TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PLANS TO CHALLENGE CLIMATE SCIENCE IN SERIES OF DEBATES

via climate science
http://ift.tt/2jXH2Ie

via climate science http://ift.tt/2jXH2Ie

July 8, 2017 at 01:00AM

Rick Perry’s Plans for US Energy Dominance

via The SPPI Blog
http://sppiblog.org

Source: The Daily Signal

Keystone Pipeline

America is approaching energy independence, but still needs to remove obstacles, Energy Secretary Rick Perry says.

“We are very close to being energy independent,” Perry told The Daily Signal in a brief interview. “Regarding our ability to retrieve energy, we don’t need anybody. Transportation may be our biggest impediment.”

The United States is a net energy exporter, the former Texas governor noted, but an old law and the Obama administration’s preference for some energy industries over others prevented the nation from being as strong as necessary.

The 1920 Jones Act requires that vessels carrying fuel or other goods in U.S. waters between U.S. ports must be built, registered, owned, and crewed by American citizens.

Because it costs more to build and operate ships in the U.S. than in other countries, it can cost as much as three times more to ship oil from the Gulf of Mexico to New England states than it would cost to ship the same amount of oil from Florida to Europe, according to an analysis last month from the American Enterprise Institute.

The Obama administration’s preference for green industries such as solar and wind was not the “all of the above” strategy the Trump administration prefers, Perry told The Daily Signal on June 30:

The previous administration talked about energy independence, but they wouldn’t drill and transport. It was all talk. They had a clear message to industries such as fossil fuels and nuclear. We [in the Trump administration] are all of the above. We are not here to pick winners and losers. The market can pick winners and losers.

Trump announced a review of U.S. nuclear energy policy; construction of an oil pipeline to Mexico to increase energy exports; negotiations to sell more American natural gas to South Korea; Energy Department approval of two applications to export liquefied natural gas; and creation of an offshore oil and gas leasing program.

Perry vowed to expedite the exporting of liquefied natural gas. With hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the U.S. has become the largest producer of liquefied natural gas in the world, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.

It has been up to the Energy Department to approve those exports based on whether they are in the national interest.

“If a company meets the rules and standards, we’ll say, ‘Here’s the permit,’” Perry said in the interview.

Speaking at the White House last week, the two-time Republican presidential candidate said he wanted to make nuclear energy “cool again.”

He told The Daily Signal the way to do that would be showing government isn’t hostile:

Somehow, it’s not been in the forefront of our energy portfolio, and our supply chain of future nuclear scientists [is] not being developed. We want to get them back, with the acknowledgement they will have the support of their government.

That support won’t come through subsidies, as with green energy projects under President Barack Obama, but a priority for national laboratories to test new nuclear technology, Perry said.

Perry cited NuScale Power in Idaho, which is working on a “modular” nuclear reactor, a smaller factory-built model that eliminates many risks of installing and reduces construction costs. Some of the modular reactors could be used to power a single manufacturing facility.

Before Trump announced a review of the nation’s nuclear policy last week, media reports raised questions about whether the administration would support NuScale with tax dollars.

Overall, Trump’s fiscal 2018 budget proposal would cut the Energy Department’s nuclear energy office by 31 percent, affecting grants to research, including those that have gone to projects such as NuScale’s, The Washington Post reported.

Whether it’s “energy independence” or “energy dominance,” clearing regulatory hurdles for American energy will benefit national security, economy, and the environment, Perry said.

It also will create U.S. jobs and boost the economies of allies buying the affordable energy.

The man who was governor of Texas for 14 years rejects what he calls a “false narrative” that the U.S. can’t tap its natural resources while protecting the environment.

Texas led the nation in emission reductions during his time as governor, Perry said. Carbon emissions went down by 20 percent, sulfur dioxide emissions declined by 50 percent, and nitrogen oxide dropped by 60 percent.

“We will not have to rely on countries that may or may not like us,” Perry told The Daily Signal. “It also would be good for our allies who will know they don’t have to rely on Russian gas. For Poland and Ukraine, and for that matter the United Kingdom, it would be good to know you’re getting energy resources from an ally.”

via The SPPI Blog http://sppiblog.org

July 8, 2017 at 12:54AM

Western Australia needs long-term vision for agriculture

via Errors in IPCC climate science
http://ift.tt/1F9oSq3

A reader in Bunbury put me on to this article by John Barrington “State needs long-term vision for agriculture” published in The West Australian (but apparently not on the www). If anybody can find a link please pass on. The chart of WA wheat production history is mine –

I thought I had better point out that something is going right in WA agriculture. To read article click

State needs long-term vision for agriculture

The Geological Survey of Western Australia has had constant funding for 100 years,
creating one the world’s great resource databases and a prized State asset. In contrast,
parts of our agriculture sector can barely look five years ahead because of poor research
funding.

Too many disparities between the WA resource and agriculture sectors exist, although both
are exposed to the greatest megatrend of them all: the coming boom in the Asian middle-
class and its effect on minerals, energy and food demand.

