Posted: March 14, 2018 Filed under: Australia, BIG Government, Climatism, Energy Poverty, Fact Check, Failed Green Schemes, Government Grants/Funding, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, Green Energy, Renewables, Solar, Taxpayer waste, Unreliables | Tags: Australia, big government, Climate Change, Energy, Energy Poverty, Fuel Poverty, Global Warming, Government grants, Green Energy, Green Energy Failure, Renewable energy, RET, SA Blackouts, solar, Solar panels, Solar PV, Subsidies, unreliables
AUSTRALIA has entered the realm of third world countries with residential power disconnections rising by as much as 140 per cent in six years.
THE mad rush into unreliable ‘energy’ – wind and solar – created by virtue signalling politicians aiming to appease the UN climate gods has resulted in the average household paying more than double to keep the lights on, unprecedented statewide blackouts and now for South Australia, officially, the most expensive power prices in the world.
IF that wasn’t bad enough, Australian taxpayers, namely the poorest in the community, are set to add another $160 to their annual power bill thanks to a further $1.3bn in government solar subsidies.
ALL this extra pain to make zero difference to the climate.
From The Australian:
Energy consumers will be forced to pay more than $1 billion for rooftop solar installation subsidies this year, increasing power costs by up to $100 per household, according to an industry analysis.
Operators warn of a spike in the number of unscrupulous operators unless the green-power subsidy is wound back.
The solar industry is expecting the subsidy to increase to about $1.3bn this year after the regulator estimated in January that 22 million new certificates would be created over the year.
“The cost increase (this year) is about $800m and there are 8 million households … so there’ll be a cost impact of around $100 per household. The electricity impact might be $40 or $50 per household but businesses will pass through the additional cost too … That subsidy of $500m last year, or $1.2bn to $1.3bn this year, is added on to everyone’s bills.”
NSW Liberal MP Craig Kelly, chairman of the Coalition backbench committee for energy and the environment, warned that the cost of rooftop solar subsidies was being carried by those who could least afford it.
He said the benefits of lower power prices were going to high-wealth households that installed the panels, while those without solar panels were hit with higher prices passed on by electricity retailers.
“It’s effectively a reverse Robin Hood scheme where we are increasing the electricity prices on the poor to reduce electricity prices for the rich,” Mr Kelly said.
“A woman rang me during the week and broke down on the telephone. She just got her electricity bill and it was $800. She was expecting a bill of $400 … she’s got no way of paying for it.”
– Joe Kelly, The Australian
$1.3bn hit as subsidies for solar panels surge | The Australian
JO NOVA nails the latest solar-subsidy madness that ultimately forces “struggling families to subsidise rich people’s solar installations.”…
And we wonder why electricity bills are rising?
Many Australians don’t realize that those without solar panels pay are forced to pay for those who do through their electricity bills. That pain point is about to launch itself above the horizon and into public view. For those readers with solar panels (there are a lot) this is not about you, this is about the system. Our badly managed grid is now so obscenely inefficient and expensive, droves of people are installing solar panels because they feel they have no choice.
Tony Abbott says “Australians are paying too much for our emissions obsession”.
NSW MP Craig Kelly: “It’s effectively a reverse Robin Hood scheme where we are increasing the electricity prices on the poor to reduce electricity prices for the rich.”
As Jo says: We could have put that billion into a new hospital. Instead we put magic squares on our houses, hoping to get nicer weather.
Solar Subsidies must end
With 8 million households that works out as $100 extra added onto electricity bills this year — on top of the $60 per household we paid last year for solar subsidies. That will be $160 total per household, just for solar subsidies, this year alone.
Former prime minister Tony Abbott is demanding action… [he] led a chorus of Coalition backbenchers urging the government to end the small-scale renewable energy scheme, with Liberal MP Craig Kelly declaring the policy was more economically damaging than the Rudd government’s home insulation scheme.
“Australians are paying far too much for our emissions obsession. Government must end subsidies for new renewables,” Mr Abbott said yesterday.
Nationals senator John Williams said the policy forced struggling families to subsidise rich people’s solar installations.
Mr Kelly, chairman of the Coalition backbench committee for energy and the environment, said the government should halve the maximum certificate price to $20, followed by another halving in its value next year before it is phased out a decade early in 2020.
When people find out just how expensive, toxic and pointless this is, there will be a riot.
