By Jo Nova
Global fossil fuel use hits a new record level in 2023
We spent $1.77 Trillion dollars on the clean energy transition last year, yet our fossil fuel use is still rising and our emissions are still increasing.
The Energy Institute released their annual “Statistical Review of World Energy”. Total energy used in the world went up by 2% showing no sign of slowing down. For the first time, more coal was used in India than Europe and North America combined, a trend that is unlikely to stop soon. Despite there being more EVs on Earth than ever before, oil consumption was up 2% to above 100 million barrels for the first time. China overtook the US as the country with the largest oil refining capacity in the world last year at 18.5 million bpd. But the US overtook Qatar as the largest exporter of LNG. And global man-made emissions of carbon dioxide exceeded 40 gigatons for the first time.
Imagine what a different place the world would be if we spent that money on something useful? Just a tenth of that might provide clean water and sanitation for the poorest of the poor and stop children dying of dysentery. Instead, wealthy nations build spinning totem poles — hoping they’ll give us the perfect amount of rain 80 years from now.
Despite what they say, we are still a fossil fueled world. Coal, oil and gas made up 81.5% of the world’s total consumption of energy, down from 82% a year before.
Not much of a “transition” — renewable energy makes up only 8% of our total global energy
And despite having every data-point since 1951, the Energy Institute were careful not to draw a graph like this below showing just how irrelevant unreliable renewables are (so I did one).
Energy Institute EI, Global Energy consumption 2024
And despite ten years of rampant growth in renewable energy, and 28 UN global junkets, the trend in man-made global emissions is not slowing down.
Energy Institute EI, Global carbon dioxide emissions. 2024
The Energy Institute also apparently didn’t want people to see a graph like this one either — drawn by OWID from the Energy Institutes own 2022 data. Nothing else quite captures how fake or pointless the whole forced “Transition” is.
Headlines will presumably hail the record amount of renewable energy produced like it means something.
With great timing three professors of sorts at University College London wrote this unwitting satire at The Conversion* only two days ago:
Proving the government can strangle any hard science if it throws enough money at it. Should we make 80% of the world’s energy “taboo” or should we just discuss the pros and cons like grown ups?
REFERENCE:
The “Statistical Review of World Energy — 2024”.
*Since The Conversation banned the dangerous “climate deniers” it’s hardly a conversation. We wish them luck in overcoming their fear of alternate scientific opinions.
Thanks again for your hard work and research Jo and so much of that 1.8 trillion $ has been wasted and flushed straight down the drain.
All I heard from Labor yesterday was jokes about fish with 3 eyes and how dangerous Nuclear power was and we should stick with B O Bowen’s idiotic plan to destroy our environment.
The clueless Premier of Vic even called Nuclear Toxic energy and yet we know that it is the safest BASE-LOAD energy in the world.
See the link from OWI Data yesterday.
400
In Victoria the equally clueless pretend “leader” of the pretend conservative Liberal Party is also opposed to nuclear.
https://www.skynews.com.au/business/energy/john-pesutto-reaffirms-victorian-opposition-has-no-plans-for-nuclear-putting-him-at-odds-with-federal-liberal-leader-peter-dutton/news-story/0a92009dd61e3adc664b05f8576da7f5
190
Crisafuli, the leader of the Liberals in Qld is also against nuclear.
No chance of me voting for the idiot.
270
And it appears that the Libs in WA are just as wet.
70
Nuclear SMR –
All Dutton and the Liberal Party/National Party just need to point out, how long & how safely Small Nuclear Reactors have been powering Submarines & Aircraft Carriers
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/can-nuclear-power-enjoy-its-day-in-the-sun/news-story/bafefba5de0fa50998b5aca41f3c541e
Dutton’s move has prompted Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to declare that the next federal election will be a referendum on nuclear power versus renewable energy, vowing to campaign on the issue every day until polling day.
Copilot
Nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers have been powered by onboard nuclear reactors for several decades.
These reactors operate through nuclear fission, where atoms split, releasing energy as heat. This heat is then used to create high-pressure steam, which drives propulsion turbines to turn the propellers and generate electricity for the ship1. The technology was initially adapted from nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers in the 1950s and 1960s2. These reactors have proven effective and reliable in naval applications, providing long-term power for these vessels. Additionally, efforts are underway to deploy small modular reactors (SMRs) inspired by similar technologies for civilian use, with a maximum output of around 300 megawatts compared to larger standard reactors3.
Learn more 1 epa.gov 2 cleantechnica.com 3 euractiv.com
You
Safety record of Small Nuclear Reactors on Submaines and Aircraft Carriers
Copilot
U.S. Nuclear Powered Warships (NPWs) have an outstanding safety record.
They’ve operated for over 50 years without experiencing any reactor accidents or harmful radioactivity releases.
These warships use pressurized water reactors (PWRs), which have a well-established safety history.
Unlike commercial reactors, NPWs are designed to survive wartime attacks and continue fighting while protecting their crews.
Their robust barriers keep radioactivity inside the ship, even in unlikely reactor problems.
Currently, the U.S. has 83 nuclear-powered ships: 72 submarines, 10 aircraft carriers, and one research vessel12.
These reactors have long core lives, with refueling needed only after 10 or more years, and new cores designed to last 25 years in carriers and 10–33 years in submarines3. While nuclear reactors can be dangerous, modern NPWs prioritize safety and reliability
190
JILL@1Swinging_Voter
Hey Chris Bowen. You have been exposed again.
