Listen to us: we control the weather – listen

A conference is under way in Auckland. The Climate Change and Business Conference has brought together the great and the good from New Zealand and overseas. Yesterday and today, these fine people are lending their personal dignity to the completely senseless notion that we control the weather.

Propaganda doesn’t come in any more blatant form than this, when an idea of no value is propagated by eminent speakers. But is anyone listening?

There are scientists, diplomats,  academics, public policy experts, journalists and others striving to save the world from catastrophic man-made warming. Though it hasn’t really been warming and the only sign of catastrophe comes from unverified climate models claiming to predict the weather in a hundred years.

They are right this minute discussing how our key trading partners are responding to the Paris climate treaty, how national targets are being set, what the policy responses are, the economic tools being developed or implemented, the implications of these for national and international markets, and where new business opportunities are likely to arise.

They’re treating it quite seriously. So it strikes me as extremely odd to find, in their programme posted online, that they’ve completely misconstrued the meaning of the Paris climate treaty.

They describe COP 21 as “setting a new global mandate” to “reduce global greenhouse gas emissions” to ensure “global temperature does not get above 2 degrees Celsius”. They say the agreement “has created a new paradigm” that “will require changed practices” at the global, country and local levels. The conference will help to explain “the evolving rules framework arising from the Paris agreement” and the likely implications for New Zealand.

But none of these things are necessary because they’ve read too much into the treaty. The Paris agreement requires nothing from the signatories. If countries implement more of their planned emission reductions they will incur expenditure that will achieve precisely no change in the weather, because the total amount of man-made warming over the last hundred years, according to the IPCC’s best guess, is about half a degree, and that’s too small for any noticeable effect on the weather.

Notalotofpeopleknowthat examined the Paris agreement and identified what countries had actually agreed to in order to save the world. They agreed to just two things:

  1. Submit new Nationally Determined Contributions (stating their emissions reduction target) every five years.
  2. Provide a GHG stocktake every five years, commencing in 2023.

Which won’t save the world and, as Paul Homewood notes, even those undemanding tasks are not binding, since there’s no provision to fine or otherwise punish any country that fails to meet its targets. A paper tiger, this treaty.

The worthies now sitting in Auckland earnestly considering how cities and companies will meet their “duty” to change the weather really ought to put their time to better use. Just doing their homework would be a damn good start. If they had noticed the emptiness in the heart of the treaty and therefore the uselessness of pulling it apart to guide policy, how many of them would still brazenly have splurged their organization’s funds on tickets to Auckland?

Is anyone listening?

— h/t Andy Scrase

179 Thoughts on “Listen to us: we control the weather – listen

  1. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 2:50 pm said:

    >”and where new business opportunities are likely to arise”

    Like wind and solar.

    TPW (NZSX) Trustpower Limited $7.420. Split tomorrow. TPW delists, two new companies list – TPX (mostly retail and hydro gen) and TLT (Tilt Renewables, wind and solar).

    $7.420 split implies $3.71 each but not so obviously given the assets and liabilities below. The market will decide what the respective value is. I’m guessing TLT will slump from its consolidated value i.e. the total of TLT shares on issue times price plus the total of TPX shares on issue times price tomorrow and the weeks ahead will be less than the total of TPW shares on issue times price at delisting closing price this afternoon . That would mean a significant loss of wealth from TPW if that happens for both direct investors and indirect though funds like Kiwisaver.

    Could be wrong of course.

    Bank Debt: New TrustPower TPX (104,591,000) vs Tilt Renewables TLT (640,035,000)
    Net Assets: New TrustPower TPX 1,423,443,000 vs Tilt Renewables TLT 465,201,000

    Table for FY2016 Trustpower audited consolidated financial statements into the New Trustpower Group (TPX) and Tilt Renewables Group (TLT) here:

    http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2016/09/niwa-scientists-agree-de-freitas-climate-paper-streets-ahead/comment-page-3/#comment-1517739

  2. Maggy Wassilieff on October 12, 2016 at 3:01 pm said:
  3. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 4:53 pm said:

    Deutsche Bank value TPW at NZ$8.80, been dropping down to $7.44 current. Not that Deutsche Bank are anything to go by, they are in a whole heap of trouble with valuation of their own assets (read “derivatives”). Probably need a bail out or bail in eventually (“Too big to fail”) and could be the catalyst for a European banking crisis even worse than it is now.

    TrustPower : Better together, now better apart? August 19, 2016 Deutsche Bank
    https://airexmarket.com/documents/57bf887b69702d4a88000035

    *Relative by-part valuation scenario points to upside post demerger Australia has a similar asset (IFN.ASX) to Tilt and the NZ Gentailers are a good proxy for New TPW. Applying the average big 3 Gentailer FY17E EV/EBITDA multiple (11.4X) to the FY17E New TPW EBITDA and the Bloomberg consensus for IFN’s forward multiple (11.5X) to the FY17E Tilt EBITDA equates to a relative valuation of NZ$8.07. We make an argument why TILT could trade at a premium to the Infigen multiple, and find that on an EV/MW basis a 10% premium would be justified and on the more relevant EV/GWh more than a 20% premium could be considered. A 20% premium would have TILT valued at 13.8X EV/EBITDA implying a fair value for the all the parts of NZ$8.80

    # # #

    I could work the value of TLT from 315,751,900 TPW shares on issue = 157,875,950 TLT applied to “13.8X EV/EBITDA” but I can’t be bothered. Can’t find a respective valuation anywhere (free of charge) of TPX and TLT respectively either.

    Based on Book Value Of Equity Per Share (BVPS):
    http://www.readyratios.com/reference/analysis/book_value_of_equity_per_share_bvps.html

    Obviously the market pays a huge premium for future prospects, earnings, dividends, growth etc. BVPS is the minimum value irrespective of future prospects and expectations

    TPW: 1,888,644 / 157,875,950 = 0.01 cents/share (current multiple 7.44/0.01 = 744 times)
    TPX: 1,423,443 / 157,875,950 = 0.009 cents/share
    TLT: 465,201 / 157,875,950 = 0.003 cents/share

    So applying the current multiple to both gives some indication of the respective valuations when trading begins:

    TPX: 0.009 * 744 = $6.696
    TLT: 0.003 * 744 = $2.232

    But because TLT has “extensive growth opportunities” supposedly (Deutsche Bank) and TPX has modest growth but high yield prospects, the multiples applied to each will be radically different. I could work out in advance the realistic respective multiples but can’t be bothered. Easier to just see what prices the market decides and work it out from that.

    $6.696 + $2.232 = $8.929 which is far greater than the current price ($7.44 ) and a little more than the Deutsche Bank valuation ($8.80).

    This is (very very roughly) the value case for demerger and split. Whether the value is realized or not remains to be seen (I don’t think so, TPW is already valued at the market’s valuation of $7.44 ).

    See next comment for more on this.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 5:20 pm said:

    ‘Trustpower split frees new entity to chase wind power, independent adviser says’ –
    August 18, 2016

    Trustpower’s plans to carve out its windfarms and renewable development pipeline into Tilt Renewables will give the new entity freedom to chase opportunities and should outweigh the cost of the transaction, according to an independent adviser’s report on the deal.

    […]

    Independent adviser Northington Partners says the two businesses are quite distinct with different growth and risk profiles, and that splitting them up would let different boards and management teams “refine strategies, objectives, and business processes to best suit the current circumstances and future opportunities facing each business,” enhance their ability to raise new capital, and give shareholders clearer investment choices.

    […]

    “We suggest a useful way to characterise the proposed demerger is that it puts Trustpower in a much better position to exercise the potentially valuable growth options it currently holds in wind generation developments, particularly in Australia,” the report said. “While there remains considerable uncertainty over the number and scale of the projects that will be developed, we believe the potential value creation from exercising these development options is significant and outweighs the costs of the proposed demerger.”

    Since the plan was first touted in December, Trustpower has confirmed development approval for the Palmer wind farm in South Australia, subject to the appeals process, and received sign-off to expand generation at the Salt Creek wind farm in Victoria. Majority shareholder Infratil has already given its blessing to the split, and its manager, HRL Morrison & Co, would have representation on the boards of both companies.

    Northington Partners said Trustpower’s board decided against selling Tilt Renewables because it was unlikely to attract a price capturing the full value of the development pipeline and chose not to sell the windfarm developments piecemeal as it would “create high transaction uncertainty and considerable periodic management distraction and would also involve significant transaction costs.”

    The adviser’s report estimates transaction and other one-off costs from demerger transaction to be between $75-90 million, an immaterial amount if the split benefits are achieved but representing a loss in shareholder value if they aren’t.

    https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/trustpower-split-frees-new-entity-chase-wind-power-independent-adviser-says-b-193116

    # # #

    TLT was not a saleable entity. And loss of $75-90 million is the least of the worst-case scenario worries.

    Firstly, the total of the share prices of TPX and TLT must add to at least $7.44 (with $75-90 mil added in) or there’s been a loss of wealth from current TPW price.

    Secondly, The market has already dialed in a loss of wealth at $7.44. Should be up around $8.80 if the value was actually there.

    Thirdly, once the debt-laden low asset value of TLT has been isolated (remember, couldn’t be sold as a separate entity as above), there is the distinct possibility that TLT could slump or plummet and TPX could gain because TLT is no longer consolidated and therefore no longer a drag on the TPX share price.

    Finally, wind has been ordered to reduce generation in South Australia after the system blackout on 28 September.

    Just remains to be seen if Tilt Renewables becomes a market darling or a dog with fleas.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 5:42 pm said:

    TrustPower TPW trading today (last day):

    http://www.findata.co.nz/markets/stockquote/nzx/tpw.htm

    Only one trade, 10,310 at 7.42. Bid 7.44 Ask 7.45 at close of trading.

    TPW market value at close was $7.42 on last price.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 6:34 pm said:

    ‘Clean Energy Investment Dropped 43% in Worst Quarter Since 2013’ – Bloomberg

    Global investment in clean energy fell to the lowest in more than three years as demand for new renewable energy sources slumped in China, Japan and Europe.

    Third-quarter spending was $42.4 billion, down 43 percent from the same period last year and the lowest since the $41.8 billion reported in the first quarter of 2013, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said in a report Monday.

    Financing for large solar and wind energy plants sank as governments cut incentives for clean energy and costs declined, said Michael Liebreich, founder and chairman of the advisory board of the London-based research company, a unit of Bloomberg LP. Total investment for this year is on track to be “well below” last year’s record of $348.5 billion, according to New Energy Finance.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-09/clean-energy-investment-dropped-43-in-worst-quarter-since-2013

    # # #

    Tilt Renewables – financial summary and capital structure

     Tilt Renewables has received legally binding commitments (subject to conditions precedent) from a syndicate of bank lenders to provide approximately A$715 million of new A$ and NZ$ bank facilities

     Tilt Renewables will have approximately A$100 million of committed debt facilities available for future development, acquisitions or expansion of solar or wind assets, and A$15 million for working capital requirements

    https://www.trustpower.co.nz/~/media/files/demerger/trustpower%20demerger%20presentation.pdf

  7. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 6:39 pm said:

    ‘CNBC Tears Down Elon Musk’s Snarky Response To A Coal CEO’

    CNBC corrected Tesla CEO Elon Musk Monday after he falsely claimed in a tweet that the coal industry receives more government handouts than renewable energy companies.

    Musk, who owns more than 20 percent of Tesla, tweeted out a response to comments made by Murray Energy CEO Robert E. Murray on “Squawk Box” suggesting that Tesla “has gotten $2 billion from the taxpayer,” and “has not made a penny yet in cash flow.”

    The government could shutter every single coal plant in the country, Murray added, and not see any discernible reduction in the Earth’s temperature.

    Musk apparently didn’t take kindly to the inference that one of his companies is failing despite being recipients of heavy government subsidies, so he took to Twitter, and wrote: the “real fraud going on is denial of climate science.” He attached the video of Murray to the tweet.

    Tesla receives far less in subsidies than the coal industry, Musk added, “How about we both go to zero?”

    [See Twitter exerpt]

    CNBC noted Musk’s claim, did a quick fact-check, and found that the renewable energy industry actually receives far more handouts than the coal industry.

    http://climatechangedispatch.com/cnbc-tears-down-elon-musks-snarky-response-to-a-coal-ceo/

  8. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 8:23 pm said:

    >”TPW: 1,888,644 / 157,875,950 = 0.01 cents/share (current multiple 7.44/0.01 = 744 times)”

    Expressed as Price to Book Value Ratio (PBV):
    PBV = Price per share / Book value of equity per share

    Investment Valuation Ratios: Price/Book Value Ratio – By Investopedia
    http://www.investopedia.com/university/ratios/investment-valuation/ratio2.asp

    Chapter 19 Book Value Multiples – New York University
    http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/pdfiles/valn2ed/ch19.pdf

    TPW book value of equity per share (Equity / Shares): 1,888,644 / 157,875,950 = 0.01 cents/share
    TPW PBV Ratio = 7.42 / 0/01 = PBV 742

    OK, let’s get some context and perspective for TPW with PBV of 742 from NYU Chapter 19 above.

    (Roughly) High PBV – Overvalued, Low PBV – Undervalued. Growth companies – High PBV.

    Illustration 19.3: Estimating the PBV ratio for a high growth firm in the two-stage model [Nestle]
    Nestle traded at a price-book value [PBV] ratio of 4.40 in May 2001.

    In Table 19.2, we report on the price to book ratios for integrated oil companies listed in the United States in September 2000. [Selected]
    Pennzoil-Quaker State PZL 0.95
    Shell Transport SC 1.45
    Royal Dutch Petr. RD 2.33
    Texaco Inc. TX 2.44
    Chevron Corp. CHV 3.03
    Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM 4.22
    BP Amoco ADR BPA 4.66

    Price/book value ratios for firms in the trucking industry,
    Builders Transport 2.00
    Carolina Freight 0.60
    Consolidated Freight 2.60
    J.B. Hunt 2.50
    M.S. Carriers 2.50
    Roadway Services 3.00
    Ryder System 2.25
    Xtra Corporation 2.80

    # # #

    Given high growth Nestle had a PBV of 4.4 in 2001, it is easy to see that there is a humungous growth expectation premium built in to TPW with PBV of 742 i.e. massively overpriced and a perilous downside.

    I suspect TLT is the reason for much of the huge TPW premium. We will see tomorrow.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on October 12, 2016 at 9:09 pm said:

    Valuing TPX and TLT with PBVs from Xtra Corporation 2.80 and Nestle 4.4 respectively versus NZ market valuation of TPW 742

    TPX: 0.009 * 2.80 = $0.0252 (@ Xtra Corporation PBV 2000)
    TLT: 0.003 * 4.40 = $0.0132 (@ Nestle PBV 2001 High Growth)

    TPX: 0.009 * 742 = $6.678
    TLT: 0.003 * 742 = $2.226

    One day in the future, maybe not far off, TPX and TLT investors are in for a nasty shock. There is minimal equity in either company.

  10. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 1:25 am said:

    Corrections (I knew it all badly wrong, previous calcs were nonsense)

    Book Value Of Equity Per Share (BVPS):
    TPW: 1,888,644,000 / 315,751,900 = 5.98 $/share (current multiple 7.42/5.98 = 1.24 times)
    TPX: 1,423,443,000 / 157,875,950 = 9.02 $/share
    TLT: 465,201,000 / 157,875,950 = 2.95 $/share

    Applying the current multiple to both gives some indication of the respective valuations when trading begins:

    TPX: 9.02 * 1.24 = $11.18
    TLT: 2.95 * 1.24 = $3.658

    $11.18 + $3.658 = $14.84 compared to TPW close $7.42. Chances of these prices seem extremely slim, but not impossible.

    Valuing TPX and TLT with PBVs from Xtra Corporation 2.80 and Nestle 4.4 respectively:
    TPX: 9.02 * 2.80 = $25.256 (@ Xtra Corporation PBV 2000)
    TLT: 2.95 * 4.40 = $13.024 (@ Nestle PBV 2001 High Growth)

    Chances of these prices seem even slimmer, to say the least.

    But obviously far greater equity in both companies than my previous error ridden and absurd calcs-on-the-fly. The split may even realize considerable value for shareholders. Seems highly improbable though given the $7.42 TPW market valuation, but could be very wrong.

    TPW was at a Price/Earnings multiple (PE) of 26.7 at balance date (gives $8.17 below) so it is not as if TPW is extraordinarily priced or unprofitable, on the contrary. There are plenty of companies on the NZX that are at higher PE multiples i.e. the amount that an investor pays per $1 of earnings or how many years worth of profits they are paying for a share. In TPW, about $26 payout to get $1 of TPW profit or 26 years to pay for the share.

    PE is probably how TPX and TLT will be valued but with different PEs for both and not necessarily 26.7. TPX having strong revenue and earnings so maybe a PE of 11 like Genesis Energy GNE. Food supplement firm Oceania Natural, ONL on NZX, is at a PE of 334.78. Zero XRO has no profit therefore no PE.

    Profit After Tax Attributable to Shareholders (Earnings per share roughly, actual EPS below) x PE:
    TPW 89,845,000 / 315,751,900 = 0.285 * 26.7 = $7.61
    TPX 58,838,000 / 157,875,950 = 0.373 * 11 = $4.10 (@ Genesis Energy PE)
    TLT 31,007,000 / 157,875,950 = 0.196 * 17.9 = $3.51 (to make residual of $7.61 – $4.10)

    This is a no gain or loss scenario for TPW shareholders except for split costs. But as for elsewhere around the world both companies are heavily indebted (TLT massively). That can turn out badly in a sharemarket downturn,

    TPW trading for last 5 months – EPS 0.306 * 26.7 gives $8.17
    http://www.findata.co.nz/markets/stockquote/nzx/tpw.htm

    EPS x PE = Price
    TPW 0.306 * 24.248 = $7.42
    TPX: 0.373 * 11 = $4.10 (@ Genesis Energy PE)
    TLT 0.196 * 16.93 = $3.32 (to make residual of $7.42 – $4.10)

    Price and value predictions:
    TPX $4.10 by PE, $11.18 by PBV (i.e. plenty of upside for TPX – BUY?)
    TLT $3.32 by PE, $3.66 by PBV

    Think I’ve got this right now. But the market tomorrow will tell me how wrong I still am.

  11. Dennis N Horne on October 13, 2016 at 6:18 am said:

    Control the weather?

    You’ve got to admit it would save on weather forecasting! 🙂 🙂 🙂

  12. Dennis N Horne on October 13, 2016 at 6:22 am said:

    Richard C (NZ): 1:25 am: Corrections (I knew it all badly wrong, previous calcs were nonsense)

    Oh No! Not Nonsense!

    How can you tell? 🙂 🙂 🙂

  13. Dennis N Horne on October 13, 2016 at 6:50 am said:

    Andy Scrase got his raise
    Sea level in its funny ways
    Not for him a whiff of CO2
    Will his prediction far outdo
    Or laws of physics Earth obeys
    🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

  14. Dennis N Horne on October 13, 2016 at 8:36 am said:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-agreement-key-climate-points-1.3362500
    5 key points in Paris Agreement on climate change

    1. Limit temperature rise ‘well below’ 2 C
    The agreement includes a commitment to keep the rise in global temperatures “well below” 2 C.
    Scientists consider 2 C the threshold to limit potentially catastrophic climate change.

    2. First universal climate agreement

    3. Helping poorer nations
    Help these poorer countries combat climate change and foster greener economies. Promotes universal access to sustainable energy in developing countries, particularly in Africa. Greater use renewable energy.

    4. Publishing greenhouse gas reduction targets
    The agreement also says that each country should strive to drive down their carbon output asap.

    5. Carbon neutral by 2050?
    Sets the goal of a carbon-neutral world sometime after 2050 but before 2100. Commitment to limiting greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 9:21 am said:

    ‘How much wind power can a grid handle?’ – JoNova

    Could Australia end up with synchronous failure across states?

    When wind power is maxing out it’s bad for grid stability — it pushes out the reliable spinning inertia — the massive rolling turbines that relentlessly pull the grid back to 50Hz. Here’s a graph of SA and Victoria wind farms last month, and you can see that for all the thousand kilometers that might separate them, they are controlled by much larger common weather patterns.

    Tom Quirk looks out our national grid in light of the SA blackout debacle. The message from South Australia is that wind power does not make for nice stable and synchronous grids. As I mentioned before the whole idea of alternating current (or AC electricity) is about the exact push pull of electrons at a set frequency. The grid lives and dies by its frequency. We can’t add a 53Hz current to a 47Hz one and get a 50 Hz average. When different frequencies meet we get interference patterns – a mess of spikes and dips. Say hello to Lumpy Electricity. Say goodbye to your computer.

    Indeed when the frequency hit 47Hz the Victorian interconnector said goodbye to the whole state of South Australia. (See graph 1 at that link).

    Tom Quirk expands on this and talks about how heavy spinning turbines (like coal, but not wind) are able to share the load of frequency changes in the grid and restore the frequency back to the sacred 50Hz. He estimates that once wind power supplies more than 20% of the total grid, things can get hairy, and with South Australia at 40% and Victoria planning to jump to 20 – 30% now is the time to figure out those limits and the costs. (Ten years ago would’ve been better). Don’t cry now, but Queensland’s target seems to be 50%. Let’s not mention Bill Shorten, potential PM, who floated some fantasy that the whole nation could get to 50%. The least mad state might be WA. Time to secede? Our state is not on the “national” grid — it’s islanded already and every day. That might be what saved us from copying South Australia.

    Please can one government somewhere do a cost-benefit estimate on the value of cooling Australia with bat-killing giant fans?

    […]

    ‘Problems and Limits for Wind Power’ – Guest post by Tom Quirk

    http://joannenova.com.au/2016/10/how-much-wind-power-can-a-grid-handle/

    “Are we trying to change the weather?” – Jo

  16. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 9:22 am said:

    ‘The truth about [US] energy subsidies – solar gets 436 times more than coal’ – Anthony Watts

    The next time some paid troll whines about coal getting government subsidies, and wind and solar being “pure” show them this.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/12/the-truth-about-energy-subsidies-solar-gets-436-times-more-than-coal/

  17. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 10:01 am said:

    Tilt Renewables – Overview of the Demerger

    “17 October 2016 anticipated date of normal trading of New Trustpower and Tilt Renewables shares on the NZX Main Board and the ASX”

    https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/244013.pdf

    Monday. I got 13 Oct from somewhere.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 10:28 am said:

    Australia > Clean Energy Regulator > Renewable Energy Target > About the Renewable Energy Target > How the scheme works 28 October 2015 RET

    ​The Clean Energy Regulator administers the Renewable Energy Target’s two schemes:

    • The Large-scale Renewable Energy Target, which encourages investment in renewable power stations to achieve 33 000 gigawatt hours of additional renewable electricity generation by 2020, and
    • The Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme, which supports small-scale installations like household solar panels and solar hot water systems.

    The Large-scale Renewable Energy Target is designed to deliver the majority of the 2020 target, while the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme supports the installation of small-scale renewables, such as household solar rooftop panels and solar hot water systems.

    http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/RET/About-the-Renewable-Energy-Target/How-the-scheme-works

    Tilt Renewables – The renewable energy target [as above plus……]

    • The revised RET will require approximately 5,000MW of new renewable generation capacity to be built within the next four to five years

    – effectively doubles the amount of large-scale renewable energy being delivered in Australia, compared with current levels

    Tilt Renewables – Paris Agreement – COP 21

    •The Paris Agreement defines the long-term objective of collective action to limit global warming to “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and take steps to limit warming to 1.5°C
    •Australia will implement an economy-wide target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% on 2005 levels by 2030
    –Australia will seek to ratify the agreement by the end of 2016
    •The sustained decarbonisation of Australia’s electricity sector is necessary to meet the Australian carbon budget
    –this will need to be faster and more pronounced under a 1.5°C scenario
    –Australia has substantial, cost-effective opportunities to reduce electricity sector emissions as part of national action plans
    •Electricity decarbonisation is a strategic priority as it is the largest source of emissions (approximately 1/3rd of total emissions)
    •Retirement of high-carbon generation that is nearing the end of its useful life is critical in the short-term
    •Renewable energy deployment will need to increase along with other low and zero emission energy supply technologies
    •Failure to decarbonise the electricity sector will require a significant increase in emissions reductions from other economic sectors or greater reliance on carbon sequestration

    https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/244013.pdf

    # # #

    Except since 28 October 2015 there’s considerable uncertainty, See next comment.

  19. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 10:45 am said:

    REneweconomy – “tracking the next industrial revolution”

    ‘Utilities may push for new RET review if Coalition returned’ – By Giles Parkinson on 30 June 2016

    Concern is rising that the Australia’s biggest utilities and coal generators will push for yet another review of the renewable energy target if the Coalition is returned to government on Saturday, and is presented with a “workable” majority of supporters in the Senate.

    The major utitilies have made it quite clear in recent months – as have numerous analysts – that meeting even the reduced RET of 33,000GWh by 2020 will be near impossible. One analysis suggests that 4,000MW of new large scale wind and solar needs to be contracted by year end. And that simply won’t happen.

    The reason it won’t be contracted is because of policy uncertainty and an effective “capital strike” by the utilities, as this analysis by David Leitch underlines [hotlink]. Without any meaningful penalty or reward, there is neither a carrot nor a stick to force the utilities to write contracts to get new wind and solar farms built.

    The majority of new projects that have been committed owe their funding to the reverse auction and 100 per cent renewable energy target from the ACT, or from grants from the Australiam Renewable Energy Agency, which the Coalition wants to strip of its remaining $1.3 billion in funds. The ACT projects do not contribute to the RET because the ACT government wants to ensure they are additional to the federal target.

