Another Win-Win! “Climate talks open amid anger over Trump’s coal support”

Guest taunting post by David Middleton

  1. Win: President Trump announced US withdrawal from Paris climate treaty agreement joke.
  2. Win: US will use its remaining 3 years as a party to the joke as a vehicle to promote fossil fuels.

bbc_coal

Over the next two weeks, negotiators hope to clarify the rulebook of the Paris climate agreement.

It is the first major meeting since President Trump announced plans to take the US out of the Paris pact last June.

Many delegates are unhappy with White House plans to promote fossil fuels here as a “solution” to climate change.

[…]

According to reports, members of the Trump administration will lend their support to an event to promote fossil fuels and nuclear power as solutions to climate change.

Speakers from coal giant Peabody Energy, among others, will make a presentation to highlight the role that coal and other fuels can play in curbing the impacts of rising temperatures.

A White House spokesman said in a statement that the discussion aimed to build on the administration’s efforts to promote fossil fuels at the G20 meeting this year.

“It is undeniable that fossil fuels will be used for the foreseeable future, and it is in everyone’s interest that they be efficient and clean,” the spokesman said.

‘Beyond absurd’

The prospect of fossil fuel industries making their case at this meeting has angered some who will be attending.

“Fossil fuels having any role in tackling climate change is beyond absurd. It is dangerous,” said Andrew Norton, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development.

“These talks are no place for pushing the fossil fuel agenda. The US needs to come back to the table and help with the rapid cuts in emissions that the situation demands.”

Long-time talks participant Alden Meyer from the Union of Concerned Scientists added: “It’s not a credible solution, but that doesn’t seem to bother them.

“They might even welcome some of the reaction to show to their base that they are fighting for America’s interest and not this globalist malarkey.”

[…]

The Beeb

‘Beyond absurd’

It is “beyond absurd” to deny that coal will be a major source of energy well-beyond the middle of the 21st century.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/391492_5_.png

FEBRUARY 8, 2017

U.S. coal production and coal-fired electricity generation expected to rise in near term

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2017.02.08/main.png

Coal production in the United States totaled 739 million short tons (MMst) in 2016, an 18% decline from 2015 and the lowest level of coal production since 1978. Because nearly all coal produced in the United States is used to generate electricity, coal production and coal-fired electricity generation are closely connected. In 2017 and 2018, as natural gas prices are expected to increase, coal is expected to regain some share of the electricity generation mix, and coal production is expected to increase slightly.

[…]

U.S. EIA

Chapter 4. Coal

Overview

In the IEO2016 Reference case, coal remains the second-largest energy source worldwide—behind petroleum and other liquids—until 2030. From 2030 through 2040, it is the third-largest energy source, behind both liquid fuels and natural gas. World coal consumption increases from 2012 to 2040 at an average rate of 0.6%/year, from 153 quadrillion Btu in 2012 to 169 quadrillion Btu in 2020 and to 180 quadrillion Btu in 2040.

[…]

U.S. EIA

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/figure_4-1.png

Figuring out ways to generate electricity from coal in a manner less impactful on the environment is a far more productive exercise than pretending that it will be replaced with solar panels, wind turbines, fairy dust and unicorn farts.

It is “beyond absurd” to claim that fossil fuels don’t have a role in “tackling climate change”… “The rapid cuts in emissions that the situation [supposedly] demands” can’t be achieved without at least one fossil fuel… Assuming there actually was an urgent need to tackle climate change (which there isn’t) or that climate change could actually be tackled (which it can’t).

If there actually was an urgent need to tackle climate change, the only player on the field large enough to do the tackling is N2N – natural gas to nuclear.

The next three to seven years will truly test whether or not it’s actually possible to “get tired of winning.”

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mike Bryant

I’m not tired of winning yet.

joelobryan

Me neither. Winning while watching your opponents tear themselves apart is simply delicious.
(The Democrats are about to erupt into a full scale internal breech and civil war along their self-created identity politic lines)

The Progressives’ screechings and wailings are getting louder and louder with each win.

Tom Steyer’s recent $10 Million “bounty” for a Trump impeachment, hailed by unthinking Progs, should land him under FBI investigation for brazenly attempting to bribe congressional Democrats. It reveals an intense level of desperation from a deep-pocketed watermelon.

A US economy hitting +3% annual GDP growth (maybe above 4%) will cause to even more extreme Left caterwauls because that exposes the severe economic suppression effects of Obama’s regulatory regimes on the US economy and global growth as well.

