Seen elsewhere

Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts

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

Powered by Squarespace

Magic wands and the greens

I think it was Bryony Worthington who once asked a bunch of environmentalists what they would happen if a fairy could wave a magic wand and do away with the warming effects of carbon dioxide. Would they be happy for mankind to continue to burn fossil fuels?

The answer of course was "no".

Interesting then to read the news that Roman Abramovich has made a major investment in a company that claims to be able to fracture rocks without any fluids at all.

Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich has invested $15 million in Houston-based Propell Technologies Group, Inc. (OTC:PROP) and its new fracking technology from wholly owned subsidiary Novas Energy. Significantly, this new enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technology enables ‘clean’ hydraulic micro/nano fracturing of oil reservoirs—that is, without water, without polluting chemicals and without earthquakes.

According to Propell, the Plasma Pulse patented downhole tool creates a controlled plasma arc within a vertical well, generating a tremendous amount of heat for a fraction of a second. The subsequent high-speed hydraulic impulse wave emitted is strong enough to remove any clogged sedimentation from the perforation zone without damaging steel. The series of impulse waves/vibrations also penetrate deep into the reservoir causing nano fractures in the matrix which increase reservoir permeability for up to a year per treatment.

It sounds like the shale gas industry's very own magic wand. You can almost sense the dismay among the green fraternity.


Why you can't trust climatology

Roger Pielke Jr, along with a handful of other academics is the subject of an "investigation" by a Democratic congressman from Arizona. There has been a great deal of outrage and disgust expressed, on both sides of the debate, and it's certainly nice to see the two sides pulling together for once, although Michael Mann has chosen to keep up his ugly utterances instead.

Roger has discussed what is going on here. I was struck by this bit:

The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject. 

Roger has always struck me as one of the most robust participants in the climate debate. When someone as thick-skinned as he is is forced out then it really does tell you something about the trustworthiness of what climatologists and the IPCC tell us.

The word is "nugatory", I think.


Green messages

When I discussed Scotland's energy supply on Radio Scotland a few weeks back, I shared the airwaves with a Green Party spokesman. I pressed him (I forget his name) on how energy was to be generated on cold still nights, and was told that we needed research into energy storage technologies.

That's fair enough, although the obvious corollary is that we are stuck with fossil fuels in the meantime.

It's interesting therefore to see the green movement declaring today that we just don't need any fossil fuel generation at all. This comes in response to the Conservatives' warnings that we risk the lights going out.


SCOTLAND must build new power stations if it wants to keep the lights on beyond 2025, opposition leaders will warn today.

A massive new gas-powered plant could be built at Longannet which looks poised to shut down within the next decade, according to the Conservatives.

But environmental bodies have dismissed the claims, insisting that Scotland can continue to power itself from green sources like wind and hydro.

Clearly the greens know that the lights will go out if the wind fails to blow on a winter's night unless we have conventional generation capacity on hand. It's interesting to ponder then why they persist in telling journalists that we can allow all these power stations to close. And why the journalists don't call them out on it.



An unfortunate series of incidents - Josh 315


Salby in London

Another date for your diaries...

Prof. Murry Salby presents

Control of Atmospheric CO2

His new research applies observed changes of climate and atmospheric tracers to resolve the budget of atmospheric carbon dioxide. It reveals the mechanisms behind the evolution of CO2, including its increase during the 20th century. Thereby, the analysis determines the respective roles of human and natural sources of CO2, with an upper bound on the contribution from fossil fuel emission.

Click to read more ...


Patchy resigns

News is breaking that Rajendra Pachauri has resigned as head of the IPCC.

The head of the United Nations climate change panel (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, has stepped down amid sexual harassment allegations.

A spokesman for Mr Pachauri informed the IPCC that he resigned from his position with immediate effect.


A cap on hunger

Precisely what is meant by sustainable development has never been entirely clear, but you could be forgiven for thinking that it was something to do with killing off as many people in the third world as possible. Take, for example, the case of biofuels, which were touted by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (among others) as important contributors to sustainable development and a mighty blow in the war against fossil fuels to boot. When European farmers saw the possibilities it was not long before corrupt bureaucrats in the EU leapt into action and put legislation in place to make the dreams of environmentalists and farmers a reality.

The problem was that it was a reality that involved quite a lot of hunger, not a little outright starvation, and perhaps some landgrabs too.

Click to read more ...


Building a crony capitalist society

A few days ago I noted the comments of the UNFCCC's Christiana Figueres about the UN's desire to transform the basis of daily economic life:

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution.

Click to read more ...


Worst fracking paper ever?

Richard Black's Energy and Climate Change Information Unit has published what must surely rank as one of the most outrageously misleading contributions to the unconventional gas debate since Frackland.

The image explaining the unconventional drilling process is simply jaw-dropping, with readers invited to believe that aquifers are just a few feet below the surface and that shale seams are just a few feet below that.

Click to read more ...


Another witchhunt

So the usual suspects in the green-tinged media are running another of their witchhunts. This time they have returned to the attack against Willie Soon, with the New York Times' Justin Gillis and the Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg in the front line.

As far as I can see, the story is that Soon and three co-authors published a paper on climate sensitivity. At the same time (or perhaps in the past - this being a smear-job it's hard to get at the facts) he was being funded by to do work on things like the solar influence on climate by people that greens feel are the baddies. They and the greens feel he should have disclosed that baddies were paying him to do stuff on a  paper that was not funded by the baddies.

I guess you can make a case that he should have done, but I'm struggling to get very excited about it as a transgression.

And as a fairly ugly attempt to poison the well the articles in the New York Times and the Guardian are an indictment of the standards at those once respected publications. Their failure to discuss the contents of the Soon paper speaks volumes.


Congressional hearings?

According to the Daily Caller, Republicans in the US Congress seem set to announce hearings into the surface temperature records. This intelligence was based on a tweet from Dana Rohrabacher, the vice chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.



It seems fairly clear that the surface stations are a shambles. It is not so obvious that this has led to a material overstatement of warming. But I think we can say with some certainty that a congressional hearing is probably not going to get to the bottom of the scientific issues.


The only way is Essex

GWPF have posted a new climate talk, this time given by Christopher Essex. No time to look at it myself, but it's here for those who are interested.



Building up to Paris

No sooner do we learn of the BBC's Climate by Numbers, than climate change makes another appearance on the airwaves, this time Philomena Cunk's short slot in the Charlie Brooker show. Climate scientists on Twitter seem to like it. See what you think (from 25 mins).

I wonder if this is the start of the BBC's big push for Paris.



More numbers

Tamsin Edwards has posted some more details about the Climate by Numbers show at the start of next month. Of particular interest is the official blurb for the show:

In a special film for BBC Four, three mathematicians will explore three key statistics linked to climate change.

In Climate Change by Numbers, Dr Hannah Fry, Prof Norman Fenton and Prof David Spiegelhalter hone in on three numbers that lie at the heart of science’s current struggle to get a handle on the precise processes and impact of climate global climate change.

Prof Norman Fenton said: “My work on this programme has revealed the massive complexity of climate models and the novel challenges this poses for making statistical predictions from them.”

Click to read more ...


Green shoots of decay

Having eschewed climate change and greenery to a large extent in recent years, the Edinburgh Science Festival has clearly found the lure of Paris too much for them and this year devotes a whole strand to energy and climate issues. Here's what they have to say about it.

We are merely the caretakers of our extraordinary planet; it does not belong to us but its future health depends directly on our current actions. Since the industrial revolution our demands for energy, largely from fossil fuels, have increased continuously, however our ideas about what is plentiful are now altering and we have to deal with the concept of changing our approach to energy while simultaneously dealing with the consequences of our past actions.

Click to read more ...