    The Coalition government has always insisted that the there would be no further changes to the RET, having threatened to abolish it altogether and then striking a deal with Labor to cut it from 41,000GWh to 33,000GWh.

    But it has been long speculated that the Coalition government, with numerous climate science deniers and wind farm opponents in the ranks, would not hold the line. The utilities appear to have made the same assumption, and may be willing to force the issue depending on the outcome of Saturday’s election.

    More >>>>>>
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/utilities-may-push-for-new-ret-review-if-coalition-returned-27863

    # # #

    “Climate science deniers” are to be feared apparently.

    No doubt the South Australia blackout will be reverberating too. Obviously gone beyond the limit of wind on the grid there.

    [Enough of OZ apart from checking in on TPX and TLT on Monday]

  20. Scientists consider 2 C the threshold to limit potentially catastrophic climate change.

    Except that there is no science whatsoever to support this

  21. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 11:07 am said:

    I wonder if anything of substance came out of this:

    Session 9: New Zealand’s transition pathway

    The world needs to get to net zero emissions. New Zealand has been thinking about the best way to get there. So have other countries. What should New Zealand’s transition pathway look like? This session examines the development of transition pathway policy frameworks and the possible structure and content of such a framework for New Zealand.

    Chair: Dr Janet Stephenson, Directory of the Centre for Sustainability, Otago University

    Speakers

    Keynote: Case study – UK Transition Pathway –Matthew Bell, Chief Executive, Committee on Climate Change, UK (pre-recorded video)
    Transition pathways – a critical analysis – Sir Jonathon Porritt, Forum for the Future (pre-recorded video)

    Panel

    Dr Megan Woods, Spokesperson on Climate Change, Labour Party
    Kennedy Graham MP, Green Party
    Professor David Frame, Director, Deep South National Science Challenge, IPCC author
    Lawrence Yule, President, Local Government New Zealand
    Rachel Brown, Chief Executive Officer, Sustainable Business Network
    Professor Barry Barton, School of Law, University of Waikato

    http://www.cvent.com/events/climate-change-business-conference-2016/agenda-cc6508d36a604fd3933817cf04fc6fee.aspx

    # # #

    >”New Zealand has been thinking about the best way to get there.”

    Yes lots of “thinking”, lots of conferences too. Especially when it’s your career and/or your ideology.

    >”What should New Zealand’s transition pathway look like?”

    Well? Did they decide anything? Or are they back to “thinking”?

  22. Dennis N Horne on October 13, 2016 at 11:47 am said:

    Ship to German Coastguard: Mayday Mayday Mayday
    Coastguard: Go ahead Ship
    Ship: Mayday Mayday Mayday we are sinking
    Coastguard: Ja (pause) Ja, and vot are you sinking about

  23. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 11:48 am said:

    Tom Quirk

    All for what? CO2 “saved” is inconsequential

    There is a cascading series of orders of magnitude that are largely absent from the political approach to the climate change issue. As a world total we generate some 27 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide annually from the use of fossil fuels. Forest and peat fires in the tropics generate 13 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide annually. China current annual production is 9 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide and it plans to have an annual increase that is equal to the total annual carbon dioxide emissions from Australia of 0.33 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. The contribution from South Australia is 6% of Australia’s emissions and it is of no consequence but what about the cost?

    # # #

    The world is never going to get to “net zero emissions”.

    There is no need for New Zealand to “think” about the best way to get to “net zero emissions” in the above context. Neither is there a need to “think” about what New Zealand’s transition pathway to “net zero emissions” should look like. It is never going to happen and would make no difference anyway.

    Conferences like The Australia-New Zealand Climate Change and Business Conference are incredibly stupid.

  24. Dennis N Horne on October 13, 2016 at 11:54 am said:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/2015-record-heat-1.3411797
    Heat record: 2015 was hottest year by huge margin
    El Nino partly to blame, but human activity was the main driver, NASA and NOAA scientists say
    The Associated Press Posted: Jan 20, 2016

    Last year wasn’t just the Earth’s hottest year on record — it left a century of high temperature marks in the dust.

    The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and NASA announced Wednesday that 2015 was by far the hottest year in 136 years of record keeping.

    NOAA said 2015’s average temperature was 14.79 degrees Celsius (58.62 degrees Fahrenheit), passing 2014 by a record margin of 0.16 C (0.29 F). That’s 0.90 C (1.62 F) above the 20th-century average. NASA, which measures differently, said 2015 was 0.13 C (0.23 F) warmer than the record set in 2014.

    Because of the wide margin over 2014, NASA calculated that 2015 was a record with 94 per cent certainty, about double the certainty it had last year when announcing 2014 as a record.

    4th record in 11 years

    Although 2015 is now the hottest on record, it was the fourth time in 11 years that Earth broke annual marks for high temperature.

    “It’s getting to the point where breaking record is the norm,” Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe said. “It’s almost unusual when we’re not breaking a record.”

    Scientists blame a combination of El Nino and increasing man-made global warming.

    Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University said a strong El Nino, like this year’s, can add about a third of a degree of warming to Earth’s temperature.

    “Records will happen during El Nino years due to the extra warming boost they provide,” Mann said in an email. “That boost of warmth however sits upon the ramp of global warming.”

    And it’s likely to happen this year, too. NASA scientists and others said there’s a good chance that this year will pass 2015 as the hottest year on record, thanks to El Nino.

    “2015 will be difficult to beat, but you say that almost every year and you get surprised,” said Victor Gensini, a meteorology professor at the College of DuPage outside of Chicago.

    Persian Gulf may soon be too hot to support human life
    Ocean absorption of man-made heat accelerates at colossal rate
    Measurements from Japan and the University of California at Berkeley also show 2015 is the warmest on record. Satellite measurements, which scientists say don’t measure where we live and have a larger margin of error, calculate that last year was only the third hottest since 1979.

  25. Look on the positive side Dennis.

    if we get President Clinton (the non-rapist version), a nuclear war with Russia becomes a lot more likely and this will dramatically reduce emissions.

  26. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 1:13 pm said:

    >”last year”

    Great. Dennis is catching up. Was last century, then last decade. now last year.

    Waiting for “last month” now. Maybe then “this month”. But baby steps.

    Here’s hoping though:
    http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cdas_v2_hemisphere_2016.png

  27. ‘Satellite measurements … have a larger margin of error …’

    The IPCC disagrees, the ± error margins show the satellite datasets as being more accurate:

    Land based datasets 1979–2012 (table 2.4, pg 187, working group 1, IPCC AR5):
    CRUTEM4.1.1.0 (Jones et al., 2012) 0.254 ± 0.050
    GHCNv3.2.0 (Lawrimore et al., 2011) 0.273 ± 0.047
    GISS (Hansen et al., 2010) 0.267 ± 0.054
    Berkeley (Rohde et al., 2013) 0.254 ± 0.049

    Satellite datasets 1979–2012 (table 2.8, pg 197, working group 1, IPCC AR5):
    UAH (Christy et al., 2003) 0.138 ± 0.043
    RSS (Mears and Wentz, 2009a, 2009b) 0.131 ± 0.045

    Of course this was a few years ago and the error margins may have changed since then.

  28. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 2:53 pm said:

    ‘Costa Rica and New Zealand on Path to Carbon Neutrality’ – from about a decade ago

    While some of the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs) hem and haw about how to—or even if to—limit their contributions to climate change, at least two small countries are blazing trails for the world to follow. Both Costa Rica and New Zealand have declared over the past several months their intentions to become carbon neutral. Together, they accounted for about 0.15 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions in 2005, according to the World Bank.

    […]

    But Costa Rica could be in a race with New Zealand, which last month set the target of becoming “the first truly sustainable nation on earth.” Prime Minister Helen Clark announced in a speech on September 20 that her country will adopt an economy-wide program to reduce all GHG emissions, with different economic sectors being gradually introduced into a national emissions trading program that should be in effect fully by 2013. Other commitments include an increase in renewable electricity to 90 percent by 2025 (up from 70 percent today), a major net increase in forest area, widespread introduction of electric vehicles, and a 50 percent reduction in transport-related emissions by 2040.

    http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5439

    # # #

    >”Blazing trails for the world to follow”
    >”Together, they accounted for about 0.15 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions in 2005″

    The rest of the world must have applauded the leadership and heaved a sigh of relief. I don’t remember news of that though.

    Meanwhile, Costa Rica’s debt bomb detonated:

    The Bankruptcy Of The Planet Accelerates – 24 Nations Are Currently Facing A Debt Crisis (2015)
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-bankruptcy-of-the-planet-accelerates-24-nations-are-currently-facing-a-debt-crisis/5463032

  29. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 3:36 pm said:

    Policy Framework for New Zealand to Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy – Roger Blakely May 2016

    Conclusion – These reflections and analyses lead to ten conclusions.

    First, New Zealand and the world need to aim for a target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 in order to meet the COP21 objective of limiting global warming to 2°C and the intent to hold global warming to 1.5°C. This is significantly more challenging than New Zealand’s 2030 INDC target and the 50% by 2050 gazetted target.

    Second, this will require emissions of carbon dioxide to be reduced rapidly over the next two decades.

    Third, preliminary analyses by officials on long-term pathways to a low-carbon economy suggest that it is only just possible to reduce New Zealand’s gross domestic CO2-only emissions rapidly enough to meet a ‘contract and converge’ budget for New Zealand consistent with a 2°C global climate goal (based on standard asset lifetimes and turnover rates for most sectors). Other scenarios need to be developed.

    Fourth, there have been strong calls for a comprehensive plan for moving New Zealand to a low-carbon economy, in which the ETS is complemented by a mix of mutually reinforcing policies.

    Fifth, the review of the ETS should include a $25 per tonne price floor and an interim $100 per tonne price cap for two years to limit uncertainty; thereafter prices need to reflect supply and demand, and will be expected to approach the social cost of carbon over time, and nitrous oxide should be brought immediately into the ETS.

    Sixth, the largest incremental gains in emissions reduction are likely to be in the areas of energy and transport; for example, from the shift to electric vehicles, and with biofuels replacing carbon-emitting coal as the source of industrial heat. There will be strong technology-led and market-led drivers for change, but policies will be required where there are market barriers.

    Seventh, it is recommended that New Zealand set a target of moving towards 100% renewable electricity, and adopt a target of 100% renewable transport fuels by 2040.

    Eighth, cities have become the engines of growth of nations because of globalisation, the knowledge economy and rapid urbanisation, and city policies such as compact city strategies support a shift towards public transport, cycling and walking and will significantly add to the achievement of New Zealand’s emission reduction targets.

    Ninth, science and productivity solutions to reduce ruminant emissions in agriculture, and a more meaningful price of carbon in the ETS to improve the mitigation potential in the forestry sector (through investment in afforestation and biofuels development), will be essential parts of the policy package.

    Finally, it is proposed that a forum including business, iwi, civil society and academia work with central and local government to help achieve broad agreement within two years on the 20-30- year transition path to a low-carbon economy.

    http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/publications/files/492437377b7.pdf

    # # #

    OK

    >”Other scenarios need to be developed” “it is proposed that a forum including ………”.

    “We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.”
    – Falsely attributed to Gaius Petronius Arbiter 210 BC. Quote is from Charlton Ogburn, Jr. (1911-1998), in Harper’s Magazine, “Merrill’s Marauders: The truth about an incredible adventure” (Jan 1957)

    Back to “thinking” again. To move this scenario development process along a bit, here’s one:

    Since walking will become de rigueur, a nation-wide sandal-making education programme linked to basket weaving courses for the carriage of provisions to be implemented immediately. Business cases to be developed for commercialization of the new economic activity in the footwear and baggage sectors..

    >”the ETS should include a $25 per tonne price floor”

    Why stop there? 25% GST and all income tax rates up 25% too. But why stop there?

    >”Sixth, the largest incremental gains in emissions reduction are likely to be in the areas of energy and transport;”

    See walking at third and eighth above.

  30. “25% GST and all income tax rates up 25% too.”

    This has been my argument too. Since carbon taxes are just another form of consumption tax, GST seems the easiest vehicle to implement, with no additional regulatory burden

    When i have made such suggestions to The Creed, they just accuse me of being alarmist and impractical

  31. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 4:59 pm said:

    83 cruise ship visits to Port of Tauranga this season incl. 347m 167,800 tonnes Ovation of the Seas. 20 years ago lucky to get a half dozen tubs. 347m container ship Maersk Aotea the other day first time, can carry 9,640 TEU. First container unloaded at PofT 1967.

    That’s just Tauranga. How can they possibly unwind this?

    ‘Carbon emissions from international cruise ship passengers’ travel to and from New Zealand’
    Oliver J.A. Howitt, Vincent G.N. Revol, Inga J. Smith, , Craig J. Rodger (2010)

    As of 1 July 2010 the transport sector enters into the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). After two and a half years, once “progressive obligation” has been phased out, the price of CO2 emissions will be $NZ25/tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (Ministry for the Environment, 2009). We will therefore consider a scenario in which a carbon price of this amount was set internationally, and quantify the effect on a single journey between Sydney and Auckland by plane and by cruise.

