Resisting Climate Hysteria

trainspotter said:

Scary to think that a wet 2014 caused China to burn less coal as the hydro facilities were running full steam

Click to expand...

That would be full gate, not full steam....

The thing about hydro is that if you've got decent storage then you can certainly overproduce in any given year or even for a few years if there's enough stored water. But you can't do it forever, at some point outflows and inflows must balance otherwise the lake dries up.

Hydro - except in a flood big enough to actually fill and spill the dams, output is energy constrained. That is, it's limited by long term average inflows.

Coal, oil, gas, nuclear - under normal circumstances generation is, in the medium term at least, limited by capacity of the power stations. That is, under normal circumstances you can get hold of as much fuel as you want, so that's not a limit but rather, the limit is the capacity of power stations to turn that fuel into electricity.

The Tassie hydro system is humming along nicely at about 185% of its long term capacity right now. No way can we keep that up indefinitely, but local (Tas) demand is above average right now and the spot price in Victoria isn't too bad either at around 4 cents / kWh, so it makes sense to run the system hard and make some $. Whilst the system could certainly maintain that output for quite some time, ultimately over the long term it can't run at more than 100% of long term capacity otherwise the result is empty lakes. Whatever is borrowed today via high rates of production, must at some point be paid back by lower rates of production. Same concept everywhere and that includes China.

I saw some survey results today regarding Australian public support for various means of generating electricity.

Solar (small eg rooftops) = 87% of people support it.

Solar (large scale) = 78%

Wind = 72%

Hydro = 72%

Tidal = 52%

Geothermal = 45%

Nuclear = 26%

Coal = 23%

Don't bother mentioning oil or gas as most seem to have worked out that they're duds in anything other than the short term.

As for coal in China, I wonder how much of their actions are based on concern about the climate and how much is based on the pragmatic reality of conventional air pollution and that China's coal reserves are, by most accounts at least, rapidly diminishing. You can't keep mining 3 billion tonnes of coal for too long when you've only got 60 billion tonnes of high grade coal, and another 50 billion tonnes of sub-bituminous and brown coal. Sooner or later, production peaks whether you want it to or not.

Smurf1976 said:

As for coal in China, I wonder how much of their actions are based on concern about the climate and how much is based on the pragmatic reality of conventional air pollution and that China's coal reserves are, by most accounts at least, rapidly diminishing. You can't keep mining 3 billion tonnes of coal for too long when you've only got 60 billion tonnes of high grade coal, and another 50 billion tonnes of sub-bituminous and brown coal. Sooner or later, production peaks whether you want it to or not.

Click to expand...

As with everything else, China just has to crash the price of coal, then buy up someone else's reserves.

There is a really critical story in The Guardian which examines how the big oil companies are approaching new investments in oil and gas exploration.

The short story is simple. The big 5 oil companies are going to spend $1,000 BILLION ($1 Trillion )on huge ultra expensive exploration and production projects over the next 9 years. At the same time the executives of these companies will receive bonuses of hundreds of millions tied to achieving these targets.

So a few questions .

1) Questions are asked about how much it would cost to develop renewable energy technologies to replace our reliance on oil/coal ect. How far would $1trillion go to finance such research ? Perhaps the money is always there it is just a question of directing it.

2) Let's imagine (for the purpose of discussion) that these huge projects are successful in exploiting a host of new resources for the next 30-40 years. Where does that place our world in 2050 when they have to somehow find another few trillion dollars and create oil/gas from God knows what ? Isn't that the basic problem with non renewable energy sources ?

These questions stand completely aside from the global warming effects of all the extra CO2 produced. But on these points alone it is sheer selfish madness.

Oil company bosses' bonuses linked to $1tn spending on extracting fossil fuels

ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, Total and BP pour funding into projects to unlock oil reserves – despite scientists warning they will lead to climate change disaster

Simon Bowers and Harry Davies

Tuesday 26 May 2015 07.00 AEST
Last modified on Tuesday 26 May 2015 09.55 AEST

Bosses at the world’s big five oil companies have been showered with bonus payouts linked to a $1tn (£650bn) crescendo of spending on fossil fuel exploration and extraction over nine years, according to Guardian analysis of company reports.

The unprecedented push to bring untapped reserves into production, and to exploit new and undiscovered fields, involves some of the most complex feats of engineering ever attempted. It also reflects how confident Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, Total and BP are that demand will remain high for decades to come.

