIRO found that the increased CO2 to date has resulted in extensive greening of the planet, and increase in all the major crops by 10%. Alarmists try to minimise this – but imagine our world with 10% less food.
Alarmists are correct to point out that as expected, the arctic regions are warming. This is economically good, and good for wildlife and vegetation. Polar Bears are increasing in numbers yearly. Hardly surprising – research over the last 40 years shows that they thrive in higher temperatures and die off in extreme cold.
I agree with you Colin, but the Biden donkey + world leaders + the MSM etc tell us we are facing an EXISTENTIAL threat unless we change to the TOXIC , UNRELIABLE S&W idiocy.
BUT where is their DATA that supports this nonsense? It must be from their fantasy planet because it certainly can’t be found on planet earth.
I just came across the following and it seems appropriate to the current converstation.
“What are some predicted effects of climate change linked to global warming?”
Originally Answered: What are some predicted effects of climate change?
Climate Change proposes that life on earth will go into a severely irreversible positive feed back loop due to warming of the earth a few degrees centigrade over the next century. The proposed cause is a buildup of “greenhouse” gases that is supposed to be primarily the CO2 emissions of industry causing heat to become trapped in the atmosphere. This results in claims that the melting of arctic ice and antarctic ice will some how flood much of the land causing much problems for mankind.
There is absolutely NO evidence for these claims and strong evidence against them. For example these people claim that sea level is rising since 1980’s at 3.3 mm/year 33 cm per century and that it has already risen 4.1 cm or about 2 inches since 1980. Such a rise would be obvious worldwide and has not happened in fact there is pretty good evidence of sea level actually dropping some in the period. There are claims that polar bears would die out without the ice like they depended on ice to live. In fact the ice has nothing to do with their survival and we actually since the 1970’s have about a 350% rise in their population. They claimed that by 2000 the Maldives and Kiribati would be beneath the waves. They both are doing fine.
We have historical evidence that the world temperature during the Roman Warm Period was somewhere between 2 and 5 degrees C warmer than the present. We also have similar data from the Medieval Warm Period. Both were times when mankind and the other life on earth did exceptionally well even compared to the present. There isn’t even evidence that CO2 has any influence on the temperature of earth. It is after all only 0.04% of the atmosphere and doubling that wouldn’t even be observable in effect. We have excellent Geologic evidence that the best period for life on earth was a period called the Cambrian Explosion and life did exceptionally well with CO2 at 7% of the atmosphere. This is when we get coal beds from. Oil formed largely from a similar period called the Permian and it was nearly 7% CO2 as well.
Mars has 95% CO2 in it’s atmosphere and clearly that frozen world is not suffering Global Warming.
Modern Green House operators routinely supplement their crops with CO2 to make them grow better. In fact the near double CO2 increase since the industrial revolution has resulted in our trees and plants growing nearly 200% as fast as before. The demand only 1/2 the water to do it too! That is why the deserts around the world are recovering and greening.
If there ever was such a deep abiding and complete hoax as Global Warming or Climate Change as modern environmentalists adhere to I cannot tell you any historical parallel.
This ideology is dedicated to death and teaching people to hate themselves and their very humanity. It is the most virulent pernicious idea of racism that has ever pervaded mankind. It is a worship of death! All it teaches is doom gloom and despair. It causes suicide and mental illness.
I spent nearly 1.5 years on this forum confronting the adherents of this religion cornering them into admitting their worship of death and hatred of mankind. They finally admitted and openly discussed the murder of billions and the destruction of mankind. I knew this was their ideology because when I grew up on the 1960’s that was what they openly preached. If you believe your very existence is so evil, I would (rhetorically) suggest you take a gun and shoot yourself. But if you have any sense left in your head, get as far away from this proselytizing mental illness and start learning to love yourself, your neighbors and your people here on this earth. Work to make things better. Seek a better world but for God’s sake never have anything to do with such ideologies ever again.
May I suggest you find the love of Christ and learn to be a servant of mankind and not try to be a murdering Hitlerian genocidal person such as these people telling you Global Warming and Climate Change do.
Look at the trends around you. Almost every trend except this belief of Climate Change is to a positive one making man beast and environment better. I would suggest you test everything by the words of Jesus who said, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Former Research Scientist 6 Level 2 UAH Huntsville Al. (2009–2014)
The elephant in the room of climate science finally leaps into view. “ May I suggest you find the love of Christ and learn to be a servant of mankind and not try to be a murdering Hitlerian genocidal person such as these people telling you Global Warming and Climate Change do.” Yep, jesus lurks behind many a climate denier.
Plus anyone thinking Mars situation is a good example to follow (apart from our friend Elon Musk) is definitely not a very clear thinking person. The high CO2 in an atmosphere only 1% as dense as that on earth and twice as far from the sun is at best an example of what happens at the end of runaway global warming.
Stu resorts to his regular narrow minded religious bigotry.
If you can’ t avoid being a bigot, then at least try not to be so out and proud of it.
Yep, and the Mars bit, don’t you have a comment on that? As for the bigotry don’t you think we have enough of a problem with arguing the physics of climate without bringing religion into it, just saying. Or is it that I hit a raw nerve with you?
Have you ever thought of ignoring such comments, rather than openly displaying your narrow minded bigotry?
Or is it because your understanding of science and engineering is so limited, that you feel more comfortable with being a bigot?
Boambee is the religious bigot.
Evidence? Or just your usual slander when you have nothing substantive to say?
Oh, sorry. I just realised. You are upset that I do not worship the godess Gaia!
A fine summary, Don. I hope it isn’t your last aria on this subject.
For me, the belief that an elite, however well-meaning (or deluded), can create a Goldilocks climate for a whole planet is hubris on a grand scale.
From the 1992 Earth Summit to the present this fantasy has had a miasma of confirmation bias, noble cause corruption and “carbon” cowboy RE shenanigans swirling around it.
Silly rhetoric has infected every level of life, from “green” hydrogen to the tsunami of Net Zero nonsense rising up to coincide with COP26 in Glasgow.
What could be more risible than a “target” of 2050, when few of its promoters will be around to reap the whirlwind of their folly?
Why? As someone posted above, “follow the money”.
If Machiavelli set out to devise a strategy to drive the greatest wealth transfer in history, monetizing “climate change” on the pretext of saving us from an anthropogenic apocalypse would be at the top of his list. Globalists and climate controllers are very keen on it too. One of them is former rock-star central banker, Dr Mark Carney, OC, the UN Secretary General’s new Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance.
This is a general comment. I was driven to write it because of the apparent confusion about ‘climate’. ‘Climate’ refers to a particular place and time. I live in Canberra and its climate is not at all like that of Batemans Bay, down on the coast. It doesn’t make any real sense to talk about the ‘average’ climate of these two localities. Nobody lives in such an average. What you can do is to see how various aspects of the climate of Batemans Bay have changed over time. The conventional period is 30 years — that is, thirty years of ‘weather’ give you a sense of the ‘climate’. If the whole of Australia were parcelled up into contiguous regions so that all were represented, you might talk about an average for Australia, but again, it is not a climate that anyone actually lives in. It would be highly likely that some regions were, for example, getting warmer while other regions were getting colder. It follows that for the whole world you can construct a global climate that doesn’t really mean anything to anyone. Likewise ‘global average temperature’ or precipitation. I’d be happy to be shown examples of rapid change in our lifetimes, but I doubt that there are any. Real ‘climate change’ takes place over long periods of time, as in the Libyan and Tunisian deserts, which were once the source of Rome’s wheat and flour. No longer. Central Australia was once much wetter than it is now. And so on.
The bureau of meteorology don’t seem to have much of a problem with the concept of regional and national climate patterns. See here http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/. But then again maybe you know more than all those boffins.
A little recent history in regional climate patterns over a slightly longer period for stu’s education:
Always try and look at the slightly bigger picture, stueyluv.
Stu, As far as I am aware, the BOM does not go into the problems that come with making averages of averages. And I think that there has been pressure from on high to develop regional averages, because people do live in regions, and we have Ministers for Rural and Regional Development and the like. That there can’t be a meaningful ‘regional average’ is not something the BOM talks about. Do I know more than these boffins? Probably not. But I am not constrained in what I write about. I set out the problem quite simply in my Comment. If you don’t think it’s a problem, then tell me why. But to argue that because the BOM says so it must be right is just silly. It’s yet another example of your use of ‘authorities’ as though they are the source of all wisdom.
I think you are trying to nitpick. The BoM put out a lot of reports based on their statistics and studies and make conclusions like those below covering all indicators of weather, temperature, precipitation, wind, snow, storms, sunshine etc for regions and as a whole. They employ a lot of very educated meteorologists and others who do this work and I am more inclined to follow their “authority” than another influencer such as yourself who is not qualified in their field. And after all this blog space is an example of “authority” following as you are viewed (deservedly) as a distinguished person of influence in many fields but not necessarily expert in them, and we all follow. In other words pitting your “opinions” against BOM research.
“Australia’s weather and climate are changing in response to a warming global climate. Australia has warmed on average by 1.44 ± 0.24 °C since national records began in 1910, with most warming occurring since 1950 and every decade since then being warmer than the ones before. Australia’s warmest year on record was 2019, and the seven years from 2013 to 2019 all rank in the nine warmest years. This long-term warming trend means that most years are now warmer than almost any observed during the 20th century. When relatively cooler years do occur, it is because natural drivers that typically cool Australia’s climate, such as La Niña, act to partially offset the background warming trend.
Warming is observed across Australia in all months with both day and night-time temperatures increasing. This shift is accompanied by more extreme nationally averaged daily heat events across all months. For example, 2019 experienced 43 extremely warm days, more than triple the number in any of the years prior to 2000. This increasing trend is observed at locations across all of Australia.
In summer we now see a greater frequency of very hot days compared to earlier decades. In terms of national daily average maximum temperatures, there were 33 days that exceeded 39 °C in 2019, more than the number observed from 1960 to 2018 combined, which totalled 24 days.
Australia’s climate has warmed by over 1 °C since 1960, which has caused an increase in the frequency of months that are much warmer than usual. Very high monthly maximum temperatures that occurred nearly 2 per cent of the time in 1960–1989 and over 4 per cent of the time in 1990–2004, now occur over 12 per cent of the time (2005–2019). This is more than a sixfold increase over the sixty-year period. Very warm monthly night-time temperatures that occurred nearly 2 per cent of the time in 1960–1989 and over 5 per cent of the time in 1990–2004, now occur around 11 per cent of the time (2005–2019). This shift in extremes has many impacts on human health, ecosystems and infrastructure and informs climate impact and risk assessments.
The frequency of extremely cold days and nights has declined across Australia. An exception to this is for extremely cold nights in those parts of southeast and southwest Australia which have seen significant cool season drying, and hence more clear winter nights. The frequency of frost in these parts is relatively unchanged since the 1980s.” – Bureau of Meteorology
No, Stu, I am not trying to nitpick. I asked you to tell me what was wrong with what I said, and why I was wrong. But you simply cut and pasted some BOM material that doesn’t refer to regions at all, save tangentially in the last paragraph. That won’t do, at lest for me. What is wrong with my assertion that CBR and BB have different climates, or why it makes no sense at all to average those climates?
Don, what I am having trouble with is comprehending what you are saying about the climate in Canberra and Batemans Bay. I can find nothing showing BoM suggest they are the same. All their published stuff suggests that in terms of “climate types”, one is mild temperate and the other cool temperate, two of the eight zones regarding heating and cooling. The reference elsewhere in this blog to the Koppen classification which relates to vegetation is a red herring. Can you point me to where BoM conflate the figures for Canberra and Batemans Bay?
What I understand from published BoM data is that for particular reasons they divide the country into climate types or zones as referred above. They also publish quite detailed records for particular locations within regions such as Canberra and Batemans Bay. And having lived in varied locations within the ACT I perceive their to be some differences in “climate” between those locales. But it is beyond their resources to define every such location climatically. However I note that with the ever increasing super computing power at their disposal (of which I recall you would be very aware) they are reducing the cell size of their weather models to better predict the future. And of course that feeds into their bigger global climate model, which is held in such disregard by most within this blog. Do you think the ARC should not be encouraging such investment?
So I don’t think your averages of averages is a thing and I would love some comment from BoM. Therefore I will attempt to get such comment from one ex BoM expert that I know but he is generally reluctant to do so due to the futility of it.
Stu, unable to offer a substantive response, reverts to “Argument from (someone else’s) expertise.
He hasn’t noticed how the Kung Flu “experts” have tied themselves in knots offering contradictory advice at different times. The “experts” are in the process of committing professional suicide.
“It follows that for the whole world you can construct a global climate that doesn’t really mean anything to anyone. Likewise ‘global average temperature’ or precipitation.”
Well said. The whole concept of a “global average temperature” is ludicrous. On any day, the temperature can be minus 50 or 60 at the poles, and up around plus 50 in other locations. What value can an average of all such temperatures have? Only the deluded place any significance on it.
Earlier you said.
“If you were around in the 1800’s you would have been hand wringing about the terrible consequences of riding fast on new fangled steam contraptions and later still sticking doggedly to your horse and cart and refusing to consider machines powered by internal combustion engines. But we have always had such laggards and fortunately they have never prevailed.”
A dose of reality is needed.
