Monk couldn't even identify or tell us any rock and mineral stories on this thread:

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1735199488/60


He says he has a BSc which makes him a trained geologist.   

Super Nova wrote on May 7^th, 2025 at 2:22pm:



No politics here.

Even though they said this NASA has said SLR was 5.9mm, something that the long term tide gauges don't show. It is only an artefact of successive satellite flights, each with its own parameters.

?

Both NOAA and University of Colorado disagree with NASA.





There is a seasonal change of 5.9mm, but that is not acceleration.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 10^th, 2025 at 3:28pm:



Yes, He's back.


So if you rely on nameplate figures, they are doing well. But the devil is in the supply side detail, which is scarce.

Nowhere can you find capacity factor figures.

Of course then we need to look at what China is doing overseas. Particularly in oil and gas.

"A report released earlier this year showed that in 2024, China’s foreign oil and gas investments hit an all-time high of $24.3 billion, mostly focused in the Middle East. Total Chinese investments in the region hit $39 billion last year, Chinese think tank Green Finance & Development Center, which produced the report, said."

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oil-and-Beyond-Chinas-Expanding-Globa...

As for coal - "The country began building 94.5 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-power capacity and resumed 3.3GW of suspended projects in 2024, the highest level of construction in the past 10 years, according to the two thinktanks."

https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-construction-of-new-coal-power-plants-reached...

But wishes exceed data apparently.

More from the Arch bedwetter.  About coral bleaching, whether it can recover from mass bleachings and then a curious graphic. Conflating SST increase with marine heatwaves, two entirely different things.

I will even resize it for him.



And then of course notice the 'y' axis, in zettajoules to scare the unwary muppets.

And why?

The graphic talks about Ocean Heat Content, not even surface temperature or close to, where corals live.

It takes about 2600 Zj to raise the top TWO km of ocean by 1ºC, so that would make 300Zjor about 0.115ºC. Scary huh?

And then of course we know that they didn't have global coverage before Argo, about year 2000, so the knowledge in 1960 was rather less. And even now with 4000 Argo floats, the data points are still scarce.

Just colour me shocked that a person who claims to be a scientist doesn't know that.

Of course AIMS has their scary prediction attached to the 23-24 report after saying how good '24 was.

https://www.aims.gov.au/monitoring-great-barrier-reef/gbr-condition-summary-2023...

Edit: "As well as degrees Celsius, ocean heat content can be measured as energy, in gigajoules (GJ) or watts (W)."

https://climate.copernicus.eu/esotc/2023/ocean-heat-content

Edit 2: "he temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to ± 0.002°C and pressures are accurate to ± 2.4dbar."

https://argo.ucsd.edu/faq/

Which begs the question - if it reads in °C why convert to Zj?