Posted by: Grant | September 29, 2014

Monckton Downunder – Oh Dear – Oh My

~meThe below 2GB talkback radio interview (click 2 play) was heard by a very large number of people in Sydney, a large city even by world standards.

Alan Jones has done more good to dismantle “Climate Change” than anyone else in this country.

I am increasingly dismayed, however, that the other person largely responsible for winning the battle, Andrew Bolt, has started to totally discredit himself by provoking an anti-muslim backlash – boltexactly as the murderous middle eastern radicals wanted.

A handful of disorganised, adventurous, radicalized youth are never going to do to much damage. They are easily managed.
It is an hysterical anti-muslim backlash that is really dangerous and that IS very, very damaging because it is self-fulfilling and self-propagating.
An hysterical anti-muslim backlash is precisely what the barbaric, medieval, filthy Arabs are aiming at! DURH! (They are not stupid – very smart – very disciplined – highly strategic)

Now we see the champion of truth, the warrior against the “Save-da-planet” global governance putsch at the UN, Andrew Bolt, blindly stirring up a fascist backlash against the whole Muslim religion in this country! Groan! All that good work on Climate Change – down the drain!

This is a quote from a recent Tony Gnome/Michael Darby Email mailing list -
“Here is Andrew Bolt and Steve Price and Lord Monckton; doing some recent talk-back Radio on the Topic; including to Muslims on the phone:–
Christopher refers to Sharia <“no go”> zones in Paris. Here is some YouTube:–;



Posted by: Grant | September 25, 2014

A Fundamental Flaw In “Renewables”

It takes more energy to construct them, with an energy storage system, than they could ever produce over their lifetime – but we put a man on the moon – we can do anything!
The impossible we can do now, but miracles take a little longer!


“Pick up a research paper on battery technology, fuel cells, energy storage technologies or any of the advanced materials science used in these fields, and you will likely find somewhere in the introductory paragraphs a throwaway line about its application to the storage of renewable energy.  Energy storage makes sense for enabling a transition away from fossil fuels to more intermittent sources like wind and solar, and the storage problem presents a meaningful challenge for chemists and materials scientists… Or does it?

Guest Post by John Morgan. John is Chief Scientist at a Sydney startup developing smart grid and grid scale energy storage technologies.  He is Adjunct Professor in the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at RMIT, holds a PhD in Physical Chemistry, and is an experienced industrial R&D leader.  You can follow John on twitter at @JohnDPMorgan. First published in Chemistry in Australia.

Several recent analyses of the inputs to our energy systems indicate that, against expectations, energy storage cannot solve the problem of intermittency of wind or solar power.  Not for reasons of technical performance, cost, or storage capacity, but for something more intractable: there is not enough surplus energy left over after construction of the generators and the storage system to power our present civilization…. “

The original Paper here -

Energy intensities, EROIs, and energy payback times of electricity
generating power plants
D. Weibacha,b, G. Ruprechta, A. Hukea,c, K. Czerskia,b, S. Gottlieba, A. Husseina,d
aInstitut fur Festkorper-Kernphysik gGmbH, Leistikowstrae 2, 14050 Berlin, Germany
bInstytut Fizyki, Wydzia l Matematyczno-Fizyczny, Uniwersytet Szczecinski, ul. Wielkopolska 15, 70-451, Szczecin, Poland
cInstitut fur Optik und Atomare Physik, Technische Universitat Berlin, Hardenbergstrae 36, 10623 Berlin, Germany
dDepartment of Physics, University of Northern British Columbia, 3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, Canada. V6P

Posted by: Grant | September 23, 2014

Happy Little Greenies










People’s Climate March: Hundreds of thousands march in rallies calling for action on climate change
Updated yesterday at 12:43pmMon 22 Sep 2014, 12:43pm

Fortunately nobody takes them seriously anymore. The revolution has failed.

In case you thought it had something to do with science (97% of scientists etc ., etc.), the lunatic fringe of this 97% leftist rally then came back and attacked Wall Street.

Climate protesters march on Wall Street, block street near NYSE
By Sebastien Malo
NEW YORK  Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:14pm EDT

Posted by: Grant | September 23, 2014

The China Coal Ban

The Leftist media are running the story that China is banning our “dirty coal”, leaving out two very significant facts.

ONE – Our coal is generally quite good quality.

TWO – China does not scrub or clean its power station emissions and in a highly populated country they have paid a very big air pollution price. Now that coal production has caught up with demand they can try to reduce the pollution problem by searching for low sulfur, low ash product. It is, however, hard to find.

imagesQPT9NFJ1Our power generators sell large amounts of sulfuric acid and fly ash as a by-product. China needs to retrofit their power stations with the same scrubbing technology.





China’s dirty coal ban causes waves
September 20, 2014
Brian Robins

Posted by: Grant | September 2, 2014

Wind & Solar Data USA Germany & UK

 insaneThe USA and Germany each installed 70,000 Megawatts of “Renewables” capacity.
The USA struggles to use the not-quite 20,000 Megawatts actually generated.
Germany struggles to use the not-quite 10,000 Megawatts actually generated.

Renewable Energy in perspective: Solar and Wind power
Guest Blogger / 2 days ago August 30, 2014 
Guest essay by Ed Hoskins | Data for the USA, Germany and the UK since the year 2000

…Electricity generation from wind turbines is equally fickle, as for example in a week in July this year shown above. Similarly an established high pressure zone with little wind over the whole of Northern Europe is a common occurrence in winter months, that is when electricity demand is likely to be at its highest.

Conversely on occasions renewable energy output may be in excess of demand and this has to dumped unproductively. There is still no solution to electrical energy storage on a sufficiently large industrial scale. That is the reason that the word “nominally” is used here in relation to the measured outputs from renewable energy sources.

Overall the renewable energy output from these three major nations that have committed to massive investments in Renewable Energy amounts to a nominal ~31Gigawatts out of a total installed generating capacity of ~570Gigawatts or only ~5.5%.

But even that amount of energy production is not really as useful as one would wish, because of its intermittency and non-dispatchability.”

Posted by: Grant | August 29, 2014

Review Of Aussie RET Fails Us.

~meI am bitterly disappointed in the Warburton Review into the Renewable Energy Target -

It completely misses the point.

It states“The direct costs of the RET currently increase retail electricity bills for households by around four per cent, but modelling suggests that the net impact of the RET over time is relatively small. The impact on emissions-intensive trade-exposed businesses and other industries is significantly greater. The RET does not generate an increase in wealth in the economy, but leads to a transfer of wealth among participants in the electricity market.”

The direct costs of the RET are NOT the problem.

The problem is – renewables are not an alternative – They cannot provide base load power. They cannot match the demand for electricity.

The INDIRECT costs of the RET are the killers

ONE – they destroy the efficacy and efficiency of base load power stations, by forcing them  onto standby for long periods of time.

TWO – They do not permit any beneficial, corresponding, reduction in fossil fuel power generation capacity. Full base load capacity must be maintained in readiness at all times.

THREE – A few large base load power stations can supply a large city down a few simple corridors. Renewable energy is widely dispersed and needs a large, expensive, infrastructure to be integrated into that monolithic system.

 PowerBill whyIt is the RET, not the carbon tax that doubled our power bills.

A modern coal-fired power station is an engineering masterpiece.
It converts a huge percentage of the energy from its fuel into electricity, collects all the pollution, and feeds power down a single corridor to easily and effectively match the demand – the demand when the city leaves work, goes home and cooks dinner, goes to bed, gets up in the morning, showers eats and leaves for work and school. Sometimes the weather plays a role but not to any great extent.

The renewable energy fed into this cheap, well run system does nothing but disrupt it.

The 20% mandatory RET does NOT replace 20% of our electricity supply with Green energy. On a good day renewables force-feed extremely expensive, intermittent, widely dispersed, power into a highly efficient, cheap, generating system which staggers to an idle until it is required to suddenly crank up again to meet the demand when the wind dies or clouds drift over.

The 20% mandatory RET would only very rarely meet 20% of the demand while constantly disrupting the highly efficient operation of the base load power supply at huge cost to the consumer.

More on the disappointing Warburton Review here -
RET Review delivers blow to clean energy industry
John Conroy |
August 28, 2014 5:00PM

I have not studied all this report, the summary discredits it, but the appointment of a climate sceptic to head it was a clear signal to the wind power rorters and they will not be surprised that the gravy train is over.
A clever way is to make the RET a non-mandatory, aspirational target which will achieve the government’s aim of reducing our power bills significantly since the removal of the Carbon Tax will not. The issue, however, has been largely dropped. The public don’t care.

Posted by: Grant | August 23, 2014

The Good News And The Bad News

The good news – The UNIPCC were wrong, “natural forcings” are not so weak and so long term that they can be disregarded, they ARE able to easily neutralise “global warming” – no cause for alarm – Climate Change is NOT “here and now” – we do NOT have to act urgently to “save-da-planet”.

The bad News – We wasted billions and billions of dollars and created huge new failed industries and doubled our power bills – FER NUTHIN’!
We could have just waited to see if it was really so bad after all.

BBC News – Global warming slowdown ‘could last another decade’

Posted by: Grant | August 23, 2014

UNIPCC Models’ Assumption Proven Flawed.

Carbon dioxide is a trivial GHG and its effect is almost saturated. Adding more and more has less and less effect. The Global Warming alarm is based on an assumption made in ALL UNIPCC computer models.

Measurements now prove that assumption is wrong and we can thus conclude that human fossil fuel burning is no cause for alarm.




Opinion 8/20/2014 @ 7:16AM 2,807 views
Declining Humidity Is Defying Global Warming Models
James Taylor Contributor

” …The most important of these assumptions is that a little bit of carbon dioxide-induced warming will create a substantial increase in atmospheric water vapor. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so substantial increases in atmospheric water vapor can certainly cause significant warming. United Nations computer models are programmed to assume that absolute humidity (the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere) will rise so much that even relative humidity (the percent of water vapor in the atmosphere) will at least keep pace and perhaps even increase. Warmer air is able to hold more water than cooler air, so absolute water vapor would have to increase quite substantially for relative humidity to remain constant or increase in a warming world.

Scientists, however, have been measuring relative humidity for many decades. Rather than keeping pace with modestly warming temperatures, relative humidity is declining…. “

Posted by: Grant | August 13, 2014

Climate Relegated In AUSMIN Communiqué


Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop, Minister for Defence Senator David Johnston, Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel met on 12 August in Sydney for the annual Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN).

Climate change only got two lines in the – 
AUSMIN 2014 Joint Communiqué
12 August 2014
Look down the bottom under “3.Global Challenges

“Recognising the challenges climate change poses to security, Australia and the United States intend to continue to work through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process to negotiate a new, ambitious climate agreement applicable to all countries by 2015 to take effect in 2020.”

There is also a hint of it there (“3.Global Challenges“) with “G20” and the clichés “sustainable” and “energy efficiency

“Australia and the United States plan to work together through the G20 toward achieving their shared goals of promoting strong, sustainable, and balanced global economic growth and employment, and increasing the resilience of the global economy, including by strengthening infrastructure investment, enhancing trade and building cooperation on energy, including on energy efficiency. The United States shared Australia’s ambition for G20 members to boost the collective GDP of members by more than two per cent above current projections over the next five years.”

The stark differences in attitudes on Climate Change were not mentioned – “don’t mention the war” – Basil Fawlty.

The US administration has been forced into a very soft sell, not only by India and the developing nations but by the host, Australia.

The US has been forced into the “whole world must agree on ambitious targets or it is a wasted effort” position.

Obviously a lot of people are having a lot of trouble “recognising the challenges climate change poses to security”!


Posted by: Grant | August 12, 2014

The Inconvenient Science

“All scientists agree” and “the science is settled” carbon dioxide IS a greenhouse gas – yes -


All scientists also agree and the science is also settled that carbon dioxide itself actually has an inverse logarithmic effect. The more you add the less warming you get from it.

Well, you say, why are they worried?

Simple, they are worried because they want to be worried, they claim that the small rise in global temperature caused by carbon dioxide will cause an increase in global humidity, water vapour, the Earth’s real GHG. They make that assumption in all their alarming computer models.

However, the assumption that perturbations in the earth’s temperature cause instability due to an increase in water vapour are not supported by definitive evidence. We cannot predict global temperature, but the global temperature is remarkably stable and self-regulating.
The well referenced article below goes into the science and points out -

” …The rapid logarithmic diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global Warming advocates and alarmists, nonetheless it is well understood within the climate science community. It is certainly not much discussed. This diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv…. “

The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide on temperature
Posted on August 10, 2014 by Anthony Watts  
Guest essay by Ed Hoskins

All scientists do agree that adding carbon dioxide does NOT produce a linear rise in temperature.
All scientists do NOT agree that raising the Earth’s temperature by a small amount will be amplified by an increase in the Earth’s GHG – water vapour – that is highly contentious.

Older Posts »



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers