Skeptics are growing in number and becoming more confident. Yesterday, CFACT unfurled a banner on the Rainbow Warrior in Copenhagen.
Rather cheekily, global warming skeptics used GPS triangulation from Greenpeace’s own on-board camera photos to find the infamous boat, the Rainbow Warrior. Then the activists unfurled the banner.
CFACT president David Rothbard explained. “Greenpeace ships have become global symbols for radical environmentalism, and we wanted to call attention to the harm these groups are causing. And second, it seemed appropriate to use one of Greenpeace’s favorite tactics…”
Greenpeace wipe out bio-engineered crops and destroy research efforts that are designed to help develop crops to feed the starving.
Ponder the irony: those who attack the new technology are called… progressive.
In the end Greenpeace’s weak point is the poor science they depend on, which is based on hidden records and “no” debate. Because Greenpeace haven’t got the science right, they can’t properly figure out the risk-benefits of their actions. If they succeed in making energy more expensive, the people it will hurt the most are the people near or under the poverty line.
“People in developing countries simply want to improve their living standards, and give their children a chance to live past age five,” Rothbard said. “Greenpeace is diametrically opposed to giving them access to the modern technologies that would help them do that.”
If solar power was cheaper and better, we would all be using it already. If we subsidize it, we spend money on solar, rather than penicillin, clean water or books. Maybe solar is better. It would be a boon to make it work. But if we force people to use it we had better be sure that our decision adds up.
Is $100 million in solar better than say, $60 million in coal and $40 million on reforestation?
How can we know if we don’t have the global records for temperatures, if we can’t get the raw data to check, and if the scientists in control of the data secretly and artificially “adjust” their results?
ClimateGate hurts people.
Science belongs to all of us. When corruption distorts it, we are all poorer.
If you want printed copies of The Skeptics Handbooks to point at with friends, or to strategically give away, you can order them here for: Australian deliveries, and here for International Deliveries.
When thinking of solar power, most of us think photovoltaic (PV). Yes, it’s expensive, but damn useful in many applications. The cells rely on high grade silicon, which in turn is made from high grade silica (sand). Tasmania has some wonderful high grade silica and the treasurer recently was accused of junketing (by the Greens and Libs) when he went to Europe to assist in negotiations for a European company to open a silica mine here.
The Greens went further and announced that they opposed a silica (sand) mine as it poses a health risk to Tasmanians! Silica is the most common substance in the Earth’s crust. And where is the silicon for PV technology the Greens want us to adopt supposed to come from?
Forget about a lack of scientific understanding. These characters don’t even have common sense! I can easily imagine a world where PV is widely adopted and Greenpeace Activists run around smashing PV cells.
10
Brilliant. Well done to all concerned. However, we can blame the French for the influence these ‘swampys’ can generate. If the French had not blown up the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour, tragic and disgusting as this incident was, maybe they would not have engendered so much ‘sympathy’ and media coverage. I am not a fan of whaling, however there are other ways to go about it, with out the media stunts.
I just wish the Japanese would board and seize the damned thing. At least we would not have to listen to media cliches about ‘eco warriors’ and so forth.
10
This link on Consensus is well worth reading.
http://www.globalwarmingconsensus.com/index.asp
10
[ snip… we don’t need to suggest anything criminal].
10
They had a bit of a shock at Hoxenhagen:
“Prominent green groups, including Friends of the Earth (FoE), were denied entry today as summit organisers prepare for the arrival of 120 national leaders tomorrow.”
“It is a crisis of democracy when campaigning charities like Friends of the Earth are prevented from speaking up on behalf of communities around the globe within the talks themselves,” said FoE’s executive director Andy Atkins.”
Full story here:
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/environment-and-rural-affairs/copenhagen-descends-into-chaos-$1347429.htm
10
[…] When corruption distorts science we are all poorer […]
10
An argument the environment lobby did and does use against nuclear power is that a lot of cola-derived energy is used to mine/refine/enrich the uranium and construct the power stations. All true, but the record shows that such power stations can last a long time, are easily refurbished and typically have lifetimes well in excess of 50 years – possibly 100 years with modern designs. Over the long haul, nuclear power is very cheap. Deep geologic disposal of nuclear waste can be done safely. It has been researched intensively for over 40 years.
Yet I do see environmentalists trying to close down nuclear power stations. For them nuclear power is simply evil. It is an article of religious faith pure and simple.
Conversely the geologic disposal of CO2 has not been well researched for more than a few years and has numerous drawbacks. This is why biological sequestration is the only way to go. Yet I don’t see them environmentalists supporting/promoting e.g. large scale algal biosequestration of CO2 from such power stations despite it being a cheap and easily implemented technology.
I do see environmentalists trying to close down coal-fired power stations. For them coal-based power is simply evil. It is an article of religious faith pure and simple.
What the environment lobby won’t tell you about silicon-based photovoltaic solar power is this. It also takes a lot of (coal-based) power to refine the silicon. During the process metals are used to reduce the silica to silicon. These metals are produced in high CO2-emitting steelworks. Once a silicon photovoltaic panel is produced it takes about 10 – 15 years for the generated power to amortise the original cost.Significantly, somewhere between about 15 – 20 years silicon-based photovoltaic panels start to develop very fine fractures due to the strains induced by thermal cycling (over the previous years). This leads to a fall off in efficiency. Accelerated ageing tests and modelling studies suggest the typical life of silicon-based photovoltaic panels is typically no more than 25 years and the last 5 – 10 years are characterised by steadily degrading power production. So just as its paid itself off it starts to fail!
Yet I do see environmentalists trying to promote photo-voltaic panels on the roof of every house. For them solar power is invariably good. It is an article of religious faith pure and simple.
This is all very irrational.
10
These are the same nutters who have decided Chlorine is evil. And PVC (Poly-Vinyl-Chloride) plastic pipes are extremely widely used to cheaply carry drinking water and sewage.
They want PVC banned.
What will the water be carried in? Steel pipes? (oooh nasty evil steel works). Copper pipes? (oooh nasty evil smelter). Clay pipes? (ooh nasty evil furnace in pipe/brick works).
These people are just mad.
10
The very idea of cheap abundant energy is anathema to the no-growth anti-human fanatics of the AGW movement. Their goal is force economic devolvement among the developed nations by making energy prohibitive in cost and then rationing the amount of energy to be allotted to the developing nations. Of course it will all be paid for by the wealthier nations through the cap and tax scheme. To succeed however they need the poor nations to agree to want less and the wealthier nations to agree to become poorer and give up the sophistications that come with prosperity. This can only be accomplished through a one world government(U.N.) and the acquiesence of national soveriengty by either peaceful means or at the point of a gun. All we need now is Wesley Mouche to come to our rescue, oh wait, we already have Al Gore, the man who used to be the “next President of the United States.” Oh, well, who is John Galt?
10
Nuclear power. The only way to go.
Power bill for 1 person in south Korea using Nuclear power – $10/month. Yes, it is that cheap.
I cringe when environmentalists go on about how coal is only used because it’s cheap. Nuclear power is so much cheaper and more efficient.
Of course, groups like greenpeace have made it nigh on impossible to get nuclear power on the agenda.
10
I was approached by a Greenpeace employee in Santa Rosa, California and he wanted to talk to me about Greenpeace and see if I was interested in donating to their cause. I am sure that I was the last guy he expected to run into in liberal Santa Rosa. After explaining to him that: 1) Global Warming is a scam. 2) DDT is safe to use and that Greenpeace had conspired to murder the poorest of the poor in Africa 3) Greenpeace is led by hypocrites who are more concerned about money and power then they are about people and critters and 4) Greenpeace is composed of Misanthropes and useful idiots who blindly believe and fearlessly follow based upon Gaia worship and not science I thought the poor kid was going to go into shock. I asked him if he could respond with any evidence to the contrary. I shot down his three or four feeble attempts with logic and facts, I thought he was going to cry. He finally got past me and the last I saw of him he was running down the street clutching his propaganda. I probably would have been nicer if I had not just pounded a couple of beers. I love Santa Rosa but if you have heard that California is like a bowl of cereal in that it is composed of nuts and flakes you would have heard wrong. However, there are a few places, Santa Rosa included, where it is true. It is akin to one huge scientology meeting. Everybody has a fake smile on his face. I think they are worried that someone may “wish them off to the cornfields.” Trying to talk to a green about science is like trying to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
10
I have yet to hear of a Greenie proposing one(1), just one (1), sane, practical idea for solving a real problem. These people are destroyers, not builders.
They create problems, not solve them.
Why do we tolerate them?
10
Awesome column in Canada’s National Post…
The Climate Change Conference From Hell.
Does he nail it or what!
10
the odious trite activists of greenteeth infested the sydney opera house yesterday,like cochroaches scurrying around a white bath, unfurling a banner that headlined
.. AS IF !…. [snip]
10
During the run up to our last General Election, someone when through the NZ Greens website and listed all their policies where they wanted to “ban” something. There were something like 52 things they wanted to ban. It really smacks of negativity when people think in those terms (and smacking was one of the things they wanted banning).
If a political entity has something useful to say it will usually involve increasing people’s freedom, autonomy and personal responsibility. Now there’s a measure by which we could apply to the UN and Copenhagen.
10
Hey Eddy haha quite funny – I had a similar experience. I was walking through the shops in Sydney when a Greenpeace charity worker came up to me and said ‘You look like someone who would really like to be part of Greenpeace’. I laughed and said “quite honestly I think they are appalling and are more about activism than doing anything of substance for the environment’ She just stared blankly, smiled and walked off. I think its sad that so many of these beautiful young kids are brainwashed by this group!
10
I have just seen this reference on “Whatsupwiththat” – Nasa press release 16/12/09
“Nasa Says AIRS satellite data shows positive water vapour feedback”
Carbon dioxide has higher concentrations in belts between 5 and 12 kilometrers altitude. Moves in a pattern from North America across the Atlantic to Europe and the Mediterranean to Asia and then around the globe. Most of the blogs refer to lack of information on clouds and cooling but at least NASA has disturbed the ICCPP’s assumption that CO2 is uniformily mixed.
My question to David Evans is “what does this do to the Lack of a Hot spot” which made him a sceptic. BNothing wrong I might add with that. Good luck with the campaign!
10
Photovoltaics also use substantial amounts of Indium, Gallium and other metals. Metals that are relatively scarce and usually obtained as byproducts of zinc, lead and tin refining. What are the chances of a new smelter being allowed to open to meet the demand? Photovoltaic production also uses large amounts of toxic, corrosive chemicals and produces large amounts of such waste. I may be wrong, but I believe hydrofluoric acid is used, and silicon tetrafluoride is produced as waste. There are major pollution problems in the cities in China where photovoltaics are produced.
As for wind power, the generators depend on powerful permanent magnets containing neodymium and other rare earths. China produces 95% of the world’s neodymium, much of it from small, unlicensed and unsafe mines. Again, assuming economically viable deposits of rare earths were found in Australia, what are the chances of getting a mine approved with all of the usual environmental impact processes?
10
Patrick I think you will find that Australia has a booming mining industry across all states and there would be essentially zero chance that any such mine would be knocked back on environmetnal grouns unless there was something spectacularly unusual about it.
As an example: “Australia is the world’s largest producer of tantalum in the form of tantalum concentrates, producing 2.2 Mlb of tantalum pentoxide. Sons of Gwalia is the world’s largest producer of tantalum and accounts for 92% of the Australian tantalum production.
Sons of Gwalia’s Wodgina operation in Western Australia’s Pilbara region was the leading producer, with an output of 1.05 Mlb of Tantulum Pentoxide, a reduction on the 1.3 Mlb produced in 2002. The other major producer was Sons of Gwalia’s Greenbushes mine south of Perth, Western Australia. Production at Greenbushes in 2003 was just over 1 Mlb of Ta2O5, nearly 18% lower than in 2002. “
10
Global Government
The MSM is now confirming that a Gobal Government with Global Taxes on air travel, shipping and Financial transactiond of rich countries, to be paid to poor countries, is an integral part of the Copenhagen treaty. Carbon Sequestration is also banned as a means of shutting down the coal industry.
Kevin Rudd is discussing this in Copenhagen, and it is strongly backed by George Brown and Nickolas Sarkozy.
This is not helping the environment, it is a straight money redistribution agenda.
How much is shutting down the air, shipping and coal industries going to hurt Australia?
10
MattB – I think you might find that Sons of Gwalia WAS the biggest tantalum producer. Until they went bust.
Tantalum, by the way, is used to make capacitors – that are used in electronics. Tantalum capacitors are notorious for being crappy things that blow up when they have too many volts in, or when inserted with reverse polarity. They are also notoriously wide in tolerance.
Ceramic capacitors are much more controllable to make, unpolarised, don’t blow up, and are getting better all the time. It won’t be long before ceramic capacitors overtake tantalum – and the the bottom will fall out of what’s left of that market.
10
Reference: http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/how-sons-of-lalor-built-then-sank-sons-of-gwalia/2005/08/21/1124562748347.html
10
To be fair the company was irrelevent in my link… it was merely to demonstrate that Australia was in a mining boom… I just googled Australia and rare earths and took what it gave. Point is that issues with that particular company were economic and price ralated, not caused by inability to get approval for the mine.
10
Yes, GreenPeace is a front, like WWF, funded by rockefeller, of all people.
This article mentions GMO, well, destroying those GMO crops are fine with me, since they are NOT the answer to feeding the world and have NUMEROUS problems; not only with the genetics and how they affect life, but also with Monsanto and their lust for control over food.
GMO is just as big a scam as AGW. Some individuals investing in both of these. Patenting food is for profit, not some benevolent corporation handing food out for free. It also destroys farmers ability to freely farm as they wish.
In the AGW, and with many FEAR MONGERING issues, GMO is another one that is based on profit and I am all for ripping it to shreds, as I am with this AGW scam.
10
I am a supporter of teh future of PV cells. Its free energy from the sun. Without more research and development funds, surely its gonna struggle. Curently efficiency of conversion in Australia is only ~10-20% of what it gets from the sun. Science labs (yes-in australia) have some PV’s up to 45% efficient. Now with mass production and some more development, this product (just like your plamsa TV or car) will come down in price and provide paybacks in 5KW home units)then its even better. There’s a lot of wasted roof-space and soon the roof-tiles themselves will BE the PV-cell (fully incorproated into the building). The same can go for highrise windows or the tops of cars, etc. Its an almost endless possibility. One of the challenges is also to keep them clean and maintain efficiency over the years.
10
Albert #147
I always new 2 + 2 = 8
So I put some data into over 18 Global Models run by super computers.
After some tweeking and adjusting, the result I presented to the authorities (totally proven by the models and a consensus of the modellers) was…..
2 pairs + 2 pairs = 8 units.
It’s irrefutable. We must change all the worlds maths books before it’s too late 🙂
10
oops wrong thread, should have been on the previous one (cringe cringe)
10
Dye solar has some possibilities too. If you push aside all the AGQ stuff, if the cost is right, getting your energy from the sun has its attractions.
Being forced to do it at the wrong cost for the wrong reasons, is however, illogical & immoral.
10
The coltan mineral of the African river beds is tainted by the episodic war of the tribes; leading some to determine trace isotopes of Nb and Eu in Ta to accurately determine the origin of Ta (thus to determine if the Ta was legally traded)
– sans success as far as I am aware
10
Dye solar cells are highly suited for all your electricity needs, so long as one quarter of one percent conversion of terrestrial uv/vis light to electricity is good for you from now till Eternity
“the right technology for the master of low expectations”
10
All I see is a sturdy vessel of great repute called the Rainbow Warrior, being pestered by a lightweight annoyance called the Propaganda Warrior. With passengers of the latter all looking particularly smug.
A very realistic protrayal of the politics of AGW.
10
I am asking myself, can human survive without the earth or can earth survive without human ?