Why doesn’t WA have the equivalent of a Fortescue Metals Group in agriculture?

Why don’t we have the same entrepreneurial spirit of innovation that exists in mining? Why
isn’t WA a leader in agriculture technology (AgTech) research, as we are in Mining
Equipment, Technology and Services (METS)?

WA is ideally located to help feed billions of people in Indian Ocean Rim countries as
populations expand and incomes rise.

We have the natural capital: agriculture scale, high-yielding crops, efficient grain storage and
delivery system, and stable climate. And human capital: a culture of start-up companies and
a skilled, adaptable workforce.

WA has the technology: The Pawsey Supercomputing Centre, the Southern Hemisphere’s
largest public-research supercomputer, has the digital firepower to handle the data-
processing AgTech requires. Pawsey researchers from the University of Western Australia
this year discovered 21,000 new genes in 16 varieties of common wheat, yielding better
disease resistance.

We also have the history: Agriculture is WA’s second-largest export and our State has long
recognised AgTech’s potential. Early last century, WA led the world in superphosphate
research and application. In the 1950s and 1960s, our discovery of trace elements led to
spectacular increases in crop yield and low-cost cures of animal diseases.

So, what’s the problem?

WA Government funding of agricultural research is haphazard.
Arguably, too much State funding of agricultural research replicates more advanced
overseas work. Our focus should be on turning local or overseas research into farming
innovations and commercialisation.

Lack of government focus is another problem. WA Chief Scientist, Peter Klinken, sensibly
recommended WA focus on agricultural and food, and biodiversity and marine sciences, as
two of five industry priorities.

But as the WA Government ‘talks’ about industry priorities, other States are doing more to
help develop high-potential AgTech enterprises.

Queensland has identified biofutures (industrial biotechnology and bioproducts) as a priority
in the Advance Queensland strategy. It wants to facilitate a $1-billion biofuels industry and in
June 2016 launched a 10-year action plan.

In a world first, New South Wales farmers last year traded grain using blockchain technology
(a distributed ledger that secures online transactions) that directly links farmers to buyers.

Tasmania start-up, The Yield, is exploiting the Internet of Things (IoT), big data and artificial
intelligence (AI) to measure and predict microclimate at row level within crops.

In Central Queensland, SwarmFarm Robotics is commercialising robot use in crop
production, to improve productivity and reduce environmental impacts.

Why aren’t there more examples like this in WA?

Sporadic State Government commitment is part of the reason. France, Germany, and
Switzerland fund AgTech research for a minimum of 15 years. WA struggles to look beyond
this decade for research funding.

WA can no longer afford a piecemeal approach to emerging sectors. We must focus on
building new high-tech industries around mining, energy and agriculture – and exploit
technology opportunities around our industry strengths.

WA should have an Agriculture Technology Innovation Fund, similar in principle to the
recently announced Future Health Research and Innovation Fund.

A long-term plan recognising the State’s competitive advantages in AgTech is needed. One
that focuses on the next 20 years rather than the next three, provides an over-arching
strategy to catalyse and capture the AgTech opportunity, and helps the emerging AgTech
sector better collaborate and manage risk.

Another challenge is commercialising AgTech research. WA has legislation to channel $1
billion each year into regional development. Part of that should be used to develop unique
AgTech competitive advantages.

To compete, WA farmers need reliable, cost-effective access to high-speed, high-volume
digital connectivity. As McKinsey reports, the biggest differentiator between leaders and
also-rans, by a factor of eight, is having a digitally empowered workforce.

There are good signs. West Australia’s new Minister for Agriculture and Regional
Development, Alannah MacTiernan, has lifted government engagement with the agriculture
sector, understands its potential and is well positioned to champion AgTech through her
regional development portfolio.

But the Government must think bigger. When we talk about grains, livestock and lobsters, in
the same way we talk about iron ore, base metals and gold, we’ll know real progress is
underway.

• John Barrington is founder of Barrington Consulting Group, a leading strategy consultancy,
and Chairman of GotSkill Platforms Ltd

via Errors in IPCC climate science http://ift.tt/1F9oSq3

July 7, 2017 at 09:45PM

Talking Truth to Climate Consensus

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

By Rud Istvan

A sound bite summary*

The climate consensus now has two derogation levels for those who disagree. Climate ‘contrarians’ like Bjørn Lomborg disagree about mitigation policies. Climate ‘deniers’ like Judith Curry disagree about the underlying climatology. The consensus does not any want any disagreement, since their science is ‘settled’ and solutions ‘clear’. They decline to engage (Schmidt/Spencer), disappear comments (Real Climate, the Guardian), refuse to host comments (LATimes), and loudly allege a fossil fuel funded ‘denier’ conspiracy (Grijalva). But they cannot avoid encountering skeptics. Following are some possible skeptical ‘silver bullets’.

There are basic consensus points that most ‘deniers’ “97%” agree with.

· Yes, climate changes. Millennially, we are in the Holocene interglacial, not the preceding ice age. Centennially, we are warming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA); London’s last Thames Ice Fair was in 1814. We are not yet back to Medieval Warm Period (MWP) warmth; Greenland farmers still cannot grow barley as the Vikings did back then.

