Friday, May 31, 2019

Climate change for dummies.....

Is there a noticeable climatic event going on?........YES

Is it man made?........NOBODY KNOWS

Is the media over hyping and creating a climate of fear..........YES

Are politicians using exaggeration and fear to bolster their profile..........YES

Is climate change a hoax.............NO

Are we able to hold back or change climatic events............NOBODY KNOWS.

This from the Scottish Government research paper...

“Effects of a changing climate observed in Scotland's nature indicate some of the likely future effects. Warming has already caused earlier timing of spring events such as leaf unfolding, bird migration and egg laying. Where species adapt at different speeds this may impact on their populations. For example, caterpillars may emerge earlier than birds' eggs hatch, leading to a lack of food for some bird chicks. Shifts in ranges in plant and animal species have been recorded, particularly northwards, and there may be new species moving to Scotland, such as the comma butterfly. Movements may also occur up hillsides, and species already confined to high mountains in Scotland may be lost as conditions become unsuitable or other species replace them. In the seas, the ranges of some plankton and fish abundance are moving.

36 comments:

gravedodger said...

Sadly politicians and bureaucrats around the world having discovered a way to extract taxes, levies, surcharges and other newspeak methods of wealth theft with significant cooperation from sufficient numbers of ignorant peasants are on a roll.

In The Lucky Country next door, now ex Labor leader Shorten got carried away and overreached, declaring clean coal energy verboten and with energy prices some of the highest in the free world lost the election hardly any pundit, pollster or political junkie considered he could possibly lose.

With India, China, and other nations building at a greater rate of a new coal fuelled generation facility every week it required a special class of stupid to think Australia could remain affordable and successful by abandoning coal for everything beyond export to foreigners for exchange advantage.

Yes there is warming as has happened in times past, nature adapts, deserts grow, waterways go dry everything in nature changes, take away the taxes and the money suddenly available for tagged preordained outcomes in study and research and gorbull empires will go the way of dinosaurs.

The Veteran said...

Good post Egbut ... I liked the analogy I saw the other day re carbon emmissions ... if the total world's carbon emissions were represented by a two litre carton of milk then the NZL component of that would be half a drip ... and the gummit would have us believe we have to slaughter every fourth cow in the country in playing our part to save the planet.

Paddy Pearse said...

Gravedodger, were you born stoopid? Or were you dropped on your head as a child?

There is no such thing as "clean coal". It is a lie spread by a dying industry.

You seem to think that living next door to AU gives you some insight, well it doesn't. Coal has past its use by date for power generation there. Coal generators are being closed because their owners are finding them too hard and too expensive to maintain and repair. That's the market responding to market forces. No new coal generators are being built, however the energy generators are leaping into building renewables as fast as they can.

One of India's richest men has bought the Whyalla steel works and needs more electricity. He could have built a coal powered generator, but has chosen solar. Why? The free market in action, again.

Or you could look to the USA where The Pentagon is making plans to deal with the ill effects of climate change.

Anonymous said...

"if the total world's carbon emissions were represented by a two litre carton of milk then the NZL component of that would be half a drip ."

There's always an excuse to do nothing when doing something may induce personal discomfort.

To quote Dr. Alan Finkel, "Doing nothing is not a position that we can responsibly take because emissions reduction is a little bit like voting, in that if everyone took the attitude their vote did not count and no one voted we would not have a democracy".

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Anon

Your Dr Fink is the other half of the drip.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Woops

Sorry Legbut, I deleted a comment from your post by mistake. Apologies.

Anonymous said...

Because being a failed Insurance salesman trumps the scientists any day.

You're so fucking thick you can't even tell Egbut's posts from your own, so why should we take you seriously on Science?

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

A non speculative post and what does Dodger do ....speculate.

A situation has arisen that must be taken seriously and what does Dodger suggest.....burn more fucking coal.

A bit like Milts post on data I am finding that those in entrenched positions won't read
refuse to understand and certainly do not absorb or learn......like the dinosaurs they are destined for the scrap heap.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Just an update, specially for Dodger...

Britain has gone two weeks without using coal power for the first time since the industrial revolution, smashing its previous record of eight days set earlier this month.

The milestone, which will be reached at 3.12pm on Friday, marks the only coal-free fortnight since the world’s first coal-powered plant opened in London in 1882.

Early days my friends, early days.

RosscoWlg said...

Just a real world update Eggie... at what cost did they go coal less ?... if you want to look at the future look no further than Denmark and Germany, the most expensive power in Europe

The elites like you love this stuff, real people like Trump voters, and Franage voters etc carry the real burden of this nonsense

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

I give up...at what cost did they go coal less???

The Veteran said...

Anon 2.27 ... I am not advocating doing nothing. There are many things that can be done without slaughtering every fourth cow ... like removing the quite stupid ban on oil and gas exploration which could well see carbon emissions increase.

Anonymous said...

The Veteran - why would you want to remove the ban in oil and gas exploration when you have admitted that will increase carbon emissions? With that "logic", I would hope you never rose above the rank of Corporal.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Anon @ 10:01 AM

It's not a bad idea to learn to read before you attempt writing.

Anonymous said...

Adolf Fiinkensein, both you and The Veteran could use some education in punctuation.

I can glean Veteran's meaning, but only by assuming a comma where there isn't a comma. As written, it reads that he is making the argument removing the ban on oil exploration will be the cause of a rise in emissions.

If one intends to write, one must learn and apply the rules of writing.

And what sort of name is Adolf Fiinkensein anyway?

Psycho Milt said...

Anonymous: National claims that ending further oil and gas exploration will increase emissions. The Veteran wrote exactly what he meant, difficult though that might be to believe.

The Veteran said...

Thank you Milt for your support. The ban may well result in us having to use coal (even imported coal) to maintain the integrity of the power system while our (relatively) 'clean' oil may well be replaced by o'seas 'dirty' oil

The problem with the climate change Nazis is that they only deal in absolutes ... my way or the highway ... while the ban on oil and gas exploration was vitue signalling at its worst. No RIA, no cabinet discussion, just a feel good headline for St Jacinda to dine out on in an orgy of self-congratulation about how New Zealand is saving the planet.

And we won't even go down the path of discussing Sage's canning of the Waihi mine extension proposal and the potential impact on that town's economy

Tom Hunter said...

National claims that ending further oil and gas exploration will increase emissions....difficult though that might be to believe.

It may be counter-intuitive but is actually quite straight-forward. By refusing to use national gas and coal resources NZ will have to import them, resulting in higher emissions because we'll have to rely on foreign extraction and transport. The former could be as a result of any number of factors, from using older equipment and technology to different regulations. Hence the report to that fact from the government's own officials.

Now of course if the Green Uptopia is achieved in NZ and we burn no coal, oil or gas, then the ban on exploration, leading eventually to no extraction, will mean reduced or zero GHG emissions. But as can be seen with the Huntly power station stocking up on foreign coal, dumping these fuels is no easy task, and will actually be exacerbated by pushing hard for solar and wind power, because the intermittent nature of those sources means they have to have backup ready to go at a moments notice.

That's the primary reason why German GHG emission reductions have stalled out in recent years despite spending hundreds of millions of Euros on their Energiewende renewables effort. As they've abandoned nuclear power, which is an excellent backup for solar/wind, they've had to rely more on fossil-fuel burning stations. And since gas is limited in Germany they've actually had to go backwards in using more coal - and in their case it's lignite, about the dirtiest coal there is for CO2 emissions. The new Russian gas pipeline will alleviate that eventually.

Unfortunately we don't have the luxury of such a pipeline from Aussie or anywhere, so it could well be that at some point we'll be dredging our harbours to allow giant LPG tankers to come in to feed Huntly and numerous other fossil-fuel burners (NZ has hundreds of such boilers in factories, hospitals, you name it).

Oh I hear fanciful stuff about our hydro system, which already supplies something like 70% of our electricity, being the backup, but that ignores its own long-standing and long-known history of hydrological issues, i.e. the low lake problems in the early 1990's, which will happen again.

To put it bluntly, despite occasional excited talk of closing Huntly, it's not going to happen any time soon, let alone all those other, smaller boilers. Which means that we will be importing coal, oil and gas in increasing quantities.

paul scott said...

I see Egg thinks that Egg it is possible that climate change is man made, confirming he is progressively stupid.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Sheer fanciful speculation and no links....I am not going to indulge you in a sparring match until you can tell me why you think coal Gas and oil are the only way to go in spite of renewable technology advancing everyday.

Just an Update on the German situation.....

On 26 January 2019, a group of federal and state leaders as well as industry representatives, environmentalists, and scientists made an agreement to close all 84 coal plants in the country by 2038. The move is projected to cost €40 billion in compensation alone to closed businesses. Coal was used to generate almost 40% of the country's electricity in 2018 and is expected to be replaced by renewable energy. 24 coal plants are planned to be closed by 2022 with all but 8 closed by 2030. The final date is expected to be assessed every 3 years.


Oh and you are just making up the 1990 NZ power shortage......never happened.

Think I might write a post on the subject.

Tom Hunter said...

Sheer fanciful speculation and no links...
From the man who provided no links in his original post nor in any of his comments. Chutzpah. I like it. Or don't you know how to put links in? Just a copy and paste man?

Anyway, I think I'll save my links for my own article on the sad subject of renewables. If you don't understand the concept of backup then there's not much point "sparring" with you.

Oh and you are just making up the 1990 NZ power shortage......never happened.
One of your most charmless features, among many, is this capacity to pull assertions out of your bum and treat them with ironclad certainty. The Guardian, 2008

The last time there was a serious power shortage in New Zealand was in 1992 when businesses were forced to use liquid petroleum gas and diesel. Street lighting was rationed and households endured hot water restrictions.

RosscoWlg said...

You are right Tom.. understanding the concept of backup, understanding the concept of cost/ benefit, understanding the concept of "frequency" that power is generated at and its ramifications for the network.

The concept that America has the cheapest power in the world and Germany the most expensive and the long term ramifications of that concept.

I guess the concept of a resurgent nationalism will come to Germany in due course after the "ordinary" folks realise they have been srewed by the Globalists

Mind you the powers that be have given Eggie the authority to write his own blog here so I guess we'll never die of boredom.

Paddy Pearse said...

The concept that America has the cheapest power in the world and Germany the most expensive and the long term ramifications of that concept.

Checks power bill ......

Checks facts ........

Conclusion - Rossco is full of ideological shit.

South Korea, Canada, Indonesia, South Africa, India, China, Argentina - ALL have lower prices than the US.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/

Then, there is this beauty from the technologically inept.

understanding the concept of "frequency" that power is generated at and its ramifications for the network.

That is a "problem" caused by using a 19C grid to cope with 21C generation. It is fixable, it just requires investment. It's a bit like trying to drive a Ferrari on the solid rubber tyres of a Model T. BTW, why the need for scare quotes around frequency? It's just a commonly used word. Or is frequency insufficient for Mrs Rossco? :-)



RosscoWlg said...

My bad, apologies all around, slack use of the translated English, meant to say the mighty USA has the cheapest source of energy in the world as because you will know she is now the biggest exporter of energy in the world.

Paddy talk to me about cost benefit.......

Love your joke, using a 19C grid to cope with 21C generation...hahha where on earth did you get that piece of fiction

Psycho Milt said...

It may be counter-intuitive but is actually quite straight-forward. By refusing to use national gas and coal resources NZ will have to import them, resulting in higher emissions because we'll have to rely on foreign extraction and transport.

I suppose for National it is that straightforward. If you reject the scientific consensus on AGW and therefore assume fossil fuel use continuing as "normal," obviously this ban means we'll have to import all that fossil fuel instead and is a terrible idea. The current government doesn't reject AGW, therefore the ban is a no-brainer and the next item is on the list is reducing fossil fuel usage. Depends what you want from your government, I guess.

Tom Hunter said...

The current government doesn't reject AGW
Given that such decisions will be counterproductive - in that they likely will not reduce global GHG emissions and possibly even increase them, it looks like they do.

the next item is on the list is reducing fossil fuel usage
Which the Oil & Gas policy will have no effect on. It's like trying to reduce the use of alcohol, tobacco and recreational drugs by banning them.

Twenty years ago, people in the USA wanted to "ban coal" - but refused to see that burning natural gas was a way to do that. That too was an evil fossil fuel that also produced CO2, just less of it. And if one had suggested that greatly reducing the price of natural gas would aid the switch and thus reduce CO2 emissions? Well that would have been laughed out of the room by environmentalists.

The perfect is the enemy of th good and clearly you want the former, which is impossible. Normally I'd wish you the best of luck but unfortunately I also have to live with this stupidity.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Chunter....you said 1990 so strangely enough I looked up the records for 1990..

What a fool I am, I should have added ten and deducted one and come up with ...drum roll....2008.....2008 would not have happened if they had the back up of renewables as today.

The US that you are fond of quoting is lagging behind the rest of the world because all generating is privately owned with shareholders unlike NZ, France, UK where the govt can make far reaching decisions without referring to the courts every 5 minutes.

Things will change there as well... https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/smart-energy-solutions/increase-renewables/renewable-energy-80-percent-us-electricity.html

Tom Hunter said...

@Eggburt
What you think I said because apparently you can't read:

Chunter....you said 1990 so strangely enough I looked up the records for 1990..

What I actually said that apparently you can't read, even on a second go:

i.e. the low lake problems in the early 1990's, which will happen again.


The US that you are fond of quoting is lagging behind the rest of the world because all generating is privately owned....

The USA actually has the best GHG reduction record of any major industrial power on the planet over the last twenty years. They're actually well on the way to beat their Kyoto Treaty targets, virtually the only nation to do so, despite all the screaming in the 1990's when Clinton refused to put it to a Senate vote and even more in 2001 when Bush faced that reality and dumped it altogether. Back then every Greenie was sure the USA could never meet those targets without the wonderful international rules of the Kyoto Treaty and all the lovely regulations that would flow from them.

Idiots.

You can thank for that the process of fracking developed in the USA, which has
- led to the discovery and recovery of vast new quantities of naural gas,
- which in turn dropped its price massively for decades to come ,
- which in turn led utility companies to switch away from coal,
- which in turn dropped GHG emissions.

And all of that happened despite the government, not because of it, and precisely because of the reason you yelp about the USA "lagging" - the private sector that controls almost of all this from go-to-woe.

It's a track record that many nations, including in Europe, envy and have begun asking why they've not made similar achievements. Apprently you nothing of these many articles and discussions in Europe of all places. And the USA would be even further ahead on GHG reduction if all the dickhead US Greenies in the 1970's had not put a stop to so many nuclear power plants.

So there is that for legal problems, which the French government at least could avoid with their massive, centralised State power. Good on them for their determination to go nuclear in the 1970's to end their dependence on fossil fuels. But as well as they have done on GHG's you can't compare them to the USA because most of what France achieved was done before the rise of the Climate Change crisis in the 1990's and was not driven by it. Merely a happy accident.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Aah ..so at last you admit there is a climate change crisis....well done Chunter, we'll make a solar man of you yet.

The USA is 52 countries, each with it's own laws and generalising never works. Talk to me about California or Wisconsin re power generation and I will listen. They may be fracking in one state but unable or unwilling to move gas to others...

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=787&t=2

It's bit like the tank argument.....Russia has 20,000 tanks but it doesn't have 20,000 low loaders....a tank in the wrong place is worse than no tank at all.

Just to sum up......you think that the UK having run for two weeks without burning coal is a bad thing while I think the opposite.... lets leave it at that.

Roj Blake said...

Ignorance Hunter is proud to swallow US propaganda whole.

The USA actually has the best GHG reduction record of any major industrial power on the planet over the last twenty years. They're actually well on the way to beat their Kyoto Treaty targets, virtually the only nation to do so,

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics are Ignorance Hunter's stock in trade.

The largest consumer of oil, and therefore the largest emitter of CO2 is the US Military and the US government excludes its military from calculations under the Accords. A bit like going on a weight loss diet, but excluding pizza and ice cream from the restricted foods.

According to Department of Defense figures, the U.S. army emitted more than 70m tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year in 2014. But the figure omits facilities including hundreds of military bases overseas, as well as equipment and vehicles.

Cue Ignorance Hunter's messenger shooting ...

Tom Hunter said...

the U.S. army emitted more than 70m tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year in 2014. But the figure omits facilities including hundreds of military bases overseas, as well as equipment and vehicles.

I included "Roj Blake's" orginal bolding so as to maintain the emphasis on how super-important it is that the evil US Imperialist Military not be allowed to get away with this dreadful undercounting of CO2 emissions.

So let's see..... US 2017 output: 5,107 Megatonnes CO2 emissions.

So.... 70 divided by 5,107 is...

1.37%.

Chuckle.

Maybe if the US military had hundreds of thousands of bases scattered around the world - or even millions, the extra "uncounted" military CO2 might amount to a meaningful propoortion of total US figures.

Idiot.

Roj Blake said...

Ah Tommy, Tommy, Tommy.

I'll try to make it a little easier for you to follow.

the U.S. army emitted more than 70m tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year in 2014. Not the US military as a whole, but just The Army

I reckon the US Navy would top that. And so would the US Air Force.

A 747 burns about the same amount of fuel going New York to London as an F-22 burns in an hour flying around at an air show.

An Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (USS John Mccain, for example) burns through at least 2000 gallons/hour just cruising, more when moving fast. How much more will they burn hiding it from Trump?

Tom Hunter said...

Ah Rojy, Rojy, Rojy....

You can't even come close to figuring the numbers: "I reckon" doesn't cut it.

Get back to me when you've shown you know how to add.

Tom Hunter said...

BTW - and I don't know why I'm telling you how to do this - just check up on the Pentagon's detailed budget figures for the amount of fuel they have to pay for across tanks, ships and planes. That covers what gets burnt irrespective of location.

I don't know that exact figures, but It probably amounts to between 50-100 million barrels of oil equivalent per year.

There are standard calcs out there for the weight of CO2 emissions from each barrel of oil, but you can look that up. I'm not going to do everything for you.

RosscoWlg said...

And the cost Eggie's little wet dream.... decarboning the UK economy?

300,000,000,000 Pounds

Fascinating read here, perhaps Tom could summarize it for us... I don't have the energy... no pun intended.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/12/CCACost-Dec16.pdf

There is a forward to it by a real Lord, not a fake Globalist elitist Lord. As usual the costs will fall on the peasants... but perhaps they awaken m'lord

Suggest Eggie (and a few of you others who are number and economically challenged) wait for the summary from Tom, as its way past your pay grade in terms of education.

Cheers

Wiggo