10
Brian #4
What an illadvised statement to make, even if it was meant in jest. 🙁
10
The house of cards is coming down. Now the Russians are saying that their raw data has been manipulated by the CRU. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/. This follows the revelation that the Australian and New Zealand AGW “scientists” have been skewing their data to create an artificial increase in temperatures. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_making_new_zealand_warmer http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ Also, the heat is being turned up on Mikey Mann and Penn State. The state government is threatening to cut off funding for the university http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/15/anything-short-of-the-absolute-pursuit-of-science-cannot-be-accepted-or-tolerated/. Wow! “It” is really starting to hit the fan. Yep, it looks like its each climate criminal for himself. In Roman times they would have been condemned to death in the arena. I guess the closest we will get to seeing that is to watch them stab each other in the back. I am waiting to hear, “I was only following orders, I was forced to do it, etc.
10
Excellent stuff… Needs to happen more often. Greenpeace is nothing but a company of thieves, liars and cheats.
May sound harsh, but any organization that promises to stop the climate from changing for 5 bucks…. Is just scamming you.
10
OMFG!,
“HadCRUT gets a haircut – Russian Style” -posted by stulec on the first link there.
So they conveniently discarded 40% of the stations located in 1/3 of the worlds landmass.
Is there anyone in the MSM that can see that this is going to break with or without their help?
10
This, for me is what the ‘Poley Bears are Dying’ event in Copenhagen is really about and should be remembered.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/copenhagen/story.html?id=2347018
What a criminal farce. Mugabe and Chavez berating all those Gaia worshipers for not getting enough money from us – for them.
10
CommonSense on climate change
Xiao Ziniu, the Director General of the Beijing Climate Centre stated :
10
Allen Ford said..
“I have yet to hear of a Greenie proposing one(1), just one (1), sane, practical idea for solving a real problem.”
I’ve got one problem they could solve in an instant.
[snip]
[snip]
10
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ecnarb, Bill Giltner. Bill Giltner said: “Propaganda” Warrior exposed « JoNova http://ff.im/-d0z7T […]
10
Get a load of this
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/penny-wong-jeered-hugo-chavez-cheered/story-e6frgczf-1225811179614
Take this Al Gore. The train wreck rolls on.
10
Eddy #34
Heres another, Monckton and Senator Fielding, an open letter to chairman Pachauri threatening to alert the authorities of fraud by Pachauri and the IPCC unless Pachauri resigns and corrections are made to the fraudulent 4th assessment report.
here
10
Allen Ford said..
“I have yet to hear of a Greenie proposing one(1), just one (1), sane, practical idea for solving a real problem.”
How about James Wong’s idea of replacing most of the fungicide spraying of apples with calcium hydroxide? Reduced the cost of fungal control dramatically. Lime is damned cheap.
An incidental side-effect was it eliminated the need for insecticide to control codling moth; the hatchling grubs couldn’t take the alkaline environment on the surface of the apple and fell to the ground. Mind you, over a twenty year period at the Grove Research Station, the codlin moth spray was only economically justifiable in one year. It’s not only climate researchers who obscure and hide data!
Given the cost-saving to orchardists, Aqua Fyre [I’ve snipped the uncharitable suggestions you’re responding too. They are not a line of thought we need to pursue… as you point out.]
Perhaps Aqua Fyre can demonstrate [snip ]…how he has ever solved a real problem.
10
MattB: wrote “To be fair the company was irrelevent in my link… it was merely to demonstrate that Australia was in a mining boom… I just googled Australia and rare earths and took what it gave. Point is that issues with that particular company were economic and price ralated, not caused by inability to get approval for the mine.”
Many forget that Australia depends heavily on mining for its prosperity. A close friend who as well as being an organic market gardener was a co-founder of The Wilderness Society agreed with me: “We have to dig those holes somewhere”. The new generation of greenies want the product but can’t acknowledge what it takes to provide such.
BTW No, I don’t possess a rocking chair or banjo. But I do have banjo playing friends 🙂
10
Jo Anne: unfortunately for you, the skeptics handbook will not be needed anymore soon me thinks LOL.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf
But thank you for what you have done. I think after all this has blown over alarmist and skeptics, deniers will move onto some other subject. Its quite sad but those scientist, if they had not done this would have had a future in long term forecasting
10
I have recently heard said that all this warming thing is about the dollar , ok and thats fine, So! is it about the dollar to be made or lost?
10
Somebody please correct me if this is wrong, but I believe I read that the solar energy that reaches the Earth’s surface under ideal conditions is equivalent to 400 Watts / square metre. Assuming this is true, and assuming 25% efficiency in photovoltaics, then you would get 100 watts per square metre, under ideal conditions (i.e. not at night 🙂 ) Macha’s 5kW home PV units would in that case require 50 square metres of area, or the better part of the average rooftop. Plus filters to account for variations in output, and substantial storage for cloudy days and nighttime.
10
Any references to further information on this subject?
I’ve done a bit of a google search…
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=James-Wong+fungicide+calcium
… this comment on Joanne’s blog comes up at the top. Second place is “Farming for Fertility” which gives:
Offering a clue, but nothing much to go on.
May I point out that the Bandeaux mix of copper sulfate and lime has a very long history of use as a fungicide so I would have to presume that someone long ago tried both of those chemicals on their own before finally deciding that mixing the two works best.
Tell you what, my zucchinis suffer terribly from fungus this time of year, I’ll try simple lime on a half of them and my usual alternation between mancozeb and Bandeaux mix on the other half.
10
err Bordeaux mix… spelling short circuit
10
Gordon Brown is Nuts
Gordon’s new post-Copenhagen plan is for
1. developed nations to commit to 80% reduction by 2050,
2. for developing nations to “do their best”
3. for developed nations to pay $100Billion per year to developing nations to help them change.
This is a lunatic recipe for economic suicide.
The good news is that Copenhagen appears to be a failure.
10
Solar energy reaching the surface of the earth is actually approx 1100 W/m2 at the equator. (I won’t give a reference – this is a figure that comes from a US Military standard which I had to know years ago for a project I was working on).
This assumes a bright sunny day with no cloud cover.
As you move away from the equator the solar power lessens, mainly due to a change of angle of incidence (earth being sperical) and the more atmosphere the energy travels through before hitting the surface.
Most PV cells (silicon) are considerably less efficient than 25%. With very very careful processing, and efficiency of 45% of so has been demonstrated. This is however, R&D lab stuff, not what you go out and buy.
Assume 10% to 15% efficiency.
Angle of incidence also has an effect, as does cloud cover.
I’m an electronic engineer who HATES spending money – believe me – if Solar PV cells made economic sense I’d be rushing out to spend up on em and cut my power bill. They don’t make economic sense. Period.
10
Obama has also drunk the kool-aid
Hilary Clinton is supporting the $100Billion – but in 2020.
Maybe the plan is to just promise it and then fail to cough up?
There is no way the U.S Senate would agree to ratify this.
10
You can tip the cell towards the sun to get back to a 90 angle of incidence (thus casting a longer shadow and using more ground space per cell, but you get the most out of expensive silicon this way. Needless to say, the angle to the sun has an inconvenient habit of moving around resulting in complicated arrangements of levers and the like.
The lack of efficiency is the main killer, and the cost of manufacturing is the other killer. Both can (and probably will) be fixed with improved technology but that would require money spent on real research rather than giant computers plugged with bogus data for propaganda purposes. The UNSW high efficiency solar cells utilised a shaped surface (at the microscopic level), some of the others operate on a multi-layer systems. Maybe we need to wait for nanotechnology to catch up. Maybe organic technology, there are heaps of options still to be explored.
The other killer is lifespan (typical estimates are about 25 years) so either the manufacturing cost must drop so low that they are disposable, or the lifespan needs to be greatly improved.
Don’t write off solar cells, they are still a promising technology, and improving all the time. They just aren’t able to compete with cheap, and easily available coal (and they never will do until the coal gets significantly more expensive, which must happen, in the fullness of time). The question here is whether the market should follow its natural course (i.e. slow solar development as coal price gradually increases) or whether governments should try to second guess the market (inject artificial “signals” that force people to adopt technology prematurely to their own detriment).
