JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
Have a glorious Easter.
60
Thank you Roy…wishing you Roy a Happy Easter too. It is Easter Monday here now. We had a lovely day yesterday. The church was full to overflowing with happy faces and later we had lunch with our family here. 🙂
A Happy Easter to All who come here; whatever your beliefs!
50
Oww! My brain hurts, and perhaps someone might help me out here.
My interest was piqued when President Obama said that he will make a pledge to reduce CO2 emissions and present that to the Paris UNFCCC conference in Paris later this year.
He was quite specific when he mentioned that the figure for that reduction was 28.5%.
Why so specific?
The years thing is easy because the with effect from year is 2005 and the date for achievement is 2025, so ten years ago and ten years into the future, but then why so specific with the 28.5%.
What I wanted to do was work out what that meant with respect to electrical power generation. I had some data to work with, but what I needed was something definitive. It took a while to find, but when I did, it just seemed to make things more difficult.
The information I did find was this lot at this link. (pdf document of 34 pages)
Scroll down a little till you reach Figures 2-2 and 2-3, and Fig 2-3 indicates why he selected 2005, as that was the year when emissions reached their all time peak.
Here’s my question, and it relates to Fig 2-2.
Go to 2005, and then add and subtract the yearly increases and decreases and you’ll find the remainder is 8.5%, so it would, umm, seem that the President has just added an extra 20% to that figure.
Now, add and subtract all that percentages from 1990 until 2005, and you’ll have a remainder of 15.6%, soooooo, deducting the 28.5% from that figure means he wants to get emissions back to a level 12.9% lower than what they were in 1990, and even the original Kyoto only called for 5% lower than 1990 levels for everyone except the US, who had to lower their emissions by 7%.
Now scroll down a little further at that link to Table 2.1, which gives actual data for all emissions for their sources, the first time I have actually found information like this.
See the total CO2 at 1990, 5126.8 MMT (Million Metric Tons)
Now note the next column, the figure for 2005, our new base year, 6156.4 MMT.
That is 20% higher than the 1990 total.
The question I have relates to the correlation between the two percentages that total of 15.6% from the addition of percentages at Figure 2-2, and the actual increase of 20%.
Why is there a discrepancy between the two numbers?
I can understand that the increase (at Fig 2-2) is with respect to the previous year, but I would have expected them to be the same. Am I missing something here?
I hoped to have this done by Saturday, but I’m still working on it. If there are ten years left to achieve this, then a further 20% only amounts to 2% per year, and when you speak in small numbers, it sounds like it could actually be done, but that 2% per year comes in at 200 Million tons of CO2 reduction each year for the next ten years, something I really don’t think can be done.
Currently, since 2005, there has been a considerable reduction in Coal fired power generation replaced by natural gas fired generation, which is less CO2 emitting. Even so that further reduction from the power generating sector means that around 30% of all coal fired power generation needs to be taken out of service, not replaced as is happening now by NG, but removed completely, and that’s why I think that reduction will not be achieved.
Scroll down further at the link and you’ll see breakdowns for CO2 emissions. Each sector will have to reduce emissions to make up the total reduction, and power generation and all forms of transport I see as the sticking points for any reductions on this scale.
And anyway, why would President Obama commit to a 28.5% reduction by 2025, when China has categorically said that they will not reach their peak emissions until 2030, and only then will consider any reductions.
I can’t see Paris doing much if China won’t be coming to the party, and India will be in the same situation as China.
Surely someone in positions of responsibility would be pointing out the real story to the President, because removing that much essential electrical power is tantamount to suicide for the whole Country.
Tony.
110
Hopefully obama will be successfully removed from his role in destroying our country in the next couple of years. Say a prayer for America.
101
Say more than one prayer for America, please.
81
I doubt that Obama came up with the numbers, Tony. He has a science advisor for that, a man incapable of doing worthwhile science and very good at doing political ass kissing to keep his boss’s supporters happy. So the only meaning to those numbers is that Obama is out in front in the battle to save the world from evil CO2 and in the process, toss his country back a century if he can manage it.
The battle lines are drawn over this with more than one state putting up a fight. We shall see.
70
Tony, little off topic, but I have a question. Where does the excess power generated by my 3kw. rooftop solar go?
Figures for the year 31st March 2014 to 21st. March 2015 are:
Grid electricity used 1512 Kwh.
Solar production 4496 Kwh (mainly 10.30 am to 5 pm. daily)
Solar use by me 878 Kwh
Input to grid 3618 Kwh
Wouldn’t it go to the nearest neighbour without panels?
In Cairns there is a hydro station on the Barren R., wouldn’t it be switched off on sunny days, or a turbine or two perhaps.
Thanks.
10
Robert,
this is always a difficult thing to explain, because of the way people understand things.
The thinking is that as soon as the Sun begins to shine on those panels, then they generate power at around their maximum, which isn’t true, and look at the diagram at this link for generation across time, and this is for a bright sunny clear Summer day. See how it is making very little impression until around 9AM.
The first use for that rooftop generated power is the actual home with the panels, and until the point when consumption in the home drops and generation rises higher than that, all the generated power is used by the home with the panels, and after that time, say around 10PM or so, then the excess starts to feed back to the grid, however only in what is really only tiny amounts of power, probably not even enough to power another home, even if it is next door.
Let’s pretend that there are no rooftop solar panels, and right up to the point of around 10AM, in effect, there really isn’t any power being fed back to the grid.
There are a number of homes connected, even in your small area to the grid.
The grid which supplies your area, by imperative, just HAS to have the amount of power available for consumption to cover every electrical need for that area, and an extra amount over and above that, which remains unused, but is still there to cover any and every contingency BEFORE it arises.
So the grid has an amount equal to ALL consumption PLUS extra.
As your panels start to feed back to the grid, that excess goes into that area over and above what is actually being consumed, because the grid is already supplying EVERY need.
The grid cannot automatically GUESS that a tiny new amount of power has come on line because even if there are a HUGE number of homes with panels in that area that excess being fed back to the grid is so tiny as to be totally insignificant.
The power which is already being supplied is, well, already being supplied. That power cannot differentiate between power coming in ….. from any source. It cannot say, well, I’m now going to use my neighbour’s excess rooftop power instead. It uses the power which is already being supplied.
What needs to be seen here is that EXCESS rooftop power being fed back to the grid is so tiny, (and how do I emphasise that word TINY) it would be in the perhaps only the tiniest fraction of a percent relative to the total amount being supplied for the area where that grid is connected.
It all goes into that small amount of extra power at the grid over and above what is already being consumed.
Tony.
40
A lot of people quite naturally believe that rooftop solar power actually contributes, but what needs to be seen in all of this is power generation versus power consumption.
There ALWAYS has to be more power available at the grid than what is actually being consumed, and an amount to actually cover any contingency at all.
That is borne out by actual data.
Power generation data for Australia shows that there is around 215TWH being generated each year, while actual consumption is only around 200TWH.
That’s an extra 7.5% being generated which is not being used.
In the U.S. that percentage is 5.8%, but that’s on top of power consumption almost 20 times greater than here in Australia.
You CANNOT do without that extra over and above consumption, otherwise the grid crashes.
So power sources that can be relied upon to actually supply dedicated power at all times are the first suppliers.
Anything extra goes into that added extra over and above what is actually being consumed, so it just sits there unused, like excess wind generation and rooftop solar power delivered back to the grid.
And yet, all that extra unused power still has to be paid for.
Tony.
10
Thanks for that Tony. So, in fact, the R.E.Target of 20% or whatever, is a nonsense as supply has to exceed demand always and solar and wind cannot provide 24/7 electricity. Anybody told our politicans, or are they totally impervious to reason?
10
Tony,
It might be a simpler explanation to say that if I have panels generating x kW more than I use, that x kW is fed back to the grid and the generators driving that grid simply see an x kW lower load than they otherwise would because I’m supply that x kW. It’s impossible to say that any one other customer on that grid is the beneficiary of the x kW I supply to it. The generators powering that grid are the beneficiaries.
We need to keep in mind that energy can be transmitted in either direction, even through transformers so that x kW I put into the system is felt all the way back to the generators. The phase relationship between voltage and current is what determines which way power is transmitted.
Where am I wrong?
Also, you mention excess power generated over what’s consumed. At any given instant is this not just the energy lost in the distribution system, either because of resistance in the wires and transformers or because the power factor** is probably not exactly 1 (also just resistive loss)? Resistive loss is I^2R and is significant even with good conductors when there are hundreds of miles of them. Current squared is not trivial.
As far as my understanding goes, the output of the generators must be exactly consumed by the system they feed. Otherwise the voltage must either rise or fall depending on whether generator output is above or below demand.
I have uninterruptable power supplies for computers that accurately read the line voltage and I can see the fluctuation of voltage with high demand periods. When I was working we were next door to a machine shop and they had some milling machines with pretty powerful motors. When those motors were turned on the fluorescent lights in our building would flicker slightly as the voltage momentarily dropped and then recovered.
Let me know where I’m wrong.
Thanks.
————————————-
** For those who may not know — the power factor is the cosine of the phase angle between voltage and current in an A/C system. It depends on whether the load is resistive, inductive or capacitive. Resistive and capacitive loads store energy during half of the cycle and then give it back to the system during the other half, forcing current to either lead or lag the voltage. When the power factor is not 1 there is extra current and this extra current in the system does not represent energy sold to a customer but is simply wasted by resistance of the system. Power utilities don’t like this because their generators still must put out the full current demanded and it’s an extra cost for which customers can’t be charged. If the power factor is 1 the entire load, transmission losses included can be charged to customers.
When the solar panels are feeding power to the grid the current leads the voltage and the power factor will be negative but a negative power factor doesn’t automatically mean there is energy being put back on the grid by a customer.
00
Robert – More interesting is that you only consume 20% of you production and this only meets 37% of your demand, you rely on the grid for the rest. As Tony explains below – 80% of your panels output is of no use at all! Recalculate you bill without the feed in tariff and you will see what your neighbours are paying for nothing!
10
Diogenes, I try hard to use as much of the solar production as possible, I’ll try harder to reduce the feed-in tariff. In Qld. one was getting 44c. per Kwh on the older contracts, now its 6-7c. per Kwh. Some battery storage maybe the answer, but nevertheless one still pays a supply charge to be connected to the grid.
00
Tony, the big question is why have any target figure at all?
CO2 is the only source of the oxygen that we breath via the photosynthesis of CO2 by plants. Further, we all know that CO2 and photosynthesis is the source of the food that we eat be it animal or vegetable. Prior to the Great Oxygenation Event about 2.3 billion years ago there was no animal life as we know it on the Earth. The event is also known as the Oxygen Catastrophe, Oxygen Crisis or Great Oxygen Extinction because it wiped out most of the Earth’s anaerobic inhabitants.
Is this the reason for demonising CO2 – to wipe out the human race? After all I have read that there are environmentalists who are so committed to their cause that they want us to die out so that the Earth can return to its former ‘unpolluted’ state prior to the evolution of man. Strange thing is that they do not extinguish themselves in order to do a bit towards the ‘clean-up’
Is this what Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, meant when she admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism?