· Yes, fossil fuels increase atmospheric CO₂ while also greening the planet.

· Yes, CO₂ is a greenhouse gas (GHG), and doubling its atmospheric concentration would by itself cause temperatures to rise between 1.1C and 1.2C (Planck effect given ‘grey Earth’, the most precise estimate using IPCC data being 1.16C).

· Yes, water vapor and clouds (to note only the big two) provide natural feedbacks, which in the case of water vapor must be somewhat positive.

Much more of the ‘settled’ science consensus cannot be correct.

· Erroneous attribution. Observed decadal warming from about 1920 to 1945 cannot be attributed to increasing anthropogenic CO₂ (anthropogentic global warming, AGW) since it didn’t increase very much. The IPCC even said so in AR4WG1 figure SPM.4. Nor can slight cooling from about 1945 to about 1975, since AGW warms. Yet the consensus attributes ‘all’ warming from about 1975 to 2000 to anthropogenic CO₂ (and other GHGs). That cannot be right–natural variability cannot have miraculously ceased in 1975.

· Overly sensitive models. Observed climate sensitivity from about 1880 to now is about half of what climate models estimate (both TCR and ECS). The newest observational estimates are TCR ~ 1.3 and ECS ~ 1.65. CMIP5 mean TCR is 1.8C and the mean ECS is 3.4C; the median ECS is 3.2C. Hot by twice.

· Climate models are now falsified by the 18+ year UAH and RSS ‘pause’, using Santer’s 17 year consensus criterion published in 2011.

· Unsurprisingly, derivative consensus sequelae have also not come true.

· Sea level rise (SLR) is not accelerating. (Most tide gauges are unreliable owing to isostatic adjustment or plate tectonics.) Satellite SLR altimetry since 1979 is higher than differential GPS vertical and motion adjusted long running tide gauges, and does not close (SLR~ sum ice mass loss plus thermosteric rise). DiffGPS adjusted tide gauges do close.

· No historical evidence for a sudden SLR ‘tipping point’ despite previous interglacial (Eemian) temperatures 2 degrees higher for several millennia. No evidence during the Holocene ‘optimum’ caused several millennia ago by Earth’s planetary precession. Papers finding otherwise are flawed, and at least one arguably comprises clear academic misconduct.

· No identifiable potential ice sheet tipping point. Greenland is bowl shaped; nothing can tip. East Antarctica is gaining ice. West Antarctica’s Ronne is stable. ANDRILL proved Ross is anchored, and has not ‘tipped’ before. Amundsen Embayment’s Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers are creeping, not tipping. Even if they did, they are not big enough to matter much. Most of their Amundsen catchment basin is not creeping, and its interior is slowly gaining ice mass.

· Barren ocean ‘acidification’ is half the rate predicted by AR4, since ocean is highly buffered. Fertile ocean pH has much larger seasonal biological swings.

§ -Corals may be in trouble from pollution and overfished reefs, but not from ‘acidification’. The main paper claiming otherwise overlooked toxic hydrogen sulfide, arguably comprising clear academic misconduct.

§ -Pacific oyster spawn at Netarts Bay was not affected by ocean acidification. The hatchery needed to be managed like the estuary it isn’t, where warm summer spawning water is naturally >1.0 higher pH from biological activity. The NOAA PMEL paper claiming otherwise evidences willful negligence (or worse) based on the ‘knew or should have known’ standard.

· Weather extremes are not increasing (cyclones, tornadoes, heat waves).

· Polar bears are thriving thanks to curtailed hunting. No matter what happens to Arctic summer ice, the majority (~80%) of polar bear seal feeding is on spring ice during the whelping season.

· No climate extinctions. CAGW predictions are based on overstated models (like species/areal range S=cA^z), GCMs cannot regionally downscale an A estimate, and endemic species (small initial A) have strong selection bias.

· Consensus mitigation solutions have no answers to contrarian objections.

· Renewables are expensive; that is why they are still heavily subsidized.

· Renewables are intermittent, so must be backed up by equivalent peak gas or spinning reserves prviding grid inertia to keep it stable; that is a large hidden cost beyond direct subsidies. This is why high renewables penetration South Australia suffered a blackout in 2016.

· CCS is much more expensive than nuclear, and (except in special circumstances) geologically impractical. The Kemper Mississippi demonstration plant is a failure both technically and financially. It will burn natural gas; no coal gasification and no CCS.

· Denying inexpensive coal generation to Africa and Asia hurts the neediest, hindering development. China’s new development bank will fund coal stations in Africa and Pakistan, while per consensus mitigation the World Bank won’t. China and India are not playing the UNFCCC COP21 Paris game.

· Lower sensitivity suggests adaptation is sounder than mitigation.

*Drawn partly from ebook Blowing Smoke: Essays on Energy and Climate (example, corals and oysters), and partly from previous WUWT guest posts (example, SLR and closure).

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

July 7, 2017 at 06:01PM