Let’s think about say mid 1700’s when it was known that steam engines could do the work of a horse. A one horsepower steam engine was about the size of a two story house. Let’s suppose the governments of that time decided to outlaw the use of horses and insist that everyone adopted steam engines for all their needs (insert ludicrous beat-up excuse here). What would the outcome have been? A complete disaster.
However, ultimately horses as a working animal have essentially been replaced in the modern age… it took three centuries, but it happened.
10
JS, #52:
Maybe the plan is to just promise it and then fail to cough up?
That’s my hope.
The idea of pouring more money into the pockets of Bob Bugame and Co makes my gorge rise.
Craponhagen is turning into another hands-out exercise: we, the guilt-laden advanced nations (and WTF do we HAVE to be guilty about?) will promise to shovel billions at our less fortunate brothers. Who in turn promise to use said monies for the betterment of their people. Ha phuquing ha.
The history of aid over the last five decades is a sick joke. People in Africa still starve, still live in poverty, and their leaders wallow in the good life. This conference is just another ambit claim for money that the people who really need it will never see.
10
Article 7 Steve Short, (Hi steve, remember me from Showers?) . Anyway Steve is correct about solar panels. I worked in the Silicon Chip business some years ago, and one thing that not many talk about, or even realise, is that the chemicals used in the process to manufacture solar cells are gruesome. HIGHLY TOXIC and never mentioned in discussion. Solar cells can only be made using electricity. No other heat source can be controlled with the accuracy required. I am talking about 1100 deg C +/- 1 deg. The energy budget does not create unity, let alone have a surplus. The argument on that basis alone is enough. However, I will concede that I am wrong.. when and if solar cells can be made from the electricity produced by solar cells, on a reasonably cost effective basis. The cost would be astronomical!! So if Greenpeace can do that I will eat my hat. Surely this would be evidence for them. I have never seen it proposed! There is now a challenge for them.
The greenies have been stooged. I thought that more CO2, and more warmth promotes (green) growth.. or have I got that wrong? They are whackos.
As for Copenhagen… this is only the thin end of the wedge. And if the world stops warming (for what ever reason), can we take our bat and ball home, or do the agreements go on for ever? Has Kevin made this a condition? Are we stupid?
AGW really means Anthropogenic Global Welfare. Amen brother!
10
Trouble with solar PV – the efficiency improvements come from special processing, coating, etc etc. And microscopic fiddling. The efficiency has had a promise of improving for more than 25 years (I’ve been hearing about it that long). It might have gone from “generally about 5%” to “generally about 10%” in that time.
The UNSW stuff has all stopped. No money.
Solar PV is not moving like Moores Law for other electronic gubbins. It’s positively glacial.
And yes – Silicon foundry processing has some nasty stuff. You don’t want to go playing with Silane gas and other such fun stuff.
10
@ Tel,
You just woke me up on what you were saying about carbon, coal and silicon cells.
What if we used carbon (Synthetic diamonds)for solar panals, should last a lot longer than silicon.
shouldnt be that much more expensive to make if it was done on a large scale.
BTW: this is just a thought i may be dreaming.
10
One might cry — this time for good reasons — The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming! [from an old movie] And they bring nails for the lid of the coffin in which AGW will be set to rest. But let us not conclude too soon that we have victory. Such people die very hard.
I didn’t get to see this until today. And I could only say, “Whoopee!” when an outfit like Greenpeace gets handed back a little of what they dish out. We need to keep exposing their hypocrisy. The media doesn’t dig deep enough. Reporters aren’t even well enough versed in science to know what questions to ask and don’t even know they should ask a question.
I’ve been told we have an entire Air Force base in Nevada getting all its power from solar cells but I’m not sure how accurate the info is. If I can find something on it I’ll post a link. But like some of you I’m skeptical about practical use of solar. I fell for solar water heating and lesson number one was that the most efficient (and costly) panels leaked in the rain and got dirty, both of which cut down their efficiency no end. I fear the same problems for solar power.
I’m not averse to fluorescent lighting since I’ve had some in my house for years. But I’m sure mad about being made to use it if I don’t want to.
10
It’s Nellis Air Force Base that has the solar power system. Here’s a link if anyone is interested. There are a bunch of others. I was surprised at how much attention this has gotten.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9829328-54.html
This thing occupies 140 acres and the panels have trackers that follow the sun in order to maximize efficiency. It produces about 14 MW. They don’t say what they get on a cloudy day.
The last things said are that it will supply up to 25% of the power needed by the base and the panels are guaranteed for 25 years.
Someone may take a bath on that guarantee.
I’m not going to hold my breath until solar can supply even a significant part of our energy needs. This is breathtaking for something that gives them only 25% of what they need. How much benefit will the average homeowner get out of solar vs. cost?
10
And another, for me is what the ‘Poley Bears are Dying’ event in Copenhagen is really about and should be remembered.
http://en.rian.ru/Environment/20091217/157276621.html
I mean this guy plays with nukes.
10
Tel wrote: “How about James Wong’s idea of replacing most of the fungicide spraying of apples with calcium hydroxide? Reduced the cost of fungal control dramatically. Lime is damned cheap.”
Any references to further information on this subject?”
For apples, the pre bud-burst copper is mandatory, though you need rather less copper with more modern formulations than Bordeaux. The first conventional fungicide was still used, then followed up with several calcium hydroxide (ag. lime) sprays. Important: spray equipment used for ag. lime must be washed thoroughly after use before it combines with CO2! What we were controlling is apple scab (black spot). Lime sulphur is less satisfactory as it scalds the skin of some varieties, not to mention rather smelly.
When James was conducting his trials, I was using sodium silicate (waterglass) rather than ag. lime. He was a member of the Establishment while I in the Organic movement. I fell foul of the extremist element of the latter for hobnobbing with the “enemy”: conventional farmers, agricultural researchers. Long story.
James also provided plenty of anecdotal evidence that my theory about fungal diseases in crops was correct. Fungi and bacteria compete for ascendancy. Organic fertilisers (animal manures/compost/fish emulsion/seaweed) encourage bacteria at the expense of fungi. Around this time some NZ organic apple growers were getting excellent control with compost tea. This latter requires filtration before it can pass through most spray equipment, as well as being considerably more expensive than the minerals James and I were using.
These days I’m pretty much retired, but still having fun with a large 95% organic garden and home orchard.
Oh yes, the Tasmanian DPIPWE’s “INTEGRATED PEST & DISEASE MANAGEMENT MANUAL” is what you might want to read, or you could try contacting Penny Domeney at Smithton.
10
Ashleigh wrote: “I’m an electronic engineer who HATES spending money – believe me – if Solar PV cells made economic sense I’d be rushing out to spend up on em and cut my power bill. They don’t make economic sense. Period.”
You are assuming one size fits all here. Not everyone has access to a nearby power grid. Even when it’s relatively nearby, the cost of poles and power cable can end up costing huge amounts of hard-earned. I have friends who rely on various combinations of wind, PV and diesel generation. Of course some would prefer nuclear, but they don’t come small, or cheap enuf 🙂
10
Tel wrote: “However, ultimately horses as a working animal have essentially been replaced in the modern age… it took three centuries, but it happened.”
Odd thing to note here. Some years ago, one of the London breweries had one of those time & motion experts evaluate their operation. The horse and cart system that delivered locally was to be left out of the evaluation on the assumption it had advertising appeal only. The head of the horse and cart division was incensed and insisted that it be included. Turned out that it was the most cost efficient part of the enterprise.
In the early seventies in the UK, short haulage up to ~20 miles was more economical by horse than lorry. So it goes…
10
Gregoryno6 @ 56
That thought had entered my mind. After the Tsunami in 2004 (can’t quite remember the year) there were many millions pledged and not paid – and not pledges from the man in the street – these were pledges from Governments.
Governments can extract lots of money and then not pass it on. Good plan!
10
Macha:
At #25 you say:
True, but fossil fuels are free energy from the sun, too.
All energy is free because all energy was created at the Big Bang. But collecting energy and transforming it into a useful and useable form costs money.
Fossil fuels are solar energy collected by photo synthesis over geological ages and stored in concentrated form. Photo voltaics collect at most about 25% of the solar energy that falls on them and instantaneously provide it as electricity.
A small amount of a fossil fuel can release a large amount of energy whenever it is wanted. Photo voltaics only provide a small amount of electricity when the sun shines on them, and some people want to turn their lights on (not off) when the sun goes down.
If photo voltaics were any use they would not need subsidies for that use.
All energy sources have some uses. So, photo voltaics and wind power have some small niche uses. But photo voltaics and wind power will always be useless for large scale power generation. Indeed, direct solar and wind power were abandoned when the greater energy intensity in fossil fuels became available by use of the steam engine. If wind power were useful as a major energy source then oil tankers would be sailing ships. And direct solar is less useful than wind power.
Richard
10
#65 and others RE: PV cells. I agree with the current limitations, but we all know that with R&D comes the innovations and improvement – some are even quantum leaps. Hence my reference to lab benchtop PVs at ~45% vs norm ~15%. How would you feel about such cells (not necessarily Si based) that were operating at 80% and did not suffer maintenance isues, etc.? I also see such changes and imprvementts in under-sea current pumps, windfarms (but not as many), and batteries. This list goes on (look back at efficiency and quality of cars!!)
At what point to ANY alternatives come to pass, even for coal and gas? We may as well argue that it ony costs about $7/t CO2 in abatement by having better family planning and cut the population!. Gas, coal, wind, nuclear, elect. $/t CO2 abatement rates all step up in $25/t increments from there (roughly in that order too if I recall corectly). Check out David Archbalds views on the state of power sources in Australia – the site is a good read.
10
Eddy Aruda: #34
“Now the Russians are saying that their raw data has been manipulated by the CRU”
Err, no. It is worse than that. The Russians are saying that the Hadley Center for Climate Change (part of the British Meteorological Office) is manipulating the data. The Met Office (in Devon) and CRU (in East Anglia) are different organizations, with different funding streams. They are also different scientific disciplines. The data-sets from both organizations are combined in some climate models to form the HadCRU data. That is probably where your confusion originates. Of course, there is little chance of collusion between the two.
10
Matty: #41
You surely don’t think that the great socialist revolution stopped with the fall of the Berlin wall, do you.
There are more socialist/communist supporters in the world than democratic/capitalist supporters.
At the moment, the capital of the capitalists balances the fervor of the socialists. But it is a balance, and the more polarized the two factions become, the closer we get to a fascist type dictatorship. That was why Benjamin Franklin tried to establish the United States as a Republic (no connection to the Republican party).
Like everybody else, you get to choose your poison. But whatever you choose, there is little room for freedom.
10
Roy Hogue: #58
“Reporters aren’t even well enough versed in science to know what questions to ask and don’t even know they should ask a question.”
Today’s Reporters need to know two questions: Where can I get a copy of the Press Release? and “What time does the bar open”.
10
Macha:
One of your questions at #66 goes to the core of the erroneous belief system promoted by people such as Greenpeace. Their belief system is a distorted and mistaken understanding of “sustainability”. They do not understand what sustainability is, how it is recognised as existing, and how it is maintained.
I explain this here, but first I will answer your questions to me and others.
At #25 you said:
At #65 I pointed out that fossil fuels are “free energy from the sun”, too.
But fossil fuels are stores of energy that can be used whenever wanted and in a variety of forms.
And photo voltaics (i.e. PV cells) provide little energy only in the day-time and as electricity that cannot be stored.
Furthermore, energy of fossil fuels is much, much cheaper than energy of PV cells.
And I said;
At #66 you have responded by asking me and others
I answer with total disbelief.
Nothing has no “maintenance issues” and merely keeping the surfaces of a PV cell clean so it can operate “at 80%” efficiency would be a severe difficulty (except in the world of Harry Potter).
And you assert and ask:
I answer:
When they are economic.
This issue of “alternatives” goes to the core of the erroneous understanding of sustainability promoted by ‘greens’.
Nothing is sustainable for ever. Every thing and every activity has a finite lifetime. (The Earth will be consumed by the Sun when it becomes a Red Giant and the universe will cease with ‘heat death’.)
The test of whether anything is now sustainable is whether it is diminishing.
Economic growth and human population are each clearly sustainable because overall they are each increasing.
And no resource is unsustainable. Humans did not run out of flint, antler bone, bronze, etc.. When a resource is plentiful then there is no point in looking for an alternative. So, for example, the oil reserve was about 40 years supply throughout the last century and will remain at about 40 years or more supply throughout this century. There is no point in paying people to look for more when there is over 40 years supply, and people are paid to look for more when supply drops much below 40 years supply.
But ‘low fruit are picked first’.
So, as a resource is used the cost of obtaining more increases. And people look for alternatives when the resource becomes expensive. Found alternatives often prove to have advantages.
The environmentalist fear that something may become unsustainable is harmful because it ignores ‘factor x’: the unknown future effect. For example, 300 years ago it would have been possible to say that today’s transport system would be impossible because there is not sufficient land to grow all the hay needed for the horses. But, of course, modern transport systems do not need to use hay.
What cannot be known is
(a) what the future will provide
and
(b) when the future will provide it.
So, we need to act responsibly on the basis of what we have.
The problem with the environmentalists’ misconception of sustainability is that they do not want to act responsibly with what we have because they fear we will not be able to act that way for ever. Using their logic the people of 300 years ago should have abandoned using horses, and the resulting poverty would have prevented the eventual invention of the steam engine, then the electric motor, then the diesel engine, then …
Indeed, environmentalists compound the error by subsidising technologies of their choosing (i.e. PV cells, windfarms, etc.) so newly discovered alternatives are prevented from normal entry into, and success in, market displacement of existing technologies.
Richard
10
Macha @66.
See my comment @56.
Solar PV efficiency of about 45% has been achieved but there is no funding – the research has stopped.
Expecting 80% may be possible. One day. For 25 years the promise has been of improving PV efficiency. It has not happened yet. 25 years for modern electronic fabrication processes is a VERY long time.
So there is a problem here of firstly – little or no commercial imperative, and secondly – it’s damn difficult.
As for no maintainence… Sorry – this is a pipe-dream. To keep high efficiencies will require at the very least a wash down a couple of times a year. Not much, perhaps. But these things get covered in dust and become, effectively, boat anchors if this is not done.
Similarly – wave power. One of the most elementary problems with wave power that is glossed over constantly is perhaps the most obvious one. Water. Worse – salty water. It’s as corrosive as all hell. Pretty much anything metallic used in the ocean (or tides, or waves, whatever) has to content with air + water + salt. Preventing corrosion, and maintenance to repair it will be a fact of life for the foreseeable future.
I’m not saying that the utopian ideal is impossible. But I don’t expect it in my lifetime. I don’t expect anything even remotely close.
(Now, geothermal has some promise, for some places in the world, at some times, for some costs. So does the mile-high “power tower”. These are not especially cheap or easy to locate, though.)
10
CyberForester @ 64
Not only the tsunami, but also the Bonn Declaration demonstrate how unreliable these promises of big bucks have become.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8376009.stm
This need to be seen flinging cash around could be attributed to several factors. Just plain lying, to get some temporary peace and quiet – a definite possibility. Good intentions allowed to slip the leash in the excitement of the moment. Maybe a need by some national leaders to be seen as World Players – not that I’m pointing a finger here…
http://geoconger.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/kevin-rudd.jpg
10
It makes you wonder how there is so much money for a big conference in Copenhagen with thousands of limos and hundreds of private jets. Then they are pledging a hundred billion here and a hundred billion there to pay off third world dictators and shrug off some post-colonial angst. Not just that, but huge funding for ocean measurements and polar expeditions and computers to run modelling. Just no funding for producing any useful end product — sorry about that.
When I see that sort of thing it makes me wonder if maybe the public statement of intent is not the same as the private agenda. Actions speak louder than words.
I suspect that just the computing costs of an Emissions Trading System would dwarf the budget that has ever been spent on solar cell research, that’s before considering the executive salaries of the three or four layers of management that we can automatically would gravitate to any Emissions Trading business (and three or four layers of regulators, inspectors, auditors, and so forth to shake their heads blankly when it gets discovered that looting is in progress).
10
Richard S Courtney: # 70
Nice analysis!
10
The whole idea of emissions trading is plain bad policy. It creates a layer of middlemen who contribute nothing, but take their cut from an artificially created market.
IF (and I don’t believe it for a moment), but IF CO2 really is bad and evil, than a plain carbon tax is a damn sight more honest. Pays yer money, see it go to government. End of drama. No bankers getting rich and swilling Bolly from it.
10
Richard Courtney,
Excellent at post 70 but did you mean this literally?
Batteries are able to “store” electricity. There’s quite a loss involved — that pesky entropy again — but it is theoretically workable.
I’m not proposing this. Solar is a loser right now. But someone will come up with the idea at some point as surely as the sun rises.
10
Roy Hogue:
If you wish to be pedantic then only capacitors can store electricity.
All other systems (chemical batteries, pumped storage, etc.) convert electricity to another form of energy (e.g. chemical, gravitational potential, etc.) then convert it back to electricity for use when wanted. Each conversion consumes some of the energy.
Perhaps I should have been pedantic and said the intermittent supply of electricity from PC cells makes their use impractical for almost all large scale power requirements because adequate storage of the energy supplied by PV cells is impractical for systems that require energy on demand.
Personally, I think what I said is more clear for the average reader of this blog. And, as I said, we need to use what we have sensibly and not to second-guess what will happen or when.
Richard
10
Ray @ 76: Solar is a loser right now. But someone will come up with the idea at some point as surely as the sun rises.
There is one thing that will forever limit the use of the solar energy that reaches the Earth’s surface. The energy is too diffuse to be practical for anything but low intensity high value applications. For example growing food and powering calculators. While efficiencies of collection and energy storage may improve, even a 100% efficiency of generation, storage, and distribution will not be able to power a global technological civilization at any reasonable cost.
From: http://live.pege.org/2009-storage/us-electric-power.htm
The US alone produced 4316 TWh electric power for 305,548,183 inhabitants in 2008.
From: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~brooksdr/DRB_web_page/construction/pyranometer/pyranometer.htm
Around midday on a summer day in temperate climates, roughly 1 kW/m2 of power reaches Earth’s surface.
Do the math.
10
Richard,
I put the word store in quotes. I accept that you are correct in the literal sense of the word. Being a good observer of human nature I think someone will do 2 + 2 = 5 and say, “Aha, store some of it to use when the sun doesn’t shine.” Right now my state senator owns a sham green energy company that produces nothing but credentials he hopes will make him more attractive to “green” voters. Almost anything can happen in this dishonest world of sustainable nonsense.
Lionell,
To paraphrase myself — I will not hold my breath until solar can become a practical power source.
I will also say that I think the big solar project at Nellis Air Force Base was probably not a decision of the Air Force but of their civilian bosses. Up to 25% of their power needs is hardly worth dedicating 140 acres to PV panels. It’s an all day job just to keep them clean.
And yes, the math is easy to do. I questioned the benefit vs. cost to the average homeowner in installing solar panels. But it’s being done nevertheless. Only a government subsidy makes it attractive.
Peace. I do not disagree with you.
10
Roy Hogue:
Your ‘Senator illustration’ is good and I take your point.
Indeed, your comments on what I wrote above demostrate the difficulty of communicating energy issues to non-scientists. It is easy to say;
“Solar energy is free”
and most people will accept that soundbite as being true.
But it takes more words than the soundbite to explain that the soundbite is meaningless (although it is true).
And, as you say, anything less than precision in a response to a soundbite can be attacked by those with malign intent. However, such precision requires many more words.
So, the problem is to say what is needed as a reply
(a) while having adequate precision to avoid the attack
and
(b) while not providing so long a reply that nobody will bother to read (or to listen to) it.
How does one do that? I do not know. Perhaps you do? And perhas Joanne does because she is a professional science communicator?
Richard
10
Richard,
How about a price list for the devices and procedures necessary to harvest the free energy from the sun and to convert it into a form we can actually use?
Alternatively, the only part of the free energy from the sun that is actually free is that when the sun is shining, it warms you and provides you with light so you can see. Every other use requires time, thought, effort, and lots of rather expensive hardware that requires almost constant maintenance.
As a farmer’s son, I have personal hands on experience with the cost of harvesting the free energy from the sun in the form of Corn, Wheat, and Soy Beans. Try spending an hour plowing an over one mile long row of young corn plants. Then only to have the excitement of turning around to do it again and again and again and…. Try scooping a 450 bushel load of just harvested corn or wheat by hand. Try carrying countless 100 lb bags of Ammonia Nitrate to be applied as you plant 250 acres of corn. You soon learn that the sunshine may be for free but, to get much out of it beyond warmth and light, it isn’t free and it isn’t easy.
10
Richard, I have no good answer. Those with a good foundation in the science will understand even a long answer. Those without it probably will not, no matter how it’s put to them.
I just sought to provide some food for thought.
10
Lionell, Richard,
You started me thinking more about the solar project at Nellis Air Force Base. I found this link which exposes the subterfuge going on at Nellis.
http://nellis_solar_power_plant.totallyexplained.com/
The Air Force leases the 140 acres to the owners of the solar array at no cost. The AF then agreed to purchase power from them at 2.2 cents/kWH instead of the 9 cents/kWH they pay the local utility. The $100 million cost of the project was not paid by the Air Force but by the utility rate payers and tax payers under Nevada’s renewable energy law. So again, only a big subsidy makes it possible to do.
I’d call the place rip-off City!
10
Richard S Courtney: # 80
Of course, there was always the mad-cap idea that somebody had to mount solar arrays in space, between earth and the sun to a) shade the earth to prevent global warming; and b) to provide “limitless” electricity by way of beaming it down to earth at microwave frequencies.
When I first heard of this, I thought it was a joke, but the “scientist” who suggested it was being very serious.
10
What I find truly incredible about issues today is the fact that ordinary people want to both voice opinions and get to the facts (report the facts)… reporting the facts as objectively as possible is of course the BEST way, but, certainly not the human way.
Originally reporters wanted to report stories of significance.. break open the closed doors of hidden agendas, and the like. Now, MSM is totally owned by manipulators and they provide sensationalism, and entertainment… nothing more. I don’t care if it is FOX or MSNBC… they both know the roles they play; at times, one may report a story the other doesn’t want, but how truly often is that? Divide and conquer is the theme of the idiot box and nothing more–well, to serve as a distraction, of course.
Say NO to Internet2 (I2) and say NO to censorship. Parents set up controls for their children and NO ONE sets up censorship for adults–that is how it should be. (don’t bring us items like kiddie porn, the most illegal, if only illegal thing being done).
If it weren’t for the internet, how would we get news? Objective news from many points of view? We couldn’t. Not saying everything is factual, yet, if we have many references, we can weed through the garbage.
MSM = sensationalism
10
Lionell, Roy Hogue and Rereke Whaakaro:
Your comments suggest that you may want to read Section 14 (pp 13 to 19) of my item at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
I think it addresses your recent points to me.
Richard
10
Richard,
You treatment of the subject is very thorough. I read on beyond page 19 for quite a way.
In spite of some risk in using nuclear reactors I’ve become a cautious proponent of nuclear power. There has been a lot of improvement in the technology since the problems at Three Mile Island and elsewhere. I won’t include Chernobyl because its design and operation were both substandard when they built it.
I also favor offshore drilling for oil. It’s a simple matter of the benefit outweighing the risk.
10
I heard them talking about this (without laughing) on the BBC recently, and I was thinking about microwave communications links where you push in maybe 1 Watt or there abouts, and if you got out a whole milliwatt out the other end it would be considered awesome efficiency (that’s 99.9% loss and 0.1% energy transfer).
Then they started talking about rectifying antennas with diode arrays built into the dipoles and here’s an example of people trying these:
http://ursi-france.institut-telecom.fr/pages/pages_ursi/Rectenna-LATRACH_ZBITOU_IEEE06.pdf
That’s working with antennas right up close (near field) which is fine for a door-entry smartcard system but already out of the ballpark for power transmission purposes.