The big oil groups are pressing ahead with investments despite the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimating that two-thirds of proven fossil fuel reserves will need to remain in the ground to prevent the earth from warming 2C above pre-industrial levels – a proposed temperature limit beyond which scientists warn of spiralling and irreversible climate change.

Multi-billion-dollar capital projects amount to huge, long-term bets by the big five that exorbitant costs associated with unlocking hydrocarbon reserves in some of the most inaccessible locations on the planet can eventually be recouped and converted into profits.

Bonuses for chief executives at all five firms are tied to the achievement of delivery milestones in the construction and deployment of such projects

Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...pany-bosses-bonuses-1tr-spending-fossil-fuels

Rare common ground here. Bit I would check the veracity of anything printed byvthe Grsuniad

basilio said:

There is a really critical story in The Guardian which examines how the big oil companies are approaching new investments in oil and gas exploration.

The short story is simple. The big 5 oil companies are going to spend $1,000 BILLION ($1 Trillion )on huge ultra expensive exploration and production projects over the next 9 years. At the same time the executives of these companies will receive bonuses of hundreds of millions tied to achieving these targets.

So a few questions .

1) Questions are asked about how much it would cost to develop renewable energy technologies to replace our reliance on oil/coal ect. How far would $1trillion go to finance such research ? Perhaps the money is always there it is just a question of directing it.

2) Let's imagine (for the purpose of discussion) that these huge projects are successful in exploiting a host of new resources for the next 30-40 years. Where does that place our world in 2050 when they have to somehow find another few trillion dollars and create oil/gas from God knows what ? Isn't that the basic problem with non renewable energy sources ?

These questions stand completely aside from the global warming effects of all the extra CO2 produced. But on these points alone it is sheer selfish madness.



http://www.theguardian.com/environm...pany-bosses-bonuses-1tr-spending-fossil-fuels

Click to expand...

wayneL said:

Rare common ground here. Bit I would check the veracity of anything printed byvthe Grsuniad

Click to expand...

If there was a significant error in this story the companies involved would have been onto it in a flash.

Besides which the source of the story are the various companies public reports. Hard to fudge those.

The essence is there. The executives of the big oil companies will gain multi million dollar bonuses on top of their already huge salaries to ensure successful completion of some of the most complex, environmentally damaging and short term oil and gas projects yet attempted. Think Arctic oil and gas fields, Canadian tar sands and so on.

And this is a "good thing" ?

Nobody in their right mind would bother with these difficult, risky and expensive oil and gas projects if there were easier, safer and cheaper sources of oil and gas still available.

Face reality. There's plenty of oil and gas left in the ground no doubt, but we've already put into production virtually all of the cheap and easy oil, there's not much of that left at all.

Solutions = either stop using so much oil and gas or pay the price, both economic and environmental, of continuing down this path.

Smurf1976 said:

Nobody in their right mind...

Solutions = either stop using so much oil and gas or pay the price, both economic and environmental, of continuing down this path.

Click to expand...

If only it were only the difficult ones. Permit me the licence to expand 'oil & gas' to fossil.
So, 'where are you supposed stand' as an observer.... When no commercial bank ( read capitalist ) will back Adarni's plans in Queensland and yet Abbott's Government is prepared to weld this commercial failure to the public balance sheet, as all the worlds best bean counters see it, to Australia's future.
QLd is in recession, so as a short term fix we sell our national future for a short 'sugar hit' to a long term white elephant. Abbott will be long gone by then, probably with a seat on a dying coal company board.

Abbotts recession that Australia didn't had to have?

Thinking about which direction we should be putting or research and development dollars towards.

Has anyone seen the ongoing story of the around the world flight of an electric aeroplane ? Thats right a plane powered by solar panels with sufficient back up batteries to keep it going all night. Why ? Because the current leg of the trip is crossing the pacific Ocean non stop.

Going to take 6 plus days and nights.

Would this idea have been even imaginable 10- 20 years ago let alone actioned ?

Round-the-world Solar Impulse starts six-day flight from China to Hawaii

The latest leg in the round-the-world attempt by solar-powered Solar Impulse 2 from China to Hawaii will take six days. It could set the record for the longest flight for a single pilot airplane.

Click to expand...

http://www.dw.de/round-the-world-solar-impulse-starts-six-day-flight-from-china-to-hawaii/a-18488062

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse Info on the Solar Impulse

Another one bites the dust...

The big ceaseless talking point of climate changes skeptics in the past 10 years has been the climate hiatus argument. Basically if you could draw a line between the last high point of 1998 and today global temperatures haven't actually increased.

