Ian Plimer on the failure of windmills and solar factories to reduce CO2 emissions + Windwatch

And how coal saved the European forests.

A spellbinding speech  by a maestro!

WINDWATCH UPDATE. In case you were wondering about the contribution of the windmills at 6.30 in the evening for the last week, starting Sunday 23.

4%, 5%, 5.5%,7.5%, 11.5%, 3.5%, 1.6%, 8.5%

You may, or may not, be reassured to know that the setting sun at that time of day contributes in the order of 10%. That is zero by 7.30.

The situation was interesting today (Sunday March 1). 

Rooftop solar started to decline in the early afternoon about 2 and coal, gas and hydro ramped up to compensate until demand went down after dinnertime. Field solar contributes very little, on a par with Natural gas that peaks after sunset. Bear in mind Sunday is not a big day for power and the temperature was moderate.

Liberty Quote – The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates. — Tacitus

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Ian Plimer on the failure of windmills and solar factories to reduce CO2 emissions + Windwatch

  1. NoFixedAddress says:

    A great man

  2. chaamjamal says:

    Dear Professor Ian Plimer

    Thank you for your excellent lecture. You make a good point about the weaknesses in the validation with empirical evidence for the theory that the current warming is due to the atmosphere’s rising heat trapping ability due to the fossil fuel emissions of humans. In fact climate scientists have also noticed this weakness in AGW theory. Accordingly, they have proposed an alternative theory of human caused warming called Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Emissions or TCRE. It is based on a near perfect proportionality between mean global surface temperature and cumulative fossil fuel emissions.

    Details in the two documents linked below.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/11/16/agw-issues/

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/11/08/remainingcarbonbudget/

  3. Porter says:

    Dear Jamal,

    Climate change occurred thousands of years before man walked on the earth. That was pointed out in the first 5 minutes of the speech. That alone should tell you the level of human contribution to climate change and the level of your attention to Professor Pilmer’s excellent lecture.

    Kind regards

  4. chaamjamal says:

    Dear Mr Porter
    If you would kindly take a look at the documents submitted as part of my comment you might understand my position a little better. Thank you for your kind response.

  5. NoFixedAddress says:

    LNP = Liberal National Party = Communists
    LP = Labor Party = Communists
    Greens Party = Communists

    Prove me wrong.

  6. Porter says:

    Dear Jamal

    TCRE has been around for a few years. It still attempts to link CO2 with global temperatures. Again that was addressed at the beginning of Pilmer’s lecture.

    Kind regards

  7. bemused says:

    The ever accurate and honest BOM now reports:

    Summers are now twice as long as winters in all Australian capital cities, report finds

    Next year the BOM will announce that we now only have two seasons, summer and something else.

    So WTF does it seem as is summers are half as long as winters?

  8. Rafe Champion says:

    This would have been a good thing until the left realised that western civilization can be destroyed by reducing our use of hydrocarbons.

  9. David Brewer says:

    I wish he would get his figures straight, or rather explain them more carefully.

    From 2.17, he says – after some stuffing around – that 1 molecule in every 85,000 in the atmosphere is human-emitted carbon dioxide, and 32 are natural carbon dioxide.

    This is based on the idea that about 96% of the CO2 comes from a natural source, which is true in terms of their immediate origin (the ocean surface or land biosphere) but is not true in the sense that the annual increments added by humans (now 4%) have been changing the dynamics of the natural emission and reabsorption of carbon dioxide for 200 years or more.

    Bottom line is that we now have about 415 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, compared to about 280 ppm before the industrial revolution. Total human emissions over that time equal about 290 pppm, slightly over half of which has been absorbed by the ocean or the biosphere. So a more realistic estimate is that, of the 33 molecules of carbon dioxide in every 85,000 now present in the atmosphere, 10 or 11 are there because of man-made emissions.

    And have we really had 1000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than now (at 4.03)? The usual estimate is about 15 times (c. 7000 ppm), and that was 600 million years ago. Perhaps it was higher when the earth formed, before life existed, but is that relevant? Notice that 1000 times the current concentration would mean the atmosphere was 41% carbon dioxide, whereas around 20% will kill you, and even 5% will make you feel sick.

    His basic point about the Greens not realising that everything they wear, eat, and take for granted depends on affordable energy and international trade is of course correct.

  10. mem says:

    David Brewer
    #3340415, posted on March 2, 2020 at 8:45 am

    This is based on the idea that about 96% of the CO2 comes from a natural source, which is true in terms of their immediate origin (the ocean surface or land biosphere) but is not true in the sense that the annual increments added by humans (now 4%) have been changing the dynamics of the natural emission and reabsorption of carbon dioxide for 200 years or more.

    This is nonsense dressed up as fact. Care to detail the chemical process involved? Ha,ha!

  11. David Brewer says:

    This is nonsense dressed up as fact. Care to detail the chemical process involved?

    No, but it’s the standard view, including among sceptics. For the maths and processes, see here.

    BTW in speaking of changing dynamics I did not mean to give the impression that the processes of emission and absorption have changed their nature, only that man-made emissions – at least in the conventional view – have changed the volumes of carbon dioxide being emitted and reabsorbed by these processes each year, in such a way that the concentration has increased by almost 50%. Plimer’s way of putting it suggests that man-made emissions have only increased the concentration by 3%, which seems to be false.

  12. Rafe Champion says:

    Given that we were at the point of CO2 starvation during the little ice age a 50% increase is life saving. Commercial greenhouses jack up the CO2 to four or five times the atmospheric level.

    To get a perspective on the “threat” of rising CO2 consider what might happen when it doubles the 1850 figure and gets to 600ppm, Expect warming in the order of 1 to 3 degrees and consider that up to 2 degrees will do more good than harm (I still don’t know what the harms are). We are now near 400 and increasing at about 2pm each year so we have got the best part of 100 years to work out how alarmed we need to be.

    In the meantime we may be hit by a giant asteroid. Or one of the Democrat contenders may get up.

  13. iggie says:

    And how about man-made warming. Just adjust the raw temps to get what you want.
    Darwin Apt – temp adjustments by NASA GISS.
    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=ASN00014015&ds=14&dt=1

    Note the raw temps in very light yellow.

    BTW these were the original temps for Darwin before the adjustments started (around 2009).

    https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501941200004&dt=1&ds=1

  14. NoFixedAddress says:

    Rafe Champion
    #3340520, posted on March 2, 2020 at 10:57 am

    Given that we were at the point of CO2 starvation during the little ice age a 50% increase is life saving. Commercial greenhouses jack up the CO2 to four or five times the atmospheric level.

    To get a perspective on the “threat” of rising CO2 consider what might happen when it doubles the 1850 figure and gets to 600ppm, Expect warming in the order of 1 to 3 degrees and consider that up to 2 degrees will do more good than harm (I still don’t know what the harms are). We are now near 400 and increasing at about 2pm each year so we have got the best part of 100 years to work out how alarmed we need to be.

    In the meantime we may be hit by a giant asteroid. Or one of the Democrat contenders may get up.

    I’m advocating for 5 degrees temperature increase and at least 1 thousand parts per million of carbon and 2 thousand parts per million oxygen increases to the atmosphere.

    Humans are just too slack at natures job and I think we could assist by nuking a few underwater volcanic rifts.

  15. mem says:

    David Brewer
    #3340459, posted on March 2, 2020 at 10:11 am

    No, but it’s the standard view, including among sceptics. For the maths and processes, see here.

    David you should read the references you cite.
    This reference contradicts your point. But you would have to read until the end to find that out.
    Here is the extract.
    Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase. In contradiction to those studies, new research finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

  16. mem says:

    One of Europe’s oldest temperature series goes back 300 years: Berlin-Dahlem. Readers will note the mean temperatures were warmer than they are today Moreover, the long-term trend was downward from 1760 to 1990, despite atmospheric CO2 having rising since 1850.
    https://notrickszone.com/2020/03/01/berlin-300-year-station-shows-temperatures-were-just-as-warm-in-the-mid-1700s-no-co2-fingerprint/#comments

  17. Kneel says:

    “…the annual increments added by humans (now 4%) have been changing the dynamics of the natural emission and reabsorption of carbon dioxide…”

    Evidence?
    Reason I ask, is that if you compare anthropogenic output (from FF consumption) to CO2 concentrations, there is no correlation – when “bad times” come and go, it makes no difference to Keeling’s curve. If human CO2 was causing the increase, concentration rate of change should change with total human output, but it doesn’t. Carbon isotope ratio is similarly unaffected by amount of FF consumption.
    This is already well known, but seems not to pique any climate scientists interest – strange, because it is also well known that, in science, “that’s odd…” produces more and better insights than “just as I thought” ever did.

    I also have an issue with the global temp thing – we measure at 2m from the surface. That’s inside the boundary layer. And, of course, inside the troposphere – you know, where convection and turbulence rule. That’s kinda like measuring the speed of water through a pipe right near the pipe wall – it won’t give you an accurate indication of the bulk properties, and will be highly variable as eddies etc “float past”. Not inspiring of confidence…

  18. David Brewer says:

    mem:

    In contradiction to those studies, new research finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

    What the article is saying here is that the share of annual man-made emissions that is staying in the atmosphere (about 45%) has hardly changed over the industrial era, even though those emissions have risen a lot.

    What Plimer is saying is that only 3-4% of carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere is man-made emissions.

    What I am saying is that Plimer’s figure is misleading, since the general view is that nearly a third of the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere is there because of man-made emissions.

    My criticism is consistent with the article. Each year for the last couple of centuries, about 45% of man-made emissions have been remaining in the atmosphere. These emissions have now risen to 3-4% of the total annual emissions of the ocean surface and the biosphere. The 45% of them that has been staying in the atmosphere each year has pushed the concentration of CO2 up from about 280ppm to about 415ppm. So, of the total amount now in the atmosphere, nearly a third can be attributed to man-made emissions, even though these emissions are only 3-4% of annual emissions.

    Plimer’s statement is only true in the sense that, of his 33 CO2 molecules, only one was emitted directly from a man-made source. But 9 or 10 more are supposed to be there because they were originally emitted by a man-made source, though they have then joined the annual exchange of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the land-ocean, which is slightly larger as a result. And this total of 10 or 11 out of 33 is only 45% of all man-made emissions in the industrial era – the other 55% has gone back into the ocean or land biosphere.

    Plimer says in his speech that he is trying to find ammunition for sceptics to shoot down warmist arguments. But if you tell a warmist that only 3-4% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to man-made emissions, it is you who will be shot down. Plimer needs to explain his point much more carefully if he wants to help sceptics.

  19. David Brewer says:

    Kneel
    #3340604, posted on March 2, 2020 at 12:30 pm
    “…the annual increments added by humans (now 4%) have been changing the dynamics of the natural emission and reabsorption of carbon dioxide…”

    Evidence?
    Reason I ask, is that if you compare anthropogenic output (from FF consumption) to CO2 concentrations, there is no correlation – when “bad times” come and go, it makes no difference to Keeling’s curve.

    The annual increment to carbon dioxide concentration depends more on natural factors such as El Nino events or volcanic dust in the stratosphere (both of which affect the amount of CO2 absorbed) than on changes in anthropogenic emissions resulting from economic ups and downs (cf. here). This is not surprising as anthropogenic emissions are only 4% of the total, so a 1% change in absorption or in natural emissions (which are common) has the same effect as a 25% annual fluctuation in man-made emissions (which does not happen even in a big recession). Still, over the longer term, there is a clear correlation of increasing man-made emissions with an accelerating increase in concentrations. See, for example, from 1.35 in the video here.

    If you are interested in the issue of the man-made contribution to the increasing CO2 concentrations, you may wish to read an exchange a few years ago between Roy Spencer and Steve Fitzpatrick. Most, though not all sceptics believe that, even though CO2 lags temperature changes in the geological record, the increase in CO2 concentrations since the industrial revoluation is mainly due to man-made emissions, slightly less than half of which have stayed in the atmosphere.

  20. David Brewer says:

    Kneel
    #3340604, posted on March 2, 2020 at 12:30 pm
    “…the annual increments added by humans (now 4%) have been changing the dynamics of the natural emission and reabsorption of carbon dioxide…”

    Evidence?
    Reason I ask, is that if you compare anthropogenic output (from FF consumption) to CO2 concentrations, there is no correlation – when “bad times” come and go, it makes no difference to Keeling’s curve.

    My answer has been rejected because too many links. Trying again with half the links. Cheers!

    The annual increment to carbon dioxide concentration depends more on natural factors such as El Nino events or volcanic dust in the stratosphere (both of which affect the amount of CO2 absorbed) than on changes in anthropogenic emissions resulting from economic ups and downs (cf. here). This is not surprising as anthropogenic emissions are only 4% of the total, so a 1% change in absorption or in natural emissions (which are common) has the same effect as a 25% annual fluctuation in man-made emissions (which does not happen even in a big recession). Still, over the longer term, there is a clear correlation of increasing man-made emissions with an accelerating increase in concentrations. See, for example, from 1.35 in the video here.

  21. John Stankevicius says:

    Mr Plimer says it is temperature which increases co2 not co2. Mr Brewer what is your thought re this.
    As a step further is the Jamestown interconnector with its lithium iron batteries – is this as good as it is reported or is it reliant on coal.
    Thanking all of you in advance.

  22. John Stankevicius says:

    Mr Plimer at the beginning says that CO2 levels are determined by temperature, not the other way around. What is the science for this.
    Also, I was having a debate about solar with my brother in laws, in particular the Jamestown inter connector in SA and how much money it has saved.
    My brothers in law were saying that the lithium iron batters store solar energy.
    I recall reading that coal power had to be pumped into SA from Qld to save SA from blackouts.
    Could some one explain to me the science and usefulness of the Jamestown interconnector.

  23. Rafe Champion says:

    Can your brothers in law tell you how long the battery would keep the whole of SA running?

  24. John Stankevicius says:

    Mr Champion
    They are of the understanding that it provides power overnight.
    As I understand it, 6 minutes (1 chargBle unit)

Comments are closed.