Winning!!!

Hot under the collar

Unfortunately I don’t believe the US Taxpayer is winning yet according to this report by the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41859283

“Delegations of US governors, mayors and business people, under the We Are Still In coalition umbrella, will be in Bonn to tell negotiators that below the Federal level, much of America still supports the Paris agreement.”

Who is paying for the US Governors and Mayors to attend this Alarmist Love-in jolly? Why do they think they have the authority to contradict their own National Government and to negotiate on a national issue? If I was one of their taxpayers I’d be fuming and want my money back!

Auto

Hot under the collar
“. . . according to this report by the BBC”:

Nuff said. Frankly.

A more anti-growth, anti-individual rights (and duties), pro-leftist clap-trap – ‘The establishment is at fault, ALWAYS’ outfit it would be hard to find – even in a galaxy far, far, away!
Certainly not ‘neutral’ – not since the Eighties, at least. They h a t e d Thatcher, viscerally, so probably since the Seventies.

Auto – a BBC viewer from about 1961 (when we got our first TV!).

Relative to the undeveloped countries, the most significant element of the US entering the Paris agreement was the transfer of funds.
Just how are “much of America” going to foot the bill?
This delegation probably really believes the rest of the word cares whether or not the US continues its DOWNWARD trend on CO2 emissions.

Well, when absolutely all of the decks that are in play are stacked in your favor then the likelihood of a continued winning streak are far greater than are the odds that the Arctic will experience ice-free summers…..ever………

…….Unless and until, of course, Earth’s orbit is moved closer to the lazy ol’ sun that rolls around heaven all day.

Mike Bryant

So odd that Trump is held in contempt because he supports what many countries are already doing. Will we ever live in common sense worl?

Andrew

Under the Trump666 Regime, emissions have fallen this year. Bigly. That’s unlikely to be true of too many other countries. Participation in these treaties is irrelevant too – St Elon became a leader in EVs without the Kyoto Protocol. Of course, EVs are an environmental disaster that consumes commodities that are actually scarce (unlike fossil fuels, which are simply carbon-neutral renewable biomass).

Edwin

Philip Howard has two books, both entitled “The Death of Common Sense” one written in the 1990s and the other in the second decade of this century. Both are short and to the point. Worth the read.

Retired_Engineer_Jim

+100 – Great book.

Griff

Genuine question -what is he supporting countries are doing already?

AndyG55

1600 new coal fired power stations around the world , griff.

LOTS of absolutely necessary, totally beneficial, life-giving atmospheric CO2.

Supporting crop and food growth around the world.

Barbara

Frankfurt School

FS – UNEP Collaborative Centre

‘Global Trends In Renewable Energy Investment 2017’

P. 6: Joint Forward

Re: Subsidising renewable energy vs. subsidising natural gas to help provide grid reliability.

http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/publications/globaltrendsinrenewableenergyinveastment2017.pdf

Barbara
MarkW

But you don’t understand. Last year they were proposing 1623 new coal plants.
That drop of 23 planed new plants is proof that they are this close to abandoning coal altogether.
/sarc

rocketscientist

The biggest problem is that common sense doesn’t seem to be all that common.

MarkW

It’s not very sensical either.

jclarke341

The world does make sense if you look at it as left verse right. Even though Trump is more of a populist president then a true conservative, he is definitely aligned more with the right than the left. Issues, like climate change, women’s equality, gun laws, abortion, war, nuclear energy, clean air and clean water are actually irrelevant to the left. They are simply opportunities to try and advance socialism, which is the only thing that matters. Plus, the battle is always waged with symbolism over substance.

Consequently, it doesn’t matter what Trump does, or what the results are. If he does it in support of capitalism, the left will always portray him as evil and incompetent. If Bernie Sanders is ever elected president, he will not be able to do anything wrong. He could destroy the country or even the planet, but the left would never criticize his actions.

If you look at everything through that light, it all makes perfect sense.

MarkW

A recent poll found that 50% millenials want to live in a country with socialism or preferably communism.
The battle may already be lost.

Henning Nielsen

It is not odd at all. It is all about toeing the correct party line, uttering the same herd grunts, wearing the same blinders.

Image is everything, substance is nothing. The alarmists know perfectly well they are a gang of losers, but it makes no difference to them as long as government coffers are overflowing. Don’t rock the boat.

Trump is an enfant terrible in this context. The really unforgiveable sin in the climate “war” is not to utter some doubt, but to say it out loud, with diplomatic clothing ripped off, in words that the man in the street can understand. That’s the real offense.

Barbara Skolaut

“Will we ever live in common sense world?”

Silly Mike. ;-p

Ed Zuiderwijk

Since CO2 is not an important climate driver it does not substantially contribute to ‘warming’; conversely it can’t play a role in reducing ‘warming’ either, should that be desirable.

Iceismelting

Funny, that’s not according to the report Trump just released…

MarkW

Actually, the ice is refreezing as we speak.
Regardless, a report by a small agency deep in the bureaucracy is hardly definitive.

Kamikazedave

“Fossil fuels having any role in tackling climate change is beyond absurd. It is dangerous,” said Andrew Norton, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development.”

Run home to your mommy’s basement, little snowflake. Reality appears to be way more than you can handle.

Tom in Florida

He meant dangerous to his income and his position at the institute.

AussieBear

So then stop using Fossil Fuels to attend these get together’s!

Hahaha! 😜

Jon

Our best allies are the hysterical alarmists who are obviously beyond suspicious to the casual observer. Our greatest threat are the Luke warmers who try to be rational and reasonable. I would like to never hear about this subject again till 1500 ppm, but the dangerous reasonableness of lukewarmers makes this hope unlikely.

Smart Rock

Being rational and reasonable is a bad thing then, is it?

Reasoning with irrational and unreasonable is an art. And art value is a question of personal taste.

Smart Rock

From which it follows that being irrational and unreasonable are positive attributes to Jon. Thanks for the insight.

Latitude

” rational and reasonable.”

I’m old enough to have noticed that “rational and reasonable”….is compromise

The right has compromised with the left so much, there’s little right left…..seems the left never has to move to the right, it’s mostly the right moving to the left. Look where we are now, and how we got there.

Latitude

..we need more head butts

TA

The RINO’s desperately want to be loved by the Leftist Main Stream Media. That’s what motivates people like McCain. In order to keep the MSM from criticizing them, the RINO’s must accept the political positions of the Left, and they have to pretend that the Left is rational and sensible.

The sad part for the RINO’s is they will never be loved by the MSM. McCain got a lot of love from the MSM, until he ran for president, and then they treated him just like any other Republican: as a racist, bigot, homophobe and war monger.

Now that McCain is criticizing Trump, the MSM loves him again. But it’s only temporary, John. The MSM will throw you under the bus as soon as you are no longer useful to them and their political agenda. Serves you right, too.

JohnKnight

I think many underestimate the degree of outright corruption that has taken root (and flowered) in our political/governmental/media systems . . There are many people on this planet who will literally kill for money, or to keep from going to prison, or to keep from being killed themselves, etc. A great many will lie, cheat and steal for it, and I think much of what is often characterized as ideological/political compromise or drifting, is really just an act, to cover for profiteering, and blackmail capitulation and so on . .

David. That’s from the “this ought to shut up the “Skydragon slayers” department, a couple of years ago when WUWT website underlined ‘metrology’ as a typo. Without knowing a lot about the dispute, you can count me as one in favour of personal freedom of conscience and association instead.

Pretty much anyone with any scientific training who has actually done due diligence on the science is a lukewarmer. It’s counterproductive to the cause to claim that CO2 has no effect. Incremental CO2 clearly has a finite affect on the surface temperature and the difference between lukewarmers and alarmists can be boiled down to the size of this effect. Lukewarmers consider the effect to be too small to obsess about and far too small to spend a dime to mitigate, much less trillions of dimes. Alarmists, on the other hand are the counterpoint to skeptics who claim no effect. Both take an extreme position, both are wrong and in most cases, both are motivated by political ideology.

TA

“Alarmists, on the other hand are the counterpoint to skeptics who claim no effect. Both take an extreme position, both are wrong and in most cases, both are motivated by political ideology.”

This skeptic claims there is no evidence that CO2 has any NET effect on the Earth’s climate. Talking about radiative forcings is irrelevant, if it isn’t affecting the Earth’s climate. I’m motivated by scientific evidence, and I know when I don’t see any. I don’t see CO2 changing the Earth’s climate, CO2’s radiative forcing or no CO2 radiative forcing.

