Sunday, 9 July 2017

G20 closes with rebuke to Trump's climate change stance. Australia should follow Trump out of the Paris Climate Accord.

DEFEAT these gloating galoots.

TO SIGN: Petition for Australia to follow the US to exit the Paris Climate Accord, 

go to links at end of this post.

Gee, we learn that UK PM Theresa MAY is "disMAYed at Donald Trump's decision to pull out of Paris climate change agreement."
After he refused to do so, the other G20 countries issued a communique, drawn up with the help of Mrs May, stating that the Paris Agreement was “irreversible” while the US conceded that emissions must be reduced.
Oh really? And yet they could not issue a communique against North Korea because Russia and China didn't agree?

I can find reference after reference of Angela Merkel criticising POTUS Trump before the G20 meetings; eg here, here, and after the talkfest, Merkel said:
"Unfortunately -- and I deplore this -- the United States of America left the climate agreement, or rather announced their intention of doing this."
So we find the deluded nations critical of Trump because he, alone out of the G20, was aware of the fraud of the Paris Climate Accord.
“The Paris Climate Agreement has one aim, to de-industrialise Western nations to satisfy the United Nations Socialist agenda – redistributing $100 trillion from prosperous Western nations by 2100."
One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts has virtually accused the Turnbull Government of treachery:

By signing this agreement our Government ceded our sovereignty to the United Nations - an act of treachery against the Australian people - and must be rescinded immediately.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts has challenged the other major parties:
“you need to decide whose side you are on, Australia’s or the United Nations?”

SO, WHAT CAN WE, the Average Australian DO?

There is a petition before the Australian Parliament for Australia to get out of the Paris Climate Accord.

It can be found here: 

Please go to the link, add your name and email, then confirm that you are not a robot.

Then you will receive and email with a link that must be clicked to confirm your signed the petition. It is a bit of a procedure, but the checks and balances have be set up by the OZ Parliament.

Details can be found on John McLean's page:

Also refer to the International Clexit (climate exit) pages: eg here.

Study blows ‘greenhouse theory' out of the water.

A study by Ned Nikolov Phd and Karl Zeller Phd published recently in Environment Pollution and Climate Change blows the 'greenhouse theory out of the water.

The paper argues that concentrations of CO2 and other supposed “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere have virtually no effect on the earth’s temperature.
They conclude the entire greenhouse gas theory is incorrect.
Instead, the earth’s “greenhouse” effect is a function of the sun and atmospheric pressure, which results from gravity and the mass of the atmosphere, rather than the amount of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere.
The same is true for other planets and moons with a hard surface, the authors contend, pointing to the temperature and atmospheric data of various celestial bodies collected by NASA. (link)

New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model


A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory. We present here a new investigation into the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect using a novel empirical approach toward predicting the Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature (GMAT) of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres. Our method utilizes Dimensional Analysis (DA) applied to a vetted set of observed data from six celestial bodies representing a broad range of physical environments in our Solar System, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve relationships (models) suggested by DA are explored via non-linear regression analyses that involve dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. Our empirical model has also fundamental implications for the role of oceans, water vapour, and planetary albedo in global climate. Since produced by a rigorous attempt to describe planetary temperatures in the context of a cosmic continuum using an objective analysis of vetted observations from across the Solar System, these findings call for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ as a fundamental property of climate.

Link to the full paper - HERE.
Role of greenhouse gasses from a perspective of the new model
Our analysis revealed a poor relationship between GMAT and the amount of greenhouse gases in planetary atmospheres across a broad range of environments in the Solar System (Figures 1-3 and Table 5). This is a surprising result from the standpoint of the current Greenhouse theory, which assumes that an atmosphere warms the surface of a planet (or moon) via trapping of radiant heat by certain gases controlling the atmospheric infrared optical depth [4,9,10]. The atmospheric opacity to LW radiation depends on air density and gas absorptivity, which in turn are functions of total pressure, temperature, and greenhouse-gas concentrations [9]. Pressure also controls the broadening of infrared absorption lines in individual gases. Therefore, the higher the pressure, the larger the infrared optical depth of an atmosphere, and the stronger the expected greenhouse effect would be. According to the present climate theory, pressure only indirectly affects global surface temperature through the atmospheric infrared opacity and its presumed constraint on the planet’s LW emission to Space.


For 190 years the atmosphere has been thought to warm Earth by absorbing a portion of the outgoing LW infrared radiation and reemitting it back toward the surface, thus augmenting the incident solar flux. This conceptualized continuous absorption and downward reemission of thermal radiation enabled by certain trace gases known to be transparent to solar rays but opaque to electromagnetic long-wavelengths has been likened to the trapping of heat by glass greenhouses, hence the term ‘atmospheric greenhouse effect’. Of course, we now know that real greenhouses preserve warmth not by trapping infrared radiation but by physically obstructing the convective heat exchange between a greenhouse interior and the exterior environment. Nevertheless, the term ‘greenhouse effect’ stuck in science.
The hypothesis that a freely convective atmosphere could retain (trap) radiant heat due its opacity has remained undisputed since its introduction in the early 1800s even though it was based on a theoretical conjecture that has never been proven experimentally. It is important to note in this regard that the well-documented enhanced absorption of thermal radiation by certain gases does not imply an ability of such gases to trap heat in an open atmospheric environment. This is because, in gaseous systems, heat is primarily transferred (dissipated) by convection (i.e., through fluid motion) rather than radiative exchange. If gases of high LW absorptivity/emissivity such as CO2, methane and water vapor were indeed capable of trapping radiant heat, they could be used as insulators. However, practical experience has taught us that thermal radiation losses can only be reduced by using materials of very low IR absorptivity/emissivity and correspondingly high thermal reflectivity such as aluminum foil. These materials are known among engineers at NASA and in the construction industry as radiant barriers [129]. It is also known that high-emissivity materials promote radiative cooling. Yet, all climate models proposed since 1800s were built on the premise that the atmosphere warms Earth by limiting radiant heat losses of the surface through to the action of IR absorbing gases aloft.

Foe Full paper and conclusion - see - THIS.




Dr Alan Moran, a world expert on electricity market regulations has conducted an independent analysis and report on the Finkel Review.
Released today, Dr Moran’s report reveals that the Finkel panel's recommendations are based on unreliable and unrealistic assumptions and forecasts.

20 minutes of devastating destruction of the Finkel Review.

The flaw in Trump’s energy plans

Continuing to view carbon dioxide as toxic is a mistake

Analysis by Tom Harris
Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition

There is a fly in the ointment
 Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times 
President Trump’s energy policies are, mostly, a beautiful thing to see. In line with his America First Energy Plan, Mr. Trump has ended the Obama administration’s war on coal, America’s least expensive source of electricity, by rescinding the Clean Power Plan and other burdensome and unnecessary regulations. He has fast-tracked the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to increase the flow of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta to U.S. refineries. And of course, he has announced U.S. withdrawal from the flawed Paris Agreement on climate change, while promising to “refocus the [Environmental Protection Agency] on its essential mission of protecting our air and water.”
On June 29, at the Unleashing American Energy Event at the Department of Energy in Washington, Mr. Trump went even further. He committed to work to “revive and expand our nuclear energy sector,” starting with a “complete review of U.S. nuclear energy policy.” He will encourage the financing of highly efficient overseas coal stations. New petroleum pipelines are in also the mix, as are new natural gas sales to South Korea, new export terminals for natural gas, and a new offshore oil and gas leasing program.
But there is a fly in the ointment, an echo of climate change policies that, according to the Congressional Research Service, the Obama administration spent $120 billion on. Rather than dismissing the Paris Agreement as fundamentally unsound, a multitrillion-dollar boondoggle devoid of sound science, Mr. Trump said at the Energy Department event, “Maybe we’ll be back into it someday, but it will be on better terms, fairer terms. We’ll see.”
The Paris Agreement is based on the hypothesis that carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial activities are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous climate change. If carbon-dioxide emissions are harmless or, as Energy Secretary Rick Perry said last month, not “the primary control knob for climate,” then the raison d’etre for Paris vanishes. It makes no sense to boast, as Mr. Perry does, that, even though the U.S. is withdrawing from the agreement, “the United States already leads the world in lowering emissions.”
All efforts to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions are, at best, a waste of money. That includes the capture and storage underground of carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, which Robert E. Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp., told E&E News on June 30, “was a pseudonym for no coal.” Mr. Murray explained, “It is neither practical nor economic. It is just cover for the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats that say, ‘Look what I did for coal,’ knowing all the time that it doesn’t help coal at all.”
Senior fellow for energy and climate at the Heartland Institute, Frederick D. Palmer, said, “Though still undergoing further research, capturing CO2 and compressing it to a liquid for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery from shale fields may be valuable. But it should be funded mostly by industry as they see fit, not the government.“On the other hand, capture and geologic storage of CO2 emissions from power plants is a serious mistake since it implicitly accepts the flawed premise that CO2 is a toxic substance. All government support of this technology should be canceled,” Mr. Palmer concluded.
Unlike the way he spoke about these technologies before the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee on June 22, Mr. Perry must differentiate between capturing and storing carbon dioxide for misguided climate protection purposes and the use of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. Neither will “affect our environment in a positive way,” as Mr. Perry suggested to the committee they would.
Finally, the energy secretary must stop implying that carbon-dioxide emission reductions is a benefit of more nuclear power. Nuclear is a valuable energy source that stands on its own without resorting to unfounded climate change concerns.
To have any chance of its energy policies lasting beyond the Trump presidency, the administration must work hard to sway public opinion so solidly against the global warming alarm that no sensible politician would dare promote it again. As long as the public continue to view carbon-dioxide emissions as a problem, one to be solved by a new and fairer Paris Agreement, sequestration of CO2 underground, or a greater use of nuclear power, then we have not won the war. It will only be a matter of time before, under a future president, new U.N. climate treaties will once again hobble the nation’s energy providers.
On Friday, an important step was taken by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt that has the potential to contribute to the public re-education required. Mr. Pruitt announced that he will launch a program to critique the science of climate change. His evaluation will apparently involve climate experts from both sides of the debate in an effort to determine the actual state of the science. It should show that, rather than being “settled” in favor of climate alarmism as President Obama repeatedly claimed, the science is still immature.
Mr. Pruitt must broadly publicize the results of his evaluation and cite reports, such as those of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which show that much of what we thought we knew about climate is either mistaken or highly debatable. Only then will the public come to understand why many experts reject the climate scare as scientifically unfounded.
In the meantime, Mr. Trump must remove the flies that are spoiling an otherwise excellent energy program.

From Washington Times: Washington Times