The e-Tag that is used on vehicles in New South Wales (and other places) as in identifier for the purpose of paying tolls runs on a microwave non-contact link of about 3 meters (perhaps a little more, maybe 4 meters) and they never got it to power off the microwave beam, not even one tiny ID tag circuit. They put little batteries into the e-Tags instead (every 2 years you need to swap it out for a new tag with fresh batteries).
10
Tesla on steroids?
10
Nordell’s analysis of global energy consumption ( 2009 paper ) can explain 75% of global warming. If this is true, then it matters not how we use energy liberated from earthbound energy stores be they fossil fuels or nuclear. His analysis is based in sound physics of energy, mass and temperature with limited scope for fudge factors. This is very different from the world of the climate scientist where radiative forcings are converted into temperature via lambda “climate sensitivity parameter” [deltaT = lambda * radiative forcing (RF)]. I have not seen any attempt to derive lambda from robust energy physics. Lambda has been derived by observation using erroneous land-based global temperature data. An erroneous observationally derived lambda is used to make forward predictions. Talk about garbage in garbage out. If IPCC affiliated researchers corrected for thermal pollution energy, then lambda lies way lower than current estimates.
Assuming Nordell is right and global land-based temperature data is right, lambda is about 25% of what IPCC uses. It may even be negative. The house of cards will come tumbling down.
My present concern is that present concentration on carbon is highly favourable to the pro-nuclear lobby. Don’t let the pro-nuclear warmists off the hook. If we need a carbon tax, we also need a nuclear waste tax, and while we’re at it a garbage tax would make sense for the earth too.
10
Newbie yank here,though I have been and am on other blogs.
I was privy to a display by Greenpiece back in 1991-on the south Oregon coast.In Port Orford.My wife and I were on the local beach when we heard this hideous racket -a large motor
sailer was motoring into the port.The thing was making much smoke and noise-the D-Sail had to be at least a huge Cat or
Cummins of indeterminate age. as they rounded the point into the Port(where the media was) the unfurled the sails and shut the D-sail down-leaving a blue haze on the not so calm
Pacific.Nothing impresses me so much as hypocrisy…
10
To followup my last post; this site estimates the magic number lambda (climate sensitivity parameter) at between 0.35+/- 0.09 and 0.54+/-0.12 depending on assumptions about cosmic rays. The analysis uses many different sets of historical data, which all seem to agree. The 0.35 figure appears most robust. It is fabulous work.
http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity
IPCCs lambda minimum is 1.5. The sciencbits estimate of 0.35 is 23.3% of IPCCs minimum. This is consistent with the leftover unexplained warming of Nordell and Gervet (whose analysis assumed thermal pollution might cause all of observed warming).
10
Sorry. I’m getting confused by different concepts attached to the word “climate sensitivity”. Current scientific IPCC uses:
(ΔTs): ΔTs = λRF, where λ is the climate sensitivity parameter
and poliicla IPCC uses CO2 doubling temperatrue:
ΔTx2 “climate sensitivity” is temperature change following a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 content.
To convert one to the other depends on the radiative forcing attributed to CO2, variously 3.7 (IPCC 2007), 3.8 (sciencebits), 4.0 (IPCC earlier). So lambda*3.8=ΔTx2.
In that case the IPCCs low figure of 1.5 is equivalent to sciencebits 0.35. Typically, IPCC uses lambda higher than that.
10
Friends:
I am a bit worried at the concentration on discussion of climate sensitivity.
The concept of climate sensitivity is a simplifying assumption used to assist climate modelling, and it drives from the basic assumption of radiative forcing that is used in the models.
It is important to recognise that these assumptions may not be correct.
The climate models assume that change to climate is driven by change to radiative forcing. And it is very important to recognise that this assumption has not been demonstrated to be correct. Indeed, it is quite possible that there is no force or process causing climate to vary. I explain this as follows.
The climate system is seeking an equilibrium that it never achieves. The Earth obtains radiant energy from the Sun and radiates that energy back to space. The energy input to the system (from the Sun) may be constant (although some doubt that), but the rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun ensure that the energy input/output is never in perfect equilbrium
The climate system is an intermediary in the process of returning (most of) the energy to space (some energy is radiated from the Earth’s surface back to space). And the Northern and Southern hemispheres have different coverage by oceans. Therefore, as the year progresses the modulation of the energy input/output of the system varies. Indeed, the mean global temperature of the Earth rises from June to January and falls from January to June each year by 3 to 4 times as much as the Earth is estimated to have warmed over the lat century. Hence, the system is always seeking equilibrium but never achieves it.
Such a varying system could be expected to exhibit oscillatory behaviour. And, importantly, the length of the oscillations could be harmonic effects which, therefore, have periodicity of several years. Of course, such harmonic oscillation would be a process that – at least in principle – is capable of evaluation.
However, there may be no process because the climate is a chaotic system. Therefore, the observed oscillations (ENSO, NAO, etc.) could be observation of the system seeking its chaotic attractor(s) in response to its seeking equilibrium in a changing situation.
Very, importantly, there is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that caused the Roman Warm Period (RWP), then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP), then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and the present warm period (PWP). All the observed rise of global temperature in the twentieth century could be recovery from the LIA that is similar to the recovery from the DACP to the MWP. And the ~900 year oscillation could be the chaotic climate system seeking its attractor(s). If so, then all global climate models and ‘attribution studies’ utilized by IPCC and CCSP are based on the false premise that there is a force or process causing climate to change when no such force or process exists.
Both harmonic oscillation and chaotic attractor seeking probably occur in the real world.
But the assumption that climate change is driven by radiative forcing may be correct. If so, then it is still extremely improbable that – within the foreseeable future – the climate models could be developed to a state whereby they could provide reliable predictions. This is because the climate system is extremely complex. Indeed, the climate system is more complex than the human brain (the climate system has more interacting components – e.g. biological organisms – than the human brain has interacting components – e.g. neurones), and nobody claims to be able to construct a reliable predictive model of the human brain. It is pure hubris to assume that the climate models are sufficient emulations for them to be used as reliable predictors of future climate when they have no demonstrated forecasting skill.
So, does climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide have any importance? Nobody knows.
Richard
10
Richard, yes, I agree with you. But to convince a “consensus” of scientists, one needs something more convincing evidence. It certainly makes more sense to my brain that the earth’s surface warms and cools because of it’s own internal energy (geothermal) and the atmosphere acts as a thermal blanket. There are too many scientists agreeing with the formula for radiative forcing [(ΔTs): ΔTs = λRF] for it to be thrown out without major egg on face. If it is to be proven that lambda could be negative, there needs to be some verifiable evidence.
Try this falsification of the entire CO2 greenhouse theory. Simple explanation by Schreuder of technical paper by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
http://www.schmanck.de/FalsificationSchreuder.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
(Perhaps this discussion should be moved to a different place on Jo’s site.)
And there are load of sites claiming to debunk the debunking…..
10
blouis #95 Good links, I’ve had the 2nd one on my computer for a couple of weeks, reading it over again (the formulae are killing me lol)
Unfortunately the IPCC models assume the earth is a “black body” which it isn’t ofcourse, not to mention 71% ocean cover.
Just read an interesting paper here
This is in a “open review” format initiated by John L Daly. You can also read the “peer reviews” in the link provided.
10
blouis79:
I think many climate realists are too defensive.
We do not need to prove anything.
Those who proclaim a hypothesis should justify it.
And those who dispute the hypothesis are only required to demand that its promoters justify it.
The AGW-hypothesis depends on the assumption that radiative forcing governs climate (or, at least, governs global temperature). The only response required of climate realists is to shout “Prove it !”.
This shout has been drowned-out by lies, smears and defamations of the shouters, while their shout hs been muffled by attacks on their careers and censorship of where they could make the shout.
The AGW-scare is dead following Climategate and the failure of CoP15 in Copenhagen. The corpse of the scare will rot for some time, and the smell of it will spread around the world from CoP16 in Mexico.
So, there is diminishing ability to drown-out the shout of “Prove it !”. And we need to shout, “Prove that radiative forcing governs climate !”