The Minister Josh Frydenberg talks about ancient history and promises Santa is coming:
Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said the Australian Energy Market Commission had found the average cost to households over the past five years was about $29 a year, with the price peaking in 2012 at $44 for the year. “The AEMC forecasts residential electricity prices will fall over the next two years as renewable energy, including small-scale solar supported by the Renewable Energy Target, enters the system,” Mr Frydenberg said.
Giles Parkinson at Reneweconomy calls this a “right wing push” to slash “incentives”
Don’t threaten the cash cow! In parasite-language a subsidy is not a subsidy, it’s an “incentive”. A sensible request not to force the poor to pay for the rich is labeled an ideological “right wing” push. And when you don’t have an answer, blame the Murdoch media for standing up for poor consumers.
After the namecalling, the claim that rooftop solar is helpful:
Criticism of the small-scale solar scheme invariably ignore the considerable benefits of having such a large amount of rooftop solar in the grid.
Network owners and operators in all states have highlighted how rooftop solar has reduced and deferred the events of peak demand, thereby reducing the cost of wholesale electricity because there is less need for peaking plant and less opportunity to trade on scarcity.
Nice theory, shame about the facts. Wholesale electricity prices aren’t cheaper, they doubled. For the total cost of all the solar panels, and batteries, and now the Snowy Money Scheme we could have built a new cheap coal plant [Or maybe three for $10b! h/t Graeme no.3]. The fact is that when Australians didn’t have much solar power, they had cheap electricity. Same is true all over the world.
And so much for “not trading on scarcity” — those solar panels didn’t stop $400 million of non-scarce profiteering in a two day spike in January.
Then there is the pathetic argumentum ad populum:
… rooftop solar is more popular than it has ever been – including when some state governments offered overly-generous feed-in tariffs in 2010, 2011 and 2012.
Yes and coal power is more popular than it has ever been with 62 countries building 1600 new coal plants. Perhaps they are all stupid and we the only ones who can see the obvious blinding truth? Is Jay Weatherill the only genius running a state or is he the gullible fool who believes the green industry propaganda and thinks the ABC has impartial reporters?
Rooftop solar is only popular because our grid is so screwed people feel they can’t afford electricity any other way.
One in five houses have solar panels. What happens if we all got solar?
This is only the tip of the iceberg. Total subsidies for wind and solar is more like $5 billion or $600 per household.
Bill shock debacle: Solar rooftop subsidies in Australia doubling, will cost $1.3 billion this year, $160 per household « JoNova
(Climatism bolds added)
Back In The Real World…
World Coal-Fired Power Surge related :
Posted: March 12, 2018 Filed under: Alarmism Debunked, Alarmism uncovered, Australia, Bureau Of Meterology, Climate Alarmism, Climatism, CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), Drought, Dud predictions, Empirical Evidence, Fact Check, Flannery, Floods, Government Grants/Funding, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, Pseudo-Science, Tim Flannery | Tags: Alarmism, Climate alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Commission, Climate Council, climate lies, Climate science, Desal Plants, Desalinisation, drought, Dud Predictions, Flannery, flood, Global Warming, Q&A, QandA, Their ABC, Tim Flannery
TIM FLANNERY, former Climate Commissioner of Australia from 20011-2013 earned $180,000 per year for a three-day working week to make predictions and decisions that affected billions upon billions of dollars of Australian taxpayers’ money.
AFTER being rightly sacked by the Abbott government in 2013, Flannery began his own go-fund-me version of the Climate Commission, the Climate Council, which continues the propagandised rollout of catastrophic climate predictions and unreliable-energy pipe dreams.
NEVER far from the government teat, Flannery is regularly wheeled out by Australia’s government run media monolith their ABC, appearing as resident climate ‘expert’ whenever a catastrophic weather event hits the news cycle, or simply to inject a dose of hysteria into the conversation when climate alarm is waning.
TONIGHT, Flannery appears on Q&A, the ABC’s TV panel discussion program…
TO understand why the ABC and Q&A are so ‘impressed’ by the former ‘Australian of the year’, let’s take a brief look at Flannery’s impressive career of climate predictions and prognostications…
TIM FLANNERY – Curriculum Vitae
FLOODS and DROUGHT
In 2004 Flannery said:
“I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis. It’s whole primary production is in dire straits and the eastern states are only 30 years behind.”
We are “one of the most physically vulnerable people on the Earth,” and “southern Australia is going to be impacted very severely and very detrimentally by global climate change.” We are going to experience “conditions not seen in 40 million years.”
In 2007 he said:
“…That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.”