Remember your little stunt in question time and all your little Labor numpties laughed …
#AUSPOL You are a liar, and they are complicit in sharing your stupidity.
VOTE LABOR OUT.
#PERTHNEWS #MELBOURNE #QLDPOL
190
Support for renewables plummets while nuclear energy’s popularity increases in positive polling sign for Coalition
Recent polling has revealed positive news for the Coalition with national support for nuclear power appearing to rise over the last nine months amid Peter Dutton’s major nuclear plan.
Patrick Staveley Digital Reporter
Support for nuclear power in Australia is “on the rise” in a promising sign for the Coalition days after a major nuclear plan was unveiled.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton presented the Coalition’s highly-anticipated nuclear energy policy at a media conference on Wednesday morning amid weeks of heighted climate debate.
The plan proposed the construction of seven nuclear reactors which will reportedly cost a “fraction” of Labor’s plan as Australia transitions to net zero, according to Mr Dutton.
Mr Dutton said the seven proposed nuclear plants will be built on existing sites of aging coal-fired power stations in regional Australia, which are heading into retirement.
In a sign support may be shifting towards the Liberal Party, recent polling has shown an increased support for nuclear power.
The polling which was recorded by Freshwater Strategy, revealed support for nuclear power had gained five points to reach 37 per cent in the last nine months, while support for renewables had significantly waned since May last year, dropping 15 points from 74 per cent to 59 per cent.
Freshwater Strategy director Leo Shanahan said the rise in nuclear power was “interesting” and “not an insignificant rise” as he suggested the Albanese government would have to be “a little careful” in how it forms an argument against nuclear in the lead up to the 2025 federal election.
“If the government wants to turn the next election into a referendum on nuclear, it does probably have to be a little careful in the way it constructs that argument, as we’ve seen these early rollouts of memes,” Mr Shanahan told Sky News Australia’s Sharri Markson on Thursday night.
“But it has to be a little careful that in doing that, people don’t start to educate themselves a lot more on nuclear and the benefits of nuclear and decide this is perhaps not as scary as we thought.
“In campaigns sometimes… one side pushes so hard so early, there is sometimes a corresponding pushback from people to say, hang on, shouldn’t we have some awareness of what this is actually about? And rather than just rely on, kneejerk fear mongering?”
130
From the Comments
– Albo is on the wrong side of public opinion. Again.
– LNP election slogan:
“Renewables, yes RENEWED every few years”
– they have a new name PW they’re called “RUINABLES”
– If this poll is correct its going to blow Albanese and Bowen’s already narrow minds even more
210
“All I heard from Labor yesterday was jokes about fish with 3 eyes.”
Very Bart Simpson, about the intelligence level of the lefty voters.
130
The cluelessness is staggering.
They immaturely pretend to worry so much about “fish with three eyes” but don’t care about huge numbers of people who needlessly died due to mismanagement of covid and denial of effective treatments by usually those very same Leftists.
Or people who die from energy poverty. E.g.:
I find these anti-nuclear attitudes embarrassing for the nation as a whole because it represents extreme scientific and engineering ignorance and denial of the fact that nuclear power generation is by far the safest power generation technology of all (except solar, but I guess that doesn’t count people falling off rooftops for domestic installs), including their beloved windmills.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-safest-and-deadliest-energy-sources/
Rates of deaths per terawatt-hour:
Coal 24.6
Oil 18.4
Natural Gas 2.8
Biomass 4.6
Hydropower 1.3
Wind 0.04
Nuclear energy 0.03
Solar 0.02
80
I hear that The Ayatollah Albanese & his Imams are fond of referenda!!
Suggest to them that we have a referendum on nuclear power. For BoB’s information it’s pronounced “ new clear “ 🤓.
Watch them run for the hills
10
“It is estimated that globally around 750 million people – 1 out of 10 – do not have access to electricity to light their homes, refrigerate their food, or keep cool in rising temperatures” – https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
“spending $1.8 Trillion on “clean energy” last year”” – Jo Nova
As a global citizen I note this act of utter selfishness by world government with utter despair.
100
Their ABC intereviewed a number of “young Canberrans” about power this am, which led me to thinking, are there quite a lot of special needs schools in Canberra?
241
YYY Guy,
Not sure about special needs schools in Canberra but having lived there for some time a few years back (and not being a part of the PS “elites”) I realised there are PLENTY of special needs people that Hoover up vast amounts of public money for little gain.
Next incoming conservative government should do a “Javier Milei” and promise to get rid of 70% of them. They’d win in a landslide 🙂
Cheers,
290
Hmm! I seem to recall that actually happened.
Campbell Newman.
That went well.
Still, I suppose it did give us Annastacia Palaszczuk.
That went well!
Tony.
160
Tony,
the problem is we have gone past the Tipping Point, where now more Australians live off the Public Teat, than there are Businesses & Private Enterprise Taxpayers paying Tax.
Was clearly demonstrated by Campbell Newman – He did the correct thing and was Punished
170
Argentina’s ‘Milei Miracle’ is exposing its failing socialist neighbors
South America is doing the world a favor at the moment, but you have to tune in to reap the benefits.
Just as South and North Korea and West and East Germany became perfect Cold War laboratory experiments contrasting the blessings of democracy and capitalism with the destructive drudgery of communism, the reformist government in Argentina and the Marxist-led ones in Colombia and Brazil are inviting us to compare and contrast.