Our shout is muffled by any attempt by us to prove radiative forcing does not govern climate (it may). It is time to put the pressure on the scare-mongers to justify their case. And we should not to be defensive of any other case.
We need to shout “Prove that radiative forcing governs climate !” because as the AGW-scare fades away another such scare will arise. So, those of us who support science need the public to know that “Prove it !” is a proper response to scare-mongers.
Richard
10
Richard,
Spot on! And unless I’ve been in the closet hiding from reality and missed something (haven’t been), that is exactly Joanne’s entire point.
So that’s my only argument to anyone I see pushing AGW — show me the evidence. I carried on a long heated debate yesterday with a man who apparently is a military academy graduate (can’t be absolutely sure). If so his education would be in engineering among a lot of other things and should have taught him what science is all about. Anyway, he was completely intransigent. His mind was closed up like a bank vault. I might as well have been asking the nearest fence post for evidence. He simply displayed no understanding of what science is and is not about. Thousands (his number) of peer reviewed papers settled the matter for him.
The battle for the mind of the public will be a long hard one.
10
Richard,
Just a postscript: the AGW scare is not gone. Yesterday’s edition of my local paper was touting the “fact” that the State Assembly Representative from the district next to mine was seen as some sort of hero at Copenhagen. It’s very much alive here in California.
10
Roy Hogue:
You say:
I understand what you say, but the effects of a death are not instantaneous.
I said:
I stand by that, and I think you are seeing the corpse of AGW as it “fades away”.
AGW is dead. Its corpse will rot and the smell of that will pervade the world when CoP16 meets in Mexico. But something else (‘ocean acidification’?) will take the place of AGW and we need to be ready to fight that coming monster.
‘Green’ scares are born, live, die and then – long after they are dead – their corpses contaminate the world. Your comment tells of one sign of the contamination.
Consider the ‘acid rain’ scare. It is dead and few people remember it unless reminded of it. But part of its corpse is the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) and associated administration of the European Union (EU). The administrators of the LCPD keep reducing the LCPD limits as a method to justify their existence, and the latest LCPD limits are forcing closure of the UK’s coal-fired power stations that provide the UK’s cheapest power.
So, controlling the ‘smell’ from the corpse of AGW will continue to be a need for years to come.
Importantly, there is need to observe the next scare with a view to aborting it.
Anyway, those are my views.
Seasons Greetings
Richard
10
Richard,
I understand your point and will readily admit that I could be wrong. But being one who doesn’t trust a theory until it proves true, I want to see it start falling before I say its dead. And as you pointed out, the ghost of acid rain is still haunting the EU. Then there’s the State of California and our EPA…
The moral in all of this — as if anyone could learn from it — is that you never create an organ of government and then tell it to protect you from yourself. Once you do that you’re lost. And worse, never create an organization that’s not accountable to anyone; the UN for example. I might add to never ask, much less allow government to grease your way through life. The free lunch always has a hook in it.
Seasons greeting to you also!
Roy
10
So to pick up on Jo’s original point. Copenhagen appears to have created a mega billion dollar non-democratically operated “environment bank”, from whence corruption will siphon off money to sharlatans. What can we do about that???? There’s no way the politicians will dismantle it after it is created. There’s no way they are going to give the public a look in to governance.
(I was pointed to some sensationalist Jesse Ventura corruption videos on youtube – food for thought of how the power brokers wield influence in high places.)
10
On proof. A scientific theory is disproven by a single majorly inconsistent fact verifiable by anyone else who cares to look. It is far easier to disprove a theory than a report which is full of little errors. As far as I can see to date, the CO2 or radiative greenhouse theory is lined up for falsification. That brings down the radiative forcing theory and the wobbly formula with the unknown climate sensitivity parameter which is the entire basis of climate prediction. The scientific fraud of climategate may be enough to lower the warming projections. Falsifying the CO2 greenhouse can pervade the thought of any citizen who has an experience of greenhouse. Surely some simple physics experiments can/have been done to test the radiative greenhouse effect.
10
blouis79,
I think the Earth is doing that experiment every day with the rather spectacular result that the theory fails. Is this not Joanne’s entire thesis?
CO2 continues to increase yet the Earth does not warm as a result.
10
A complicated system is interesting, but to difficult to analyse. The usual scientific approach is to distill the essential unbreakable physical laws in operation and see what they say. Gerlich and Tscheuschner appear to have had a fairly good look. Suggestions I have seen are that CO2 greenhouse violates the second law of thermodynamics – a rather serious failing.
FWIW, I have been reading Kiehl/Trenberth Global Energy Budget paper, on which is central to the IPCCs radiative equilibrium diagram. I can find nowhere that they contemplate the possibility of earth-generated thermal pollution described by Nordell.
Personally, I prefer the historical perspective that a complex system with negative feedbacks will always tend toward the mean in the long-term.
10
Along the lines of propaganda, FoxNews.com posted this today.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581093,00.html?test=latestnews
Build-A-Bear is a very popular toy maker but now has branched off into AGW advocacy with a web site that ends up having Santa Clause tell children that Christmas may be cancelled this year because of global warming.
Of course they claim completely innocent intent.
Be sure to check out the embedded links.
10
A cousin got Al Gore’s new “Our choice” book for Xmas. The air is becoming clearer. Dr Linda Selvey, Recently appointed (Nov 2009) CEO of Greenpeace Asia Pacific is an Al Gore disciple. http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/resources/reports/general/new-ceo-dr-linda-selvey-bio
Gore’s researcher-written tome is long on spin and short on balance. The anti-denier words loom large. The list of consulted scientists goes for pages. By implication, the words are objective and reflect the scientific consensus. Convenient that there have been no new nuclear power plants for may years and the expertise to build them is limited. Convenient that nuclear happens to be a softly mentioned option. Convenient that economists think we need to charge for the perceived negative externalities of carbon. Convenient that any talk of negative externalities of nuclear are missing from the book. Convenient that Gore plays down the threat of nuclear weapon proliferation by countries with nuclear energy capacity. Curious that he talks of a well organised propaganda machine to discredit global warming by big oil.
So, in what appears on the surface a masterful execution corporate strategy, it looks like pro-nuclear interests have captured key members of the IPCC, climate science, and big science publishers as well as the environmental movement. A small blip in global temperature is spun as the end of civilization as we know it. We are destroying the earth for our children. Carbon is the enemy. We must reduce it by 40% urgently. We must raise the cost of carbon. We must create an international anti-carbon fund. We must pledge billions of dollars to developing nations. We must invest in clean renewable energy sources. We must do more research.
But there is only one “clean” energy source that can deliver “clean” energy in large amounts soon – nuclear. (See Prof Barry Brooks on http://bravenewclimate.com/ for example.)
So the environmental movement has been captured to push the world towards using a megabillion dollar international anti-carbon fund to pay for nuclear power stations in developing countries. Brilliant!
Wake up world, before we really ruin the earth with nuclear waste or armageddon. (Those who haven’t seen it need to see the movie “The Corporation” http://www.thecorporation.com/)
10
Check this Greenpeace headline:
“Copenhagen’s failure may leave plans for new nuclear power stations high and dry”
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/nuclear-reaction/2009/12/nuclear_news_copenhagens_failu.html#more
10
Rebuttal of Arthur Smith’s refutation of Gerlich and Tscheuscher’s greenhouse falsification:
Comments on the “Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect” by
Arthur P. Smith
Gerhard Kramm1, Ralph Dlugi2, and Michael Zelger2
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf
“It is shown that [Smith’s] attempt to refute the criticism of Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2007, 2009) on the so-called greenhouse effect is rather fruitless.”
10
Straight from the horses mouth – one author of the global energy budget, Kevin Trenberth:
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Tom
> How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
> close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
> make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
> budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
> climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
> as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
> travesty!
> Kevin
(discovered by Bob_FJ at http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/#comment-1450)
10
this post was very useful
10
Kangen Water SHould exchange your water change your life. my office opportunity all who will take it free water for a month and in that time you will see your body quit suffering and moe back to what God intended for it to be.
thanks you for wiriting a good post i think i will subscribe to your rss feed.
10