Well it seems that little duck has rolled over and died.

CLIMATE CHANGE
Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

Thomas R. Karl1,*, Anthony Arguez1, Boyin Huang1, Jay H. Lawrimore1, James R. McMahon2, Matthew J. Menne1, Thomas C. Peterson1, Russell S. Vose1, Huai-Min Zhang1

+
Author Affiliations

1National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), Asheville, NC 28801, USA.
2LMI, McLean, VA, USA.

↵*Corresponding author. E-mail: thomas.r.karl@noaa.gov

Abstract

Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.

Click to expand...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632

For the simpler version check out The Age

US meteorological body finds global warming 'slow down' did not happen

Date
June 5, 2015 - 12:21PM


Tom Arup


A new analysis by the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration suggests a recent hiatus in global warming has not occurred.

A much discussed "slow down" in global warming did not actually happen and the heating up of the planet has continued apace since the turn of the century, a new assessment by the lead United States meteorological body has found.

Scientists from the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have instead pointed to biases in thousands of global temperature observations as a reason why the rise in global temperatures was thought to have slowed over the past 15 years.

They say once more complete data was included a new assessment of global temperatures found warming since 2000 was matching the pace of the later half of the 20th century, a period widely regarded as seeing significant human-caused global warming.

Click to expand...

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...ming-slow-down-did-not-happen-20150605-ghgvhn

i thought it was these companies supposedly deferring investment and basically beign suffocated by the carbon tax

http://www.afr.com/business/mining/...ush-for-carbon-pricing-system-20150605-ghhe6v

In an exclusive interview with AFR Weekend, BHP chief executive Andrew Mackenzie confirmed that he “was in conversation” with the group of six petroleum industry chief executives who are reported to have approached the UN and national governments with expressions of interest in manufacturing a workable global emissions marketplace.

…BHP was in a good position to flex its portfolio as the world continued its quest to contain emissions, Mr Mackenzie said. He said material emissions reductions could be achieved through “a lot of little things” including continued advancement in solar technologies, proving more rapidly the long-term efficacy of carbon capture and storage, an expansion of nuclear power production and further profound improvement in the way energy is used.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, that Global Warming scare....that farce and scam set up by Al Gore and his scientific cronies.

They even said residents of Tuvalu had already evacuated the islands and moved to Nrw Zealand....In actual fact these islands have grown and the population has doubled in the past 3 decades.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|section|homepage|homepage&itmt=1433619547870

Even the warmist New Scientist now concedes:

Funafuti atoll, which includes the capital of Tuvalu, is an islet archipelago in the tropical Pacific Ocean made from coral debriswashed up from an underlying reef by waves, winds and currents. Over the past 60 years the sea has risen by around 30 centimetres locally,sparking warnings that the atoll is set to disappear.

But Paul Kench of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and colleagues found no evidence of heightened erosion. After poring over more than a century’s worth of data, including old maps and aerial and satellite imagery, they conclude that 18 out of 29 islands have actually grown.

As a whole, the group grew by more than 18 hectares, while many islands changed shape or shifted sideways.

noco said:

Ah yes, that Global Warming scare....that farce and scam set up by Al Gore and his scientific cronies.

They even said residents of Tuvalu had already evacuated the islands and moved to Nrw Zealand....In actual fact these islands have grown and the population has doubled in the past 3 decades.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|section|homepage|homepage&itmt=1433619547870

Even the warmist New Scientist now concedes:

Funafuti atoll, which includes the capital of Tuvalu, is an islet archipelago in the tropical Pacific Ocean made from coral debriswashed up from an underlying reef by waves, winds and currents. Over the past 60 years the sea has risen by around 30 centimetres locally,sparking warnings that the atoll is set to disappear.

But Paul Kench of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and colleagues found no evidence of heightened erosion. After poring over more than a century’s worth of data, including old maps and aerial and satellite imagery, they conclude that 18 out of 29 islands have actually grown.

As a whole, the group grew by more than 18 hectares, while many islands changed shape or shifted sideways.

Click to expand...

Typical piece of biased fluff from Bolt that confuses the issue.

Coastal erosion and deposition is a different issue to Climate change.

Macquack said:

Typical piece of biased fluff from Bolt that confuses the issue.

Coastal erosion and deposition is a different issue to Climate change.

Click to expand...

Might be best if I highlight some sayings from well known people....NB. Andrew Bolt is only the messenger...these are not his words.



