There is no new science here but it could be the most simpering advertising I have seen dressed up as “reporting”.
IPCC: Climate scientists consider ‘life changing’ report
by Matt McGrath, Environment correspondent, BBC
It is likely to be the most critical and controversial report on climate change in recent years.
Scientists are meeting this week, right now, to try to save the world or to produce a PR and marketing excuse, whichever comes first. After 20 meetings just like this one even slow journalists like Matt McGrath at the BBC know exactly what the scientists will say before they have said it.
When is news not news:
After a week of deliberations in the city of Incheon, the researchers’ new report is likely to say that keeping below this limit will require urgent and dramatic action from governments and individuals alike.
When is news totally fake news:
These researchers, who are unpaid, have reviewed the available scientific literature on the feasibility, impacts and costs of staying under 1.5C.
This is true Pravda quality press. Does any one of these 86 researchers, getting a paid trip to South Korea to write a 15 page document, not have a fully paid up job at home? Time to tell Ofcomm, or better yet, cancel some salaries. The IPCC may not be paying them, but government grants almost certainly do, yet here is McGrath making out that they are some kind of volunteers?
Be swept away by accidental new insights:
One scientist told BBC News that our lives would never be the same if the world changed course to stay under 1.5C.
So true it must be a misprint.
If we changed course to obey the IPCC, life would change as we razed even more forests, eliminated Western manufacturing, and wiped out the last untouched wilderness to grow palm oil and soy beans. The old folks can die of pneumonia in cold rooms while the young clean the solar panels.
86 people will work all week on a 15 page report and we already know what it says?
It’s a banal committee meeting, no skeptics invited, but Matt McGrath is constructing epic mythology. With industrial sniveling like this below, what are the odds that he will ever ask one hard question?
Bring your anti-nausea pills:
How does the IPCC work?
Slowly and quite carefully.
Sure. This is why they reached their most alarming conclusion within five minutes of their first meeting and have spent the last three decades pedalling back from it.
The IPCC has been in existence for 30 years and produces detailed assessments of the state of the climate every six or seven years. This special report has been almost three years in the making.
Schmoozing unlimited:
“What is really important for the work of the IPCC is the respect for the integrity and scientific rigour of the authors – that is at the heart of the work of the author teams,” said Valérie Masson-Delmotte, a co-chair of the body.
“If one can imagine the governments holding the hands of the scientists, this means you don’t know how science works!”
Someone tell McGrath about ClimateGate and Michael Mann’s “Respect for integrity”.
Because so many people are involved, and all these review comments have been taken on board, the IPCC has a reputation for being rather conservative, producing reports that have a very broad consensus.
A reputation according to who?
This week in Incheon, the scientists and government delegates will go through the final, short, 15-page Summary for Policymakers, the key distillation of the underlying scientific reports.
This will be done word by word, to ensure everyone – scientists and governments alike – are in agreement on the text.
And anyone who doesn’t agree gets sacked at dawn.
Spot the science
As usual, the entire scientific premise is that its been hot lately compared to the last 1% of human civilization.
McGrath is so excited about the flashy graphics, he forgets 4 billion years of history:
The hottest that this location has *ever been…*
No live action on this graph here sorry. Go to the BBC to see it wiggle.
Source: Robert A. Rohde/Berkeley Earth. Map built using Carto
Note all the new evidence that coal changes the weather:
1. All new flashy moving graphics. Those graphs don’t just say “warming” they wriggle it and hide all those awkward pauses.
2. The gender nearly-neutrality: there are (wow) 86 lead authors from 39 countries, of which 39% are female (which curiously, is 33.5 women). Worryingly, LGBT percent and melanin content of the team are unstated. (If they were 61% white men, would that make them wrong?)
3. Really Big Numbers: the team has reviewed 6,000 references and 40,000 review comments. We won’t mention that 31,000 scientists think these 86 are still wrong.
4. New twist on old conspiracies: “This has led some critics to conclude that important aspects are being downplayed to suit the interests of countries with major fossil fuel industries, such as the United States, Saudi Arabia and Australia.” Isn’t this just business-as-usual at every international trade meeting since the Neanderthal era? So some countries downplay things to look after their own interests. This is called “negotiating”. Australia probably won’t.
How do we know this is agitprop?
The BBC interviews the science experts at Greenpeace, but forgets to phone Nobel Laureates who are skeptics.
“The overall big question in this report is how we can still get to that 1.5C goal? What does it take?”, said Kaisa Kosonen from Greenpeace.
“There are those for whom 1.5C is a matter of life or death and they want the message to be clear. Others might want to suggest that there is not scientific certainty and the messages, for example on rapid fossil-fuel phase-out, should not be so straightforward.”
Some things never change. Flashback to TwentyEightGate in 2012 when the BC secret was exposed: Greenpeace, activists, and BP decides what “science” Brits see.
Everyone knows what they will decide, but they will hammer it out anyway. Oh the drama!
Will sparks fly at this meeting?
Quite likely, yes!
IPCC sessions are closed from the public, to allow governments and scientists to speak freely.
Governments often seek to make changes to the text – the scientists are there to ensure that if changes are made, they are consistent with the research.
“I’ve never been to an approval session that didn’t go well after hours; it’s kind of IPCC working practice now,” said Prof Skea.
Closed sessions? Because thermometer readings and weather balloons need to be concealed? Or lest the public finds out how uncertain, debatable, and politically contrived it is.
h/t to George.
Well they would say that right about now wouldn’t they?
80
Om. Now say that 100 times.
40
Oh Oh! sucks to be them I suppose. It is fun to watch them support themselves on something more reliable than “renewables” though.
20
I my travels around the internet, dipping especially in a particular forum, I see that alarmist/warmists hardly say a word about the IPCC anymore.
I try to point out failing or failed IPCC prediction/projection a lot as I have today, they often ignore what the IPCC says, replies angrily instead as a deflecting attempt. Been showing the IPCC .3C/decade projected rate versus temperature data reality, they get angry at me with silly replies, but no effort to salvage the IPCC failures.
The IPCC reports have been mostly left behind by alarmist/warmists for some time now, even in the forum I linked to, I don’t recall when was the last time they used the IPCC at all.
30
How can the conflict of interest be so easily dismissed? The IPCC requires significant warming to justify their existence in support of the UNFCCC and its destructive anti-west agenda. The IPCC has become the arbiter of what is and what is not climate science by what they publish in their reports and has constructed a self serving consensus around those reports. The data and the laws of physics could not be any more clear that the IPCC is so wrong about the nominal ECS they claim, it’s an embarrassment to all of science.
Are alarmists really that stupid that they can’t see the obvious or are they just so politically biased that logic, reason and objectivity no longer have a place in their thinking.
I know there are many alarmist trolls lurking, so how about one of you tell us why this obvious conflict of interest doesn’t concern you.
382
Don’t bother challenging the same type of person that would participate in an IPCC public fund drive, the fact no red thumbers respond to questions says enough about their character.
222
As I implied above, the Green Blob just keeps repeating the mantra their gurus demand of them and nothing will change their minds. That’s why cult leaders like in the Jonestown massacre can find endless acolytes that blindly follow anything they say and get them to do anything they want. The climate scam is just another Jonestown, but on an enormous scale.
190
The only thing remarkable about the IPCC communication strategy is that it never changes and it never works.
When they started more than 20 years ago, it was made to sound like it would be easy and only vested interests were standing in the way of free solar and wind renewables. Today, its become clear that renewables often lead to higher energy prices so the audience starts out rather wary. Locking themselves in a room to develop a more compelling (scary) narrative to overcome the wariness is the equivalent of speaking louder to someone who does not understand the language your speaking.
Given the predictability of the message and its reception along with significant emissions backtracking by many nations, do you really want them to change anything?
110
I see a lot of people getting bored to tears over the boring IPCC babble, hearing the same doomsday bullcrap since 1990. People are slowly moving on not seeing the run away warming, the increasing cold and snow even in places not getting them in the past are impossible to ignore. Since the IPCC has been wrong too many times, the media knowing this have been of late elevating EVERY storm into dooms day hyperbole, that gets old too, people realize they hear the same bullcrap over and over, time to move on.
Why would anyone want to stick with a losing idea that are now decades old?
20
Paraphrasing Churchill —
“Never in the field of human science has so much cost been extrapolated from so little.”
40
“This has led some critics to conclude that important aspects are being downplayed to suit the interests of countries with major fossil fuel industries, such as the United States, Saudi Arabia and Australia.”
Does Australia have major fossil fuel industries on the basis of what it consumes or what it extracts? Must be on the basis of what it extracts, since Saudi Arabia is mentioned in the same breath. Moreover our coal exports far exceed our consumption.
How odd that uber-green Norway is not mentioned on the basis of what it extracts. (We’ll stick to oil and gas for the moment and pass over that massive timber industry.)
How odd that China is not mentioned. China is responsible for 47% of the world’s coal output and half the world’s consumption.
How can this be? It can be if you accept the fact that this has nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with the very deliberate politics of Globalism. It can be if you accept that the IPCC – chicks and all! – has nothing to do with science and is a political arm of Globalism. (Remember, the climatariat requires us to ignore decades, even centuries, of geology, glaciology, stratigraphy, archaeology, history etc. Chicks and all!)
So…not just a politicised arm, but a deliberately organised political arm. Of Globalism. No mistakes, no chance. Deliberate and organised and massively resourced and massively funded. Australia is to be among the first to have its middle class shrunk and its industrialisation reversed. Or do you reckon Malcolm just landed in the job because he took the train and Bronwyn took the chopper?
Wakey-wakey.
271
Chris Newman
THE GREAT SELL-OUT TO THE U.N. BY MARISE PAYNE AND THE LNP.
LET THEM KNOW YOUR VIEWS.
“So you are continuing the policy to gradually hand over Australia’s sovereign Right to Self-Rule and Self-Determination to the UN Bureaucrats and their unelected Political masters. That is Treachery and Betrayal of the first order. Show us in your Party’s Manifesto where it gives you, and your current colleagues the right to betray Australia in this way?. Tell the People of Australia how you intend to sell them out further In December when you intend to sign the UN Global Compact on Immigration, which will effectively hand over to the UN the control of immigration into Australia.
Tell them also how you intend to sign the Katowice Agreement at the same time which will similarly hand over control of Australia’s Carbon Emissions Target to the U.N. At a time when Australia should be completely reviewing its membership of the UN, its cost, and its impositions regarding immigration and payments to indolent countries, you are taking Australia deeper into the mire.
Australians are now more aware than ever how you, and other members of the Political Elite are gradually handing over Australia’s sovereign Right to Self-Rule and Self Determination to the U.N. to e4nable their megalomaniac ambitions of World Government. You and your Party will pay dearly for such treachery at the next election.”
Australia Minister for Foreign Affairs Marise Payne Address/Speech at United UN 73rd Session
301
Sorry, mucked up the link;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMYyRpSdz6Y&t=1s
50
Dennis
I watched the Payne UN speech ( your link ) but your quote above is certainly not from it. Where is it from, and how is it relevant?
30
Maybe watch it again but pay attention this time , you’ll also hear the heartfelt plea on an anti nuke stance but apparently today she praised the Iran nuclear deal .
While this is in contrast to what Trump has done ,to me it shows a double standard .
Dennis may have over egged it a little but it’s all there if you listen closely, none of this should be a surprise anyway if you see what’s entailed in the Paris agreement.
30
It’s what a British government, actually successive ones, did – they gave away our sovereignty to the EU.
The archetype, trial run if you prefer, for an unaccountable and unelected form of government designed to bring democracy to an end globally. Why? Because the self-styled ‘progressive’ elite believe the little people are too stupid to make the ‘right’ decisions.
Project Fear, designed to try and keep us a subject state of the EU is now in overdrive.
The IPCC, terrified of Trump and the Republicans is desperate to renew their fear campaign to help the Democrats in the mid term elections.
The Democrats (aka marxist-socialists) would wholeheartedly support the UN’s push for unelected global government by means of climate change. The EU is of similar intent.
The American people woke up and voted for Trump, we Brita had the chance and voted to restore our sovereignty.
Don’t allow democracy to vanish in Australia because of politicians who are determined to strip it from you and hand it to the U.N..
181
Well you cant bring Marxism in globally, unless the USA has been hobbled militarily first, which is why I think the US globalist neo-cons are pushing hard for war ( apart from the usual profit motive ), but based on what we know of the Russian military capability, I suspect the americans could wind up on their backsides, the S-300 “Sunburn” missiles come to mind. But if you accept that globalists have no national allegiance of any type, getting one ( Communist ) country to cripple the remaining bulwark against global communism is a good way to allow the un-accountable, Occult UN to run the show as a global govt…..
12 “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. 13 These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. 14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”
Note from this Bible verse, that the kings of the earth ( the coming 10 Super nations like EU, AU, ASEAN, NAFTA etc ) give their authority to the Beast ( likely ruling from the UN )
“15 Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which you [g]saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. 18 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.””
( Rev 17:15-18 )
81
Marise Payne boasts about doling out more $$$ at UN for Paris climate accord – Michael Smith News
http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2018/09/marise-payne-boasts-about-doling-out-more-at-un-for-paris-climate-accord.html
50
How do we know it’s agitprop?
The BBC’s lips are moving.
160
“Is that true, or did you hear it on the BBC?”
20
So “scientific” graphs are animated now?
80
Yes, crayons for grownups….
50
According to various news outlets (one referenced below) the IPCC/UN is about to announce that the world must by 2030 reduce the amount of coal we burn by a third if we are to avoid a significant rise in global temperatures. Let me guess what dozens of countries will do with that announcement – laugh at it and continue to build several hundreds more of coal fired power stations consuming more and more coal, much of it coming from here in Australia. So why are the left here (some in the LNP) want to keep closing down our coal fired power stations and rely more on renewables sending power prices even higher and eventually crashing our economy? Of course there a a number of answers to that question depending on the individual, ranging from being simply clueless, stupid and/or ignorant all the way to being pure evil and wanting to destroy our Western way of life. Regardless of the reasons of which there are many the only sensible response Morrison can send to the UN is to tell them first make countries like China stop building so many coal fired power stations and start closing down their existing ones before we close down one more. Otherwise it’s pointless even if the CAGW were true. The silly thing about all this crap coming from the UN is China for example is building many more multiple of coal fired power stations than our existing ones here in Australia. So closing down even all ours, which would crash and burn our economy would be a total waste of effort in the supposed and fictional fight against climate change. The truth is the UN is only interested in one thing and it has nothing to do with climate change – it’s all about ripping more money from us and other nations.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-30/coal-pollution-gets-much-deeper-cut-ipcc-report-on-climate-change
70
“The IPCC has been in existence for 30 years and produces detailed assessments of the state of the climate every six or seven years”
And who remembers the UN-IPCC failed alarmist reports?
June 1989: “UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
The UN scaremongering has a long history. Here is one from 1982:
World To End Before The Year 2000
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=o5tlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TYwNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5103,351973&dq=ecological+holocaust&hl=en
“Lack of such action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness such devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”
If you can read this, I am writing from the grave …
90
NASA has recently conceded we are facing a real threat of a rapidly cooling earth thanks to the faster than usual decline in Solar Cycle #24. This is all based on real observable evidence and not the usual distortions of the data. They have announced the upper atmosphere is losing heat energy rapidly and admit if the current trend continues we could be facing a dramatic cooling period. So much for the UN report. I bet they didn’t properly take into account the sun when they worked on the latest IPCC report.
160
Here is the link for thermosphere cools, I found the comments amusing.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/28/nasa-the-chill-of-solar-minimum-is-being-felt-in-our-atmosphere-cooling-trend-seen/
50
And the originators of the story can send you updates on the latest figures.
See https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/
40
Yes many of the comments are a reflection of what happens when one side can’t handle the truth and instead resorts to various forms of innuendos and verbal attacks on the messenger. That’s why the left don’t ever want to have a real debate in public – they know they would lose big time based on the evidence at hand. Instead they hide behind their distortions of the evidence and violent tendencies to try and cover up their ignorance and/or lies and divert everyone’s attention away from the truth.
120
Scroll down closer to the bottom you can enjoy the technical arguments.
30
I won’t ever get that far. WUWT needs to moderate much better. The post looks like it was over run by people intending to take a serious subject and make it useless.
90
Yes but … its like any tutorial, completely off track but eventually settling down to the post at hand.
Does a cooling thermosphere indicate that the world is entering a cooler phase? Scott Morrison needs to know.
20
I am a Moderator at WUWT, there have been software problems, which is why the recent version was dropped to fix up the board. It is hard to clean up a board when too many wander around the posted article with comments.
It is much better down the page.
20
In my humble opine, the important thing a blog moderator does is keep the topic on track. When I went to read that WUWT post I was over half way through 350 posts without any memorable on-topic discussion.
Sorry, I won’t have that much patients and the drivel allowed to remain was not funny enough to keep my attention either. Down the page should have been moved up with prudent and severe editing.
Will I go back to WUWT for the second half of 350 posts? Nope.
10
I have found the previous reports convincing, and I’m sure that this one will be convincing as well. Blathering about the financial status of the reviewers will not change the science.
312
I’m sure you have Peter.
53
What science would that be? The sort that needs in-camera approval by politicians before it is published…?
100
The sort that is based on fantasy propaganda – pure watermelon politics that doesn’t do science.
110
That’s where people like you have got it backwards. Science keeps on changing. For example, the science used to say that light was made up of tiny particles of matter. We now know that’s not true.
40
but light still behaves like a particle (and a wave as well) – this is called a photon
42
True. If one uses the alternative definition of a particle a photon not only behaves like a particle is IS a particle. It’s just not a particle of minute matter as per the other more classical definition of the word. In quantum mechanics a photon is a particle of energy sometimes referred to as a wave packet. There’s much more to it of course but this is not the place to have a deep dive in such matters. Suffice to say light is still much of a mystery to physicists as we don’t have all the answers as yet.
60
Good
10
You would find a Grimm Bros fairy tale convincing !!
50
How have you been convinced when their forecasts fail to happen and continually have to be revised towards reality/long term trend minus hockey sticks.
60
UNexit.
Paris exit.
Look at Brexit and learn.
Reject undemocratic control of Aus.
KK
150
AUxit?
60
Measuring temperature is absurd. Why aren’t they measuring CO2 or even CH4 against time? Isn’t that the point, the entire point of the report? By the only measure which matters to the whole concept of AGW, why aren’t they measuring the effectiveness of the last 30 years?
Why doing is more of the same pointless stuff going to make a difference if 350,000 windmills and millions of solar panels and diesels and offset schemes have not had the slightest impact on CO2 growth?
Why limit CO2 growth when temperature rises have stalled for 20 years, or are they living on a different planet?
Why talk about pollution when everything is perfectly natural. The only real pollution is generated by the IPCC. The InterGovernmental Panel for Continuing C*ap, to quote our sensible Ex Prime Minister.
120
Also the graph looks exactly like Dr.Weiss’ prediction which fits the last 2500 years. According to this accurate fit to history, the temperature should climb until about 2000 and then start to fall very quickly in 2020. This only takes two solar cycles to reproduce, one the 248 year DeVries solar cycle and the other the 65 year induced terrestial osciallation AMO PDO .
CO2 growth is obviously natural. In fact reducing CO2 would be the worst thing we could possibly do to feed a booming population and would devastate the planet. Billions would die. In that the IPCC are right, man made climate change would be deadly. Luckily nothing they have done has had any effect on CO2.
110
For those who haven’t seen it 17:47 along.
Oscillation of 65 years superimposed on the 200 year oscillation. As he says, trivial.
90
Also Prof Weiss’ graph matches those of independent solar researchers, not climate ‘scientists’. His graph does not require ANY monotonic component, it’s all just two cycles. So unlike Dr. Mann and the IPCC scientists, Prof Weiss has a complete explanation in the simplest possible terms and an explanation of the entire time period over 2500 years and correctly predicted, the climb in the last 20th century.
There is a problem coming however, a rapid drop in world temperature. With that, CO2 levels will drop. Then we have a real problem. Survival.
120
Perhaps the useless Desalination plants could be retrofitted to extract CO2 from the oceans and enable the cycle of life to continue.
KK
40
Sorry KK, Warragamba is dropping quite quickly.
The desal gets the message to turn back on when it drops to 60%.
(or is that system total storage, I can never remember)
Then it is in full production several months later regardless of rainfall.
If the current natural drought continues, it will probably be needed.
This is all because the green agenda has not allowed the building of Welcome Reef and other storage assets.
Of course, its not going to help much during summer with air-con etc stretching the electricity system already. Desal takes energy !
What a mess we have allowed the green agenda to get us into. DUMB !!!
60
Andy, I was being a bit sarcastic there.
The last I heard, the expensive desalination plants weren’t working.
🙂
KK
10
The roof is basically fixed and the desal plant is getting ready for the start-up command.
It will be used if there is not significant rain in the near future.
Not this summer, too late anyway, but if they are brought into operation for next summer it will put incredible strain on an already dubious electricity supply system.
Can’t tell you more than that.
00
Its about time Ockham’s Razor was applied to a few ‘theories’
60
When I do that I get red bumps
30
Have heard that what we breath out plants breath in and what plants breath out we breath in , so break the chain and see what happens .
30
Many warmists unable to cope,
Need Incheon to offer some hope,
From what I.P.C.C. will predict,
By consensus edict,
Like a conclave electing a pope.
90
Mebbe a gramme of Soma?
40
Soylent has a nice green colour.
20
Like Mencken said,
politicks deals in dread,
fear ‘n guilt, up to the hilt,
most of it imaginary hobgoblins,
or guvuhmint-created-problems.
50
IPCC. Irresponsible Promoters of the Climate Cult.
120
New IPCC report to demand less meat in our diets – time we told the UN to shove it
http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2018/10/new-ipcc-report-to-demand-less-meat-in-our-diets-time-we-told-the-un-to-shove-it.html
THE UN IS AN ANTI HUMAN COMMUNIST ORGANIZATION AND MUST BE DISBANDED ASAP!!!!!
EVIL AHOLES!@#$
131
Prof debunks flatulence as major cause of global warming
The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used the report to forecast that Himalayan glaciers might vanish within 25 years.
Outside groups reacted to the U.N.’s claims by launching efforts to slow global warming by getting the public to go meatless one day a week, as way of lowering demand for livestock products.
Mitloehner convinced the U.N. to recant its claim in 2010.
http://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/prof-debunks-flatulence-as-major-cause-of-global-warming/article_1c6c9c5e-2dbb-11e2-9e51-0019bb2963f4.html
60
Actually back a few years ago the NZ govt was going to introduce what was called a ‘fart’ tax. Taxing livestock to reduce their ‘methane’ flatulence which was going to cook the planet..insanity at the highest levels of Gov. (nothing new of course).
80
the Real Universe @ 15.1.1
.
This IS the Real Universe
.
Quoted from “Turbotax ; tax year 2017;
7 crazy taxes
Cow Flatulence Tax;’
The world of mankind has gone truly mad!
110
Well not really, the UN is as evil as it is cunning….
No govt can exist without a tax base.
Fart tax = UN.
Kind of fitting, really…..
70
The helenair article is paywalled.
10
Worse than that, the UN has been pushing for increased consumption of insects for some time, although I’m sure the Elites will continue to enjoy their steaks.
http://www.fao.org/edible-insects/en/
60
Tim Blair: Australia should have nothing to do with the United Nations
http://morningmail.org/get-un-tim-blair/#comment-89306
50
30 Sept: TWEET: Business Standard India:
US has asked for more than a hundred changes in UN climate change report. One comment says, “SPM should reconcile the lack of empirical evidence that increased warming to date has so far been detrimental to human and environment”; analyses @nit_set
LINK
https://twitter.com/bsindia/statuses/1046600338969628672
9 Sept: Empirical Evidence Shows Temperature Increases Before CO2 Increase in ALL Records
Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
The definition given to the IPCC should have required them to examine the entire issue of climate and climate change. Then and only then, should they have considered the possible human-caused portion of climate change. Apparently, after the debacle of the 2001 Report in which a deliberate attempt was made to rewrite climate history, the IPCC acknowledged the problem of the definition by offering a better one. However, it only appeared as a footnote in the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the simplified and exaggerated Report produced for the politicians. It said,
“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
The problem is this appeared in the SPM not in the WG I Report. It was impossible to apply it to “IPCC usage” in the 2007 WGI Report because that document is cumulative and built on the limited material of all previous Reports. To apply it in the 2007 Report required starting the entire process over. It appears it was presented to mislead the policymakers reading the SPM. It appears it was included so IPCC could point to it and say to those who questioned the limitations created by the original definition that their work was a result of consideration of, “natural variability or as a result of human activity.” It is, in effect, a most remarkable phenomenon, a retroactive deception…
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/empirical-evidence-shows-temperature-increases-before-co2-increase-in-all-records/
image of the full text of the comment which includes the “SPM” mention in the Business Standard tweet above:
30 Sept: TWEET: Nitin Sethi: Scoop: The US under @realDonaldTrump demands that the latest UN #climatechange science report be diluted. Says, global warming has not impacted humanity so far. Rejects #SDGs targets besides #ParisAgreement…ETC
IMAGE/TEXT
One comment from the US says…READ ALL
https://twitter.com/nit_set/status/1046590057803591681
60
Let me see. 98% of all CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. You heat the oceans and atmospheric CO2 goes up.
However Climate Scientists tell us that if you heat the oceans, CO2 goes in. They call it acidification.
One of these is very silly make believe science.
So either warming the oceans increases aerial CO2 or increasing aerial CO2 increases water temperature.
Which one fits the facts?
Everyone knows warm beer goes flat. You do not need to be a climate scientist.
110
This is an annoying geophysical FACT for these morons, and any gov quango reading this site.
FACT: at ANY time (peak seasons NH-SH) the temperature on this planet surface ranges over at least ~130C! That is at least -80C polar to +55C Sahara (or even in OZ). Temperature variations are due to complex systems or water vapour and latent heat transfer in the troposphere, circulation etc etc…. oops too hard to grasp sorry.
STUPIDITY: 1.5C wont even register, the FACT that humans cant alter anything just doesnt dawn in there pig headed brains or lack of.
110
In fact I endured many days of -40C in Fort Collins, Colorado in mid winter and in the same place, days of +40C in summer. I cannot see that a change of 1C in an average makes any difference, except at the North Pole where the average in summer is +0C, which is why the self appointed climate scientists go on about a place where no one lives.
90
That -80C was recorded at Vostok Antarctic. Im not sure what the lowest Arctic one is.
00
Notwithstanding that on a global average basis (whatever that actually is) we have just been through the coldest September since 2013, and its about to go into winter in the Northern Hemisphere!
90
From Berniel, the scientific blogger who wrote the defining article based on the records and the recollections of the attendees on the beginnings of the global warming cult with his “Madrid 1995; Tipping Point” and the conclusion changing corruption that Ben Santer, the appointed recorder of the proceedings created when he, under instructions from John Houghton it is suspected, changed the substance of the Madrid Conference’s conclusions from;
[ quoted wording below to be found in Madrid 1995: The Last Day of Climate Science (Part II)
—-
A somewhat easier to read copy of Berniels “Madrid 1995 “blog posts can be found on WUWT here.
———
More, lots more that should open quite a number of eyes to the manner in which the original aims and structure of the IPCC was grossly corrupted quite early in the IPCC’s existence.
And the name [ John ] Houghton keeps on coming up repeatedly in those corrupting changes.
Finally lest there be any doubt, the single major basic statement underpinning the whole of the IPCC’s reasons for its existence.
Quoted from the IPCC’s Charter.
.
the IPCC has been now set up quite specifically, not to study the Earth’s climate, thats incidental to the main purpose of today’s IPCC, but to ;
70
Not a scientific goal but a political goal.
The ‘comprehensive,’ ‘objective,’ ‘open’ and ‘transparent,’
are just a decoy to pretend they’re doing science investigation.
40
… which assumptions and the ensuing assertions have been very very difficult to prove except to the most gullible and credulous. The incontrovertible (as in measurable and assignable with certainty) evidence is so shy, it can’t be found, except in their dreams.
10
nothing new today in the google news grouping on the Incheon IPCC meeting, but a SINGLE tweet is included when you expand the grouping, and it’s from Michael Mann.
am not singling out the tweet itself, because it only shows a single reply –
TreeOfKnowledge @MonkeyMyBack · Sep 30
Replying to @MichaelEMann @CharlesDarwinTX
Its because Governments around the world are puppets to Fossil Fuel interests
—
because his entire twitter thread says so much more about just how partisan political he is – check it out.
also notice how virtually no-one responds to anything he tweets, so why should he be featured by google in the first place?
30 Sept: TWEET: Michael E. Mann: “UN report spotlights government inaction on climate” by @MarloweHood of @AFP News Agency via @YahooNews …
Michael E. Mann Retweeted
Peter GleickVerified account @PeterGleick · 4 hours ago
I just donated to ten more democratic candidates in tough races but with a real chance to flip some bad Rs out of office.
Easy to donate to all at once here: https://techsolidarity.org/resources/great_slate.html …
Michael E. Mann Retweeted
Roland Pease (BBC) @PeaseRoland · 7 hours ago
Part 2 of my look into the climate connection with the year’s extreme weather. Including the Arctic connection, planetary wave resonance, and ocean surface temperatures. With @MichaelEMann
Dim Coumou, @JulienneStroeve, @FrediOtto and more. On air soon.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann
AUDIO: 26min29sec: 2 Oct: BBC Discovery: The Long Hot Summer (part 2)
Discovery, Heatwave Episode 2 of 2
This summer the Northern Hemisphere has been sweltering in unusually high temperatures. It’s been hot from the Arctic to Africa. This has led to increased deaths, notably in Canada, and more wildfires, even in Lancashire and in Sweden. Can we say that this heatwave – and the extreme drought in Australia – is a result of climate change? Or is just part of the variable weather patterns we have on our planet?
Roland Pease gets answers to these questions from the world’s leading climate and weather scientists. He picks apart the influences of the jet stream, the El Nina and the Atlantic decadal oscillation from that of global warming.
Image: Arctic Pack Ice near Svalbard, Norway
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csxlqb
20
Not very long ago I happened across a comment along the lines that the IPCc which was always being quoted in the MSM had recently almost faded out from mentions in the aforesaid MSM since Trump withdrew American financial support from the IPCC.
.
Sept 2017;
Countries to increase financial contributions to the IPCC to cover for US’s halt of funding
My heart bleeds!
60
Nothing quite like shovelling good money into a socialist black hole….
50
as “gender” gets mentioned, this is not o/t.
immediately thought of the Tim Hunt nastiness and, sure enough, Hunt story gets a selective mention at the end of the article, and in the linked original BBC report by Pallab Ghosh:
2 Oct: BBC: Cern scientist Alessandro Strumia suspended after comments
A senior scientist who said physics “was invented and built by men” has been suspended with immediate effect from working with the European nuclear research centre Cern.
Prof Alessandro Strumia, of Pisa University, made the comments during a presentation organised by the group.
He said, in comments ***first reported by the BBC’s Pallab Ghosh, that physics was “becoming sexist against men” (LINK).
Cern said on Monday it was suspending Prof Strumia pending an investigation.
It stated that his presentation was “unacceptable”…
Prof Strumia, who regularly works at Cern, was speaking at a workshop in Geneva on gender and high energy physics.
He told his audience of young, predominantly female physicists that his results “proved” that “physics is not sexist against women. However the truth does not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside”…
Cern – which currently has its first ever woman director-general – said in an earlier statement the organisers were not aware of the content of the talk prior to the workshop.
A Cern spokesman confirmed that there was a video recording of the presentation. Senior managers would decide whether to release part or all of it, it said.
In 2015, Nobel laureate Prof Tim Hunt resigned from his position at University College London after telling an audience of young female scientists at a conference in South Korea that the “trouble with girls” in labs was that “when you criticise them, they cry”.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45709205
theirABC jump on it, of course:
2 Oct: ABC: Associated Press: CERN suspends physicist who claimed physics was ‘invented by men’, and that ‘somebody had to speak’
The slides featured charts, graphs and tables that are hard to understand out of context, but one quotation said “physics invented and built by men, it’s not by invitation”.
Professor Strumia told the Associated Press he wanted to debunk what he insists was a misconception, and said he does not believe men are better than women in physics.
“This workshop was continuously [saying] ‘men are bad, men are sexist, they discriminate against us’, lots of things like this,” he said.
“I did a check to see if this was true … and the result was that was not true.
“There is a political group that wants women, and other people, to believe that they are victims,” he said…
“I believe CERN is making a mistake. They suspended me because it’s true … and it’s contrary to the political line. And I hope CERN will at some point understand, I hope this is just the first self-preservation instinct,” he said.
“Somebody had to speak.”…
Strumia’s claims challenged by seminar attendees…
Laura Covi, who studies cosmology at Georg-August University in Goettingen, Germany and was at the seminar, said Professor Strumia’s comments did not go over well.
“He was claiming that some women were getting … positions with fewer [journal] citations than men,” she said.
“I’m not so sure his thesis was supported by the data.”…
CERN is currently headed by a woman, Italian particle physicist Fabiola Gianotti.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-02/physicist-suspended-by-cern-claims-physics-was-invented-by-men/10327668
40
The pressure.
I am considering what it would mean, late in life to be Neutered and be above all this LBQTI1/2M1/2F dysphororia.
KK
30
after the mocking, and exaggerated claims, a somewhat more sober ending:
2 Oct: ABC: Tesla battery proves a leading source of dispatchable power, AEMO says
By Stephen Long
Scott Morrison said it would be about as useful for the electricity system as the Big Banana at Coffs Harbour or the Big Prawn at Ballina in NSW…
Resources Minister Matt Canavan reportedly dismissed the big battery as “the Kim Kardashian of the energy world: it’s famous for being famous [but] doesn’t do very much”.
Yet no less an authority than the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) disagrees.
“Its ability to respond very, very quickly to the different types of conditions that we see on the power system has been very encouraging for us,” AEMO’s executive general manager of operations Damien Sanford told the ABC.
AEMO’s data shows that it can dispatch power far more rapidly and precisely than conventional thermal power stations and more swiftly and accurately than the market operator thought possible — while also pushing down prices.
“We’ve been pleasantly surprised and would encourage more of this technology into the grid,” Mr Sanford said…
In the partisan ideological debate over power, that message hasn’t universally sunk in…
Politicians and others hostile to renewable energy feed a constant message that wind power and solar power are a threat to reliable energy supply, yet their output is highly predictable.
But Mr McConnell said the bigger threat came from coal-fired power stations suddenly and unexpectedly breaking down — something that has happened on numerous occasions in recent times, particularly in hot weather.
In these circumstances, the Tesla battery has helped to play a role in stabilising the grid, according to AEMO and other experts…
Mr McConnell said the battery helped shore up the entire grid.
“We have seen several occasions where large coal-fired power stations have tripped and the Tesla battery has jumped in to help control frequency,” he said.
He dismissed some claims from enthusiasts who had implied that the big battery has single-handedly saved the electricity system from collapse when big coal-fired power generators have failed — it’s not big enough for that.
But it has played a role and responded extremely rapidly, demonstrating the potential of the technology.
Said Mr Sanford: “This technology, as it becomes more common in the system, can actually contribute to a more secure and reliable system.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-02/tesla-battery-proves-a-leading-source-of-dispatchable-power/10326420
30
Let’s see how the big battery goes next time there’s no wind and the temps get to the high 30’s low 40’s for a few days .
80
The big battery is probably very good at responding to sudden changes on the grid which would otherwise trigger shutdowns. Windmills can change quickly from max output to zero with increasing wind speeds. The big battery could take the load until a diesel takes over. Of course we could avoid the entire scenario by building reliable generation to start with.
110
Depends on the context of the power variation. In load terms the battery could be (and most likely) completly useless. Its role is supposed to be FCAS but that seems to get mixed with references to it supplying despatchable power. The power it delivers is just an arbitrage game, charge low, sell high , less losses. This really does nothing for the grid and introduces risks of not being ready for FCAS at times.
30
Some so called “experts” probably would have a hard time knowing which side of a AAA battery is positive. Sure current grid battery storage technology is available to provide us a more stable grid in times of interruptions, such as extended heat waves, wind storms, etc.. and to tide us over fairly long periods, such as hours if not days. The problem though is the cost. To do it properly to cover the more populated areas the cost would be in the 100’s of billions if not trillions. It’s just pure economic insanity to say battery technology is some sort of magic bullet to solve most of our power interruptions where it counts the most – in the major cities.
If we wanted to provide a useful means to backup our coal fired power stations, the solution is pretty obvious. Just build more of them just as many other countries like China are doing right now. We have the cheap high quality coal that we keep exporting to those nations so we should follow them and get over this nonsense of thinking we can backup our existing coal fired power stations with batteries that would end costing the equivalent of 10’s of new coal fired power stations. However, we don’t need 10’s of new coal fired power stations. We just need a few, well below the cost of implementing a workable and realistic battery backup solution for our grid.
90
Amazing isnt it that power has been so reliable for the last 50 years before he arrival of intermittents. Everything people oooh and ahh about was built into the grid. Somehow we survived with the oh so clever big battery and lunchtime power.
30
(As usual, the patspam potpourri lacks any analysis so it falls to the rest of us to do the work.)
ABC hornswoggles readers about Hornsdale.
This
articlestory was a great example of the ABC’s double-speak, where they pretend words have one meaning in one statement, just so they can use the same word with that false meaning in a different seemingly contradictory statement.They first try to contradict ScoMo by the careful use of selective quoting. But a search for the full quote shows this at DailyMail:
You don’t run a household on “ancilliary” generators, it’s impossible. When placed in its original context, ScoMo’s quote was obviously talking about bulk generation for the total consumer power requirement. He was not talking about FCAS. But the ABC pretends that he was.
The ABC is then forced to contradict themselves by admitting:
They do not object to the point ScoMo made, which is that 100MW is a drop in the ocean of demand.
It is not clear if the battery was designed to provide FCAS, as it was bought on a whim because Wetherdill was desperate to stop outages and Tesla saw a chance for a quick sale. It’s totally irrelevant if the battery was designed to provide FCAS, because that is not “the problem” that SA and Australia more widely has. The problem is getting main load power generation reliably. FCAS does not address that need at all.
As for Canavan’s statement, RenewEconomy previously published his official response:
Once again, Canavan was not talking about FCAS, he was observing that the battery power being tiny in comparison to total demand means it does not actually replace drop-outs of planned supply. It can only briefly offset surges in demand which lower grid frequency if left unchecked.
The purpose of the diesels is also FCAS and emergency backup, and must take over when the battery has done its dash and is depleted. Again, there was no problem with FCAS, the diesels and conventional battery banks already used for FCAS were working well enough in their role before Musk chimed in. Just because the battery is an improved FCAS does not mean it is a solution to SA’s energy supply woes.
Then there’s this amazing comment:
There is no source given for that statement about predictability. This is apparently the ABC journo injecting their own opinion into the
articlestory. It’s also false. You can predict within 10% what a coal-fired power station will be outputting 7 days in the future at 4am. There is no such predictability for wind power. But yes, the output of a solar farm at 4am is quite predictable, not that zero megawatts is much help!Sure, and if you put Tesla’s battery in front of the coal-fired station it would perform FCAS just as well, but the Tesla battery was put next to a wind farm to create a time-shifting fig-leaf for the unreliability of wind power. The battery is never a substitute for a lost power station, as the interconnectors to Victoria and NSW do that. The purpose of the Hornsdale battery is to allow coal and gas fired power stations in neighbouring States to take over SA’s power supply seamlessly when their own stations fall short of planned capacity.
Modelling at Uni SA showed that with a battery power about 25% of the wind farm nameplate capacity (rememberng the real Tesla one is about 30% of Hornsdale), the whole ensemble would be able to meet scheduled dispatch target only 10% more often than if it had no battery at all. That is the entire theoretical advantage to the wind farm. A rather small fig-leaf. So you can see why the FCAS benefit has been touted more loudly than the time-shift benefit.
But where do all these frequency disturbances come from and why would better FCAS be needed? The ABC would have you believe it’s mainly the fault of coal power stations dropping out. To borrow the ABC’s own rhetorical style, no less an authority than the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) disagrees:
Wind and solar energy are so abundant in South Australia they had to be supplemented by diesel. 🙂 So SA added a bunch of unreliable renewables, then it was the variability of the renewables that caused the need for better FCAS. Like digging a hole then digging another hole to use the dirt to fill in the first hole.
70
Pat provides a useful round-up that most of us haven’t the time and energy to pursue; perhaps you can supply as much as regularly in your own format?
60
No, I don’t work for you and these days cliimate chaaange is hardly one of my interests. I have shown what can be done by anyone who wants to actually aid understanding of the issue, and it takes much more time to do analysis than a “roundup”.
My point was that I don’t see it as useful, as from pat you get the same as 10 minutes per day doing a few keyword searches of Google News (e.g. here.) If you think it is a huge time saver you just didn’t know how to do it quickly yourself.
Setting aside search skill, I guess my irk boils down to… if you don’t have anything to say, why say anything?
And how do we know pat isn’t a bot? 😀
OK. We don’t have to agree. Value is subjective. I’ll just scroll on.
22
Andrew,
I think that you are being very unfair here.
pat gives a round up of current news sources. How much time in the day does that take? I would say a very large amount.
If there are issues which require more research or study then I think it is more than reasonable for others to pile in and add detail.
90
Andrew McRae @ #24.4
I also saw the quote; Then there’s this amazing comment:
To say the least when I saw that quote earlier today I was astonished at the sheer ignorance and utterly blind hubris and total lack of any real world knowledge of the real situation of wind and sun from the obviously very securely sequestered politician and his idiot running dogs in the ABC, all apparently completely isolated from Nature and worldly realities in thier impervious to basic facts bubble, which high income isolation and insulation earn’t more often than not through mendaciously quoted untruths and deep rabid green inner city uninformed opinions would be about the only way of justifying their decision for them to make that type of idiotic quote.
——–
Unfortunately we also here in Victoria are going to be forced to live with the dream by our ‘FW’ premier Daniel Andrews and his progressive trending ever more leftist Labour Party and the hell with the consequences.
Of course, the stupidity of the political and green classes in believing that they have beaten or will and can beat Nature at her own game of keeping everybody guessing won’t really hit home until Victoria too goes all renewable and SA suddenly discover that they are at the end of the [ HV ] line literally and due to their small size are almost as low in the pecking order for the essential power as it is possible to get.
Amazingly so many of the politicians and green bureacrats of today are so bloatedly full of their own hubris and importance that they seem to have no inkling of the way in which they will be regarded and denigrated to the extreme by future historians and even generations for the hardship, the unreliability, the destruction of the social structure of a society , all through by what they are trying to impose on the populace by destroying the incredible half century long civilisation creating electrical generated energy sources and replacing those reliable essential energy sources with completely unpredictable , unreliable, incredibly costly, two entirely separate power generation systems, one of which being the most reliable and predictable and cheapest is by political dictate now forced to act intermittently as an absolutely reliable back up energy generation system when the completely unpredictable and horrendously expensive renewable enery generators fail in their prime purpose for existing, .
And thats to provide a utterly predictable dead steady system of electrical energy generation providing power 24/ 7 / 365 in almost unlimiteed amounts if and when required.
[ I well remember the sheer venom that was thrown at the 1930’s politicians by the citizens of the 1940’s and the victims of the politically created Great depression . Those whose memories of the political landscape and the collossal political and economic failures brought on by the same levels of idiocy as today by the politicians of the first half of the 20th century which were still fresh in their minds as was the sheer economic destruction of the Great Depression and the following and consequent 70 to 90 million dead of WW2.
So also will the destruction of our ultra reliable reliable energy system legacy by the stupidity of the politicals, the hubris and utter hyopocrisy and outright ignorance of the inner city elites and the hubris laden opinionated running dogs in the mass media be remembered by the generations that are now reaching an age where worldly events have begun to be thought about and attitudes formed that will last most of them for the rest of their lives.]
60
So 2018 is destined only to be the 4th warmest year? The IPCC must be asleep at the wheel. Surely with a bit of a tweak it could be the warmest ever by .00001 degrees or something?
110
There are many ways to keep the temps higher. One is the one-second spike recorded by an AWS – something an old style thermometer could never do.
For instance, the highest temp today in Casino has been 25.7C at 11:47am.
According to the 10-min recordings it was 23.8C at 11:40am and 23.6C at 11:50am.
This is a rise of of 1.9C in 7 mins and a fall of 2.1C in 3 mins. The sun has been out for most of the day. No averaging – just the spike.
Another way to increase the is the practice of smoothing temps.
Every site in the far north coast had below max mean temps for Sept. But if you check the map, it shades in above average means for the area.
http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap/temperature/maxanom/month/colour/history/ns/2018090120180930.gif
The whole temp record is a load of crock but no politician wants to unleash an enquiry.
90
“The whole temp record is a load of crock..” I would say that is true for most of the present temp records across the western world. There is good evidence that NASA(and NOAA) practices temp ‘fiddling’.
60
And here is some proof to your statement re NASA. Just check these adjustments to Darwin.
GISS NASA data prior to 2010.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501941200004&dt=1&ds=1
GISS NASA adjusted data after 2010.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show.cgi?id=501941200000&ds=5&dt=1
(You can still see the adjustments in lighter colours in the background).
The plateauing of temps from 1998 to 2008 caused a fair bit of worry to the warmists.
So in 2009 Tom Wigley thought of an idea and sent an email to Phil Jones about getting rid of the ‘1940’s blip’, which in part says;
‘So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.’
By 2011, all was OK again.
50
re the SCMP writer below:
Lowy Institute bio: Frederick Kuo is a UCLA graduate, real estate brokerage owner and published writer based in San Francisco, California. His writing focuses on socio-economic issues, geopolitics, culture and people pieces and has been published on reputable publications such as the San Francisco Examiner, Quartz, The South China Morning Post, Asia Times, The Diplomat, Citymetric and many others.
—
a timely reminder. Kuo – in bits not excerpted – still buys into China trying to get away from coal mantra; however, his own article proves otherwise:
1 April: SouthChinaMorningPost: A new coal war frontier emerges as China and Japan compete for energy projects in Southeast Asia
Frederick Kuo says Southeast Asia’s appetite for coal has spurred a new geopolitical rivalry between China and Japan as the two countries race to provide high-efficiency, low-emission technology
by Frederick Kuo
A joint report by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and CoalSwarm indicates that Southeast Asia will be the new epicentre of coal production. Asia accounts for 85 per cent of new coal power development in the world’s top 20 coal producing countries, with China as the leader of the pack. However, while tighter restrictions on domestic coal plants have been imposed by the central government to curb pollution, Beijing has pushed the development of high-efficiency, low-emission coal plants across Southeast Asia as part of the “Belt and Road Initiative”…
The booming energy sector of Southeast Asia, especially coal, is proving to be the new front line in the geopolitical rivalry between Asia’s two industrial giants…
Chinese energy planners have realised they cannot relinquish coal as a major power source for the foreseeable future. The country remains highly dependent on coal, with coal sources accounting for roughly 73 per cent of China’s electricity production in 2014, according to World Bank numbers. Instead of abandoning coal, China is developing cleaner and higher-efficiency coal plants – and, as a boon to its plan for greater regional influence, aims to export the technology abroad.
To that end, the China Development Bank and China Export Import Bank last year lent US$25.6 billion to global energy projects. This figure surpassed even the US$22.6 billion provided by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development…
Coal consumption across Asia is slated to outpace that of China over the next 20 years, coupled with an absolute increase in global coal demand over the next seven years. The more than 1,600 coal plants scheduled to be built by Chinese corporations in over 62 countries will make China the world’s primary provider of high-efficiency, low-emission technology.
Because policymakers still regard coal as more affordable than renewables, Southeast Asia’s industrialisation continues to consume large amounts of it. To lift 630 million people out of poverty, advanced coal technologies are considered vital for the region’s continued development while allowing for a reduction in carbon emissions.
Clearly, the countries providing this technology will inevitably expand their sway with regional governments. As a consequence, a race between Tokyo and Beijing over the construction of coal plants is already under way…
China is currently in the lead, having overtaken Japan in 2000 as Asia’s leading exporter of coal industry equipment. It remains the largest technology supplier to India and the second-largest investor in coal projects in Vietnam, behind Japan. It is also constructing Bangladesh’s first clean coal plant. These developments reflect Beijing’s advantage in providing the necessary coal funding…
The results speak for themselves. Between January 2010 and March 2017, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation was involved in five financing deals while Export-Import Bank of China inked seven…
Since the 2011 Fukushima disaster, Tokyo has ramped up coal use and has raced ahead in clean coal technology development. Japan now boasts the world’s most efficient coal-fired plant, which uses less coal to produce more electricity. Seizing on this competitive advantage, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has tried to capitalise on these capabilities in a bid to increase Japan’s reach across Southeast Asia – and in China’s backyard. Through the Japan-led Asian Development Bank, Tokyo has pledged US$6.1 billion for projects throughout the Mekong as well as for various other projects from Vietnam to Myanmar, providing an alternative to China’s regional designs.
What’s more, Japan will soon receive a boost from the Trump administration through the Japan-United States Strategic Energy Partnership. The partnership could be a game-changer in terms of Sino-Japanese energy competition, with a joint commitment by Tokyo and Washington to promote high-efficiency, low-emission deployment throughout South and Southeast Asia…
This may well be only the beginning. US Energy Secretary Rick Perry has repeatedly emphasised that coal will be a key part of the Trump administration’s policies. Washington is already working to launch an international alliance that is set to include a host of other countries committed to introducing clean fossil fuel technologies – including a number of Association of Southeast Asian Nation states.
Given that Southeast Asia will account for a large part of the world’s coal use in the coming decades, the geostrategic battle lines are already drawn. Both the US and Japan have a clear interest in limiting China’s rising dominance. Apart from the military dimension, soft power aspects like energy are emerging as the battlefields of the future. Through the partnership with the US and a possible clean coal alliance, Japan may finally have the support it needs to keep up with Beijing’s expansion.
https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2139667/new-coal-war-frontier-emerges-china-and-japan-compete-energy
40
1 Oct: Reuters: Carmakers warn against tough emissions caps ahead of EU vote
by Daphne Psaledakis
The European carmakers’ lobby on Monday warned that excessively steep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions limits on cars and vans could harm the industry and cost jobs ahead of a vote by the European Parliament on the new targets.
EU lawmakers will vote on Wednesday on imposing a stricter CO2 limit of 45 percent by 2030 than the EU executive’s initial proposals of 30 percent – setting the stage for tough talks with national governments this year on the final law.
“The more aggressive the CO2 reduction targets are, the more disruptive the socio-economic impacts will be,” Erik Jonnaert, the head of the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA), said in a statement.
Weighing in on a clash between concerns about industry competitiveness and climate goals, ACEA said that tougher limits could slow growth in a sector which it said employs over six percent of EU workers.
“The stakes of Wednesday’s vote are extremely high for the entire sector,” Jonnaert said.
He added that while carmakers are investing in electric vehicles, sales are still low, and governments should invest more in charging infrastructure and buy-side incentives.
Environment campaigners, however, say that ambitious targets for the transport sector – the only one where greenhouse gas emissions are still rising – are needed to meet the bloc’s overall climate goal of reducing pollution by 40 percent by 2030 compared to 1990 levels…
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-autos-emissions/carmakers-warn-against-tough-emissions-caps-ahead-of-eu-vote-idUSKCN1MB2BT
common sense prevails:
1 Oct: CleanEnergyWire: EU will not aim to tighten emissions reduction target ahead of COP24
from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
The European Commission has given up plans to tighten the European emissions reduction goal for 2030 ahead of the UN climate conference COP24 in Katowice as member states did not voice sufficient support for the ambitious target to reduce CO2 levels by 45 percent instead of just 40 percent compared to 1990 levels, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports.
The Commission insisted that EU energy commissioner Miguel Arias Canete never announce an official target increase but according to the article, both Canete and commission president Jean-Claude Juncker were in favour of tighter reduction goals to sharpen the EU’s environmental protection profile.
Together with other European lobby groups, the Federation of German Industries (BDI) opposed tighter targets while German Chancellor Angela Merkel had said: “I don’t think that constantly coming up with new targets makes sense.”
Canete, however, argues that these are a logical consequence of a greater share of renewables that the EU states agreed on in spring, the article says…
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-austrian-power-zone-split-eu-no-plans-tighten-co2-goal/eu-will-not-aim-tighten-emissions-reduction-target-ahead-cop24
40
Almost an admission that renewables are the problem .
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-17/curious-adelaide-the-problem-of-power/9158240
41
I can’t believe the ABC published this honest assessment: “the driving force in recent price hikes has been a tightening of supply and demand, which kicked off with the closure of the state’s last operating coal power plant at Port Augusta”. “The coal closure means power generated by a more expensive fuel source — gas — is more regularly setting the price.” “At times of high renewable output and low demand, authorities are now intervening in the market and ordering more expensive gas generators to switch on.”
100
1 Oct: EurActiv: Everything you need to know about Wednesday’s cars CO2 vote
by Greg Archer
(Greg Archer is clean vehicles director at Transport & Environment T&E, a sustainability NGO)
The German agreement certainly ends the pretence that the coalition is serious about meeting its 40-42% transport reduction target; with only a 30% cut in new cars’ CO2, it will even struggle to achieve its legally binding 2030 Climate Action Regulation target – or will need to make radical cuts in agriculture to do so.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/transport/opinion/everything-you-need-to-know-about-wednesdays-cars-co2-vote/1275681/
2 Oct: Deutsche Welle: Angela Merkel’s coalition reaches deal on diesel crisis
by jcg/rt (Reuters, dpa, AFP)
The German government has reportedly found a new compromise aimed at dealing with dirty diesel cars. Details of the new plan are set to be revealed in the coming hours
The German government reached a “highly complex” agreement early on Tuesday on a “concept for clean air and the protection of individual mobility in our cities,” in the wake of the country’s diesel scandal.
The compromise followed six hours of deliberations in Berlin, as members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling conservatives and their junior coalition partners, the Social Democrats (SPD), sought to avoid city-level bans on diesel cars.
The agreement will focus on retrofitting old diesel-engine vehicles currently on the road…
Treading a fine line: The key challenge for the government was to avoid additional costs for car owners in the drive to lower pollution whilst at the same time protecting jobs in Germany’s vital auto industry. At the center of negotiations was the question of whether the industry would be made to foot the full bill for a retrofitting of old cars, or if consumers would have to pitch in as well…
https://www.dw.com/en/angela-merkels-coalition-reaches-deal-on-diesel-crisis/a-45721521
30
‘How does the IPCC work?’ – Answer;slowly,quite carefully,and EXPENSIVELY!
Just like Australia’s ABC.
GeoffW
80
Why Geoffrey you’re not accusing either organisation of actually working are you ?
60
🙂
30
Todays Nonsense-Du-Jour :
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-02/tesla-battery-proves-a-leading-source-of-dispatchable-power/10326420
“Resources Minister Matt Canavan reportedly dismissed the big battery as “the Kim Kardashian of the energy world: it’s famous for being famous [but] doesn’t do very much”.
“The South Australian Government has contracted to buy most of the power at a cost of $4 million a year as an emergency reserve.
But that expense is being more than offset by the downward pressure the battery is putting on the cost of crucial network services.
In the first quarter of this year, the cost of FCAS fell by nearly $33 million, or 57 per cent, according to AEMO — in large part because of the introduction of the Tesla big battery.
“It’s providing much-needed competition in a highly concentrated market,” said Dylan McConnell, an energy analyst with the Climate and Energy College at Melbourne University.”
10
Oooo oo..Mr Cotter…..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-21/cost-of-sa-state-owned-power-station-finally-revealed/9279852
“South Australia’s Government-owned emergency power plant is set to cost taxpayers $360 million, plus relocation and setup expenses.
Treasurer and Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis revealed the price tag in his mid-year budget review after seeking permission to release the figure from the seller, APR Energy.
The Government has paid the US company $111.5 million to lease nine aero derivative diesel turbines, which are already installed at Lonsdale and Elizabeth, to prevent load-shedding blackouts over the next two summers.
But the Government has already exercised a contractual option to purchase the generators for $227 million.
It plans to install them at an as-yet undetermined site and operate them on gas, providing up to 276 megawatts of backup power.
The Government has budgeted $20.4 million to operate the power plant from 2019 to 2021.
It has also set aside a $72.8 million contingency fund, which is expected to cover the cost of relocation and set-up.
Mr Koutsantonis said the figures demonstrated the Government’s $550 million energy plan would be delivered on budget.
But that budget no longer includes the $75 million in loans for companies to invest in new renewable energy technologies.
Mr Koutsantonis said that money was not included because the money would eventually be repaid to Government.
“In terms of what we’d spend and not get back, it’s $550 million,” he said.”
20
Its a veritable treasure trove of gummint “wisdom” in the ABC today…..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/yorke-peninsula-battery-to-be-installed-by-may/9011788
A battery storage facility being built on South Australia’s Yorke Peninsula will be operational by May 2018 with construction to begin next month.
The 30 megawatt battery — which will be owned by ElectraNet — will be located at the Dalrymple substation, north of Yorketown.
The project is expected to cost about $30 million in total and is being partly funded by $12 million from the Federal Government.
ElectraNet today announced it had awarded the construction contract to Adelaide-based company Consolidated Power Projects (CPP).
Construction is due to begin this month, with the project expected to be complete within about eight months.
ElectraNet chief executive Steve Masters said the project would help SA “adapt” to its changing “energy mix and landscape”.
“The battery will demonstrate how energy storage can strengthen the grid and improve reliability for the lower Yorke Peninsula,” he said.
“It will work with AGL’s existing 90 [megawatt] Wattle Point Wind Farm and rooftop solar [panels] to provide back-up power in the event of any interruption to supply from the grid until the grid is restored.”
—yep we might expect a few of those interruptions….
20
“So some countries downplay things to look after their own interests. … Australia probably won’t.”
Australia is too stupid to look after its own interests now. Look at South Australia and Victoria. They are almost guaranteed to have rolling blackouts this summer, but they keep loading up on unreliables. The federal government is too scared of the green blob to roll back the RET.
40
True, hard to stop the head of a state from sabotage when they are determined to do so…..
Australians just haven’t seen Communism and deviousness like Europe has, so Australians just don’t recognize rats in the ranks….
20
Unfortunately while we have ‘teachers’ like this fool we have a very long road ahead! …. Why is it so hard to teach climate change?
https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/comment-why-it-so-hard-teach-climate-change
Glenn Branch
Glenn Branch is the deputy director of the USA National Center for Science Education…. God help us all!
30
Good find.
Glenn is the UV.
And No, that’s not highly energized radiation from the Sun, it stands for the Ultimate Victim.
Glenn sees himself as the uv of klimate den&&rs.
If only he had been prepared to spend a few years educating himself he may have avoided this embarrassing epitaph to his life’s work.
KK
20
Has anyone made any sense of the graphic by Robert Rhode in Jo’s post?
It purports to show the Ten Warmest Years and the Ten Coldest years but does not say when they were?
I assume that the black line is the current year. It is cruising along amongst the ten warmest years but not at the top.
Ro0bert Rhode is an ardent warmist himself but he has produced some useful graphics.
20
Yes, as in 12, the average temperature climbs suddenly in the 1980s and then slows to nothing. This as is a peak. No one disputes this. We are only talking about the cause. The IPCC says it is our fault. Real scientists say it is not. Firstly because the increase in CO2 is not from fossil fuel. Then the logic is wrong as real CO2 increases lag water temperature increases, as is Henry’s law. So the whole argument is nonsense.
I blame not only opportunists but the armies of zero skilled scientists who learn ecology and botany and plant science and zoology and paleoentology and hundreds of other near science subjects but miss out totally on chemistry, physics, biochemistry, mathematics, computing, engineering, geology. Feel good science by essay and consensus. People who do not understand CO2 is the gas from which all life on earth is made, that carbohydrates are hydrates carbon dioxide and that we just missed wipe out with record low CO2. People who do not understand radio carbon dating or Henry’s law or equilibrium or spectra or radiation or how to make computer models. People who missed out on real science.
So the graph is cute when dynamic but really, indicates nothing but going up which is matched as always by going down. That is going to happen over the next 20 years. We should have had fusion mastered by now, not nutty medieval windmills.
30
Or perhaps just watch the original animation.
30
Interesting.. “Sep 25, 2018
Many Climate Scientists Have Unintentionally Aided and Abetted Climate Alarmists
By Dr. Alan Carlin” http://icecap.us/
I have though that maybe the case myself.
30
There is so much there. Maybe a discussion for the next Unthreaded.
I will just highlight this:
30
For the record on mathematical analysis there are several analysis and PUBLISHED papers on falsifying the GHG (Green house effect). But mostly ignored or attempts (failed) to debunk them with bad physical assumptions. (I havent got the paper links to hand).
10
Skea is at Imperial College London, which has a branch of the Grantham Institute. He is a member of the UK Climate Change Committee and is not a climate scientist, but an engineer. https://www.theccc.org.uk/about/committee-on-climate-change/
In 2004, Suzanne Moser and Lisa Dilling produced a paper called “MAKING CLIMATE HOT – COMMUNICATING THE URGENCY AND CHALLENGE OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE” “Making Climate Hot” can be found here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1734-2005.22.pdf
Social Scientist and private contractor to EPA, Suzanne Moser, was an author for AR4 and 5 and was a member of the Scientific Steering Committee for this IPCC “Special Report” on the “Impacts of 1.5 Deg C and Associated Emissions Pathways,” shortly to hit the media.
20
?
Is there a purpose to life?
?
10
Re No 36
20
Ah…I’m an Engineer, and I can recognize BS when I see it aka Klimate Change.
Education is no guarantee of sensibleness – many doctors, engineers and teachers wind up radicalized and in the ranks of ISIS and the like, despite the fact they should know better…..
30
KK @ #37
.
.Is there a purpose to life?
.
The blind and unfeeling biological answer;
.
Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life…life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA…life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. –Richard Dawkins
.
———–
So frequently I see and I am completely guilty myself in this, we act, talk , write and propound circumstances and humanity as something that is completely separate and distinct from “Nature“.
I have to continually remind myself; We are a part, a very small and possibly very temporary part of “Nature”.
We see a great deal of hand waving and much lamentations and wailing and sackcloth and ashes over the “damage” we humans are doing to “Nature”
Our cities are merely the large number response to creating a habitat for our species , Just like ants when they set up a new nest and clear anything that might cause them some future grief to be removed.
But of course nobody regards those ants clearing the scene to suit themselves as destroying a part of Nature.
But that is exactly what they do, destroy and modify equally important to Nature other creatures habitats and food sources to suit and benefit their own species.
When we cut down a forest for our own use, we have merely beaten the termites to it who are intent on turning it to their own species benefit sometime.
Even then the termites promptly move in to take advantage of the detritus we as a species leave behind in that former forest.
When we build a dam , what is the difference to beavers doing the same thing, to give the beaver species access to conditions that will benefit beavers and the hell with the salmon run let alone the view.
That is until the beavers figure out that modifying their dam to cater for some fish species will benefit themselves with more and easier food access. A benefit to the beaver species and maybe the fish species as well .
And when we are gone or have moved on all those myriads of creatures that inhabit this planet will promptly move in where we left off and do what every species does best, figure out how their species can take advantage of everything our species has left behind .
And soon, like the dinosaurs there will nothing there any more except perhaps the remenants of a few crumbling concrete structures and some bacteria that have learn’t to feast on that crumbling concrete and the chemicals being released there and the odd bone or two to say that another species in the a very long line that is “Nature” has come and gone.
40
Hi ROM,
I’ve just looked at my comment there and am embarrassed to say that I have no idea what I was talking about.
Crazy.
Your comment therefore stands on it’s own as a work of art.
KK
40
I look at it from a logical engineering approach but grounded in Christian Faith. I often find that when you look at birth and the complexity of DNA and the whole planet how it hums as an interconnected complex web of life, to argue it came about from “a random whirlwind in the junk yard can make a car” approach is just plain improbable.
I have no idea why Dawkins bummed out like he did, but he clearly couldn’t see the wood for the trees, which is sad, IMHO….
20
audio at bottom of article. 9 comments at time of posting; some push-back, knocked down by pro-RE readers:
2 Oct: RenewEconomy: Giles Parkinson: Origin says solar cheaper than coal, moving on from base-load
Origin Energy says the cost of wind and solar farms has fallen so far it is now cheaper than the marginal cost of coal generation, and the company is moving on from the concept of “24/7 base-load”.
The assessment was made by Greg Jarvis, the company’s head of energy trading and operations, in an interview for RenewEconomy’s popular Energy Insiders podcast, published on Tuesday.
“I have been in this game for so long … the one thing I have seen is just the cost of renewables really change the game,” Jarvis says. “It is amazing what we have been seeing.
“Renewables are cheaper than the marginal cost of black coal at the moment. They are very cheap.”
Jarvis puts the cost of solar in the mid $40s/MWh and the cost of wind at the low $50s/MWh. That cost of solar is around half the average price of wholesale electricity in most states this year.
The assessment accords with other views in the market about the cost of wind and solar, including from UK billionaire Sanjeev Gupta, who is looking at solar to underpin the expansion of his newly bought steel business in Australia.
However, it should be noted that such numbers have yet to be seen in power purchase agreements – apart from Origin’s deal with the Stockyard Hill wind farm – largely because they are hidden, but also because the developers need to make a margin of profit…
Still, with China now mulling a dramatic lift in its 2030 renewable energy target to 35 per cent from 20 per cent, the chances are that the costs of both wind and solar will fall dramatically again.
And with the falling cost of storage – this is likely to enable “firm” renewables to emerge as a serious contender to existing fossil fuel plants…
Asked if Origin Energy had moved beyond the idea – promoted by the federal government and many in mainstream media – that reliability depended on 24/7 base-load power, Jarvis said:
“Oh, a Long time ago. The idea of base-load power stations is well and truly gone.”…
He cited Origin’s recent investment in its last coal fire generator Eraring, and its efforts to make it more flexible so it can power down in the middle of the day so Origin can focus on cheap renewables, before turning up the power at peak times…
“We see a combination of fast gas, pumped hydro and battery storage, and combination of those with renewables is the future,” Jarvis says.
“And let’s not forget what’s behind the meter, and how do you aggregate those resources,” he said, noting that Origin was now the biggest installer of rooftop solar in the country, and was also heavily involved in household battery storage.
AUDIO 39mins05secs
https://reneweconomy.com.au/origin-says-solar-cheaper-than-coal-moving-on-from-base-load-70999/
10
Beijing axes coal and steel production curbs as economy slows
Financial Times-1 Oct. 2018
Beijing will not renew significant cuts on steel production and coal use…as policymakers look to boost China’s economic performance…
1 Oct: Ottawa Citizen: New trade deal doesn’t address climate change: environmentalists
by The Canadian Press
Environmental groups say a new trade deal between the United States, Canada and Mexico continues to coddle a fossil fuel economy that needs to shift in the face of climate change.
“(Prime Minister Justin) Trudeau went into (these talks) saying we’re going to have chapters on the environment. We’re going to have chapters on Indigenous rights. We’re going to have chapters on gender,” Greenpeace Canada spokesman Keith Stewart said Monday.
“All of that has disappeared and the focus has been on trying to protect and preserve the economic status quo.”
The deal does have a chapter on the environment, but critics such as the Council of Canadians call it weak and unenforceable.
It mentions pollution, marine traffic, endangered animals and ozone, but ignores what many call the world’s largest environmental challenge.
“The deal doesn’t even mention climate change,” Stewart said.
Freeland disagreed.
“This is in fact a very progressive trade agreement,” she said in Ottawa. “The environment chapter is enforceable. It is much stronger than previous environment chapters. That is a very progressive outcome.”…
But Ben Beachy, of the U.S. Sierra Club, said the proposed agreement will allow U.S. and Canadian companies to continue to exploit weaker environmental rules in Mexico. He also fears new provisions that allow companies to challenge tougher regulations before they’re even enacted.
“It would lock in Trump’s polluting legacy for years because it would make it that much harder to reverse the Trump administration’s environmental rollbacks,” he said…
https://ottawacitizen.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/new-trade-deal-doesnt-mention-climate-change-environmentalists/wcm/a55c89a4-7a03-48b0-a840-6b27169936a8
20
1 Oct: EurActiv: European public banks continue financing coal bonanza
The EIB and EBRD have been channelling billions of euros in public money to fossil fuels dependent companies, hampering the international community’s efforts to tackle climate change, writes Anna Roggenbuck.
(Anna Roggenbuck is a campaigner at CEE Bankwatch, a network of grassroots, environmental groups in Central and Eastern Europe monitoring the activities of international financial institutions)
After the signing of the Paris Agreement on tackling climate change, international public financing for coal-based electricity has become indefensible. And yet, major European public banks, including the European Investment Bank (EIB) and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), have found a way to continue supporting the biggest polluters.
A recent Bankwatch analysis showed that since 2013 the EIB has provided €3.9 billion to a number of coal-based energy companies, despite them having no plans to decarbonise. Similarly, the EBRD has extended unconditional loans to utilities which continue to develop new coal power capacities.
In Serbia, for example, EBRD investments in the national power utility Elektroprivreda, a company which dominates lignite mining and generates almost all of the country’s electricity, were supposed to bring environmental improvements.
In reality, however, the company’s energy-related greenhouse gas emissions have increased in recent years despite EBRD and EIB loans. And it keeps opening new mines to fuel its polluting coal power plants.
Both banks also regularly support Polish state energy companies such as Energa, PGE and Enea. Billions of euros intended to help the companies expand electricity grids, have in practice freed up cash for new coal power plants and other dirty investments.
In 2016, Energa and Enea decided on a joint investment in new, 1,000 MW coal capacities. A tender for the construction of the Ostrołęka coal-fired power plant has already been completed.
In 2017, after Energa received EIB and EBRD loans for issuing of hybrid bonds for grid development, the company cancelled old contracts with renewable energy producers. Earlier in 2016, Energa and PGE invested €115 million each in the newly established Polish Mining Group, now the EU’s biggest hard-coal miner.
PGE, Poland’s largest coal-heavy utility, is also one of the biggest polluters in Europe. Its Belchatow power plant alone emits as much mercury into the air as Spain’s entire industrial sector…
Its capital expenditures in renewable energy decreased by 44% in 2017 compared to the year before, and it is currently developing new coal capacities and modernizing its existing, old coal fleet…
Our analysis has found that out of a total of €1.5 billion the EIB has extended to Polish electricity utilities between 2013-2017, less than 1% was spent on renewable capacity or grid enhancement for renewable energy…
https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/opinion/european-public-banks-continue-financing-coal-bonanza
30
I never thought I would ever see Carbon Dioxide labelled pollution.
There are two essential molecules which form all life on earth, the same two which are essential in photosynthesis, the same two generated in combustion, releasing the solar energy. H2O and CO2. Now one of them is labelled pollution. The other controls the weather.
60
So Origin Energy doesn’t need those munificent subsidies that are extracted from the consumers of power through the sale of Renewable Energy certificates to fossil fueled generators who pass the cost of those certificates onto the consumer of power anymore as Renewable energy is so cheap.
Of course they are not subsidies say the Renewable energy industry.
Subsidies come from Governments and tax payers.
But the Renewable energy certificates are a penalty that the “dangerously emmitting” fossil fueled generators have to pay to the “carbon clean” renewable energy generators due to the amount of “dangerous emissions” that the fossil fueled generators release.
Of course Origin energy might not be very happy to see half of its income from renewable energy disappear if the Renewable energy certificates were eliminated .
The two turbine renewable energy co-operative at Hepburn in central west Victoria earn’t in 2017 some $617,990 from electricity sales.
It also earn’t [ ?? ] a sum of $ 625, 015 from the sale of Renewable Energy certificates sold to fossil fueled generators and for which we as consumers have had to pay as the coal fired generators pass the cost of the certigficates on..
But the numbers are much worse for the Hepburn electricity out put versus certificate sales in 2016
$437,210 earnt from electricity sales
$743. 674 earnt from the sale of renewable certificates [ Figures from the 2017 annual Hepburn Report ]
So lets hope the government will see sense and eliminate the Renewable Energy Certificate subsidy as has Britian just recently , Spain a few years ago, Germany now also running into severe budgetary t problems with its fast escalating renewable’s subsidies and then we will no doubt see and hear much wailing and claims of impoverishment from the renewables industry unless “the government does something”!
Oh! and charge the renewables industry for ALL of the extra infrastructure needed to gather in the low area intensity energy [ max of about 4 watts / square metre with 1 to 2 watts generated per square metre the norm ] that can only be acquired by covering vast acreages with turbines and solar panels.
And charge the renewables industry for that roughly 8% of the power they draw back from the grid to keep their turbines operational when the wind doesn’t blow.
Power for which we consumers are charged as it has to be produced and paid for somewhere but which the turbine outfits try to hide as state secret the power use twhich hey are not held at all accountable for or pay for.
20
behind paywall:
Foreigners scoop renewable energy windfalls
The Australian-22 hours ago
Spanish groups Acciona, Union Fernosa and FRV have won the contracts for the Winton Solar Farm, the Mortlake South Wind Farm and the Berrybank Windfarm…
Vestas secures 181 MW wind power project in Australia and sets up wind energy hub
REVE – 1 Oct 2018
Vestas has secured an engineering, procurement and construction contract with global electricity generator, Global Power Generation, for the 181 MW Berrybank Wind Farm located west of Geelong in the state of Victoria in Australia. The order includes 43 V136-4.2 MW wind turbines with a 112-meter hub height tower design to maximise the performance in site’s specific wind conditions…
denial sounds a bit weak:
2 Oct: Bloomberg: Saudi Fund Denies Report SoftBank Solar Project Is On Hold
By Stefania Bianchi and Sarah Algethami
Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund said it’s working with the SoftBank Vision Fund and other institutions on a number of major multi-billion dollar solar projects and denied a Wall Street Journal report that said a $200 billion development was put on hold…
In a report published on Sept. 30, the Wall Street Journal said no one is actively working on the project, citing Saudi government officials. It was set to turn the world’s most important oil producer into a giant in solar power, ultimately generating about 200 gigawatts of energy, the newspaper reported.
Although the government has said it is working on major solar projects, little has been achieved so far amid other signs the country’s privatization push is losing steam. In August, the initial public offering of Saudi Arabian Oil Co., or Aramco, was put on ice. The sale of a stake in King Khaled International Airport has been put on hold, according to people familiar with the process, while the sale of the $7.2 billion Ras Al Khair power plant is also yet to be done.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-02/saudi-fund-denies-report-that-softbank-solar-project-is-on-hold
20
2 Oct: GreenTechMedia: Failure of ‘World’s Biggest Solar Project’ in Saudi Arabia Is No Surprise
There were concerns from the start.
by Jason Deign
The $200 billion, 200-gigawatt solar plant planned by SoftBank and the Saudi Public Investment Fund had raised skepticism among developers when it was announced in March, partly because of technical concerns over how it might be integrated into the grid.
The main worry, though, was that the megaproject appeared to have been approved independently of plans for an orderly ramp-up of solar through a tender program managed by the Saudi Renewable Energy Project Development Office (REPDO).
Soon after the SoftBank agreement was unveiled, it emerged that top officials in the kingdom had been excluded from negotiations, adding further uncertainty.
Given the haphazard way in which the deal was brokered — and the fact that the Saudi state and SoftBank had both previously announced plans for massive solar investments that had been canceled — last week’s news came as no surprise.
“Precedent would suggest that grand solar plans from SoftBank or the Saudi state come with a gap between promises and reality,” said Benjamin Attia, global solar analyst with Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables. “This is no exception.”
He said the project never got beyond an initial feasibility study…
According to the Wall Street Journal, the announcement of the freeze was greeted with relief by Saudi energy officials.
***“Everyone is just hoping this whole idea would just die,” one said…
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/saudi-outlook-remains-uncertain-after-softbank-pulls-out#gs.jB9Y4dg
2 Oct: Engineering&Technology: Saudi Arabia pulls plug on $200bn solar project
By Jonathan Wilson
Until recently, the high cost of photovoltaic equipment in the region tempered the Kingdom’s solar ambitions, although falling prices suggested a positive future.
However, despite the abundant sunshine and vast tracts of desert available in Saudi Arabia, the storage and connectivity infrastructure for distributing solar energy throughout the country and across nation borders is still lacking.
Saudi Arabia has no solar power schemes at all at present, big or small, although the Prince’s ‘Vision 2030’ was anticipated to encourage deeper involvement with renewable energy…
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2018/10/saudi-arabia-pulls-plug-on-200bn-solar-project/
10
fortunately for ANU’s Prof Andrew Blakers, the councillors know nothing:
2 Oct: ABC: Victorian councils call for solar planning guidelines and clarity from State Government
ABC Goulburn Murray By Mahalia Dobson and Rhiannon Tuffield
A council in north-east Victoria has raised concerns about a lack of guidance around approving and reviewing solar planning projects.
Campaspe Shire Council is reviewing plans for the development of a solar and battery project in Stanhope and is expected to vote on the issue this month.
The 30MW solar and 100MW battery project has been proposed by Australian-owned developer GloBird Energy and is estimated to cost $150 million.
If approved the battery would be the biggest in Victoria, with GloBird arguing it is needed to insure the local grid against power fluctuations from the big solar farms in Girgarre, Lancaster, and those proposed for Shepparton.
But Campaspe Mayor Adrian Weston said a lack of direction around planned solar projects made it difficult for local governments to approve such projects.
“Over the last 18 months there’s certainly been a lot of solar farm applications come onto the radar for councils right across northern Victoria and they almost got the jump on everyone,” he said.
“We’re looking forward to some guidelines that will help ensure that we get consistent decisions right across the state.”
While wind farms must be approved by the state planning minister, solar farm approval falls to local government…
In February, the Greater Shepparton City Council declared itself “ill-equipped” to approve four solar developments for the region.
The Minister for Planning called in the applications to determine whether planning permits could be granted for the projects at Tallygaroopna, Congupna, Lemnos, and Tatura East.
In a statement, a government spokesperson said the Minister for Planning, Richard Wynne, was considering a report from an independent planning panel for the four Shepparton applications, and that a response would be delivered shortly…
Andrew Blakers, a professor of engineering at the Australian National University, said while there was “always room for improvement” around planning guidelines, he believed current regulations were adequate.
In terms of solar, he said there was little impact outside of the construction phase, and that there were ‘well established’ guidelines for suppressing dust and noise.
“A solar farm is typically constructed in about six months, and during that time there will be inconvenience,” Professor Blakers said.
“On the other hand, there will be benefits in the local community through employment, to build and later maintain the plant…
“Having accepted guidelines that allow developers to pick through and if they do it properly they will also get a social licence, as well as a formal licence from council, these are always useful and as we get more and more experience with solar farms, this will evolve to be very smooth and allow rapid uptake of solar in many districts across Australia.”
Australia is moving rapidly towards a renewable electricity system, with a planned 11 gigawatts of new solar and wind to be introduced over the next two years.
Professor Blakers said the country was in the middle of a transition phase, and that some communities were sceptical of the new forms.
“I think we’re at a juncture where people are seeing large solar farms erected, they’re not familiar with them, but within a few years they’ll understand that they are a benefit, rather than a hazard,” he said.
“This transition is happening very quickly, and with all things like that, there is dislocation and pushback.”
“The alternative is coal mining, which alienates far more land in a far more permanent way than the short-term construction of a solar farm that will last 30 years.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-02/victorian-councils-call-for-solar-planning-guidelines/10328790
two taxpayer-funded ABC writers can’t tell the public any more about Blakers than he is a “professor of engineering”?
Wikipedia: Professor Andrew Blakers, is Director of the Australian National University Centre for Sustainable Energy Systems, which employs 60 staff. He is responsible for several innovations in solar energy photovoltaic technology, including “Sliver cells”. Blakers has secured many research grants and won several awards.
10 Sept: RenewEconomy: Sophie Vorrath: Australia could be 100% renewable by 2030s, meet Paris targets by 2025
The report (LINK) – published by a heavy-hitting team of Australian National University researchers, including solar PV and pumped hydro expert Andrew Blakers – says keeping up the current rate of renewable energy deployment would also meet Australia’s entire emissions reduction task “for the whole economy” by 2025.
To reach these conclusions, the team analysed data for the federal government’s own Clean Energy Regulator, showing that during 2018 and 2019 the nation would install about 10,400MW of new renewable energy…
It’s an impressive set of numbers, particularly considering that just three years ago, much the same ANU team forecast that Australia could reach 100 per cent renewables by 2040 (LINK) by adding just under 4GW (4,000MW) of wind and solar capacity a year…
https://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-could-be-100-renewable-by-2030s-meet-paris-targets-by-2025-2025/
10
To say solar is cheaper can only apply if you dynamite your coal stations so that only solar remains, or, you create an artificial floor price that is so high, solar “looks” cheap.
Its called market manipulation, and I’d be pretty sure there are laws against it…..
30
lol.
1 Oct: BusinessInsider: One of Tesla’s biggest bulls thinks Al Gore would be a good pick to replace Elon Musk as chairman
by Jake Kanter
Gore has climate change credentials and has sat on Apple’s board since 2003.
Al Gore could be a good pick for Tesla chairman, as Elon Musk prepares to step down following his settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over the weekend.
That’s according to Gene Munster, a managing partner at the venture capital firm Loup Ventures and prominent Tesla bull, who is already talking up replacements for Musk with his seat on the board not-yet cold…
In a blog post following the settlement (LINK), Munster said Gore would be an “interesting” choice for Tesla given his climate change credentials align with the company’s ambitions.
Gore has also sat on Apple’s board since 2003, so knows how to deal with a mercurial CEO in the shape of Steve Jobs and is familiar with the inner workings of a giant tech company…
Gore has previously noted his admiration for Tesla and Musk. In an interview with Politico in 2014, the former vice president said he’d love to own a Tesla…
Another name Munster floated for the chairman role was former Boeing CEO Jim McNerney…
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/gene-munster-al-gore-good-tesla-chairman-elon-musk-2018-10?r=US&IR=T
VIDEO: 3min33sec: 1 Oct: Bloomberg: Why Tesla Bull Gene Munster Wants Al Gore to Replace Musk as Chairman
Gene Munster, Loup Ventures co-founder, discusses the biggest challenges ahead for Tesla Inc. He speaks with Bloomberg’s Emily Chang on “Bloomberg Technology.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2018-10-01/why-tesla-bull-gene-munster-wants-al-gore-to-replace-musk-as-chairman-video
20
Good evidence suggests that they work both fast and carelessly. They are on a political mission, not a scientific one. And the political mission has a predetermined goal to pursue. If they don’t pursue it then they have no job. QED: it is getting warmer year by year until the world is frightened enough that it caves in and follows a cabal of people I wouldn’t trust to walk my dog. Never mind that real temperature records give the lie to their message.
Include the UN in that august group and put them at the top of the pyramid, both being manipulated and pulling the strings — the term political incest come to mind. If honesty was dynamite the UN could not blow its nose.
20
Work implies effort…it seems green groups write all their stuff for them, so presumably its pretty easy just reformatting supplied stuff and changing a few words here and there…. 🙂
20
It’s bizarre we go through this pretext each year. Whilst global warming has morphed into climate change there has also been this gradual attempt to make really small changes dangerous. It started with forecasts that the temperature would go up 4-6 degrees, then a 2 degree rise is dangerous , now 1.5 degrees is crucial. If the trend continues then a zero degrees movement will be dire. What is dire is that the real cure to global warming is making air conditioning available to everybody and the best way to do it is to make electricity cheap. Obama famously said that the idea of climate policy is to make it as expensive as possible when the cure is in reality the opposite strategy. If everyone had an air conditioner then any warming becomes irrelevant.
20
The 1.5C is a rise in average temperatures from the late nineteenth century. According the temperature data sets 1C has occurred already, at least half of which in the last 40 years. Can anyone justify, using clear scientific evidence, claims that the world will pass a tipping point with a a similar magnitude of warming since the late 1970s.
00
The 1.5C is a rise in average temperatures from the late nineteenth century. According the temperature data sets 1C has occurred already, at least half of which in the last 40 years. Can anyone justify, using clear scientific evidence, claims that the world will pass a tipping point with a a similar magnitude of warming since the late 1970s?
00
Nope.
00
A bit of context to this report. It was commissioned by the UNFCCC in a paper “ADOPTION OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT” issued at the end of COP21 Paris.
Paragraph 17 noted that all the INDC submissions if fully implemented were result in 55 gigatonnes of GHG emissions in in 2030, whereas 2C of warming pathway required emissions to be about 40 gigatonnes. Rather that admit the whole exercise was a waste of time they decided a special report was needed.
Paragraph 21
This special report, nearly three years in the making, is supposed to act as a blinding revelation to Governments around the world, to see the light.
Does anyone seriously think that “developing countries” – with no obligation under the Paris Agreement to cut emissions – will abandon economic growth and cut emissions? They only have 80% of the global population and over 60% of global emissions, so are of marginal interest.
Does anyone seriously think that countries reliant on fossil fuel export for a large part of their national income – Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, other Gulf States – will want to see that income disappear in a generation?
20
UN’s 2C tipping-point false fact
IMO merely a figure plucked out of the air/computer by deeply conflicted UN climate bureaucrats increasingly desperate to monetise what has become for them an “existential” issue; a group that is in cahoots with a bunch of similarly conflicted alarmist-modellers on the UN – or a national government’s – payroll.
Only the US seems prepared to go to the rotten core of junk model-driven CC – and especially CC attribution – science:
“There is no discussion — or a summary thereof — in the UN IPCC SPM (special report) regarding the credibility of models (or methodologies) used in the report to project future impacts.”
Meanwhile,that sound you can hear is from the anxious herd of diplomats frantically scrutinizing the IPCC’s latest draft Summary for Policy Makers” to determine whether it is sufficiently alarmist.
Surprise, surprise. We now have a new expression in the alarmist CC lexicon – “runaway CC” – courtesy of the UN chief last month. Just in time too.
It’s “runaway CC” by 2020 if nothing is done – that is, if insufficient cash is deposited in the Green Climate fund. How convenient.
“Climate change is moving faster than we are – and its speed has provoked a sonic boom SOS across our world. If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change, with disastrous consequences for people and all the natural systems that sustain us.”
The “sonic boom SOS across our world” is, of course, the sound produced by noble-cause corruption travelling faster than the speed of truth.
10