Skeptics are not arguing there is no radiative greenhouse effect, we are arguing there is no evidence this affects the Earth’s climate in any observable way. Nor is there any evidence that CO2 affects the Earth’s climate throughout Earth’s long history, even though CO2 levels have been much, much higher than today. Humans couldn’t raise the CO2 levels to the levels in our past if humans burnt every hydrocarbon on the planet. We would still be way below the levels CO2 has reached in the past, without a runaway greenhouse effect occurring.

Radiative forcing and human-caused Climate Change/Global Warming are two different animals. Radiative forcing exists, but there’s no evidence it has any effect on the Earth’s climate.

TA,

How can you argue that there is a radiative GHG effect, yet at the same time claim it has no effect on the temperature? There’s certainly no evidence that the effect is anywhere near as large as claimed, because it’s not. None the less, the effect is finite and small enough to be buried in natural variability.

The evidence that there is an effect is the fact that the surface is warmer than it would be without GHG’s and clouds, where the difference between them is that GHG’s are narrow band absorbers and emitters while clouds are broad band absorbers and emitters. Both recycle about half of the energy they absorb back to the surface.

Clearly radiative forcing has an effect on the climate as the Sun is the ONLY true source of radiative forcing. GHG’s change the system and claiming that this is forcing is incorrect and highly misleading. The true nature of this claim is that effect of doubling CO2 is EQUIVALENT to 3.7 W/m^2 more solar forcing while keeping the system (CO2 concentrations) constant, moreover; 3.7 W/m^2 more solar forcing would increase the surface temperature by less than 1C, where the current increase in concentrations since the start of the Industrial Revolution would at most add a few of tenths of a degree to the average.

BTW, even the 3.7 W/m^2 equivalent forcing is likely about twice as large as actual. This is the difference at TOA upon instantly doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. Since this 3.7 W/m^2 is being absorbed by the atmosphere, once the system arrives at a new LTE after the CO2 doubling, only half ultimately returns to the surface while the remaining half is emitted into space. This would further decrease any effect by a factor of 2, further burying it in the noise of natural variability. I usually don’t bother emphasizing this additional factor of 2 error since even without it, the effect is too small to worry about.

As far as I’m aware there is no evidence linking the slightly increased CO2 radiative forcing to surface or any other temperatures. In fact the increased radiative forcing may well cause cooling through other mechanisms resulting in net negative feedback and therefore a negative CO2 sensitivity or possibly a zero sensitivity.

No one knows as yet. So then from this perspective “Lukewarmer” is an entirely misleading title. All this achieves is to give people a false sense that something is known about warming which actually is unknown. The title ought to be be “lukeforcer” at this time and nothing more.

cephus0.
There’s no physical evidence of a large effect because the theoretical effect is small enough to be buried in the noise of natural variability.

Also, the concept of feedback is widely misused by both sides of climate science. Feedback is only relevant in the context of a system with power gain which is not a property of the climate system.

As far as mitigating circumstances reducing the sensitivity to zero, these really don’t seem to be present, as the temperature changes that arise from seasonal differences in solar forcing are quite real.

Joe Crawford

“Alarmists, on the other hand are the counterpoint to skeptics who claim no effect.[my bold]

Careful co2… you are ill-defining ‘skeptics’. According to Merriam-Webster a skeptic is “an adherent or advocate of skepticism” and skepticism is “an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object.” Having doubt expresses no certainty, only a lack thereof.

For example, as a skeptic I may accept that CO2 has the stated effect on a column of dry air, but when included in the complex system they call the Earth’s Climate, it may have ‘too small’ an effect to be measurable, no effect at all or even the opposite effect. Until you thoroughly understand the internals of the entire system, and the interactions of all components, you do not know.

Joe,
Lukewarmers like myself are skeptical of the junk parts of the science promoted by the IPCC but are not skeptical of those components of the science that are based on the known laws of physics. It’s important to differentiate between the two and the failure to separate them is common among alarmists.

The IPCC muddies the waters by adding junk (i.e. positive feedback, water vapor enhancement, hidden heat, etc.) on top of known physics and lumps in those who dispute the junk with those who dispute the known physics.

I’m clearly of the opinion that the effect is too small to discern from the noise of natural variability. But, I’m equally certain that the effect we are not discerning is not zero.

There can be no question that the incremental effect of solar forcing is non zero and to the extent that incremental CO2 can be considered equivalent to solar forcing, it will also have a finite effect.

There are two parts to the net effect. One is the effect that incremental post albedo solar energy (forcing) has on the surface temperature and the other is how much solar forcing while keeping the system constant is equivalent to keeping the post albedo solar input constant and changing CO2 concentrations. Both of these are significantly overestimated by the IPCC.

My emphasis has been on identifying a correct value for the climate sensitivity, which necessarily is not zero. Over-estimating the equivalent forcing from doubling CO2 doesn’t matter a lot since after applying the proper sensitivity, even the inflated equivalent forcing is not enough to make the warming anything close to catastrophic.

“This shouldn’t be so difficult for people to comprehend.”

You would think so. The problem is the disinformation and the many levels of obfuscation used to keep even scientifically literate people horribly confused.

The #1 reason that keeps alarmists from changing their mind is the inability to comprehend how ostensibly intelligent scientists could be so incredibly wrong about something so important. The number 1 task of the IPCC is to maintain this illusion in order to remain relevant and keep the dream of using climate reparations as the excuse to implement globally redistributive economics. Unfortunately, they have done a superb job of maintaining physics defying, yet plausible confusion.

TA

“How can you argue that there is a radiative GHG effect, yet at the same time claim it has no effect on the temperature?”

I’m arguing that there is no evidence the radiative greenhouse effect of CO2 has any noticiable effect on the Earth’s climate. I’m not arguing that CO2 does not absord and radiate energy, I’m arguing that there must be some negative feedback in the climate that negates this warming, otherwise temperature and CO2 levels would correlate with each other, and they do not.

Modern day Hockey Stick charts show a correlation between CO2 and the temperatures, but we know them to be lies perpetrated by advocates of CAGW. That’s the only “evidence” the Alarmists have and it is no evidence at all.

Yes, CO2 absorbs and radiates energy, but there is no evidence this causes the Earth’s climate to change now, or in all of Earth’s history.

That’s my position.

Subject to change as knowledge increases.

My point is only that there’s a big difference between no effect and some effect, even if that effect is too small to discern from the noise.

It’s true that incremental CO2 has a small theoretical effect, mostly because much of its potential effect has already manifested, moreover; consensus climate science overstates the effect by a wide margin. None the less, there can be no doubt if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere, the surface temperature would be colder than it is now.

BTW, there’s no more any kind of negative feedback mitigating the effect then there is any positive feedback amplifying it. The whole concept of feedback doesn’t apply to the climate. The simple fact is that the effect is small to begin with.

MarkW

So Jon, you actually believe that being rational is a big problem?

I too am a lukewarmer, though less of one than David.

Griff

Delingpole’s only expertise is in English literature and he gets paid to push out such articles

(He writes quite good WW2 novels – though a little risque perhaps)

Gerald Machnee

And some people’s expertise is repeating bad science.

Sheri

Climate scientists get paid to push out confirmation of the theory. You don’t seem too bothered by that.

He’s a science writer, yes. However, Gore, McKibben, Cook, Nye, and on and on are nothing but spokesmen for the alarmists. Do you want them dismissed as “not scientists” and ignored?

Latitude

Delingpole’s articles are well researched and accurate….do you just have a problem with them being well written? 😉

Gerald Machnee

Griff doesn’t deal in bad science, only the Guardian.

AndyG55

And your expertise, griff, is in being permanently WRONG and ILL-INFORMED.

Sheri wrote: “Climate scientists get paid to push out confirmation of the theory.”

Can I just point out that AGW/CAGW is not a theory. In order to be a theory there would need to be some supporting evidence. There is none. After getting on for half a century of frantic, monotonically increasing hysterical effort and funding levels which would have made the Manhattan Project feel a bit cheap and tawdry there still is not so much as the faintest glimmer of any evidence heaving into view on the distant horizon. And many would say that is because it is wrong.

So then it is at best an hypothesis and more realistically a quacking, honking and burbling-at-the-moon insane failed hypothesis.

Griff

David, did you leave off the red lines showing the average past level of the ice, at a considerable distance from where it is now, or just pick an illustration without?

for those who haven’t looked, sea ice extent is just about to cross the 2012 line for this time of year and become the second lowest extent at this point in November in the record.comment image

(What ice there is is not 100% cover and little of it is over 2m. Fram export has already started too)

Eric H.

Pragmatism over ideology. I agree, We are certainly going to be using coal in the mix, might as well come to grips with that and see what can be done to make it as clean as efficiency and cost allows.

Resourceguy

Untenable said the dieselgate delegates.

RWturner

Fourth global climate meeting since Trump cancelled the PCA? Mang, saving the world from us energy using plebs sure is hard work. From Bonn, they only get to rest a few weeks before meeting again in San Francisco in early December. Maybe if they step it up and meet 12 times a year vs 6 times a year, then we will see some results.

Resourceguy

Maybe they can sign the deal with San Fran government instead.

Griff

Indeed – maybe they can sign deals with the large number of US entities still supporting the Paris agreement

the ‘We Are Still In’ coalition of businesses, states and cities confirmed its membership has doubled to 2,584 signatories.

The group was set up in the wake of President Trump’s controversial decision to quit the Paris Agreement, in a bid to demonstrate that many parts of US society remained committed to the international accord’s goals.

The organisation announced recently that a surge in new supporters, including a Republican Mayor, five counties and 213 churches, mean the campaign now represents $6.2tr of the US economy, nine states, more than 250 cities and 1,780 businesses and investors.

Nigel S

About as significant as Islington declaring itself a nuclear free zone to protect Corbyn’s allotment.

RWturner

The campaign now represents $6.2 Trillion of the US economy? LOL, thanks for the laugh. The left’s obsession with OPM has now reached imaginative levels.

Bruce Cobb

Griffie confuses virtue signalling with actually doing, and continues in his fantasy that “climate action” is something that is needed or even smart.

Gerald Machnee

Sure, Griff, and the results will be zero.

Griff’s $6.2tr comment is a salutary reminder that swamp-draining is a lengthy and difficult process.

And those guys can hand their own state tax-payers cash over to third world dictators while crippling their domestic economies with expensive renewable energy and turning once prosperous places into criminals and illegals sanctuaries. Should be interesting to see how long the watermelons remain in power as their cities and states begin to fall behind those who weren’t quite so generous with the loot.

Griff

But I’d like to remind all that action does get taken and it isn’t all just signalling…

Bruce Cobb

Let the Climate Circus begin! Note to self: need more popcorn. I look forward to plenty of tantrums, walkouts, and crocodile tears amongst the Faithful, those seeking to keep the gravy train rolling, and especially those countries seeking Climate Cash and Retribution for their Climate Suffering.

Ross King

“……energy using plebs….”
Love it!!

LdB

The main part of COP23 has already been played the pacific island nations want money. Unless Germany and France are going to dig in there pockets it’s going to be a talk fest.

Griff

“a presentation to highlight the role that coal and other fuels can play in curbing the impacts of rising temperatures”

That’s simply impossible.

and presenting on coal to a forum of countries committed to ending its use in power stations is just completely bats.

Smart Rock

Er, what was the problem with rising temperatures again?

Where I come from it’s reasonable to heat the inside air during the winter and cool it during the summer than trying to adjust the average global outside air temperature instead.

Smart Rock

Glad you mentioned bats, Griff. Every bat killed by a windmill represents approximately 250,000 more mosquitoes that will not be eaten.

Not to mention the birds.

Griff

The measures to mitigate impacts on bats are already in place in the US.
And to some extent in Europe – though the pattern of migration is quite different there.

Wind turbines are not decimating bat populations either

Bruce Cobb

Actually, it is their hatred of coal which is “bats”.

Sheri

Never heard of air conditioning, Griff?

Griff

I’m in the UK Sheri

Very little need for it!

AndyG55

So why are you worried and constantly bed-wetting about some slight, but highly beneficial warming.

Your cognitive emptimess is a wonder to behold.

“That’s simply impossible.”

Prove it.

AndyG55

Coal is MOST CERTAINLY the cheapest and most reliable way of any country sourcing energy to help combat the effects of NATURAL climate change.

The whole of western civilisation uses it for control of local climates in homes, industry, shopping malls, hospitals.. etc etc

Even you, griff, are totally beholden to it for your electricity supply, as well as basically EVERYTHING in your meaningless little life.

Classic Trump Troll. All they need do is ask the blob to provide a cohesive argument against with supporting evidence – er, not models by the way – and watch the buffoons flail around with all manner of ignorant emotive non-arguments. Oh to be a fly on those walls.

Nigel S

News from November 4th Daily Express that EU has wasted £520 million on a failed CCS scheme. Small beer in their long history of disasters but those millions will eventually add up to something significant.

‘Reflecting on the scheme he helped create, former Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies told EUobserver: “The expectation was that the carbon price would rise from thirty euros up to a hundred euros.” When the carbon price crashed (now seven euros per ton CO2) the scheme attracted virtually no participants and only ended up funding projects already in the renewable category.’

Gary Pearse.

Norton of International Oxy Morons is upset! I’d like to follow Norton around for a day and see just what the heck he does for his well compensated living. Actually a neat thing to spring on him when he’s unexpecting it would be to… ask him!

Environment and development! In the neomarxbrothers world mean their antonyms. Environment means chopping down your only national forest (Denmark) and and re-tufting it with quixotic idiotic windmills made in China that create a stench of slaughtered sea birds until they are wiped out. This is a monument to the mental health disaster of Europe. It means building solar arrays in Scotland sitting there in the scotch mist like headstones in a graveyard. It means rock bolting Germany with wind mills that are marching off into the Baltic like Chinese clay legions and having to open up more lignite mines to back them up.

It means the Gang Green of South Oz closing down coal fired plants, going all in with renewables, shutting in the major regional employer (Glencor) who can’t use wifty-poofty electrical intermittent sparks and farmers all running diesel generators.

And development! Closing down entire industrial sectors including manufacturing on two continents that used to lead the world and shipping all their jobs to China.

Ger a job Norton, even your nearest and dearest are embarrassed that they don’t know what you do and you can’t explain it to them.

Smart Rock

But, Gary, he’s helping to save the planet! Don’t be so mean to him.

On second thoughts…….

troe

A big win coming if we can get the 7.5k federal tax credit for EV’s finished off. Never easy to close the cash spigot here in the US. Sure it’s the same wherever you live. But you know what? Climate Change is a non-issue here among voters. Nobody is pushing it. What a sweet change from just a few years back. It ain’t dead but it also don’t matter that much. Justice served for now. Let’s finish it.

beng135

Thanks, Dave Middleton, your energy posts are always interesting & relevant. US coal exports have been increasing, despite the coordinated domestic war on it.

J Mac

#BrownLigniteMatters
So does Anthracite!

Bruce Cobb

Strangely, the more the Greenies and Climate Numpties hate on coal, the more I like coal. Never really thought much of coal before. Odd.

Steve Keppel-Jones

I know, right? Used to be just a lump of black dirt to my way of thinking, but now I see it as beautiful, clean, life-giving energy 🙂

joelobryan

For Ultimate Winning, the climate models have to exposed to all of science for the Bad Science they are.

A good place for a real engineer or naive scientist to start (to understand how flawed the models are) is in reading the climateers own admissions about what they have to do to make their models “work”

Two good places to start:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00135.1

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6311/401

A careful, thoughtful read of those two articles should leave no doubt in any objective scientist’s mind that the climate models outputs are nothing more than confirmation bias machines… Very expensive confirmation bias machines.

And once the climate model hustle is fully exposed to the much wider, non-climate scientist communities, the only pole holding up the Climate Alarmists Big Tent will collapse.

AndyG55

The second link says

“For years, climate scientists have tuned their parameterizations so that the model overall matches climate records. ”

This invariably means tuned to GISS or HadCrut.

Both these data sets are massively adjusted to create unrealistic warming trends, the 1940’s peak disappearing completely for example.

Because the parameterisations have this UNREALISTIC warming trend built into them…

the models CAN NEVER hope to be even remotely correct.

I guess they could go back to using actual REALITY in their climate data…. but that would DESTROY the whole AGW farce.

Give me enough degrees of freedom and I can reproduce any behavior with any model.

joelobryan

They had to create an increased albedo to force their models to reproduce those past temperatures. Most did so by tuning in higher historical levels aerosols for those hindcasts to not run too hot.

There’s no reason to believe those aerosols actually existed (by observation). It was simply needed to get them to reproduce yesterday.
It is a point that Trenberth has lamented upon (the tuning in of unrealistic aerosols to match records).

The aerosols are not there in today’s observations, which initialize the models start state. Thus the models run too hot. Actually most are way too hot unless they tune in much more precipitation than realistic. And then they fix that and then another state (like clouds) goes out of wack. They keep tuning and tweaking until they finally get what meets their expectations… sort of. As the first link calls it, Tuning is an Art. And their is nothing more subjective in the human creation than Art.

GCMs are not science. Just junk. Pure junk science.

Brett Keane

David seems to think that spectral measurements are heat sources eg from CO2. Radiation and more so its spectral signature are, in physics, not capable of CAUSING the heat/kinetic energy they RESULTED from. Temperature is just our way of measuring this. They are an EFFECT, instead. And anyone who thinks they can also heat ie raise the Kinetic Energy of the warmer matter below in our atmosphere. Or even affect its radiation release, is in need of deep study of the basics.
Photonic radiation, EMF, is merely a side effect of molecular vibration in the atomic Field. Consider the -ve 4th power, also what SB must radiate to…..

Brett Keane

Glad to know this. 🙂

From about the turn of the Century to now. there has been no observable change in World temperature as shown by RSS. During that period measured atmospheric CO2 increased by 20ppm. Whether it increased because of some increase in Industrial emissions of CO2 (about 3-4% of total emissions) or by natural variations of Oceans or natural emissions from some other source is not yet proven, The question of whether previous increases in temperature were caused by Solar activity, CO2 or something else are equally ‘up in the air’. Generally, people and plants are still happier to see warmer weather. There is nothing in all this speculation to believe that taxing people more, using their food as fuel, forcing them to use solar panels that don’t work at night or wind turbines that chop birds and bats, will improve the weather or even alter it significantly.

Brett Keane

I go with Poisson, Maxwell (Theory of Heat), Prof Robert Wood (experimental Optical Physicist), Konrad Hartmann etc., and my own extensive studies. Atmospheres have no lids and pyrgeometers measure nearby spectra by an algorithmic model. Gaseous mass, gravity, and insolation are all that are needed. Anywhere in the universe.

In scanning the comments, CO2 is mentioned in most of them, but the CERN CLOUD experiment results are never mentioned. Radiative forcing is mentioned throughout the CLOUD experiment reports and CO2 is not mentioned once. What am I missing? Is the 2017 understanding of climate science reflected by this discussion or not? My impression is the Arrhenius climate change model is passe. This discussion is going nowhere for me. Same ol same ol. A fresh perspective without so many W/m2 would help. My apology for the vent. A long day.

One reference that might be of interest is the CERN Courier, Nov 11, 2016, “CLOUD experiment sharpens climate predictions.”

F. Leghorn

Aren’t unicorn farts ghg’s?

Earthling2

I am a lukewarmer too, along the lines of David M. although I wish we were actually getting the warming they were predicting we would get. It is obvious the climate models are not going to be even close to their linear predictive warming based upon CO2 going up. So why is their a subset of skeptics with their mind already made up that CO2 has no radiative delay in cooling, therefore slightly warming the planet? That is even a departure from the sceptical science definition of ‘Skeptic’. In my view, these sceptical deni@es are the most dangerous of all, because it sends the message that all skeptics are off their rocker, and so lets ban all fossil fuels because they are all nuts. Don’t speak for me, since how are we to be taken seriously by mainstream science if radiative physics is just straight up dismissed by some here, tarring us all with the same ignorant brush.

Kinda sad to to see David M sort of have to tip toe around on egg shells to defend his position from the ‘mind made up’ skeptic view that CO2 has no small effect on temperature. These are the true deni@rs that the alarmists paint all of us with the same brush. If they don’t like it, they should go start their own blog, preferably in Russia where this mindset comes from. To sow division and discontent within.

AndyG55

And I think that people like you insisting their own ignorant point of view is the only one to be put forward are damaging any chance of destroying the AGW farce.

You are welcome to come up with some empirical proof that CO2 causes warming in our convectively controlled atmosphere.

Or not.!

All I see so far is a whole prattle of self-important mindless yapping.

Earthling2

“All I see so far is a whole prattle of self-important mindless yapping.”

Said the Russian Troll.

No matter which side of the debate you are on, even the IPCC admit that no matter how much C02 we pump into the atmosphere from now on, it can now only contribute another 13% to the total warming. Due to the logarithmic nature of the forcing 87% was reached at 400ppm.

Why oh why then, isn’t this mentioned by all sides – over and over again – because it would considerably reduce the heat in the AGW debate!

On these points I agree that C02 is a GHG and that the effect is logarithmic and the relationship to temperature in the real atmosphere has not been quantifiably established (Climate Sensitivity*). Does this make me a Lukewarmer, “Tepidist” or Denier or all of the above?

*I expect it will be very low. The history of life on Earth depends on Carbon Dioxide – in concentrations far higher than today – including a life ending lower limit. Therefore, I can not except that C02 could lead to runaway warming because it would have happened already!