via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
September 20, 2017 at 05:34AM
Month: September 2017
By Paul Homewood
An eminent atmospheric scientist says that natural cycles may be largely responsible for climate changes seen in recent decades.
In a new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Anastasios Tsonis, emeritus distinguished professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, describes new and cutting-edge research into natural climatic cycles, including the well known El Nino cycle and the less familiar North Atlantic Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
He shows how interactions between these ocean cycles have been shown to drive changes in the global climate on timescales of several decades.
Professor Tsonis says:
“We can show that at the start of the 20th century, the North Atlantic Oscillation pushed the global climate into a warming phase, and in 1940 it pushed it back into cooling mode. The famous “pause” in global warming at the start of the 21st century seems to have been instigated by the North Atlantic Oscillation too.”
In fact, most of the changes in the global climate over the period of the instrumental record seem to have their origins in the North Atlantic.
Tsonis’ insights have profound implications for the way we view calls for climate alarm.
It may be that another shift in the North Atlantic could bring about another phase shift in the global climate, leading to renewed cooling or warming for several decades to come.
These climatic cycles are entirely natural, and can tell us nothing about the effect of carbon dioxide emissions. But they should inspire caution over the slowing trajectory of global warming we have seen in recent decades.
As Tsonis puts it:
“While humans may play a role in climate change, other natural forces may play important roles too.”
This is another reminder of the major role that oceans play in the Earth’s climate.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
September 20, 2017 at 05:33AM
By Paul Homewood
A thoughtful article from CAPX:
At an event in New Delhi last month, the Indian government’s chief economic adviser had strong words for critics of India’s energy sector. In a fiery defense of Indian coal energy, Arvind Subramanian – a former IMF economist who worked at Washington’s most influential development think tanks – made it clear his country needed practical solutions instead of “carbon imperialism” that insists on an immediate, unrealistic switch to renewable energies.
Who are the imperialists, in Subramanian’s eyes? As it turns out, his former colleagues at multinational institutions, such as the World Bank. The Bank, under pressure from Barack Obama, decided it would no longer support coal energy initiatives in 2013. Since then, its projects have taken an ambiguous approach to the world’s electrical grid.
While acknowledging the overriding necessity of electricity for businesses and households alike, especially in energy-deprived South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, the Bank has been adamant that power should not come at the detriment of environmental objectives.
Considering the United States is the largest shareholder in the World Bank and exerts outsized influence over its funding decisions, it hardly came as a surprise to see the Bank’s president go along with the Obama administration’s agenda. Since then, the World Bank and its fellow financiers in the European Union have – at least on paper – cut off support to coal projects and denied financing coal-fired power plants in emerging markets.
The pullback by multilateral banks came as more private-sector interests reconsidered their exposure to coal-related assets, turning the international institutions into lenders (or at least Western lenders) of last resort.
In practice, things have played out differently. Even as they preached a coal-free future, billions of dollars from both the World Bank and the Obama administration went to traditional energy initiatives. For the Bank, it is a vexing conundrum: nearly one-sixth of the global population – 1.2 billion people – lives without reliable electricity. This lack of power hinders opportunities and keeps them in poverty, a stark limitation for these emerging markets.
Like Subramanian, other policymakers in the developing world have not sat by idly as the World Bank and Western governments dictate energy policy to them. Over the past several years, leaders in Nigeria, Tanzania, and the Philippines have insisted on pragmatism in maintaining energy security.
Their argument is simple: coal is and will continue to be used throughout the Global South for decades to come. Instead of blanket bans, the promotion of carbon capture and other clean coal technologies could help expand public access to energy while reducing emissions and avoiding having to retool already-struggling infrastructure.
Those voices are the impetus behind what Subramanian calls a “green and clean coal coalition” spanning both the developed and developing worlds. Emerging markets in Asia and Africa will continue to build new coal-fired power stations for at least the next two decades. In that timeframe, coal-fired solutions are indispensable to meeting their demands for electrification and growth. As clean coal solutions emerge, new plants in the developing world can and should be far cleaner than previous generations of coal-fired plants in Europe and America.
India alone will see its energy demand nearly double between 2020 and 2040, rising 87 per cent. Subramanian’s comments reflect New Delhi’s commitment to carbon capture technologies and improving the efficiency of existing plants. As minister for power Piyush Goyal put it: “Every country needs a baseload. I cannot tell my country, ‘guys, it’s 6pm in the evening, shut everything down because the solar has gone off’.”
The dynamics of African electrification present similar challenges. If India’s energy demand will nearly double in the next two decades, Africa’s will nearly triple. That explains why there are over 100 coal-powered facilities in development across 11 African countries (not including coal-fuelled South Africa) with a total capacity of 42.5 GW. A lack of funding from the World Bank has hardly been an obstacle to these projects: instead of looking to Washington, countries like Kenya are receiving both funding and technical assistance from Beijing.
Multinational institutions would be best served by orienting new coal-powered plants to the cleanest possible models, instead of dogmatically refusing to fund facilities that will be built without them. Some key international sources of finance are already following this path: just two months ago, the Government of Japan launched a partnership with the African Development Bank (AfDB) to provide $6 billion USD of investment in the energy sector, including what Gabriel Negatu of the AfDB calls “the best available low-emissions clean coal technologies”.
Of course, none of these investors exercises as much influence as President Donald Trump and his administration. In one of several ways his election marked a stunning shift from the Obama administration, Trump has emerged as a champion of American coal and an ally for leaders in the developing world who look to coal for electrification.
Just as President Obama’s stance on coal informed the World Bank in 2013, Trump is now bringing his administration’s weight to bear in favour of global coal energy, both on multinational financial institutions and on key emerging markets. Trump has taken his pro-coal message directly to counterparts like Narendra Modi and Petro Poroshenko.
Trump has his own motives for doing this. The US coal sector was plummeting when the new president was sworn in (production reaching its lowest level since 1978), and branching out to emerging markets is an opportunity for the administration to fulfil a campaign promise and maintain blue collar support. US coal has been regaining ground ever since Trump was elected, and that growth has been coming from overseas exports.
Could Trump, then, be the key cog in Subramanian’s “clean coal coalition”? With the US decisively switching camps, the tide seems to have already shifted since the Paris agreement of two years ago. Multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank and governments such as France continue to insist that the war on traditional fuels is still on, but a de facto axis between the United States, China and the developing world is starting to disagree with them.
Sebastien Laye is fellow associate at the Thomas More Institute
I think we can take talk of carbon storage as no more than tokenism. I don’t believe India or any other countries have any interest in spending billions on a process that is not currently economically viable, would significantly raise the price of electricity, and for which there is absolutely no need.
Although the two are often conflated, “clean coal technology” and “carbon storage” are two totally separate things. The first is vital to reduce air pollution and drastically increase the efficiency of the process.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
September 20, 2017 at 05:03AM
Tony Abbott has sent a warning to Malcolm Turnbull that he will cross the floor of parliament and vote against any government attempt to legislate a clean energy target, in a move that threatens to increase divisions in the Coalition partyroom over energy policy.
The threat came as the Prime Minister yesterday blamed Mr Abbott for subsidies flowing to energy companies under the Renewable Energy Target being “too generous”.
In an escalation of the backbench-led campaign to kill off plans for a CET, Mr Abbott this week relayed his staunch opposition to a senior member of the government, saying he could not in good conscience vote for a policy that continued to subsidise renewable energy sources.
Mr Abbott would likely be followed by as many as six backbench colleagues, with several telling The Australian they would be compelled either to abstain or to vote against the government on the issue.
click on image to watch video
The Australian has confirmed that Mr Abbott approached a senior member of the government this week to relay his intentions. It is understood the Prime Minister’s Office has been made aware of Mr Abbott’s position.
“He has let the government know his position,” a government source said. “He won’t vote for a clean energy target.”
The move by the former prime minister came as Mr Turnbull yesterday noted that the RET had been legislated in its current form when Mr Abbott was prime minister in 2015. He warned that the RET was “too generous” but said the scheme would remain in place until 2020, as it was legislated, and his government was considering a “future policy” towards 2030.
In a commentary article published in The Australian today, Mr Abbott appears to issue a rallying call to colleagues to intercede in the energy debate, claiming that the backbench would need to save the Turnbull government from itself.
Mr Abbott writes that it would be a political and economic disaster for the Coalition to go down the path of a new renewables target on top of the RET and a betrayal of Coalition policy that contributed to the election victory in 2013.
“It would be unconscionable for a government that was elected promising to scrap the carbon tax and to end Labor’s climate change obsessions to go down this path,” he writes. “This is where the Liberal and National backbench might need to save the government from itself.”
He also writes that no subsidies should be paid to new wind and solar projects.
The partyroom battle over a CET is threatening to repeat the drama of the 2009 internal Coalition spill over an emissions trading scheme that then cost Mr Turnbull his leadership of the Liberal Party.
Mr Turnbull has so far refused to rule out a CET.
The government is awaiting a second report from the Australian Energy Market Operator on the state of coal generation across the country.
One backbench MP, in a warning to Mr Turnbull, said some backbenchers were “motivated” over the issue.
“We have been through this before,” the backbencher told The Australian. “You could assume that we are just as motivated as before.
“There would be a lot of people very upset if this was the path that he chooses.”
Up to 20 MPs voiced their opinion over the CET in a Liberal partyroom meeting last week.
Mr Turnbull has yet to land on the final shape of the government’s energy policy, in response to the Finkel report. It is not likely to go to the partyroom until the end of the year.
Mr Abbott writes today: “The government needs to pick a legislative fight with Labor, as well as a rhetorical one.
“There should be no subsidies for further unreliable wind and solar power. Let’s replace all renewable energy targets with a reliable energy target of 100 per cent so that the power is on all the time.
“Even if freezing the RET fails in the Senate, at least it would demonstrate that the government wants to reduce power prices while Labor wants to increase them.
“If we are to have more renewable power, it must be economic without subsidy or mandate; and the generator must be required to provide back-up power when it fails. As for the Finkel-recommended clean energy target, it simply must be dropped.”
Full story
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
September 20, 2017 at 04:17AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 