It took almost 200 years from Stephenson’s Rocket to the efficiency of a modern HELE power station. It took over 100 years from the Stanley Steamer to a modern ICE powered car. During much of those periods, other means (canal boats, horse drawn wagons, wood fires, kerosene lamps, horse drawn farming machinery) continued in use. They did that because it was necessary to use them until the new technology could do at least an equivalent job for the same or lower cost.
As far as providing reliable, continuous baseload power adequate for a modern society, solar, wind and batteries are around the Stephenson’s Rocket/Stanley Steamer stage. Wise people, unlike you, do not dump an existing working system until an adequate replacement is available. It is not now, and all of your dreaming will not make it available until very many scientific and engineering problems are solved.
But you can help to lead the way. Get solar panels, a wind generator and batteries at your home. Cut yourself off from the grid, and report to the developers what problems you experience with your power supply.
No cheating. No wood fires, no kerosene lamps, and no horses and wagons.
“ But you can help to lead the way. Get solar panels, a wind generator and batteries at your home. Cut yourself off from the grid, and report to the developers what problems you experience with your power supply.”
Once again you are just being silly. No one except folk in remote places where grid connection is difficult or expensive suggests such isolated home grown solutions. The issue is grid power as you keep saying.
And while I have your attention can you explain your total aversion to electric vehicles in non climate change terms. And can you tell us if you have ever driven one or been a passenger in one. I have and I find them very quiet, vibration free, energy efficient etc and quite appealing compared with vehicles belching fumes. They are much more energy efficient than ICE vehicles.
Leave aside your usual TOXICITY bull for a moment and assume that both types have significant issues on that score and then compare them. If you still declare hatred it puts you in the bin with the standard denialist rump who just seem to hate them because they are denialists. Even the coal lovers should be on board because they need power and as you keep saying we can’t (yet) get it all from S&W. More EV’s means more electricity demand and less oil im-orts, surely a good thing. In other words try and view EV’s as being an interesting development in personal transport and not part of some giant plot that you have imagined.
Good to see you admit that solar, wind and batteries are not (yet) ready for the big time.
“isolated home grown solutions.”
Small scale testing is the path to large scale solutions. Have you never heard of the term “pilot plant”? But, perhaps recognising the unreadiness of the solution, you lack the confidence to participate in one.
Show me where I have demonstrated a “total aversion to electric vehicles” in any terms. You just made that up, a common alarmist tactic.
The two big problems with EVs are cost (they are way beyond the reach of most Australians) and recharging. In relation to cost, they are OK for comfortably well off inner city dwelling dilletantes, but useless iutside that area.
In relation to recharging, it is amusing to read that “More EV’s means more electricity demand”. Has it again escaped your mind that the current electrical power system is struggling to maintain normal supply as rabid state governments allow coal fired stations to close. Are you calling for construction of HELE power plants to recharge your desired fleet of EVs?
Meanwhile your unicorn ruinable grid is utterly incapable of providing anything matching the coal system, and you want to add lots of EVs to overburden it.
Greens often babble on about thinking holisticly, but demonstrate utter inability to do so.
Ps show me where I have written about the “toxicity” of EVs. I have mentiined tbeir propensity to catch fire, but that is a different problem.
“ Ps show me where I have written about the “toxicity” of EVs. ”. As I have written previously you guys are all interchangeable with your narrow reactionary views so it is easy to accuse the wrong one.
As for EV’s and their cost and affordability, have you seen the latest Volvo adds, full steam ahead with only EV’s not very far away. Other manufacturers are following suit and Tesla have announced plans for a sub $25kUS car, with low operating cost and TCO. You had better start working out how you will transition from making buggy whips to something needed in the future.
And “ the current electrical power system is struggling to maintain normal supply as rabid state governments allow coal fired stations to close”. I would say rubbish.
“you guys are all interchangeable with your narrow reactionary views”
If you have not noticed that Neville and I use quite different styles, then you have a comprehension problem. Perhaps it is mental? Do you often find yourself confused? Forget what you are doing? You might need help.
“transition from making buggy whips to something needed in the future.”
I have already diversified into a very profitable sideline in the BDSM market.
Your final sentence again demonstrates your utter inability to comprehend (or even try to comprehend) anything involving engineering of complex systems.
BJ, please remind me of all the outages of the grid in NSW that you seem to refer to as they “struggle to maintain normal supply”.
Say not that the struggle naught availith.
And tell me about South Austraoia.
I am going to miss Don’s wise and reasoned commentary – there are not too many bloggers in whose judgement and honesty you can confidently trust. But I certainly won’t miss the sort of ‘debate’ that appears above, just like every time the subject of climate change comes up. The same people saying much the same things, whacking away at each other without ever making the slightest difference to the views of the other side. What is the point?
Something thaty may interest you, Don.
Note that Canberrra and Batem,an’s Bay share the same Koppen classification Cfb.
That the two settlement have the same Koppen classification does not alter my point. I have lived in both places for long periods of time, and there is no doubt that they have different climates. The coast has warmer winters and cooler summers, a much more humid atmosphere, is much wetter, and provides an environment much greener than that of Canberra (even the eucalypts are green).
London is also Cfb
Stu your S&W + EVs etc are a TOXIC disaster and also a giant super expensive con trick. They would need untold billions $ to completely rewire every suburb in every city so that people could fast charge them at home . About 40 mins to 1 hour.
Don’t forget Shorten’s ignorant display during the 2019 FED election, when he stuffed up his hurried answer to a very persistent reporter? The ignoramus didn’t have a clue and thought you could charge an EV in about 10-15 minutes.
And of course you can’t tow a caravan or trailer or a boat etc any distance before you have to recharge again and again. And they are very expensive and the Nissan Leaf is about the size of a Corolla and costs at least $50,000 and a battery guarantee of about 7 years.
Alan Jones gave an example of a woman who bought a N Leaf and had problems with the distance traveled after a few years.
It got so bad that she asked for a new battery quote and was told it would cost $33,000. What a joke.
Have a look at Moore’s planet of the humans where the con merchants have to admit that their EVs are mostly charged by Coal power. WAKE UP.
As usual you exaggerate the issue by inferring that the change to EV’s will occur “overnight”. And that is quite ridiculous but useful for the purposes of your argument. Clearly you gave never considered smart meters and smart chargers which will make very effective use of the off-peak supplies etc to balance the load. Add to that the ability to “call-in” the power residing in said car batteries if needed to assist in grid smoothing. This is already happening with home batteries.
As for the “stealing the week-end” rhetoric used by at least one minister and now you, I suggest you go and check the specs of the Ford F150 Lightning and the Tesla Cybertruck.
The Alan Jones Nissan story has already been debunked, go back to an earlier thread to read that.
And as for “ Have a look at Moore’s planet of the humans where the con merchants have to admit that their EVs are mostly charged by Coal power”. Go and look at what I wrote earlier, so what if they use coal generated power, that is a distinct seperate topic. EV’s, S&W and AGW are not all necessarily related. If there were no S&W in the grid it would still make sense for EV’s as we as a nation could save a lot by reducing our oil imports.
” If there were no S&W in the grid it would still make sense for EV’s as we as a nation could save a lot by reducing our oil imports.”
CO2 emissions lossing their importance now that you can hope to play with a new toy?
“ CO2 emissions lossing their importance now that you can hope to play with a new toy?”. No, not at all. Just trying to eliminate your spurious arguments and get to the nub of the issue, that you just love old technology and are resistant to the new. And that is fine, it is pretty common with old men clinging to the past.
“that you just love old technology and are resistant to the new”
Getting desperate now. You haven’t got a clue about my attitude to new technology, other than I like it to actually work.
Oh and I forgot to add, good to see you avoiding the question again.
I learnt the technique from you.
Professional concluding facts about climate change
NASA – latest facts;
The Independent and the Grauniad! ROFLMAO.
Why is someone as completely ignorant as you are of the practical engineering aspects of technology so totally obsessed with everything new? Is it because you see things that operate in ways beyond your comprehension as some form of magic? Do you believe that pushing the On button and entering the PIN code releases mystical forces that will bend to your command?
Or are you simply too technologically ignorant to even begin to understand the interaction of complex systems?
“ Why is someone as completely ignorant as you are of the practical engineering aspects of technology so totally obsessed with everything new?”. Wow, talk about ad hominem. You know nothing about my understanding of technology, you merely leap to conclusions in support of your head in the sand views about climate, vehicle propulsion and power generation.
“You know nothing about my understanding of technology, you merely leap to conclusions in support of your head in the sand views about climate, vehicle propulsion and power generation.”
No. I look at what you write, and the evidence is obvious.
I see our donkeys are still wedded to their fantasy planet and idiocy like S&W that are a TOXIC disaster and at some stage must always fail for hours or days or longer intervals.
But why do they believe so hard in their delusional fairy tales of EXISTENTIAL threats or climate crisis etc?
I’ve proved that so far we’ve had an unbelievable increase in health and wealth due to the use of FOSSIL FUELS but these donkeys still believe in their fantasies. Don’t forget FFs STILL at 80% + of global energy generation in 2021.
So lets start at Hansen’s claims in 1988 and the dire forecasts that have been made since that time. In 1988 co2 levels were about 350 ppm and pop was 5.3 bn and life exp 65 years. Today co2 levels are about 415 ppm, pop about 7.8 bn and life exp has increased to about 73 years or an increase of 8 years since 1990.
And Ehrlich and Holdren’s etc Earth day 1970 forecast couldn’t have been more wrong and in fact was stu-pid and as far from reality as you could get. Why are L W donkeys always so clueless?
And urban living around the world has increased from 52% in 1988 and is now 63% in 2021. Wealthy countries are over 80% urban living and increasing every decade.
Why would any sane person or group want to change this modern + 200 year miracle? Yes like a miracle and no need to believe in any of their L W religious garbage.
Well said, Neville. If only our govt would be smart enough to go down this path:
Bill Gates, Warren Buffett to Launch ‘Game-Changing’ Nuclear Power Plant in Wyoming.
Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon on June 2 announced that a next-generation nuclear power plant will be built at a soon-to-be-retired coal-fired plant in Wyoming in the next several years, with the project a joint initiative between Bill Gates’s TerraPower and PacifiCorp, owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.
“Today’s announcement really, truly is game-changing and monumental for Wyoming,” Gordon said at a press conference at the state Capitol in Cheyenne.
The project features a 345-megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor with a molten salt-based energy storage system, which would produce enough power for roughly 250,000 homes. The storage technology is also able to boost output to 500 megawatts of power for about five and a half hours, which is equivalent to the energy needed to power around 400,000 homes, according to TerraPower.
Gordon said the pilot project, called Natrium, would replace one of the state’s current coal-fired power plants, with an exact location to be announced by the end of the year. At the same time, Gordon made clear that the move toward nuclear doesn’t mean he is abandoning Wyoming’s fossil fuel industry, which he called “the bedrock of our economy” that has provided “an enormous amount of capital” for environmental protection initiatives.
“Earlier this year, I set a goal for Wyoming to be a carbon negative state and continue to use fossil fuels,” Gordon said, with “carbon negative” meaning the state would capture more carbon dioxide than it emitted.
“I am not going to abandon any of our fossil fuel industry—it is absolutely essential to our state and one of the things that we believe very strongly is our fastest and clearest course to being carbon negative.”
“Nuclear power is clearly a part of my all-of-the-above strategy for energy,” Gordon added.
Wyoming is both a top coal mining and top uranium mining state, and the reactor would use uranium from “in situ” mines that extract heavy metal from networks of water wells on the High Plains, officials said.
The reactor proposal also creates common ground between Wyoming, a Republican state, and Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration, which is seeking to reduce carbon emissions by half, compared to 2005 levels, by 2030.
I note this experimental reactor may be operational by 2030, but as with all such bleeding edge technologies it could well be longer. There are also some serious safety issues to be considered including the handling of high temperature radioactive sodium. But I wish them luck.
“but as with all such bleeding edge technologies it could well be longer”
So, not unlike solar, wind, batteries and EVs?
I also remind you that currently both sides of politics are anti nuclear so you have a lot of work to do if you want to change the direction of Australia, so good luck with that also. I will join you in the trench.
Here are the concluding comments in a piece entitiled “NASA confirms: Sea levels have been FALLING across the planet for two years… media SILENT”
Wednesday, July 26, 2017 by: Mike Adams
“Why do climate change alarmists hate rainforests so much that they want to freeze the planet and turn warm water back into frozen ice?
The answer is because they are all mindless cultistswho don’t understand anything at all about climatology, science or botany. They are nothing more than
Programmable Life Forms (PLFs) who have been brainwashed by a wholly dishonest, globalist-run media that uses the climate change baloney to enslave and indoctrinate the masses. The entire climate change hoax demonstrates just how incredibly stupid and gullible most humans really are, revealing that if they could turn Earth into a lifeless, cold, icy wasteland, they would consider that the ultimate success of the “green” movement.
Stupid beyond belief.”
Oh wow, you found a ripper there. Be careful with your credibility writing such stuff and quoting Adams, on shaky ground there.
Perhaps you might write a detailed rebuttal?
Are you seriously suggesting that is necessary? If you agree with Adams it would not surprise me at all.
No rebuttal necessary, it speaks for itself. Perhaps you would like to defend the piece in a detailed analysis.
Stu, Adams said that while satellites showed sea levels were generally rising at ~ 3mm per year, they had been falling for the last couple. Which was the case with NASA data of that time.
What are you going on about? You don’t even believe our BoM when they show you that current mean sea levels are lower than they were over a century ago?
Measured from much more accurate data.
You never make any personal observations but still deny factual evidence.
Karabar is spreading denialist fake news. It is the mindless cultist who doesn’t understand anything at all about climatology, science or botany. It is nothing more than a simpleton Programmable Life Forms (PLFs) who has been brainwashed by a wholly dishonest, globalist-run media that uses denialist climate change baloney to attempt to enslave and indoctrinate the masses. The entire climate change denialist hoax demonstrates just how incredibly stupid and gullible most denialists really are, revealing that if they ever turn Earth into a lifeless, cold or hot, icy or flooded wasteland, they would consider that the ultimate success of their “genocidal” movement. They are allergic to science which completely contradicts their incompetent, trumpy outpourings, as here:
Silly blith, go and make your own observations of what sea levels are really doing instead of believing the fake algorithms designed to impress true believers.
It’s a very simple science and If you were ever serious about it you would have started when you were old enough to understand sea levels.
Instead of demonstrating that you are incapable of doing so even in your mature years.
“mindless cultist who doesn’t understand anything at all about climatology, science or botany.”
Speaking of which, when are you going to tell usxl your credentials in climate science?
And don’t you usually criticise “copy and paste” responses?
PS, time you got over Trump.
We are nearing the end of this Aitkin sponsored space for interchange of ideas or more correctly, of opinions.
So on my part I make a plea. The debate about climate change will go on beyond all of us so it will be be hard to claim victory or admit defeat. But there are some elements of the debate worth arguing over even now. One of those is EV’s, and I ask the cynics to stop carping and get on board.
The worth or otherwise of EV’s in the end is not tied to the climate debate and S&W etc although some politicians would like it to be so. No, EV’s stand on their own as the natural evolution of the automotive form. The internal combustion engine has evolved greatly perhaps reaching its peak with the latest F1 engines which produce prodigious power from small capacities. They are freaks really, but do have the attribute of utilising power from regenerative braking etc which as with other F1 initiatives is spilling over to general motoring. Just as aviation moved on from reciprocating engines to jets it is time for automobiles to do the same.
Having pistons reverse directions thousands of times a minute is still basically inefficient even with F1 refinements. Mazda tried a wonderful alternative with the rotary engine but issues of reliability and longevity overcame it. Turbines are great for big things but are not suited to the family car.
So how do we progress? One answer is electric power, which surprisingly has been around a very long time in cars. Sure there are questions about the source of materials to construct them but arguably no greater than the downside of searching for, developing, extracting, transporting and refining petroleum and then transporting it again and burning it leaving residues. On the other side we have rapid development of battery technology leading to reduced charging times, increased range and great reliability of the EV platform. Of course the cynics here will decry that but are they prepared to bet that by 2030 the majority of new vehicles on sale will not be EV’s? All the major manufacturers are moving that way.
If you have not driven or been a passenger in a recent EV you should. I understand that a champion of conservative values, Bob Katter, has switched to one after experiencing it. Maybe you will also. Forget the fossil funded arguments about price, range, charge time etc and look to the near future of cost effective, low TCO, EV’s as not only the best thing but maybe the only thing by 2025.
And if the mining unions were smart they would encourage Labor to boost EV’s as they would perhaps prolong the life of coal fired electricity. The EV’s of today and tomorrow do not care where the power comes from and having more now might prolong their jobs.
And arguments about autonomous vehicles versus manual driving are another whole thing but not necessarily related to EV’s.
So guys, stick to arguing for steam power in the grid but get on board with electric vehicles, we can save a fortune on petroleum imports.
It has been fun arguing with you. I have learned a lot by following all your often fallacious links. Clearly nothing I wrote has had any influence but I can say in reply it is mutual in regard to your rants. It is a pity Don is closing the show but good things often come to an end.
The one person I did hope to shift was Don and I admit defeat. He is the only ex Vice Chancellor I know but by no means the only Professor and uniquely (in that group) he is the only climate change cynic, but he is also the only one of them not accredited in the physical sciences. So I am not too disappointed. Good night, it has been fun.
PS. Enjoy your first EV, it will be sooner than you think.
It might change your mind when I say that EVs do have a good future. However, just as horse drawn mobility continued alongside ICE for many decades, so to do ICE vehicles have a bright future for many applications.
Still, it is good to see some softening in your anti-coal position, but while you are calling for EVs as a means of reducing oil imports, I am surprised at your neglect of the possibilities of coal-to-liquid as another means to the same end.
As for continuing the dabate, feel free to move across to Catallaxy Files. There are frequent posts on climate change and renewables there, and a vigorous debate to be had.
As usual, stu lives his life with judgements based on idealism and not reality.
The reality is; EVs with any distance capacity produce up to 70% more emissions to manufacture and for the foreseeable future more fuel emissions than ICE vehicles.
They are moronic to drive as they have none of the sensual feedback of ice vehicles.
They cannot be used in remote areas in a country that is predominantly remote areas.
And in spite of all our subsidies and not contributing to road maintenance they cost nearly twice the price of better ICE cars.
They are a silly, sick, stu-pid joke.
SD “ The reality is; EVs with any distance capacity produce up to 70% more emissions to manufacture and for the foreseeable future more fuel emissions than ICE vehicles.”
That is fossil fuelled bullshit and you know it. The generation of coal powered electricity is much more efficient than the process in an ICE vehicle. And none of the studies ever considers the energy used to find, pump, transport, refine, store and transport the refined fuel to the end user, they only consider the efficiency (which is very low) at the moment of detonation in the ICE vehicle engine. Much of it is simply useless heat. But no point providing all the proof of that here, as said above this show is closing.
And as for “remote” Australia you clearly have not seen the just announced roll out of fast charging across inland Queensland. https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/88616
But you stick with your proverbial horse and buggy, and watch its value evaporate as it becomes a stranded asset.
Your idea of EV emission is just your biased opinion, stu.
As usual, unsupported by any measurable evidence. Do some serious checking for a change.
And if it was at all economic to provide fuel for EVs you wouldn’t need Labor govts organising it.
Free enterprise would be already there waiting for them to arrive.
Fools are always easily fooled by other fools.
“as for “remote” Australia you clearly have not seen the just announced roll out of fast charging across inland Queensland”
If you think that this “initiative” will come close to being adequate, you are back in fantasy land. It will take huge investment over decades to match the availability of liquid fuels. Even beyond that, short if a quantum improvement in battery technology, ICE vehicles will be round for a long time.
Try to stick to realistic objectives, rather than flights of fantasy.
Still no comment on coal-to-liquid?
Well stu you’ve certainly shown us the BS behind your so called EXISTENTIAL threat, but I’ve proven that our GREENING planet has never been better and the 7.8 bn humans today have an easier way of life than at any time in history. SEE co2 emissions GRAPH AGAIN and THINK.
Everything you yearn for like EVs, S&W, no dams, etc will be a disaster because they’ll lower our standard of living, increase our electricity costs and leave the poor and elderly in a very vulnerable situation like Texas, SA and parts of Germany etc.
Of course S&W have to be supported forever by base-load power and then have to be buried in landfill forever. The costs of this lunacy will also go on forever and a rolled gold guarantee of no measurable change for climate+ temp + SLR ETC for a thousand years.
But China, India and the developing world have no intention of following our stu-pidity and will continue to build even more coal fired stns and for many decades into the future. That you don’t understand any of this is beyond my understanding and you just ignore the real world data that I’ve linked to for a very long time.
So good luck with your fantasies and if you ever wake up please copy Shellenberger’s example and apologise for your past stu-pidity. You know it’s very easy,just follow the real world data and evidence.
If Shellenberger, Lomborg and Koonin etc can do it , so can you.
OH and a big surprise that Shellenberger was invited to be an IPCC reviewer after he issued his apology. Perhaps some people at the IPCC must have either a sense of humour or a sense of justice? Who knows.
AGAIN here’s countries’ co2 emissions since 1970 or 1990. THINK ABOUT IT. If you really don’t understand this data/evidence you don’t understand anything.
Then, of course, the electric vehicle offers the opportunity to be burned to a crisp. For how long will it be possible to insure these death traps?
Karabar that is a problem with Lithium ion batteries in buses, cars, bikes etc. They are very dangerous and shouldn’t be charged at home overnight and can burn down your house while you and your family are asleep.
Already a number of reports around Australia and overseas. Just think of the danger if we were stupid enough to have millions of these super fire traps in every house throughout the city?
During the 2019 FED election the SMH told a story of a house fire caused by an electric bike that caused a bad fire in a house in Sydney. The house owner luckily escaped the fire because she was awake and able to grab her dog as she rushed out of the house.
And some Tesla fires have been filmed on roads in the USA and around the world. And these lithium battery fires are very difficult to extinguish.
As usual as one lot of the denialist arguments is knocked off they look for another. Give up. Admit the world automotive manufacturers are in the midst of change and all your arguments against EV’s are treated as the rubbish that they are. And you sceptics would also be horrified to learn that the 100 or so wind turbines around Collector and Bungendore were all generating beautifully yesterday. Time to put away your red lights and flags in front of the car and join the 21st century. Also I recall one of you nutters extolling the virtues of over 100 years of evolution of the ICE, and urge you to also consider the long history of the electric powered vehicles. Sure they were not great back then but look at them now, all that evolution you extoll.
As usual, not a clue.
I mentioned the hundred year evolution of ICE vehicles as a caution against the excessive technological optimism (combined with minimal comprehension) to which you are subject.
Yes, there were electric cars early on. They went nowhere for simipar reasons to those that cause their reintroduction to be slow. As for the “evolution you extoll”, they are not yet comparable in terms of range and payload to their ICE equivalents.
I love the way you use manufacturers’ forecasts as a “weapon”. When you buy a car, do you test drive it, read up motoring magazines for their reports of tests, or do you just “buy off the brochure”?
“you sceptics would also be horrified to learn that the 100 or so wind turbines around Collector and Bungendore were all generating beautifully yesterday”
You write that as if it is so unusual as to be worthy of attention. What is the annual output, as a percentage of “nameplate” capacity, of that wind farm for each of the last five years?
Willis tries to track down the true cost of the S&W idiocy and finds that the true global capacity factor for solar is only 14% and wind 26%.
He found that info at the wonderful OWI DATA site.
And that must ALWAYS be supported by gas power and the TOTAL price means that S&W would never be competitive.
Here’s a thought ….. why not use gas fired power and forget about the clueless, UNRELIABLE, TOXIC S&W disaster, FOREVER?
So Willis says “ My question was, if wind and solar are so cheap, why are they not replacing traditional sources overnight?”. Has he not heard of the general rules of investment and life cycle costing. As with the switch to EV’s none of the proponents of S&W are suggesting we do it all today, that is just a fanciful denialist trick out of the fossil fuel playbook. If you have a plant that has long been paid for your only cost is the fuel and maintenance, not depreciation. So you stick with it till those repair costs mean it is not competitive with new sources of power like S&W. That is what is happening here, but not “overnight”.
Have you noticed there must be lots of money for denial. The only organisations and people putting out this crap are arguing against something. The guys you say are gobbling grant money funnily enough are doing research into the many different aspects of our world. Few bother to even engage with the cynics and there are no pro AGW outfits like GWPF, Heartland, CATO etc just regular science bodies which have been around for yonks. The two sides are not matched, one side are totally negative and the other focussed on improvement and a better world. That is why denial is like a religion, all about control and resistance to changing the status quo.
“there are no pro AGW outfits like GWPF, Heartland, CATO etc”
If you actually believe that, you are more deluded than even I thought.
You are forgetting, stu, that wind and sun energy are FREE and no amount of development can ever improve on that advantage.
Yet even when starting so far ahead they are still a disaster even in latitudes and areas where they perform to their max.
That is where you are fooled to think they are a good source of energy but you only have to look at any of those solar or wind farms that exist off-grid and it is blindingly obvious that they are not only completely [100%] useless but they require endless, on-going maintenance as well.
But when these “renewables” are attached to a grid and the govt subsidises them, their real negative value and true liability are hidden in all the smoke and mirrors and can never be honestly evaluated.
And the people responsible for their disastrous installation never allow a cost/benefit study that would show what a stu-pid decision it was to put them there in the first place.
Save your fingers guys. Just as I accept that 99% (including you) of the followers here dismiss every point I make you have no chance of influencing me because you quote such rubbish, although I have usually checked out the stuff you post, just to be sure. So let’s agree to disagree. And it is probably time you went to bed. Sweet dreams.
Stu jumps into bed, and pulls the blanket over his head.
Yes BJ, stu is simply too obtuse to get that he cannot deal with any message we give him.
He may check them out but he still ducks them and settles for the messenger every time.
Why is it you hate evidence so much, stu?
Did it frighten you early in life?
“For a doubling of CO2 that produces a one-degree increase in global temperature is not worrying at all, and it will take a long time to generate that increase in temperature anyway. ”
This is not so. As the New Scientist reported (28 May 2016) “The bottom line is that low values for the immediate warming in response to a doubling of CO2 can now be ruled out” (p.9).
The available data shows that you get a close to linear 1 degree rise per 100 ppm CO2.
This is a serious worry for those who care for today’s youngsters and for future generations.
Look up the data for yourself and you’ll understand there has been amazing improvement over the last 100 years 50 years and 10 years.
What is it you don’t understand because I’ve repeatedly linked to all of the data?
Don’t you realise how stu-pid you appear as you grasp at your silly fantasy world again and again?
