Civil servant is righter than government minister shocker!
There’s a row going on about energy price rises, as you know. This blog rather nicely lays out one view. Now, we all know that energy prices are going to rise in the future: the government’s specifically taxing us all to make sure this is true. However, underlying that is another argument: does this mean that the average family will be paying more?
In one corner we’ve the DECC and the various environmentalists. No, the higher prices will encourage people to substitute. They’ll insulate, wear woolly jumpers, use less energy anyway. In the other corner we’ve a political advisor called Ben Moxham who calls this all wet. People won’t in fact change their behaviour all that much and the average energy bill is going to go way up.
It’sd a bit of a pity to get involved in such a lovely catfight really, should just get some popcorn and settle down to watch. However, there’s a reasonable way of calling this argument, by using a little basic economics. (Adam Smith)
IAEA still sees “significant” nuclear energy growth
The U.N. atomic agency still expects significant growth in the global use of nuclear power over the next two decades, despite a slowdown in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima accident, its head said Monday.
The number of operating reactors in the world is expected to increase by between 90 and 350 units by 2030, Yukiya Amano, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in a speech.
Currently, there are about 432 reactors worldwide, with the United States, Russia and France among countries with the most units.
“This represents continuous and significant growth in the use of nuclear power, but at a slower growth rate than in our previous projections,” Amano told the IAEA’s 35-nation board in Vienna. (Reuters)
Analysis: Electric car hype hiding a quiet revolution
Electric cars and hybrids may be capturing headlines and the imagination of green-leaning consumers around the world as one automaker after another announces plans to push into the brave new world of fossil fuel-free mobility.
But away from the spotlight, carmakers have been quietly delivering significant cuts in CO2 emissions with some re-engineering of internal combustion engines, technology advances, weight reduction and aerodynamic improvements.
Increasingly stringent fuel economy standards in Europe and the United States that were mandated due to climate change concerns have been the main catalyst. Yet with rising fuel prices and a waxing awareness of global warming, consumers have also been clamoring for more fuel-efficient vehicles. (Reuters)
Do clouds disappear?
Warmer days and cooler nights when cosmic rays are scarce
Here’s a reminder of a climatic footnote to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC, ten years ago this weekend. With civilian aircraft grounded for three days, and without the contrails that usually criss-cross the skies of the USA, the difference between daytime and night-time temperatures at the surface increased. (See the Travis reference below.) Apparently like many other clouds (not all) the contrails reduce sunshine during the day and blanket the loss of heat at night. Take away those man-made clouds and the days become a little warmer and the nights a little cooler. In the jargon: the diurnal temperature range (DTR) increases.
(((Remark added 11 September. With comments coming in that cast doubt on that contrail story, I’ll repeat part of what I said in reply to Dahuang below. It doesn’t really matter what the reason was, for the post-9/11 increase in DTR, as long as everyone accepts that a loss of cloud was involved.)))
Serbian evidence for cosmoclimatology: Forbush events affect day-night differences
So-Called “Climate-Sensitivity” – A Dance On The Head Of A Pin
The highly critical weblog and media posts on the Spencer and Braswell (2011) and Dessler (2011) papers reminds me of the medieval question “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin“.
The question the scientists, bloggers and media are asking is what is the magnitude of a so-called “climate sensitivity” to the human input of CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases? The more appropriate question, is why do we care? (Roger Pielke Sr.)
And the obvious answer is we care because misanthropes and scammers are using claims of extreme climate sensitivity to assault Western civilization and capitalism. Climatically atmospheric carbon dioxide doesn’t matter a rat’s posterior but economically it is a huge deal.
Posted in Climate, Climate change, Corporate welfare, Crazy carbon schemes, Development, Dioxycarbophobia, Energy, Green scams, IPCC, Misanthropy, Propaganda
Shock News : Greenland Used To Be Much Warmer
This doesn’t make sense. Our top climatologists tell us that temperatures are much warmer now than they were during the MWP. Clearly the vikings were mistaken.
http://votumsolvit.com/ (Real Science)
Inconvenient truth: Antarctica sea ice extent growing 1.43% per year
A paper published today in the Journal of Climate examines the trend of sea ice extent along the East Antarctic coast from 2000 to 2008 and finds a significant increase of 1.43% per year. (Hockey Schtick)
Of Course Human Caused Climate Change Is Real
“In a survey last year by the National Academy of Sciences, 97 percent to 98 percent of climate researchers agreed with the premise that humans are causing climate change.” So says the Los Angeles Times, as quoted by (the addled1) Maggie Astor in International Business Times.
The first reaction of any scientist should be: what’s wrong with the other 2 to 3 percent? Given our knowledge of physics, it is not just true, but trivially and obviously true that humans cause the climate to change.
But then so do ants cause climate change, and their arch rivals the aardvarks. As do yellow perch and their meals the nightcrawlers. Any species that moves or engages in respiration, or in eructation after a good meal, changes the climate.
24% Consider Al Gore An Expert On Global Warming
Despite winning a Nobel Prize and an Oscar for his work in the global warming area, most voters don’t consider former Vice President Al Gore an expert on the subject.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that just 24% of voters consider Gore an expert on global warming. Fifty-nine percent (59%) do not think Gore is an expert on the subject, an increase in skepticism of 12 points since March 2007. Another 18% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
While a plurality of Democrats (43%) considers Gore an expert on global warming, most Republicans (80%) and voters not affiliated with either major political party (65%) disagree. (Rasmussen Reports)
What Al Gore has learned from No Pressure
Last October, on 10/10/10, the activist group 10:10 has become notorious for their No Pressure video in which the lives of climate skeptics and even the lives of insufficiently excited alarmists (including two schoolkids, three secretaries, a soccer star, and an X-Files actress) were ended.
The video opened the eyes of many viewers who hadn’t previously understood that global warming alarmism was the Nazism of our time. What has Al Gore learned from this event? 76% of the people consider Gore a non-expert on climate change but they haven’t been asked whether Gore dreams about homicide yet. (TRF)
Coral reefs ‘will be gone by end of the century’
They will be the first entire ecosystem to be destroyed by human activity, says top UN scientist
Coral reefs are on course to become the first ecosystem that human activity will eliminate entirely from the Earth, a leading United Nations scientist claims. He says this event will occur before the end of the present century, which means that there are children already born who will live to see a world without coral. (Independent)
In fact corals have tolerated changes from interglacials to ice ages, variation in ocean levels of more than 100 meters, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels 10-20 times today’s – and down to virtually half – and still they thrive, even repopulating Pacific Ocean atomic bomb test sites. It will take a lot more effort than people are prepared to supply to get rid of the stuff.