    One passenger on a cruise vessel would therefore typically produce about 930 kg of CO2 on the journey between Sydney and Auckland, using the emission factor from this research of 390 g of CO2 per p-km. In contrast, one passenger on a plane would typically produce about 230 kg of CO2, using the short-haul international emission factor of 98.3 g of CO2 per p-km 26 (DEFRA, 2008). Assuming a carbon price of $NZ25 per tonne of CO2, there would be an extra cost of $NZ23.25 for the passenger on the cruise and $NZ5.75 for the passenger on the plane. The cost of a one-way, 4 night cruise from Sydney to Auckland was found online from a cruise line to be $NZ457 pp (including taxes) for the cheapest option; which consisted of four people occupying a 17 m2 cabin. The cost of a one-way flight from Sydney to Auckland was found online from an airline to be $NZ316 pp (including taxes) for the cheapest available option. The relative price increase per passenger from the implementation of this carbon pricing would therefore be about 5% for a cruise passenger and 2% for an aircraft passenger.

    In the current study, 68 international cruise journeys carried a total of 59,636 passengers in the 2007 calendar year and generated an estimated total of 52.6 kt CO2 emissions.

    The total CO2 emissions from international cruise ship journeys to New Zealand are about 80 times smaller than the total CO2 emissions from international visitor aviation journeys estimated by Smith and Rodger (2009). Both international cruises and international aviation would not be affected by the present New Zealand national emissions trading scheme because international transport is currently excluded. However, there is a possibility that international transport would be accountable in some way in the future after the Kyoto Protocol expires. Any future New Zealand or international policy measure that aims to decrease international passenger transport emissions would need to be carefully constructed so that there are not perverse incentives that could inadvertently promote more carbon-intensive activities such as cruise ship journeys in their present form.

    Without the implementation of new policy measures, it seems unlikely that the industry would implement changes such as the example considered above of reducing the space and luxury amenities in order to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions per passenger kilometre for cruise ships.

    # # #

    68 international cruise journeys to New Zealand in 2007. 83 cruise ship visits to Port of Tauranga 2016/17.

    And they like their luxury.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 5:01 pm said:

    ‘Carbon emissions from international cruise ship passengers’ travel to and from New Zealand’
    Oliver J.A. Howitt, Vincent G.N. Revol, Inga J. Smith, , Craig J. Rodger (2010)

    http://www.physics.otago.ac.nz/space/cruise_ship_EnergyPol.pdf

  33. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 5:28 pm said:

    >”347m container ship Maersk Aotea the other day first time, can carry 9,640 TEU”

    Carbon tax levied on every container, Pacifica Shipping ETS Levy $6.00/container last I saw.

    Anyone notice how much better the weather has been?

  34. Anyone notice how much better the weather has been?

    It snowed yesterday at my place, and more is forecast for tomorrow

  35. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 8:49 pm said:

    >”Scientists consider 2 C the threshold to limit potentially catastrophic climate change.” Except that there is no science whatsoever to support this

    But “science has provided a wealth of information to support the use of that goal”. Note the language in the text in “Message 1” below.

    ‘In-depth: Is the 1.5C global warming goal politically possible?’

    Containing the views of 70 scientists gathered together in a process called the ” structured expert dialogue“, the report warns that even current levels of global warming – around 0.85C – are already intolerable in some parts of the world. It says:

    “Some experts warned that current levels of warming are already causing impacts beyond the current adaptive capacity of many people, and that there would be significant residual impacts even with 1.5C of warming (e.g. for sub-Saharan farmers), emphasising that reducing the limit to 1.5C would be nonetheless preferable.”

    History

    The 2C temperature goal was the product of the UN’s 2010 climate conference in Cancun, Mexico.

    To ease the political deadlock, countries agreed on a process to assess the adequacy of the 2C goal, and, in particular, whether a 1.5C target might be preferable in light of the science.

    The 34.5 hours of consultations that took place between 70 scientific experts culminated in the report discussed by policymakers in Bonn.

    While it did not make any official recommendations, it was clear that keeping temperatures below 1.5C would avoid some of the more severe impacts of climate change that would set in at around 2C.

    Written by the co-facilitators of the two-year dialogue, Andreas Fischlin and Zou Ji, the report states that the differences between 1.5 and 2C were likely to be “meaningful”, increasing the chance of extreme events and passing irreversible tipping points in the climate system.

    And it points out that technology required for limiting temperatures below 1.5C are no different from those required for 2C – although they would need to be deployed faster, meaning that the costs would be higher.

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-is-the-1-5c-global-warming-goal-politically-possible

    Structured Expert Dialogue (SED) – Report on the structured expert dialogue on the 2013–2015 review
    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/sb/eng/inf01.pdf

    ‘Differences over use of Structured Expert Dialogue report’
    http://www.twn.my/title2/climate/news/Bonn15/TWN_update11.pdf

    ’10 key messages from the Structured Expert Dialogue (SED)’

    Message 1: A long-term global goal defined by a temperature limit serves its purpose well

    Parties to the Convention agreed on an upper limit for global warming of 2°C, and science
    has provided a wealth of information to support the use of that goal.

    http://climateanalytics.org/files/10_key_messages_sed.pdf

    # # #

    >”science has provided a wealth of information to support the use of that goal”

    First come up with goal. Then cobble up some “information” to support it. Then change the goal.

  36. Richard C (NZ) on October 13, 2016 at 9:22 pm said:

    >”even current levels of global warming – around 0.85C – are already intolerable in some parts of the world”

    Except, that’s global average. Where’s that?

    Hemispheric Temperature Change
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A3.gif

    Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.B.gif

    >”a 1.5C target”

    Where does that apply? The Northern Latitudes are already at the target. And if we add 1.5C to the Southern Latitudes we’re in no trouble.

  37. Dennis N Horne on October 13, 2016 at 9:51 pm said:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
    In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person’s choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.[1] Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of an historical experience or event, by the person refusing to accept an empirically verifiable reality.[2] In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas.[3]

    So. Supposed to make you happy. Pretty obvious doesn’t work for everybody.

  38. Dennis N Horne on October 13, 2016 at 10:11 pm said:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-climate-change-sceptic-nigel-lawson-real-humans-causing-a7307456.html
    One of Britain’s leading climate change sceptics – former Chancellor Nigel Lawson – has admitted that humans are causing global warming. Speaking to the House of Lords’ Economic Affairs Committee, Lord Lawson said he did not “question for a moment” that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas. He accepted there was “huge agreement” among scientists that it was having “some effect” on the atmosphere.

    John Sauven, Greenpeace UK’s executive director, said Lord Lawson’s comments demonstrated “quite a U-turn from someone who once called the scientific consensus on climate change ‘mumbo jumbo’ and extolled the virtues of pumping more carbon into the atmosphere”. “With the impacts of climate change now playing out before our eyes, merchants of doubt like Lord Lawson are finding their dodgy wares ever harder to sell,” he said.

    The penny drops for the former Chancellor of the Exchequer (= Minister of Finance).

  39. I see that the RAF have been given the green light to shoot down Russian fighters in Syria, Moscow has been running major nuclear bunker drills, yet people are still worried what Donald Trump said 10 years ago and about a few fractions of a degree of warming over the last century

    Let’s talk about denial shall we?

  40. Dennis N Horne on October 13, 2016 at 10:15 pm said:

    (continued)

    Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, suggested Lord Lawson was behind the times.

    “In the last few years there’s been a massive turnaround in the seriousness with which major nations are treating climate change, stimulated both by growing evidence of impacts and the fast-changing economics of energy,” he said.

    “Major economies are all reforming their energy systems, headed by China where the government has blocked new coal-fired plants in most provinces and is instead speeding ahead with wind, solar and nuclear investment.

    “One result of this turnaround is that for the last two years, the global economy has grown but emissions have not – and the other is the Paris Agreement, made last December, under which every country will constrain its carbon emissions.

    “The world is changing fast – and not everyone has caught up.”

  41. Dennis N Horne on October 13, 2016 at 10:24 pm said:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-truth-about-climate-change-dangerous-2c-a7337871.html

    The world could hit two degrees Celsius of warming – the point at which many scientists believe climate change will become dangerous – as early as 2050, a group of leading experts has warned.

    In a report called The Truth About Climate Change, they said many people seemed to think of global warming as “abstract, distant and even controversial”.

    But the planet is now heating up “much faster” than anticipated, said Professor Sir Robert Watson, a former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of the authors of the report.

    If their analysis is correct, it means the majority of people alive today will experience what it is like to live on a dangerously overheated planet.

    At the Paris Climate Summit last year, world leaders agreed to try to limit global warming to as close to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels as possible – amid concerns the 2C target may not be safe enough. But in the same year the level of warming reached 1C after an astonishing 0.15C rise in just three years.

    Droughts, floods, wildfires and storms are all set to increase as the world warms, threatening crops and causing the extinction of species.

    The new report warned the 1.5C target had “almost certainly already been missed”. Even if all the pledges to cut emissions made by countries at Paris are fulfilled, the average temperature is set to reach that level in the early 2030s and then 2C by 2050, they said.

    Professor Watson, a chemist who has worked for Nasa, the World Bank, the US president and now at the renowned Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich, said: “Climate change is happening now and much faster than anticipated. “While the Paris Agreement on Climate Change is an important step in the right direction, what is needed is a doubling or tripling of efforts.

    With leaders like these, we’re facing climate catastrophe
    “Without additional efforts by all major emitters, the 2C target could be reached even sooner.”

    The report said an extra 0.4 to 0.5C of warming was expected to take place because of greenhouse gases that have already been emitted due to the slow response of the ocean and atmosphere. The report said that full implementation of the pledges made at Paris would require wealthy countries to give a total of $100bn a year – as promised at the summit – to poor countries to help them transition to a zero-carbon economy.

    “About 80 per cent of the pledges are subject to the condition that financial and technological support is available from developed countries,” Professor Watson said. “These conditions may not be met, which means that these pledges may not be realized.”

    The UK has already indicated its share of this total will come from the foreign aid budget, meaning poor countries will actually not get any more cash than they do at present. The report suggested there was little chance the world would not see 2C of warming at some point. “The main concern is not when the 2C target will be exceeded, but the impacts of climate change resulting from such an increase in global temperature,” it said. “Weather-related events due to climate change have doubled in number since 1990.

    “An increase in global average temperature of 2C within the next couple of decades implies an additional doubling in the number of these events. “As the number of weather-related events due to climate change continues to rise, their impact on water resources, food production, human health, services and infrastructure in urban and rural areas, among other sectors, will be more frequent and intense.

    “Some of the impacts of climate change may be beneficial, while most will not, negatively impacting lives and livelihoods everywhere.”

    But there was “still time to slow down the current path towards the 2C target”, the report stressed. The experts called for drastic changes to the way the world produces and uses energy with a switch to electric cars among steps that should be taken quickly.

    They also said carbon capture-and-storage (CCS) of emissions from fossil fuel power stations and industrial plants could be part of the solution if the system could be made to work. Deforestation should be reduced and more trees – which absorb carbon from the atmosphere as they grow – should be planted.

    But humanity should also take steps to deal with the “unavoidable” adverse effects of climate change that are already in the pipeline.

    Professor James McCarthy, an oceanographer at Harvard University and one of the report’s authors, said: “Climate change is already causing harm. Although implementation of the Paris Agreement will slow the rate of change, we will still need widespread adaptation to reduce its risks. “It is important that appropriate adaptation measures be planned and implemented with sensitivity to specific regional context.”

    Mark Lynas, in his award-winning book Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet, laid out just what will happen as the world’s average temperature increases. He described the report’s findings as “extremely worrying”.

    “If we hit 2C by 2050 then we will be well on the way to a really terrifying 3C-plus scenario by the end of the century,” Mr Lynas said. “The world’s ice-caps will be in full-scale meltdown, and large areas of what are now breadbaskets could become deserts, threatening serious global food shortages.

    “We would likely lose all the tropical coral reefs, combined with a devastating mass extinction of plants and animals more widely.

    “And we would be condemning our children and grandchildren to multi-metre sea level rise, and the eventual evacuation of major coastal cities.”

  42. ‘The world could hit two degrees Celsius of warming … as early as 2050′

    ROFLMAO!! The end is nigh, repent ye sinners, lest the sky fall on our heads.

    The only thing more hilarious than the 2 degrees/2050 statement is the fact that some people are mentally retarded enough to actually believe it (although it’s not good form to laugh at the intellectually handicapped). It appears that some mothers really do have ’em. BTW, isn’t the Arctic supposed to be ice free by now?