The data is here. https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp
You have only cherry-picked data or gone off on an irrelevant tangent.
“As the New Scientist reported (28 May 2016) “The bottom line is that low values for the immediate warming in response to a doubling of CO2 can now be ruled out” (p.9).”
You might not be aware of it, but research has advanced a bit in the last five years. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
SD etc I can’t leave here without acknowledging how smart you guys are. Such a small band who alone can see the truth and know unflinchingly that all of government and science have got it wrong. To say the least you are bloody amazing. Take an OBE. But remember you have lost the war.
Thank you. I am sure we all appreciate your concern.
May we take it that this marks yet another of your very many flounces? See you at Catallaxy when the urge to missionary work becomes too strong to resist.
This is just the start ….
Our blith smirks; “This is just the start ….”
How many flocks of birds died in that heat compared with the heatwave in Feb 1791 at Rose Hill, blith?
It’s called weather and I think it started a few hundred million years earlier than you are prepared to admit.
One for Stu, if he is lurking.
“Amid a West Coast heat wave that includes triple-digit temperatures, California’s power grid operators have called on residents to not use as much electricity so as to put less strain on the state’s beleaguered grid.”
From the Epoch Times, so he will dismiss it as “denialist cherry picking”.
PS, forgot to mention. One of the things the peasants, sorry, population, are being asked to do is not charge their EVs.
Didn’t you say that EV batteries would be a handy reserve of power for such difficult times? Perhaps so, but only if they are charged, and the owners do not need them for another purpose, like travelling. You know, the principal purpose for a car.
Just for our silly blog donkey and also from WFTs. Fixed it for you and certainly doesn’t look very scary does it?
But if you like/ prefer GISS’s fantasy adjustments I can’t help you. OH and look at the wonderful increase in life exp and wealth since 1880 or 1950 or 1970 or even 2010. WAKE UP.
Don’t blame me if you can’t understand proper data and evidence over the last 210 years or even the last 200K years. AGAIN,WAKE UP.
What our cherry-picking fraudster did not show.
Lower trop is warming 0.1C every 10-11 years.
GISTEMP is warming at twice this.
Also if you look at the latest 30 years – you will see even greater warming.
So the rate of warming is increasing.
All this is denied by fraudulent, cherry-picking denialists.
Much of that is cherry picking of “homogenised” data by fraudulent alarmists.
What are your credentials as a certified alarmist?
And if you look at the preceding 30 years – you find a GISTEMP warming trend of just 0.11C per 10 years [0.355C per 30 years].
It almost doubled over the next 30 years – 1990 to 2020.
All this is denied by fraudulent, cherry-picking denialists.
Once again I’ll ask our blog donkeys to tell us how to mitigate their so called EXISTENTIAL threat or CAGW? Then tell us how long this would take to implement and at what cost?
Would you expect to see a difference to temp and co2 levels by 2100, 2300, 2500 or a much longer time interval? I presume you have a well equipped army of millions to help you persuade China, India, and the developing world to agree to your point of view?
So how many hundreds of trillions $ would this cost? Lomborg has used Nobel prize winners to estimate the difference in temp by 2100 after full compliance with Paris COP 21 and the difference is ZIP. OH and no “FULL COMPLIANCE with Paris” in sight. WAKE UP. AGAIN look at the WIKI graph DATA. WAKE UP.
Dr Hansen the father of their CAGW has also told us that Paris COP 21 is just BS and fra-d and S&W are just fairy tales, so I presume you can show us where he is wrong?
But what do you hope to achieve when the data tells us that humans are healthier, wealthier and have much longer life expectancy all around the world? That world average life expectancy is now about 73 years and the developing world are catching up fast. And Africa ( 1.37 bn) life exp now 64 and will improve with more access to reliable base-load energy. WAKE UP and follow the DATA.
So how does any of this data make sense if we are soon to face Biden’s EXISTENTIAL threat or end of life as we know it? Gore has exhausted so many of his predictions and the world just seems to be getting better and a lot greener as well. WAKE UP.
Notice how our denialists are just running distractions.
They don’t like facts and data.
What about the real facts and data that you totally avoid in your cherry-picking, blith:
Sez Chrissy, who ignores any “facts and data” that challenge his precious alarmist “narrative”.
What position is Chrissy hoping for in the future government by a self-selected “intellectual elite” who do not demonstrate any great intellectual qualities?
I’ve provided ALL THE DATA while you run away and hide every day. BTW here’s some very cold WEATHER in June 2021 from Antarctica and very low measurement of minus -81c recorded.
Don’t forget that the coldest recorded temp on the planet was recorded JUST 4 years ago from Vostok base of minus -89.6 c in 2017. And Jo Nova also mentions this RECORD at the link. I’ve linked to this ALL TIME RECORD COLD TEMP before on this blog. WAKE UP.
I’m locked in moderation again.
I’ve provided ALL THE DATA while you run away and hide every day. BTW here’s some very cold WEATHER in June 2021 from Antarctica and very low measurement of minus -81c recorded.
Don’t forget that the coldest recorded temp on the planet was recorded JUST 4 years ago minus 89.6 c from Vostok base in 2017. And Jo Nova also mentions this RECORD at the link. I’ve linked to this ALL TIME RECORD COLD TEMP before on this blog.
“Solar radiation is thus the driving force for terrestrial climatic change during the last 1-2 Myr, as suggested by Milankovitch (1941) and supported by Hays et al. (1976) but it is the planetary gravitational influences on the Sun itself that causes the dominant 100 Kyr periodicity in the Earth’s climate during the last 1-2 Myr. “
MILANKOVITCH CYCLES IN CLIMATE CHANGE,GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS
D. H. Tarling
School of Geoegraphy, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of PlymouthPLYMOUTH PL4 8AA, UK
The strong correlation of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession changes in the Earth’s orbit(Milankovitch cycles) with the
proxy temperature indicators (principally ?
O) in continuous cores of sediment and ice, accumulated during the last 1-2 Myr, has led to a conclusion that climatic change is entirely a result of the fluctuations in the amount and latitudinal distribution of solar energy reaching the Earth’s upper atmosphere, i.e. they are a result of ‘solar forcing’. While a very good correlations exists for some Milankovitch spectra, there are misfits that suggest that the observed correlations may not be fully causative, i.e. some other related process is also involved that may be even more important. Furthermore, the temperature changes at the top of the atmosphere are small, relative to those of climatic changes, and so must be amplified by secondary effects, principally albedo changes resulting from changing snow and/or cloud cover. Spectral analyses of geological and geophysical properties in the absence of such secondary albedo processes, such as during the Cretaceous, have shown all Milankovitch periodicities are present in both gravitational and climatically related properties. Identical spectral peaks and ratios are also present in geomagnetic properties and sea-floor spreading rates of the same age. No other spectra are identified, but all Milankovitch frequencies are recorded. Such old sequences suggests that the climatic changes of the last 2 Myr should be similarly controlled by the distance and angular relationship with the Sun and Earth. It is suggested that current attribution of all terrestrial climatic change to only Milankovitch cycles in the Earth’s orbit neglects the effects that changing planetary orbits will have on the activity of the Sun. It is proposed that dominant 100kyr climatic cycle during the last 1-2 Myr is due to Jupiter’s gravitational influence on the amount and quality of solar radiation being generated. This radiation is then modulated by the Earth’s orbital behaviour.
Sorry, this cannot be true. Our resident climatologist, Chrissy, has already told us that Milankovitch cycles are not involved, and he has never been wrong. Just ask him, he’ll tell you.
(Chrissy, that’s sarcasm, not an endorsement.)
And of course, BJ, our blith would know.
I hope he can read this bit:
“The next century of human-made global warming is predicted to be far less extreme than that which occurred at 9600 BC [11,600 BP]. At the end of the Younger Dryas, mean global temperature had risen by 7°C in fifty years, whereas the predicted rise for the next hundred years is less than 3°C. The end of the last ice age led to a 120 meter increase in sea level, whereas that predicted for the next fifty years is a paltry 32 centimeters at most,…”
Interesting study SD and we know that the Holocene optimum temps were much higher and lasted for thousands of years.
Even their ABC admitted that SLs on our east coast were 1.5 metres higher just 4,000 years ago. That was at the end of the higher Hol opt, see ABC Catalyst Narrabeen Man, that I’ve linked to many times.
And there’s arguably no measurable difference in SLs or SLR at Sydney for over 100 years.
There is so much wonderful science that our blog donkeys [to use a great Neville-term] could study:
“We are constantly being informed that the world is in the midst of a climate crisis and that current atmospheric temperatures are unprecedented, but this should be viewed in the context of what has occurred in the past,” Dr Abbot said.
Don, allow me to correct some fundamental misunderstandings.
1. Historical warm periods, like the Roman, have been shown to be not global in nature.
Reconstruction of the global temperature 2000 years ago indicates 1C less than now.
2. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is defined to be the rise in mean surface temperature for a doubling of CO2. It is NOT, as you seem to believe, some debatable effect in addition to a basic 1C rise for such doubling.
(Provably, this logarithmic relationship to CO2 is not valid over an arbitrary range. It is just a handy approximation over a substantial range.)
Confusingly, there is a more general meaning: the change in temperature due to a change in a given forcing. Specifically, degrees C per W/m2 increase in radiation imbalance.
In all cases, there is more than one relevant value: the short-term “transient climate response” (TCR) and the long-term “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS). Just as there is a delay between turning the kettle on and reaching boiling point, the ECS exceeds the TCR.
Latest IPCC puts TCR for CO2 doubling at 1 to 2.5 and its ECS at 1.5 to 4.5.
A major uncertainty within these ranges is the role of clouds. Recent advances in modelling them has somewhat raised the ECS estimate.
3. “Post-war” peak
Actually, the northern temperate peak was around 1940-45, and much less marked elsewhere.
This is believed to have been caused mostly by the increased solar activity and the reduced vulcanism. Such causes are transient, lasting only a decade or three.
It’d be nice if we had really detailed models and historical data so that we could always pick apart such influences, but we don’t. What we do see is a consistent trend over longer periods up to the entire industrial era record.
4. Evidence of harm
Well, yes there is evidence of present harm, but you would probably object to its statistical nature: that this or that extreme weather event was made x amount more likely by warming. So instead think about the entirely calculable consequence of warming waters, melting ice, and the resulting sea level rise. Plenty of harm there.
5. Sea level.
“Sea levels have been rising for several centuries” …
No, only for one and a bit. It fell from 1600 to 1900, but has risen much more since.
… and “there does not seem to have been a recent sudden acceleration”
There has. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating.
how come submitting my comments lost all the paragraph boundaries? Makes it damned hard to read! Can some moderator fix it please?
Derek, I’m always glad to be corrected if I’ve made an error. Let’s deal with each of your numbered points in turn.
1. There are plenty of papers that argued for a global effect for old warm and cold periods. The jury is still out.
2. Climate sensitivity is another such issue. I will stick to what I wrote, but accept that there have been numerous attempts to show that it must exist and it must be important. I’m not really persuaded by the ones I’ve read, and a gap of 1.5 to 4.5 in ECS after forty years seems to me really pathetic. I’m with Judy Curry on this issue.
3. Postwar peak: again there are published papers that make clear (a) that the postwar warm period had different lengths at different times, and (b) that it was in the southern hemisphere as well as the north.
4. I think I’m quite correct in saying that there has been no present harm. If there is future harm, it will be a long time coming, and subsequent generations will know what to do about it, if anything.
5. I follow Moener on sea levels, as does Humlum. They both argue that sea-levels have been slowly rising for the last thousand years or so.
Actually, I don’t think I have misunderstood anything, but thank you for your comments.
Derek, any GW is perfectly explained by sea level rise and the Fort Denison tide gauge, which is located in Sydney Harbour, which is a stilling pond for the Pacific Ocean, which is the biggest ocean in the world, is showing a LOWER mean sea level at its latest recording [May 2021] than it did at its first recording [May 1914].
107 years and nothing happening:
This is confirmed by scientific studies of Pacific Islands and Atolls:
This review first confirms that over the past decades to century, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization by sea-level rise. The global sample considered in this paper, which includes 30 atolls and 709 islands, reveals that atolls did not lose land area, and that 73.1% of islands were stable in land area, including most settled islands, while 15.5% of islands increased and 11.4% decreased in size. Atoll and island areal stability can therefore be considered as a global trend.”
Derek Boltan has raised 5 themes which explore the basis of anthropocentric climate change.
However there is a 6th.
Past CO2/temp changes have been due to natural causes with the major trends being driven by Milankovitch Cycles. In these instances temperatures rise first and CO2 follows. The opposite now applies. The current warming directly contradicts Milankovitch cycles.
There is a 7th.
Natural warming cycles would not be accompanied by cooling above the troposphere due to heat being trapped below. As orbital cycles change, the upper atmosphere would be affected just as the lower troposphere. The opposite now applies. There is radical cooling at high altitudes and radical heating at low altitudes. This resource is truly useful: http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
There is an 8th.
The cause of unnatural global heating has been traced back into history through the work of William Ruddiman which suggests that fossil fuels are not the only cause of climate change and that industrial use of fossil fuels only magnified the problem.
Finally there is a 9th consideration.
When people have either an emotional or economic interest in a point of view, some will simply deny science or try to refute it. They will try to disrupt presentations and will introduce fake concepts and supposed evidence. The classic example is the case of the nicotine company executives. Climate change science can only be refuted by science at the same level and of the same quality as climate science itself.
Of course there has to be some final conclusion which is that if humanity continues on its present path, we will be destroying the Earth’s ecology for future generations and could render the planet uninhabitable by our species.
Thank you Hanrahan.
After reading your nonsense I’ll ask the same UNANSWERED QUESTION AGAIN.
If you’re so concerned tell us what you think China, India etc should do about it??
The EU + USA have NOT INCREASED co2 emissions since 1970 and yet co2 emissions from China + the developing countries have soared as shown by the WIKI graph.
It’e lazy and easy to make stu-pid comments here and at the same time ignore the elephant in the room AGAIN.
Co2 levels have increased by about 65 ppm in the last 30+ years and all from China etc or didn’t you notice? Or will you just RUN and HIDE AGAIN? So what’s your solution????
Has anyone noticed the weather in north west USA and Canada this last week? Old record maxima being broken by 3 and 3.5 degrees C. Things peaking at 47degrees there in June seems weird. Almost unheard of. Is it just your tenuous
natural variation or another sign of the ineluctable slide to a much warmer world sooner rather than later? Weather folk seem to think it is caused by the Arctic temperature differential reducing leading to a stalling and wavering of the jet stream. In other words global warming.
And BTW my earlier post was sarcasm but you seem to have missed it BJ, I have not changed horses.
Hard to change horses when you are riding a mule.
As usual, everything warm is climate, the earlier cold records broken were only weather? You really did not grasp Don’s point about global averages, did you?
Stu it was much warmer during the HOL OPT or didn’t you notice and for thousands of years and the Eemian I.Glacial was much warmer and much higher SLs than the HOL OPT. WAKE UP to YOURSELF.
OH and the Antarctic has been very cold in June 2021 and recent RECORD cold temps in Vostok as well. Just more weather. See my link.
Sorry above should read Vostok BASE.
Another great post from Jo Nova about coral bleaching in 1862, where I linked to their ABC Catalyst story of Narrabeen man.
I’m sure there’d be thousands of years of coral bleaching during the much WARMER HOLOCENE CLIMATE OPTIMUM.
In fact at the end of the HOL OPT sea levels on our east coast at Sydney etc were 1.5 metres HIGHER THAN TODAY. That’s 4,000 years ago.
See their ABC Catalyst Narrabeen man at the link. And not too many Coal plants or SUVs or etc for thousands of years and yet much warmer climate and seas.
You can watch the video or read the transcript at the link.
OH and tell any delusional friends or relatives to WAKE UP.
As boringly usual you overlook the difference between bleaching then and now. The issue is the increasing frequency of bleaching events. Same holds true for heat waves.
“ Climate change is also making episodes of extreme heat more frequent, longer and more intense, said Erica Fleishman, director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University.
In these two cities, (Portland and Seattle) days with temperatures that are well above historical averages have increased, particularly starting in the 2010’s.
We can say extreme weather is happening more as climate changes, and will continue to happen more,” she said. “This heat wave is extraordinary, but this in a sense is not likely to be the last.”
As for your “seas higher before” remember the earth was on the downtrend to a new cold period until we reversed it, so you would expect that comparison.
Remember, so far as scientific opinion, government action and the demise of ICE vehicles go you are on the wrong side of the argument. Your team has lost. You could well be the Beta of the Beta/VHS battle (Beta was better technically) but you still lose. By all means keep waving as your ship sinks beneath the waves but there is no rescue coming for you and the Joanne Codlings of the world remain unconvincing.
“increasing frequency of bleaching events”
Would they be the bleaching events that regularly surprise the “exspurts” by the subsequent rapid recovery? The records on this subject are even shorter than the records on temperature.
Regards the “demise of ICE vehicles”, as you seemed to be starting to understand recently, without reliable continuous power, EVs will never be widespread.
Solar, wind and batteries at their present state of development can’t do the job. Until they can, the choices are coal, gas, much more hydro, or nuclear. Make your selection (you seemed to favour coal earlier).
Still no comment on coal-to-liquid?
So ONCE AGAIN you can’t answer my above question? But we know you can’t tell us how to mitigate your so called problem and you run and hide and IGNORE the China+ developing countries’ soaring co2 emissions? IOW you are a joke.
Shouting will not help. Your question does not impact the science of climate change.
Prove that CO2 does not absorb long wave radiation and you will have added to the science.
Otherwise, have a nice day, even though you seek to destroy the rights of future generations to have the same.
Prove that the absorption is not logarithmic. Then you might gain the Nobel to add to your existing credentials as a climate scientist.
AGAIN I’ll quote the CSIRO Cape Grim link . The NH is the NET co2 SOURCE and the SH is the NET co2 SINK. WAKE UP.
Today the NH is about 7 billion people and the SH is about 0.8 billion.
Oh and Australia emits about 1.1 % of global emissions and Dr Finkel told the Senate that we could stop all OZ co2 emissions today and it wouldn’t make any difference to temps or climate.
And Lomborg’s expert team also stated that there would be no measurable change to TEMP or CLIMATE EVEN IF the ENTIRE WORLD STOPPED Human co2 EMISSIONS TODAY. That’s by 2100 and supported by Zickfeld study + the L W Conversation + The Royal Society + USA NAS study. What don’t our donkeys understand and yet they want to waste 100s of TRILLIONS $ ( all countries) for a GUARANTEED ZERO RETURN by 2100 or for a THOUSAND YEARS.
“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)”.
The Cape Grim baseline carbon dioxide data displayed show both the annual cycle and the long-term trend”.
We know human life exp continues to improve every decade. And the UN tells us everyone will be much healthier and wealthier by 2050 and 2100.
And life exp was 64.6 in 1990 and today is 73.2 or an increase of 8.6 years in just 30 years. IOW an increase of about 0.28 yrs every year.
Just another source link to cross check the UN data accuracy.
And proves Biden’s so called EXISTENTIAL THREAT is just more BS and FR_UD. And yet our donkeys fall for this garbage again and again?
Nifty says “ We know human life exp continues to improve every decade. And the UN tells us everyone will be much healthier and wealthier by 2050 and 2100.
And life exp was 64.6 in 1990 and today is 73.2 or an increase of 8.6 years in just 30 years. IOW an increase of about 0.28 yrs every year.”
Really! That is a classic piece of jumping to conclusions. I recall somewhere way back you criticising someones confusion of correlation and causation and now here you go doing just that. Classic. Never mind progress in medical science, agricultural practice and even surprisingly reduction in armed conflict etc, but I am sure you are a master statistician.
Sez stueyluv, the master of evidence.
OH and your “jumping to conclusions” stu-pidity is just more of your infantile nonsense.
I’ve explained above that the reasons are fairly clear and we’ve had 100 years in my example to prove it.
Look at Dr Rosling’s video again and start to WAKE UP.
So many of the deaths in the past were because of droughts and today deaths from extreme weather events have dropped by at least 95% since 1920.
And the pop has increased by over 5 billion since 1920 and 4.1 bn since 1970. WAKE UP and THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Your argument proves that you really are simple minded. Just limit your case to Australian data on population and run it past us again. Droughts here are frequent but not seen as a great cause of (human) death. And our weather forecasting, communications, organization of support services including provision of medical services has come on in leaps and bounds. But you suggest that somehow an increasingly carbonized world has increased life expectancy. Really!
You are supposed to ride the mule, not be one.
PS, your latest flounce didn’t last long.
Oh goody we have faithful Chewbacca chiming in again right on queue. Nothing but noise. Great double act.
Well, since (despite our quite different writing styles) you seem unable to differentiate between us, I might as well join the party.
You are a certifiable idiot and you are beyond a joke and Dr Rosling’s data proves it beyond any argument.
When he starts his 110,000+ DATA points video in 1810 he says “the industrial revolution has started and the industrial countries move away from the rest”. WAKE UP TO YOURSELF. Why do you have to be schooled every time???
So from past 200k years to 1810 humans had a life EXP under 40 but in just a short time we see an improvement and it was because of the use of fossil fuels and our PROFITING from that ENERGY.
And as countries have and use that surplus energy THEN we see an improvement in R&D + health + nutrition + calories etc. to also push for much longer life exp now and into the future.
What don’t you understand about this data and evidence? It just proves again that so many L W fools are always more interested in their politics and manipulation before anything else.
Here’s the REAL WORLD DATA for droughts, floods and Earth quakes from 1900 to 2015. From OWI data site.
These 3 are the major deaths over the last 115 years and the last 30 years have seen very few deaths from droughts and floods. And we have another 5+ billion pop today. Wake up.
The 1910s, 1920s and 1930s were very high numbers of deaths ( from droughts+ Floods) and the deaths have fallen since then.
It proves I’m correct AGAIN and proof that our stu-pid blog donkeys couldn’t care less about real world data and evidence.
Sorry above should be 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Not 1910s. Far too much on my plate today and must try to do better.
Deaths being down does not necessarily equate to droughts being down. Correlation and causation again.
And BJ you might have different writing styles but you are associated by making comparable noise.
And you lack the reading comprehension to tell the difference? No wonder you see everything as white noise.
Which you then interpret as climate change.
No thoughts on coal-to-liquid? Or on what “interim” power source we should use to power all those EVs you are confident will flood the world, until ruinables can get their act sufficiently together to provide reliable, continuous l, electricity?
Just fairy dust and unicorn f@rts. That is all you have to offer.
“And you lack the reading comprehension to tell the difference? “
No mate clearly that is a problem you have if you misconstrue what I wrote so badly. Unbelievable
But soon fortunately Don is putting an end to this madness here.
“But soon fortunately Don is putting an end to this madness here.”
You feel you’re losing the “debate” eh, stueyluv?
No mate read back earlier, you have lost the great debate, not here but in the wide world. You are are one of the losers, enjoy your dinosaur ICE vehicle while it still runs and get used to a world moving to net zero, like it or not. Why can’t you get that simple idea into your head and drop your ideology. Game over, you lost.
You’re sounding more like brainwashed kiddies every day, stueyluv.
But eventually, as with even the kiddies, reality wins.
It’s just that you’ll have a lot of agony before you reach daylight again.
“No mate clearly that is a problem you have if you misconstrue what I wrote so badly”
You have previously written that you have trouble telling the difference between my comments and Neville’s. How did I misconstrue that? Do you even remember what you have posted previously? You can get help for that.
“soon fortunately Don is putting an end to this madness here.”
You are not forced to participate. You flounced off a couple of days ago, but soon came creeping back.
Go! You have been here too long for whatever good you might do.
“get used to a world moving to net zero, like it or not”
Have you told China, India and the ME countries? Because they show no signs of accepting your fantasy.
Get the picture …
Something that blithnstu urgently need to read:
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
“Science is scientific debate, with rules. Science is not wise words spoken from on high. Science, properly done, is so professionally researched and explained as to be self-evident. Once the paper is read, the data obtained and checked, anyone with the necessary skills can reproduce the author’s result and convince themselves that what the author said was true. “The Science” is not truth, it is a process that results in truth, if done properly. If no one can reproduce the result, if the underlying data aren’t available to the public, if the methodology is not clear, it is not a proper scientific theory, it is not “science.” Don’t follow it.”
Oh dear, our mate running around in circles again. This stuff you quote is just laughable, ask any reputable scientist. Surely you can do better than Willard Watts who never graduated.
Denying reality is very easy for someone who denies evidence and never made any personal observations of what happens in the real world.
It’s probably just as well you are so ignorant of what’s in store for you science deniers.
You are so unaware of your own stu-pidity and ignorance, it’s embarrassing:
“ The second thing Lloyd’s “experts” all have in common is a broad rejection of the science linking dangerous human-caused climate change to fossil fuel burning, something Lloyd does not mention.
Let’s look for a minute at who Lloyd quotes to back up his narrative.
First there is Prof Judith Curry, of Georgia Tech University, who has no peer-reviewed publications at all in relation to coral reefs.
Having a solid body of peer-reviewed research behind you in the relevant scientific field should be the pre-requisite for assigning “expertise”.
Curry is a favourite among climate science deniers for her view that human-caused climate change is a beat up.
Then there is the curious inclusion of Jim Steele, of San Francisco State University. According to that university’s website, Steele is “emeritus” – which means he is retired.
I cannot find a publication listing for Steele, but this biography suggests expertise in biology and, in particular, birds. In 2013, Steele released a book claiming that climate change was natural and not being caused by humans.
Then there is James Cook University’s Prof Peter Ridd, who is not a coral biologist. He has published work on how sediments and waters move around coral reefs, but I am told he has no expertise on the biology of corals.
Lloyd again neglects to mention Ridd’s work on projects to support the construction of fossil fuel export facilities along the Queensland coastline close to the reef.
Nether does he mention Ridd’s tendency towards climate science denialism.
Lloyd does get quotes from one actual expert on coral bleaching – arguably one of the the world’s foremost authorities on the issue, Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, of the University of Queensland.
Lloyd includes a discussion of Hoegh-Guldberg’s seminal 1999 paper on coral bleaching which warned that “present and future increases in sea temperature are likely to have severe effects on the world’s coral reefs within 20 – 30 years”.
Same old, same old.
And as in all of stu’s refutations, he then shoots every messenger he can find.
Only this time he hires out serial killers.
This is his idea of “debate”.
Please deal with the message and consider the evidence.
That is, if you can possibly comprehend it.
“ask any reputable scientist.”
Defined by you as “a scientist who says what you want to hear.
To finish Cromwell’s statement I started earlier, “In the name of God, go”.
Things are stating to look very ugly in Germany for the delusional donkeys, liars and fra-dsters.
Perhaps bringing lawsuits against these idiots is the only way to eventually turn the tide against the TOXIC S & W disasters and return to solid reliable BASE-LOAD energy for their guaranteed future prosperity?
It seems more and more Germans are sick of these bird mincers and also want to retain what’s left of their wildlife and forests. So far this is more wonderful news for rational people and let’s hope they hit these con merchants where it hurts.
Of course hundreds of billions $ WASTED FOR DECADES AND ALL FOR A ZERO RETURN. OH and Germany emits just 2.15% of global co2 emissions. WHAT a CON AND FRA_D.
So none of you guys want to comment on the current Canada /NW USA heat wave. Not surprised. Here is another view of what is happening. This one a quote from the World Meteorological Office. The sting is in the last sentence. But what would the WMO know, they are not experts in all aspects of earth and weather science like you guys are they?
“ These early summer hot weather conditions are taking place in human-induced climate change background, with global temperatures are already 1.2°C higher than the pre-industrial levels.
“Heatwaves are becoming more frequent and intense as greenhouse gas concentrations lead to a rise in global temperatures. We are also noticing that they are starting earlier and ending later and are taking an increasing toll on human health,” said Omar Baddour, Head of WMO’s Climate Monitoring and Policy Division.
Nikos Christidis is a climate s cientist with the UK’s Met Office. He said: “Without human-induced climate change, it would have been almost impossible to hit such record-breaking mean June temperatures in the Western United States as the chances of natural occurrence is once every tens of thousands of years. In the present-day climate getting an extremely hot June is common and is likely to occur twice in three decades. However, an analysis from many computer models suggests that by the end of the century these extreme temperatures are more likely than not. Human influence is estimated to have increased the likelihood of a new record several thousand times,” he said.
You missed the key sentence.
“However, an analysis from many computer models suggests that by the end of the century these extreme temperatures are more likely than not”
The “models” prove everything and those who don’t like it are p00 bum denialists.
It’s hardly worth commenting about, stueyluv, except to say that the heat was actually confined to a small area. New Mexico is experiencing record cold.
And during past heatwaves, there have been 100 degree temperatures from coast to coast as in the 1910s and1930s.
The amount of heat in these hot spots is miniscule compared with past natural climate variability.
Please look beyond the cherries in front of your nose.
Here’s another comment, stueyluv, based on facts and evidence:
“Initial investigations have shown that the 120°F temperature in Renton was in fact an error in data display. The actual temperature at that site was 108°F. We will still be investigating the other observations.”
“The heat wave was entirely a weather pattern issue, not a climate issue. A large high-pressure dome (sometimes called a heat-dome) over the PNW is not unheard of, but this one was particularly strong. In fact, it was a result of a perfect storm of weather pattern confluence. Similar unique weather pattern confluences happen each year to create major blizzards, torrential floods, and tornado outbreaks. It’s business as usual for Earth.”
More on the heatwave over the USA Pac NW and SW Canada from Anthony Watts .
This was a very strong heatwave event and THEN A RECORD COOLING in just 24 hours.
And he also uses the Govt EPA graph to show the RECORD USA HEATWAVES during the 1930s. This is USA 1930s heatwaves over years not just a few days. WAKE UP.
Amazing what a high pressure system can bring on and then a rapid RECORD cooling to prove again that this was JUST WEATHER AGAIN.
A rational, accurate 33 year account of their so called CAGW since the 1988 hearing that started this delusional panic by the L W extremists in the USA and around the world.
Willis has already proven their BS and fra_d simply by using proper data and evidence and good to see real DATA and EVIDENCE used again.
Here’s Willis’ essay using accurate DATA and EVIDENCE AGAIN that easily counters their lies/ delusions/exaggerations over the last 33 years.
Oh Nevy, blah, blah, blah. “Just a few days”. Remember it was June. Can’t you find a better source for your rubbish than the very tired and discredited wattsisname. Remember “ Watts admits he is ”not a degreed climate scientist.””. And more recently he has been right on board with the Jan 6 insurrection in Washington, publishing misinformation. Clearly not a reliable source. But someone must be funding him. Have a look at the admissions of the Exxon lobbyist about their shenanigans funding forces like his website in-spite of claims to contrary from the Board.
Give us a break from your hypocrisy and obtusity, stueyluv and deal with the subject message for a complete change.
What’s that you say?
Oh, I see, you refuse to deal in facts and evidence.
Who’d ‘a’ guessed?
” And more recently he has been right on board with the Jan 6 insurrection in Washington, publishing misinformation.”
Since you are a true believer in politicised science, it is hardly surprising that you are obsessed with politics, and judge everything others say by your perceptions of their political position.
Try to separate your political opinions from the real world.
Like Chrissy, you need to get over your obssession with Trump.
Isn’t it lovely when even the climate religious finally wake to the fact that their “solutions” to the non-problem might not really be ideal:
Like Bob Brown with Tassie wind farms:
I certainly agree with them in these situations.
I just wish they would not be such hypocrites.
Jo Nova covers the L W global Witchdoctors howling about the hot weather over the US NW and Canadian SW and explains the science behind this NATURAL phenomenon.
NOAA points to la nina and other studies find that a weak Sun can perhaps be part of this type of event. Who knows?
And Dr Ryan Maue also points out the cold New Mexico ( thanks SD) area and the fact that the USA overall was minus -1.4 F below normal.
Of course none of this data will stop the know nothing yappers who’ll jump through every hoop the so called scientists throw up.
Interesting thoughts from Tony Heller, too, Neville:
Thanks SD and Tony Heller and Willis are both very good at converting data to graphs.
I just wish I had their computer skills and knowledge. BTW co2 levels were about 309 ppm in the 1930s, so that rules out their terrible trace gas causing any of those higher temps.
OH and ditto for thousands of years of the much warmer Holocene climate optimum.
Bob Tisdale linked to this 2013 video of VP Biden in comments at WUWT and there’s probably more insights about his problems today.
Unfortunately for him he had two separate operations on his brain and yet he seems to be much more focused and speaks with much more clarity than we observe today.
Of course he is 8 years older today and he does sometimes lose his train of thought at the podium and also seems to find it difficult to continue to talk in a coherent way.
At about 25 minutes Biden talks about his 2 operations and as VP he is certainly much more on top of his job in 2013 than he is now as Pres Biden in 2021.
The UAH V 6 satellite data is now minus -0.01c for June ’21. Data for countries etc will be available soon.
Thanks Neville. Australia 0.76 c below average.
Is that below the starting point in 1979?
Jo Nova links to a story from the Guardian where they point out that 5 Asian countries are planning to build another 600 coal power stns.
Yet our dopey pollies, MSM and OECD countries seem to prefer to believe in delusional fairy stories and insist we build TOXIC, UNRELIABLE S&W disasters FOREVER.
Obviously Aussies should be building more RELIABLE CF stns as soon as possible and save our environment ABOVE and BELOW the ground for hundreds of years.
It might have been helpful if Jo had quoted more of the report. Here is some.
“ The report warns that 92% of these planned units will be uneconomic, even under business as usual, and up to $150 billion could be wasted. Consumers and taxpayers will ultimately foot the bill because these countries either subsidise coal power or prop it up with favourable market design, power purchase agreements or other forms of policy support.”
Ah yes the usual subsidised fossil fuel industry, and that is without even counting the global social costs of pollution.
But never mind our brainless pollies from the “Regional Party”, Canavan and company are pushing hard for more coal power to keep y’all happy.
“either subsidise coal power or prop it up with favourable market design, power purchase agreements or other forms of policy support.”
So, pretty much like solar and wind are treated here?
And part of the subsidy is the number of very large craters or land subsidence from underground mines particularly the more recent long-wall catastrophes, toxic ash stores etc. And the very large bill to sort out the mess of an oil rig in Timor sea that Woodside conveniently off loaded to a small start up player. The players ate now whinging about the proposal to levy them to cover the billion dollar clean up cost. Oh and did I mention the CO2 and other emissions from the coal generators. Wake up. Take a look at the disclosures by the EXXON lobbyist. And still you fail to see that you have been duped by a vast, well funded misinformation machine, and their deception continues.
“Oh and did I mention the CO2 and other emissions from the coal generators.”
Would those be the CO2 emissions that you think China should be allowed to continue emitting for decades to come? You really don’t take your alarmist beliefs very seriously.
“very large craters or land subsidence”
As different to the craters et al in “far away places about which you care little”? Out of sight, out of (your) mind?
“Ah yes the usual subsidised fossil fuel industry, and that is without even counting the global social costs of pollution.”
Sez someone who routinely ignores the global social costs of pollution caused by Unreliable Energy. China and Congo ring a bell? Nothing like a bit of slave labour to lower the costs of Unreliables, is there? Out of sight, out of mind?
Make up your mind, if you think the China emissions are a problem agree that the world has to change. Now I see you using another of the denialist play book ploys, bringing in slave labour story as a distraction. Make up your mind and try and set out some clear thoughts on the power issue that are not contradictory.
You really are dense. I have made it quite clear that I don’t buy into your CO2 emissions panic. You are the one who offers excuses for increased CO2 emissions by China. You make up your mind.
As for the slave labour issue, do you deny its actuality? Or don’t you care, because you are happy to benefit from the misery of others? Not much holistic One World thinking from you.
I cannot stand the sheer hypocrisy coming out of rightwing climate-deniers such as Malcolm Roberts who ranted about how unfair Peter Ridd was treated but then repeatedly pestered the vice-chancellor, members of the Senate and academic board of University of Queensland demanding that another academic, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, be sacked for publishing his findings.
Such climate denialists are steeped in such cherry-picking and hypocrisy.
“demanding that another academic, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, be sacked for publishing his findings.”
Here’s a radical proposal. They should both be treated the same. Sack both, or sack neither. I prefer the latter option, which do you prefer?
Denialists such as Neville should be ignored. The June data is warmer than most of previous Junes.
The heat is on – denialists be damned.
Note I never claimed anything about the UAH V 6 June global data.
But we can show that the last 24 years from 1997.5 to 2021.5 shows a warming of just 0.11 c per decade. Using UAH V 6.
The first part of the satellite record ( 18+ years) also had 2 volcanic episodes that certainly altered the trend line in the early part of that data-base.
Why would anyone pick a weird period like that. If you do the standard approach and look at 30 year periods and go back from 2021 you can see much greater heat.
Picking intermediate 24 years is cherry picking. Core denialism.
Now let’s try 1890 to 1920. As a baseline for the current status.
Fool. Changing the baseline has no impact on the increase in heat.
Truly stupid notion. You always end up with the same trend no matter what baseline you use.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Dumber, dumber, dumber.
Didn’t take long for Boambee to reach for the mirror.
Pathetic. Try harder.
Didn’t take long for Boambee to reach for it’s mirror.
If that is the best you have, it is no wonder that the complexities of physics and mathematics are beyond your ability.
It is all you deserve and I am well-versed in maths and physics so your gratuitous snide smear just piles more ordure on your self.
So what exactly are your formal scientific credentials?
Unbelievable nonsense and stu-pidity from our blog donkeys who conveniently forget that their so called mitigation con trick has been exposed for at last 50 years.
These fools have to be reminded on a daily basis that the NON OECD countries’ co2 emissions are the reason we have about 415 ppm levels today.
The USA and the EU have not increased emissions since 1970. Or do I have to link to the DATA AGAIN?
So I’ll ask these donkeys again , what do you think we should do about your so called problem???
Certainly everything is better today and has been for a very long time. I’ve supplied the data for you. So tell us your brand new mitigation con trick for the next 50 years and how it will make any difference?? What a mob of delusional know nothings.
More confirmation of the “value” of of climate bed wetting.
Spot on article from Peter Ridd puts the blame on the China/GBR/CC endangerment fiasco where it belongs:
“The recent furore over China influencing UNESCO to declare the Great Barrier Reef as endangered, has ignored the real culprits – Australian reef science and reef management organisations. They have been claiming for decades that the reef is endangered based on shoddy research. They loaded the gun and pointed it at Australia. The Chinese government merely said “thank you” and pulled the trigger.”
I can’t read the article because I don’t find that rag to be worth subscribing to. But taking what you have written about Ridd’s statement a little further, what do you see as the problem if UNESCO declare the GBR “in danger”? Why is it an “own goal” for the reef scientists? It is recognition of exactly what they have been saying. Most likely Ridd is worried that it means his fossil backers are concerned it might impact their reef threatening activities like dredging for their ships.
When you choose to only subscribe to LW press stu, don’t ever expect to be anything other than ignorant of what is really going on in this world.
Only a fool would: 1/choose to believe UNESCO when they not only pass judgement without knowing the reef but don’t even accept the minister’s invitation to come and see for themselves. 2/choose to believe UNESCO when they blatantly use the GBR debate to promote their klimate katastrophism and therefore don’t want to know the truth anyway. 3/ choose to believe UNESCO when the health of the GBR can be very easily established.
The only reason you can’t understand the facts here is because, like them, you are in denial of the real world.
Even though that reality is right in front of your nose.
And when you are too stu-pid to see the irony of the worlds biggest CO2 emitter crying about reef endangerment due to CO2 emissions in order to criticise us…Oh, dear!!!
Oh look stu, more irony [hypocrisy] for you to consider:
China has destroyed large areas of biodiverse reef that served as nurseries for fisheries throughout much of the South China Sea:
Yes, not much bleating from the usual suspects when China dredges up material to make artificial islands in the South China Sea. Then builds airfields on them as bases for CO2 emitting military aircraft.
Perhaps Stu thinks that, as with increasing CO2 emissions by the world’s biggest emitter, it is “their turn”?
“what do you see as the problem if UNESCO declare the GBR “in danger”?”
That it isn’t true? If the reef “scientists” are to be believed, it has already “died” several times, and been “miraculously” revived as many.
Oh come now even you should not be that simplistic. The issue is the increasing frequency of bleaching and ongoing damage. Will the reef survive? Probably yes. Will it be as pristine and varied as now? Probably not.
So if you believe it is already dead then you should have no problem with UNESCO declaring it endangered should you?
In any event none of you geniuses has answered the question I posed. Why is it an “own goal” if that is what they have been predicting. Perhaps the key lies in your point that “ …..choose to believe UNESCO when they blatantly use the GBR debate to promote their klimate katastrophism and therefore don’t want to know the truth anyway.” Oh that would be it wouldn’t it, you hate the idea that there is any problem looming, head in sand again?
“Will it be as pristine and varied as now? Probably not.”
But, but, but, the “experts” have already told us that it is not “pristine and varied”, but already massively damaged. Make up your mind.
And make up your mind about whether CO2 emissions are a “climate emergency” now, or if it is OK for the world’s biggest emitter to continue increasing its emissions for a few more decades.
As usual you confuse short term “events” and long term “outcomes”.
As for the CO2 I will say it again, the problem is in the future but the action needs to start now or that future problem will be worse. It is like smoking (for those stupid enough to have done it) the sooner you stop the better the chance of avoiding lung cancer.
“for the CO2 I will say it again, the problem is in the future but the action needs to start now or that future problem will be worse”
If you genuinely believe this, then letting China, already the largest CO2 emitter, continue expanding its emissions for decades to come is suicidal. If you believe that China should be allowed to keep expanding its emissions, while claiming to worry about CO2 emissions, you are at best a hypocrite.
Which do you actually believe?
And stu-pid stu is completely convinced that UNESCO, with China in charge is a reliable judge of the true condition of the GBR.
If ever we needed confirmation of stu’s away with the fairies stu-pidity……
Not to mention his complete lack of support for his country.
BJ and SD you’re arguing with clueless donkeys who would rather believe fairy stories from their China guided UNESCO than check the actual GBR data.
The GBR is the largest and best managed reef system in the world, but these fools couldn’t care less when China destroys reef systems to further their military ambitions and threaten other countries in the region.
Here’s an interview with Susan Ley explaining the govt’s position on the GBR .
Your problem is that the continued use of cliches frequently spouted by that entertainment network “skynews” detracts from your case. Sky should be renamed Skyfiction. They certainly have an agenda, which aligns perfectly with the sister outfit the Australian. The same applies to their related outfit Fox where several of the “personalities” have resorted to justifying their misrepresentations in court evidence that “no intelligent person would take what they say seriously” as they are just “entertainers”. I look forward to the same admission from some of the clowns on Sky.
As for the video above it is great to see Ley scrambling. What was that $444million package only a few years ago for the GBR all about if there is no serious problem. Ley is not convincing at all. And maybe if your bestie Donald had not pulled the USA out of UNESCO this problem of China influence would not be occurring.
“They certainly have an agenda,”
And you and the rest of the alarmists don’t? Pull the other one, it plays Dixie.
No, no, no. I refer to a major media enterprise with a very particular slant on its “reporting”. The rest of us are just concerned individuals commenting on the success of such outfits at conning people like you who are too shallow in your reading, only ever looking at one side, the dodgy one propagated by the forces of fossil finance. And as for being “alarmists” it is getting closer to actually having to ring the bell very loudly, then you can shout “alarm”.
And stu-pid stu is completely convinced that UNESCO, with China in charge is a reliable judge of the true condition of the GBR.
If ever we needed confirmation of stu’s away-with-the-fairies stu-pidity……
Not to mention his complete lack of support for his country.
Not to mention his never-ending messenger shooting.
While all the time never discussing the message.
But that’s what you’re reduced to when you can never provide, or cope with, evidence.
“No, no, no. I refer to a major media enterprise with a very particular slant on its “reporting”.
OK, you mean Their ABC. Yes, they do have a particular slant. Glad you agree.
“getting closer to actually having to ring the bell very loudly, then you can shout “alarm”
So you agree that China must act NOW to reduce its CO2 emissions?
“ And stu-pid stu is completely convinced that UNESCO, with China in charge is a reliable judge of the true condition of the GBR”
Of course it would not occur to you that UNESCO would be guided by all the output from GBR marine park authority and JCU etc. They don’t just make stuff up as part of some big con as you suggest. Therefore back to the Q, how was it an own goal for the scientists up there. The only own goal is on the part of Ley and the rest of the Coalition trying to cover things up.
If you’re so disinterested in the real message about the GBR [and I could supply you with many, such as; “There also must be no doubt that the reef is in excellent shape. It certainly goes through spectacular natural cycles where large amounts of coral are killed, particularly from cyclones, but it always strongly recovers. The death of corals makes great headlines; the recovery is ignored. The latest data shows areas worst affected by the 2016-17 bleaching has totally recovered and all but one region currently has average or above average coral cover. Some areas are at near record highs”] that you will not seek them out on line, why should I hand feed the determined ignorance of one who only believes in belittling the messenger and not looking critically at the message.
As far back in my life as I can remember “experts” have declared the Great Barrier Reef is facing dire threats and even immanent destruction despite several million visitors to the Reef being enchanted by its beauty and wonder they have seen and a 100 per cent track record of failed prophesies by Reef alarmists, the mainstream news media continue to report every latest “threat” with unquestioning credulity.
Have you ever checked it out for yourself?
I suppose I should take the obtuse by the hand and point out that the own goal is in the fact that Australia will spend billions on the reef and has begun doing so but these reef science organisations who stand to collect this prize, by causing the asset to be so [wrongly] downgraded and therefore fail to be the wonderful asset it would otherwise be have lost their raison d’etre.
Get it now, stueyluv?
Here’s how the kiddies are being brainwashed on climate change:
So explain this “ …by causing the asset to be so [wrongly] downgraded and therefore fail to be the wonderful asset it would otherwise be have lost their raison d’etre.” How does downgrading its listing destroy the asset if it is as pristine as you claim. Either it is fine or not. Being listed as endangered does not take away its UNESCO listing, it may actually provide more tourism $ as people flock to see it before it “disappears”.
You need to get your story a bit straighter. Oh and yes I have been there and observed. And who wrote your quoted piece Drongo? Was it Mr Ridd again? I was not aware he was actually an authority on the total reef environment, just the effect of his mates sediments. Or was it the not so adorable Jennifer, expert on everything. And before you bounce back, I am not expert in the reef either, but I am not publishing stuff, making out it is academically sourced, merely arguing with munchkins in a forum.
And here is what is actually proposed.
“ After three mass bleaching events in five years, UNESCO is saying it’s critical for Australia and other nations to do everything possible to limit global temperature increase to 1.5°C,” said Richard Leck, Head of Oceans for the World Wide Fund for Nature-Australia.
“The recommendation from UNESCO is clear and unequivocal that the Australian Government is not doing enough to protect our greatest natural asset, especially on climate change.
“The prospect of losing the World Heritage status of our Reef will be a huge shock for many Australians, but it is a powerful message that our Government needs to urgently lift its ambition on the threats to its existence – climate change and water quality,” he said.
Released in Paris, key points of the draft decision include that the World Heritage Committee:
• Notes with the utmost concern and regret the conclusions of the 2019 Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report (2019 GBR Outlook Report) that the long-term outlook for the ecosystem of the property has further deteriorated from poor to very poor, that the deterioration of the ecological processes underpinning the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property has been more rapid and widespread than was previously evident, and that the property has suffered significantly from mass coral bleaching events in 2016, 2017 and 2020;
• Also notes with the utmost concern that despite many positive achievements, progress has been largely insufficient in meeting key targets of the Reef 2050 Plan, in particular the water quality and land management targets, as evidenced by the conclusions of the 2017-2018 and 2019 Reef Quality Report Cards;
• Noting the conclusion of the 2019 GBR Outlook Report that climate change remains the most serious threat to the property, and recognizing that action by the international community and all States Parties to the Convention is urgently required to address threats from climate change, considers that actions to build resilience of the property and address other factors remain of utmost importance;
• Decides to inscribe the Great Barrier Reef (Australia) on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
The World Heritage status of the Great Barrier Reef has been under threat since the World Heritage Committee first expressed “extreme concern” about the Reef in 2011.”
Note the last line. That was long before your Chinese bogeyman took “control”.
“Oh and yes I have been there and observed.”
But you won’t say where or what, eh?
And you don’t think that world wide negative publicity is bad for a major tourist asset that employs tens of thousands?
My quotes come from the Aus which you can’t access but you could always put a link to yours as I did.
And you could check what the WHC agreed to before China stepped in.
And if you choose to deny the damage China is trying to do in its position as the No 1 world emitter then you are indeed a bigger fool, hypocrite and betrayer than I had thought.
“ But you won’t say where or what”. Are you serious? Would also like to know who I was with, the weather that day and what we had for lunch? Get serious.
The quote was of WWF quoting UNESCO. Your quote being from the Oz tells me all I need to know – Graham Lloyd -,say no more.
“ And if you choose to deny the damage China is trying to do in its position as the No 1 world emitter then you are indeed a bigger fool, hypocrite and betrayer than I had thought.”
Why are you worried about it? You don’t accept that CO2 increase and climate change are an issue. So just give up.
“Oh and yes I have been there and observed.”
Only you haven’t got a clue [or are in complete denial of] what you observed, eh?
And you’d much rather take China’s word for it, anyway.
What a guy! What an observer!
Not much point in you ever looking at sea levels when you’re that biased and stu-pid, eh?
Much better to assess your bountiful state from the completely contrary claims of highly motivated enemies.
When evidence is staring you in the face you ignore it completely.
That explains you to perfection.
Once more, it is not “China’s word”. Your shrill infatuation with the anti-China thing has blinded you. Sure, it is true China are playing hard games on many things right now and are not to be trusted on anything. But you have your knickers in a knot over the wrong thing here, all because the do nothing anti change warriors have again deceived you. As your own words have said it is the GBR researchers who have brought about the endangerment warning through their published research and public comment.
Remember, you posted this lovely piece, at 11.40am on the 4th July.
“ The recent furore over China influencing UNESCO to declare the Great Barrier Reef as endangered, has ignored the real culprits – Australian reef science and reef management organisations. They have been claiming for decades that the reef is endangered based on shoddy research. They loaded the gun and pointed it at Australia.”
You missed a bit there, stueyluv; “it is the GBR researchers who have brought about the endangerment warning through their published FAKE research and public comment.”
And you have been defending that shoddy research awa China’s POV ever since.
Even though the uncomfortable opposite has stared you in the face.
Danger! Evidence denier at work!
SD, just give up you are acting like a very silly old man. Take your meds and have a quiet day it will do you good.
That’s riiight, stu.
How silly is it not to go along with all your rampant, lefty, country and culture cancelling particularly when it is backed with the “evidence” of climate change as supplied by the biggest emitter of all.
Here, smack my wrist!
“Take your meds and have a quiet day it will do you good.”
Take your own advice.
“The quote was of WWF quoting UNESCO.”
Your quote being from WWF tells me all I need to know – say no more.
“ After three mass bleaching events in five years, UNESCO is saying it’s critical for Australia and other nations to do everything possible to limit global temperature increase to 1.5°C,”
If you believe this, ythen you must also agree that China cannot continue to expand its already massive CO2 emissions. Do you?
BJ, in this fake discussion about climate our little stu boy thinks that Australia, with ~ 1% of CO2 emissions, is by far the greatest culprit.
Just because China emits more in 16 days than we do in an entire year has nothing to do with a “debate” that is all about philosophy and nothing to do with facts and evidence.
I must say it’s hard to decide out of the western wokies and the Chinese communists just who are the greatest hypocrites.
bJ and sD, I really wish you were as fastidious with the questioning of the rubbish sources you often quite. But never mind your dismissal of WWF as being inconsequential here are the actual words from the UNESC report and I will give you the link to their website at the bottom. Now, tell me again about the veracity of your quotes from the Australian.
“ The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC/21/44.COM/7B.Add,
2. Recalling Decisions 39 COM 7B.7 and 41 COM 7B.24, adopted at its 39th (Bonn, 2015) and 41st (Krakow, 2017) sessions, respectively,
3. Commends the State Party for the strong and continued efforts to create conditions for the implementation of the Reef 2050 Long-term Sustainability Plan (Reef 2050 Plan), including through unprecedented financial commitments;
4. Notes with the utmost concern and regret the conclusions of the 2019 Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report (2019 GBR Outlook Report) that the long-term outlook for the ecosystem of the property has further deteriorated from poor to very poor, that the deterioration of the ecological processes underpinning the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property has been more rapid and widespread than was previously evident, and that the property has suffered significantly from mass coral bleaching events in 2016, 2017 and 2020;
5. Also notes with the utmost concern that despite many positive achievements, progress has been largely insufficient in meeting key targets of the Reef 2050 Plan, in particular the water quality and land management targets, as evidenced by the conclusions of the 2017-2018 and 2019 Reef Quality Report Cards ;
6. Noting the conclusion of the 2019 GBR Outlook Report that climate change remains the most serious threat to the property, and recognizing that action by the international community and all States Parties to the Convention is urgently required to address threats from climate change, considers that actions to build resilience of the property and address other factors remain of utmost importance;
7. Also considers that the property is facing ascertained danger, according to Paragraph 180 a) of the Operational Guidelines;
8. Decides to inscribe the Great Barrier Reef (Australia) on the List of World Heritage in Danger;”
Oh and sd wrote “ our little stu boy thinks that Australia, with ~ 1% of CO2 emissions, is by far the greatest culprit” – mate you are just making shit up again, but you do have a good imagination as proven by the rubbish you write.