Hint: You won’t have to do much research to see which system is still the best.
Argentina’s new free-market President Javier Milei is lapping Colombia’s Gustavo Petro and Brazil’s Inacio Lula da Silva in terms of economic achievement and the ability of people to live in freedom.
So far Milei has achieved, well, the unachievable.
Argentina — yes, the country that was until recently South America’s economic basket case — now has a primary fiscal surplus, the first in more than a decade and a half.
March was the fourth straight month with more government revenues than non-interest spending: In other words Milei, who was inaugurated in December, has produced a government budget surplus every month since taking over.
This surplus is partly because Milei has also delivered on another of his promises: paring back Argentina’s gargantuan state.
He has halved the number of federal agencies, from 18 to nine, slashing public spending by up to 30%.
Best of all, Milei is also making inroads against Argentina’s biggest bugbear for decades, inflation.
Monthly inflation in May cooled for the fifth straight month — again, marking the entire Milei presidency so far — and now sits at 4.2%, compared to over 25% in December when Milei’s term began.
Economists know that budget deficits lead to higher inflation: When the government pumps more and more money into an economy that is producing the same amount of goods and services, prices will rise.
Just don’t tell Joe Biden/Australian Labor Party Federal and Sate Treasurers, that, as they doggedly deny that their spendthrift policies are the reason inflation re-ignited here during their term in office.
So Milei’s results compare well even to North America, but how does Argentina today stack up against his South American neighbors?
170
Tony,you know about all the Tassie people with 2 heads?They all moved to QLD.Wait for it in 3 2 1Lol……
10
“are there quite a lot of special needs schools in Canberra?”
Pretty much all of Canberra is a special needs school.
40
The UK government(s) have got us in a right mess with their virtue signalling climate legislation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxwwzmn12g9o.amp
120
Just checked and France has an area of just 0.547 million sq kms and has 56 Nuclear power stns and they are building 8 more.
But pig ignorant Aussie lefties are throwing a fit because Dutton has plans to build 7 Nuclear plants in an area of about 4.2 million sq kms.
That’s Eastern Australia + South Australia + SW Western Australia.
Of course the total area of Australia is much larger.
270
That little blue piece of the Global Energy Production pie representing solar, wind , biomass, geothermal. You will find most of that is actually biomass. Which is not burning wood chips in Biomass plants- it’s the impoverished still using wood fires in huts and shanties in the undeveloped world. Solar , wind is about equal to the white border on that blue piece.
170
Yes, but the new science of CO2 says that’s renewable. So included as biomass energy. As long as it is new growth forest. However in Victoria, Australia it is illegal to pick up sticks or firewood in the forest. Which makes no sense at all. Sticks are nett zero.
But the 2011 Carbon Farming Act is about growing trees which are never to be cut down.
It’s all so silly. We know conclusively that the world has grown 21% more trees since 1988 without any intervention and entirely as a result of increased CO2.
So CO2 does not go down if you sequester trillions of tons of CO2, specifically in trees. Rather trees increase directly with increased CO2! No surprise there. They are made entirely from CO2. But the ‘biosphere’ does not control CO2. It is a product of CO2.
What scientist said the mass growing trees reduces CO2?
But we have this Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011.
The anti carbon dioxide laws of Australia are based on no science I know and they are extremely punitive. They are never questioned in public. All the public sees are collapsing jobs and rocketing inflation. It’s all hidden.
It’s not just the cost of electricity, but the loss of jobs, industries and the rocketing cost of everything made in Australia, inflation, mass migration without planning, triple time, NDIS,..
I am always suspicious of avowed communists like Albanese (Trot) and Dr. Bandt(Leninist) because in their twisted way they want total power and to have revolution by creating mass unrest and poverty. In their minds, 1918 Russia was a model for the future of Australia and their future as absolute rulers. As was The Voice.
To communists like our leaders, the Glorious Russian Revolution was a succeess when it was nothing less than a bloody military coup by a group who lost the election.
The first objective is poverty and oppression. And it is happening. Power comes from a transmission line. Green voters are useful idiots.
240
It’s not just the environmental disaster of the endless, short term wasteful and ineffectual windmill industry but the undermining of farming, manufacturing, quality of life, power systems, independence, defence and exchange rate.
We are being rapidly and deliberately impoverished by endless lawfare in the name of ‘saving the planet’ because as Jo points out, at the very least, our 1% of CO2 output is useless in the big picture. China’s output is growing every year more than our entire contribution.
So what is the real explanation? Why all the crazy punitive near secret laws? There is an explanation. I don’t think the voting public would like it. But no one asks the question.
180
The OWID graph would be interesting split by hemisphere.
Argentina, Brazil, Sth Africa are the only nuclear in SH.
Solar in either hemisphere is not a daily average.
Wind in the SH would be negligible.
Does the SH even matter?
50
Does the SH even matter?
Only to the people that live there?
50
Just imagine how much more advanced the world would be now if this money and human resources hadn’t literally been thrown into the wind.
This unprecedented waste of money and resources has put a huge brake on civilisational development, as is indeed the plan.
240
There’s still an overabundance of advancement, money, and human resources at the elite end of the social contract.
Only the development of widespread infrastructure, utility, access, & well-being for the general public.
There has been no brake on their international and interplanetary goals for ‘Homo Deus‘, the global elites.
80
Extreme heat kills hundreds, millions more sweltering as northern summer begins – Reuters
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/520150/extreme-heat-kills-hundreds-millions-more-sweltering-as-northern-summer-begins
I have questions.
120
The idea of millions of people going to Saudi Arabia in the desert in the extreme heat of summer (solstice) is blamed on Climate Change? And many of those are elderly, sick, infirm. Of course the death rate is high. It is in any end of life tourism.
People die on cruises and luxury trips all the time. Cruise ships have a morgue. (“Most vessels are required to have a morgue and additional body bags in the event of an emergency. The morgue, usually a small stainless steel refrigerated room on the ship’s lowest deck, accommodates between two to 10 bodies, depending on the size of the vessel.”)
I would love these scientists to investigate the 72 virgin story as well. (“Muslim men that die waging jihad against the enemies of Islam will be rewarded by Allah in heaven (jannah) as martyrs (shuhada) and receive seventy-two virgins to enjoy in blissful ecstasy.”)
No, it must be Global Warming, not religious fervor and risk taking activity.
130
“On September 24, 2015, at least 2431 pilgrims died and 427 were reported missing after overcrowding of huge masses in the blocked street of Mina leading up to Jamaraat; 465 of them were Iranian pilgrims. ”
So heat isn’t the biggest problem.
“Many pilgrims will spend up to three days in Mina, each casting seven pebbles at three pillars in a ritual to symbolize the casting away of evil and sin. While in Mina, they will visit Mecca to perform their “tawaf,” or circumambulation, which is circling the Kaaba in the Grand Mosque counterclockwise seven times.”
Saudi authorities said more than 32,000 health workers and thousands of ambulances are on standby to treat cases of heatstroke, dehydration and exhaustion.
But deaths are blamed on Climate Change for the biggest Hajj pilgrimage in history with 2.5 million pilgrims?
140
The ABC has reported on this, but it’s more “climate change” propaganda than analysis.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-21/extreme-heat-kills-hundreds-around-the-world/104006188
Can’t recommend the story, unless you’re interested in their manipulations.
Cheers
Dave B
40
Gosh that 17 million trees cut down in Scotland must be a heart wrenching eyesore.
The area of Scotland is just 80,000 sq kms or about 0.08 million sq klms, but I’m sure their left wing loonies would be very happy with the result.
Today destroying the environment for zero gain is what lefties do best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Scotland
200
>”that 17 million trees cut down in Scotland must be a heart wrenching eyesore”
Nothing new. It’s a cultural thing that goes back generations. A typical example from the 17th century:
Burning of MacFarlane’s Forest
https://scottishtales.substack.com/p/burning-of-macfarlanes-forest
The Historical Maelstrom: Scotland’s Turbulent Era
…
Clan MacFarlane: An Unswerving Legacy
…
Prelude to Catastrophe: Royalist Affiliation
…
The Blaze of Tragedy: Unfolding of Events
…
Engulfed by Flames: A Desperate Turn
…
# # #
It was customary for cross-border raiders, from either side, to burn everything they could on the way back. Same with clan wars. Many of the denuded Scottish hills were once covered by forest.
Wouldn’t surprise me if those 17 million were regrowth.
90
This is one of the greatest successes ever.
One of the premier historical transfers of wealth from many to few.
The few create social groups where they celebrate their virtue.
I live next to a University.
Every building has one of their names on it.
200
Here’s a list of all the Nuclear power countries in the world and Australia is definitely the only wealthy country in the world that doesn’t use Nuclear power.
We do have a small Nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney NSW, but that is used for research etc since the 1950s and updated since 2000.
The USA has about 94 Nuclear power stns and is by far the largest country, but China is trying to catch up and has many new reactors being built at different stages.
Amazing that some poor countries have some Nuclear power. Scroll down to see the list of countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
120
But please do not overlook all the mobile nuclear reactors that have been present in Australia.
https://seapower.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Port%20Visits%20to%20Australia%20by%20Nuclear-Powered%20Vessels%20-%20A%20Historical%20Context.pdf
60
Amazing that the Lucas Heights Nuclear reactor is only about 30 kms from the Sydney Opera House “as the crow flies”.
But much closer to Bankstown, Hurstville, Rockdale, Sutherland, etc.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=lucas+heights+distance+from+opera+house&cvid=d8f80c2aab1044638be323786ac515ed&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTM0MjAzajBqOagCCLACAQ&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531
70
Huh!
Irony!
Third image down, the one of ‘Global primary energy consumption by source’. (Note here that the graph itself is ….. Total Energy, and not just electrical power consumption)
Look at the scale markers for the left Y axis (vertical) and note that it is shown in TWH ….. TeraWattHours.
See how it’s shown in increments of 20,000 TWH.
The total electrical power consumption of the AEMO here in Australia is ….. 209TWH.
Tony.
Added Extra – Note how in this day and age, things are supposed to be made easier for the public to more easily understand. In actuality, it’s almost the opposite being the case, you know, make it more difficult for the plebs to comprehend, eh! Each year the Government brings out it’s 4 million page (sorry, sarcasm there) Energy ….. ‘Summary’??? The differentiation between Energy and electrical power is, well, blurred at best, incomprehensible for the average person really. Then in a hat tip to making things easier, they detail totals in PetaJoules. Yeah, who reads those huge Government publications anyway, always published a year and a half after the year in the Report has actually ended. Blind them with absolutely superfluous added information as well, and double the size by adding explanatory text and references as well. (Excuse me sir, might you know what a petajoule is? ….. Yeah, it’s related to the scarab beetle isn’t it?)
