Aussie Heatwave Electricity Shortfall, Hospital Emergency Measures, Coal Blamed

“THE takeaway lesson for Australian politicians and people throughout the world should be that you can’t run hospitals and businesses on unreliable electricity. Next time turning off the cafeteria lights might not be enough; people will die if this renewable energy idiocy continues. Lets hope enough politicians learn this lesson quickly enough to avert a major disaster.”

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t JoNova – South Australia and the Australian State of Victoria learned the hard way that when power demand surges, you can’t turn up the solar panels.

Melbourne hospitals switch off lights as mercury rises

Grant McArthur and Aleks Devic, Herald Sun
January 19, 2018 7:36pm

PATIENTS were left in the dark after one of Melbourne’s biggest hospitals switched off its lights and non-essential equipment as temperatures soared on Friday.

The Alfred turned off the lights on wards, in corridors and cafeterias about midday in a bid to conserve power.

The dramatic move followed a Department of Health memo to hospital chiefs on Thursday night asking them to ensure back-up power supplies were effective, prompted by the increased risk of disruption in the heatwave.

“Hospitals within Alfred Health have taken the initiative to act as good corporate citizens and reduce the use of electricity that…

View original post 679 more words

Advertisements

The “HOTTEST YEAR EVAH” Meme Exposed

NOAAFakerySeptember2017

AS the old saying goes “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants“. One man who has been tireless and paid-less (sic) in the pursuit of exposing the blatant and unequivocal  global temperature data fraud, executed by taxpayer funded government scientific agencies worldwide, has been Tony Heller aka Steve Goddard.

THERE are literally thousands upon thousands of mind-blowing examples of temperature data manipulation/fraud carried out in-plain-sight by climate activist agencies namely – NOAA, NASA, BoM, Met Office UK – who happen to be the literal gate-keepers of global temperature. They do this simply to make you believe that the climate is warming catastrophically thanks to your carbon dioxide (energy) emissions.

THE blink giff included in this post is really all one needs to know about how climate scientists literally “change the data to fit the theory” – a quote linked to Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs in his ‘Tactics and Ethics’ (1923) though often associated with Albert Einstein as a non-literal quip.

OTHER than driving the climate scare and maintaining taxpayer funding to the tune of $Trillions worldwide, hysterical claims of the “hottest year, month, day ever” tell us far more about global warming climate change marketing than they do about actual ‘science’.

*

Via Tony Heller’s “The Deplorable Climate Science Blog :

Unambiguous Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

The National Climate Assessment claims unambiguous warming globally and in the US since 1880.

CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

They show a very detailed graph and map which expresses the claimed warming.

All that red looks pretty scary. Red is the color of fire, and it isn’t hard to convince some people that their carbon sins will lead to hell fire.

What they aren’t telling is that their graph and map are fake. They have no idea what global temperatures were in 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, or in fact the present,  because outside of the US there is very little verifiable data.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-inventory.txt

As late as 1940, there was almost no daily coverage of South America or Africa.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-inventory.txt

NOAA’s current data in Africa and much of the rest of the world is still fake. They make up record temperatures in countries where they have no thermometer data.

Real temperatures       Reported temperatures

By their own admission, the ocean data is also fake.

date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009
from: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org
to: Thomas Crowley <thomas.crowley@ed.ac.uk>

Tom,

The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
we didn’t have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.

Cheers
Phil

di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt

The only location on Earth with good long term daily temperature data in the US.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd-inventory.txt

Before NOAA tampers with their data, the US shows no warming over the past century.

The lack of US warming wrecks global warming theory, so NOAA and NASA tamper with their own data to create fake warming.

 

1999 Version       2017 Version

The frequency and coverage of hot weather has plummeted in the US over the past century. The US isn’t getting hotter – afternoons are getting cooler.

The US temperature data is tampered with by NOAA in a massive hockey stick.

Which is designed to bring the data precisely in line with CO2 theory.

NOAA knows perfectly well that the US is not warming.

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend – NYTimes.com

US and global temperatures are constantly being tampered with to cool the past and warm the present.

US tampering :

Global tampering :

1981: Challenge_chapter2.pdf         2001: Fig.A.ps     current: Fig.A.gif 

2001 version : Fig.A.ps   2015 version: Fig.A.gif 

All of the claims in the National Climate Assessment about global warming are unsupportable junk science, made largely with fraudulent or imaginary data. Global warming is the biggest scam in science history. It has been thoroughly corrupted by tens of billions of dollars of government money – which fake climate scientists refuse to let go of.

The only thing global and unambiguous in the National Climate Assessment, is the level of junk science and fraud it represents.

Unambiguous Fraud In The National Climate Assessment | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog

•••

Related :

NASA / NOAA Data Fraud Related :


CLIMATE Skeptics Have Valid Reasons To Question Manmade Global Warming

Globe-Earth-Green.jpg

A MUST read op/ed written by Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT and CFACT President David Rothbard.

THIS excellent piece focuses on an important part of the climate debate often overlooked – the heat absorption ability of the carbon dioxide molecule as its concentration increases in the atmosphere.

THE article received “coast to coast” attention via a media usually dismissive of sceptical arguments to the supposed “climate crisis”…

RUCKER’s forward received via email …

“Newspapers coast to coast”

CFACT-mastheads-1-12-18-768x380

This CFACT Op Ed appeared in the newspapers above and more!

Media bias against climate realism is rampant – especially on the national level. Some major publications, like the Los Angeles Times, have actually positioned themselves in opposition to free speech by imposing bans on opinions running counter to the Al Gore narrative.

Fortunately that is not the case with many local media outlets.

I’d like to call your attention, for a couple reasons, to a recent op/ed I co-wrote with CFACT President David Rothbard.

First, as we’ve discussed so often before, the contents of our article reveal that the hysterical case for global warming doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. There are good reasons, scientifically speaking, why those who are skeptical of climate alarmism have their doubts.

Secondly, and most encouragingly, our op/ed hasn’t been circular filed – as it might have been by the establishment media. In fact, it appeared in a host of local newspapers from one end of the United States to the other!

Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming

by and

Many people are actively worried about global warming. And it frustrates them that skeptics and “deniers” refuse to acknowledge the “science” of such an urgent, manmade problem.

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn’t so clearcut, here’s a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is “increase.” After all, CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being “trapped.”

The correct answer, however, is decrease.

How do we know this? Because the U.N.’s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The IPCC explains that CO2 follows a “logarithmic dependence,” which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the IPCC recognizes that the middle of this band is already “saturated.”

People who fret about manmade warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 actually loses “heat-trapping” ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned IPCC admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear manmade warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

This begs the question … are they right? The answer is “No.”

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere — and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. In order to make their case, the IPCC theorizes that any additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this “feedback loop” that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.

It’s an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the IPCC admits that “an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.”

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.

The IPCC rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar “irradiance” (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun’s output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind — which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.

As the IPCC observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia “has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more.” It’s very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of manmade climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue.

Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming | CFACT

•••

CO2 Related :

CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :

 


GERMANY Becomes The New Poster Child For Climate Change Hypocrisy

““Do as I say, but don’t pay attention to what I actually do” is the trademark of climate change policy. The Trump administration took a different approach and told it like it is: Paris is a costly, meaningless non-solution.”

Yup.

PA Pundits - International

By Nicolas Loris ~

Climate hypocrisy is nothing new.

Celebrities cruise around the world in their private jets, eating filet mignon while telling you to pack a salad and bike to work to reduce your carbon footprint.

So, color me not at all surprised that Germany, a vocal critic of the U.S.’ decision to exit the Paris climate accord, is preparing to abandon its 2020 climate targets.

Strong economic growth is a critical reason why Germany is very likely to miss its target.

A leaked document from Germany’s Environmental Ministry projected the country will miss its carbon emissions goal under the Paris climate accords by 8 percent without additional action. (Photo: iStock Photos)

Germany has an aggressive plan to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020. Last November, a leaked document from the country’s Environmental Ministry projected the country would miss the…

View original post 559 more words


GLOBAL Cooling A Reality But Technology And CO2 Will Help Earth Survive

Screen Shot 2018-01-09 at 11.05.40 am

AN IMPORTANT and timely read Via The Times – MATT RIDLEY (Climatism bolds)

RECORD cold in America has brought temperatures as low as minus 44C in North Dakota, frozen sharks in Massachusetts and iguanas falling from trees in Florida. Al Gore blames global warming, citing one scientist to the effect that this is “exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis”. Others beg to differ: Kevin Trenberth, of America’s National Centre for Atmospheric Research, insists that “winter storms are a manifestation of winter, not climate change”.

Forty-five years ago a run of cold winters caused a “global cooling” scare. “A global deterioration of the climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilised mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon,” read a letter to President Nixon in 1972 from two scientists reporting the views of 42 “top” colleagues. “The cooling has natural causes and falls within the rank of the processes which caused the last ice age.” The administration replied that it was “seized of the matter”.

In the years that followed, newspapers, magazines and television documentaries spoke of the coming ice age. The CIA reported a “growing consensus among leading climatologists that the world is undergoing a cooling trend”.

This alarm about global cooling is largely been forgotten, but it has not entirely gone away. Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University has suggested that a quiescent sun presages another Little Ice Age like that of 1300-1850. I’m not persuaded. Yet the argument that the world is slowly slipping back into a proper ice age after 10,000 years of balmy warmth is in essence true. Most interglacial periods, or times without large ice sheets, last about that long, and ice cores from Greenland show that each of the past three millennia was cooler than the one before.

However, those ice cores, and others from Antarctica, can now put our minds to rest. They reveal that interglacials start abruptly with sudden and rapid warming but end gradually with many thousands of years of slow and erratic cooling. They have also begun to clarify the cause. It is a story that reminds us how vulnerable our civilisation is. If we aspire to keep the show on the road for another 10,000 years, we will have to understand ice ages.

The oldest explanation for the coming and going of ice was based on carbon dioxide. In 1895 the Swede Svante Arrhenius, one of the scientists who first championed the greenhouse theory, suggested that the ice retreated because carbon dioxide levels rose, and advanced because they fell. If this were true, then industrial emissions could head off the next ice age. There is indeed a correlation in the ice cores between temperature and carbon dioxide, but inconveniently it is the wrong way round: carbon dioxide follows rather than leads temperature downward when the ice returns.

A Serbian named Milutin Milankovich, writing in 1941, argued that ice ages and interglacials were instead caused by changes in the orbit of the Earth around the sun. These changes, known as eccentricity, obliquity and precession, sometimes combined to increase the relative warmth of northern hemisphere summers, melting ice caps in North America and Eurasia and spreading warmth worldwide.

RECORD COLD

Planes wait at the gates outside terminal five at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport in the heavy snow.

IN 1976 Nicholas Shackleton, a Cambridge physicist, and his colleagues published evidence from deep-sea cores of cycles in the warming and cooling of the Earth over the past half million years which fitted Milankovich’s orbital wobbles. Precession, which decides whether the Earth is closer to the sun in July or in January, is on a 23,000-year cycle; obliquity, which decides how tilted the axis of the Earth is and therefore how warm the summer is, is on a 41,000-year cycle; and eccentricity, which decides how rounded or elongated the Earth’s orbit is and therefore how close to the sun the planet gets, is on a 100,000-year cycle. When these combine to make a “great summer” in the north, the ice caps shrink.

Game, set and match to Milankovich? Not quite. The Antarctic ice cores, going back 800,000 years, then revealed that there were some great summers when the Milankovich wobbles should have produced an interglacial warming, but did not. To explain these “missing interglacials”, a recent paper in Geoscience Frontiers by Ralph Ellis and Michael Palmer argues we need carbon dioxide back on the stage, not as a greenhouse gas but as plant food.

The argument goes like this. Colder oceans evaporate less moisture and rainfall decreases. At the depth of the last ice age, Africa suffered long mega-droughts; only small pockets of rainforest remained. Crucially, the longer an ice age lasts, the more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the cold oceans. When the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere drops below 200 parts per million (0.02 per cent), plants struggle to grow at all, especially at high altitudes. Deserts expand. Dust storms grow more frequent and larger. In the Antarctic ice cores, dust increased markedly whenever carbon dioxide levels went below 200 ppm. The dust would have begun to accumulate on the ice caps, especially those of Eurasia and North America, which were close to deserts. Next time a Milankovich great summer came along, and the ice caps began to melt, the ice would have grown dirtier and dirtier, years of deposited dust coming together as the ice shrank. The darker ice would have absorbed more heat from the sun and a runaway process of collapsing ice caps would have begun.

All of human civilisation happened in an interglacial period, with a relatively stable climate, plentiful rainfall and high enough levels of carbon dioxide to allow the vigorous growth of plants. Agriculture was probably impossible before then, and without its hugely expanded energy supply, none of the subsequent flowering of human culture would have happened.

That interglacial will end. Today the northern summer sunshine is again slightly weaker than the southern. In a few tens of thousands of years, our descendants will probably be struggling with volatile weather, dust storms and air that cannot support many crops. But that is a very long way off, and by then technology should be more advanced, unless we prevent it developing. The key will be energy. With plentiful and cheap energy our successors could thrive even in a future ice age, growing crops, watering deserts, maintaining rainforests and even melting ice caps.

•••

More Must Read Matt Ridley :


FAILED Polar Bear Predictions Have Climate Change Community In A Panic

“A bit of reflection shows it was the climate science community itself — in collaboration with Arctic researchers and the media — who by the year 2000 (below left) set the polar bear up as an icon for catastrophic global warming. They made the polar bear a proxy for AGW.”

YET ANOTHER failed prediction from the catastrophic climate change cabal!

“This has left many folks unhappy about the toppling of this important global warming icon but ironically, consensus polar bear experts and climate scientists (and their supporters) were the ones who set up the polar bear as a proxy for AGW in the first place.”

polarbearscience

Polar bear experts who falsely predicted that roughly 17,300 polar bearswould be dead by now (given sea ice conditions since 2007) have realized their failure has not only kicked their own credibility to the curb, it has taken with it the reputations of their climate change colleagues. This has left many folks unhappy about the toppling of this important global warming icon but ironically, consensus polar bear experts and climate scientists (and their supporters) were the ones who set up the polar bear as a proxy for AGW in the first place.

Cover image_Twenty Reasons_polarbearscience

I published my professional criticisms on the failed predictions of the polar bear conservation community in a professional online scientific preprint journal, which has now been downloaded almost 2,000 times (Crockford 2017; Crockford and Geist 2017).

Crockford 2017_Slide 12 screencap

My paper demonstrates that the polar bear/seaice decline hypothesis, particularly the one developed by Steven Amstrup, is a failure. I’m not…

View original post 644 more words


Australian Base Load Electrical Power – Week Ending 23rd December 2017

“Dirty” fossil fuels still doing ~80% of the heavy lifting.

Unreliables (wind and solar) making up about 6-10% of total base load, despite billions upon billions spent!? Cough, cough, ahem.

Merry Christmas all!

PA Pundits - International

By Anton Lang ~

This is the continuing Post, where each Saturday, I will detail the power consumption for the Base Load in Australia for the previous week. This will show what is actually meant by the term Base Load, and that is the minimum daily power consumption at its lowest point. Power consumption never falls below this point.

Here in Australia, that level of power is 18,000MW.

The Bayswater Coal Fired Power Plant In New South Wales

This data I have collated below is for this last week, and is for the five States connected to the Australian grids, every State east of the Western Australian border, and here I will show that data for each of those five States, New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania.

As you can see from these numbers, that huge amount of power is being supplied mainly by coal fired…

View original post 3,186 more words