One more thing chappies, in case you have trouble finding your way through reports like that, you will find the key bit on page 86.
Tom Wysmuller of Ogunquit, Maine, passed away at the age of 77 on June 29, 2021, after a long bout with cancer.
In 1968, Tom was one of nine people chosen through a series of nationwide exams for NASA Executive Interns in the U.S. He worked at NASA before, during, and after the moon landings.
Tom was extremely concerned that satellite data showed a far greater rate of sea level rise than shown by geologically stable tidal gages. NOAA and NASA reports claimed accelerating sea level rise. According to his obituary, Tom wrote:
“He considered it one of his greatest achievements when in 2018, he solved the discrepancy of Sea-Lever Rise (SLR) reported by The University of Colorado and NASA’s Satellites in comparison to land coupled tide gauges. His ‘reverse-engineering’ technique showed how a programming error generated the much higher rate of SLR being reported by satellites vs world-wide tide gauge measurements.
The failure to validate the computer programs by thorough testing against physical evidence would have been unacceptable to the Apollo Team. It demonstrates the lowering of standards at NASA. The TRCS website states:
“We need to give you a word of caution when we refer to ‘NASA.’ The TRCS Research Team was founded by engineers and scientists retired from the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston. We sometimes arrive at conclusions about climate change and its effects significantly different from conclusions published by other NASA Centers.”
Stu has still NOT repudiated his position that China, despite being the largest CO2 emitter in the world, should be allowed to continue increasing its emissions for years to come, because “it’s their turn” to industrialise.
Then it will be India’s turn, then Africa’s?
PS, the WHO estimates that almost 4 million people die each year from the bad effects of burning dung and other dirty materials indoors in open fires. Quite a high price to pay for not having access to reliable continuous power.
SD and Neville (Stu: ignore this post)
Interesting post a Catallaxy re JCU. Two issues, an allegation of academic fraud in relation to the effects of GW and ocean acidification on coral reef fish, and some scientists repudiating tgeir earlier work on the imminent demise of coral reefs.
Great stuff from Rafe on JCU, BJ. I loved this reference;
Does ocean acidification alter fish behavior? Fraud allegations create a sea of doubt:
Stu wouldn’t like it.
And I should have said that this link of Rafe’s is even better:
What is interesting is that, in view of all that irreproducible science coming out of JCU, UNESCO WHC had the gall to claim the GBR is endangered without even making their own inspection.
As they were invited to do.
With China calling the shots and with their own axe to grind you would think that any self-respecting world body might be aware enough to at least pretend to go through the correct formalities.
The own goals may spread far and wide before this is over.
Mate get real. How much cash do you reckon UNESCO has to trot around and do research in particular places. They are like the OECD and typically rely on the member country to provide the source material, that is why you should never place too much faith in glowing OECD reports about the Oz economy as it is usually Treasury guff regurgitated.
So in this case UNESCO has responded to the material coming from Oz.
Meantime how are you going with providing source wording for your posts as I referred to above. Your catallaxy and scienceunderattack posts being a case in point. Cat got your tongue?
Stu can’t even understand that with UN areas like WHC and WHO with China in charge, that he should be a little sceptical of their produce.
And he alibis them on budget shortage. Oh, dear!
Saying nothing when you don’t know doesn’t cost you a cent, stueyluv.
Try it sometime.
You are talking in riddles again, is your mind muddled?
And despite rabbiting on about CO2 emissions Stu has still NOT repudiated his earlier position that China should be allowed to continue increasing emissions into the future, because it is “their turn”.
Is he a hypocrite, or a “useful idiot”?
I did not realise that I held such power with my opinions that I could influence the actions of China. Meantime why are you worried, you profess not to be concerned about emissions or are you sticking strictly to your SH sink bullshit?
I am not worried, but you claim to be. However, your posts here suggest that you are either a hypocrite, or just babbling on about things you don’t comprehend.
Time to cut to the chase.
To summarise, your position is that increasing CO2 emissions will cause a climate disaster. You believe that only collective action can save the world (individual action will presumably upset your lifestyle).
However, you feel that, because China is a “developing” nation (albeit one with nuclear weapons, ICBMs, aircraft carriers, and which has landed a probe on Mars), China should be allowed to continue expanding its already massive CO2 emissions far into the future, because it’s “their turn”. Presumably India and Africa will also be given such leeway in the name of equity.
Since cutbacks by western nations cannot match the increases allowed for China alone, much less for India and Africa, then climate doom is (in your mind) inevitable.
If you genuinely believe this, the only rational solution is to abandon any attempts to reduce CO2 emissions, and work towards adaptation to the result you implicitly accept.
So, we need reliable, continuous electric power, to support the air conditioning needed to adapt to the heated world you expect, and to keep civilised society operating (as well as to charge those EVs that you love so much. We will also need liquid fuel to keep the vehicles needed for tasks that EVs cannot do, so we need coal-to-liquid industrial plants.
Or do you have an adaptation solution that does not involve fairy dust and unicorn f@rts?
As if we didn’t know with the Florida building collapse the klimate katastastrofe screams were gonna come.
But Tony Heller is a bit more realistic:
The boss has called time (see his latest post). SD, BJ, Nev in particular, we should end this here now by calling a truce. It has been fun arguing with you all, even if more than occasionally frustrating. I have a actually learned a lot in the process, having to double check my facts and in following yours down the rabbit hole. Time will decide which side of the argument is correct, or maybe not. There are many other fora to play in but few as focussed and with such a small active group as here, so I will miss that aspect.
Chris, thanks for joining in, I have enjoyed your positive contribution.
No need to call a truce. Come over to Catallaxy Files and continue.
But respond to my ” cut to the chase” comment here first.
Stick around, stu, as Don said, the site will remain open for the next month as a sort of public service.
You still have an awful lot to learn, and you never know….
Toyota Warns (Again) About Electrifying All Autos.
Is Anyone Listening?
BY BRYAN PRESTON MAR 19, 2021 12:50 PM ET
Depending on how and when you count, Japan’s Toyota is the world’s largest automaker. According to Wheels, Toyota and Volkswagen vie for the title of the world’s largest, with each taking the crown from the other as the market moves. That’s including Volkswagen’s inherent advantage of sporting 12 brands versus Toyota’s four. Audi, Lamborghini, Porsche, Bugatti, and Bentley are included in the Volkswagen brand family.
GM, America’s largest automaker, is about half Toyota’s size thanks to its 2009 bankruptcy and restructuring. Toyota is actually a major car manufacturer in the United States; in 2016 it made about 81% of the cars it sold in the U.S. right here in its nearly half a dozen American plants. If you’re driving a Tundra, RAV4, Camry, or Corolla it was probably American-made in a red state. Toyota was among the first to introduce gas-electric hybrid cars into the market, with the Prius twenty years ago. It hasn’t been afraid to change the car game.
All of this is to point out that Toyota understands both the car market and the infrastructure that supports it perhaps better than any other manufacturer on the planet. It hasn’t grown its footprint through acquisitions, as Volkswagen has, and it hasn’t undergone bankruptcy and bailout as GM has. Toyota has grown by building reliable cars for decades.
When Toyota offers an opinion on the car market, it’s probably worth listening to. This week, Toyota reiterated an opinion it has offered before. That opinion is straightforward: The world is not yet ready to support a fully electric auto fleet.
Toyota’s head of energy and environmental research Robert Wimmer testified before the Senate this week, and said: “If we are to make dramatic progress in electrification, it will require overcoming tremendous challenges, including refueling infrastructure, battery availability, consumer acceptance, and affordability.”
Wimmer’s remarks come on the heels of GM’s announcement that it will phase out all gas internal combustion engines (ICE) by 2035. Other manufacturers, including Mini, have followed suit with similar announcements.
Tellingly, both Toyota and Honda have so far declined to make any such promises. Honda is the world’s largest engine manufacturer when you take its boat, motorcycle, lawnmower, and other engines it makes outside the auto market into account. Honda competes in those markets with Briggs & Stratton and the increased electrification of lawnmowers, weed trimmers, and the like.
Wimmer noted that while manufactures have announced ambitious goals, just 2% of the world’s cars are electric at this point. For price, range, infrastructure, affordability, and other reasons, buyers continue to choose ICE over electric, and that’s even when electric engines are often subsidized with tax breaks to bring pricetags down.
The scale of the switch hasn’t even been introduced into the conversation in any systematic way yet. According to FinancesOnline, there are 289.5 million cars just on U.S. roads as of 2021. About 98 percent of them are gas-powered. Toyota’s RAV4 took the top spot for purchases in the U.S. market in 2019, with Honda’s CR-V in second. GM’s top seller, the Chevy Equinox, comes in at #4 behind the Nissan Rogue. This is in the U.S. market, mind. GM only has one entry in the top 15 in the U.S. Toyota and Honda dominate, with a handful each in the top 15.
Toyota warns that the grid and infrastructure simply aren’t there to support the electrification of the private car fleet. A 2017 U.S. government study found that we would need about 8,500 strategically-placed charge stations to support a fleet of just 7 million electric cars. That’s about six times the current number of electric cars but no one is talking about supporting just 7 million cars. We should be talking about powering about 300 million within the next 20 years, if all manufacturers follow GM and stop making ICE cars.
Simply put, we’re gonna need a bigger energy boat to deal with connecting all those cars to the power grids. A LOT bigger.
But instead of building a bigger boat, we may be shrinking the boat we have now. The power outages in California and Texas — the largest U.S. states by population and by car ownership — exposed issues with powering needs even at current usage levels. Increasing usage of wind and solar, neither of which can be throttled to meet demand, and both of which prove unreliable in crisis, has driven some coal and natural gas generators offline. Wind simply runs counter to needs — it generates too much power when we tend not to need it, and generates too little when we need more. The storage capacity to account for this doesn’t exist yet.
We will need much more generation capacity to power about 300 million cars if we’re all going to be forced to drive electric cars. Whether we’re charging them at home or charging them on the road, we will be charging them frequently. Every gas station you see on the roadside today will have to be wired to charge electric cars, and charge speeds will have to be greatly increased. Current technology enables charges in “as little as 30 minutes,” according to Kelly Blue Book. That best-case-scenario fast charging cannot be done on home power. It uses direct current and specialized systems. Charging at home on alternating current can take a few hours to overnight to fill the battery, and will increase the home power bill. That power, like all electricity in the United States, comes from generators using natural gas, petroleum, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, or hydroelectric power according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. I left out biomass because, despite Austin, Texas’ experiment with purchasing a biomass plant to help power the city, biomass is proving to be irrelevant in the grand energy scheme thus far. Austin didn’t even turn on its biomass plant during the recent freeze.
Half an hour is an unacceptably long time to spend at an electron pump. It’s about 5 to 10 times longer than a current trip to the gas pump tends to take when pumps can push 4 to 5 gallons into your tank per minute. That’s for consumer cars, not big rigs that have much larger tanks. Imagine the lines that would form at the pump, every day, all the time, if a single charge time isn’t reduced by 70 to 80 percent. We can expect improvements, but those won’t come without cost. Nothing does. There is no free lunch. Electrifying the auto fleet will require a massive overhaul of the power grid and an enormous increase in power generation. Elon Musk recently said we might need double the amount of power we’re currently generating if we go electric. He’s not saying this from a position of opposing electric cars. His Tesla dominates that market and he presumably wants to sell even more of them.
Toyota has publicly warned about this twice, while its smaller rival GM is pushing to go electric. GM may be virtue signaling to win favor with those in power in California and Washington and in the media. Toyota’s addressing reality and its record is evidence that it deserves to be heard.
Toyota isn’t saying none of this can be done, by the way. It’s just saying that so far, the conversation isn’t anywhere near serious enough to get things done.
YOU CAN IGNORE REALITY,
BUT YOU CANNOT IGNORE THE CONSEQUENCES OF IGNORING REALITY!
YES I agree SD and none of these TOXIC, super expensive disasters will make a scrap of difference to the climate or temp by 2100 and beyond.
And every suburb will have to be rewired, including all the streets, every home , every business and all for a zero return forever. Who’ll pay for the billions $ price tag and all for nothing?
Anyway who would be stupid enough to waste 50,000+ $ on a very small car that can’t tow a boat, caravan or trailer for any reasonable distance, plus all the extra charging along the journey?
When the battery fails after perhaps 5-7 years the replacement cost is prohibitive and the rest of the car is worth very little.
And the entire TOXIC mess ends up in landfill forever. OH and you’d want to be prepared at night or even on the road because of the risks of fire. These fires can be found online and in this case 2 deaths and over 100,000 litres was required plus over 4 hours effort from the firefighters. What a dangerous TOXIC disaster to have every night in your home garage attached to your house.