Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« What New Scientist wouldn't print | Main | Still going slow »
Monday
May232016

Yorkshire goes unconventional

Well this was enough to lull me from my blogging stupor:

Fracking given green light in North Yorkshire

Protesters booed and jeered as councillors gave the go-ahead for the first fracking operation in the UK for five years.

The problem the greens are going to have now is that when the sky doesn't actually fall in, they are going to be left looking pretty dishonest. 

Again.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (487)

Hmmm. I show two graphs of Greenland Ice Cores, which show quite clearly that the NH has been cooling for 5000* years, and you bang on about CET.


Don't waste your life, Phil.
[*Corrected as requested .TM]

Jun 1, 2016 at 11:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton

5000 NOT 500. Edit post button please your Grace!

Jun 1, 2016 at 11:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton

Oh Ayla

We must employ more musicologists with climate aspirations,
Preferably those with theoretical abnormalities.

When Oh Turkish mistress are times not odd in your neck of the woods?
The sound of stick on bucket must be deafening
Your eardrums must ring with rapture.

We did not recognize your Wiegenlied
Does this foretell many little Aylaettes in our future, and
a need for bassinets?
Can you play them?

Jun 1, 2016 at 11:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

JP - YOU raised the CET Mr P, linking to an article by somebody who was unaware of the data quality problems pre-1772 (or lied about them).

Your first graph is from the GISP2 ice core, which ends long before modern warming, and looks like a rehash of Easterbrook's nonsense.

Your second has no traceable provenance.

Impressive.

Jun 1, 2016 at 12:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Ayla & Alan Kendall,

I would have responed lyrically about climate science, but could not think of an appropriate rhyme for bucket.

Could we not hit the Green Druids of Climate Science with a hookey kookey stick, to prevent them disappearing the LIA and MWP, everytime it comes back, despite their repetitive incantations, harmonized chanting and voodoo science?

Jun 1, 2016 at 12:44 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf Charlie.

I suppose much depends upon how you pronounce "bucket", or rather how you believe someone as fragrant as Ayla might envelope its tonal values. I know how I would vote, but its up to you to risk being modelled by an irate druid disciple. Will you risk it?

Your second para suggests you do not fear her wrath or are simply suicidal.

Jun 1, 2016 at 1:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, unfortunately, a bouquet of Climate Scientists simply smells fishy, though they think they keep smelling of roses.

Having studied Asterix the Gaul, I am aware of the mighty potions brewed up by Getafix the Druid, but he never claimed to control the weather, just empower a dysfunctional rabble.

Jun 1, 2016 at 2:03 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf charlie

How about **** it!

Jun 1, 2016 at 2:56 PM | Registered CommenterDung

golf Charlie. As an aficionado of Asterix, I suppose a favourite must be "A. and the Golden Sickle" with it's hint of a Roman Period hockey stick (with immense powers for Getafix), and the gloriously named character Surplus dairyprodus?

Just think, if Michael M were ever in an Asterix adventure he would be Mannix! Mannix the Manipulator smoothing away the Minoan warm period?

Jun 1, 2016 at 3:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Dung, there was only ONE Asterix the Gaul, not four, and four asterisks don't rhyme with bucket either.

Jun 1, 2016 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Alan Kendall, you must remember how concerned the Chief, Vitalstatistix was about the inconvenient bulges in the line of his otherwise flat stomach. Mannipulatrix could have smoothed them away with Computatrix, Graftrix and Philsnaturtrix

Jun 1, 2016 at 3:42 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

PC
Are you related to Chris Bryant? He's very fond of calling everyone a liar.

We had someone here, just a few pages ago, lying that GWPF has tried to lie about something or other, it was of no consequence.

Bit of a hoot really!

Jun 1, 2016 at 3:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterCapell

golfus Charlix. I cannot compete (3.42pm). I am your faithful Sancho Panza to your hidalgo, Obalix to your *.

Jun 1, 2016 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Alan Kendall, I can only apologise as it was Mike's Nature Trick not Phil's, but the LostDataTrixies were missing at the time, possibly Norwich's most famous Chinese Take Away from 1990.

Jun 1, 2016 at 6:03 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Jun 1, 2016 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Zigactly!

Jun 1, 2016 at 6:12 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Jun 1, 2016 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I protest!
You only asked for a rhyme -.-

Jun 1, 2016 at 6:13 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Who will return first to end this play ?

The Bishop or Godot ?

Jun 1, 2016 at 6:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Russell.
Are you waiting patiently?
Try passing the hat to someone who cares a hoot.

Jun 1, 2016 at 7:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

"I would have responed lyrically about climate science, but could not think of an appropriate rhyme for bucket..." --golf charlie

I always go with "Nantucket," given the proper venue.

