JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
I am curious what people think about the “electric universe” hypothesis. Here is the first part of a series of videos on the subject and there are many other videos on the “Thunderbolts Project” YouTube channel.
https://youtu.be/0ZnfNuXiExQ
22
It’s more than electric. It’s gravitoelectromagnetic but is an emergent property of something we don’t completely understand as yet. For example, Einstein has shown gravitation is not a force per se but an emergent property of the curvature of space-time that appears to be a force through our observations. Quantum theory exposes a lot of other aspects of how we appear to be living in a Universe although real and physical is full of emergent properties that do not originate from the physical, or at least not the physical we traditionally speak about. Most of this is really the realm of philosophy than science. Perhaps one day we will be able to make more sense of it but we would need someone even more insightful than Einstein for that to happen.
40
Two things, David…
1. Some years ago there was a contributor whose name I no longer remember who was talking about something that sounds similar to this electric universe theory. I never was in a position to judge the correctness of what he was saying but it did seem consistent and compelling, considering that I have an innate distrust of the big bang theory.
2. I wish I could tell you I understand enough theoretical physics to say I understand the video and what it’s implications are.
But no matter anything else, I find subjects like this fascinating. Magnetism in particular seems to escape classical physics since there is no point of origin or termination of a magnetic field, only the field, of whatever shape it has that circles back on itself. What other field does that?
I probably make no sense but I still enjoy something like this that challenges my imagination — and also my not really that great physics background. F=ma is more in my line these days.
40
There are a few competing theories of magnetism, one is that magnetic materials creates a kind of dipole in the zero point space. Normally in space there is a flux of electron/positron pairs being continually created an destroyed, the Zero Point Theory suggests this happens continually and the average of the flux is exactly zero (Nothing) so that space is only nothing “On Average”. One of the ideas is that magnetism causes the positron/electron pairs to be created separated by a distance causing a distortion of the space in between. Bit like the gravity well.
20
Bob,
I hope you’ll forgive my saying that if there are competing theories about something then I’m most likely to believe all of them are wrong in some major way. But then you probably already knew that.
The realm of theoretical physics has long surpassed what I learned years ago and frankly, as I said, I’m out of my element. But I’m still fascinated with the realm of possibilities we still have no knowledge of, only theories.
You open up yet more questions. For instance, how can space be distorted? And why would it be distorted, in other words, what is accomplished by that distortion? And what is the underlying mechanism that defines distortion instead of normal space?
And now I better quit and leave the discussion to those who know more than I do. I’ve already been likened to a pesky child. And I don’t intend to be that.
30
Roy,
No problem, I’m a science nut, I like writing about it. On distortion, the current view is that matter distorts space-time and that causes gravity. Like a bowling ball sitting on a trampoline, it distorts the mat and a marble rolled onto the mat moves toward the bowling ball. Now look at that on a smaller scale if we create two separated pools of particles the stress on spacetime can cause a similar distortion of space resulting in an apparent force. Different characteristics because there are two particle pools instead of one and they are not necessarily uncharged and might even involve antimatter. This is just one possible but very interesting theory. There are others.
10
I watched the first two minutes of the video. It is nothing but cherry picking of threads of evidence in support of a preconceived fantasy. They complain that established science is suppressing them and hiding the evidence. There is no presentation of evidence to the contrary. No apparent attempt to prove it is false. Thus it is NOT SCIENCE. It is pseudoscience. They have five years of videos that present resent their fantasy. They believe it. That settles it!?
It is true that electromagnetism is one fundamental fact of the universe. That light reaches us from the visible bounds of the universe is one effect. Chemical reactions, including those of living things, are largely impacted by electromagnetism. Countless other effects have been identified and made mathematically predictable to as many significant figures as you might need.
A basic problem with theoretical physics (including cosmology) is the presumption that the basic equations are something more than verified descriptions of how real things work. In fact a common attitude is that the theoretical equations ARE all that exists and that reality could be nothing but a simulation being run in the “real” universe. Blank out that this presumes an existence of something real apart from the sacred equations. Thereby assuming what must be proven. They explain a fantasy by assuming the existence something that the fantasy denies with absolutely no evidence of its existence. Identically to the mythology of tens of thousands of gods, goddesses, spirits, demons, angels, devils, and the like.
Just because the “experts” believe and assert something proves nothing but they believe it and can assert it. Creating a myth to explain a myth brings up an endless need for another myth to explain the prior myth. To what end? So the experts can say they explained something?
Why not simply say the equations are a mathematical construct that can be used to predict the behavior of something and that the predictions have found to be correct? They explain nothing. Yet they can be used to make things that work. Knowledge of how something works and the ability to use that how is vastly more important to our lives and livelihood than countless squid like cloud of word salads pretending to be explanations. Why substitute bedtime lets pretend stories suitable for children for competent engineering?
80
Now there you have said what I would call the holy grail of understanding. If the equation reliably predicts how things behave then it’s useful. The unfortunate thing is that such things, whether as simple as F=ma or as complex as Maxwell’s equations or worse, do not give the slightest insight into the underlying mechanism.
And you know me, Lionell, I would like to know the why of how those equations predict behavior.
You mention simulation and being a software engineer I’m well aware of all kinds of digital simulations. And I’ve had this question for years already. If the universe was just a simulation in god’s computer instead of something else (whatever else it is), could you or I tell the difference? Is it possible that “someone” could trip over the power cord someday and unplug all of what we see in the universe and we’d suddenly disappear? And who would even know we had disappeared?
There are so many more questions than answers when you ask as I have many times, why is it all here, not what is it doing but why should there be so much as one of the least subatomic particles? Mankind has had that why is it here question for a lot longer than it has had the how does it work question and we still haven’t the slightest answer. Every civilization and on down to isolated groups hardly part of the civilized would has its gods I’m told and they were invented to answer that question, why?
I know of no reason why anything should even exist, yet it does. And if someone wants to believe the universe is based on electricity instead of gravity, I’m willing to say, go ahead and see what you can discover. Columbus is still sailing on the hope that instead of falling off the edge of the world, he will discover something.
What do we really know when all we know is how to predict the behavior of something, whether it be a transformer, a rocket engine or a slingshot? Not much.
20
And yes, I know Columbus was not really afraid of sailing off the edge of the world. He thought he could take a shortcut to another part of the world and he bumped into a place he didn’t even know existed and mistook it for where he thought he could go. The natives carry the name indians because of his mistake.
And by the way, with Columbus in, what shall I call it, disrepute among many who have their heads stuck where there’s no sunshine, Roy Hogue does not care what their opinions are.
20
Ahh. The endless why of a child who has discovered how to keep the conversation going with an adult. Often, the child learns something. Almost as often not. His purpose was to keep the adult interacting with him. His success varies.
As an adult, why ask why? Why does having a word story help answering the why? It doesn’t. To know that a thing is and how it works is quite sufficient. If the story is worth anything, it is nothing but a reminder of the parts of the how and as pointers to the next layer of the how to be discovered. It is how all the way down with no why to be found.
I suggest the real question why for everyone is what is one’s purpose for existing. That, my friend is totally up to you, the individual. That is if everyone else doesn’t make it their purpose to use you as a means to their ends ends first.
You, as an individual, are your own purpose for living and must make the most of it based upon your own thinking and values. You are such a small part of the universe the universe doesn’t notice or care. So if you are looking for your purpose to be found “out there” you are looking for it in the wrong place.
Without that “not much”, we likely won’t live so long as to matter much to yourself or anyone else.
20
No my friend, it is not sufficient — for you, maybe and I’ll believe you when you say it. But for me it is not.
And I believe I said that the how embodied in an equation is meaningful and useful. But forgive me if I want more. The question, “Why?” will haunt me to my grave.
And by the way, I’m perfectly satisfied with knowing that the universe in which I exist doesn’t care a hoot about me or provide me with a purpose. I’m as dispensable as a bug under my foot and can be let go at the next [you name it, earthquake just for one example] without the universe ever even noticing that I’m gone. If I have a purpose and a meaning for being here it must be something I made of myself for myself and for the benefit of others. But I have to have a purpose, a meaning for myself first and foremost, otherwise I’m lost. No one and no thing can give that to me.
If my asking, “Why?” is an irritation to some, then so be it because I think the question is legitimate. And the fact that no one has an answer doesn’t change that.
20
Thankfully, you are free to choose your path as am I. We largely agree except for a quibble about the why. You are willing to ask an unanswerable question and accept it cannot be answered. I see no point in asking that kind of question. I view the next level of how is discoverable, useful, and sufficient. Then on to the next level of how.
30
Lionell,
Is it really unanswerable? Who knows what might be found just around the corner that could answer that question? But first you must ask it.
If you accept the big bang you still have unanswerable questions like why, not to mention how you get something out of nothing. They seem to be companion questions going hand in hand and if we don’t ask, how do we learn?
10
That isn’t fair at all, the basic process of science is to ask WHY. We know what magnetism does and have math to describe it, but we don’t really know why it happens. WHY is the most important question there is.
Roy, keep asking WHY!
00
THE electromagnetic field is all about us. It is like an infinite ocean that is expanding at the speed of light. Within the vacuum portion of that ocean masses communicate at the speed of light. Changes in matter at any point ripple through the ocean at the speed of light like a tsunami pressure wave through an ocean of water at the speed of sound in water.
At any point in space and time there is only one magnetic field and one electric field. These fields are normal to each other and the energy flow in that field is normal to both the electric and magnetic field. I would expect the motion of charged particles to be controlled by the EM field they exist in.
This is my grasp of electromagnetics per Maxwell. I don not have much understanding of gravity and Einstien’s concept of space time curvature. Maybe one day someone will be able to come up with a unifying theory and explain it terms I can grasp.
10
Roger Franklin at Quadrant has an article on the ABC Online for July 16 that mentions a piece by ABC business editor Ian Verrender ‘How government inaction fuelled Australia’s renewable energy boom’.
Verrender frames the electricity market wreck as government versus free enterprise, but not as you would think: “… none of the coal-fired generators have been built with private capital …” as if governments hadn’t built coal-fired generation plant fifty and more years ago ‘renewables’ would have been the first and natural choice of a free market then and now.
Without federal and state government mandates and subsidies wind and solar utility-scale generation wouldn’t exist.
What Verrender writes is pure propaganda along the lines of Orwell’s ‘blackwhite’ Newspeak.
201
So creepy the way the Posh Left has hijacked the language of free enterprise. Socialism wasn’t working as a red thing so just change the colour. Rig a market to blazes than talk about free market forces. These neo-Trotskyites really need to take their invisible hand off it.
I wonder how Verrender feels about government inaction on funding his ABC. (Did I just hear a distant howl?)
151
There is only One reason for the Private Investment in Renewables.
That reason relates to the knowledge of a Sure and Certain Super Profit for their involvement coupled with next to no chance of being found out.
There is a legal description of this manipulation and breach of trust, but it can’t be used here or my free speech will be terminated.
Had voters and electricity users been given possession of the facts, namely that their electricity accounts were being used as a vehicle to enrich others attached to the Elite cabal, then there may have been hell to pay.
As it is, relatively few people are aware that they have been enslaved, No shackles, No guards, just smart manipulation.
Watching the antics of JumpinJosh, the Trumble Bunny, making media appearances is enough to make me sick.
KK
230
Hi Kinky Keith,
Refer me to where Arrhenius backtracked. I’m just not familiar with it.
Relative to the money and political issue, I understand what you wrote and from what I have read about Australia, assuming that is your experience, you clearly seem to have a point.
In the USA I see the government money supporting NASA scientists and many of their projects to observed the earth from space. On the ground and oceans it is government supporting NOAA scientists and many of their projects which are said to be merely collaborate NASA observations being made from space. If you go my essay 3.1.2 you see that it is Feynman’s claim that wrong ideas hinder progress. For if the wrong idea is accepted, history shows that even the better (cannot call the the right ideas because right ideas can never be proven as wrong ideas can be) are even forgotten.
A serious problem is you and I seem unable to have an extended conversation (discussion) to work out a general agreement of what must be if the wrong idea is wrong. I have of extended narrative by Galileo of how he came to embrace Copernicus’s ‘new’ idea.
But I do not believe this is a preferred format for such a conversation. My email is [email protected] if you have such an interest. But any conversation need to be about ‘science’ and not money or politics (even if these two factors probably play a role in the case of the GHE, they really did not in the other historical cases of wrong ideas.
Have a good day, Jerry
00
Jerry
The Global Warming Scam is inseparable from money and politics.
The science is very basic and I have gone over this previously in response to one of your earlier posts.
If you didn’t catch the meaning then, there seems little point in repeating it.
While Arrhenius was right in understanding that CO2 could selectively absorb certain low virtue wavelengths of energy, he was mistaken in believing that it made CO2 more of a “heating” gas than the other atmospheric gases.
Conduction is a ready alternate mechanism to the so called greenhouse effect.
There is no global warming heat trapping.
All gases find equilibrium.
KK
00
Pure anachronism. Expecting yesterday’s decision makers to have used today’s misguided logic. Applies everywhere – eg “invasion day”.
70
Does he comment on the demise of sailing ships?
20
Ian Verrender thinks lots of things not as I would think.
20
Keith, what you are saying is so, so true!
10
Thanks
00
Hi Jo
I was wondering if you or any of your readers can tell me the answer to my questions about CO2.
From my (limited) knowledge CO2 is a trace gas making up .039 of one percent of the entire atmosphere.
It doesn’t appear to be increasing its percentage in the atmosphere.
Yet every day we supposedly release tonnes of CO2 back into the atmosphere, will it all stay there or does it disperse in various ways back to wherever it came from?
I realise plants feed on it, which would account for the disappearance of quite a lot but what happens to the rest.
Do we make CO2, or is it a natural part of our planet and just recycled?
50
Yes we make CO2 – we put it into our soft drinks. CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere has allegedly been increasing. Measurements indicate it has increased form around 0.03% from last century to around 0.04% now. There are debates as to whether such observations are correct but leaving aside that for now the change even if accurate is minuscule in the scheme of things. So all the alarmist talk over the rise is absurd, especially when one understands the man-made component of CO2 is a tiny fraction of that 0.04%. Virtually all of the CO2 entering the atmosphere is natural, which makes the alarmist talk even more absurd especially if one takes into account the climate is complex and dynamically changing to adjust to such variations, as it has been over all of earth’s history. If we would want to make a real and significant impact to the climate we would need to produce orders of magnitude more CO2 and do it quickly to create a shock so fast the climate won’t have time to adjust. Translated to the real world we would need to build something like millions if not billions of new coal fired power stations immediately, which of course is impossible.
131
But do we actually make CO2 or just extract it?
10
Both really, depending on which process is used.
20
Méthode champenoise generates it, soda pop extracts to put an acid tang into what would otherwise be a sickly sugar drink.
00
We make it. Changing the carbon-hydrogen CH2 bonds back into CO2 and H2O and releasing that solar energy.
We also make CO2 in most industrial processes. Concrete and metals. Metals are all oxides in nature except the standouts silver and gold. The others require the oxygen to be removed and this is done by heating with pure carbon. The Carbon bonds with the oxygen as in respiration and comes off as CO2. So steel, lead, aluminum, smelting generally releases lots of CO2. Concerete too where Calcium Carbonate CaCO3 is reduced to CaO releasing CO2. Concrete is resposible for 5% of all man made CO2, half in this process and half in the heat required.
Where would we be without concrete, steel and aluminum? Living like the Flintstones.
120
The pure carbon is produced from coal and is called coke. Coke enabled steel production instead of cast iron and so the industrial revolution and steam engines. Prior to that we only had charcoal from trees and that was responsible for the deforestation of much of Europe. So coal saved the forests of Europe.
No one praises coal for dramatically improving our environment let alone our quality of life. Apparently coal is evil. As Wikipedia insists, CO2 is a potent Greenhouse gas. Rubbish.
171
Besides, what if it were true, we cannot control CO2 levels so why do we try? CO2 levels have ignored everything we have done for the last 30 years. You even get the impression that humans have no impact whatsoever on CO2 levels. Still the myth continues that we should stop using fossil fuels. The question is why?
151
Follow the money. It leads to people like Gore.
90
Follow the money trail ….
https://stopthesethings.com/2017/03/13/born-lucky-stars-align-perfectly-for-pms-son-with-mammoth-bet-on-wind-power-outfit-infigen/
20
Christiana Figueres, exec sec of UN Frameworks on
Climate Change gave the game away, Brussels, Feb’
2015, when she stated: ‘This is the first time in
the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves
the task of internationally, within a defined period
of time, to change the economic development model
that has been reigning for at least 150 years since
the Industrial Revolution.’
For the sheeple who swallow the UN-IPCC ‘Keep-the
-Populace-Alarmed’ message, there’s the glow of
feeling part of the virtuous climate crusade, for
others, there’s the draw to the honey(and power)pot,
the chance to join the elite swarm around the UN
hive of global money and unaccountability. For the
rest of us, not so much, reduced wealth and liberty
of the nation.
Here’s a link, yr Figuerues-Soras-Clinton-et(big)al
types’ action under the lap,$$$ campaigns to foist
climate laws on local governments.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/24/leaked-a-look-inside-the-climateworks-foundation-66-million-campaign-to-foist-climate-laws-on-local-governments/
40
Ms. Figueres is wrong. Hitler and Stalin changed the economic development model years before her. She is just trying to keep up with them.
20
‘The question is why?’
Fear of global warming caused by a trace gas, which is apparently more effective at night.
‘Research published in the International Journal of Climatology last year found night-time temperatures were increasing more rapidly than daytime temperatures.
‘According to the findings, minimum temperatures have been increasing at a rate of about 0.07 degrees per decade, compared with about 0.05 degrees per decade for maximum temperatures globally, for the period from 1960 to 2009.
‘Researchers proposed this was because night-time temperatures were more easily affected by an increase in greenhouse gasses.’
ABC
00
Pop49:
Brewing, wine making, cement manufacture (but some reabsorbed on curing). Iron smelting.
50
Yeast, so wine and cheese and beer and even Vegemite, all yeast based CO2 producing fermented products. All unnatural man made CO2. Especially the Cheese. Lethal. China doesn’t have cheese but they have a taste for Australian wine. Wait till they discover cheese! The world is doomed!
70
And bread. So cheese on a slice of fresh bread butter and a glass of good red is just one way the Greens are so hypocritical. Thoughtless abusers of the planet.
80
Hi,
Maybe this might add to the conversation.
Wrong Ideas Hinder Progress
Written by Richard P. Feynman 1955 and Jerry L Krause 2018
“We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. One responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass then on. It is our responsibility to leave the people of the future a free hand. In the impetuous youth of humanity, we can make grave errors that can stunt our growth for a long time. This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so young and ignorant as we are. If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming “This is the answer, my friends, man is saved!” we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.” (Richard P. Feynman, The Value of Science, an address given at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of Sciences as published in “What Do You Care What Other People Think?” Richard P. Feynman)
Bodies twice as heavy fall twice as fast. Bodies fall at a constant rate. The earth stands still. Elementary matter is air, water, earth, and fire. Matter is continuously divisible. Continents cannot drift.
Svante Arrhenius lived north of 55oN latitude (Sweden). And it is common knowledge that in 1896 he, an eventual Nobel Prize winner, proposed to the scientific community that the average temperature of the earth would be about 33oC (modern measured albedo) less (about negative 18oC) than it is, if not for certain gases in the atmosphere. Which means, on the average, there could be little liquid water, because even the freezing temperature of ‘salt’ water is only about negative 3oC.
A great deal of attention has been directed to the extent of ice on the Arctic Ocean and on the oceans about the Antarctic Continent. We know that as a planet the earth is very unique because more than 70% of its surface is covered by water. Arthur N Strahler in his text, Physical Geography 3rd Ed. had a figure which reviewed the areas of the earth surface between certain latitudes. According the figure more than 80% of the earth’s surface lies between 55oN and 55oS and more than 40% lies between 35oN and 35oS. And based upon my globe, I conclude that 80% of the ocean surfaces likely lie between 55oN and 55oS and ask: Do we ever observe any of this ocean surface between 55oN and 55oS, except a bay or two, to be ice covered except by icebergs? Can anyone imagine, given the observed influence of solar radiation (https://principia-scientific.org/record-temperature-result-of-cloud-revised-updated/) that the ocean’s surfaces between 35oN and 35oS could ever be near negative 3oC?
What more evidence does one need to conclude that Arrhenius’ reasoning (the GHE) has to be wrong? So, another wrong, but commonly accepted, scientific idea, must be hindering progress.
30
The three gases in the atmosphere are Nitrogen 77%, Oxygen 22%, Argon 1% and tiny CO2 which is 0.04%. As we saw in the caves in Thailand last week, oxygen under 14% and you lapse into a coma.
CO2 is the source of all plants and animals, birds and insects on this planet. All based around the reaction that CO2 + H2O+ sunlight => Hydrated Carbon Dioxide or carbohydrates. Sunlight in a chemical. From this all life and tissue comes. Trees are made almost entirely from CO2 and H2O. So are all plants and from plants, animals and insects. Without CO2 we do not exist. It is still critically low. You know we are made from Carbon, not rock, as we burn like trees and nothing is left but ash made from metals like calcium. Everything burns.
As for the amount of this utterly critical trace gas in the air, most of this highly soluble free gas is dissolved in the vast oceans, 340 times as heavy as the thin air. How much comes out, like beer, depends on surface temperature.
When you breathe, the CO2 comes in at 1/25th of 1%. It goes out at 4-5%. You burn air like a combustion engine retrieving the energy from the sun. Oxygen drops from 22% in to around 14% out.
So the CO2 is in a continuous cycle like Oxygen, in and out of the vast oceans which cover 3/4 of the planet (Antarctica is under 3km of water). Fish breathe. Fart. Digest. Emit CO2. So does everything else. The green phytoplankton turn the CO2 back into O2, as do the trees of Russia and Brazil and every bit of grass.
As for our piddling amount of CO2, it just vanishes into this giant cycle, churning through the oceans half every 14 years along with the O2. Without wind and storms and this surface action, the oceans would be stagnant and the fish would drown, unable to breathe.
So the amount of CO2 in the air is a measure of ocean surface temperature. This has risen slightly in the 20th century through increased solar activity according to the De Vries 250 year cycle and abetted by the 10 year Pacific Decadal Osciallation. It is why we see droughts every 10 years, as do most Pacific countries. Right now we have had a peak and the temperatures are due to plummet perhaps 5C.
As for man made Global Warming, that presumes CO2 stays in the air forever. This is not true, cannot be true. We know exactly what happens to CO2 because it has a trace radioactive marker and we can date everything, even the CO2 in the air. So we know there is almost no man released fossil CO2 in the air, under 2%.
The rest is about greed, power, anarchy, banks, the UN, EU and totalitarian regimes and opportunistic politicians. It is not about science. The science is simple. We humans do not control the planet and the windmills are a waste of trillions. They were abandoned two centuries ago as useless but restarted as money pumps from Western democracies using made up science known as ‘The Science’. Political scientology.
211
Also according to our politicians, CO2, the chemical of life, is also known under a number of alternatives according to our politicians and environmental commentators.
Emissions, as in poisonous emissions
Pollution, as in deadly industrial waste
and these are used in decoy phrases like Emissions Intensity and Heavy Pollution, as in coal power plants which burn old plants from prehistoric times when life and plants boomed with high CO2 levels and the microbes had not evolved to eat the plants and turn them back into CO2.
This is language carefully designed by intent and endless repetition to push the absurd idea that Carbon Dioxide, the stuff from which all life on earth is made is actually a deadly industrial chemical which is polluting the planet and killing life on earth. Nothing could be further from the truth except that apples fall up.
The other product of combustion, H2O is perhaps the real culprit. No one call it industrial pollution because that would be laughable. H2O is essential to life. No less than CO2.
210
Bummer!
Nothing left for the rest of us to say.
KK
170
Except ‘thanks’ TdeF!
131
May I recommend the CO2 cycle diagram as a good place to start Pop. However, don’t get too hung up on the actual percentages, as I believe Hansen’s original diagram has lots of flaws. Still, the diagrams, and there are many versions, do a reasonable job of explaining the cycle.
20
Here are some figures, I presume in Gt, from a carbon cycle diagram. (Sorry, don’t have the diagram’s source.)
The oceans and the atmosphere between them exchange 100-115, with a net ocean uptake of 1.6-2.4
Plant respiration produces 40-60 into the atmosphere.
Decay of residues produces 50-60 into the atmosphere.
Photosynthesis absorbs 100-120 from the atmosphere.
Of the human-induced portion, land use produces 0.6-2.6 into the atmosphere, while fossil-fuel burning produces 5.3 into the atmosphere.
50
“The oceans and the atmosphere between them exchange 100-115, with a net ocean uptake of 1.6-2.4?”
So warmer oceans take in CO2? Really? This is where the big fudge comes in.
As the store of 98% of all free CO2 gas, oceans maintain the equilibrium and continuously absorb and release CO2 and O2. For the whole CO2 hothouse gas logic to work, this has to be played down so CO2 can build up. The IPCC in one place says CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a half life of 80 years. In another, thousands of years residence in the atmosphere. Both are apparently made up figures without explanation on the ‘everybody knows’ principle.
Worse, for ocean ‘acidification’ to be credible, it has to be reversed and the simple Henry’s Law of physical chemistry broken. Or your peer group gets very cross as jobs and funding are at stake, as Dr Peter Ridd knows too well.
111
As I said Tdef, I didn’t record the diagram’s source, something I normally do. Do you have a better source of info that you can recommend to Pop? I’m also interested in understanding this cycle process better.
10
Based on the info I presented, it seems the CO2 land cycle is around 50% while the ocean cycle is also around 50%. Again, willing to modify my understanding based on a better data source.
10
I am disbelieving with things like the Bern cycle especially when they get to numbers. They do not fit the facts especially with the c14 decay curve. In general terms the sources and sinks are roughly right apart from the ocean but there must be a lot of guesswork. It is likely the ocean CO2 completely dominates the process.
40
I’m a bit skeptical of using C14 to date CO2 emissions, as I don’t understand how anybody could determine which part of an atmospheric sample was generated yesterday and which part was generated a long time ago.
40
Graeme #4. Read up on Radio Carbon dating used extensively in archeology. It was a great discovery by Prof Suess of San Diego University around 1956.
C14 is one radioactive atom in 1 trillion stable atoms. 99% C12 and 1% C13, both stable.
C14 is created high in the atmosphere from Nitrogen by cosmic rays. The half life is quite long at 5,400 years and C14 levels have been remarkably constant in proportion. C14 is not dangerous and easily detected. Like a medical tracer really.
Consider that all living things are made from CO2. The C14 stops being replaced after the tissue is formed, whether people, bone, plant. The amount decays and the amount of C14/C12 left can accurately give the time since being born, basically.
Most importantly there is NO C14 left in fossil fuel, hundreds of millions of years old. So really old coal, petrol, gas? No C14 at all. Recent atmosphere CO2 gas, fixed amount. Constant.
The ratio will tell you how old something living is, even long after it has died. As said, this is very useful and we can calibrate it from objects of known date. This very well known science. Professor Suess also was amazed that there was almost no ‘old’ CO2 in the air despite two world wars. It was not a big deal then. This was one of the two comments I made to Tony Abbott two weeks ago. He listened.
Then C14 doubled in 1965 from the atmospheric atom bomb testing. This told us so much more, especially looking back 60 years.
We can see a pure e-kt decay to the normal level, half gone ever 14 years. Where? C14 cannot disappear. It has gone somewhere.
So CO2 is disappearing rapidly from the biosphere and being replaced rapidly with fresh CO2 . So we know where it is going is the biggest ‘sink’ on the planet, the vast oceans. We also know that C14 levels are returning rapidly to the very same and original level, not 2/3 of the level which would be true if the 50% increase in CO2 was man made from really old CO2.
Scientifically nothing debatable here. Discovered in 1956 after two world wars, there was less than 2% old fossil fuel in the air. Even now total old CO2 is under 3% and rapidly vanishing back to the exact level of the last 20,000 years.
So we know if there is global warming, even if CO2 is a ‘really potent greenhouse gas’ as Wikipedia and the IPCC assure us, we didn’t do it.
The problem, if there is one, is not man made. The CO2 level is not set by us. So there is no point spending $1.5Trillion a year trying to change it. There is no point punishing all Australians for a perfectly natural change in CO2 level.
111
Again TdeF, great outline on CO2 isotopes.
40
Actually Pop there is a fixed relationship between air pressure and the concentration of gasses dissolved in water (at a given water temperature), since our world is 4/5ths water covered any excess atmospheric CO2 dissolves in the oceans, how much depends on the temperature of the water, warmer water holds less CO2. Warm up your beer and it goes flat.
So since the earth and the ocean surface has warmed a bit in the last hundred years, the natural result is that the equilibrium has changed to give a flatter ocean (Less CO2) and a more CO2 rich atmosphere, just like releasing the CO2 from your beer does, flat beer, enriched atmosphere.
Sea creatures take the CO2 out of the water, combine it with dissolved calcium and water, making CaC03 for their exoskeletons. This process reduces the CO2 concentration of the water which the atmosphere has to “Fill up” continuously. (If the concentration in the water is lowered by the sea creatures making calcium carbonate then CO2 has to migrate from the air to ocean to keep the relationship constant). The principle is called Henry’s Law.
31
What kind of fish are you after, Pop?
00
Qué
00
Qué?
00
Found something amusing that I wish to share.
Came across an open invite for the Australian Electric Vehicle Associations next meeting via the degree of separation powers of the internet.
So meeting. Combined AGM. Guest speaker. Etc. Etc. Each to their own and I hope they have fun.
What amused me was the following;
Visitors are welcome to attend. There is a $4.00 visitor fee to help cover costs.
Yep, even when they are being social they still need to be subsidised. 🙂
100
The CO2 lovers site.
http://iloveco2.com/about-us/
20
Too bad the senate link is not working, to the US Senate Committee site. I would love to know who the 700 scientists were in rejecting the IPCC, Al Gore and co.
20
pop49, the IPCC’s own early documentation indicated that about 97% of airborne CO2 was natural, and only 3% was man-made. However, this fact was buried in a footnote and is getting harder and harder to find (I have a paper copy somewhere). Because the terms of reference of the IPCC were carefully phrased to only relate to investigating man-made ‘climate change’, they are able to ignore this fact and concentrate all their efforts on demonising the ‘man-made’ 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere. A pity that our pollies don’t make this simple point when justifying their abuse of $billions of taxpayers’ money on this nonsense. One last thought – the IPCC, NOAA and most other relevant scientists seem to be happy to rely on just one single privately-owned ‘observatory’, at Muana Loa on Hawaii’s Big Island (which happens to be right next to the currently erupting Kilauea volcano) for the ‘gold standard’ value of global atmospheric CO2, which they apparently can measure to an accuracy of +/- 10 parts per billion. I find this incredible (as in ‘not credible’) myself.
102
Yes, I could never quite understand why you would put a CO2 observatory next to an active volcano.
92
good question so I looked it up. The reasons for a high mountain location near the equator and away from industry is pretty clear but what about the volcano…
I found several articles like this
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/?src=climateqa-rss
20
Interesting article GA; a pity there are no comments on it to be read as it’s fairly old. As there are many, many volcanoes under the ocean, some of which are erupting, presumably there is always a source of CO2 provided into the ocean. If the level is high after an eruption, presumably it is continuing somewhere around the Pacific ‘Ring of Fire’ mist of the time? Then, when Old Sol warms the oceans, out comes the wonderful plant-greening/feeding CO2.
11
Most of the time… 🙁 even after trying to proof read….sigh!
01
yeah proof reading, I don’t see why you wouldn’t
00
Indeed.
01
It seems to be explained here. Good place to put an observatory. Silly place to put a CO2 measurement station, but it was part of the observatory. They say they can tell the CO2, SO2 from the volcano and that it is only significant at night.
10
Cape Grim in north west Tasmania is backup.
Muana Loa shows a seasonal sine wave, with carbon sinks working at capacity during the NH summer. Not sure if it shows up at Cape Grim.
00
Its a little bit wiggly.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/cg_co2.jpg/7183056
10
Yes, the wiggles are allegedly the biosphere, annual decay seasons. I think that it unlikely.
Consider that as CO2 levels are set by surface temperature this may be nothing more than surface temperature variations from summer to winter and back and not plants at all. It is also interesting that the variation is much greater in the Northern Hemisphere around Hawaii, albeit all stations are a long way from any land mass covered in vegetation, notwithstanding the activity of phytoplankton gobbling the CO2.
In the wiggles you probably have confirmation of the source of the growth of CO2. As the 14 year half life of C14 in the air shows, the half life of CO2 in the air is also 14 years. So in any given year only 1/14th of the CO2 changes. We would expect fluctuations with the seasons superimposed on a general rise or fall. The precise timing and magnitude of these changes need to be quantified. A good small project with Henry’s law for the CSIRO or perhaps someone who actually cares about the reason CO2 is going up steadily if slowly.
Then you could just say it’s our fault and we should pay. Our fault like the seasons, or drought or storms or the last ice age. We should pay and pay. The UN of course.
42
Time lapse video showing the dramatic effect of increased CO2 on plant growth.
https://youtu.be/jODIYw_5A40
40
That accounts for HRH’s plants doing well after he talks to them! I’d better do likewise.
41
17 Jul: ZD Net: CSIRO: Lithium-ion battery waste to exceed 100,000 tonnes by 2036
Only 2 percent of Australia’s annual 3,300 tonnes of lithium-ion battery waste is recycled, but the CSIRO reckons 95 percent of it can be.
By Asha McLean
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has revealed the state of lithium-ion battery waste in Australia, with a report noting only 2 percent of Australia’s annual 3,300 tonnes is currently recycled.
The report, Lithium battery recycling in Australia [PDF] (***LINK), explains that if recycled, 95 percent of components can be turned into new batteries or used in other industries.
By comparison, of the 150,000 tonnes of lead-acid batteries sold in 2010, 98 percent were recycled.
With the waste growing by 20 percent a year and expected to exceed 100,000 tonnes by 2036, the CSIRO believes Australia could lead the world in the reuse and recycling of lithium-ion batteries.
“Given Australia’s historically poor [lithium-ion battery] collection, combined with offshore recycling and landfilling of this waste, this constitutes an economic loss to the Australian economy due to the estimated potential recoverable value of between AU$813 million and AU$3 billion based on current day commodity prices,” the report says…
“As a world leader in the adoption of solar and battery systems, we must responsibly manage our use of lithium-ion technology in support of our clean energy future; CSIRO has set out a pathway to do this,” CSIRO battery research leader Dr Anand Bhatt said…
The report also recommends that research, government, and industry work closely to develop standards and best-practice solutions to this issue.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/csiro-lithium-ion-battery-waste-to-exceed-100000-tonnes-by-2036/
***links to 75-page CSIRO report:
WorldBankFacts.pdf: Lithium battery recycling in Australia Current status and opportunities for developing a new industry A CSIRO Report
Sarah King, Naomi J. Boxall, Anand I. Bhatt Report EP181926
April 2018
(excerpt) Recent disruptions to the recycling sector in Australia following the China waste ban have not affected the LIB recycling sector markets. However, the fire risk presented by end-of-life LIB has resulted in an international shipping company banning transport of this waste stream. This action poses a risk to Australia’s reliance on export for end-of-life LIB. It is therefore timely to review the challenges and opportunities associated with LIB waste and determine if it is a strategic resource opportunity for Australia…
10
The single comment to the CSIRO article says it all – there’s no profit in recycling Lithium as it’s cheaper to buy it new.
Now that many wind farms in Germany are reaching the end of their life, there’s increasing discussion of the toxic dangers of their materials, particularly the blades, not to mention those enormous blocks of concrete.
50
I wonder what the equivalent tonnage of those single use graphite batteries from the energiser bunnies, flashlights, remote controls, etc etc..ight be ?
Lithium rechargeables last many years, but those single use energisers have a life span measured in weeks and are far more numerous..
20
We lived in Europe for a while , in a location that was heavily into recycling. The tip/recycling place was a thing of beauty with rows of large skips for various kinds of waste.
Even in a relatively small commune of 4,500 people it was quite an eye opener to see amount of some items (apart from the wine bottles I mean). One of the things that struck me was a large truck sized skip three quarters full of single use batteries as per Chads observation. I thought gosh! (or something similar) back at home all these would end up in the ground.
To this day our has has a battery box which fills up regularly. We dump them at Battery World or Aldi and just cross fingers that something useful happens with them.
30
I’ve got an apple bluetooth keyboard and I recharge it’s cells abt three times a week, and they are eneloop, top shelf stuff. Carbon cells should last longer because they are 1.5V and that is what the keyboard is optimised for.
Eneloop do try hard, their cells are the max size allowable for AA. They barely fit my mouse and BP tester, I need to push them into the holders.
AA cells are made by the billions, as indicated here, but they you still get little change from $1 when buying them. Best of luck to those who think EV batteries will become dirt cheep cheep. Bought a lead/acid car battery lately? They are manufactured by the million and have been for over 100 years. Still ain’t cheap.
Did you know that the self starter on a car was inspired by a good samaritan who tried to start a lady’s car, broke his arm and died of the infection. A friend thought there had to be a better way. At least that’s what I read once and it’s a good story. 🙂
20
It’s knowing when to ” step away from the car ” that’s important.
They were dangerous.
00
prop starting an aircraft (pulling to propellor around to fire the engine) is also not an exercise for the faint hearted.
10
a new meme is building.
I posted Guardian’s “Our phones and gadgets are now endangering the planet” by John Harris
on jo’s “Turn off the Tap” thread last nite. now we have:
17 Jul: Fast Company: Study: Climate change could kill your internet in 15 years
By Melissa Locker
Want to get a whole bunch of people to really, really care about climate change and rising sea levels? Tell them their internet is at risk.
In a new study, researchers at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and the University of Oregon found that thousands of miles of buried fiber optic cable are at risk of drowning under the rising seas. This isn’t something that will happen in the distant future, but could be a reality in just 15 years, the study suggests. Better backup your Tumblr.
The peer-reviewed study (LINK) combined data from the Internet Atlas (LINK), the map that keeps track of the physical internet, and projections of sea level incursion from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It found that more than 4,000 miles of the conduit that carries the internet to much of the United States could be exposed to seawater by 2033. While the buried fiber optic cables are designed to be water-resistant, they are not waterproof, and that means potential trouble for coastal residents who like the internet (a.k.a. everyone but Luddites, infants, and my grandma).
The most susceptible networks are those of CenturyLink, Inteliquent, and AT&T, while the U.S. cities at highest risk of losing internet access are New York, Miami, and Seattle. However, the effects of internet outages in those areas would ripple across the internet faster than a viral cat video.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90203647/study-climate-change-could-kill-your-internet-in-15-years
30
Does Miss Locker offer a helpful timeline for these shocking future events?
I would be interested in seeing where these experts place this Cable Drowning event in relation to the following;
– Turnbull finishing the NBN rollout
– 5G Wireless making the NBN completely obsolete
and
– First successful demonstration of 6G technology.
30
4G makes NBN obsolete for many already.
At our place NBN Fixed wireless nominal 25/5 Mbps which usually really runs about 15/3 Mbps. If I connect my laptop to my smartphone (as one does) I get 30/15 Mbps actual. About all we get from NBN is always on convenience for my wife who (to say the least) does not like messing with technology.
11
I’ve had NBN now for 6 months or so.
It’s no faster than the LSD we had previously but the important thing is that it Costs more.
Trumble did a good job rolling on our internet cables.
Who says governments are useless.
KK
20
Gee! Glad I’m not on the NBN! Just checked my connection, and got 207/47. I’ve been on HFC for about 12 years!
10
By 2010 rising sea levels will give us 50 million climate refugees! They won’t need 4,000 whatevers of cables!
10
Did i miss Something back then Ted?,…i guess the sea level dropped back again after 2010
10
We certainly missed the 50 million climate refugees. Not one turned up.
20
we moved to 300mtrs above sea level because Al Gore, did we go high enough this is the question. It may get worse than they thought.
20
yarpos:
Too high. You are closer to incoming Asteroids (caused by Climate Change),
Also Lightning strikes (caused by Climate Change), and
Extra UV radiation (caused by Climate Change), and of course
Aliens such as the One Eyed, One Horned, Flying Purple People Eaters which Al Gore probably remembers from the 1950’s but can’t remember anything else about the craze (like it was a spoof of scare stories).
10
sounds good!
16 Jul: ClimateChangeNews: EU and China agree sweeping joint statement on climate action
Leaders put climate at centre of relationship, push for agreement on the Paris deal rulebook and reject Trump’s efforts to undermine global cooperation
By Soila Apparicio and Karl Mathiesen
Climate change will become a “main pillar” of the relationship between the European Union and China, said leaders on Monday.
The joint statement (LINK), adopted at a summit in Beijing, committed the world’s largest and third largest carbon polluters to driving progress in UN climate talks…
The statement, signed by European Council president Donald Tusk, European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker and Chinese premier Li Keqiang, also included:
•An agreement to release long-term strategies for their low carbon development by 2020
•Agreement to step up their efforts before 2020
•“Triangular” cooperation with developing countries to increase their capacity to combat climate change and build clean energy
•A commitment to exchange knowledge on clean energy and explore the development of interconnecting networks
The statement also called on “all parties” to uphold the Paris deal. That includes Donald Trump’s US, which remains a signatory until 2020…
***The statement is almost identical to one drafted, leaked (LINK) then withdrawn at the meeting between the two powers in June last year.
At that time, a disagreement over trade – reportedly the EU’s unwillingness to recognise China as a market economy – was behind the collapse.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/07/16/eu-china-agree-sweeping-joint-statement-climate-action/
17 Jul: ClimateChangeNews: EU-Japan trade deal first to carry Paris climate clause
The world’s largest ever trade deal is also the first Europe has signed that commits both parties to upholding the UN climate accord
By Karl Mathiesen
Europe’s massive free trade deal with Japan is the first the EU has struck with a specific provision on the Paris climate agreement.
The deal, finalised at a meeting of leaders in Tokyo on Tuesday, will create the world’s largest open trade zone.
In a first for EU trade deals, the world’s second and fourth largest economies agreed to work together to uphold the Paris climate deal. Trade could make a “positive contribution” to the fight to stop global warming, the agreement noted.
The deal also said Japan and the EU would “strive to facilitate” trade in renewable energy and other low-carbon solutions.
Europe’s commissioner for trade Cecilia Malmström has previously said participation in the Paris climate deal was a prerequisite for striking free trade deals with Europe.
The Paris deal has become a totem for a vision of multilateralism being undermined by Donald Trump’s US administration…
The signing was originally planned to be held in Brussels, but Abe cancelled his trip at the last minute in response to deadly floods…
***But experts have questioned the lack of detail on climate protections in the trade agreement.
“The [European] commission is primarily concerned with trade liberalisation,” Laurens Ankersmit, a trade lawyer with Client Earth, told Climate Home News earlier this year…
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/07/17/eu-japan-trade-deal-first-carry-paris-climate-clause/
10
17 Jul: ClimateDepot: Marc Morano: Activists claim Trump & Putin ‘climate villains’ who are ‘colluding to destroy our planet’s climate system’
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/07/17/warmist-claim-trump-putin-are-colluding-to-destroy-our-planets-climate-system/
16 Jul: DailyWire: WATCH: Putin Answers Tough Questions From Fox News’ Chris Wallace
Full transcript provided via Fox News:
WALLACE: But do you see the summit as a turning point, an end by effort — of the effort by the West in recent years to isolate Russia?
PUTIN: I think you see for yourself that these efforts failed, and they were never bound to succeed. I mean, take a look at the scale, the sheer size of it, the importance of it in terms of international security and the economy. Take the — its contribution into the ***global energy market. It’s too big to be sanctioned and isolated. Speaking of the things that do unite us, though, and of the things that require our joint efforts, it brings us to the idea that such attempts to fight one another should be ended, and rather look for ways to address common differences, to address common issues and challenges, how to overcome this — how to address these common concerns. So, I think this is the beginning of the path. This is the start. We did make a good start today…
https://www.dailywire.com/news/33145/watch-putin-answers-tough-questions-fox-news-ryan-saavedra
How Russian gas became Europe’s most divisive commodity
Financial Times · 22 hours ago
17 Jul: Rigzone: Bloomberg: Elena Mazneva: Russian Gas Exports Hit a New Summertime Record
Russia’s natural gas flows to the European Union rose to a record for the time of year as the nation starts talks with its former Soviet ally, Ukraine, on shipments to the 28-nation block beyond 2019.
Supplies averaged 513 million cubic meters (18 billion cubic feet) a day in the first two weeks of July, up more than 5 percent from a year earlier, according to Bloomberg calculations based on Gazprom PJSC data released late Monday. The exporter’s executives are in Berlin Tuesday for European Commission-mediated talks on gas transit through Ukraine from next year.
***Gazprom, which supplies more than a third of Europe’s gas, plans to beat last year’s record supplies to the region and expand its market share in years to come as EU domestic output… falls.https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/russian_gas_exports_hit_a_new_summertime_record-17-jul-2018-156320-article/
10
Rigzone final excerpt should have read:
***Gazprom, which supplies more than a third of Europe’s gas, plans to beat last year’s record supplies to the region and expand its market share in years to come as EU domestic output falls.
16 Jul: Breitbart: Donald Trump: U.S. Will Compete with Russia’s Gas Pipeline to Germany
by Michelle Moons
The United States, the top oil and gas seller, will compete with Russia’s gas pipeline to Germany, according to President Donald Trump, who addressed his previously expressed concern about the Nord Stream II pipeline during Monday’s joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
A reporter asked President Trump during the press conference held in Helsinki, Finland, to convey what he discussed with President Putin about the pipeline during the meetings they had concluded just prior to the press conference.
“We will be competing, when you talk about the pipeline,” said Trump, who added, “I’m not sure necessarily that it’s in the best interest of Germany or not, but that was a decision that they made.”
“As you know, the United States is now, or soon will be – but I think it actually is right now – the largest in the oil and gas world,” Trump told the press as he stood feet from Putin. “So we’re gonna be selling LNG, and we’ll have to be competing with the pipeline. And I think we’ll compete successfully, although there is a little advantage locationally.”…
Putin then addressed the issue, saying “Mr. President voiced his concerns about the possibility of disappearance of transit through Ukraine, and I reassured Mr. President that Russia stands ready to maintain this transit.” He asserted that neither the U.S. nor Russia was interested in the “plummeting of the other prices,” saying that consumers, including those in the U.S., will suffer if they do, as will shale gas producers. Regarding the pipeline, Putin pushed the idea of extending the contract that is set to expire next year, and “in case of the dispute between the economic entities, dispute will be settled in the Stockholm arbitration court.”
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/16/trump-u-s-compete-russias-gas-pipeline-germany/
00
18 Jul: Malaysia Star: More bad news for solar firms as India imposes duties
PETALING JAYA: Malaysia’s solar industry will be hit by another blow after India became the second country after the United States to impose safeguard duties on solar panel imports.
Already facing a 30% tariff imposed by the US, solar panel exporters from Malaysia will now face a 25% import duty on shipments to India.
Yesterday, India’s Directorate General of Trade Remedies announced that it had recommended the imposition of a 25% safeguard duty on solar cell imports from Malaysia as well as China for a one-year period, as the imports have threatened to cause serious injury to the domestic producers of the equipment.
According to the recommendation, after the first year, the duty will be lowered to 20% in the first six months of the second year and 15% for rest of the year…
Malaysia is the second-largest supplier of solar modules and cells to India after China, while Taiwan is the third-largest exporter of the technology.
Last year, Malaysia accounted for 5.9% of solar panel imports by India, compared with China’s 88.2% and Taiwan’s 2.2%…
While China’s exports to India constituted a paltry 1.52% of its total global exports during 2012, this increased to 29.8% during 2017..ETC
https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2018/07/18/more-bad-news-for-solar-firms-as-india-imposes-duties/
16 Jul: PV Mag India: Solar rooftop progress still dismal
India’s solar rooftop sector continues to disappoint with the first quarter of FY 2018-2019 achieving just 155.77 MW against the 1,000 MW EoY target.
by Preeti Verma Lal
Grid connected ground-mounted solar power fared better, with 1,215.57 MW installed against a target of 10,000 MW for this financial year. Off-grid PV systems, meanwhile, achieved 66 MW against a target of 200 MW.
This latest data was announced by the Ministry of New & Renewable Energy (MNRE) in its Programme/Scheme-wise Physical Progress in 2018-2019 report, up to June 30, 2018…
The ministry also provided details of its 99,533 MW 2022 solar target, outlining the state wise-breakup ETC…
Despite the government’s 2022 target for rooftop solar being 40 GW, this is not the first time India’s numbers have been so bleak. In the 2017-2018 financial year, Grid-Interactive Solar Power (Rooftop) fared poorly, with just 352.83 MW achieved against the 1,000 MW target.
Overall, cumulative rooftop installations up to June 30, 2018 were 1,219.41 MW…
The Secretary of the Committee admitted that the main reason is that the “discoms are not willing to let go the high-end consumers because if the high-end consumers go, then they would be left with only those people whom they subsidize. Secondly, there have been challenges on the net metering side. We are revising the scheme to provide new impetus to the roof top solar programme.”
https://www.pv-magazine-india.com/2018/07/16/solar-rooftop-progress-still-dismal/
20
pat:
I thought that the EU had a very high tariff on imported PV panels.
00
(apologies to Mark Twain).
30
And it took around ninety years for the insanity of different gauge rail lines to be sorted out, although it did create a lot of economic activity and jobs in Albury and other border towns in the interim.
30
you know that he is dead?
12
‘The report of my death was an exaggeration.’
30
Time for a new keyboard, you’re shift key is not working or maybe you’re just too lazy to use it.
00
Even in UK it was “Lost at Gloucester” due to gauge differences and freight transfer
00
A colleague was in the business of using ultrasound to find cracks developing in rail lines before they broke and caused huge damage, Started in the Pilbara on newish iron ore lines, was invited to look at Victoria. The apparatus sprayed white paint on the line where an inspection was needed, then logged to location to an on-board computer. After the software writing came the validation (yes, it was in the 1980s, when we did software validation routinely). The first software failed. He traced the sources of error and discovered that since the start of rail line still in use, Vic Rail or its predecessors had used 4 different definitions of “mile” for acts like installing permanent milestone markers.
So my mate was sort of left without an easy frame of reference for his location reporting. Geoff.
20
Yesterday I drove a friend to the Mayo Private Hospital in Taree NSW, mid coast provincial city, too visit a specialist doctor. The main hospital was operating on diesel generator power and the specialist’s rooms were without power.
According to staff there have been regular power outages in the area surrounding the Mayo Hospital. I don’t know if the Manning Base Hospital, public hospital, has had the same problem, located a few kilometres away closer to the Taree CBD.
50
TonyfromOz or oters might like to critique all the capacity figs in the following:
17 Jul: MercomIndia: Share of Solar Rises to 7 percent of India’s Total Installed Power Capacity
Renewables comprise ~21 percent of India’s total installed capacityb
by Saumy Prateek
(Saumy is a senior staff reporter with MercomIndia.com covering business and energy news since 2016. Prior to Mercom, Saumy was a copy editor at Thomson Reuters)
To date, there are close to 7 GW of wind projects that have been successfully auctioned. However, based on recent developments, future wind installations may see a slow down as tenders have been negatively affected due to the shortage of transmission infrastructure…
Despite the increase in renewable capacity addition, coal-fired capacity still dominates and accounts for 56.66 percent of India’s total installed power capacity. In June 2017, coal accounted for 58.64 percent of total installed power capacity, a 2 percent decline YoY in percentage share…
https://mercomindia.com/share-solar-7-percent-total-power-capacity/
17 Jul: Financial Times: Fall in renewable energy investment threatens climate goals
Slowdown in spending on ‘green’ power generation in 2017 expected to continue this year
by Anjli Raval, Leslie Hook and David Sheppard
Investment in renewable power declined last year by its largest amount ever and is likely to keep falling this year, threatening global climate goals.
Capital spending in renewable power generation fell 7 per cent in 2017…
The IEA’s report shows that renewable power investment fell to $298bn in 2017 from $318bn in 2016, representing the biggest absolute drop since the agency start keeping track of clean power in 2000…
https://www.ft.com/content/20af1fea-898a-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543
00
Installed Capacity is another way of describing Nameplate.
I use the term Nameplate only for the sake of not getting the terms mixed up, because the general public has no idea about nearly any electrical term, and there are so many of them.
I have lost count (literally) with the number of people who confuse electrical power generation and energy.
Why they use Installed Capacity is that it is always larger when expressed in that manner as opposed to actual power generated, and in the case of solar power, which is at a Capacity Factor (CF) of 17%, you can see why they use it, and with wind power with a CF of 30%, or lower, depending on which Country, the same also applies.
I have had some people criticise me for using actual generated power and not Installed Capacity (Nameplate) and, umm, I leave you to guess where something like that might happen.
Tony.
90
Here is a question for TonyfromOz. I live in SA and have been watching the wind power figures over the past few days. We have had very windy conditions however the maximum wind generated power seems to be capped at 1300 MW which is considerably less than the installed capacity of about 1800 MW. Is AEMO capping the wind power to ensure a secure system state? I looked at the historical data on the Aneroid site and the capping at 1300MW seem to have been occurring for some time. Doesn’t this raise the question about whether any more wind farms should be built in SA??
00
Himalayan teacher: http://balance10.blogspot.com/2018/07/again-will-be-woven-fabric-of-best.html
00
17 Jul: NPR: Transcript: Obama’s Speech At The 2018 Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture
OBAMA: Confession number two: I forgot my geography and the fact that right now it’s winter in South Africa. (Laughter.) I didn’t bring a coat, and this morning I had to send somebody out to the mall because I am wearing long johns. (Laughter.) I was born in Hawaii…
One hundred years ago, Madiba was born in the village of M – oh, see there, I always get that – (laughter) – I got to get my Ms right when I’m in South Africa. Mvezo – I got it. (Cheers and applause.) Truthfully, it’s because it’s so cold my lips stuck. (Laughter.)…
The fact that technology cannot be put back in a bottle, so we’re stuck with the fact that we now live close together and populations are going to be moving, and environmental challenges are not going to go away on their own, so that the only way to effectively address problems like climate change or mass migration or pandemic disease will be to develop systems for more international cooperation, not less…
And so in the brief time remaining, let me just suggest a few guideposts for the road ahead, guideposts that draw from Madiba’s work, his words, the lessons of his life…
It involves promoting an inclusive capitalism both within nations and between nations. And as we pursue, for example, the Sustainable Development Goals, we have to get past the charity mindset. We’ve got to bring more resources to the forgotten pockets of the world through investment and entrepreneurship, because there is talent everywhere in the world if given an opportunity…
And I should add for this to work, we have to actually believe in an objective reality. This is another one of these things that I didn’t have to lecture about. You have to believe in facts. (Laughter.) Without facts, there is no basis for cooperation. If I say this is a podium and you say this is an elephant, it’s going to be hard for us to cooperate. (Laughter.) I can find common ground for those who oppose the Paris Accords because, for example, they might say, well, it’s not going to work, you can’t get everybody to cooperate, or they might say it’s more important for us to provide cheap energy for the poor, even if it means in the short term that there’s more pollution. At least I can have a debate with them about that and I can show them why I think clean energy is the better path, especially for poor countries, that you can leapfrog old technologies. (Cheers.) I can’t find common ground if somebody says climate change is just not happening, when almost all of the world’s scientists tell us it is. I don’t know where to start talking to you about this. (Laughter.) If you start saying it’s an elaborate hoax, I don’t know what to – (laughter) – where do we start?.
Unfortunately, too much of politics today seems to reject the very concept of objective truth. People just make stuff up. They just make stuff up…
By the way, this is what I think Mama Graça was talking about in terms of maybe some sense of humility that Madiba felt, like sometimes just basic stuff, me not completely lying to people seems pretty basic, I don’t think of myself as a great leader just because I don’t completely make stuff up. You’d think that was a base line. Anyway, we see it in the promotion of anti-intellectualism and the rejection of science from leaders who find critical thinking and data somehow politically inconvenient…
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/17/629862434/transcript-obamas-speech-at-the-2018-nelson-mandela-annual-lectur
20
17 Jul: ProjectSyndicate: Bjorn Lomborg: Let There Be More Than Light
Prague: Over the past 16 years, nearly every person who gained access to electricity did so through a grid connection, mostly powered by fossil fuels. And yet donors say that many of the 1.1 billion people who are still without electricity should instead try solar panels.
Abundant energy provides the same life-transforming labor as hundreds of servants: Without a refrigerator, we would need to locate fresh food daily, store shelves would be half-empty, and a lot of food would go bad before we could eat it – one reason why, in 1930, stomach cancer was the leading cancer in the United States. Without synthetic fertilizer, which is produced almost entirely with fossil fuels, half the world’s food consumption would be imperiled. Without modern stoves and heaters, we would need to find our own firewood, and we would risk being poisoned in our own houses by killer air pollution. And without fuel-powered trucks, ships, and machines, humans would need to do nearly all the hard labor.
Worldwide, fossil fuels produce two-thirds of all electricity, with nuclear and hydro producing another 27%. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), solar, wind, wave, and bio-energy produce just 9.8% of electricity in the OECD, and this is possible only because of huge subsidies, cumulatively totaling more than $160 billion this year. Even ultra-environmentally aware Germany still produces more than half its electricity with fossil fuels.
Yet there is a disturbing movement in the West to tell the 1.1 billion people who still lack these myriad benefits that they should go without. A familiar refrain suggests that instead of dirty, coal-fired power plants, poor countries should “leapfrog” straight to cleaner energy sources like off-grid solar technology. Influential donors – including even the World Bank, which no longer funds coal energy projects – endorse this view…READ ON
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/benefits-of-fossil-fuels-for-poor-people-by-bjorn-lomborg-2018-07
50
‘The underlying motivation is understandable: policymakers must address global warming. Eventually moving away from fossil fuels is crucial, and innovation is required to make green energy cheap and reliable.’
Boo …. hiss
Bjorn loses all credibility when he sprouts such rubbish.
52
precisely why he has found it hard to get acceptance from any Australian tertiary institutions.
22
On the contrary, according to Flinders student president the reason Dr Lomborg was rejected was political, that his approach allegedly “massively downplays climate change”.
21
That’s how I read it.
10
The Denialati and AGW zealots don’t like lukewarmers.
‘Many newspapers around the world have been duped by Dr Lomborg into believing that he is a credible commentator on climate policy. The truth is that he has a track record of churning out articles that are little more than ‘lukewarmer’ propaganda, based on demonstrable misrepresentations of scientific and economic evidence.’
The London School of Economics, Science and Politics (a very left wing green blob)
30
Hanrahan has a long history on another chat site populated fairly evenly by alarmists and sceptics, and this was a regular theme of mine: That there is nothing like grid electricity to improve the lot of the third world. No longer the need to cook with dung fires so improved health. The children can do homework at night so they become better educated and a cheap TV gives the parents something else to do at night other than make babies.
You then add sewing machines and other basics of commercial activity and they have made the first steps on a long journey.
40
worth reading all…
17 Jul: CNN: Texas to pass Iraq and Iran as world’s No. 3 oil powerhouse
by Matt Egan
Don’t mess with Texas. It’s a global oil superpower.
The shale oil boom has brought a gold rush mentality to the Lone Star State, which is home to not one but two massive oilfields
Plunging drilling costs have sparked an explosion of production out of the Permian Basin of West Texas. In fact, Texas is pumping so much oil that it will surpass OPEC members Iran and Iraq next year, HSBC predicted in a recent report.
If it were a country, Texas would be the world’s No. 3 oil producer, behind only Russia and Saudi Arabia, the investment bank said…
“It’s remarkable. The Permian is nothing less than a blessing for the global economy,” said Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy Group, a consulting firm…
Some oil execs believe the amount of oil in the Permian rivals Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar Field, the world’s largest conventional oilfield.
Rapid technological advances have dramatically brought down the cost of pumping oil everywhere, especially out of the Permian. Wells there can be profitable below $40 a barrel.
“The industry cracked the code on fracking,” said McNally…READ ALL
https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/17/investing/texas-oil-iran-iraq-permian-basin/index.html
50
Huh!
So much for the demise of fossil fuels.
I truly wonder just how much coal there really is in Queensland.
Tony.
50
Queensland floats on coal, there is so much coal we don’t even bother to dig it up, we just stick a pipe down and suck up the volatiles (Coal Seam Gas) which is a tiny fraction of the energy value of the coal itself. Later on we can dig up the actual coal seams and use the carbon itself.
50
Estimated global coal reserves are around 900 billion tonnes of proven, recoverable reserves or enough coal at the present rates of consumption to last the world about 200 years..
But and it is a very, very big BUT indeed;
1 / Off shore and undersea off Wales in the west of the UK is an estimated trillion tonne field of coal.
2 / Under the Norwegian shelf in the North Sea is an estimated 3 [ three ] trillion tonnes of coal in a number of seams
3 / Off shore in the UK’s sectror of the North Sea there is a known field of coal in 15 seams that is estimated to be between 3 [ three ] and 23 [ twenty three ] trillion tonnes of coal.
If ever needed a percentage of these coal reserves can be recovered using gasification of the coal in situ.
And in fact all of those coalfields have extensions that underlay the UK and Norway and have been mined even out under the ocean in the decades past
It would only require a few percent at best fof these coal deposits to be gasified in situ to supply all of mankind with power and energy on a scale far exceeding what we here in the west enjoy today.
If hard rock mining of this coal was ever contemplated, with the very rapid advances in artificial intelligence plus remote operationnin which Australia leads the world in remote mining operations, as well as the exclusive use of robotics and robots could lead to the mining of a tiny percentage of these coal deposits , enough to supply mankind through the next few hundred years , by artificial intelligence equipped robots operating sometimes under water if necessary to mine and extract vast tonnages of this coal.
And thats only the North sea area.
There is a 400 km long coal field, one of the largest known coal fields on the planet in the Simpson Desert 300 kms SE of Alice Springs
This planet, far from running out of energy resources is blessed and endowed with an incredible array of alternative and potential energy sources in tonnages and amounts that defy imagination.
We have coal in stupedous amounts available here and now using 200 year long proven technologies to both extract and to use very efficiently.
We have uranium resources which have only scratched the surface of what is no doubt out there just waiting until somebody actually wants to find and use the stuff.
We have and will find more oil in humungous amounts using the frakking technology being developed in the USA when other nations also begin frakking programs as the UK just has despite the utter ignorance and gross extremism and straight out lies of the anti frakking, anti humanity ,hard left socialistic and societal parasitic and leach like green activists.
We now know from frakking technology a lot more on how the deep source rocks for the oil that has percolated upward over the geologic time scales to form oil fields, source rocks which one day might be frakked and forced to release tthe collossal tonnages of oil still there in those source rocks.
The Saudi’s have been talking about the potential to frakk their close to the surface oil field source rocks
We have natural gas in collossal amounts and more is being found almost daily.
We have methane deposits locked up along the edges of the continental shelves , methane deposits which are estimated to have enough potential energy to rival the total sum of all the other known energy sources on this planet.
We may only be a few years at the most from mastering the controlled Fusion process to give us an energy source of which there will never be an end to until the final days of the Cosmos if ever.
And when all those energy sources are finally exhausted and mined and pumped out and mankind is getting a bit desperate about
his/hers” its ” energy supplies we always have all that sunshine where we can catch a tiny percentage of those solar rays by using a bit of processed silicon stuck out in the bright sunlight to generate a tiny smidgin of power for us to use.And we can always stick a few twisted bits of fibreglass and even tin up into the aiir to catch the irregular and unpredictable willo-wisps of wind to drive a generator and maybe get a bit of light and power that way.
Now we should all be asking, demanding in fact , answers from the politicians and bureacrats as to why with all those humungous energy sources outlined above available to mankind the reasons why we are being forced to pay so much for so little in our individual and group energy requirements?
And why out of all those alternative energy sources, the sheer inane incredible stupidity of the politicians in forcing us, the people and voters and with NO consultation or input at all, to use their selection of the two most unreliable , unpredictable, least efficient in the use of resources , abandoned by our ancestors nearly three centuries ago because of their drawbacks and non useability in an energy hungry civilisation, that of wind and solar as sources of some form of supposedly useable energy.
70
Once a company has enough proven, indicated and inferred reserves they stop drilling.
20
Interesting, pat. However…
The real truth on US oil is hard to know. One hears different stories about recoverability, costs, future supply etc. CNN are huge fibbers for their corporate/CIA masters (yes, the spooks prefer their media big and left, hence CNN and WaPo are the main outlets). Mind you, if CNN weren’t paid to fib they’d do it for free.
Overstating the US energy boom could be a market booster, a who-needs-Russia? ploy, or it could be a price control measure. They always like to put a bit of stick around OPEC, now they have a new stick. America has already been selling gas into Eastern Europe at impractical prices to forestall Russia’s Nord Stream 2. Still, nice that they’ve got a bit.
One thing’s for sure, Tony. Oz has coal. A family member who was doing contractual work for a major mining company tells me one of the honchos reckons centuries wouldn’t see us to the end of good coal. Common industry knowledge.
But there I go getting all funny over coal again. The way I spout about the stuff you’d think my well-being depended on it.
81
With respect to current needs and a future measured in decades/centuries, the amount of fossil fuel in the US is far beyond need.
Extraction is very sensitive to price, not being a government function. We really exploit, in depth only one or two oil/gas fields, and now ignore much of our coal. Marcellus & Permian could supply the world for decades at a price allowing for 20% recovery (now below 10);
but since New York has banned fracking, thus impoverished itself vis a vis Pennsylvania, Marcellus is much overused. We seem to have a breakeven for oil very generally around $50/barrel with gas responding in similar fashion, production coming online or going offline in a few months timeframe based on price in a free market.
If fossil fuel prices in the world reflected Aus energy prices, production in the US would easily grow to cover the world’s supply (well, it wouoldn’t actually, because many other producers would jump the market too)…but its easy to see that anyone with scruple about buying from a Muslim Tyrant or Communist/Socialist tyrant could readily buy fuel from a Trumpian Tyrant instead.
At Aus energy prices, and ignoring the “proven reserves” BS, we are awash in century scope fossil fuels available for economic recovery. And this without having gotten serious about recovery from beneath the ocean; modern technology can cover a significant area from a single platform which the Chinese have proven can be an artificial island.
Energy is essential to modern life. It is the first and basic element of contemporary society. Absent, life is subsistence, relieved by tribal warfare with imported weapons. Most societies on earth have domestic resources they can exploit.
The few that don’t, import coal. You can ship it on open barges, abuse it in storage, distribute it haphazardly, and still get reasonable conversion of mass to energy.
Imposing solar on a third world society to charge their cellphones is the hobby of a vain and narcissistic elite engaged in contemporary slave-mastering under the guise of doing good. Giving folks a closed system they can’t hope to reproduce of even repair with local resources is the biblical giving them a fish rather than teaching them how.
The amount of energy available is hugely understated.
The amount of political stupidity, and willingness to sacrifice any number of ones peers to the ability to achieve power and rule is understated as well. Overcoming the natural world has been hard one, but a consistent progress.
Overcoming the ideas of long-dead economists and the quest for absolute power over our peers seems to regress from time to time.
Australia might do well to recall that when England lost the Roman management, the quality of life for the middle class took a Millienia to return to the level the invaders achieved (per Churchill)
30
In google earth goto Andrews, Tx and zoom out. There is an amazing grid pattern of well heads. There are thousands of sq kms virtually laid waste but there is more money in oil than grazing cattle. 🙂
20
There must be a lot of water too. What isn’t well heads is irrigated farming. All those circles look to be google out of focus until you zoom in and they are all using the exact same size spray irrigators.
20
This is an economics question, and I’m a mechanic, but the oil-man in Pat’s post said the steel tariffs would raise the price of pipe “20% to 30%”. The US, as I understand it, is a super-competitive market so wouldn’t local steel mills compete to reduce these rises? It may take some time for shuttered smelters to come back on line but in the medium term I think he is too pessimistic, but that’s his job. 🙂
I may be wrong.
20
thought I’d check out the “cheers” (see NPR transcript comment #17) for Obama when he once again said Africans could “leapfrog” old technologies & go straight to “clean energy”.
looks like FakeNews. all I hear is a single, long scream (as if it were staged) which begins before he has even spoken the relevant sentence!
listen for about a minute from 1hr10mins40secs:
17 Jul: Youtube: SABC: Former U.S. President Obama delivers the 16th Nelson Mandela annual lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9lMLkQxm10
14 Jul: IOL South Africa: Obama gathers 200 young African leaders for five-day Joburg summit
by Siphelele Dludla, African News Agency
Johannesburg – The Obama Foundation on Saturday began its five-day gathering in Johannesburg, South Africa, of 200 young leaders from 44 countries across Africa as part of a one-year leadership development and civic engagement program.
The foundation said the programme was designed to train, support, and connect emerging African leaders working to create positive change and explore new ways to tackle the biggest problems in their communities.
The gathering will see speakers from public, private, and non-profit sectors, including ***billionaire philanthropist Aliko Dangote, former Liberian president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan, former South African public protector Thuli Madonsela, former president Nelson Mandela’s widow Graca Machel, and many others…
The visit takes place despite lobby groups, such as CAGE Africa and Palestine Solidarity Alliance, calling on the Nelson Mandela Foundation to “uninvite” Obama after he was announced as the guest speaker for the lecture last month, claiming Obama’s principles were “contrary” to Mandela’s…
https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/gauteng/obama-gathers-200-young-african-leaders-for-five-day-joburg-summit-16017717
***billionaire philanthropist Aliko Dangote – the irony:
12 Jul: face3faceAfrica: Why your marriage with Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote, will fail as he seeks new wife
by Mildred Europa Taylor
Women are being urged to jump at the latest opportunity of enjoying the benefits wealthy life has to offer as Africa’s richest man, Aliko Dangote, is in search of a wife.
The 61-year-old multi-billionaire in a Financial Times interview, Lunch with FT, said that he is not getting any younger, hence, wouldn’t mind getting a new wife…
“I’m not getting younger. Sixty years is no joke. But it doesn’t make sense to go out and get somebody if you don’t have the time. Right now, things are really, really very busy, because we have the ***refinery, we have the petrochemicals, we have the fertiliser, we have the gas pipeline,” the founder of Dangote Group, who is twice divorced and has three daughters said…
He further talked about how he intends to make Nigeria Africa’s ***biggest exporter of petroleum products and his willingness to buy Arsenal Football club…
https://face2faceafrica.com/article/why-your-marriage-with-africas-richest-man-aliko-dangote-will-fail-as-he-seeks-new-wife
00
comment in moderation.
00
Likewise. (
00
‘After nearly running dry six months ago, Cape Town’s reservoirs have risen dramatically. Rain has poured down on southern Africa on several occasions in recent months. According to Cape Town’s Department of Water Affairs, water levels in the city’s main reservoirs stood at 55 percent of capacity on July 16, 2018.’
wuwt
40
What’s really warming the world?
I’ll let you make an an adult decision … the green left have already taken a side and seeming to do the right thing …Bloomberg is feeding the rot … What’s Really warming the World>
10
Clever use of graph, needs debunking.
11
It’s as if the touts who cook this stuff up for public consumption assume that long media conditioning will have us nodding agreement even if their own graph contradicts their point. (They won’t be conditioning me because I shut them out some time ago. Bloomberg, CNN, Murdoch, the networks, the ABC…all gone from my life. The off button is my friend.)
By Bloomberg’s own illustration, this warming must be caused by something we began doing around 1910. Too early for the Charleston. Kitty Hawk? Vaudeville? 24-hour bicycle racing? The moving pictures?
Think of the money and fancy-dancy IT that went into making that hyperactive graph. Yet what a steaming pile of juvenile tripe it is. As if the fantastic complexity of warming and cooling shifts on the global scale can be reduced to a few simplistic buttons and levers. None more simplistic than CO2.
Bloomberg, you are right about me and people like me. I’m not all that bright. The bad news is that I’m just bright enough to pay you and the rest of the shill media no further heed.
51
Today’s furore turns to hot air when you read what was said!
“And what wasn’t read!
“This is what he said as his correction: “I have full confidence in US intel agencies…under my people”. Under his people? So in 2016 he had no confidence in the Obama intel crew led by the despicable deplorables in Brennan and Clapper, with some assistance from a treasonous Obama, Comey, Lynch and Hillary. How could any ally except Turnbull and Shorten have confidence in that pond scum? ”
http://pickeringpost.com/story/the-french-have-no-word-for-fuck-/8368
[Warning, crass language at the link! – Jo]
00
Mods to keep the message and clean up the link change it to
Top post at http://pickeringpost.com/
10
Zanetti nailed it:
http://pickeringpost.com/cartoon/8369
I’ll admit to being a Trumpster but he really does seem to be under fire for trying to prevent a nuclear halocaust.
10
Among the comments is a link to these two videos:
The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g_a7dQXilCo
The Inconvenient Truth About the Republican Party
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OURy5WFp0zk
00
Hi David and Roy,
From #1. It’s good to explore new ideas, sometimes even the ones that are a bit way out.
From Lionell’s comment it sounds like the theory may be good for a movie plot but not going to give us any new science.
Good for relaxing and having a breather from all this wobal gorming.
The only sad part of this story is that the series of videos probably make as much sense scientifically as the ramblings of Professor Brian Cox discussing global warming or his other favourite; Cosmology.
As long as we can see the difference between day dreaming and real life, No harm can be done.
If only we could bring that nonsense story about the dangers of CO2 to an end, the World could move forward to a better place.
Marking time for 20 years over a non event like CO2 is one of the strangest stories I have ever heard.
Sometimes it is good to get away and explore to forget the insanity of real life.
KK
30
Agree, KK. ‘If only we could bring that nonsense story about the
dangers of CO2 to an end, the World could move forward to a better place.file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/q/My%20Documents/Downloads/CarbonStory.pdf
20
Repeat link, hope it works this time.
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/q/My%20Documents/Downloads/CarbonStory%20(3).pdf
10
Nope. It’s Primo Levi, ‘The Story of a Carbon Atom.”
10
KK,
As I said, I’m in no position to be the judge of that magnetic theory of things. But every now and then some far out not believed by anyone theory comes to a point of bearing fruit and knowledge is advanced. Once it was widely believed that the world was flat and if you sailed too far west you would fall off the edge.
Fortunately a few thinkers put that one to rest. But Columbus had to find out the hard way that his theory was wrong. And he did a lot of damage by landing in the Americas instead of India where he thought he could go. And I acknowledge that in spite of thinking the anti Columbus nuts are just that, nut cases who can’t cope with reality.
I’m tempted to say it’s too bad there was no Panama Canal back in 1492. 😉
10
As the world cools, we are going to have to rely on indoor agriculture such as greenhouses which require vast amounts of cheap energy and lots of CO2. “Renewables” can’t supply that.
For climate predictions and information about the Grand Solar Minimum, see for example, https://youtu.be/NLlcyus2Enk
30
David Maddison:
Interesting, but similar ideas were floated in the 1970’s. Even some successful predictions about earthquakes, but since said predictions were for earthquake prone areas like California, not necessarily convincing.
00
I roll my eyes when anyone makes predictions, hot or cold. rent seekers both.
Predictions are hard, particularly when they are for the future. Who said that?
01
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no-predict/
00
16 Jul: WaPo: ‘We will not serve or pay for meat:’ WeWork takes the green workplace to a new level
by Jena McGregor
But WeWork is trying a new tactic in the push toward corporate sustainability by saying it was committed to being “a meat-free organization.” The global network of shared office spaces said in an email to employees last week that “moving forward, we will not serve or pay for meat at WeWork events and want to clarify that this includes poultry and pork, as well as red meat.” The company’s co-founder and chief culture officer, Miguel McKelvey, said the new policy was one way it could do more to become environmentally conscious.
After the policy garnered headlines over the weekend, sustainability experts said it is rare — even as employers become more focused on showcasing their environmental friendliness — to see companies make a direct connection between meat and climate emissions…
“It’s a sign of the way things are moving, as employees today expect employers to have a social and environmental conscience,” said Virginia Hoekenga, deputy director of the National Association for Environmental Management, an association of corporate environmental, health, safety and sustainability leaders, most of whom work for large corporations…
How exactly the policy would be enforced is unclear…
Gwen Rocco, senior director of corporate communications at WeWork, said in an email that while the meat-free initiative does extend to expenses, the company would not comment further about how it would distinguish between, say, meat and vegetarian dishes listed on a submitted restaurant receipt. WeWork’s effort does not mean employees or members who work in its facilities cannot bring their own meat, or that members can’t serve meat at their own events. The effort only applies to food purchased with WeWork money, and fish is not included in its initiative…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/07/16/we-will-not-serve-or-pay-meat-wework-takes-green-workplace-new-level/?utm_term=.3da1044a4372
10
Pat @ #24
.
……………1984
.
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!
.
Do I need to say more!
.
10
Hi Jo, Guys, and Gals,
This blogsite, and many others like it, were founded for one reason. Is it too bold a statement to claim the fundamental reason was the generally accepted scientific theory commonly known as the Greenhouse Effect of certain atmospheric gases (GHE)? A historical fact is that wrong scientific have been refuted through the efforts of a few people who first questioned long accepted scientific ideas like: Bodies twice as heavy fall twice as fast. Bodies fall at a constant rate. The earth stands still. Elementary matter is air, water, earth, and fire. Matter is continuously divisible. Continents cannot drift. And hopefully you know that it required great courage to challenge these wrong ideas. And it still does as you experience the critical comments of others.
Have you skeptics ever asked: How is it that we have not been successful in convincing the majority of the scientific community that the idea, GHE, is wrong? Why are you still skeptics after many years and not moved mainstream science to your understanding?
My answer is you ignore the wisdom of the past. You ignore the fundamental foundation of science—observation and observation only. You make the mistake that has been made time after time—you argue.
In thread #3, I made a comment which began with a portion of an address which Richard Feynman made to the US National Academy of Science in 1955. And I drew attention to common observations which I concerned absolutely refuted the idea of the GHE as proposed by Svante Arrhenius. And my observation for writing this comment is: If you read this comment, it appears you ignored it. And if you haven’t read it, why do you expect anyone to read what you write?
Have a good day, Jerry
00
Yes, I have a problem. I do not proofread until after I submit my comments. So I immediately see that I omitted the word–ideas–after scientific (wrong scientific have been refuted through the efforts).
00
Thanks for the advice Jerry but I did read your post but didn’t bother to follow up the link.
Are things a bit quiet over at “Principia”?
Arrhenius’s ideas are a hundred years old and as I said recently, even he went back on his original thoughts.
Basic gas law science disposes with the idea of GHGs.
One molecule cannot remain in a discrete volume of gas at an elevated energy state. Equilibrium draws all components of a gas to the same point.
The real question has never been about the science: the drivers of Global Warming have always been Politcs and Money.
Or if you want to say that differently; Money and Politics.
Why dredge up the past?
KK
21
Hi Kinky,
John O’Sullivan, at “Principia” just used along known observation (and observations) to refute the idea of the GHE without one bit of argument. https://principia-scientific.org/how-a-solar-eclipse-can-make-or-break-scientific-theories/
Yes, it seems it took him awhile but he did it.
Something I have not found you to do.
Have a good day, Jerry
00
if a single farmer still supports the CAGW scam, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever:
17 Jul: UK Independent: Meat and dairy companies to surpass oil industry as world’s biggest polluters, report finds
‘There’s no other choice. Meat and dairy production in the countries where the top 35 companies dominate must be significantly reduced’
by Josh Gabbatiss
To arrive at this conclusion, non-profit organisations the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and GRAIN conducted an analysis of the planet’s 35 largest meat and dairy companies.
They found that broadly speaking the companies were being secretive about their emissions data and few had set hard targets intended to deal with their pollution.
If these industries continue down their current path, the authors of the report warned that the livestock sector could be responsible for 80 per cent of the allowable greenhouse gas budget by 2050…
“There’s no other choice. Meat and dairy production in the countries where the top 35 companies dominate must be significantly reduced,” said Devlin Kuyek, a researcher at GRAIN…
When taken together, the world’s top five meat and dairy corporations are already responsible for more emissions than ExxonMobil, Shell or BP…
The report adds to a growing body of evidence for the harm meat and dairy consumption can cause to the planet…
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/meat-dairy-industry-greenhouse-gas-emissions-fossil-fuels-oil-pollution-iatp-grain-a8451871.html
00
If you think our diet is going down hill now, how will we get along on artificial meat and no dairy? They are about to go into production with laboratory meat @ $1 fo a burger patty.
You can’t live on vitamin and protein pills.
00
Pat has already explained this below. Sorry.
00
18 Jul: Daily Mail: Associated Press: Would YOU eat lab-grown meat? Dutch company behind world’s first ‘test tube burger’ produced from animal cells says it could be in restaurants in just 3 years
•Mosa Meat said it raised $8.8 million, mainly from M Ventures and Bell Food
•The Dutch firm presented the world’s first lab-grown beef burger five years ago
•It hopes to sell its first products, most likely ground beef for burgers, in 2021
•Aim is to achieve mass production 2-3 years later, with a patty costing about $1
Environmentalists have warned that the world’s growing appetite for meat, particularly in emerging economies such as China, isn’t sustainable because beef, pork and poultry require far greater resources than plant-based proteins.
Cows in particular also produce large amounts of greenhouse gas that contribute to global warming…
Some advocates have claimed the term ‘clean meat’ while opponents in the traditional farm sector suggest ‘synthetic meat’ is more appropriate…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5962453/Dutch-company-gets-funding-bring-lab-grown-meat-market.html
00
Adani is closer to realisation:
Why on earth doesn’t the Qld gov. leap at the chance to buy into a monopoly? They made a motza out of QRNational until they sold it out of desperation to reduce [their own labor] debt.
20
Adani is flying kites in the hope of securing north Australia infrastructure funds, but I can’t see the government putting money into the rail line.
Essentially the banks won’t lend Adani capital because they fear it would be a ‘stranded asset’ if coal becomes unviable.
00
I’m struggling to digest “Essentially the banks won’t lend Adani capital because they fear it would be a ‘stranded asset’ if coal becomes unviable.”
What vision! Our coal boom may be an ignis fatuus. Green thumb on the scales more like.
10
Of course, that goes without saying.
Coal has a brilliant future and Adani is haggling, we can wait. It gives us time to convince the masses that CO2 is a beneficial trace gas and has no effect on temperature.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Temperature-anomaly-reality-vs-models.png
01
An interesting number, during the recent US heatwave. In the State of Texas peak power requirement was just under 71GW.
As we sit on an ocean of coal, gas and uranium it gives you some sense of just how pathetic we are in failing to reliably meet our own modest requirements.
40
for anyone interested
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2018/07/18/texas-sets-new-records-july-electricity-usage-summer-getting-started
I wonder of all the California escapees had anything to do with the uptick
31
I have been watching the wind generation for some time particularly for South Australia. It has been a particularly good week for wind. What I have noticed is that when generation reaches about 70% of nameplate capacity it is capped. This could not possibly be natural. It is obviously deliberate policy.
Does anyone know why this is so since so much has been made of the desirability of renewables yet here we have action taken to limit the level of renewables in the renewables state of Australia?
30
amortiser:
There are 2 possible reasons, possibly acting together.
1. After the last big blackout the AEMO insists that a minimum of CCGT capacity remains in use.
2. There is a limited amount of wind electricity that can be sent to Victoria. (which is why the current deluded State Govt.** wants another interconnector to NSW – so long as someone else pays for it).
So ( DEMAND + capacity of interconnectors ) – minimum capacity allocated to CCGTs = amount of wind allowed.
** as distinct from the previous deluded Govt. (and the deluded Vic. & Federal Governments).
50
So these clowns have spent huge amounts on wind generation and cannot use all of it when it is available because of risk to the grid.
Who widely known is this?
20
It’s well known by the informed denizens of Jo’s blog.
10
Its well known to anyone who wants to know, welcome to red pill world.
Most people just want to beleive it will work, and that magic happens.
20
Good observation. It seems that individual wind generators may go up to 90-100%, but on average as you say, 70%.
I looked at Hornsdale, home of the big battery, and it seems to be regularly capped at 70%, although earlier in July it did venture up to 90% for a few hours.
But others seem to regularly go up to 90%.
00
Similarly, it seems that gas in SA is capped at a minimum of about 300-400 MW to maintain system stability.
00
You are correct on the generation of individual units or farms. The pint I was making is that when total generation in SA reaches about 70% of nameplate they shut down generators to cap it there.
July 18 is a good example:
http://anero.id/energy/wind-energy/2018/july/18
Filter out all states except SA and wind generation is almost a straight line at 70%.
This had to be about the best day for wind ever and they are not allowed to generate more than 1100 mwh.
It’s a sick joke.
00
not really a joke, just reality
the public think you can run everything off wind and have no idea of issues like intermittency and frequency control
there is nothing about renewables that is, in reality, anything like the capability that is spun to the general public.
they are are less productive, less reliable, more dispruptive and more expensive than the spin doctors will ever say out loud.
10
How!!
00
Wind Turbine Components Not Recyclable, Says Expert
https://www.greenoptimistic.com/wind-turbines-recyclable-20180718/
00
I went to a link off that site where people in Europe are unhappy with their Leaf EVs. The reasons are interesting.
the reply
The second problem was range where owners say they are only getting155 miles V 235 mlies claimed.
How interesting. Those problems would hardly be exclusive to the Leaf. Regardless of what EV I own, flogging it 500 M to Rockhampton with the aircon going would be a frustrating trip.
00
Think it was the Leaf I was reading about recently, that won’t allow more than one rapid charge per journey. A driver found this out when having to wait many hours for the second recharge during a long journey in the UK.
00
This would be a problem with the battery technology, not the charger surely? If so, all EVs would suffer this to a greater or lesser extent, they just don’t tell us about it.
I took notice because I’m in the tropics where it is always at least warm, sometimes stinkin’ hot so after a couple of hundred miles at highway speed with the aircon working hard, the batteries will be under heat stress for the FIRST rapid charge it sounds like.
I take two months to use a tank of fuel now so I could live with a Leaf if it were cheap enough but I don’t see those in the regional cities and country towns ever taking to them
00
Yes, but I believe this was a charger software design issue, presumably to protect the battery lifetime. Nissan confirmed that this was correct charge practice, it’s just that most owners didn’t realise.
00
This issue is called “Rapidgate” and apparently is due to the fact that the Leaf battery is air cooled, not liquid cooled as per Tesla battery. So it’s easy to overheat the battery, thus shortening its lifetime, with rapid charging.
00
they make it clear in the owners manual, sure, you can bet your life nobody makes it clear in the showroom
00
Returning to my queries about the cost of off-grid solar and whether it is worth it, based on Rick Will’s data, I have just completed some calculations. First, the assumptions.
1. Average energy consumed per day over 1 year: 25 kWh.
2. Typical energy cost over 1 year: $2000
3. Solar system lifetime: 25 years (Think that’s a bit generous, but I’m erring on the generous side.)
4. Initial off-grid system cost: $65,000 (Includes initial battery cost of $30,000
5. CPI annual yearly increase: 1.9%
6. Battery replacement after 12 years: $36,901
7. Total system cost over 25 years: $101,901 (Again, generous, as no maintenance costs included)
I calculate that the total energy bill saved over 25 years, allowing for a yearly CPI increase in the costs, is a measly $63,249. Not much for an outlay of over $101,000.
But wait, there’s more.
If you invested the two large outlays ($65,000 and $36,901 after 12 years) for the entire 25 year period, expecting an average return of 5%, then you would have made a total of $296,874.
I know which I would rather do…
10
Graeme #4
I suggest that you cost a generator with an autostart, triggered by the controller when batteries are low on charge. That way the number of (expensive) batteries could be reduced. Estimated cost of generator between 35 – 55 ¢/kWh. Sugest median cost.
You should also allow for a replacement inverter (actually 2) as their lifetime is 7 -10+ years.
A friend went off grid for a total around $50,000 (total buried in cost of new house, but certainly far less than wanted by the grid supplier to run a line in for 200 metres).
00
but the line to the house would pretty much have been the end of it
you frend has bought himself ongoing future expense and assumed full supply responsibility, which of course he may be fine with.
00
G4…. I really do not know how you have $35k for the solar system.
A 12.0 kW, ..$10k ser of panels would produce your 25kWh easily even in winter…and much more in summer.
But also as G3 said i…if you are truely planning for fully off grid,..you should seriously include a back up generator in your costings.
I am not aware of anybody in a full off grid situation who does not have a back up genny.
Because there are times when the sun just does not apear for days
20
Chad and G3: As I said in my original discussion last week, I’m not planning to put any kind of solar system on my house. This is just a mental exercise. The cost figures came from Rick, so perhaps you could question him as to their origins. They sounded reasonable to me, as they were designed to deliver nearly 99% reliability. Also I don’t believe that generators would be acceptable in standard Aussie suburbia (Ahh, the serenity…) A lot of folks claim that they could run their house off solar, and I wanted to prove that it’s a unachievable aim. Next I would like to run some figures over most folk’s claims that adding solar to their house saves them money.
10
OK, G4, i get your interest now.
I did question Rick on his original figures, but he did not respond..( probably lost in the “postmess” “that is this blog !
But if you are going to debate costs , you should get confirmation from more than one source.
Most Solar outfits will quote quickly against a basic requirement /usage. Some have online calculators.
As i said, it is very uncommon to be fully “off grid” without some form of backup generation..and that is not a battery !
00
I used to debate the feasibility of going off line with some who wanted to “stick it up the thieving suppliers”. I can’t think of a worse motive. They prolly didn’t know Ohm’s law but wanted to become their own systems engineer.
Engineers must work with extremes, greens think they can work with averages.
00
‘The Bureau of Meteorology is continuing to investigate issues surrounding the revelation that the weather station at the Tamworth Airport has been recording incorrect readings.
‘Following questions asked by The Leader, the BoM confirmed on Monday night that at least two minimum-temperature readings over the last month had been off.
‘It was now in the process of investigating the cause of those issues, as well as checking whether any other mistakes had been made.’
The Leader
00