30
I don’t believe it.
I’m actually giving up on something.
This question of President Obama’s commitment to a pledge for Paris led me to start a Post on the subject, in an effort to work out what it would take to actually achieve his target of a 28.5% reduction in CO2 emissions.
I’ve been at it now for 6 days, and I would say around 20 hours plus in time.
I really like things to be accurate, but, for the life of me, I can’t work this one out.
I have preliminary figures which show me (quite accurately really) that this would entail a cutback of power generated in the coal fired sector of around 27%, which in fact is a huge chunk of power to lose completely, because there’s nothing that they can replace it with. It comes in at around 500TWH, and for some perspective that is 2.5 times Australia’s total power consumption. There’s no way known that amount of power can be taken out of the U.S. generation.
However, let’s go right back to the start and I’ll show you why I’m giving up on this one task.
Take this link to the EIA site and this shows coal consumption in the electrical power generation sector, and the figure I want you to look at is for the end of year 2013. (860,729 and that is expressed in thousand tons as per the subtitle at the top, so add three zeroes to that figure)
Now, this link tells us that each ton of coal produces (on average) 2.86 tons of CO2 under the heading Coal Combustion and Carbon Dioxide Emissions, third paragraph.
So, now, that gives us a total of 2.462 Billion tons of CO2 from the coal fired sector.
Now, here’s the next link for Natural Gas used in power generation. Same thing here, end of year 2013, and it’s 8,596,299 and as this is in million cubic feet, add three zeroes to convert it to thousand cubic feet, the traditional measure for natural gas of MCF.
Two links here, the first for MCF to BTU, (under the third heading) and the second link, CO2 from BTU of natural gas. When worked out, this gives a total of 122 Pounds of CO2 for ecery MCF of natural gas burned.
So now we have (CO2 from Natural Gas) 524.4 Million tons.
Add that to the CO2 from coal fired power and the total is 2.987 Billion tons of CO2 emitted from the generation of electrical power.
Now, this is in U.S. short tons (2000 Pounds) so, we need to convert that to MMT. (Million Metric Tons) That comes in at 2709 MMT.
So now, go to this link (pdf document 34 pages) and scroll down to Table 2-1 on page 4.
See the end date there, 2013 and the total for Electricity Generation (third from top) is 2040.5 MMT.
That’s a difference of 670 Million Metric Tons of CO2.
I’ve done the equations for every year shown there and each one understates it considerably.
That’s a huge amount less than what is actually being emitted, and this is two Government agencies, the EIA and the EPA.
Now, the point of all this is this.
I have a good idea of what I am looking for, and if I can’t work it out, how is the average person supposed to be able to (not work it out for themselves but to) understand even the basics of it, when they can’t even agree on how much CO2 is being emitted.
There is no con$piracy here, just a failure to do maths I would say.
That’s the reason I’m not proceeding with this, because there is such a wild discrepancy between the two figures, and I at least would like to be accurate in what I write about, and how can I do that if I can’t reconcile one set of data with another.
If I don’t drop this now, I could be at it for ages, and still never work it out.
I don’t expect anyone here to be able to figure this out, but I’m just showing you how datasets can be compiled in a manner to make it almost impossible to understand.
Tony.
10
Obama’s figures don’t add up ? No surprise there then.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the. ‘.5’ had just been included to give some air of authenticity. I mean 28.5 %. Who’s he trying to impress?
10
TonyfromOz,
As I read through your posts on this subject, I kept getting the feeling that the 28.5% figure isn’t based on any real numbers at all.
I mean just think about it for a moment. The goal in Paris, and it’s always been the goal, is to get trading on carbon credits up and running with every-one in board. The value of those credits is directly related to emissions levels. Maybe that number, 28.5%, is just the amount of emissions reduction necessary to bring those carbon credits to a specific value.
I don’t claim to know how those carbon credits are valued, and I doubt that the full details are even available to the genel public.
But the feeling nags on in the back of my head none-the-less.
Just my two cents.
Abe
10
for a quick history of climate change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B11kASPfYxY
00
I’ve been waiting for days for Weekend Unthreaded to show up in order to make an observation regarding the content of some of our comments in recent threads. The nature of the events that have occured relating to the ‘climate change’ debate in some of the blog-posts here have, by their very nature, religious and political components which cannot be ignored. Two examples come to mind. The ISIS cartoon depicting skeptics as fundamentalists, and the announcement by Ted Cruz that he’ll be running for president.
As a result of these and other blog-posts, many of us have seen fit to discuss questions such as ‘creationism vs. evolution’, ‘Christianity vs. Islam vs. Judaism vs. Gaia worship’, etc. I have not been immune to this tendency.
Over the last week or so I’ve also found myself less inclined to post comments. During that time I’ve tried to examine my thoughts and feelings, to try and figure out why this change has occurred in me. The conclusions I’ve come to surprised me. I share them now because if they’re accurate, then they may be relevant to all of us in one way or another.
Complacency
We’re all aware of the reported rising trends in acceptance of the skeptics’ position. This is to be expected. Science, when done correctly, will always present us with an accurate picture of the world in which we live. From the religious perspective, we aknoledge that if there is a creator, then the world which He’s created for us must be well organized and suitable for our species to thrive and prosper. From the non-religious perspective, we aknoledge that the world functions according to physical laws that are amenable to our discovery and examination. This examination has shown that the CAGW/climate change hypothesis is not supported by the facts.
In both cases, the scientific method is the common tool that all of us have at our disposal. This is the single unifying factor that can and does bridge the gap between us.