170
I am sure the IPCC likes to change units just to confuse people so they will give up trying to understand and just accept what the expert says. In one report they use gigatonnes (Gt) and in the next it will be petagrammes (Pg). 1 Gt = 1 Pt.
Another one is 1 Teragram equals 1 million tonnes.
80
If we got rid of the politicians and the public serpents,would we be better off????
10
Today Russia has 37 Nuclear stns and is building 6 more and Ukraine has 15 Nuclear stns and is building 2 more.
90
On a side note , there are new developments in fusion technology. The chinese are developing tokamac reactors and are making progress. http://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202406/1314447.shtml
40
It might be a game changer.
‘A Chinese-made fusion reactor is creating breakdowns – Thai scientists are delighted.
‘Using a tokamak reactor donated by China, researchers in Thailand are generating hydrogen plasma to learn more about nuclear fusion
‘The country has joined the pursuit of clean fusion energy, considered the ultimate solution to humanity’s future power needs.’ (SCMP)
32
Imagine if the world spent $1.8Trillion a year on fusion power research? We would still need coal and gas and oil because they contain not just energy but raw materials in an organic world, but we would be able to make our own climates. As they do in Dubai. Infinite eternal power. Beats windmills.
30
Very glad that coal is doing well.
171
The first Conference of the Parties (COP 1) was held in Berlin in 1995 and annual global CO2 emissions from energy were 21,986 million tonnes – in 2022 this has increase by 56% to 34,374 million tonnes per annum.
The Paris Agreement was held in 2015 and annual global CO2 emissions from energy were 32,773 million tonnes – in 2022 this has increase by 5% to 34,374 million tonnes per annum
So when will global CO2 emissions from energy start falling to meet Net Zero in 25 years time?
To stay below 1.5 °C of global warming as per the Paris Agreement emissions need to be cut by roughly 50% by 2030. This figure takes into account each country’s documented pledges.
The update commits Australia to reducing its emissions to 43% below 2005 levels by 2030.
Australia’s CO2 emissions from energy were 382.9 million tonnes per annum in 2005 and this has fallen to 376.7 by 2022 – a reduction of only 1.7%
There are only 5 years to go for this one and just one election in Australia.
If Labor are relected they will need to go after cow farts to meet the target.
100
The clean energy transition appears to be powered by coal, gas and oil.
Clean energy is unable itself to fund the transition even after the multi-trillion dollar investment, and instead is requiring an increase in “fossil fuel” use beyond what would be required without the transition.
Net Zero looks like Net Ponzi.
140
More than 1000 hajj pilgrims have died this year as temperatures approached 52°C. But of course, that’s just weather, not anthropogenic climate change. Except, a Saudi study published last month said temperatures in the area were rising by 0.4°C each decade.
021
Rising since when? They’ve probably been falling for 5,000 years.
180
Mecca is rising at the rate of 2.30 ± 0.66°C / century
https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-location/21.70N-40.67E
016
Since when Simon? This is typical of your dissembling dishonest responses. Since. When.
In a climate with cycles that are hundreds and thousands of years long, none of which we can predict — you think a 40 year “trend” from a single site proves something scientific? You are at the tea-leaf reading level of climate science.
250
Post-industrial, since 1860. The information is all there if you care to read. The page also show Saudi Arabia, Asia, Northern Hemisphere, and Global trends.
https://berkeleyearth.org/temperature-location/21.70N-40.67E
The climate is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas concentration generated from anthropogenic sources. It is time for you to acknowledge fact.
015
What fact? That you have no observations to show that the model assumptions about water vapor feedback and amplification are correct?
The facts are the models have hopelessly overestimated warming, can’t predict rain, humidity or clouds, and fail on short, medium and long term projections.
I acknowledged CO2 is rising, and is a greenhouse gas 30 years ago. But that doesnt mean the modeled estimates of how much warming will occur are remotely correct. And just because there is warming doesn’t mean it is caused by CO2. The models ignore nearly every solar variable.
You are at the tea-leaf stage…
170
Simon subscribes to the correlation-implies-causation fallacy.
Even if it is a weak correlation. I’ve challenged him on this before:
Prof. Carl-Otto Weiss does cycle correlation best, see next.
100
How the Earth’s Climate Is Changing and Why
– Prof. Carl-Otto Weiss
https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2023/07/22/how-the-earths-climate-is-changing-and-why/
And,
2000 years of temperature data/proxies, 8000 years of cycles.
But only a few decades relegates all that for some. Apparently a CO2 attribution can be made with a small fraction of that.
Except there’s a thing about cycles – they cycle. We’re at a peak now but the secular trend is at an inflexion.
Time will tell.
90
Your talking points from 2008 no longer cut it Jo. The models are proving yo be highly skillful. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/not-just-another-dot-on-the-graph-part-ii/
013
Hot spot still missing. Antarctica still not melting. Sea levels still not rising on tide guages. Pacific Islands growing. Models fail against UAH, and only succeed when surface thermometers are infected, adjusted and contaminated with UHI, suffer interference with airport radar, and “homogenized” to fit. Your links don’t cut it. Why can’t you name the observations yourself? Is it because you don’t know, and don’t need any evidence “to believe”?
