Everyone of sound mind (this obviously excluded the extremist Greenies) knows that the Global Warming HOAX was dreamt up in the Club of Rome many years ago as a GIGANTIC FRAUD to steal money from the richer nations and give to the poorer nations.

But mentally deficient Greenies still to this day cannot grasp this and continue to dribble and blabber uncontrollably about it.

Wonder where the trolls are ? Hope they don't pollute this thread with their unclean uneducated attention seeking piffle.




CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCES PRODUCE YET MORE HOT AIR
VIV FORBES Thu 21 Jun 2018 03:46:49 pm 2093 COMMENTS



I live in SE Queensland. Yesterday the surface air temperature rose from a frosty 2ºC at sunrise to a balmy 22ºC in mid-afternoon. The enormous heat needed to achieve this 20ºC of warming came via radiation from the sun. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plays no significant part in this daily heating event – in fact it may intercept a tiny proportion of the incoming solar radiation and re-radiate it in all directions, thus keeping the daytime surface temperature a tiny bit cooler than it would have been otherwise.

At the deep Mount Isa Mine in NW Queensland, the surface temperature may average about 25ºC but it increases by about 1ºC every 50 metres of depth – rock walls are red hot in places. The enormous heat causing this comes via conduction from Earth’s geothermal heat plus some oxidation and heating of the sulphide ores as they come in contact with natural air containing oxygen. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plays no part in this heating.

There are volcanic windows open right now in Hawaii, Japan and the Galapagos revealing the vast resources of volcanic geothermal heat which is always migrating towards the cooler surface, sometimes violently.



Temperatures vary greatly over Earth’s surface, making a mockery of attempts to calculate an “average” for the globe. Air surface temperature may be minus 30ºC at the South Pole, while at the same time it can be plus 30ºC at the Equator. This enormous difference is caused by the varying intensity of solar radiation striking the surface - carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plays no significant part in creating this variance.

Surface air temperatures in big cities can be 5-10ºC hotter than surrounding rural land partly because bitumen roads, roofs and runways heat up more than grassy or forested countryside. Mega-cities are also full of heat-producing humans, engines, trains, vehicles, air conditioners, heaters, stoves, fridges, pumps and mowers.



Urban heat also comes from the warm bodies and hot exhalations from millions of humans digesting carbon-based foods, from stored chemical energy from burning hydro-carbons (wood, lignite, coal, oil and gas) or from nuclear power. Using green energy also adds to urban heat. Wind towers and solar farms extract energy from wind and sun in the country-side and release it where most of the electricity is used, usually in cities and suburbs. Aging black rooftop solar panels convert much of the solar radiation into heat not electricity, thus adding to urban heat. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plays no measurable part in producing these islands of urban heat.

Longer term, the Medieval Warm Era and the Little Ice Age were natural occurrences almost certainly triggered by solar cycles which activated submarine volcanic activity along Earth’s extensive mid-ocean trenches/ridges. Human production of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere played zero part in these natural global warming and cooling episodes.

CO₂ in the atmosphere varies annually with the seasons reaching a maximum in the South Hemisphere summer for two perfectly natural reasons.

First, the huge southern oceans expel carbon dioxide as the surface water warms with the return of the summer (like an opened bottle of soda water in the sun).

At the same time it is turning to winter in the large northern hemisphere landmass where deciduous trees and forests are dropping their leaves, and crop residue is accumulating on cultivated lands. As this dead plant material decomposes it recycles its CO2 to the atmosphere. And as winter grips these densely populated lands, humans are also burning wood, peat, cow dung, coal, oil and gas to keep warm, releasing even more CO2.

Then as the sun-driven seasons change, the southern oceans cool again and much of this carbon dioxide returns to the sea from whence it came. And the northern farms and forests grow faster in their summer, absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide and solar energy to produce food and lumber.

This annual fluctuation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a result, not a cause, of the seasonal temperature changes.

What happens in the seasonal weather cycle also occurs as a result of longer climate cycles of cooling and warming. The ice core records show that the changes in global temperatures precede by about 800 years any changes to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is probably a result of large slow overturning in the oceans as global temperatures change in response to cycles of solar energy and earth volcanism.

This ridiculing of the dumb Greenies continues overleaf

A sweet COMMENT from a very well informed and educated bloke - obviously NOT an extremist Greeny imbecile!!!


NO Global Warming for 22 years now - how embarrassing for the looney Greenies.



paisley Sun 24 Jun 2018 06:16:03 am

This piece on CO₂ should be the Greenies bible. Why do you think they hate CO₂ so much when it is the life blood of plants?. They really are mixed up creatures.

I love carbon dioxide and you should too.

What’s got lost in the global warming trash/debate, and that is all it is, is the massive benefit such a thing would bring to earth.

There would be significant benefit to nature as well as humans but try and tell people that and you become a green heretic, inane simpleton or old white male or some such nasty.