My impression is that because we see the growth of skepticism then we’ve already won. This is what I mean by complacency. It’s as if we take for granted that Paris will be a failure because of that growth in the skeptic position. My heart tells me that nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t believe we’ve won. If you’ll go back to the many blog-posts following The Climategate Scandal, there was a general feeling in the comments that CAGW was finally debunked and that the whole thing would just fade away. It has not. It’s only gained momentum.
I don’t accept that half the world is irrational and therefore I don’t accept that the percentage of skeptics is what’s being reported. I believe that percentage is much higher. All we need to do is look at the figures that show a steady decline in viewers and readers of the MSM. The MSM is pushing the CAGW meme more forcefully than ever. They’re redoubling their efforts and then redoubling them again. And yet their following continues to drop.
Conclusion
The ever increasing efforts of the MSM can only be explained by the notion that they recognize that they’re fighting a losing battle. On the other hand, when they present us with the statistics, it’s as though there’s an even split. I’m convinced that by portraying that split, they hope to create a sense within the skeptic majority that we don’t need to exert a lot of energy to tip the scales in favor of the truth and that being the case, we can expect Paris to fail. By our complacency we play into their hand and their increasing efforts will therefore pay off.
We cannot allow our political and religious differences to come between us. Those discussions need to be had, but never at the expense of what it is that binds us.
The people who promote the CAGW/climate change meme are not interested if you or I are religious or secular. They don’t care if we’re left-wing or right. Whether we live in a modern society or in the third-world is none of their concern. If the world heats up or if it freezes over is irrelevant to them. This is why they chose the word ‘Progressive’ to describe their movement. Their only concern is ‘progress’ toward control of world resources under a socialist regime. Nothing else.
Abe
141
Just-a-guy, watch the generalizations. 😉 Progressives are a huge diverse group. Some want big-government. Some just want to keep their job. Some genuinely believe the science stories they hear in Fairfax and The BBC and want to make the world a better place. Some want power and control, but others would find it crushingly hard to believe their trusted institutions could not be trusted completely. Some are just young. Many are doing the best they can with the resources they have.
But I agree with you completely about complacency. Even if we had 75% polls that does not mean the politcrats will not pull something off in Paris. Even if we stop them in Paris from achieving their biggest aims, it doesn’t mean they won’t get billions and 20 years more junkets. We are making progress, but we can’t stop now.
I know this is an unthreaded, but I’d like people to stick with contentious science fields and skeptical complacency rather than some of the other topics. Thanks.
91
Joanne Nova,
You’re reply to my comment is well appreciated.
As I was writing it, I wanted to get it done as quickly as possible in order to have as many ppl see it as possible. Under that self-imposed constraint, it now appears that the main thrust of my comment didn’t come across as planned.
The progessive movement began over a hundred years ago. When I say, ‘they chose’, it’s in reference to those that began the movement who chose that name, and not to those who now call themselves progressives.
But this was not the primary message I had hoped to convey.
I’ve intentionally reversed the order and placed your reply before my original comment in order to rephrase my original intent. (Had I only been more careful from the start. . .)
The ideology behind the progressive movement, (as wide and diverse a group though the may be), is one that’s focused on their championing of the CAGW meme. This is why we need to redouble our efforts at presenting what the science has actually shown to be true. Rational thought as exemplified in the scientific method should be our primary concern and all of our other differences should be put asside in this regard.
Abe
71
Just-a-Guy, I thought your original comment flowed well and made perfect sense.
We can acknowledge a much broader use of the term ‘progressives’ of course and yes many of them are just well meaning & naive in the most innocent sense.
I find your follow up a bit harder to follow .
Might summing up the essence in one sentence perhaps reiterate the point for those of us like myself a bit more attentionaly challenged ?
Politicians are learning they are not going to get away with ignoring voters. Obama is just after leaving a legacy. The build up to Paris will be relentless. I do hope anyone with devastating material saves it up till the final few weeks though.
40
Eddie,
Thank you for the compliment. The credit will have to go to those great teachers I had growing up in the NYC Public school system of the seventies. I’m told it’s not what it used to be.
That follow-up was specifically written as a response to Jo who’d made three basic points.
1. It appeared to her that I’d made a generalization about a group of diverse people. I hadn’t. My reply was meant to both clarify that point and to concede that even if I had, it would make no difference.
2. She agreed that there is a certain degree of complacency and that we should all contribute to alleviating the problem. My response to Jo didn’t address this point.
3. She was under the impression that my comment would lead to a discussion of topics not related to “contentious science fields and skeptical complacency”. This may be true, but not because this was my intent as shown by the quotes I presented.
As I said at the beggining of this comment, my reply was meant to address two of the three specific points that Jo had made, so, in that sense one sentence wouldn’t do the job.
We skeptics are a diverse bunch of people. While my original comment may have been clear enough for some of us, the fact that Jo came away with the impression that she did tells me that I didn’t make it clear enough for all of us. It wouldn’t be the first time that something I say is taken the wrong way. It’s up to me to make the improvements necessary to prevent that from happening as much as possible. Live and learn.
Abe
30
Sorted. Thanks Abe.
Complacency is the issue then.
Yes it can be hard to stay focused when the main proponents are appearing increasingly isolated and at odds with public opinion. Some powerful, grasping and increasingly desperate proponents though.
Progressivism may not be bad per se but like the grandchildren argument a lot that’s done in its name clearly is.
I doubt if complacency was causal in Gee Aye’s diversion into shepherds pie, but a little sustenance now and again doesn’t go amiss 😉
20
Eddie,
Absolutely.
The more they push their non-sense, the more we have to respond with facts. ‘It ain’t over until the fat lady sings!’
And you’re right about the underhanded tactics.