  43. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 6:40 am said:

    http://www.livescience.com/54067-misleading-political-attacks-distort-climate-science-truth.html
    Stop Attacking Scientists for Reporting the Truth on Climate Change (Op-Ed)
    By Rush Holt, CEO of AAAS; Chris Field, Carnegie Institution and Stanford University | March 16, 2016

    Rush Holt is CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and executive publisher of Science and its family of journals. Chris Field is director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology and a professor for interdisciplinary environmental studies at Stanford University. The authors contributed this article to Live Science’s Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

    Multiple lines of well-established evidence point to the reality of human-caused climate change. The impacts are now apparent — and range from rising sea levels to increased weather extremes, including more severe storms, droughts, heat waves and wildfires. In response, the world’s nations came together late last year at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris with a commitment to fix the problem.

    Yet, back in the United States, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas — as Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee — continues to call for “all documents and communications” related to research by a team from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that seemed to debunk the notion of a global warming slowdown, or “pause.” Such efforts, which came up again when NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan testified March 16 before the House Subcommittee on Environment, are little more than a red herring. In other words, they distract Americans from the primary point: that climate change is real , it’s happening now and it’s caused mostly by human activities such as fossil-fuel burning and deforestation.

    This is not the first time climate researchers have had to cope with ill-considered requests for emails and other documents. When climate scientist Michael Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University, was at the University of Virginia, he withstood then-Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s sweeping demand for documents regarding his climate research. The Supreme Court of Virginia eventually ruled in Mann’s favor. There also was controversy when Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., sent letters to seven universities, seeking information on funding for several scientists who have been skeptical of, or have made controversial remarks about, climate change. He later acknowledged that he was overreaching in requesting the scientists’ communications.

    The U.S. National Climate Assessment shows that summers are getting hotter, heat waves are lasting longer, and weather is getting more extreme.

    The science on climate change is convincing. In its Fifth Assessment Report, published in 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that warming between 1998 and 2012 was “around one-third to one-half” less rapid than over the period from 1951 to 2012.

    Those who choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence of climate change have used that statement to argue that global warming has stopped, that something other than greenhouse gases is at work or that climate scientists have a poor understanding of their subject.

    The IPCC was careful to acknowledge, however, that any trend inferred from only a few years of observations is tenuous, largely because natural variations like El Niño can have an outsize influence.
    Indeed, selecting 1998 as a starting year automatically makes trends for the next few years look small because 1998 was an unusually warm El Niño year. Still, the IPCC was frank in making the best available interpretation of the data available — data that have been examined, analyzed and validated by research teams around the world.

    But based on newly available information, one of the teams that analyze global temperature data realized that some of the temperatures could be made just slightly more accurate.

    The refinements to the temperature record are subtle but important, like adding the final buff to a freshly waxed car. However, an understanding of our planet and the way it is changing improves with each refinement, even if it is small.

    Consistent with their responsibility as scientists, the team that developed the refined temperature time series — Thomas Karl and colleagues at NOAA — described their results in a paper in the journal Science last June and argued that the improved temperature record no longer shows evidence of a slowdown in global warming. Such revisions are part of normal scientific discourse, and the government-funded scientists who pursued them should not be subjected to legislative subpoenas.

    The Science paper was part of a large effort by Karl and others at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, as well as climate analytics specialist James McMahon of LMI Consulting, to develop the most accurate possible record of the Earth’s surface temperature, based on thermometers.

    Developing an accurate record involves many refinements, as Karl’s team has done, to adjust for factors like the growth of cities around weather stations, increases in the number of stations on land, and changes in the techniques for measuring ocean temperatures. These changes include buckets thrown overboard (where measurements were very spotty), to engine intakes (which tended to report temperatures a bit too high), to automated buoys (with greatly expanded coverage and accuracy).

    Since the publication of the paper by Karl and colleagues, additional groups have examined the data. Bala Rajaratnam and colleagues at Stanford, writing in the journal Climatic Change last September, took a sophisticated statistical approach. Looking at the same data set as the NOAA team, the Stanford researchers found even stronger evidence against a global warming pause. And in February, a team led by climate modeler John Fyfe, of the University of Victoria in Canada, again considered the same data set. In the journal Nature Climate Change, Fyfe and colleagues noted that recent warming, while clearly continuing, has been slower than many models have predicted.

    So, working independently, several research teams have converged on almost identical results for warming over the past century at the global scale, but with periodic fine-tuning as additional information becomes available.

    This is the way science is supposed to work. Asking tough questions and re-examining evidence make up the essence of the scientific method. Scholarly research papers undergo multiple rounds of scrutiny by independent peer reviewers, and the Karl paper was no exception. The more recent papers provide a classic illustration of the way science progresses. Successive studies take new perspectives and use new techniques to reanalyze data and refine interpretations. [February Blows Away Global Heat Record ]

    Making the newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data readily accessible to other scientists, as NOAA did, is a critical step in that process. Rather than subjecting the NOAA scientists to the threat of a “compulsory process,” policymakers should applaud them for advancing scientific knowledge and promoting transparency in research publication.

    Don’t be fooled by red herrings. Human-caused climate change is real. Attacking the integrity of scientists will not further our understanding of what’s happening to our planet. Similarly, efforts to undermine research findings for ideological reasons are a confusing disservice to the public. Policymakers certainly have a responsibility to exercise appropriate oversight, but thinly veiled political attempts to discredit researchers can have a chilling effect on the scientific discovery that is our best hope for improving people’s lives.
    ENDS++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    So the choice is between the global community of scientists and a few know-alls.

    Golly Gosh Gumdrops it’s not Global Warming … what would 10,000 or more expert scientists know!

  44. “Most climate scientists don’t subscribe to the 2 degrees is dangerous meme”

    Richard Betts

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/11/9/dangerous-climate-change.html

  45. Wow, Nigel Lawson had. “Turnaround” when he admitted that he thinks that CO2 is a greenhouse gas

    Will Teh Grauniad also breathlessly report the “turnaround” of Roy Spencer, John Christy, Anthony Watts, Christopher Moncton, and other “deniers” who also think the same?

  46. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 8:50 am said:

    >”Stop Attacking Scientists for Reporting the Truth on Climate Change” – Rush Holt, Chris Field.

    The IPCC’s primary climate change criteria is the earth’s energy budget measured at the top of atmosphere.

    IPCC climate scientists reported a 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance and fluctuating around constant this century i.e. no climate change by definition. Whether that is the truth or not is determined by observational accuracy which the IPCC describe as “highly precise”.

    No-one is attacking those climate scientists for reporting that.

    The TOA imbalance falsifies the IPCC’s radiative forcing theory at TOA (RF). Their theory is a massive blowout (around 2000 ZetaJoules). That is the issue that has not been addressed in the public domain except in obscure places like here at CCG, Climate Etc discussion threads, Monckton briefly at WUWT i.e. no “attack” yet of any consequence.

    Surface temperature e.g. the 1.5C limit, is a secondary issue that is only relevant in terms of fossil fuel emissions if the TOA criteria has been satisfied by anthropogenic forcing theory vs actual – it hasn’t.

    The 1.5C limit is merely a political globally averaged “goal” (IPCC SED Message 1: “A long-term global goal defined by a temperature limit serves its purpose well”). Where does that apply? The Northern Latitudes are already at the target. And if we add 1.5C to the early Southern Latitudes we’re in no trouble.

    Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.B.gif

    And the most up to date observationally constrained (i.e. not CO2-forced) surface temperature modeling doesn’t present any problem to be concerned about.

    NCEP Surface Temperature
    http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cdas_v2_hemisphere_2016.png

    Typical of this century except for the natural El Nino (that some climate scientists claimed for AGW).

  47. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 9:09 am said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    It’s not about adding 2 or even 3 degrees to NZ weather. I’m guessing, but a small island country in the middle of nowhere at this latitude might not change much. Tough if you want to come or go though, Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin and Christchurch(?) airports will be unusable.

    NZ weather is not the issue. The issue is the amount of ‘extra’ energy being retained by Earth and the climate system – which includes the oceans and ice, AND what happens elsewhere. Temperatures are just an indication of changes.

    Pray tell me what you think will happen if Bangladesh floods and fresh water passing through India to Pakistan ceases? I remind you both countries have nuclear weapons.

    You just gotta start thinking. (I don’t have such high expectations of Andy S)

  48. “If we hit 2C by 2050 then we will be well on the way to a really terrifying 3C-plus scenario by the end of the century,” Mr Lynas said.

    HAHAHA!! It just gets more hilarious by the day. The desperation of the alarmist doomsday crowd is palpable. Hey, why not go straight for the jugular & go for 10C by 2075. LOL!

    Some people are so gullible they believe everything they read (except empirical evidence it seems).

  49. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 9:42 am said:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-climate-change-economic-effects-jobs-too-hot-to-work-india-china-a7143406.html
    Professor Jamal said the Asia-Pacific region was already seeing more extreme weather events, as predicted by models of climate change. “It doesn’t look like carbon emissions will reduce significantly in the near future too we may be talking about a further increase in global temperature,” he said.

    “I think we will be seeing more and more of this [extreme storms]. How severe and how extreme is anybody’s guess, but we have to be prepared.”

    However Professor Jamal added that there were some reasons for optimism. “I think there’s less argument now about whether there actually is climate change,” he said.

    “At last we are over the stage of quarrelling about whether there actually is climate change.”

  50. Maggy Wassilieff on October 14, 2016 at 9:46 am said:

    @Dennis

    Bangladesh floods every year…. around 20% of the land goes underwater…Catastrophic floods occur periodically…. 75% of country gets flooded.

    There’s major strife developing all over for fresh water….
    Who controls the dams and the irrigation channels?

  51. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 9:49 am said:

    Quote bits of the IPCC Report but ignore the science and the conclusions and the explanations from the scientists who wrote it.

    Magoonery at its finest.

  52. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 9:50 am said:

    >”It’s not about adding 2 or even 3 degrees to NZ weather”

    Didn’t say it was Dennis. You just didn’t comprehend my statement. I said this:

    “The Northern Latitudes are already at the target. And if we add 1.5C to the early Southern Latitudes we’re in no trouble.”

    Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.B.gif

    The fact that the Northern latitudes are already at the 1.5C limit makes the whole notion of a 1.5C limit look insanely stupid.

    I’m referring to the climate regime in the early period of the Southern Latitudes graph. The 1.5C limit is from a little earlier but that wont make much difference

    >”The issue is the amount of ‘extra’ energy being retained by Earth and the climate system”

    Exactly. But there is a massive difference between the IPCC’s “extra” theoretical energy and the actual observed “extra” energy i.e. the theory is BUSTED. I’ve already addressed that, didn’t you comprehend that either Dennis?

    Here it is again, please comprehend it THIS time around. It gets tiresome repeating everything for Warmies:

    >”Stop Attacking Scientists for Reporting the Truth on Climate Change” – Rush Holt, Chris Field.

    The IPCC’s primary climate change criteria is the earth’s energy budget measured at the top of atmosphere.

    IPCC climate scientists reported a 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance and fluctuating around constant this century i.e. no climate change by definition. Whether that is the truth or not is determined by observational accuracy which the IPCC describe as “highly precise”.

    No-one is attacking those climate scientists for reporting that.

    The TOA imbalance falsifies the IPCC’s radiative forcing theory at TOA (RF). Their theory is a massive blowout (around 2000 ZetaJoules). That is the issue that has not been addressed in the public domain except in obscure places like here at CCG, Climate Etc discussion threads, Monckton briefly at WUWT i.e. no “attack” yet of any consequence.

    I hope this gets through this time around but I’m not holding my breath given my previous (very extensive) efforts.

    >”Temperatures are just an indication of changes.”

    Due to what? The IPCC’s climate change criteria is the TOA energy budget as above. That’s not changing this century due to theoretical WMGHG forcing or TSI forcing therefore surface temperature changes are due to surface forcing, not TOA forcing of any sort, and surface forcing can only be solar-cloud (or aerosols) given the surface energy budget but the IPCC threw out surface forcing in AR4.

    Raked over all this in excruciating detail previously so I’m doubtful of comprehension setting in this time around as above.

  53. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 10:07 am said:

    [Prof Jamal] >“At last we are over the stage of quarrelling about whether there actually is climate change.”

    No-one is quarrelling about whether there is actually climate change. How many times does this have to be pointed out?

    The IPCC defines climate change in terms of the earth’s energy balance at TOA in respect to ANY forcing, theoretical anthropogenic OR natural. Nothing happening there.

    So any changes to regional climate regimes can only be natural processes that have been observed and experienced for as long as humans have existed. There was a land bridge connecting Siberia to Alaska for example. Greenland was “green” enough for agriculture hence the name.

    First Americans Lived on Bering Land Bridge for Thousands of Years [15,000]
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-americans-lived-on-bering-land-bridge-for-thousands-of-years/

    That was radical climate change. 1.5C “limits” were immaterial then.

  54. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 10:09 am said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    You have no understanding whatsoever of climate science , or physics for that matter.