Gregory Wrightstone spells out a more scientific view of one part of the CO₂ debate.
The demonization of the “miracle molecule,” carbon dioxide, continued last week with the announcement that its concentration had reached 410 parts per million (ppm).

Nearly all reporting of this noted that this was the highest level in 800,000 years and predicted a host of associated climate calamities.

While the current concentration of this vital gas is about 40% higher than at the start of the Industrial Revolution, unreported is that Earth has been suffering from steadily decreasing and perilously low concentrations of CO₂.

Until the consumption of fossil fuels began liberating this important gas from ancient rocks , the Earth had been flirting with dangerously low levels not seen for more than 600 million years.

During nearly all of Earth’s history, carbon dioxide concentration was at many multiples of our current level, averaging 2,600 ppm, or 6.5 times our current measurement.

Forerunners of most of the plants we rely on for sustenance first appeared around 150 million years ago when CO₂ levels were more than 2,000 ppm. Since that time CO₂ has fallen steadily and precipitously.

In fact, at the end of the last ice age, carbon dioxide reached the dangerously low level of 182 ppm, thought to be the lowest since the Pre-Cambrian time period more than 600 million years ago.

Why is it dangerous? Because 150 ppm is the lowest level at which plant life can survive. We came within a whisker of breaching that “line of death.” Until we began adding CO₂ to the atmosphere, there was no guarantee that this horrific threshold would not be crossed in the future.

Rather than spreading fear of increasing carbon dioxide, we should be thankful that both the Earth and humanity are thriving, in part due to more CO₂.



The benefits of increasing CO₂ don’t stop with accelerating plant growth and increasing soil moisture. The biological impacts section of the 2014 white paper Climate change reconsidered II provided quite a lengthy list of additional benefits in addition to those mentioned above. The main points are listed below:

More CO₂ makes plants grow faster and with less stress.

Forests are growing faster in response to increasing CO₂.

More CO₂ stimulates growth of beneficial bacteria in both soil and water.

CO₂ fertilization, leading to more plant growth, means less erosion of topsoil.

More CO₂ means bigger crop yields, and more and bigger flowers.

More CO₂ fosters glomalin, a beneficial protein created by root fungi.

More CO₂ helps plants to create natural repellants to fight insect predators.

Although I do not pretend to speak for the planet’s flora, I am quite certain that, if plants had a say in the matter, they would not lobby for reductions in CO₂ levels. For plants, CO₂ is food. They need more of it, not less.

Sir Bobby,

I had been uncovering the myth of the Tesla Hoax which is seen by the Greeny types as an answer to the Global Warming Hoax and so it followed naturally to plonk this ridicule of the Global Warming HOAX here.

I will try to swing it more technical.

Another post on Elon and the New World Order?

Sir lastnail wrote on Jun 26^th, 2018 at 8:05pm:



Nope. You are confused The UN is supposedly the home of NWO. Its satellite is UNFCC which is trying, oh so hard, to kill of fossil fuels.

That is the aim of Musk; isn't it?

Or it could possibly be the Sierra Club, also trying to kill off fossil fuels, to "save the planet", of course.

Don't you just love a good conspiracy theory?

juliar wrote on Jun 25^th, 2018 at 3:45am:


Off topic.

A bit of OFF TOPIC SPAM by Auggie who doesn't know that IT IS ILLEGAL to MISQUOTE ANOTHER POSTER. Have to correct this shameful misdemeanor.

In any case it is childishly absurd to say it is OFF TOPIC.  Another troll ?


Auggie wrote on Jun 27^th, 2018 at 7:53pm:




Now, having corrected the naughty off topic spammer, how about some news on CO₂ the real good stuff ?


Viv Forbes with a terrific piece on political leaders who promise to control the climate
Tuesday, 09 January 2018

Be Careful What you Wish For.

In today’s crazy world, western politicians are wasting billions of tax-payer dollars force-feeding costly unreliable green energy in the bizarre belief that this will somehow change Earth’s climate.

Even more incredible, they fear global warmth and seem hell-bent on creating global cooling. They should study climate history. It is snow and ice, cold dry air and carbon dioxide starvation we need to fear, not a warm, moist, fertile, bountiful atmosphere.

Climate change is natural and unstoppable.

Just 20,000 years ago, Earth was in one of its recurring glacial phases.

A thick massive ice sheet smothered Canada, Alaska, Iceland, Greenland, North Asia and Europe as far south as London.

Much of the animal and plant life of the previous warm era was extinguished.

Even in warmer lands not covered by the ice sheet, plants suffered as the cold oceans removed moisture and carbon dioxide plant food from the atmosphere.

Then, because of changing cycles in Earth’s orbit and tilt, reinforced by changing solar cycles, the sun warmed the frozen lands.

The great ice sheets melted, sea levels rose and the warming oceans expelled moisture and CO2 plant food into the atmosphere.

Plant life recovered.

Tundra, forests, grasslands and herbivores advanced towards the pole and fish became abundant in the shallow seas that flooded coastal plains.

Hunters, herders, farmers and fishermen followed the food.

Human population increased greatly. They gave thanks for the warmth, and worshipped the sun.

But the peak of the modern warm era is past, and the natural cycles controlling global temperatures are pointing downwards towards another ICE AGE!!!!

Only an idiot with a death wish for life on Earth would attempt to accelerate our inevitable descent into the next ice age.

Luckily, their costly war on warmth is totally futile, but their war on carbon energy will prove tragically misguided in the cold times ahead.

Viv Forbes
vforbes@bigpond.com
Washpool   Qld Australia



And Gillard was paying Mr Flannery to say it would never rain for 40 years

Like a chastised naughty child Auggie reoffends with a bit more OFF TOPIC SPAM even tho he/she now know that IT IS ILLEGAL to MISQUOTE ANOTHER POSTER. Have to correct this shameful misdemeanor.

Definitely another troll who is trying to deliberately disrupt things just to try to get attention- so childishly trollish.

Auggie wrote on Jun 28^th, 2018 at 6:44pm:

juliar wrote on Jun 29^th, 2018 at 9:00am:


I only troll you, Juliar.

Off topic.

I would have thought someone like Juliar, wouldn't wish to mention intelligence, especially not alongside AGW, as his IQ is usually described as lower than room temperature. I'm assuming they mean AIR CONDITIONED ROOM temperature.
The only thing lower than his IQ is his sense of decency.

So he is a conspirinut, well everyone knows how smart you have to be to be one of those.

juliar wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2018 at 6:19pm:


Off topic.

juliar wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2018 at 7:30pm:

juliar wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2018 at 7:50pm:

Premier's electric car still using coal
22nd Nov 2015 8:00 AM



THE Premier of Queensland has agreed to subsidise eight expensive new toys - electric cars.

Greens are hailing this as the spear-point of their green energy revolution.

But the Premier's green cars will run on coal.

Electric cars need large batteries, which have to be recharged.

Maybe the Premier has a large subsidised solar panel on the roof of her garage, so that when she comes home, she can recharge the big battery?

But the sun does not shine at night, so the car will still rely on electricity from coal.

She could of course get taxpayers to buy an expensive battery for the garage which gets charged when the sun shines and then re-charges the green car at night - all very expensive to install and replace.

And during and after every cloudy spell, it would still need to run on coal.

Electric cars can reduce pollution in cities.

The Premier should promote Queensland industry by highlighting the fact that her new toys are not only clean and quiet, but also run on nature's best solar energy battery - ancient sunshine stored in good Queensland coal.

Germany's unpleasant coming face to face with reality of no sun and no wind is a stern warning to Australia before it too falls into the same Greeny trap.




Germany’s “green energy’ dream is falling apart
November 22, 2017      by Michael Bastasch,      1 Comment


Frau Merkel sieht nicht so gut aus.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s attempt to form a new government failed on Monday, marking the first time in decades that majority political parties have been unable to form a governing coalition.

If no coalition forms, Germany may be forced to hold new elections. But one casualty of Germany’s ongoing political crisis could be the country’s costly plan to promote green energy and fight global warming.

“Germany’s utopian dream of transforming itself into the world’s green powerhouse is collapsing as its political and media establishment is mugged by reality,” Benny Peiser, director of the UK-based Global Warming Policy Forum, wrote in a blog post.

“The country’s climate obsession has turned into one of the country’s biggest political and economic handicaps, making Germany almost ungovernable,” Peiser wrote.

Indeed, environmental issues were a major point of contention among parties Merkel and her Christian Democratic Party wanted to partner with.

“The ecologists wanting to phase out dirty coal and combustion-engine cars, while the conservatives and FDP emphasised the need to protect industry and jobs,” News24 reported.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama often praised Germany’s green energy policy, calling it a model for the world to follow, but recent political upheaval may have planted the seeds of Germany’s reversal on climate policy.

Greens wanted to shut down 10 to 20 of Germany’s 180 coal-fired power plants that still provide 40 percent of the country’s electricity. Conservatives opposed this, fearing massive economic and social upheaval.

Further attacks on coal power could boost the popularity of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), Peiser noted.

“Its skeptical stance on climate and green energy issues has sent shock-waves through Germany’s political establishment who fear they can no longer afford to appease the Greens without losing further support among their traditional voter base,” Peiser wrote.

“Without the development of new pragmatic policies and a forceful defence of a cheap energy strategy in face of a rapidly fading (and ageing) green movement, Germany is unlikely to free itself from the green shackles that are hindering technological and economic progress, never mind political stability,” Peiser added.

Germany’s environmental goals, or “Energiewende,” have come under scrutiny in recent months due to a government report from September claiming the country was not on track to meet its 2020 emissions targets.

“Energiewende” is Germany’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and replace coal and natural gas with green energy, mostly from solar and wind. Germany’s goal is to reduce emissions at least 80 percent  and draw 60 percent of its electricity from green energy, both by 2050.

Merkel promised to “find ways to get to the 2020 climate target,” including the continued shut down of coal-fired power plants. But conservative German lawmakers have opposed more punitive environmental measures.

Taxes and fees used to subsidize wind and solar power have caused German electric and heating bills to spike — all while emissions stay relatively flat.

Electric rates are about three times higher than what Americans pay, prompting the German media to label electricity a “luxury good.” Germans often refer to heating bills as the “second rent.”

Merkel was pressed by reporters and environmentalists about the fate of Germany’s coal fleet at the U.N. climate summit in Bonn, which ended Friday.

Merkel refused to give a deadline for when Germany’s coal plants would be phased out, but she did say the coal phaseout would be discussed in coalition talks. Now, all of it is in limbo.

http://www.cfact.org/2017/11/22/30940/

Where are the protesters in Hawaii? Kilauea is spewing mega tonnes of sulfuric gas and ash that will blow over to North America, affecting the health of millions in California. Then there is the lava flowing out of the earth and burning everything in its path. Has anyone calculated the carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere from those fires? Hawaii has just blown away all the CARB and EPA schemes to regulate human emissions.

CO2 Production:
Natural causes: 86%
Man-caused: 14%

Current level: 400 ppm
Projected CO2 level in 2067: 500 ppm
Projected Change thru 2067 = 100 ppm

Nature's share of increase: 86 ppm
Man's share of increase: 14 ppm

So let's say the world (primarily the U.S.) spends $17 trillion, cuts carbon emissions by 5%
Reduction in man's footprint: 14 ppm X 5% = .9 ppm (point 9 ppm)

New projection for CO2 in 2067: 499 ppm

Atmospheric carbon reduction after $17 trillion: 1 ppm

It has been as high as 7000ppm
200ppm is a death sentence for plant life, so we are actually at a dangerously low point.




Climate Lessons from King Canute
By Viv Forbes May 7, 2018

Climate Aristocrats and Bureaucrats from 190 nations are meeting in Bonn, dreaming up rules “to prevent the globe from warming more than 2°C”.

They have forgotten the lesson of mighty King Canute - he demonstrated that not even his great power could control nature by rolling back the tide.



Changing Climate is the natural state on Earth.

J

None of the warm eras were caused by man’s use of coal, gas, or petroleum or by bovine emissions.

And none of the cold eras were triggered by mandating more windmills, taxing open fires or following emission targets set in Bonn, Brussels, Rio or Rome.

This is their 48th futile talk-fest.

It’s time the Climate Aristocrats admitted they cannot predict or control climate, they have harmed consumers (especially the world’s poorest people), and they are achieving nothing useful for the environment.

They should mount their zero-emission bicycles and go home immediately.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/climate_lessons_from_king_canute_.h...


Further Reading:

The Bonn Climate Change Conference - April 2018:
https://unfccc.int/process/conferences/bonn-climate-change-conference-april-2018...

Nothing New about Climate Change:
https://carbon-sense.com/2013/11/30/nothing-new-about-climate-change/

How Environmentalism has Hurt the poor:
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/05/Paunio-EnergyLadder.pdf https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/05/kicking-away-the-energy-ladder-how-enviro...

Australia Feeds the Parisites:
https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/05/the-parisites/

Julian hates the copper internet legacy and now the nursing home awaits 

juliar wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2018 at 5:54pm:


Off topic.

CO₂ gets an A+.




Stick a fork in it, it’s done!
AMM  04/07/2018



Looks like Time will have to dust off their old 1977 prediction – one of the world’s most respected climate scientists, Dr Fred Singer, has published an article admitting what top scientists have privately been conceding – CO2 Acts to cool the atmosphere, not heat it.

With Does the Greenhouse Gas CO2 cool the climate‘ Prof Singer, emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia grudgingly admits this and adds, “Much further work awaits!”

This comes on the heels of the fact that ever more peer-reviewed papers are abandoning the so-called greenhouse gas theory, 17 such papers have been published in recent months.
Singer’s latest admission is a big boost to the findings of 1,300+ independent scientists and researchers (The ‘Slayers’) at Principia Scientific International (PSI). Since publication of their ground-breaking book in 2010 the ‘Slayers’ have insisted that empirical scientific evidence, proves CO2 cools the climate.

As such, the trace atmospheric gas therefore cannot be blamed for global warming or act as earth’s climate’s control knob.

Singer’s latest admission proves there is a growing, undeniable, intellectual schism among the world’s leading climate experts. Singer reveals his change of thinking has come after private discussions with the brightest and best, including Professor William Happer. Happer called climate science “a glassy-eyed cult.”

The greenhouse gas theory predicts that more CO2 in the air causes higher temperatures by “trapping” heat and/or delaying cooling. Even NASA had bought into the non-science nonsense that CO2 was guilty and earth’s atmosphere acts like a greenhouse. This theory was well refuted in ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’

In the 8 years since publication, this important book is being vindicated by the real world evidence, so something has clearly gone awry with the theory. Even to non-scientists, it is very clear that ever-rising levels of atmospheric CO2 are out of step with global temperatures, which have remained stubbornly flat for a generation.

Prof Singer writes of the “puzzling ineffectiveness of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in warming the climate”.

Implying that government climate science has been on the wrong track since the 1980’s Singer observes:

“Such is the power of group-think that even experts, with some exception, find the idea that CO2 might cool the climate difficult to accept.“

That “some exception” is Principia Scientific International (PSI). PSI has been forthright in challenging both alarmists and lukewarmists to openly and publicly debate the theory, but there have been no takers.

In 2015 the ‘Slayers’ drew ire from Singer after senior PSI scientist, Joseph E Postma published ‘Dr Fred Singer’s Position Consistent with No Radiative Greenhouse Gas Effect.’

Postma, a young Canadian space scientist, had the temerity to claim Singer stood apart from other lukewarmers and was “converging on the truth” after Singer published an article where he conceded climate sensitivity to CO2 was “close to 0.” At the time Singer confessed:

“I should note that I am somewhat out of step here with my fellow skeptics. Few of them would agree with me that the climate sensitivity is indeed close to 0. I will have to publish the analyses to prove my point and try to convince them. Of course, nothing, no set of facts, will ever convince the confirmed climate alarmists.”

Fellow PSI scientist, Dr Pierre R Latour spoke of discussions he had with Singer, both in person and in emails. At the time Singer conceded there were problems when assessing molecular transition and lapse rate. Latour wrote:

“I met Singer at his University of Houston lecture hosted by Prof Larry Bell on February 6, 2012 and his several talks at the latest Heartland Institute ICCC, Las Vegas, July 7-9, 2014….Singer correctly notes there are several different temperatures involved; a source of confusion I discovered years ago. The Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory (GHE) literature is intellectually incoherent, a mess. He is correct to point out atmospheric global warming ceased since 1997 until now, 2014. The globe warms about half the time, 4.6 billion/2 = 2.3 billn years. It cools half the time also.

Singer now thinks it is possible that CO2 could be the one ‘greenhouse gas’ that “produces cooling of the climate when its molecular transitions are in a region of positive lapse rate.”

Prof Singer points to persuasive new scientific findings now triggering a reassessment of CO2’s role in climate. Singer clarified further:

“Another example is temperature over the winter poles. While the climate cooling is not obvious, it counters warming.”

While Singer, Happer et al. play catch up elsewhere climate realism has taken hold already. Even in Japan, scientists are pointing out the hidden fatal errors James Hansen et al. rely on and another paper in 2018 shows how our planet’s temperature is easily explained without reliance on any greenhouse emissions.

Recently, Russian scientists have declared the ‘greenhouse gas’ science is dead as global cooling sets in.

http://morningmail.org/blow-blow-global-warming/#more-85237

The Greeny drongos are full of nonsense because they are too dumb and impractical to even begin to try to understand real technical stuff. Just look at the sad tragic local examples here. Thick as bricks.

For tech stuff you need qualified experienced engineers. Not self appointed Greeny drongoes.



Green power fantasies
Mark Lawson 27 May 2017 9:00 AM



The utopia of consumers trading power thanks to green networks and photovoltaics is pleasant to imagine but completely unrealistic.

The cool phrases among the proponents of green electricity are ‘distributed networks’ and ‘micro networks’ which, we are told, will eventually supplant the traditional networks of large conventional generators supplying whole regions.

Along the way, or so the fantasy goes, the networks will become 100 per cent renewable without reliability being compromised and consumers will pay less.

This fantasy world is discussed by academics who contribute to the academic site the Conversation, and set out in detail in an April report produced jointly by the CSIRO and a company called Energy Networks Australia, entitled Electricity Network Transformation Roadmap.

This report points to a utopia of consumers generating their own electricity through rooftop panels backed by household batteries, for sale back to the network through smart meters. With the right policies this new cottage industry could account for an astonishing 45 per cent of energy generated by 2050, as opposed to the existing share of just 5 per cent or so.

The bulk of the rest would be made up of wind, the report finds, with a contribution from large solar projects which have yet to really be sighted in the Australian energy mix to date.





Legislators and voters may not feel so confident about the report’s conclusions, given South Australia’s recent troubles, and the patchy record of renewables in other grids. As has been noted in this magazine previously, claims about the success of Denmark and Germany in this respect do not bear close scrutiny (Whacky Schemes, March 25).

There are some success stories, but those are due to circumstances which don’t apply in Australia. A good example of a micro-grid that has gone 100 per cent renewable is that of Kodiak Island off the Southern coast of Alaska, but about 80 per cent of the grid’s power came from hydro-electricity before the island’s government decided to make the change to cut diesel fuel consumption. Now, about 14 per cent of the power for the island’s 14,000 residents comes from wind, which is backed up by yet more hydro power and a battery which can store about 30 seconds worth of power – to smooth the transition when the wind goes down and the hydro-power is being ramped up. The island also still has the diesel generator to hand if worse comes to worst.

The upgrades required for the clean network cost the council about $55 million, including a $14 million grant and nearly $40 million in special clean energy bonds with nearly zero interest. Despite all that assistance and the elimination of the need to buy diesel, the payback period has still been calculated at about nine years, or too long to interest private investors.

Academics talking about micro-networks, however, do not like to mention these real-world examples. These micro-networks were not discussed in the CSIRO report, but the concept often pops up in the renewables debate with academics carefully explaining that they can be isolated grids or sub-sectors of major grids. These grids are utopias of consumers trading electricity from roof top PVs, so that consumers will get their electricity cheaper than the power produced by the hated fossil fuel generators. If they are part of an urban grid this activity may reach the point where a micro-grid can even operate independently from the main grid.

This, like so much else in the renewables debate, is nonsense. For some idea of the likely costs if anyone were to act on these ideas, we need look no further than Kodiak Island or perhaps the micro-grid to be built for the West Australian coastal town of Onslow. Situated at the point where the coast turns east, it is only a few kilometres from the giant Wheatstone LNG project.

Read the pathetic dribbling glooney Greeny stuff here

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/green-power-fantasies/

Juliar lied:
Quote:


First thoughts about CO2 causing AGW were back in

1820

Arrhenius worked out the basic science in

1905

In the late

1940s–1960s

scientists working for the USN and USAF confirmed AGW was real. Since the late

1970s

satellites confirmed AGW once again. The back radiation of IR redirected back to the surface is known. No doubt about ANY of this.

So the Club of Rome or Al Gore have nothing to do with the reality of AGW.

Sensible people expect leaders to set and implement policy to reduce emissions and adapt and mitigate AGW. Clowns like YouLiar parrot the IPA etc. YouLiar knows no science.

Now we know that Antarctica is losing net ice. Sea level rise just became a more urgent problem.

Re the “CO2 is plant food” too much food can kill plants:

1. Much more CO2 in the atmosphere will reduce the amount of proteins and vitamins plants make.

2. Higher night time minimum temperatures will see plants close their stomata (to prevent transpiration of too much water) REDUCING their CO2 uptake. AGW is mainly raising night time minimum temperatures.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2018 at 7:25am:



Based on Satellite altimeters, GRACE satellite data. Where the error margins on the "measurements" are wider than the supposed melt by a very wide margin. Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2018 at 7:25am:



Please quote this study about CO2 killing plants.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2018 at 7:25am:


Plants behaving more efficiently. Lowering water and vitamin intake; but only marginally.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2018 at 7:25am:



Link?

But then why are the supposed daytime records accorded such headlines?

"Three different environmental factors affect the opening and closing of a plant stoma: light, water and carbon dioxide concentrations. Plant stomata close in darkness and when conditions are very dry. Since plant cells need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, carbon dioxide concentrations are another key factor. If carbon dioxide concentrations inside the leaf start to fall, the plant will open its stomata so that more CO2 can enter, even under dry conditions when the stomata would ordinarily be closed."

https://sciencing.com/co2-affect-opening-stomata-20980.html

Didn’t think YouLiar would understand the science 

With sea level rise having accelerated governments of all persuasions, left or right, democratic or dictatorial etc will start getting serious about reducing emissions and sequestering CO2.

Other things happen–a bow of the Jet Stream might be stuck for some years bringing drought to a region (e.g. California and now Iraq where the two rivers are drying up) or funneling storms to another region.

Yes, some scientists got stuck in ice—an Antarctic glacier had collapsed spilling into the sea.

And hydrogen will never be a mainstream fuel.

juliar wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2018 at 12:49pm:


Yeah, like NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, Met Office, Nature articles, Geophysical letters etc etc.

Not forgetting our own BuMet’s State of the Climate reports.

Here, youLiar, feast your eyes on:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/

You can also read this one, YouLiar:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180719085424.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180719085424.htm

ahahaha right, I did not expect YouLiar to even click on one link   

No idea about science, obviously.

Or technology. Or politics.

Ahahahahahaha thanks for that, a laugh a day is good for your health. You know nothing about the world around you, just copy and paste crap!

Maybe it is time to complain to the MOD about the LostSnail troll's illegal SPAMMING and the distasteful post he/she left a little while ago. Should be worth a holiday.

The mental magnificence of the LostSnail troll.

If the Greeny types had half a brain they would be embarrassed by their own gullible dumbness - but no chance of that occurring.




Carbon Dioxide Can't Cause Wild Weird Weather
By Viv Forbes February 19, 2014

Every day some place in the world has "wild weather." And in recent times, human industry gets the blame. "It's all caused by man-made global warming" (generally shortened to "global warming", or GW by alarmists).

Floods or droughts -- blame GW; bushfires or snowstorms -- blame GW; frosts or heatwaves -- blame GW; hail storms or dust storms -- blame GW; cyclones or tornadoes - blame GW.

If all of this were true, carbon dioxide is surely the most powerful and disruptive gas on the planet - a potential weapon of mass destruction.

But carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the most stable, predictable, unreactive and puny of all climate factors. And its effect diminishes for each addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Adding more now has almost zero effect on temperature.



This graph shows that the apparent effect of man's production of carbon dioxide has declined dramatically since 1941, and it is now insignificant.

Source: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a511675d5a970c-pi
Discussion:
http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/02/noaa-climate-impact-cumulative-co2-emissions-...

Weather is ruled by solar heating, winds, clouds, pressure zones, temperature distribution, moisture content, lunar phases, sun spots, solar cycles, local topography and the massive oceans. A meteorologist never checks today's CO2 level before he prepares a weather forecast for the next few days. Sailors and farmers watch the clouds, the wind and the moon, and have barometers, thermometers and hygrometers - none think about CO2 levels.

Rising CO2 in the atmosphere has only one proven effect - it encourages the growth of green plants. Forests, desert plants, crops and grasses are all growing better. None of this can cause wild weather.

We are told that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming. This has never occurred in the past with much higher levels of CO2. The evidence shows that temperature cycles come and go, sometimes in phase with today's gently rising CO2 sometimes totally out of phase.

Wild weather is usually caused by extreme differences in air pressures and temperatures, which produce strong winds as the atmosphere tries to equalise things. Variable moisture content can then add storm energy to the brew.

Water vapor is the important "greenhouse gas" in the atmosphere. Rising CO2 has almost zero effect on equatorial temperatures, because there is usually so much moisture in equatorial atmospheres that it completely overshadows any impact that CO2 may have. The predicted "equatorial hot spot" supposedly caused by rising CO2 is not there.

But in the very dry atmosphere of the poles, rising CO2 may still have a tiny warming effect which thus reduces the temperature gradient between the equator and poles. This actually lowers the potential for wild weather.

There is evidence to support this view - in the depths of the Little Ice Age, storms and wild weather were more common. Global cooling may produce more storms. See: The storminess of the Little Ice Age:

Carbon dioxide can possibly calm the climate but cannot cause wild weather (except in alarmist computer models.)

There has been no measurable "global warming" for 21 years so CO2 cannot be causing England's floods, the US snow or the Australian drought. We have seen them all before.

All records are made to be broken and everyone can expect a share of wild or weird weather some time. There's no need to invent hobgoblins.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/carbon_dioxide_cant_cause_wild_weir...

He said  d two sources of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, it can be determined how each new tonne of CO2 emissions is "accelerating" temperatures, or not.


What were his sources.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2018 at 4:36pm:



NOAA - Global temperature  1997 - 62.45ºF

NOAA - Global temperature - 2016- "hottest year evah" 58.69ºF

So in 23 years we have warmed minus 3.76ºF? 

lee,

LostSnail is a classic troll who will make up garbage and post it just to try to get attention.

The dumb coot is so pathetically ignorant of the TOPIC it is tragic. Classic Greeny type - empty headed windbag. Wonder if he/she ever finished primary school ?

How ignorant would you have to be to ignore that water vapor is the MAIN inhibitor to heat entering or leaving the earth.

The tiny concentration of harmless CO₂ has negligiblle effect on heat entering or leaving the earth.

But it sure makes the plants grow.

juliar wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2018 at 5:42pm:


It is JM politicking again.

Nope. In 1820 it was thought CO2 would lead to global warming. 1905 the basic science was worked out, during the cold war scientists on studies for the USN & USAF showed that AGW due to CO2e was real and satellite spectroscopy further confirmed that.

There is no real doubt about AGW due to our CO2 emissions. Now we have warmed the world so much Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice and glaciers are in retreat.

No such thing as clean coal. Burning coal causes emissions of particulates, heave metals like cadmium and uranium as well as CO2. Coal mining is also very dangerous and causes black lung in coal miners.

Renewable energy and electric vehicles is the future.

Wow, just wow, you reveal new levels of stupid every day.

Record heatwave across most of the world:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/13/heatwave-sees-record-high-te...

There was no pause in AGW—that was an artifact of one temperature set that excluded the Arctic where most warming took place.

juliar wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2018 at 11:07pm:

he has a worm in his brain- Set moved a topic on environment to where it belongs- but no he did it on purpose spite monkra- and may i say comparing that senile old bugger with a child is an insult to kids

last night

set could tell you he moved it but i think about that time tbh- he didnt leave a note in red when he moved it- report it anyway

Why is the Mad Munk so crazy ?

Viv's reducing Greenies to dung in a compost heap continues..

People who try to create a “Climate Crisis” out of extreme weather events or short-term climate fluctuations (such as today’s Modern Warm Cycle) are like Lord Nelson – their telescope is applied to the blind eye. They point to the choppy waves from summer storms behind the ship, but fail to see the blizzard approaching on the horizon ahead.



Al Gore was right in one thing – warm cycles coincide with high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The warmth drove CO2 into the atmosphere, and then the cooling oceans removed it again. Carbon dioxide variations are the result, not the cause, of climate changes.

But never once, over eleven warm cycles covering the last million years, have those high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide prevented the next glacial cycle.


            “Carbon Dioxide

                        Causes Global Warming
                                    Like Wet Roads

                                                Cause Rain.”


Trying to remove or limit atmospheric carbon dioxide is a futile and costly gesture. Even if it were to succeed, by removing plant food from the atmosphere, it would increase the misery of the approaching cold, hungry era.

We may still have warm decades or even centuries ahead. But even when there is a heatwave in autumn, the winter still comes.


“Summer is Over
            Fall is Fading . . . .
                        And Winter?

                               Winter is Coming!”

                                    John Kehr, 2011, “The Inconvenient Skeptic”


http://pickeringpost.com/story/watching-weather-waves-but-missing-climate-tides/...

The juLiar (the worst political commentator ever) seems to be avoiding the politics section after another humiliating prediction 

And all that lovely CO₂ harmless gas so essential to life on earth is making food crops grow llke crazy.




El Niño and climate cycles have a huge impact on crops worldwide
By: Kay Vandette on 03.31.2018  NEWS


El Niño and other large-scale weather cycles affect two-thirds of the world’s crops, according to a new study.

The research was conducted by researchers from Aalto University in Finland and is the first of its kind to measure the global impacts of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Indian Ocean Dipole on crops.

With increasing food shortages caused by drought and climate change, understanding the impact of major climate cycles on world harvests will be crucial for agriculture planning in the coming years.

The findings were published in the journal Nature Communications.

With climate cycles or climate oscillations, temperatures and precipitation patterns change dramatically due to fluctuations in sea level temperature and air pressure.

For example, when meteorologists declare an El Niño, it’s because they have observed warm water in the western Pacific Ocean shifting east along with rainfall.

Predicting El Niño and other climate cycles has become much easier, and with this new study, the researchers suggest that this could aid in protecting important cropland.

“During recent years, researchers’ ability to predict these oscillations has improved significantly,” said Matias Heino, an author of the study. “With this research, we highlight the potential of utilizing this improved forecasting skill in agricultural planning. This could improve the resilience of agriculture to climate-related shocks, which can improve food security in many areas across the globe.”

The effects of El Niño on corn, soy and other vital crops in South Asia, Latin America and South Africa are well known, but the researchers found that other oscillations have similar impacts in different regions.

“Our study showed that the North Atlantic Oscillation, NAO, significantly affects crop production in many parts of Europe, but also in North Africa and the Middle East,” said Matti Kummu, an assistant professor at Aalto University.

The researchers discovered that when the NOA creates a high difference in air pressure, it reduces crop productivity in Europe by two percent and six percent in North Africa and the Middle East. 

Spain and the Balkans are particularly sensitive to these changes, as the researchers found crop production can drop by ten percent during NOA high-pressure changes.

The Indian Ocean Dipole, an oscillation that causes water to be warmer in the Western Indian Ocean and lower in the Eastern Indian Ocean, affects crops in Australia.

The study highlights the major impact that climate oscillations beyond just El Niño can have on global cropland and crop productivity.

Predicting drops in crop productivity by looking at global climate oscillation patterns could help protect crops and avoid potential food shortages.

https://www.earth.com/news/el-nino-impact-crops/

Bobby. wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2018 at 2:48pm:



Yes but Larry Pickerings only claim is drawing big penises on politicians.

We should take action on climate change but we don't need to run around like headless chooks.

I agree with the following article. We should take action while we far enough away from a major change.

Extract.

I don’t think climate change will destroy the actual planet or make the human species go extinct. But, you know what? I believe we can aim for something a little bit better than “not doomed.” If, at the end of the day, the most positive thing I can note in my diary is “FAILED TO GO EXTINCT,” then that was probably not a good day. There is space for action between “everything is fine” and “we’re doomed.” That space is shrinking fast, but the gap is not closed yet. It shouldn’t take an apocalypse to make us do the right thing.



…there’s space for action between “everything is fine” and “the apocalypse is upon us”
Link: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/hot-planet/climate-change-were-not-literall...

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 9:53am:



Nope. It helps when you can show he said something egregiously wrong.