They know that basic human instict will respond to the grandchildren argument. What they have not taken into account is that rational adults will use their reasoning skills to evaluate their claims before accepting them. And so the grandchildren argument back-fires in their face.
After a comprehensive evaluation, our grandchildren will best be served by rejecting those claims for what they are. Unfounded and falsified.
Abe
10
No matter what the climate does, we’ve got to eat.
00
Jo,
Many thanks for all you do.
I really do hesitate to disagree with you, but I must, because I see the ‘progressive’ label as pure propaganda to rebadge communism and anti-democracy.
As for politicians learning they are not going to get away with ignoring voters – that does not hold true (at present) in the EU. The underlying political belief and approach is that voters cannot be trusted to make the right decisions and thus democracy must be taken away from them whilst leaving a semblance of democracy which hides its emasculation.
The same is true of the UN approach using the IPCC to take the first steps towards creating an unelected and unaccountable world government, As an aside I have long believed the EU is a dry run to test the mechanisms for removing democracy while managing to convince the average voter that they still live in a democracy.
More and more, in the UK, we see politicians who are telling bare-faced lies without any sense of shame; I don’t think it was always so but democracy is under severe threat in the developed world.
Happy Easter
90
I refer to them as The Regressives. Every single idea they have takes us backwards, usually backwards in time.
30
Is that from the tendency to make the same mistakes, over an’ over again ?
10
The Argumentum ad Novitatem or Appeal to Novelty has a lot of attraction.
Inability to evaluate, to think through or anticipate can make it appear all the more appealing, leading to all sorts of unmitigated disasters, that might have been avoided with a little reasoning.
That’s what can make progressive tendencies so dangerous. Often worse than doing nothing, if only they could see it.
30
Just a guy
Many thanks for your post, it was insightful and from the heart, the way I like it as I try to do same.
Your comment.
“We cannot allow our political and religious differences to come between us. Those discussions need to be had, but never at the expense of what it is that binds us.”
I think what ultimately binds us is our drive for truth by using our brains. This leads to a lot directions that includes a mixture of not only science but religion and politics. For me this blog is not just about the weather but more importantly about our way of thinking, acting, our citizenry courage (something that it may be loosely compared to your inverted “complacency” that you mentioned) and ultimately about the future of our kids. I want them to live a free society devoid of fear, of being able to express even the most uncomfortable topics. I don,t the world of when I talk about the weather I get threatened with a beheading by an educated PhD person. It is about our way of life and things like capitalism and hence politics. The religious topics comes through as science and religion don,t mix. However despite being an ex-catholic and now an atheist, I want to be respectful of other people,s religious believes by mainly avoiding this topic, although I must admit I have participated in creationism vs evolution debate on many occasions. This however is not driven by my desire to denigrate religion, because I stand as a scientist and a free thinker looking at the weather and god issues in the same light.
40
I can agree with you also Dariusz despite our differing views on religion. As sceptics we are looking for the truth and a decent future for our children and their children and generations to come. We do not wish to be subject to unelected, power-drunk dictators who have bullied their way into power through this massive scam of CAGW.
60
Annie & Dariusz,
These responses are all I was hoping for. My impression was that because of our complacency we’d begun to turn on each other on the basis of our social differences. We should all work hard at not allowing that to happen.
As skeptics, our primary goal must be to educate others about the proper way to evaluate any and all claims made by the ppl trying to push their pseudo-science BS off on the public as if it were the real deal. And this isn’t just an intelectual exercise either. If we continue to allow policies to be enacted based on falsified hypotheses and never ending hype, the consequences wil be felt by all of us, not just as individuals but also by our families and our communities, and not only now but for generations.
We have our work cut out for us.
Abe
10
I thought this was a good, thoughtful post Just-a-Guy.
50
Annie,
Thank you for taking the time to reply, Annie. It made a difference.
Abe
10
I’m glad about that Jusu-A-Guy. I feel strongly about what these CAGW people are trying to push onto us. I just wish I didn’t feel so darned tired and had the energy of twenty years younger! 🙁
10
Jo, did you hear the news earlier in the week about UK government scientists being put on a leash?
The spin now is that getting scientific findings about climate change out to the general public without government interference is a major problem for… government scientists.
I mean the gall, can you believe it.
They shut down debate and banish the competition, then play the victim card. ooh boo hoo.
Still, in this year of foregone-conclusions-railroaded-through-Paris, it makes you wonder what the UK Cameron government has to fear from its own ranks of climate seance supplicants.
70
WHAT THE NEW YORK TIMES THOUGHT ABOUT LAPTOPS 30 YEARS AGO:
“For the most part, the portable computer is a dream machine for the few.
The limitations come from what people actually do with computers, as opposed to what the marketers expect them to do.
On the whole, people don’t want to lug a computer with them to the beach or on a train to while away hours they would rather spend reading the sports or business section of the newspaper.
Somehow, the microcomputer industry has assumed that everyone would love to have a keyboard grafted on as an extension of their fingers.
It just is not so.”
Published: December 8, 1985, NYT: The Executive Computer
“By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact has been no greater than the fax machine.”
Paul Krugman predicts the future [1998] (via twitter)
80
They got that scarily wrong then…
50
Anybody have a favourite shepherd’s pie recipe? One that is adaptable to meat other than lamb or TVP would be good.
20
Not a recipe this but a great trick I discovered by accident when having some green leàfy salad along with my latest shepherds pie.
A little balsamic vinegar on the served mince works wonders.
Similarly effective with lasagne.
Don’t knock it till you’ve tried anyway.
20
Worcester Sauce – add it as the mince cooks.
20
Hey, that’s probably the proper Chef’s way to do it Roger.
