Celebrity scientist has only abuse to offer

He is certainly a popularizer but he is a poor scientist.  Tony Abbott offered facts and detailed reasoning for his claim that global warming could be a good thing.  Cox offered nothing comparable or even an attempt at refutation.  Assertion and abuse was all he had to offer.

Cox actually discusses politics, not science.  But is he a politician?  What is his expertise on politics?  He is talking way outside his area of expertise.  Abbott on the other hand is a professional politician

Physicist Brian Cox has slammed former prime minister Tony Abbott for his views on climate change.

The celebrity scientist, in Australia for a speaking tour, was responding to Mr Abbott's comments last month that climate change is doing more good than harm.

'Climate change itself is probably doing good, or at least more good than harm,' the former prime minister told the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London.

'It's complete nonsense to say that,' Cox told the The Daily Telegraph. 'It is not only a legitimate question to ask but it is a necessary question to say, what will the climate be like in 10 years, 50 years, 100 years.

'That is the question any responsible politician would ask because it is vitally important. It is very irresponsible for many reasons for a politician to say they don't believe in this [that climate change is harmful].'

Cox went on to claim Mr Abbott's comments suggest the former prime minister believes he is more knowledgeable on the topic than the world's top scientists.

Mr Abbott had said the 'so-called settled science of climate change' was 'absolute cr*p'.

'Then there's the evidence that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (which is a plant food after all) are actually greening the planet and helping to lift agricultural yields,' he said.

'In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it's accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.'

Cox's tour - Professor Cox Live 2017 - starts in Melbourne on Thursday and will visit Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra, Adelaide and Perth, as well as Auckland and Wellington.

SOURCE




Livestock to blame for 19% of global warming - study

The heading above is an example of assuming what you have to prove.  The study quantified the emissions of various gases from livestock but the claim that such gases cause global warming remains unproven, to put it politely.  There is plenty of evidence that such gasses have NO influence on temperature.

For instance, although global temperatures are dropping, CO2 levels are higher in 2017 than they have ever been: The  exact opposite of what Warmist theory predicts. The CO2 figures are here (see column 4) and the temperatures are here

Livestock emissions are responsible for almost a a fifth of total global warming, a new study has revealed.

Research from the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre shows methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock contributed to 19 percent of the world's global warming in 2010.

An additional 4 percent was due to emissions created when land was converted to pasture.

The study's author, Andy Reisinger, said the figures showed the critical role methane played in global warming.

"This estimate does not consider indirect emissions from energy use or growing livestock feed, such as soy beans, so this can be taken as a lower bound of the actual contribution of livestock to global warming.

Dr Reisinger said livestock emissions were likely to increase as global demand for livestock products increased.

He said that even though methane behaved differently to carbon dioxide - it does not last in the atmosphere for as long - reducing methane emissions would makes a significant contribution to reducing climate change impacts.

"If countries are serious about meeting the goals of the Paris agreement on climate change - which is to limit global warming to well below 2°C and ideally even 1.5° - then livestock emissions still make up about 20 percent of that warming in the year 2100, even if we make a lot of effort to reduce those emissions."

SOURCE





A Test of the Anthropogenic Sea Level Rise Hypothesis

Scary though it may be, there is no evidence to suggest that sea level rise can be controlled by cutting fossil fuel emissions

Jamal Munshi

Abstract

Detrended correlation analysis of a global sea level reconstruction 1807-2010 does not show that changes in the rate of sea level rise are related to the rate of fossil fuel emissions at any of the nine time scales tried. The result is checked against the measured data from sixteen locations in the Pacific and Atlantic regions of the Northern Hemisphere. No evidence could be found that observed changes in the rate of sea level rise are unnatural phenomena that can be attributed to fossil fuel emissions. These results are inconsistent with the proposition that the rate of sea level rise can be moderated by reducing emissions. It is noted that correlation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a causal relationship between emissions and acceleration of sea level rise.

SOURCE




German Wind Farms To Be Terminated As Subsidies Run Out

Wind power is the most important component of Germany’s green energy transition. The end of subsides for older turbines, however, threatens countless wind farms. By 2023, more than a quarter of Germany’s onshore wind farms may be gone.

Several thousand wind turbines in Germany are likely to be closed down in the next decade because they will no longer receive any subsidies. “If electricity prices do not rise over the next decade, only a few plants will survive on the market without subsidies,” says an analysis by the Berlin-based consulting firm Energy Brainpool. This assessment is shared by most professionals. “In any case, by 2020, the shutdown of existing facilities is to be expected to a greater or lesser extent,” an article by several economists of the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research in Leipzig concludes.

The sticking point is the electricity price of 2021, which nobody knows today. Older wind turbines who have been running for 20 years or more will lose their subsidies under the Renewable Energy Act (EEG), but not their operating permit. They could go on generating power, if they would be profitable. Like all older technology, after 20 years of wear and tear, wind turbines are prone to repairs and are more maintenance-intensive than new products. Operating costs are higher too. The current electricity price of around three cents per kilowatt hour would not be enough to keep wind farms running – with perhaps a few exceptions in particularly good locations.

By 2021 alone, 5,700 wind turbines with a capacity of 4,500 megawatts will be closed down. In the following years, 2,000 to 3,000 megawatts each will be decommissioned. The German Wind Energy Association estimates that by 2023 around 14,000 megawatts of installed capacity will be gone. That would be more than a quarter of the currently installed onshore wind power capacity which would be eliminated.

The planned expansion corridor for onshore wind energy envisages that 2,900 megawatts of power will be installed in 2020 and in subsequent years. But that’s gross, not net. Decommissioned and dismantled facilities are not considered. In light of the current situation, more wind capacity would be decommissioned than new capacity added. Onshore wind energy would shrink, not grow.

SOURCE





THE LONELINESS OF THE LONG DISTANCE WARMER

Tim Blair is rather sarcastic below but his last sentence is solid logic

Of all the terrifying warnings we've been given about the effects of climate change, this is the most terrifying yet.

Previously we were warned about such dire outcomes as declining snowfalls, which distressed skiers and other delicate members of the ecosystem. According to the UN, the earth should already be overrun by climate refugees, many presumably lugging their Volkl Mantras from peak to snowless mountain peak in doomed searches for decent powder.

In 2011, Australian academic Tony McMichael foretold of "infectious disease risks, mental depression and community destruction" brought about by climate change. But, as scary as McMichael's predictions were, they didn't even come close to the shocking truth.

Last week the New York Times finally revealed the full, appalling extent of climate change's horror. Trust me, people. After reading this, you will not want to live in a climate-changed world. Rather, you will curse unto death those who have so cruelly and carelessly destroyed our planet. For, as the NYT exclusively reported, rampant climate change may achieve something almost unimaginably dreadful.

It could extend race times for marathon runners.

"The interactions between climate and a sport like long-distance running are only going to get more pronounced as the climate changes," declared Michael Greenstone, head of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, in his landmark NYT piece.

"Over the last 50 years, the temperature has exceeded 60 degrees on just 5 percent of the days during the first week of November, when the New York race is typically held. By 2050, this is projected to rise to 18 percent of days, and by 2090 it is expected to be 38 percent.

"How will runners and organizers react?"

Just a guess, but probably by running and organising. That's generally what these people do. But it gets worse: "Runners may switch from the New York City Marathon to others held in cooler climates to find the perfect temperature at just the right time of year. Could a Montreal Marathon be among the world's most prestigious by 2050?"

See? I told you it was shocking. I'm certain I speak for many when I say suicide is preferable to co-existing with prestigious Canadian endurance events.

"In many other areas of our lives," Greenstone continued, "the costs of climate change are expected to be greater." Yes. Even greater than marginally-extended 42.195 kilometre completion schedules for Ezekiel Kiptoo Chebii.

"More intense hurricanes, and the increased occurrence of extremely hot days, will elevate risks to life and property."

Not to mention the specific risks to marathon runners. Your typical long-distance competitor doesn't weigh much, and a Cat 5 hurricane would really knock around any chances of a personal best.

One question, though. If heat is so bad for marathon runners, how come the sport's finest and fastest all come from Kenya?

SOURCE

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************