Environment

Even Google Engineers now say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’

windturbine

Google is one of the biggest investors in renewable technology. They have poured billions into research and now their top engineers say that renewable energy is hopelessly flawed.

Eric Worrell at WUWT explains:

A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.

According to an interview with the engineers, published in IEEE;

“At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change Read more »

The economics of Ruataniwha dam don’t stack up

As regular readers will know I have been opposed tot he dodgy socialist dam in the Hawkes Bay.

The high handed way the Hawkes Bay Regional Council has been pushing this dam through against all environmental advice and now it turns out economic advice is a travesty.

The other day I called for millionaire local MPs Craig Foss and Alistair Scott to put their considerable wealth where their mouths were and invest in Ruataniwha themselves.

I suspect I know why they won’t invest, and I will share that with you all now.

The dam is a dog.

Hi Cameron,

I see that you’ve picked up the FW article on the economics of the Ruataniwha dam.  Please find attached a copy of the original paper that the FW article was based on.  It was presented at the annual NZ Agricultural and Resource Economics Society (NZARES) conference in August.

I’ve also attached the PowerPoint slides that accompany the presentation.

You will see that unfortunately, the dam is an absolute loser for farmers too – so even at the knock down water price offered by HBRC farmers still can’t make it work.  As per the paper, here’s the maths:   Read more »

Wheels coming off the global warming trolley

For sometime now it has become increasingly obvious that none of the predictions of the climate change alarmists have come true.

The models are hopelessly flawed, the glaciers aren’t disappearing, neither is the sea ice at either pole.

Basically pretty much everything is being shown to be a lie.

Now the statistics are unravelling as Judith Curry points out in the Wall Street Journal. The numbers simply don’t add up.

According to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, preventing “dangerous human interference” with the climate is defined, rather arbitrarily, as limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures. The Earth’s surface temperatures have already warmed about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1850-1900. This leaves 1.2 degrees Celsius (about 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) to go.

In its most optimistic projections, which assume a substantial decline in emissions, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that the “dangerous” level might never be reached. In its most extreme, pessimistic projections, which assume heavy use of coal and rapid population growth, the threshold could be exceeded as early as 2040. But these projections reflect the effects of rising emissions on temperatures simulated by climate models, which are being challenged by recent observations.

Human-caused warming depends not only on increases in greenhouse gases but also on how “sensitive” the climate is to these increases. Climate sensitivity is defined as the global surface warming that occurs when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect substantial warming in the coming century as emissions continue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower, and it may be several generations before we reach what the U.N. considers a dangerous level, even with high emissions.

The IPCC’s latest report (published in 2013) concluded that the actual change in 70 years if carbon-dioxide concentrations double, called the transient climate response, is likely in the range of 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius. Most climate models have transient climate response values exceeding 1.8 degrees Celsius. But the IPCC report notes the substantial discrepancy between recent observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity and estimates from climate models.

Read more »

Climate Change Crooks inventing new frauds

Will these climate change crooks never give up robbing the taxpayers, what about a research grant for doing something useful for a change not something that is fashionable.

Environmental scientists want to introduce a new system to prove that adverse weather events are directly linked to climate change to counter global warming sceptics.

Under the new plan, a heatwave or major storm will be linked scientifically to man made climate change immediately after the event to prevent critics from blaming it on natural variations in the weather.

Scientists want to be able to provide proof of whether an event was caused by climate change within three day rather than the current system which can take up to a year.    Read more »

13 useful facts about Climate Change to rebut the Green taliban

Sick to death of having Green taliban busy bodies look down their nose at you, clucking their tongues and wagging their fingers that they know best about climate change.

Here are 13 facts to learn up to shove back into their faces.

Here are the known facts. Use them to protect yourself against the Green assault the truth:

  1. Both the Earth and the Sun pass through natural cycles. The Sun is currently in a cycle of lower radiation as signaled by fewer sunspots representing magnetic storms.
  2.  There is currently no global warming. The Earth has been in a cooling cycle for 19 years. No child who has passed through K-12 classes in school has experienced a single day of “global warming.
  3. Not one computer model that predicted increased warming has been accurate.
  4.  Carbon dioxide, (CO2) blamed for global warming, is not a “pollutant” despite a Supreme Court decision stating this. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% of CO2.
  5.  How can carbon dioxide be called a “pollutant” when it is directly responsible for the growth of all vegetation on the planet? Without CO2 there would not be a single blade of grass or a redwood tree. Or the animal life that depends on vegetation; wheat and rice, for example, as food.
  6.  There is zero evidence that carbon dioxide generated by human activities is causing catastrophic climate change. Climate is measured in centuries or shorter periods of many decades in order to determine its cycles. The weather is what is occurring where you reside and it changes every day.   Read more »

The hype of the scientists, caught out again

One of the refrains from warmists is that the science is settled, no more arguments can be countenanced, the earth is warming and the scientists almost all agree.

It is of course a fallacy that the scientists agree and the 97% figure claimed has been thoroughly debunked.

There was a time  when scientists presented evidence and other scientists examined the work and either supported the hypothesis or destroyed it. These days they seem more intent on developing consensus rather than proof.

We have seen this before too, remember the Ozone calamity?

Well apparently that was as over hyped by the scientists as the current climate scare….and so too is the “fix” to the ozone layer.

Matt Ridley writes:

My recent Times column argued that the alleged healing of the ozone layer is exaggerated, but so was the impact of the ozone hole over Antarctica:

The ozone layer is healing. Or so said the news last week. Thanks to a treaty signed in Montreal in 1989 to get rid of refrigerant chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the planet’s stratospheric sunscreen has at last begun thickening again. Planetary disaster has been averted by politics.

For reasons I will explain, this news deserves to be taken with a large pinch of salt. You do not have to dig far to find evidence that the ozone hole was never nearly as dangerous as some people said, that it is not necessarily healing yet and that it might not have been caused mainly by CFCs anyway.

The timing of the announcement was plainly political: it came on the 25th anniversary of the treaty, and just before a big United Nations climate conference in New York, the aim of which is to push for a climate treaty modelled on the ozone one.

Here’s what was actually announced last week, in the words of a Nasa scientist, Paul Newman: “From 2000 to 2013, ozone levels climbed 4 per cent in the key mid-northern latitudes.” That’s a pretty small change and it is in the wrong place. The ozone thinning that worried everybody in the 1980s was over Antarctica.

Over northern latitudes, ozone concentration has been falling by about 4 per cent each March before recovering. Over Antarctica, since 1980, the ozone concentration has fallen by  40 or 50 per cent each September before the sun rebuilds it.

So what’s happening to the Antarctic ozone hole? Thanks to a diligent blogger named Anthony Watts, I came across a press release also from Nasa about nine months ago, which said: “ Two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size.”    Read more »

Where has all the warming gone?

People are starting to wake up to the fraud that is global warming.

A massive fraud perpetrated by vested scientific interests and busy body global politicians.

But it is a fraud nonetheless.

When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”

We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. Areport from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statistical calculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.

Read more »

The words “boy” and “wolf” come to mind

Karl du Fresne discusses the world’s calamities that never were and the propensity of dissenters to be silenced when their truths become uncomfortable.

FOR ALMOST as long as I can remember, experts have been warning us to brace ourselves for catastrophe.

For decades it was the Cold War and the threat of nuclear obliteration that threatened us. In the 1970s we shuddered at the prospect of a nuclear winter, in which soot and smoke from nuclear warfare would condemn the planet to decades of frigid semi-darkness.

And who can forget the alarm generated by predictions that acid rain would denude vast areas of forest, kill marine life and even cause buildings to collapse?

Other recurring doomsday predictions revolved around over-population and famine. As it turns out, the world now has more obese people than malnourished – a fact that has given the experts something new to harangue us about. 

There have been other scares, too, including Aids and the Millennium Bug. It was seriously predicted that the latter would create universal chaos the moment the clocks ticked past December 31, 1999.

We’re still waiting for the grotesque mutations foreseen by opponents of genetic modification. And then there was peak oil, though the dismalists seem to have gone quiet on that too.

There are always experts loudly predicting the worst. But none of the above prophecies came to pass, either because they were scientifically unsound or greatly exaggerated to start with, or because human ingenuity and good sense intervened.

Even when terrible things have happened – such as Chernobyl and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill – the eventual outcome has almost invariably been less apocalyptic than the prophets of doom foresaw.   

Read more »

Perhaps we could do the same for NIWA

Meteorologists with the Canadian government aren’t allowed to speak publicly about climate change.

A spokesperson said the policy is because meteorologists are not climate experts and the ban extends to other federal scientists who must seek permission to speak to media.

What a good idea…perhaps the government could do the same with NIWA scientists.

Meteorologists working for the Canadian government’s weather and meteorological body Environment Canada have been forbidden from publicly discussing climate change.

A government spokesperson said this week that the policy exists because its meteorologists aren’t qualified to answer questions related to climate change.   Read more »

Why is Len Brown’s council setting up a bike market?

You really do have to wonder at Len Brown’s Auckland Council.

It seems if they aren’t trying to control where you spread your ashes of loved ones and charge you for the privilege, they are trying to undermine Auckland’s bike retailers by setting up their own bike market.

I’m not kidding…look at this email:

From: Anja Vroegop (AT) <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:30 AM
Subject: Auckland Transport Community Bike Market
To: [redacted]

Hi [redacted]

I was wondering if you are interested in being involved in our Bike Market?

We will be running a trial ‘Bike Market’ event in Auckland. At the event the public will have access to inexpensive bikes for sale (under $500 ONLY) and free bike mechanics will be on hand to tell them of any potential issues or hazards.

We are getting the final details of the bike market sorted out now. We are planning to run it in the stadium at Mt Albert YMCA on Saturday the 12th of July. Our media schedule will be targeting Trademe and Google ads as well as local newspapers, so we plan to really generate some interest.  Read more »