I’ll need to buy a bottle and see if it gives the same effect.
20
Hi Joe ,
I’m no chef !! But worcester sauce works great with cottage or shepherd pie – and if you forget to add it while cooking you can always splash it on once served !
Couldn’t agree with you more, shepherds pie works really well with a good mixed green salad and a balsamic and oil dressing.
As a true philistine I occasionally enjoy bread and butter dipped in balsamic vinegar or mint sauce ! I put it down to my body telling me that I need vinegar for some reason or another.
20
I found in Spain they do bread with just olive oil (you always have to ask for butter).
Brings stale bread back to life (whereas I’d use the Microwave).
Stayed with a shepherd in the Pyrenees who fed his dog on it too.
Olive oil is of course the premier salad dressing, while balsamic adds a lovely zing.
20
Joe Roger, thanks for that. Looks like you are adding a similar ingredient to add a needed sharpness to something that could otherwise be a bit bland. I’ve seen the Worcestershire sauce suggestion so good to have it affirmed from experience.
20
Joe Roger, thanks for that. Looks like you are adding a similar ingredient to add a needed sharpness to something that could otherwise be a bit bland. I’ve seen the Worcestershire sauce suggestion so good to have it affirmed from experience.
00
You should stick with lamb mince Gee Aye because sheep are apparently the answer to the planet’s albedo
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/583247544509177857
30
Well this is what I do – very simple – and the 20+ year old kids love it.
Oil in saucepan – bring up to heat – add chopped onion, soften and begin to caramelise – add mince, pepper and a little salt.
Stir occasionally until mince is cooked. Add worcester sauce to taste and if you like you can add stock (meat or vegetable) to taste.
Add whatever vegetable you like – I usually add some chopped carrots and frozen peas but parsnip, swede or turnip are also good. Stir this in just before putting into cooking dish (they will cook in the oven as the potato is browned) Peas and carrots add some good texture, colour and taste – but the kids all like the other veg as well.
Put into cooking dish, allow to cool somewhat before covering in mash and forking the top – allowing it to cool a little makes spreading the mash easier . Cook in hot oven until mince is boiling and potato is browning and crisping.
That’s it.
(As you will have gathered I am not a cook – but there are some things I do cook that the family like !)
30
Your recipes sound more like my Grandmother’s. No quantities, all technique. Doubt if they’d pass peer review but I bet they’re Yummy.
30
All he’s got to do is call it “global warming pie” and it would easily pass pal review.
Hell, he might even get a grant to serve it in Paris.
00
Thanks… Looks good. The mash can be a real highlight- I often put swede or turnip or parsnip (roasted then mashed) or sweet potato into the mash. Good evoo and Dijon in the mash too.
10
G;
Shepherd’s pie used to be made with left over cooked lamb. Cottage pie was the same except made with beef or mixed meat.
If using fresh beef/kangaroo etc. it should be coarsely ground or chopped to small bits. Now you know why it was made by full time housewives or those employed as cooks, or fine mothers.
Use good stock. Try grating one carrot and finely chop an onion for each 250gms. Meat.
Fry onion until softened, add meat and cook over high heat until brown and fairly dry.
Add 1/3 tablespoon of plain flour per 250gms meat, add 130 ml. Stock ( per 250) salt, pepper, and cook until thickened. Adding a teaspoon of tomato paste and one of Worcester sauce is good.
Allow to cool, spread into tray and top with mashed potato. A bit of pepper in the mash is nice if you like pepper. Brush top with melted butter (this makes top brown). Bake @ 200C for 15-20 mins.
P.S. Carrot goes in with meat.
10
GeeAye
Always though Shepherds Pie was originally left over lamb for the workers that appeared a lot later?
The workers Cottage Pie was the other one that used any meat, left over, or veggie!
Now Shepherds Pie considered based on LAMB
And Cottage Pie considered based on other meats except lamb!
Julie Goodwin expert chef & winner of many peer reviewed cooking & jungle shows
Says SO HERE
I have tried this and OK
00
Dave G#3 I take your point on cottage v shepherd’s. Certainly the averagemons pie shop ignores the distinction. I also recall my travels around old Blighty where variants on that style of pie, like many other meals/desserts/cakes etc that Australians have few words for, were many with names I don’t recall.
00
Following on from a previous comment on Weekend Unthreaded.
The ‘derivative’ of the temperature anomalies from Woodfortrees is the monthly change in temperature divided by the change in time (in years).
If the error in monthly anomalies is Δ then the error in the derivative is √2 .Δ/month (square root of the sum of the squares).
The error in the difference in derivatives is 2Δ/month or 24Δ/year. The actual standard deviation for the differences from the measurements (δ) should be half of this, 12Δ/year (the convention is to use 2xSD for the error).
The δ for the differences in the derivatives of GISS LOTI and RSS from 1979 is 0.14. This gives an estimate of the uncertainty of each monthly anomaly of about ±0.01°C. Remember, this estimate is for repeats of the same experiments making the same measurements where the error for each month, Δ, is 2 times the SD of repeat measurements.
GISS LOTI is an index of global temperature change from surface thermometers and RSS is the satellite measurements of the lower troposphere. The surface data comes from thermometer readings that are not spaced evenly and need homgenisation. The average of half hour readings can vary by degrees from the average of the min and max readings, they suffer from UHI effects whereas RSS does not and lot of other issues. Also, the Earth has not warmed uniformly so one would expect a systematic error from not having the thermometers spread evenly around the globe.
Smoothing the data does not make the data better. You loose detail as well as the noise. I have yet to do the calculations but I suspect that the closeness of the data after smoothing with a 12 month moving average is even more unrealistic.
00
TonyfromOz – re your post on the US pledge:
Christopher Booker’s latest – Why the BBC’s preaching on global warming is getting louder – linked on jo’s previous Arctic Pause thread, includes Russia alongside China & India as being unwilling to go along with the Carbonazis at the Paris COP, saying of Russia:
“Now the Russians say they have already pretty well done enough by closing all those polluting old Soviet industries after the fall of Communism in 1990.”
***Russian humour, out vague-ing the US?
1 April: CarbonBrief: Sophie Yeo/Simon Evans: Ambiguous Russian climate pledge mystifies many
***Delivering its pledge just hours after the US, the Russian Federation left many baffled with its vaguely worded targets.
“Limiting anthropogenic greenhouse gases in Russia to 70-75% of 1990 levels by the year 2030 might be a long term indicator,” the unofficial translation of the submission says – in other words, a 25-30% reduction on 1990 levels.
But there are caveats. Unlike other countries that have pledged, Russia says its final decision is contingent upon the outcome of the UN climate negotiations, along with the INDCs of other major emitters.
It also says that its target include accounting as generously as possible for carbon dioxide absorbed by its vast boreal forests.
Furthermore, it points to Russia’s legally binding 2020 target, committing the country to limiting its emissions to 25-30% below 1990 levels – exactly the same limitation pledged in its new 2030 target.
Carbon Brief unravels some of the knots of Russian climate change policy…
The newly delivered INDC confirms this by essentially saying that Russia’s emissions in 2030 will be at the same level as they were in 2020.
This leaves a decade of mystery. The two targets suggest that Russia’s emissions will continue to rise after 2020, peak at some stage, and then decline until they hit 2020 levels once again.
But Russia has not yet indicated when such a peak might occur, nor has it set a total cap on emissions…
Russia’s 2030 climate pledge is further complicated by its inclusion of forestry.
Around half of Russia is covered in forest…
Even if Russia is to hit the more stringent 30% end of its target, this means that the country can grow its emissions by 41% between 2012 and 2030. Excluding its forests would have shrunk this to a growth of just 3%…
Russia’s INDC does not commit it to reducing its emissions, nor does it set a definite peak…
The Russian government stops short of labelling its INDC a target, referring instead to its intended reductions as a “long-term indicator” – and even this is not set in stone. It emphasises that a “final decision” will depend on the actions of other countries.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/04/ambiguous-russian-climate-pledge-mystifies-many/
30
pat,
The idea of making a commitment before negotiating a treaty is like showing your cards in a poker game before making any bets. Irrational. Counter-productive. Self-defeating.
It’s becoming clear that The Russians, The Chinese, and India, (others?), are now the leaders in promoting sanity in an insane world.
Abe
30
Is the UN trying to provoke a playground outbidding storm of increasingly impressive commitments ? Not going too well then is it with just the usual suspects falling for it, while the skilled negotiators keep hedging.
20
Jo, would you please use this site to encourage readers to submit a submission to the Federal Government on our greenhouse gas emissions target for the UNFCCC Paris conference? See:
https://www.dpmc.gov.au/taskforces/unfccc
Submissions close at 3pm AEST Friday 24 April 2015. I am trying to get my act together for at least one submission on my past research.
20
Hi Jo, would it be possible if you could do an audio on The Skeptic Handbook? It would be beneficial while driving to work, or on the go doing other tasks. I’m quite happy to pay for the mp3 format and I’m sure others will.
20
The Skeptics Handbook is a very easy read (it’s what first caught my attention, before I’d heard of the author and her work).
I know what you mean about keeping the brain engaged whilst doing the chores or driving.
An introduction to the essentials does benefit from visual attention though and so too to the many illustrative cartoons.
For listening to and plenty of commentary there are lots of videos you can find.
Just Google: JoNova climate , for example.
Turning the Handbook into a video sounds like an excellent educational project which I’m sure must have already been attempted.
For something a bit closer to the scientific content at least of the Handbook, have you seen this impeccably sourced one yet ?
Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptics Case
20
radio last nite.
2 stations simultaneously repeating, yet again, BBC’s half-hour of insanity “Are We Tired of Talking About Climate Change?”
same time, ABC Brisbane had John Cleary, whose bias against the current Govt is forever overt:
(first four minutes, then it is over to Cleary’s fave topic, the Catholic Church & child abuse)
AUDIO: 15 mins: 5 April: ABC Sunday Nights with John Cleary (Religion): Signpost: Tom Roberts
Pope Francis has promised an encyclical on the environment later this year.
Catholic environmental groups and others professing care for creation in the United States are trying to raise the profile of the issue, while some conservative Catholics are making efforts to undermine it.
Also making the news in the Catholic world, simmering dissatisfaction with the handling of clergy abuse claims by Catholic bishops…
http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s4211061.htm
begins with Cleary: Obama G20 CAGW “environment” speech, “much to the disturbance of some of our senior politicians in Australia”. a statement is being looked for – hoped for dare i say…(from the Pope).
Roberts mentions i don’t know how much “denial” there is in the rest of the world.
Cleary: when u see Nat Geo doing cover story on the denial of science generally …. simmering under the surface.
Roberts: problem – the enormity of the issue – u can’t see the oceans turning more acid, but u can see photos of ice melts in the Arctic, but no-one really experiences it. the poor are in the places first hit by the severe storms and what we see as the consequences of CAGW.
Cleary: there’s a role for the church as a universal instrument, that is reaching above localised national concerns & talking to international mandates.
—-
same time Fairfax Radio (4BC in Brisbane) had “Psychic Encounters: Sharina’s Weekly Tarot Stars”, with Sharina doing tarot readings for callers.
—-
MSM is the problem.
20
pat,
Confirmation that the Church is being used a tool to push an agenda.
Confirmation of what that agenda is. The imposition of international mandates by those that were neither elected nor selected to be in a position to impose anything.
Confirmation that national concerns are to be relegated to second place status.
Abe
40
don’t back down, India:
6 April: Economic Times India: Big nations’ climate pledge silent on finance, technology aid to developing world
by Urmi A. Goswami
The climate action plans submitted by big emitters like the United States, European Union and Russia mark a serious commitment to inking a global deal at the year-end UN-sponsored climate negotiations in Paris. However, these pledges, or in climate negotiation parlance, Intended
Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), are far from adequate, and focused on reducing the amount of carbon produced while maintaining silence on providing finance and technology to developing countries…
But with these plans focused solely on reducing the amount of greenhouse gases produced, the old and deep differences between the rich industrialised and poor developing countries are once again surfacing.
India has said that to ensure successful outcome in Paris, the climate change pledges for the post-2020 period must address reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as well as ensure provision of adequate finance and technology to help developing countries…
India has said that an effective global deal must include provisions of finance and technology as well.
“Without contributions on finance and technology, it will be difficult for developing countries to make ambitious efforts to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. There is a crucial link between availability of adequate and predictable funding and technology and the ambitious efforts to reduce emissions,” a senior official explained.
***India, which is likely to submit its plans in the third quarter of the year, proposes to include two sets of plans. The first, on efforts to slow down global
warming, it will take by using its own financial and technological resources, and the second, on actions it can take provided New Delhi gets financial and technological support.
The absence of predictable financial and technological support from industrialised countries has led to a trust deficit between developing and developed countries. “The overwhelming focus on reducing emissions doesn’t help matters…
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/big-nations-climate-pledge-silent-on-finance-technology-aid-to-developing-world/articleshow/46818609.cms
20
keep in mind Japan’s dominance in the rival Asian Development Bank, but also the real possibility Japan will decide, by June, to join the AIIB.
Sach’s arrogance is legendary.
have u every noticed how the MSM is not into refuting even the most outlandish of CAGW ***claims:
6 April: Yomiuri Shimbun Japan: Ryuichi Otsuka: Global warming more dangerous than N-plants
During a recent visit to Japan, Sachs (Jeffrey Sachs, U.S. economist and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University) spoke to The Yomiuri Shimbun about what it would take to achieve sustainable development. The following are excerpts from the interview:
Q: The SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) list many challenges. What are the most serious challenges?
A: ***The most basic challenge is that our economic system is not compatible with our environmental safety. The climate is being changed by our energy system. Scientists say ***we are reaching planetary boundaries…
Q: It’s difficult to feel threats of climate change.
A:***It requires lots of scientific knowledge to understand a full detail. ***But I do feel that people are intuitively grasping that the climate is changing. I would emphasize that the risks are not only about the future. ***Last year was the warmest ever recorded, and ***all over the world there were huge typhoons…
Q: Some people are afraid that the AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) will not be transparent enough or will not meet international standards.
A: Outside worries and commentaries had an effect in China ensuring that this institution will be high-quality. I met with the leadership of AIIB in Beijing and they reiterated to me their commitment that the bank itself will follow very high international principles, ***it would follow sustainable development concept and clean technology. So I was very encouraged by what I heard…
http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0002059677
Nov 2014: Reuters: For India, China-backed lender may be answer to coal investment
By Manoj Kumar and Tony Munroe
A senior Indian official told Reuters the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), sponsored by China, is expected to allow funding of coal-fired power plants that the World Bank has almost totally blocked.
“When you have 1.3 billion people starved of electricity access and the rest of the world has created a carbon space, at this point denying funding is denying access to cheap energy,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
India sits on the world’s fifth-largest reserves of coal, and the commodity generates three-fifths of India’s power supply. But the demand for electricity far outstrips supply, and according to data compiled by the World Resources Institute in 2012, proposals have been made to set up 455 new coal-fired plants in the country…
Since 2013, the World Bank’s energy strategy limits the financing of coal-fired power plants to “rare circumstances”, making it part of a push by U.S. President Barack Obama to fight climate change…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/06/us-india-aiib-insight-idUSKBN0IP2S020141106
even something as simple as a Wikipedia search can shoot down the typhoons claim:
Wikipedia: 2014 Pacific Typhoon Season
The season began with the formation of Tropical Storm Lingling on January 10, 2014; and ended after Tropical Storm Jangmi which dissipated on January 1, 2015. The season was not as active and costly as the previous typhoon season.
20
Just-A-Guy –
that Cleary is still in charge of this “relgious” program is another example of ABC’s indifference to their charter.
i turned on my little transistor radio for the news headlines while reading and caught this “climate” exchange. Cleary’s whole tone is political, not religious.
more & more we are seeing even the anti-religious MSM proclaiming CAGW is a moral issue, which must be backed by the Churches. it’s a joke really. expect more.
10
Andrew Bolt today (Monday) linked to an article that I pointed to earlier on this blog regarding budget cuts to ABC funding and its reduction to providing essential and non-competitive services.
Bolt says that it was meant to be a joke. Purpose served. 😉
Interesting comments on Andrew Bolt’s blog. A few seem convinced by the veneer.
00
Interview with Freeman Dyson by Stuart McNish – Vancouver Sun
00
China attacks the cause of real pollution.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-04/11/content_20409260.htm
00
Retired Sydney lawyer Ian Hipwell has something on his mind, with the clear intention of humiliating the AGW high priests.
http://climatechangepredictions.org/
00