Remember all those scares that Tuvalu would be the first Pacific islands to be drowned by global warming?

In fact, warned Al Gore in his An Inconvenient Truth, so dire was this danger that “the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand”....

Take Prof Mohammed Dore, an environmental economist from Canada’s Brock University, who three years ago declared Tuvalu uninhabited already.

“In fact, there is an island called Tuvalu which was completely evacuated and New Zealand accepted all the residents because of sea level rising,” he wrote, much to the surprise of the island’s 12,000 residents, who have actually doubled their number in the past three decades, there being little else to do in the middle of the ocean....

Tuvalu’s prime minister in 2003 went to the United Nations to present a bill to the guilty Westerners he insisted were causing the seas to drown his home.

He really laid it on thick: “The threat is real and serious, and is of no difference to a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us.” ...

Rob Gell, the TV weatherman, ... in 2008 launched an exhibition at Melbourne’s Immigration Museum dedicated to convincing the gullible that we should take in all these soggy Tuvaluans before the waves lapped over their heads.

It was virtually a “foregone conclusion” that Tuvalu would be uninhabitable “within the next 50 years”, he claimed.

Naturally, Labor signed up to the scare… It even produced a “Pacific climate change plan” which promised help to global warming “refugees” as they fled low-lying island states such as Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and Tuvalu.

Said Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese: “The alternative to that is to say, and I don’t think any Australian would accept this, that were going to sit by while people literally drown.”

All of which culminated in the tearful plea from Tuvalu’s delegate, Ian Fry, at the UN’s great warmist gathering at Copenhagen last year… “I woke up this morning crying, and that’s not easy for a grown man to admit ... The fate of my country rests in your hands.”

Even the warmist New Scientist now concedes:

Funafuti atoll, which includes the capital of Tuvalu, is an islet archipelago in the tropical Pacific Ocean made from coral debriswashed up from an underlying reef by waves, winds and currents. Over the past 60 years the sea has risen by around 30 centimetres locally,sparking warnings that the atoll is set to disappear.

But Paul Kench of the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and colleagues found no evidence of heightened erosion. After poring over more than a century’s worth of data, including old maps and aerial and satellite imagery, they conclude that 18 out of 29 islands have actually grown.

As a whole, the group grew by more than 18 hectares, while many islands changed shape or shifted sideways.

Noco what did you make of the recent paper from the American meteorological society which showed that there hasn't been any slowdown in Global Warming in the past 20 years? That in fact global temperatures have been steadily increasing and will continue to do so as far as can be seen.

I suggest that is the critical point of the topic - how hot will our world become and when and how much of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets will melt and raise sea levels.

The loudest most repetitious slogan of skeptics has been that global warming has paused or stopped since 1998. Therefore everything is ok.

Now that this statement has been disproved will you reconsider your view ?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ea...cience.aaa5632
http://www.theage.com.au/environment...0150605-ghgvhn

basilio said:

Noco what did you make of the recent paper from the American meteorological society which showed that there hasn't been any slowdown in Global Warming in the past 20 years? That in fact global temperatures have been steadily increasing and will continue to do so as far as can be seen.

I suggest that is the critical point of the topic - how hot will our world become and when and how much of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets will melt and raise sea levels.

The loudest most repetitious slogan of skeptics has been that global warming has paused or stopped since 1998. Therefore everything is ok.

Now that this statement has been disproved will you reconsider your view ?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ea...cience.aaa5632
http://www.theage.com.au/environment...0150605-ghgvhn

Click to expand...

I think there is still a bit of debate left on this one basilio. Let's see how this plays out and not accept it uncritically. It does rely on retrospective adjustments after all.

basilio said:

Noco what did you make of the recent paper from the American meteorological society which showed that there hasn't been any slowdown in Global Warming in the past 20 years? That in fact global temperatures have been steadily increasing and will continue to do so as far as can be seen.

I suggest that is the critical point of the topic - how hot will our world become and when and how much of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets will melt and raise sea levels.

The loudest most repetitious slogan of skeptics has been that global warming has paused or stopped since 1998. Therefore everything is ok.

Now that this statement has been disproved will you reconsider your view ?


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ea...cience.aaa5632
http://www.theage.com.au/environment...0150605-ghgvhn

Click to expand...

It states page not found on both links.

Sounds like a lot of HOT AIR and unreliable information.

Some fictitious scientist predicted all that 10 years ago and it has not happened and probably won't in the foreseeable future ....A bit like that Flannery nutter.

The info about a pause in Global warming came from the IPCC...That is why they changed the terminology to CLIMATE CHANGE.

wayneL said:

I think there is still a bit of debate left on this one basilio. Let's see how this plays out and not accept it uncritically. It does rely on retrospective adjustments after all.

Click to expand...

It does require more analysis. Thats why I would be interested to see any reasoned critique of the paper which identifies flaws in the processes of updating climate records.

And of course that critique needs to pass examination as well - not just be an off the cuff line that all retrospective adjustments are suss.

If it does hold up to scrutiny then the conclusion is that global warming has not slowed down in the past 20 years at all and continues inside the parameters broadly outlined by the IPCC reports.

noco said:

It states page not found on both links.
CLIMATE CHANGE.[/B]

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what happened with the links. They were the ones I used in my earlier post and they still work fine when I click on them.

It seems that when i copied and pasted the links they gave up the ghost.

If you want to read the articles go back to post 6329 and try the links thete

Cheers

basilio said:

I'm not sure what happened with the links. They were the ones I used in my earlier post and they still work fine when I click on them.

It seems that when i copied and pasted the links they gave up the ghost.

If you want to read the articles go back to post 6329 and try the links thete

Cheers

Click to expand...

There certainly appears to be a lot of conflicting evidence around the world as to whether Global Warming is real and we now have many IPCC scientists doubting that man made C02 has anything to do with Climate Change.

I become annoyed when I observe documentaries showing billowing black smoke being emitted from power stations 50 or more years ago....Modern coal fired power station now only emit a steam vapor...

We used to see documentaries of big chunks of ice falling into the sea with the alarmist promoting the melting of the Arctic.

Having traveled many parts of the world, my wife and I toured Canada, Alaska and America in 2012......On our cruise up the Alaskan coast on the Zuderdam (88,000 tonnes) we called into Glacier Bay where there are some 4 or 5 glaciers meeting the sea......When I saw big chunks of ice the size of a bus falling into the sea, my wife remarked to me, OMG that looks like the photos those alarmists use for their Global Warming propaganda...and yes it was real...I took several photos and it was fascinating to observe Glacier Bay full of large chunks of ice.

But the true fact is those Glaciers creep all the time, all year round and more so in the summer months...Consequently, large chunks of ice fall into the sea...

It is such a shame that those alarmists use fake material to promote their propaganda.


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...ph/comments/column_aunty_catches_cold/asc/P80

2. IPCC scientists who doubt even the IPCC, said to represent 2500 scientists who all believe in dangerous man-made warming.

Prof Yuri Izrael, IPCC vice-chairman: “There is no serious threat to the climate.”

Richard Lindzen, former IPCC lead author and meteorology professor at MIT: “There is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons.”

Dr Vincent Gray, IPCC reviewer: “The continued fairly unchanging warm weather since 1998 shows no signs of increasing, and is probably influenced by changes in the sun.”

Dr Christopher Landsea, former IPCC author and hurricane expert: “It is beyond me why my (IPCC) colleagues would utilise the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming . . . I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Please read the whole article....It is most interesting.

And Tim Flannery has finished up with more egg on HIS face after predicting in 2008 that The Arctic would be ice free by 2013....But of course the link below proves otherwise.


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...rctic_decline_pauses_antarctic_sea_ice_grows/



Tim Flannery in 2008 warned we could have an ice-free polar cap by 2013:


Just imagine yourself in a world five years from now, when there is no more ice over the Arctic, when we stand under threat of a rapidly warming Arctic Ocean, when we’re starting to see the first destabilisation of the Greenland ice cap, and all of those things happening because we don’t have a solution, because if things advance that rapidly we simply will not have a solution, in terms of reducing emissions. Then you’ve got to start pulling in your last-ditch efforts.


But, once again, the climate simply refuses to do what Flannery keeps predicting:


Sea ice extent in Antarctica last month set a new record high for the month of May, according to data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)…

NSIDC data shows average sea ice extent around Antarctica reached 12.10 million sq. km. in May – some 12 per cent above the long term average for the period from 1981 to 2010…

Meanwhile Arctic sea ice extent in May was 12.65 million sq. km, some 5 per cent below the long-term average for the period from 1981 to 2010 of 13.38 million sq. km. but broadly in line with the sea ice extent reported a decade ago and just 2 per cent below the average over the period from 2005 to 2015.

(Thanks to reader Anthony.)