    Monckton is another ignorant fool. Bob Carter told me nobody in NZ would debate with Monckton, if they did he would “wipe the floor with them”. But nobody who knows what he’s about takes Monckton seriously.

  55. “Bob Carter told me nobody in NZ would debate with Monckton”

    This is your “mate” that you threw under the bus?

  56. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 10:12 am said:

    Richard C (NZ)

    And for heaven’s sake stop arguing about words.

    When a scientist talks about “global warming” and “climate change” he’s talking about AGW, so stop your silly nonsense.

  57. “When a scientist talks about “global warming” and “climate change” he’s talking about AGW,”

    So why doesn’t she use the term AGW then?

  58. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 10:39 am said:

    >”When a scientist talks about “global warming” and “climate change” he’s talking about AGW,”

    The only reason Prof Jamal gives for that is CO2-centric climate models. By sheer dumb luck those climate models come up with the odd “consistent” trait with observations. Other than that they are an abject failure on the critical aspects and contradict each other. There’s only 3 worth considering at surface, the rest are junk. And the 3 worth considering at surface are junk at mid and upper troposphere.

    And even the IPCC doesn’t attribute ALL global warming a.k.a. climate change since 1951 to Anthro, and none prior. And since they admit they have neglected natural variation they’re back at square one since 1951.

    That is particularly true in respect to Prof Jamal’s climate models.

    Fact remains: there has been far more natural radical climate change in the past than the imaginary cataclysm beyond 1.5C that humanity is supposedly going to inflict.

  59. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 10:45 am said:

    Rubbish C (NZ)

  60. Dennis, Dennis, Dennis:

    ‘Quote bits of the IPCC Report but ignore the science and the conclusions and the explanations from the scientists who wrote it.’

    Ah yes, the IPCC & it’s scientists. No mention of the empirical data from the IPCC showing a lack of positive feedback from water vapour though dear boy. Don’t you believe in the IPCC’s empirical evidence Dennis, or is it their definition of positive feedback from water vapour that you disagree with?

    Denial ‘at its finest’ dear boy, you really do make a complete buffoon of yourself on a daily basis, but it is quite amusing.

    Without empirical evidence of positive feedback from water vapour then any ludicrous predictions about 2C by 2050 are laughable nonsense, as half the predicted warming is missing. At the moment there is only empirical evidence against positive feedback from water vapour, and none for – by your good buddies at the IPCC no less dear boy, don’t you believe them?

  61. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 10:52 am said:

    >”Bob Carter told me nobody in NZ would debate with Monckton”

    What has that got to do with my statement Dennis?

    I said:

    “The TOA imbalance falsifies the IPCC’s radiative forcing theory at TOA (RF). Their theory is a massive blowout (around 2000 ZetaJoules). That is the issue that has not been addressed in the public domain except in obscure places like here at CCG, Climate Etc discussion threads, Monckton briefly at WUWT i.e. no “attack” yet of any consequence.

    All I’m implying there is that the only prominent “sceptic” I know of that has actually touched on the critical climate change issue in the public domain is Monckton. And what is there to “debate” over what is just the IPCC’s presentation of theory and observation whoever points out the discrepancy?

    The IPCC do not address that critical discrepancy in Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution. It should have been the very first section but no, the first section is temperature but that is moot unless the primary critical issue is addressed.

    Note there was no “attack” by Monckton in that case above contrary to what Rush and Held prattle. He was simply pointing out the glaringly obvious in the IPCC report as I’ve done above and here and elsewhere previously.

  62. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 11:17 am said:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-is-real-experts-tell-us-congress-global-warming-a7107531.html
    (summary) The idea that climate change is a vast global conspiracy — involving everyone from Nasa and the British Met Office to Chinese government scientists and – has persisted in the United States to an alarming degree.
    So much so that more than 180 members of Congress are believed to be climate deniers, including Senator Jim Inhofe.

    Now 31 major scientific organisations in the US – including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics – have signed a joint letter to Congress urging them to accept that climate change is real and action needs to be taken. “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver,” they write.

    Climate change could destroy Statue of Liberty, Venice and many other parts of the world’s heritage, UN report warns. This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.

    “There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health. “For the United States, climate change impacts include greater threats of extreme weather events, sea level rise, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. The severity of climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.”

    The letter adds that to reduce the risk of the “most severe” impacts of climate change, “greenhouse gas emissions must be substantially reduced”. (continues)

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Golly Gosh they all say “global warming” and “climate change”. Perhaps they’re not used to dealing with halfwits.

  63. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 11:35 am said:

    Richard C (NZ): [DNH] ”Bob Carter told me nobody in NZ would debate with Monckton”

    What has that got to do with my statement Dennis?

    Frankly I can’t see what your statements have to do with climate science in any shape or form.

    There is a wide and deep scientific consensus about climate science based on multiple lines of evidence and fundamentals that stretch back nearly two centuries. Tens of thousands of scientists are working in the area. Many have explained it. Some people reject it. That’s called denial.

    Just accept it. You’re amongst friends here.

  64. Maggy Wassilieff on October 14, 2016 at 12:06 pm said:

    @Dennis Horne
    Perhaps there is some reason why you visit this site and harangue some of us for not falling-in with the consensus crew. I can’t figure out what you think you can achieve here with your bullying bluster. Anyway, you’re welcome to stick with the holy writ of the 10,000 and their high priests; I’m more interested in what current scientists are observing, measuring and recording. I seem to be reading a lot more about patterns of natural climate variability than I was a few years back.

  65. Climate change could destroy Statue of Liberty, Venice and many other parts of the world’s heritage, UN report warns.

    (* rolls eyes *)

  66. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 1:03 pm said:

    >”Frankly I can’t see what your statements have to do with climate science in any shape or form”

    Well yes Dennis, that’s the telling self assessment. You haven’t the foggiest clue what the following means i.e. a falsified theory:

    IPCC’s primary climate change criteria (abbreviated):

    FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing?

    [A] – “The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] controls the Earth’s surface temperature”

    And,

    [B] – “When radiative forcing [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system”

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html

    And,

    IPCC Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing:

    IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report – Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing

    Industrial-Era Anthropogenic Forcing

    The total anthropogenic ERF over the Industrial Era is 2.3 (1.1 to 3.3) W m–2.3 It is certain that the total anthropogenic ERF is positive. Total anthropogenic ERF has increased more rapidly since 1970 than
    during prior decades. The total anthropogenic ERF estimate for 2011 is 43% higher compared to the AR4 RF estimate for the year 2005 owing to reductions in estimated forcing due to aerosols but also to continued growth in greenhouse gas RF. {8.5.1, Figures 8.15, 8.16}

    Due to increased concentrations, RF from WMGHGs has increased by 0.20 (0.18 to 0.22) W m–2 (8%) since the AR4 estimate for the year 2005. The RF of WMGHG is 2.83 (2.54 to 3.12) W m–2. The majority of this change since AR4 is due to increases in the carbon dioxide (CO2) RF of nearly 10%. The Industrial Era RF for CO2 alone is 1.82 (1.63 to 2.01) W m–2, and CO2 is the component with the largest global mean RF. Over the last decade RF of CO2 has an average growth rate of 0.27 (0.24 to 0.30) W m–2 per decade.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

    And,

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Loeb et al (2012) Figure 3
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/images/ngeo1375-f3.jpg

    IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Earth’s Energy Budget, Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

    An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations
    Graeme L. Stephens, Juilin Li, Martin Wild, Carol Anne Clayson, Norman Loeb, Seiji Kato, Tristan L’Ecuyer, Paul W. Stackhouse Jr, Matthew Lebsock & Timothy Andrews
    (2012)
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/abs/ngeo1580.html

  67. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 1:06 pm said:

    [When Martians attack they] could destroy Statue of Liberty, Venice and many other parts of the world’s heritage, UN report warns.

  68. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 1:09 pm said:

    Maggy Wassilieff

    Just giving you the facts.

    You prefer crap. Your choice.

  69. I suppose if a kerosene fire can melt the Twin Towers then “climate change” can melt the Statue of Liberty

    Experts agree

  70. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 1:14 pm said:

    Andy: “I suppose if a kerosene fire can melt the Twin Towers… ”

    Thanks.

    When Richard told me to listen to you I must admit I wondered why.

  71. Well, the experts agree that a kerosene (Av gas) fire destroyed the Twin Towers.

    Don’t tell me you disagree with the experts Dennis?

    Look, everyone agrees. The experts agree, the government agrees, we all agree.

    Don’t you?

  72. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 1:21 pm said:

    Ottmar Georg Edenhofer (born in 8 July 1961 in Gangkofen, Lower Bavaria, Germany) is a German economist dealing with climate change policy, environmental and energy policy, and energy economics. Edenhofer currently holds the professorship of the Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin. He is deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) as well as director of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC). From 2008 to 2015 he served as one of the co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III “Mitigation of Climate Change”. Among other functions, he is a member of the group “Climate, Energy & Environment” of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, a member of the Advisory Committee of the Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP) (a joint effort of the Global Green Growth Institute, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Bank), a member of the Forschungsforum Promoter Group Economy, chair of the Euro-CASE Energy Platform, and a member of the German Academy of Science and Engineering (acatech).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottmar_Edenhofer

    (EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate

    It’s about Socialist wealth redistribution. We have to free ourselves from the naive notion that it’s about the environment.

  73. It was never about the environment. It is about a group of rent-seeking corporate parasites sucking money out of the productive economy for their own gain.

    Mind you, when you have the Clinton’s as a role model, then anything goes really.

    There are literally no boundaries left anymore. It’s a grab all you can bonanza

  74. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 1:42 pm said:

    >”It’s about Socialist wealth redistribution. We have to free ourselves from the naive notion that it’s about the environment.”

    SI congratulates António Guterres on nomination as UN Secretary
    http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=2476

    UN Picks former president of Socialist International As New Secretary-General
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/05/un-picks-socialist-politician-as-new-secretary-general/

  75. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 1:58 pm said:

    General Assembly appoints Guterres as next UN chief

    In his opening speech at the UN headquarters on Thursday, he vowed to fight terrorism and populism and to help overcome divisions over ending the war in Syria.

    “We must make sure that we are able to break these alliances between all those terrorist groups or violence extremists on one side and the expression of populism and xenophobia on the other side. We must be able to fight both of them with determination,” Guterres said.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/general-assembly-appoints-guterres-chief-161013142911717.html

    # # #

    Remember, irrespective of why the UN has got deeply involved with “economic transformation” on the back of a manufactured climate change issue, the UN was established with a mandate to prevent another world war.

    Apparently the flip side of the mandate now is to “fight”, “with determination”, “the expression of populism and xenophobia”.

  76. “the UN was established with a mandate to prevent another world war.”

    That isn’t working out too well, is it?

    The Syrian “theatre” looks like it might trigger a NATO-Russia conflict any day

  77. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 2:24 pm said:

    “Oops!”—A World War!

    Dmitry Orlov, October 11, 2016

    Over the past week or so I’ve been receiving a steady stream of emails demanding to know whether an all-out nuclear war is about to erupt between the US and Russia. I’ve been watching the situation develop more or less carefully, and have been offering my opinion, briefly, one on one, to a few people’s great relief, and now I will attempt to spread the cheer far and wide. In short, on the one hand, all-out nuclear annihilation remains quite unlikely, barring an accident. But, on the other hand, such an accident is by no means impossible, because when it comes to US foreign policy “Oops!” seems to be the operative term.

    Continues >>>>>>
    http://cluborlov.blogspot.co.nz/2016/10/oopsa-world-war.html

    Dmitry Orlov – Social Collapse Best Practices

    A close student and observer of the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe twenty years ago, engineer Dmitry Orlov finds a similar sequence of events taking shape in America. His savagely humorous presentation spells out how Russia was better prepared than the US is for the stages of collapse that begin with financial meltdown. Renewal awaits on the other side of collapse, and there are ways to hasten that process. Orlov is the author of Reinventing Collapse: Soviet Example and American Prospects (02008).

    Managing social collapse

    With vintage Russian black humor, Orlov described the social collapse he witnessed in Russia in the 1990s and spelled out its practical lessons for the American social collapse he sees as inevitable. The American economy in the 1990s described itself as “Goldilocks”—just the right size—when in fact is was “Tinkerbelle,” and one day the clapping stops. As in Russia, the US made itself vulnerable to the decline of crude oil, a trade deficit, military over-reach, and financial over-reach.

    Russians were able to muddle through the collapse by finding ways to manage 1) food, 2) shelter, 3) transportation, and 4) security.

    Russian agriculture had long been ruined by collectivization, so people had developed personal kitchen gardens, accessible by public transit. The state felt a time-honored obligation to provide bread, and no one starved. (Orlov noted that women in Russia handled collapse pragmatically, putting on their garden gloves, whereas middle-aged men dissolved into lonely drunks.) Americans are good at gardening and could shift easily to raising their own food, perhaps adopting the Cuban practice of gardens in parking lots and on roofs and balconies.

