and always has been it seems.
Interesting article on climate change and the alarmism surrounding it
Climate change is real, but natural change can be
much worse and faster. As carbon was
naturally sequestered over 200 million years,
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO
2) gradually fell from about
3,000 parts per million (ppm) to just 180ppm a million years ago, and Earth became cold, dry and dusty. Recurring
orbital cycles trigger
interglacial warm periods such as our present
Holocene which began nearly twelve thousand years ago. Warming
oceans release CO
2, pushing atmospheric levels over 280ppm, helping plants thrive in a warmer wetter world. The
previous interglacial became
much warmer than now before temperatures fell over ten degrees Celsius (10⁰C)
during the last ice-age. Humanity thrived during the warm
Holocene Climatic Optimumbut
suffered terribly during the recent
Little Ice Age, especially when solar activity declined during the
Maunder Minimum (1645-1715 AD).
Cyclonic floods and
prolonged droughts were probably worse during that bleak period.
Since those cold preindustrial times, the CO
2 level has increased 46%, from 280ppm to
410ppm (0.041%), and the surface temperature has risen by
about 1⁰C. How much of that warming is due to the extra CO
2 is uncertain; some scientists say as much as 0.7⁰C was due to
increased solar activity while others say
altered land use and urban heat accounts for 0.27⁰C of 20
th century warming. Adding CO
2 raises surface temperatures but changes in sea surface temperature also
precede fluctuations in CO
2, so the relationship is very complicated.
Recent warming has seen an
unprecedented increase in life expectancy and quality of life globally. Nevertheless, exposure to cold still
kills nearly twenty times more people than does heat-exposure. Another degree or so of warming would
reduce mortality rates in most regions, even without adaptation. Adding CO
2from fossil fuels primarily
warms winter nights at high latitudes and thus reduces temperature variability and hence severe
storms,
tornadoes and major causes of
disease and death. Contrary to media hype, most
extreme weather events are
not increasing, and mortality from them
declines as wealth increases. The strong correlation between
national wealth and health necessitates a careful cost-benefit analysis of the economic impacts of unmitigated climate change versus mitigation measures. Our
Australian analysis is, like others, based on climate model projections.
The most important and controversial number in climate science is the
equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), defined as the average temperature change across Earth’s surface long after the CO
2 level has doubled and stabilised. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gives a most likely value of between 1.5⁰C and 4.5⁰C.
Predictions of
climate catastrophe depend on climate models with high sensitivities, but their temperature projections
don’t match observations.
Cosmic rays, sunspots, clouds,
aerosols,
volcanoes,
ocean oscillations, altered land use and
vegetation render climate too complex to accurately model or predict.
Observational studies suggest a transient climate response of about 1.3⁰C and an ECS less than 1.7⁰C, in which case we could expect to see about
one degree of further warming this century at the current rate of increase in atmospheric CO
2. This is consistent with the
trend in the 40-year
satellite temperature data. The rate of change in climate and sea level rise does not appear to be
accelerating. There is
no scientific consensus on future warming and how harmful or beneficial it might be.
The economic impacts of another degree of warming are
controversial. Some land would be lost to rising sea-levels (
averaging 1.7mm/yr. around Australia), but arable land in the northern hemisphere would
increase greatly. More CO
2 is already
greening the planet and greatly
increasing food production. Food-grain production in India reached
record levels despite record temperatures in 2016-17. The efficient production and transport of food relies on fossil fuels. Mechanising agriculture
curbs population growth by reducing the need for large farming families, lifting people out of poverty and allowing children to be educated. Affordable electricity facilitates this.
Climate action using renewables can adversely impact the world’s
poorest people and the environment. In its
2018 Special Report, the IPCC wants to convert up to 6 million square kilometres (
12%) of Earth’s agricultural and pastural land into growing
energy crops, but feeding American corn to cars instead of people produces
dearer food and
more emissions! Chipping American forests and burning them in Europe also
increases emissions. Forests in
the Amazon and
Indonesia are being destroyed to produce biofuel to save the planet! To reduce harmless CO
2 emissions, Europe polluted its air with
diesel fumes! The mining of neodymium for
electric motors and
wind turbinespollutes Inner Mongolian lakes, with
toxic and
radioactive waste.
Thousands of tons of CO
2 are produced in the
mining, manufacture and transport of a wind turbine which may not
return its capital cost over its
20-year life. Every year across the globe, wind turbines kill millions of
bats and birds, especially
raptors.
Wind farms can reduce air flow and agricultural production by aggravating local warming. The
photovoltaic (PV) solar industry is a leading emitter of hexafluoroethane, nitrogen trifluoride and sulphur hexafluoride, all potent greenhouse gases PV panels require the most materials per unit of power produced, posing a future
waste disposal problem after their 20-year life. Subsidised solar
disadvantages the poor paying higher power prices.
Battery storage also has problems: mining the
lithium in Chile raises
environmental concerns, and mining the cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo often
involves child labour.
Wind and solar currently provide around
14% of our electricity. As these intermittent and unreliable sources are added to the grid, more expensive infrastructure is required to maintain supply, and so the
price of electricityincreases. South Australia has the most renewables (about 50%) and the
highest power prices in the world; its wholesale price of $98/MWh (34% above that in Qld) spikes to
$14,500/MWh when the wind stops. A
state-wide blackout occurred when wind farms supplying 48% of the state’s energy had to shut down in high winds. It now has the world’s
largest battery, a
$90 million Tesla 100-megawatt behemoth, but would need 160 of them to keep the state lit for just one windless day. The total annual production of Tesla’s
Gigafactory could store just three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. Solar power makes most sense when demand matches supply, such as
air-conditioning school classrooms.
Pumped hydro makes more sense than limited-life batteries.
Snowy 2.0 will provide 175 hours of storage at 2,000 megawatts, roughly equal to the
Liddell coal-fired power station due to close in 2022, but it could cost
$6 billion or
twice that of a coal-fired power station. Using renewables alone in Australia, affordable power is not reliable and reliable power is not affordable.
Electric vehicles(EVs) are being promoted to reduce emissions. This makes sense in a compact country like Norway where electricity is
99% hydro and
relatively cheap. Manufacturing
any new car produces enormous emissions and making an EV produces at least
68% more. A
Hyundai Kona Electric is about
25% heavier and costs
more than twice as much as the petrol version. Its 64kWh battery takes nearly 27 hours to charge from a regular power point or an hour at a 100kW charger if you can find one. A
Tesla EV with a 500km range could require a three-phase upgrade to the home’s electricity system costing nearly $10,000 plus $50,000 to upgrade the local electricity substation and network supply. Electrifying our entire transport system with wind and solar would cost over
$600 billion or $24,000 per person. Storing enough solar power to run a house and charge an EV overnight could cost as much as the car
for the batteries alone! Overnight charging from a
grid supplied by fossil fuels (when there is no solar and little wind) actually
increases CO2 emissions, even in
Germany.
Australia produces
about 1.1% of global CO
2 emissions, about the same as
China’s annual increase, so whatever we do is purely tokenistic; reducing our emissions to zero would have no measurable effect on climate, the reef, rainfall or bushfires. Whereas expensive intermittent power pushes industry offshore, along with jobs and emissions, investing in reliable and affordable power
strengthens industry and trade. If we want reliable and affordable power to build a strong economy, we should invest in high efficiency low emissions
(HELE) coal-fired power plants or even cleaner and
more efficient combined-cycle
gas-fired plants. A major coal exporter and the
world’s largest gas exporter should have the world’s cheapest electricity. If we want the
safest energy source by far with the
smallest footprint and lowest lifetime emissions, we should invest in
nuclear power France produces
71.6% of its electricity, more than any other country, from nuclear energy;
Germany has much dearer electricity and nearly twice the per-capita emissions. Australia is geologically stable and has the world’s
largest uranium reserves, the
best technology for enriching it and the space to store radioactive waste. Nuclear power plants
compete economically with unsubsidised renewables and have three times the lifespan.
After the docudrama
An Inconvenient Truth was shown in schools,
one in four NSW children aged 10-14 honestly believed that the world would end before they grew up! Some now think that ‘tackling climate change’ is
more important than attending school. Reminiscent of the
children’s crusade of 1212, fervent placard-waving climate warriors
follow a young Swedish
prophetess who is now
rebuking and
advising world leaders. Our children and grandchildren may have more to fear from misguided climate action than from climate change itself.
http://www.greatnewstory.com/tackli...RyjoXWBrc1viGKGNHxsWxHAbaA9tGBvr-mbcvra7APOL8