140
Simon >”The models are proving yo be highly skillful …[Real Climate article]”
Highly skillful – LOL. This graph:
Forecast evaluation for models run in 2004
https://www.realclimate.org/images/cmp_cmip3_nice-1-1536×1071.png
1) Anomaly only – no absolute. Why not?
2) Only began forecast in 2000 but already wildly off in 2013.
3) Only saved by a succession of natural spikes with 3 coinciding in the wild spike at end of series 2023.
4) GFS anomaly is now back down to the level of 2015 and 2017 i.e. BELOW the model mean and falling:
GFS 2m-T Anomaly
http://www.karstenhaustein.com/reanalysis/gfs0p5/GFS_anomaly_timeseries_global.html
(Click repeatedly on graph to go back to 2017 and 2015)
5) Gavin Schmidt, Real Climate:
What a load of rubbish.
2023 was a massive spike of 3-factor natural variation – see UAH for example. Impossible for CO2 forcing to produce that.
6) The trajectory of the model mean is now (post 2023) wildly diverging from the trajectory of the observations.
Just a matter of time before the level now (same as 2017 above) is back down to to pre 2016 levels.
Your cherished models will not be looking so “highly skillful” then will they?
50
Simon >”The [Berkeley Earth] information is all there if you care to read.”
Read and analyzed at #19.1.1.2 downthread.
But it doesn’t support your statement:
But it does support your statement:
The linear trend from 1960 is bogus. It was flat from 1925 to 1987 i.e. no anthropogenic signal.
As I said downthread – I don’t think you have thought this through.
In the absence of the “study” citation you might look at the analysis of Odnoletkova and Patzek (2021) at #19.3.1 downthread too.
Again, overall 0.52 C/decade but no anthropogenic signal – just 2 distinct regimes of flat trends.
100
Simon >”Mecca is rising at the rate of 2.30 ± 0.66°C / century”
But only from 1987 when the slope suddenly changed radically (why? can’t be CO2). Dead flat from 1925 to 1987 so that linear trend from 1960 is totally bogus.
Mean temperatures topped out at 12 month average 27.64 in 2015. Cooled since then to 27.2 in 2020.
Hottest June was 2010.
So yeah “More than 1000 hajj pilgrims have died this year as temperatures approached 52°C. But of course, that’s just weather, not anthropogenic climate change.”
You said it Simon, and your Berkeley Earth data, except the bogus trend, supports that statement.
I don’t think you thought this through.
90
That’s 1000 out of 2,500,000 religious tourists, often elderly. More die from food poisoning, old age, stress. Look at what they have to do in mid summer in the open on the solstice with no cover in the desert. It’s amazing anyone survives. Thousands have been killed in stampedes. They have 24,000 medical staff ready because it is what they expect. It’s not meant to be easy.
120
Hajj pilgrims frequently die for a variety of reasons, such as stampede, inadequate hydration, fires, violence, disease or extreme desert heat.
FFS Simon, the place is right in the middle of a hot desert. What do you expect to happen if people go into the desert without adequate hydration, shelter or sun protection?
180
Exactly, poor crowd management.
With the vast number of people involved, things go badly wrong nearly every year.
All Simon has done is ascribe the deaths usually blamed on crushes or other disasters/ incompetence. This year is not even a particularly high death toll.
100
Citation please. Thankyou in anticipation.
40
JR – Screeds of news articles from all over the planet repeating the same statement –
Not one of them provides a citation.
Can’t find the one from “last month” but here is one from 2021:
Data-Driven Analysis of Climate Change in Saudi Arabia: Trends in Temperature Extremes and Human Comfort Indicators
Natalia Odnoletkova and Tadeusz W. Patzek (2021)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/60/8/JAMC-D-20-0273.1.xml
Some disagreement noted in c. Discussion of our results in view of the previous studies.
Not uniform across the country, faster in the interior, slower near coasts, very little in the surrounding sea area.
The linear trends obscure flat periods and step changes. Figure 2 shows no change in annual 1979 through to about 1996. Then a step up to a flat period 1997 to about 2014, then another step to end of series.
Fig. 2.
Temperature trends across Saudi Arabia based on a linear regression model for the 1979–2019 period.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/60/8/full-JAMC-D-20-0273.1-f2.jpg
Overall 0.52 C/decade but no anthropogenic signal – just 2 distinct regimes of flat trends.
50
Simon >”a Saudi study published last month said temperatures in the area were rising by 0.4°C each decade.”
4 C/century. Extraordinary.
Is that one of those everywhere is warming faster than everywhere else studies?
90
Simon, temperature rising is no cause for concern.
Also, kindly provide the link to anthropogenic CO2.
40
Thankfully the long haul back to summer begins! More daylight and sun. Sadly for our brothers and sisters in the northern hemisphere they face the slide to another frigid winter that will be even colder than usual.
110
sadly The C has stopped comments for all but a very few articles so it is totally not a conversation whatever the topic.
141
To: Old Goat
Please, please, please cease mentioning nuclear fusion as if it could EVER be a human-controlled source of usable power
We know of only two circumstances where nuclear fusion occurs:
1. Stars – by virtue of their staggering mass can compress H and He and contain the fusion reactions
2. Thermonuclear bombs, which achieve fusion for staggeringly instantaneous moments of time and yield vast (but completely unusable) amounts of energy
Earth has nowhere near the total mass/gravitational force to contain the fusion reactions, and no contrivance of man can ever contain these huge forces
The dream of Fusion Energy is as futile as Hydrogen Energy Storage. Either enterprise is doomed by physical and thermodynamic laws to never produce more (if any) useful benefits that exceed the immense cost and energy to produce.
120
There were famous predictions which were wrong. My favorite was the Cambridge Physics professor who predicted that a steam boat would never make it to America. More distance meant more coal which meant a bigger boat which meant more drag which meant energy loss which meant a bigger boat. Two weeks later a steam boat arrived in New York.
There have been exciting developments in fusion just this year.
And a lot of the funding is private.
50
I hope everyone reads this ABC report on the true cost of Australia’s transition to their so called clean, green economy.
Even their ABC tells the truth sometimes and they clearly told us 2 months ago that the costs would be TRILLIONs of $ and never forget this toxic mess will have to be cleaned up and replaced every 15 to 20 years.
Dutton was honestly telling us the same story yesterday amid howls from the ignorant lefty loonies.
Yet the CSIRO was recently quoting about 8 billion $ for the building of our 1st Nuclear power station. So 7 times 8 = 56 billion $, so what’s their problem?
Of course these very cheap Nuclear power plants should last for at least 80 years and have a capacity factor of about 94%. See the Wiki CFs for the USA total of 95 Nuclear power stns.
So why spend ongoing trillions of $ forever when we know we could spend just 56 billion $ and cover ourselves for the next one hundred years?
BTW one trillion $ = 1000 billion $, just in case we have any lefties trying to tell us that toxic W & S are the cheapest electricity for Australia.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-19/australias-energy-transition-needs-gas-safety-net-report-finds/102236352
140
BTW Australia’s GDP for 2023 is about 1.7 trillion dollars, just in case crazy loonies think we should still proceed with their toxic W & S idiocy. See Wiki link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Australia
80
Solar and wind ought not be combined with biomass and geothermal. Likely the data are not available.
Nevertheless, biomass can mean several things from burning of waste paper or piping Methane off of a landfill. The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) lists 24 sites below its chart:
https://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
Geothermal has been used since the 1890s at Boise, Idaho.
https://idahonews.com/news/local/how-geothermal-energy-heats-the-city-of-boise
Both of these, with proper incentives, can be increased. Central Washington University is currently constructing buildings that will tap into geothermal. I’m not suggestion these are better, only that they a not inherently intermittent.
40
The data probably is there, but in different tables and possibly different units. I spent a while trying to extend the OWID graph, including converting exajoules to TWh etc, but gave up at 4am when I would need to find a different table for the “other renewables” splits.
It just wasn’t worth the effort. The graph probably wouldn’t look much different anyhow. They don’t want to make it easy for people to see the important trends.
70
Makes nuclear look cheap, it can run at 100% 24/7.
70
Can’t have that. Endless energy all the time will lead to human flourishing via economic growth. /sarc
80
Asked about the possibility of unlimited cheap energy some decades ago, an “environmental” campaigner likened unlimited cheap energy to giving a child a loaded machine gun.
Such is the “depth” of thought applied to the task.
70
And another cohort of grifters – guys who will come and “clean” your residential solar panels.
Looks like they live off the “profits” that these solar panels can generate for owners.
Wonder if anyone tells the dopey panel owners that they are ripping-off poor folk who cannot afford them.
(Unpaid network-use charge for their night use of the grid not fairly recovered from them compared to renters and the capital poor).
So panel cleaning cost does not seem so bad after Gov subsidies and negligible network-use charge.
Just another job that was not necessary before this addiction took hold.
And another waste of resource and effort since panel efficiency is not that important in a glut of solar.
70
The terrible scam is that the ‘profits’ come from ripping off everyone with Green certificates from increasing the cost of electricity. And half the purchase cost was funded the same way, buy ripping off eveyrone including the buyers!
Everyone would have cheaper, more reliable electricity if no one had solar panels.
60
The real world data once again simply demonstrates the utter futility and lunacy of the notion of ‘decarbonisation’.
Mugged by reality.
70
Here’s a real surprise comparing countries’ electricity use as a share of primary energy.
I’ve chosen a number of countries, but electricity is not as high as the 25% I’ve read about and heard about in the past debates etc.
Or am I missing something? Anyone got any ideas?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-as-a-share-of-primary-energy?tab=chart&country=OWID_WRL~OECD+%28EI%29~Non-OECD+%28EI%29~AUS~USA~CAN
40
BTW just added China to the list and a massive increase in the use of electricity since 1985 and today is the highest percentage and even above Canada. But very low in 1985.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-as-a-share-of-primary-energy?tab=chart&country=OWID_WRL~OECD+%28EI%29~Non-OECD+%28EI%29~AUS~USA~CAN~CHN
40
In America, Donald Trump will get the gas, oil and coal flowing again and facilitate bringing nuclear power stations online, as required. Just as he did last time. Even if he has to do it from a jail cell “office” if the Commies jail him.
Australia has no one with any chance of becoming PM who has that level of commitment or understanding.
100
Jo,
I sent the following to statisticalreview@energyinst.org. (I’ve left out my name and address.)
It’ll be interesting to see their reply, if any. I don’t remember errors like this when BP ran the show.
Pat
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Sir/ Madam,,
I started to look through the document this afternoon and was confused by the map and graphs starting on pages 6 and 7.
By working backwards in the Primary Energy: Consumption table on pages 13 and 14, was able to determine that the group labelled “South Asia” included Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.
I assume the group in the table labelled “Other Asia Pacific” includes countries not mentioned like Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Pacific island like Timor-Leste, PNG, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu etc.
The graph on page 7 appears to mis-label the Asia Pacific region as “Other Asia Pacific”. This error, if is one, appears to be repeated in other parts of the document.
Can you please confirm which countries are included in the “other Asia Pacific” group.
It would be most helpful to the reader to have each group used throughout the document listed along with its member countries.
Sincerely yours,
“
90
Thanks Pat. Do let us know if they reply. I’m interested.
40
This huge sum of money would build over 5oo of Dutton’s “oh so expensive” Reactors which would tick over producing 90 -100% of name plate output for possibly 40 to 50 years with proper maintenance and upgrades. All without bulldozing thousands of kilometers of treed ridgelines for access and installation of turbines or the knocking down of every tree over hundreds of square kilometers for solar panel installations. Put into Windmills and Solar with around 30% capacity factor the $1.8 Trillion is sitting there, idle, producing nothing for an accumulated 20 years out of the next 30 years. This is assuming the renewables are not hit by Hail, Tornados or Cyclones over 30 years of exposure, otherwise there may be a bit more idle time.
70
ELECTION 2024
“Greenlash” is Here
Democrats (Australian Liberals) take note.
The results from the recent European parliament elections were quite something. Right populists did very well indeed while the European Greens took big losses.
They lost 18 of their 72 seats in the European parliament and their performance was particularly bad in the E.U.’s two largest states, Germany and France. In Germany, the core country of the European green movement, support for the Greens plunged from 20.5 percent in 2019 to 12 percent. Shockingly, among voters under 25, the German Greens actually did worse than the hard right Alternative for Germany (AfD). That contrasts with the 2019 elections, when the Greens did seven times better than the AfD among these young voters.
And in France, Green support crashed from 13.5 percent to 5.5 percent. The latter figure is barely above the required threshold for party representation in the French delegation.
The Greens’ overall poor performance means they are now behind not only the traditionally largest party groupings—the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), the social-democratic Socialists and Democrats group and the liberal Renew Europe group, but also both right-populist groupings—the European Conservatives and Reformists (which includes Georgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy) and the Identity and Democracy group (which includes Marine LePen’s National Rally group)—and even the non-affiliated group (which includes Alternative for Germany (AfD) and Hungary’s Fidesz party).
There’s a reason for this. While there’s no doubt that concerns about immigration were key to the right populist surge in these elections, the role of backlash against green policies (call it “greenlash”) should not be underestimated. And the fattest target for this greenlash was naturally the Greens, the most fervent proponents of the European “Green Deal” and associated policies. The implications of this are huge.
As Adam Tooze, himself a strong supporter of green policies, admits:
The elections have tilted the European political balance against the green agenda which has served as an important reference point for politics in Brussels for the last five years….Even if Ursula von der Leyen succeeds in her bid for a second term as Commission President, she will not be pursuing the full-throated green-forward policy that launched the Green Deal in 2019 and Next Gen EU in 2020….There is a groundswell of opinion in Europe that is preoccupied with the cost of living, wants to keep its internal combustion-engined cars and sympathizes with farmers in their opposition to green regulation.
70
Spending money translates to burning fossil fuels. The great fantasy is that wind turbines and solar panels lower the use of fossil fuels. None of these energy extractors currently last long enough to produce more energy than what went into manufacturing them. Australia is simply shifting its coal, iron ore, copper concentrate and bauxite to China so it can be returned as solar panels, wind turbines, line towers, conductors, transformers, semiconductors, switch gear, synchronous condensers, batteries and a myriad of other so=call transition hardware in a never ending cycle of economic demise.
Surely there are people smarter than Peter Dutton that also get this!
100
It is a sad reflection on Australia’s education system when we have policemen/politician coming up with much smarter energy policy than the dim witted former chief scientist.
90
Just checked and right now wind and solar are producing 4% of the eastern side of Oz with electricity, we need more panels and wind farms right now . We might get that up to 4.5% if only we invest another couple hundred billion $$$ .
100
As the windmills and solar panels start to die we will end up with Nett Zero. All our money will keep going to replace what is already there. It’s not like coal power stations where we are blowing them up after fifty years even if they are working perfectly. And likely because they are working perfectly.
100
The cleanest fuels after hydroelectric are nuclear, gas, and coal.
Both photo voltaic and wind energy require dirty mining and substantial use of heat in their production. Both require substantial loss of environment and leave wide areas of environment with long term surface damage which will take years to repair.
There is no such thing as free or clean energy but nuclear claims the prize of being closest to perfect. Only highly ignorant, gullible, stupid or foolish politicians would invest in technologies which involve huge costs in removing when at last the penny drops about them. The catastrophic mistakes that have been made by those in power are infinitely worse that ever would have been business as usual. Once upon a time democracy guaranteed choice but these days it guarantees nothing but the same old, same old. Where did we go wrong?
70
Al Gore tapped into an ancient idea. Earth, wind, sun and not fire. We have gone backwards two hundred years. Why?
Because of the $1.8Tn. What has that huge sum achieved? Absolutely nothing. Disposables, unreliables, impracticals and environmentally destructive.
40
That’s such an awefull picture of the smoke stack . .
20
[…] From JoNova […]
00
[…] https://joannenova.com.au/2024/06/despite-spending-1-8-trillion-on-clean-energy-last-year-the-world-… […]
00