    As for shelter, Russians live in apartments from which they cannot be evicted. The buildings are heat-efficient, and the communities are close enough to protect themselves from the increase in crime. Americans, Orlov said, have yet to realize there is no lower limit to real estate value, nor that suburban homes are expensive to maintain and get to. He predicts flight, not to remote log cabins, but to dense urban living. Office buildings, he suggests, can easily be converted to apartments, and college campuses could make instant communities, with all that grass turned into pasture or gardens. There are already plenty of empty buildings in America; the cheapest way to get one is to offer to caretake it.

    The rule with transportation, he said, is not to strand people in nonsurvivable places. Fuel will be expensive and hoarded. He noted that the most efficient of all vehicles is an old pickup fully loaded with people, driving slowly. He suggested that freight trains be required to provide a few empty boxcars for hoboes. Donkeys, he advised, provide reliable transport, and they dine as comfortably on the Wall Street Journal as they did on Pravda.

    Security has to take into account that prisons will be emptied (by stages, preferably), overseas troops will be repatriated and released, and cops will go corrupt. You will have a surplus of mentally unstable people skilled with weapons. There will be crime waves and mafias, but you can rent a policeman, hire a soldier. Security becomes a matter of local collaboration. When the formal legal structure breaks down, adaptive improvisation can be pretty efficient.

    By way of readiness, Orlov urges all to prepare for life without a job, with near-zero burn rate. It takes practice to learn how to be poor well. Those who are already poor have an advantage.
    –Stewart Brand

    http://longnow.org/seminars/02009/feb/13/social-collapse-best-practices/

  78. Richard Treadgold on October 14, 2016 at 2:39 pm said:

    @Dennis,
    I’m a bit slow here, but you say:

    Pray tell me what you think will happen if Bangladesh floods

    When it does, which is every year when the river rises, it is not a result of climate change, man-made or natural, since annual events are considered by informed minds to be part of natural variation. You might want to learn more about the Ganges delta and the influence of human activity. There was a story last year in Scientific American which makes interesting reading:

    Man-made flood protections, not climate change, are the main culprit in sea-level rise in southwest Bangladesh, according to new research conducted for the U.S. Navy’s Office of Naval Research.

    I see others have added useful links on this, too.

  79. Richard Treadgold on October 14, 2016 at 2:42 pm said:

    @Dennis,

    But nobody who knows what he’s about takes Monckton seriously.

    But I take him very seriously.

  80. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 3:00 pm said:

    [DNH] ”Bob Carter told me nobody in NZ would debate with Monckton”

    Because they know perfectly well he would run rings around them – think Gavin Schmidt scampering off-stage on Roy Spencer’s entrance and Michael Mann’s similar reluctance to engage.

    Michael Mann’s Hissy Fit Shows Why Global Warming Alarmists Fear Debate
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/27/michael-manns-hissy-fit-shows-why-global-warming-alarmists-fear-debate/

    Thing is: Monckton and Spencer are Lukewarmers, they’re on the same side as “mainstream” climate scientists.

  81. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 3:10 pm said:

    >”Russians were able to muddle through the collapse by finding ways to manage 1) food, 2) shelter, 3) transportation, and 4) security.”

    Explains why economic sanctions against Russia really aren’t effective. They’ve been their done that, adapted and survived.

    I watched an Aljazeera doco on this. Showed an engineering shop that needed a visual inspection gadget to check for defects inside machined components. They couldn’t buy one off-the-shelf so they cobbled one together in the shop using a camera out of a mobile phone.

  82. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 4:02 pm said:
  83. No one pays any attention to Monckton, yet people seem to spend an awfully large amount of time making Youtube videos “debunking” him.

    It must be a busy life being a debunker, and a lonely one too I would imagine, as no one has any friends in De Bunker.

  84. Naturally scientists don’t want to ‘debate” because science isn’t a “debate”

  85. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 4:41 pm said:

    The totality of science is a debate, just done in a certain way and more concerned with substance than form. Disinformation and lies are not tolerated.

    The reason scientists debunk Monckton is because he is part of the fossil fuel industry-financed cabal trying to stop mankind keeping the planet habitable.

    When I said Bangladesh flooding, I meant in the way your basement floods. Under water. The place disappearing. Keep forgetting motivated reasoning and confirmation bias makes it difficult to understand what you read. Everybody knows Bangladesh has floods.

  86. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 5:10 pm said:

    Warmers “debunking” a Lukewarmer. Why don’t they just shoot themselves in their foot?

  87. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 5:18 pm said:

    Climate-change sceptic faces stage without peers – 03/08/2011

    Scientists are refusing to take to the stage with outspoken British climate sceptic Christopher Monckton during his visit.

    The hereditary peer has hit back at the climate scientists refusing to enter into debates with him, saying their reasons are similar to those used by communists and fascists to quash free speech.

    Lord Monckton is in New Zealand this week at the invitation of the Climate Realists, who believe human activity has only a minimal impact on the world’s climate. The speaking tour comes on the back of a controversial tour around Australia, during which Lord Monckton likened the Australian Government’s climate adviser Ross Garnaut to a Nazi.

    Lord Monckton told The Dominion Post he was not surprised prominent New Zealand scientists had refused to take part in public debates with him at events in Wellington, Auckland and Whangarei.

    He said they had probably realised they would lose the debates, and were claiming they did not want to give credence to the other side of the argument. “That’s the kind of thing communists and fascists used to say when they wanted to shut free speech down.”

    Lord Monckton is not a scientist. He is not charging for his speaking appearances, and the Climate Realists group is covering the cost of his accommodation and flights.

    Climate scientist and Victoria University professor Martin Manning said the scientific community had decided not to engage with him because that would mislead the public. The science was done and there was no debate to be had, he said.

    “We can immediately see the statements Monckton makes as completely wrong. If you then go into a one-on-one debate with him you effectively say these statements need to be debated again.”

    The Public Relations Institute is hosting a talk by Lord Monckton for industry professionals in Wellington on Friday, but chief executive Tim Marshall said its participation in an event in Auckland was under review after failing to attract a climate scientist to join a debate.

    – The Dominion Post
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/5379313/Climate-change-sceptic-faces-stage-without-peers

    # # #

    >”The science was done and there was no debate to be had” – Manning

    Yeah right.

    Except for natural variation neglect, model failure, TOA theory failure, surface temperature prediction failure, sea level rise prediction failure, etc, etc ………

  88. debate
    dɪˈbeɪt/Submit
    noun
    1.
    a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.
    “last night’s debate on the Education Bill”
    synonyms: discussion, exchange of views, discourse, parley; More
    verb
    1.
    argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.

    ———-
    This isn’t how science works

  89. The reason scientists debunk Monckton is because he is part of the fossil fuel industry-financed cabal trying to stop mankind keeping the planet habitable.

    A fact-free statement.

  90. It is fun watching the NYT and other former newspapers joining in the smear campaign against Trump, but completely ignoring the sexual assaults, murders and other various crimes committed by and on behalf of the Clintons

    I guess when you have these trash as your role models, then making fact-free assertions about “fossil fuel funding” etc is easy

    Join the trash, behave like them

    Too easy

  91. Disinformation and lies are not tolerated.

    If it doesn’t follow the “narrative”, it is not tolerated.
    Please try harder Dennis. We are busy here and haven’t got time for this amateur trolling

  92. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 5:48 pm said:

    ‘Introducing the global warming speedometer’

    A single devastating graph shows official climate predictions were wild

    By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/25/introducing-the-global-warming-speedometer/

  93. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 6:10 pm said:

    ‘Federal Court Delivers Stunning Blow to Mass. AG and #ExxonKnew Campaign’

    October 13, 2016, By Katie Brown.

    In yet another stunning blow to the #ExxonKnew campaign, a federal judge today issued a discovery order against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to determine whether “bias or prejudgment” influenced her decision to initiate a “bad faith” investigation into ExxonMobil, just days after she appeared before news cameras with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Al Gore and other Democratic state attorneys general in New York.

    As the Washington Post reported this afternoon, this “new discovery order could open the door for an intrusive examination of Maura Healey ’s internal phone records, other communications and depositions,” shedding light on the extent to which Healey, Schneiderman and others have conspired with outside activists, plaintiff attorneys and partisan political interests to carry out their failed #ExxonKnew campaign.

    We know from FOIA’d emails that the AGs in Schneiderman’s climate coalition tried to hide behind a Common Interest Agreement, which would keep their correspondence on the Exxon investigations secret. But sunlight is the best disinfectant, they say, and that is exactly what taxpayers will get a result of today’s action. Here are the key passages from the federal court order related to Healey’s “bias” and “bad faith”:

    “Attorney General Healey’s actions leading up to the issuance of the CID causes the Court concern and presents the Court with the question of whether Attorney General Healey issued the CID with bias or prejudgment about what the investigation of Exxon would discover.” (p. 3-4)

    “The Court finds the allegations about Attorney General Healey and the anticipatory nature of Attorney General Healey’s remarks about the outcome of the Exxon investigation to be concerning to this Court. The foregoing allegations about Attorney General Healey, if true, may constitute bad faith in issuing the CID which would preclude Younger abstention. Attorney General Healey’s comments and actions before she issued the CID require the Court to request further information so that it can make a more thoughtful determination about whether this lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” (p. 5-6)

    More >>>>>>
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/13/federal-court-delivers-stunning-blow-to-mass-ag-and-exxonknew-campaign/

    Attorney General (state executive office)
    The chart below is a breakdown of the political parties pertaining to the state executive office of attorney general.

    Massachusetts Maura Healey 2015 Democratic
    New York Eric Schneiderman 2011 Democratic

    Thirty states held regularly scheduled attorney general elections in the 2014 electoral cycle:

    Massachusetts
    New York

    https://ballotpedia.org/Attorney_General_(state_executive_office)

    NZ Attorney-General
    4.4 The Attorney-General may take into account public policy considerations when exercising the law officer functions. By convention, however, the Attorney-General is not influenced by party political considerations, and should avoid appearing to be so influenced.
    http://www.cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/4.2

  94. Richard C (NZ) on October 14, 2016 at 6:53 pm said:

    Press Release: E&E Legal Sues NY AG Schneiderman After Months of Stonewalling Open Records Requests

    Signers of the Common Interest Agreement [all Democrat] include: California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Washington State, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, US Virgin Islands, and Vermont.

    http://eelegal.org/2016/08/04/press-release-state-ag-secrecy-pact-aimed-at-thwarting-transparency-laws-released/

    Democrat AGs signed secrecy pact to hide details of probe into climate-change dissent
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/4/dem-ags-signed-secrecy-pact-climate-change-probe/

    Archive for Common Interest Agreement
    http://eelegal.org/category/issues/common-interest-agreement/

    Washington Examiner: Group says Dem AGs want to protect Obama’s climate agenda with probes
    http://eelegal.org/2016/08/09/washington-examiner-group-says-dem-ags-want-to-protect-obamas-climate-agenda-with-probes/

    Washington Times: Democratic prosecutors invited to help Obama, join pursuit against climate change skeptics

    When New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman invited other Democrats to join his effort to pursue climate change skeptics, he was interested in more than bringing lawbreakers to justice.

    A letter obtained by E&E Legal Institute and released Tuesday indicates Mr. Schneiderman was also interested in advancing the Obama administration’s climate-change agenda, including the Clean Power Plan and the Paris climate accord.

    “The commitments of the United States and other nations at last year’s Paris climate change conference are very significant steps forward, but states must still play a critical role in ensuring that the promises made in Paris become reality,” Mr. Schneiderman said in a March 7 letter.

    “Put simply, while we have accomplished a lot, much more action to stem climate change and expand the availability and usage of renewable energy is needed, and is needed now,” said the letter, which was also signed by Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell.

    http://eelegal.org/2016/08/09/washington-times-democratic-prosecutors-invited-to-help-obama-join-pursuit-against-climate-change-skeptics/

    # # #

    Contrast this US Democrat AG activism with New Zealand where:

    “The Attorney-General may take into account public policy considerations when exercising the law officer functions. By convention, however, the Attorney-General is not influenced by party political considerations, and should avoid appearing to be so influenced”.

  95. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 7:39 pm said:

    Bob Carter told me Monckton would “wipe the floor with scientists in a debate”. I posted videos showing why Monckton wins audiences. But what does Carter know?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc&index=8&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

  96. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 7:49 pm said:

    Guys, guys, you’re losing. *Sob Sob*

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hornsea-windfarm-climate-change-global-warming-biggest-offshore-planning-where-a7193576.html

    No one is taking much notice of deniers these days.

  97. Wind farms, – “monuments to a failed civilisation”

    – James Lovelock

  98. Dennis last comment is very revealing and reinforces the underlying misanthropy and hated towards his fellow man that accompanies the environmental activist

  99. Maggy Wassilieff on October 14, 2016 at 9:23 pm said:

    Crikey, this thread is already up to 100 comments.