"Dung, there was only ONE Asterix the Gaul, not four, and four asterisks don't rhyme with bucket either." --golf charlie

There's a certain amount of confusion (though not here) regarding the pronunciation of "*". The following poem makes it clear:

"Mary had an aeroplane; in it she liked to frisk.
Wasn't she a silly girl, her little * ?"

Salutations to Alan Kendall.

Jun 1, 2016 at 9:20 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

vvussell, if you are waiting for Godot, he left a message, saying he would be late.

If you are trying to avoid Jones er al 1990, don't search for it on Google with Steve McIntyre or Climate Audit, you could be stuck for hours, wondering how there is no supporting data for all the citations, conclusions and recommendations.

Jun 2, 2016 at 12:04 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Dung, frightfully sorry.

Chuck it? Rhymes with bucket, and is appropriate for Climate Science.

Jun 2, 2016 at 12:14 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Spectator - your questions [----- ] are predicated on the premise that all of the projected 2C rise is due to UK Shale Gas and could be prevented by the simple act of leaving it in the ground. This is clearly nonsense.

Phil Clark -- NO my questions a re not predicated on the premise that the projected 2ºC rise is due to UK shale gas.

Y ou quoted the following :-

"Our results suggest that, globally, a third of oil reserves,half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to meet the target of 2ºC. We show that development of resources in the Arctic and any increase in unconventional oil production are incommensurate with efforts to limit average global warming to2C.

Letter to Nature by Christophe McGlade and Paul Ekins of UCL.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14016.epdf
May 27, 2016 at 11:03 AM | Unregistered Commenter Phil Clarke

Can you please provide the evidence that this is the case - McGlade and Ekins merely state their opinion - they do not provide evidence that leaving 2/3 of currently known oil reserves and 80% of coal reserves in the ground will meet a target of 2ºC ( above what temperature one wonders) - shale gas reserves ( in any location) were not mentioned.

Do you dispute that oil and coal are the most cost effective sources of energy with current technology and cost of capita?

Jun 2, 2016 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterSpectator

I dispute it.

Jun 2, 2016 at 11:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterAyla

As a complete change of topic I just wonder how many of those who are getting all outrageously outragety over the big monkey killing in the States are also supporters of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) catastrophilia and by that I mean the precautionary principle?

I dare say the vast majority of those that are currently outrageously outragety ARE Climate Change Catastrophiliacs BUT whats interesting is that although they will be completely in support of the precautionary principle when it comes to Mann Made Global Warming (tm) they aren't so much in favour of the precautionary principle when it comes to killing a big monkey toying with a small child.

Such is the double standards of the left I guess.

Mailman

ps. please note that I have used the same exact scientific method used by Climate Scientists to divine the political leanings of all persons in question in the above rant.

Jun 2, 2016 at 11:20 AM | Unregistered Commentermailman

 they do not provide evidence that leaving 2/3 of currently known oil reserves and 80% of coal reserves in the ground will meet a target of 2ºC ( above what temperature one wonders)

You haven't read the paper then. Very first line of the abstract:

Policy makers have generally agreed that the average global temperature rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions should not exceed 2C above the average global temperature of pre-industrial times

And they provide all the evidence for their conclusions in the paper. Hint:That tends to be a criteria for publication in Nature. There's a body of supporting evidence in the literature. It is not difficult - we know the forcing effect of releasing a given quantity of carbon, we know, within a range, what the corresponding warming effect will be, we have good numbers for fossil fuel reserves.

Here's another paper for you to ignore http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.4846

Burning all fossil fuels, we conclude, would make much of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change.

Do you dispute that oil and coal are the most cost effective sources of energy with current technology and cost of capita?

Not true when you account for the externalities correctly.

Jun 2, 2016 at 12:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Ayla

Such a little missive, so little content, no context.
Can you really be devoting your time and effort
To swotting the demented ravings
Of a minnow such as Spectator?
One who only looks on, not revealing his true self.

True he commits heresy
Justifying climate sin on grounds of the false science - economics
But others follow in his path
And your denial of his "truth" has little substance

You have perhaps little ones to anticipate and indoctrinate
We await the glad tidings
How goes your Wiegenlied?
Will it sooth or will the rhythm of the bucket dominate?

Jun 2, 2016 at 12:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

"Policy makers have generally agreed that the average global temperature rise caused by greenhouse gas emissions should not exceed 2C above the average global temperature of pre-industrial times" Phil Clarke

I am sure policy makers have generally agreed this. I expect that most people would agree, probably 97% of the population, including 100% of the commenters here.

I am sure that we would also all agree that seals should not become extinct due to the unprecedented growth in polar bear numbers since records began.

There is no evidence to support either presumption, so why worry about it?

Jun 2, 2016 at 12:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Spectator

Do you dispute that oil and coal are the most cost effective sources of energy with current technology and cost of capital?

Yes. If coal and oil are most cost effective, we would not see exponentially increasing investment in renewables?

Jun 2, 2016 at 12:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

So EM, the imposition of obstacles to fossil fuel developments and the awarding of subsidies to so-called renewables has no significance to the question, in yourview?

Jun 2, 2016 at 12:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

It certainly is important to take account of the impact that state subsidies have. By 2025 we will be able to see what a level playing field looks like…

Given the fact that energy production and use account for around two-thirds of global GHG emissions, we recognize the crucial role that the energy sector has to play in combatting climate change. We remain committed to the elimination of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies and encourage all countries to do so by 2025.

G7 Ise-Shima Summit, Leader's Declaration 26-27 May 2016

The OECD values these subsidies at 160-200 billion USD annually, while a working paper published by the IMF values the cost of pollution and climate change from fossil fuel use (the 'externalities' I mentioned earlier) at an eye-watering 5.3 trillion USD per annum.

Jun 2, 2016 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

EM Think Progress are Shills for the Greens, dependent on subsidies. They are not credible.

Phil Clarke Why wait until 2025, when we already know that the OECD, promotes worse policies that are destroying lives?

Of course if you believe it is scientific principles, and not political personalities that drive climate science, Trump is no threat.

Jun 2, 2016 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I find it amazing that supposedly intelligent and well educated people can post total rubbish on a regular basis and not feel remorse Phil Clarke. I am out of order here since the Bish does not want to see a debate on CO2 = AGW on the front page of the blog. However Rhoda ran several discussion threads asking for proof that CO2 causes ANY global warming and not a soul was able to do so, until someone does that you should not bring up the topic or attempt to discuss it on the Blog.

Jun 2, 2016 at 1:54 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Greenhouse effect deniers?

Its worse than I thought.

Jun 2, 2016 at 2:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Didn't notice any proof there Phil old bean.

Jun 2, 2016 at 2:31 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Alan Kenwell

Being a sceptic, you disregard the indirect costs of fossil fuels. Having started from a false premise you reach a false conclusion.

Golf Charlie

As you are a useful idiot for the fossil fuel companies?

Dung

Science does not do proof. it does evidence, detection and attribution, and inference to the best explaination. All that asking for proof demonstrates is her and your ignorance of how science works.

Rhoda's threads petered out when it became evident that she was a serial denier of the evidence. She embodied the impossible expectations straw man.

Jun 2, 2016 at 2:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Climate Progress were reporting the numbers from the highly-regarded Global Status Report on renewables from REN21, which is a policy network made up of representatives from Governments, Universities, Industry and NGOs.

Its key findings include

Although many of the initiatives announced in Paris and elsewhere did not start to a‡ect renewable markets in 2015, there were already signs that a global energy transition is under way. Renewable energy provided an estimated 19.2% of global final energy consumption in 2014, and growth in capacity and generation continued in 2015. An estimated 147 gigawatts (GW) of renewable power capacity was added in 2015, the largest annual increase ever, while renewable heat capacity increased by around 38 gigawatts-thermal (GWth), and total biofuels production also rose. This growth occurred despite tumbling global prices for all fossil fuels, ongoing fossil fuel subsidies and other challenges facing renewables, including the integration of rising shares of renewable generation, policy and political instability, regulatory barriers and fiscal constraints.

Global investment also climbed to a new record level, in spite of the plunge in fossil fuel prices, the strength of the US dollar (which reduced the dollar value of non-dollar investments), the continued weakness of the European economy and further declines in per unit costs of wind and solar PV. For the sixth consecutive year, renewables outpaced fossil fuels for net investment in power capacity additions.

http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/GSR_2016_KeyFindings.pdf

Another organisation to add to the ignore list. The conspiracy is everywhere!

Jun 2, 2016 at 2:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Subsidy - other peoples money being taken off them (generally via a tax) and given to a particular industry as an incentive to get involved in said industry (renewable energy generation in this example).

Not a subsidy - being allowed to keep more of the money you make through your commercial activities (like selling oil) to stimulate further investment in your business.

Seems that the only people actually capable of understanding this are those not currently employed in any form of academia...who themselves are hugely dependent on subsidies to stay in business.

EM said "Science does not do proof. it does evidence, detection and attribution, and inference to the best explaination. All that asking for proof demonstrates is her and your ignorance of how science works."

You might want to ask climate scientists when they are going to start following your guidelines EM :)

Mailman

Mailman

Jun 2, 2016 at 2:37 PM | Unregistered Commentermailman

Seems that the only people actually capable of understanding this are those not currently employed in any form of academia...who themselves are hugely dependent on subsidies to stay in business.

The G7, IMF, IEA and OECD would disagree with you. The OECD definition is 'measures that keep prices for consumers below market levels or for producers above market levels, or reduce costs for consumers and producers.'


https://www.odi.org/subsidies-change-the-game

Jun 2, 2016 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

EM. As a climate activist you appear not to recognize that renewable energy is rife with subsidies, that renewable power companies and suppliers of renewable equipment have repeatedly gone belly up as soon as subsidies are withdrawn or reduced (sometimes even when subsidies are maintained).

What are these fabled subsidies that keep fossil fuel companies afloat? I trust you are not going to use the old chestnut of depreciation - I'm ready for you.

In actual fact I'm in favour of renewables, even of some subsidies (to encourage more efficient design) because I believe that eventually we will need them. I see no point in destroying a working and efficient energy supply today in favour of a grossly inefficient, ineffective and costly alternative. A replacement being carried out now solely because of a false premise that we must reduce our CO2 emissions.

I sometimes feel the whole world has gone quite mad.

Jun 2, 2016 at 3:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

you appear not to recognize that renewable energy is rife with subsidies, that renewable power companies and suppliers of renewable equipment have repeatedly gone belly up as soon as subsidies are withdrawn or reduced (sometimes even when subsidies are maintained).
What are these fabled subsidies that keep fossil fuel companies afloat? I trust you are not going to use the old chestnut of depreciation - I'm ready for you.

You are confusing producer and producer subsidies. Remember that the reserves do not belong to the private companies that extract them, they are licenced by Governments. Any intervention that reduces the price to the consumer by for example, favourable tax treatment, is a subsidy.

Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011.[3] Global renewable energy subsidies reached $88 billion in 2011.[4] Taking into account the price difference offered to developing countries of the fossil fuels (in many developing countries, fossil fuels are sold below the regular price), then as of 2015 fossil fuels are subsidised with an estimated additional $550 billion per year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

"This new tax regime, which I want to make the most generous for shale in the world,"

- George Osbourne

"Leading global coal miner Peabody files for bankruptcy"

Reuters

Jun 2, 2016 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

That should read 'confusing producer and consumer subsidies', natch.

Apologies.

Jun 2, 2016 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

EM, unfortunately I am a useful idiot for the oil companies, everytime I put petrol in my car. There is no viable alternative, and at the moment, I can avoid that choice. You wish to deprive me of that choice, and block anyone else from being able to have a choice.

You want me, and everyone else to pay even more for stuff that does not work when required. How is your pension going to be paid?

Frack on!

Jun 2, 2016 at 3:33 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Any intervention that reduces the price to the consumer by for example, favourable tax treatment, is a subsidy.

Jun 2, 2016 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

An utterly moronic definition. A government could, hypothetically, tax petrol at $10million per litre. Only rabid greens would then claim that taxing at something like $1million per litre would count as a subsidy.

Jun 2, 2016 at 3:53 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Michael,

You haven't quite grasped it. See the OECD definition.

Jun 2, 2016 at 4:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

OFF-TOPIC

Does anyone know if fracking involves burning chimney stacks, as shown in Greenpeace pics ?

Jun 2, 2016 at 4:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

A sensible policy today would be to recognise that at some point advanced solar, advanced battery technology but not wind power; will be useful and cheap energy sources, the same goes for Fusion power. However today renewables are expensive and unreliable whereas fossil fuels are cheap and abundant. Use fossil fuels today and keep working on new technologies, wot's not to like?

Jun 2, 2016 at 4:14 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Phil Clarke

Evidence is not proof, its is weighed in the balance when trying to find proof. The lack of proof is the reason for the invention of the precautionary prinicple ^.^

Jun 2, 2016 at 4:21 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Phil C

Fossil fuel subsidies. Extraction costs are less than value extracted. = energy surplus and profit; profit reduced by taxes and royalties; any reduction of taxes and royalties = subsidies.

Renewable energy subsidies. Production costs greater than (possibly equal to or slighly less than) energy value obtained = loss or insufficient profit; anything converting loss to a profit = a subsidy.

See the difference Phil? Apples and oranges.

Jun 2, 2016 at 4:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Kendall

Dung,

Pick a well-established scientific principle, say the Conservation of Energy or Natural Selection.

Now show me the proof.

Jun 2, 2016 at 4:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

So we all deny the Green House effect ?

Ok Phill Clark

So if I stood outside on my doorstep with a mug of tap water ,a teabag ,a packet of sugar and a pint of milk how long would it take me to make a cup of Tea?

Jun 2, 2016 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamspid

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>