“The one-in-1000-years drought is, in fact, Australia’s manifestation of the global fingerprint of drought caused by climate change.”
In May 2007 he warned that:
“Brisbane and Adelaide – home to a combined total of three million people – could run out of water by year’s end;”
and that the country was facing
“the most extreme and the most dangerous situation arising from climate change facing any country in the world right now.”
In June 2007 he said:
“Over the past 50 years southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming. Similar losses have been experienced in eastern Australia, and although the science is less certain it is probable that global warming is behind these losses too. But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain …
In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”
In 2008 he warned again that:
“The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.”
AND then the rains came, as they always do in the land of “droughts and flooding rains“…
BY December 2008 Adelaide’s reservoirs were 75% full, Perth’s 40%, Sydney’s 63%, and Brisbane’s reservoir’s were 46% full.
BY 2009 dams for Brisbane, Canberra and Sydney were filled to overflowing.
PRESENTLY Adelaide’s reservoirs are 57%, Perth’s 39%, Melbourne’s 64%, Sydney’s 77%, and Brisbane’s reservoir’s are 83% full.
In 2015 Flannery said:
“Sadly we’re more likely to see them more frequently in the future.”.
A year later, not one severe cyclone was recorded, continuing the downward trend in severity and frequency of tropical cyclones, despite rising CO2/temps…
Graph showing the number of severe and non-severe tropical cyclones from 1970-2017 which have occurred in the Australian region. Severe tropical cyclones are shown here as those with a minimum central pressure less than 970 hPa.
Nature journal confirms:
“Studies project a decrease in the frequency of tropical cyclones towards the end of the 21st century in the southwest Pacific, southern Indian, and Australian regions.”
Australian tropical cyclone activity lower than at any time over the past 550–1,500 years | Nature
GEOTHERMAL TAXPAYER WASTE
Flannery in 2007:
Urged us to invest in “green” geothermal power — pumping water on to hot rocks underground.
He claimed hot rocks in South Australia “potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia’s economy for the best part of a century”, and “the technology to extract that energy … is relatively straightforward”.
The Rudd government gave $90 million for a test plant in SA’s Cooper Basin, but a well collapsed, the site flooded and the project was abandoned.
Andrew Bolt global warming: Will Q&A hold Tim Flannery to account for dud predictions? | Herald Sun
MOTHBALLED DESALINISATION PLANTS
In 2005 Flannery wrote in “The Weather Makers“:
Australia’s east coast is no stranger to drought, but the dry spell that began in 1998 is different from anything that has gone before….The cause of the decline of rainfall on Australia’s east coast is thought to be a climate-change double whammy – the loss of winter rainfall and the prolongation of El Nino-like conditions.
The resulting water crisis here is potentially even more damaging than the one in the west … As of mid 2005 the situation remains critical… very little time to arrange alternative water sources such as large scale desalination plants.
$12 BILLION worth of desalination plants built in South Australia, Queensland, NSW and Victoria have all been mothballed without producing a drop of water. All were built in preference to much cheaper dams, because of green bans and because warming alarmists claimed the rains would not return.
FIVE desal plants have been built in Australia. Only Perth’s is used.
COSTS to run each mothballed deal plant are estimated at between $500,000 to $1,000,000 per day, every day until the contracts run out around 2030.
The legacy of Tim Flannery..White elephant desalination plants | Climatism
WILL anyone on the Q&A panel or from the supposed ‘bi-partisan’ audience question Flannery on any of his monumental climate prediction failures and brazen climate alarmism?
DON’T hold your breath!
FINAL word from the Leftist and global warming obsessed The Conversation on Flannery…
“How is it that Tim Flannery could have got it so spectacularly wrong? The most obvious factor could well be Flannery’s lack of background in a climate science. He is an academic, however his background is mammalogy – he studied the evolution of mammals.”
Climate and floods: Flannery is no expert, but neither are the experts | The Conversation
Flannery related :
Climate Change Alarmism / Fraud related :
Posted: March 10, 2018 Filed under: Alarmism Debunked, Alarmism uncovered, Alarmist media, Alarmist Predictions, Australia, Climate Alarmism, Climate History, Dud predictions, Fact Check, Fake News, Government Grants/Funding, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, IPCC, UN, UNEP, UNFCCC | Tags: Alarmism, auspol, Climate Change, Climate Change Alarmism, Climate Change Hoax, Climate Change Policy, Climate Change Scam, Dud Predictions, failed climate models, Global Warming, Global Warming Hoax, Global Warming Scam, Maurice Newman, Peter Hannam, SA Votes 2018, springst, The Australian, UN, UNEP, UNFCCC
GLOBAL warming alarmists want to change us, they want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate or the environment. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore, what is in danger is freedom, not the climate.
FORMER head of Deutsche Bank, the ABC and ASX, Maurice Newman, writes a must read opinion piece in the The Australian providing further evidence that the “global warming movement is really the triumph of ideology over science”…
You have to hand it to Peter Hannam, The Sydney Morning Herald’s climate change alarmist-in-chief, for his report last month – “ ‘Really extreme’ global weather event leaves scientists aghast”.
Hannam is often the canary in the coalmine (er, wind farm) when there is a sense that public belief in man-made global warming is flagging. With Europe in the grip of a much colder winter than predicted and with the abnormal chill spreading even to Africa, he did his best to hold the line.
Earlier this year, Climate Council councillor Will Steffen also climbed on board — for The Sydney Morning Herald of course. Extreme cold in Britain, Switzerland and Japan, a record-breaking cold snap in Canada and the US and an expansion of the East Antarctic ice sheet coincided with a Bureau of Meteorology tweet (later retracted) that January 7 had set a heat record for the Sydney Basin. Steffen told us these seemingly unrelated events were in fact linked. “Climate disruption” explained both. Whether fire or ice, we’re to blame. No ifs, no buts.
Now a warming Arctic provides the perfect opportunity for Hannam to divert attention from the latest deep freeze. He ominously warns: “Climate scientists are used to seeing the range of weather extremes stretched by global warming, but few episodes appear as remarkable as this week’s unusual heat over the Arctic.”
It’s true, warm air has made its way up to the high Arctic, driving temperatures up to 20C above average. But Anthony Watts, who runs a climate change website, puts things into perspective. He observes: “Warm moist air from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans has warmed the Arctic above the 80th parallel. It should be noted, however, that the Arctic Circle actually starts at 66 degrees north, meaning the record heat is over a much narrower area.”
Cato Institute atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue reviewed high Arctic temperature data going back to 1958 and says: “Data before the satellite era … has some problems, so it’s hard to say the current spike is for sure a record.” He says that if the baseline is 1973, when the polar-orbiting satellites began recording the data, there is not much difference between today’s ice extent and then.
Indeed, we now have satellite confirmation that global air temperatures are back to the same level they were before the 2014-16 super El Nino event and, this January and February, the decline accelerated. Since 2015 satellites also have detected a fall in sea surface temperatures.
Solar expert Piers Corbyn, of British forecasting group WeatherAction and famous for his successful wagers against the British Met Office forecasts, predicts Earth faces another mini ice age with potentially devastating consequences. He notes: “The frequency of sunspots is expected to rapidly decline … reaching a minimum between the years 2019 and 2020.” Indeed, the present decline in solar activity is faster than at any time in the past 9300 years, suggesting an end to the grand solar maximum.
Critics say while “it might be safe to go with (Corbyn’s) forecast for rain next Tuesday, it would be foolish to gamble the world can just go on burning all the coal and oil we want”. That’s the nub of it. The world has bet the shop on CO2 warming and the “science” must be defended at all costs.
But while spinning unfalsifiable “climate disruption” slogans may sway readers of The Sydney Morning Herald and resonate with believers in their centrally heated halls, those in the real world, witnessing hundreds of people dying of the cold and thousands more receiving emergency treatment, will consider they’ve been duped.
Not feeling duped are successive Australian governments that have become committed members of a green-left global warming movement promoted by the UN. On dubious scientific grounds they have agreed to accept meaningless, anti-growth, CO2 emission targets that enrich elites and burden the masses.
And, true to label, a Green Climate Fund supported by Australia and 42 mostly developed countries will redistribute $US100 billion ($128bn) annually to poorer nations as reparation for the unspecified environmental harm the West has allegedly caused them.
Big emitters such as China, India and Russia are conspicuously absent.
Policing Australia’s targets and helping to spread confirmatory propaganda is a network of international and local bureaucracies. The world’s academies and meteorological organisations, frequently found to be unreliable and biased, keep the faith alive. They reject debate and starve nonconforming researchers of funds and information. Students are indoctrinated with unproven climate-change theories that an unquestioning media gladly reinforces. Meanwhile, the country ingenuously surrenders its competitive advantage by refusing to embrace its rich endowment of affordable baseload energy. This it happily exports while lining the pockets of renewable energy rent-seekers with generous taxpayer subsidies.
Should the world enter a period of global cooling, we should expect concerted denial. Too many livelihoods, too many reputations and too much ideology depend on the CO2 narrative. Having ceded sovereignty over our economies’ commanding heights to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva, the West (Donald Trump excluded) repeatedly turns to expensive vanity projects to paper over this folly. If the iceman cometh, there can be no quick fix. Yet we know it takes twice as much energy to heat a home than to cool one. So pity the poor and infirm who respected medical journal The Lancet says are 20 times likelier to die from cold than heat.
While even to mention a mini ice age risks scorn and derision, recent research has shown a close correlation between solar activity and climate on Earth. That possibility alone should cause shivers. But it will take time and experience before we accept the global warming movement is really the triumph of ideology over science. Until then we will continue to commit life’s cardinal sin of putting too many eggs into one questionable basket.
Chilling fact is most climate change theories are wrong | The Australian
(Climatism links and bolds added)
See also :
Climate Change Alarmism / Fraud related :
(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)
Click link for more info…TQ, Jamie
Posted: March 8, 2018 Filed under: Australia, BIG Government, Climatism, CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), Energy Poverty, Failed Green Schemes, Fossil Fuels, Government Grants/Funding, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, Green Energy, Solar, Unreliables, Wind Farms | Tags: Act On Climate, auspol, Blackouts, climate, Climate Change, Dan Andrews, Energy, Energy Poverty, Fossil Fuels, Fuel Poverty, Green Energy, Investment, Jobs, Melbourne, Renewable energy, SAvotes, UNFCCC, unreliables, Victoria, Wind Energy, Wind Farms, wind power
BACK in my hometown of Melbourne, it is abundantly clear and the evidence “unequivocal” that fossil fuels have devastated this once beautiful city. The “carbon pollution” and rampant environmental devastation is visible in everything you see, smell and touch.
CAPITALISM and the advent of cheap, abundant and reliable fossil fuel power has created a city of filth, poverty and squalor. It must be stopped.
DRACONIAN climate policy and a state of totalitarianism is the only way to convert Melbourne back into a “sustainable”, “smart city” of tranquil caves and caverns once again.
ENDING capitalism and yielding to the UN’s multi-trillion dollar Paris climate
con deal is the only way Melbourne will ever become clean and green again.
IN the meantime, Victoria’s Premier, Chairman Dan Andrews’ plan to make ‘energy’ 40%
renewable unreliable by 2025 is guaranteed to put downward pressure on already skyrocketing power prices and ensure jobs and industry remain in Victoria…
THINK of the children.
Australia Unreliable-Energy Fiasco related :
(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)
Click link for more info…TQ, Jamie
Posted: February 24, 2018 Filed under: Alarmism, Alarmism Debunked, Alarmist media, Alarmist Predictions, Australia, Climate Alarmism, Climatism, CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), Coral Bleaching, Fact Check, Government Grants/Funding, Great Barrier Reef, Green Agenda, Ocean Acidification, Pseudo-Science | Tags: Activist Media, Alarmism, carbon dioxide emissions, Climate Change, Climatism, CO2, Coral Bleaching, Corals, environment, Fake News, Global Warming, Great Barrier Reef, IPCC, Ocean Acidification, Oceans, Peter Hannam, pseudoscience, Royal Society, Science and Environment, SMH, The Age
WITH a stubborn atmosphere failing to warm as predicted, another climate threat was needed to sustain the Climate Crisis industry and keep lazy reporters supplied with junk science to feed their catastrophic climate narrative. Enter “ocean acidification”!
FROM the onset, the term “ocean acidification” was deceptive by design. Oceans are alkaline. The correct ‘scientific’ term for any pH change toward zero is “less alkaline”. Obviously not the scariest of descriptors to shock the public into belief.
“Ocean Acidification” was first referenced in a peer-reviewed study in Nature in 2003, resulting in an explosion of journal articles, media reports and alarmist publications from environmental orgs. It has since gone viral, endorsed by scientists from numerous alarmist institutions including the Royal Society, the IPCC and NOAA who coined it “climate change’s evil twin” in a 2016 report.
A 2016 paper published in the ICES Journal of Marine Science put the issue of “ocean acidification” under the microscope, and found Scientists exaggerating the carbon dioxide threat to marine life…
Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification research
“Ocean acidification” (OA), a change in seawater chemistry driven by increased uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the oceans, has probably been the most-studied single topic in marine science in recent times. The majority of the literature on OA report negative effects of CO2 on organisms and conclude that OA will be detrimental to marine ecosystems. As is true across all of science, studies that report no effect of OA are typically more difficult to publish.
Excerpts from the paper:
Scientific or academic scepticism calls for critical scrutiny of research outputs before they are accepted as new knowledge (Merton, 1973).Duarte et al. (2014) stated that “…there is a perception that scientific skepticism has been abandoned or relaxed in many areas…” of marine science. They argue that OA is one such area, and conclude that there is, at best, weak evidence to support an OA-driven decline of calcifiers. Below, I raise some of the aspects of OA research to which I contend an insufficient level of organized scepticism has been applied (in some cases, also to the articles in this theme issue). I arrived at that conclusion after reading hundreds of articles on OA (including, to be fair, some that also raise these issues) and overseeing the peer-review process for the very large number of submissions to this themed issue. Importantly, and as Duarte et al. (2014) make clear, a retrospective application of scientific scepticism such as the one that follows could—and should—be applied to any piece of/body of research.
Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification research | ICES Journal of Marine Science | Oxford Academic
From an article in The Times:
An “inherent bias” in scientific journals in favour of more calamitous predictions has excluded research showing that marine creatures are not damaged by ocean acidification, which is caused by the sea absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
It has been dubbed the “evil twin of climate change” and hundreds of studies have claimed to show that it destroys coral reefs and other marine life by making it harder for them to develop shells or skeletons.
The review found that many studies had used flawed methods, subjecting marine creatures to sudden increases in carbon dioxide that would never be experienced in real life.
Dr Browman, who is also principal research scientist at the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research, found there had been huge increase in articles on ocean acidification in recent years, rising from five in 2005 to 600 last year.
He said that a handful of influential scientific journals and lobbying by international organisations had turned ocean acidification into a major issue.
“Such journals tend to publish doom and gloom stories . . . stated without equivocation,” he said. The bias in favour of doom-laden articles was partly the result of pressure on scientists to produce eye-catching work, he added.
“You won’t get a job unless you publish an article that is viewed as of significant importance to society. People often forget that scientists are people and have the same pressures on them and the same kind of human foibles. Some are driven by different things. They want to be prominent.”
Scientists‘ are exaggerating carbon threat to marine life | The Times
ENTER climate alarmist in chief – Peter Hannam – Environment Editor at The Sydney Morning Herald / The Age, with his latest doomsday report peppered with the same old regurgitated buzz lines designed to scare you into belief; “tipping points”, “pressure on governments globally to act”, “catastrophic destruction”, “mass bleaching”…
World’s coral reefs face new peril from beneath within decades
New research, published in the journal Science on Friday, has found the sediments on which many reefs are built are 10 times more sensitive to the acidifying oceans than the living corals themselves. Some reef bases are already dissolving.
“Coral reef sediments around the world will trend towards dissolving when seawater reaches a tipping point in acidity – which is likely to occur well before the end of the century,” he said.
Not loving it enough: coral reefs face multiple threats from climate change, including as it turns out, from below.
At risk will be coral reef ecosystems that support tourism, fisheries and the many other human activities, he said.
The ocean’s acidity has increased about 30 per cent since the start of the industrial revolution, as seas absorb about one-third of the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Notwithstanding the evidence owing to the inherent alarmism, exaggeration and journal bias of the OA scare, it might be useful for Hannam to consider this simple explanation of what goes on “beneath” the ocean surface…
Corals evolved during the Cambrian era with CO2 levels at 6,000-7,000 ppm, around 4,000% or 20 times higher than today’s “CO2-starved” environment of 400 ppm. Atmospheric and ocean temps were also far higher than today. Corals are made of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) – and could not exist without substantial amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
A sound explanation of the fallacy of ‘Ocean Acidification’ …
Thirdly, you raise the specter of what you bizarrely call ocean “acidification”.
The last time I looked, the oceans were pronouncedly alkaline, and even the mad IPCC says the acid-base balance has been altered by only 0.1 acid/base units in the direction of slightly reduced alkalinity. However, that estimate, like much else in the IPCC’s mad gospels, is entirely guesswork, because there is no sufficiently well-resolved global measurement program for ocean pH. However, elementary theoretical considerations would lead us to expect homoeostasis in the acid/base balance of the oceans because the buffering influence of the rock basins in which they live and move and have their being is overwhelmingly powerful. Acid/base neutrality is at a pH of 7.0. The oceans are at about 7.8-8.2 (no one knows, so that the IPCC’s alleged dealkalinization of 0.1 acid/base units is well within the measurement error, so that we cannot actually be sure that it has occurred at all; and, on the elementary ground I have described, it is unlikely to have done so). Besides, there is about 50 times as much CO2 already dissolved in the oceans than there is in the atmosphere, so that even if all of the CO2 in the atmosphere were to make its way into the oceans the pH would scarcely change even in the absence of the overwhelming buffering effect of the rocks. As for calcifying organisms, they are thriving. The calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis and came into being 550 million years ago (you are too young to remember) during the Cambrian era, when atmospheric CO2 concentration was 25 times what it is today. The more delicate aragonite corals came into being 175 million years ago, during the Jurassic, when CO2 concentration was still 15 times today’s. “Ah,” you may say, “but it is the suddenness of the abrupt increase in CO2 concentration that the fragile corals will not be able to endure.” However, consider the great floods of the Brisbane River (eight of them from 1840-1900 and three of them since). The rainwater that pours into the ocean and meets the Great Barrier Reef is pronouncedly acid, at a pH of 5.4. Yet the corals do not curl up and die. “Ah,” you may say, “but what about the effect of sudden warming on the puir wee corals?” Well, the Great el Nino of 1997/8 gives us the answer to that one. Sudden increases in ocean temperature cause the corals to bleach. There have been two previous Great el Ninos in the past 300 years, and the corals bleached on both those occasions too. It is a natural defense mechanism against natural change. The corals continue to thrive. My brother and his three sport-mad boys dive on the reef every year and, like many others from whom I have heard, find the corals thriving except where the Crown of Thorns infestation has damaged small parts of the reef. Oh, and the Great Barrier Reef Authority, which has been moaning about the effects of rising sea temperatures on the corals, publish a dataset that shows zero increase in sea temperature in the region of the reef throughout the entire period of record. Don’t hold your breath worrying about ocean “acidification”: it can’t happen, even if all the CO2 in the air goes into the ocean.
Must See Also : Ocean Acidification is a Misnomer | Hawaii Reporter
The Multiple Impacts of “Ocean Acidification” on a Tropical Coral
Takahashi, A. and Kurihara, H. 2013. Ocean acidification does not affect the physiology of the tropical coralAcropora digitifera during a 5-week experiment. Coral Reefs 32: 305-314.
The authors write that “according to the IPCC (2007) models, atmospheric CO2 is predicted to rise to 540-970 ppm by the end of this century and reach a maximum of approximately 1,900 ppm when the world’s fossil fuel reserves are fully exploited,” while noting that “a substantial number of laboratory studies have suggested a decline in coral calcification with a rise in seawater pCO2.” However, they say that recentstudies “have postulated that the sensitivity of corals to elevated levels of CO2 is potentially more diverse than previously considered,” citing the works of Fabricius et al. (2011), Pandolfi et al. (2011) and Rodolfo-Metalpa et al. (2011).
What was done
Intrigued by these new and diverse findings, Takahashi and Kurihara measured the rates of calcification, respiration and photosynthesis of the tropical coral Acropora digitifera – along with the coral’s zooxanthellae density – under near-natural summertime temperature and sunlight conditions for a period of five weeks.
What was learned
The two Japanese researchers found that these “key physiological parameters” were not affected by either predicted mid-range CO2 concentrations (pCO2 = 744 ppm, pH = 7.97, Ωarag = 2.6) or by high CO2concentrations (pCO2 = 2,142 ppm, pH = 7.56, Ωarag = 1.1) over the 35-day period of their experiment. In addition, they state that there was “no significant correlation between calcification rate and seawater aragonite saturation (Ωarag)” and “no evidence of CO2 impact on bleaching.”
What it means
Contrary to what many climate alarmists have long contended, there is mounting evidence that suggests that the negative consequences they predict for the world’s marine life in a future high-CO2 world are by no means assured, nor are they likely to be widespread. Keep Reading »
Source: CO2 Science
TOP footnote by Dellers
In the last decade or so, the climate change industry has become so vast and all encompassing, employing so many people, it simply cannot be allowed to fail.
According to a report last year by Climate Change Business Journal, it’s now worth an astonishing $1.5 trillion — about the same as the online shopping industry. If the scare goes away, then all bets are off, because the entire global decarbonisation business relies on it. The wind parks, the carbon sequestration projects, the solar farms, the biomass plantations — none of these green schemes make any kind of commercial sense unless you buy into the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is catastrophically warming the planet and that radical green measures, enforced by governmental regulation, must be adopted to avert it.
It’s no coincidence that the ocean acidification narrative began in the early 2000s — just as it was beginning to dawn on the climate alarmists that global temperatures weren’t going to plan. While CO2 levels were continuing to rise, temperatures weren’t. Hence the need for a fallback position — an environmental theory which would justify the massively expensive and disruptive ongoing decarbonisation programme so assiduously championed by politicians, scientists, green campaigners and anyone making money out of the renewables business. Ocean acidification fitted the bill perfectly.
Ocean acidification: yet another wobbly pillar of climate alarmism | The Spectator
Posted: February 23, 2018 Filed under: CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), Energiewende, Energy Poverty, Fact Check, Failed Green Schemes, Government Grants/Funding, Green Agenda, Green Energy, Renewables, Solar, Unreliables, Wind Farms | Tags: carbon dioxide emissions, Climate Change, CO2, CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), Energiewende, Energy Poverty, Fuel Poverty, Germany, Global Warming, Green Energy Failure, merkel, Plant Food, Renewable energy, renewables, Rent seekers, solar, Subsidies, Wind Farms, wind power
“Energiewende – CO2 emissions are rising, not falling as promised and predicted.
If “saving” the planet is – as we are repeatedly told – all about reducing man-made emissions of an odourless, colourless, naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on earth – then German energy/environmental policy has manifestly failed. And what an expensive failure it is.”
STOP THESE THINGS
Merkel plays Head Jester: but Germans aren’t laughing.
Germany has long been held up as the poster child for wind and solar power, but the picture is now more tragedy, than triumph.
In Germany, around €130 billion has already been burnt on renewable subsidies; currently the green energy levy costs power consumers €56 million every day. And, the level of subsidy for wind and solar sees Germans paying €20 billion a year for power that gets sold on the power exchange for around €2 billion.
Squandering €18 billion a year on power – which Germans have in abundance from meaningful sources – has them asking the fair and reasonable question: just how much power are they getting for the €billions that they’ve thrown – and continue to throw at wind and solar? The answer – at a piddling 3.3% – is: NOT MUCH.
For Germans, that would all be miserable…
View original post 869 more words
Posted: February 22, 2018 Filed under: Alarmism Debunked, Alarmism uncovered, Alarmist media, BoM, Bureau Of Meterology, Climate Fraud, Climatism, Data Tampering, Fact Check, Fake News, Global Temperature, Government Grants/Funding, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, NASA, NOAA, Propaganda, Pseudo-Science, Scientific Fraud | Tags: Activist Media, BoM, Bureau of Meteorology, Climate alarmism, Climate Change, Data Tampering, Earth Sciences, environment, Fake News, Global Temperature, Global Warming, Hottest Year Ever, nasa, nature, NOAA, propaganda, science, Scientific Fraud, Temperature Data Fraud
THE “Hottest Year Ever” meme is just one in a long line of marketing techniques used by Climate Crisis Inc. to make you believe the world is burning up.
HOW much of these claims are scientific, versus, pure-propaganda designed to heighten alarm on a publicly waning issue – catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)? A *theory* whose veracity is becoming increasingly questioned by contradictory science, real-world observations and growing public and media awareness of the disturbing trend of temperature data manipulation by our most ‘trusted’ scientific agencies.
THE brilliant Paul Driessen nails it in a foreword to an excellent post on WUWT by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris – “Overheated claims on temperature records“
Foreword by Paul Dreissen
Over and over, we are confronted with claims that last month or last year was “the warmest on record.” Each claim is accompanied by dire warnings that the alleged new records portend “unprecedented” chaos for wildlife, humans and planet.
Virtually never do these scary press releases mention:
- That the supposed change is mere hundredths of a degree higher than previous measurements.
- Never do they admit that the margin of error in these measurements is far greater than the supposed increase.
- Never do they suggest that a little more warmth would be infinitely better than a colder world, with less arable land and shorter growing seasons.
- And most certainly, never do they admit to the massive deficiencies in the system that supposedly tracks Earth’s temperature … and
- Always blames any increases on humans and fossil fuels.
This article by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris points out all these highly relevant but often (deliberately) ignored realities.
READ the excellent Ball / Harris article here…