    Anyone been over to Skeptical Science lately?…. They have difficulty getting 5 comments after a few weeks.
    Judith Curry’s postings often get 500-750 comments within a couple of days

    Seems all the action is with the unholy.

  100. Richard Treadgold on October 14, 2016 at 10:05 pm said:

    @Dennis,

    When I said Bangladesh flooding, I meant in the way your basement floods. Under water. The place disappearing.

    Why should Bangladesh disappear? It’s on the delta of the mighty Ganges, which has been there for a long time. The enormous supply of Himalayan sediments (which in places reach over 16 km thick) have caused the delta to expand seaward 400 km over the last 34 million years.

    Bangladesh is growing strongly under the influence of natural forces.

  101. Richard Treadgold on October 14, 2016 at 10:11 pm said:

    @Maggy,

    Crikey, this thread is already up to 100 comments… Seems all the action is with the unholy.

    Yes, and the two previous posts passed 500 comments. Amazing. There’s huge interest in a more sceptical view of climate. Can’t wait for the MSM to notice.

  102. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 10:53 pm said:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/asia/facing-rising-seas-bangladesh-confronts-the-consequences-of-climate-change.html?_r=0
    Climate scientists have concluded that widespread burning of fossil fuels is releasing heat-trapping gases that are warming the planet. While this will produce a host of effects, the most worrisome may be the melting of much of the earth’s ice, which is likely to raise sea levels and flood coastal regions.

    Such a rise will be uneven because of gravitational effects and human intervention, so predicting its outcome in any one place is difficult. But island nations like the Maldives, Kiribati and Fiji may lose much of their land area, and millions of Bangladeshis will be displaced.

    “There are a lot of places in the world at risk from rising sea levels, but Bangladesh is at the top of everybody’s list,” said Rafael Reuveny, a professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University at Bloomington. “And the world is not ready to cope with the problems.”

    River deltas around the globe are particularly vulnerable to the effects of rising seas, and wealthier cities like London, Venice and New Orleans also face uncertain futures. But it is the poorest countries with the biggest populations that will be hit hardest, and none more so than Bangladesh, one of the most densely populated nations in the world. In the Ganges Delta, made up of 230 major rivers and streams, 160 million people live in a place one-fifth the size of France and as flat as chapati, the bread served at almost every meal.
    =========

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bangladesh-climate-change_us_56aa5cd8e4b0d82286d53900
    Haunting Photos Show Effects Of Climate Change In Bangladesh
    The number of climate change refugees in Bangladesh is expected to increase dramatically in the coming decades.

  103. Dennis N Horne on October 14, 2016 at 11:09 pm said:

    Global warming and climate change is settled science. Like evolution. Nothing is going to change that. No hidden variables. It’s CO2 driving the increase in energy retained.

    Settled doesn’t mean absolutely everything is known and every aspect is predictable, eg disintegration of ice sheets, changes in ocean currents.

    Homo sapiens are behaving like locusts. Do you know why locusts all move forward so fast? They’re frightened those behind are going to eat them.

  104. What does “settled science” mean?
    Done and dusted, finished?

    In other news of settled science

    “GNS science said in May there was a 30 per cent chance of a large earthquake on the Alpine Fault in the next 50 years, which could cause horizontal movement of up to eight metres. ”

    http://i.stuff.co.nz/science/85343412/queenstown-conference-told-of-potential-impact-of-alpine-fault-rupture

    But I am now “safe” because I have escaped the rising seas and now live 40km from the Alpine Fault

    There is also nuclear war to worry about, which looks on the cards

    Have a nice weekend folks

    Time for some gardening?

  105. Richard C (NZ) on October 15, 2016 at 8:45 am said:

    >”settled science”

    Quick search of Google turns up these articles on first page:

    Climate change very unsettled science – http://www.washingtontimes.com

    The Unsettling, Anti-Science Certitude on Global Warming – http://www.wsj.com

    Climate Science Is Not Settled – http://www.wsj.com

    Obama and the Unsettled Science of Global Warming – http://www.christianpost.com

    The Unsettled Science of Climate Change – cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com

    Climate Change Consensus: Science Is Unsettled – http://www.nationalreview.com

    Unsettled Science: Greens Are Their Own Worst Enemy – http://www.thegwpf.com

    Climate Change Remains Unsettled, Say 31,072 Scientists – http://www.newsmax.com

  106. Richard C (NZ) on October 15, 2016 at 9:09 am said:

    ‘Carmakers forced back to bigger engines in new emissions era’ – 15/10/2016

    Tougher European car emissions tests being introduced in the wake of the Volkswagen scandal are about to bring surprising consequences: bigger engines.

    Carmakers that have spent a decade shrinking engine capacities to meet emissions goals are now being forced into a costly U-turn, industry sources said, as more realistic on-the-road testing exposes deep flaws in their smallest motors.

    Renault, General Motors and VW are preparing to enlarge or scrap some of their best-selling small car engines over the next three years, the people said. Other manufacturers are expected to follow, with both diesels and gasolines affected.

    The reversal makes it even harder to meet carbon dioxide (CO2) targets and will challenge development budgets already stretched by a rush into electric cars and hybrids.

    “The techniques we’ve used to reduce engine capacities will no longer allow us to meet emissions standards,” said Alain Raposo, head of powertrain at the Renault-Nissan alliance.

    “We’re reaching the limits of downsizing,” he said at the Paris auto show. Renault, VW and GM’s Opel all declined to comment on specific engine plans.

    For years, carmakers kept pace with European Union CO2 goals by shrinking engine capacities, while adding turbochargers to make up lost power. Three-cylinder motors below one litre have become common in cars up to VW Golf-sized compacts; some Fiat models run on twin-cylinders.

    These mini-motors sailed through official lab tests conducted – until now – on rollers at unrealistically moderate temperatures and speeds. Carmakers, regulators and green groups knew that real-world CO2 and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions were much higher, but the discrepancy remained unresolved.

    All that is about to change. Starting next year, new models will be subjected to realistic on-the-road testing for NOx, with all cars required to comply by 2019. Fuel consumption and CO2 will follow two years later under a new global test standard.

    More
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/motoring/85373237/Carmakers-forced-back-to-bigger-engines-in-new-emissions-era

  107. Richard C (NZ) on October 15, 2016 at 9:39 am said:

    Ontario’s electricity, “carnage”, “a train wreck”, electricity costs double to reduce carbon at $250/ton – JoNova

    Boondoggle: How Ontario’s pursuit of renewables broke their electricity system

    Financial Post, Terence Corcoran

    The Green industry has done over Ontario consumers. Government control of the electricity market was “cheered on by a growing industrial complex of wind and solar promoters backed by a large contingent of financial firms, big name consultants, fee-collecting law firms and major corporations. All were anxious to play a lucrative role fulfilling renewables objectives”.

    Ontario was going to be the North American leader in renewable energy. It would save lives, create jobs, cost nothing, but instead the electricity bills have doubled, no lives were saved and the only jobs created were temporary (and almost certainly cost more jobs in other areas due to high electricity costs). The only “success” for the extra wind and solar power that’s locked into the grid is that it has “saved” some meaningless CO2 emissions at the exorbitant, flagrant cost of $250 per ton. Green energy was supposed to save $4.4billion in healthcare and other costs, but virtually none of that materialized.

    Costs have gone from 5.5c a KWh in 2006 to 11c KWh in 2016. (How is it still so incredibly cheap ask Aussies? We are the largest coal exporters in the world and have some of the largest uranium reserves but Australians pay from 25c to 36c per KWh* and the currencies are 1:1).

    Continues >>>>>>
    http://joannenova.com.au/2016/10/ontarios-electricity-carnage-a-train-wreck-electricity-costs-double-to-reduce-carbon-at-250ton/

    # # #

    My TrustPower rate: NZD 33.2c. KWh = CAD 30.9c KWh @ 1 New Zealand dollar = 0.9316 Canadian dollars,

    TECT rebate each year mitigates this

    TECT – “Each eligible Consumer will receive a fixed amount between $440 – $590 (depending on which services you receive from Trustpower) plus a small variable portion based on your total spend during the qualifying period. Last year the minimum cheque amount was $435 and the average cheque was $553.”

    Still way more expensive than those Ontario rates even after they have doubled.

  108. Dennis N Horne on October 15, 2016 at 9:43 am said:

    wvw.bollix.com/what’sinyourcranium

    Climate science denial leads to atrophy of the brain and incontinence.

  109. Richard C (NZ) on October 15, 2016 at 9:52 am said:

    Ontario

    [JN] According to Terence Corcoran things are so on the nose that the premier can’t even mention hydro without getting booed. The costs of going green have been estimated at $170 billion over 30 years, and while smog has decreased somewhat, no one is sure whether that was due to the coal stations closing in Ontario, or is linked to US changes. In any case, the coal plants could have been fitted with smog-cleaning gear for a tiny fraction of the cost.

    The Ontario government has finally started canceling new wind projects, but there are long term contracts for current wind farms that go on for years. Jan Carr was head of the Ontario Power Authority and says the government is “finally waking up to Ontario’s electricity carnage.”

    Ontario’s Society of Professional Engineers has issued many reports describing how dismal the green policies are, but the Premier’s office appear to have been fooled completely by the Green machine. A former head of the OSPE, Paul Acchione, says “because they know how to turn a light bulb on and off, they’ll issue policy statements on the most complex engineering system on the planet”. He said the Premier’s office was pretty much running the grid and “hiring political scientists and environmentalists because they thought they were the experts”. (Does Australia have an OSPE equivalent, wonders Jo?)

    But demand for electricity has cratered as the prearranged contracts for green energy have surged, and Canadians are paying for expensive electricity that comes at the wrong time of day and isn’t needed.

    In a normal market when supply outstrips demand, prices are supposed to fall. But put a government in charge and the most expensive provider can get a guarantee to get paid, even if their product isn’t needed.

    A bunch of parasites fooled the Premier and they are getting rich by selling expensive electrons that are supposed to change the weather 50 years from now.

    But they don’t know what “expensive” electricity means. I dream of electricity at 11.8c KWh – let alone 5.9c.

  110. Climate science denial leads to atrophy of the brain and incontinence

    Is this a known medical condition?

  111. Me: Doctor I have a loose stool of a morning.

    Doctor: Oh, please read this article from Skeptical Science twice a day, after food.

  112. Richard C (NZ) on October 15, 2016 at 10:07 am said:

    Europe:

    Carmakers’ smallest European engines, when driven at higher loads than current tests allow, far exceed legal emissions levels. Heat from the souped-up turbos generates diesel NOx up to 15 times over the limit; gasoline equivalents lose fuel-efficiency and spew fine particles and carbon monoxide.

    The knee-jerk reaction?

    ‘Germany moves to ban internal combustion engine by 2030’
    http://www.dezeen.com/2016/10/10/germany-ban-internal-combustion-engine-2030-bundesrat-support-electric-cars-design-technology/

    Germany being so “green” that they shut down nuclear and replaced with coal, and their “energiewende” (energy transition) is a disaster.

    Their politicians must be inhaling too much NOS.

  113. Dennis N Horne on October 15, 2016 at 10:25 am said:

    Brain atrophy and incontinence … Is this a known medical condition?

    Also known as having a pee in your bonnet.

  114. Richard Treadgold on October 15, 2016 at 10:34 am said:

    @Dennis,

    Control the weather?

    Well, yes, that’s what it is. Climate is just long-term weather and its patterns. But instead of saying “fight climate change”, which sounds vaguely feasible, saying “control the weather” makes it rightly inconceivable, because we don’t. CO2 is nothing like a control knob on global temperature. If it were, temperatures right now would be soaring on the back of the high CO2 levels, and they’re not.

    You’ve got to admit it would save on weather forecasting!

    Hee, hee.

  115. Richard Treadgold on October 15, 2016 at 10:39 am said:

    @Andy,

    Doctor: Oh, please read this article from Skeptical Science twice a day, after food.

    🙂

  116. Richard Treadgold on October 15, 2016 at 10:41 am said:

    @Dennis,

    Also known as having a pee in your bonnet.

    You talk a lot of nonsense but I do enjoy your wordsmithery.

  117. Maggy Wassilieff on October 15, 2016 at 10:45 am said:

    Folks complain that I’ve gone smelly
    and my brain has turned to jelly
    It’s because I’ve caught climate psychosis
    just like the gregarious locust.

  118. Richard C (NZ) on October 15, 2016 at 11:28 am said:

    Friday final trading TPW $7.370 ▼-$0.050 / -0.67% 52 Week Change: ▲$0.491 / 7.179%

    https://www.nzx.com/markets/NZSX/securities/TPW
    http://www.findata.co.nz/markets/stockquote/NZX/TPW.htm

    TrustPower moved into two and a half floor lease of a new Tga CBD office building, a $25 million joint-venture development between developer Peter Cooney and then site owner Zariba Holdings, snapped up in February by Queenstown-based investors for $40 million, and they are still buying around Tga.

Comment navigation

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation