|
|
Unthreaded Weekend
Plenty to discuss…
7.5 out of 10 based on 27 ratings
|
JoNova A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX
|
Yes, but what was the name of Biggles’ dog?
00
Towser I think
00
Hey,
in the days prior to TV, which our family did not get until 1957, and even then it only started at around 4PM in the afternoons, children would listen to radio, and some stations had series for children, and in the mornings, prior to starting school, we would listen to our favourites, and Biggles was one of those I followed at the time.
Another was ‘Yes What’ with the ubiquitous Greenbottle, and I think even some of those who come here would remember the first lines of every episode.
Tony.
00
Thanks, Tony. I thought you would have something to say, thus proving that ‘our’ side has a sense of humour! Something that seems totally lacking on the CAGW side.
BTW I read your excellent article on the canary in the coal mine (linked in your comment below). If I pay attention to what you say, I tend to learn things. Thank you.
00
My parents and we kids listened to Yes What every Sunday evening. It was replayed around 1970 and again in the early 1980s. A favourite episode is when Greenbottle was yet again trying to explain why he was in trouble – “but, but, but I was the victim of circumstances” to which their teacher Dr Pym replied “well I’m the victim of circumference, wait – no …”!
00
Tony ,
Some nostalgia inducing “Yes What” episodes on Youtube , enjoy
00
Funny thing about ‘Yes What’.
Years after hearing it first time round, one of the radio stations in Newcastle (I was based at
BillsvilleWilliamtown with the RAAF at that time) and they were still only AM Radio in the mid 70’s, replayed it every morning just after the short 7.30AM newsbreak. It was probably 2KO, because there were only the 3 of them that got any traction, because even then, no one of us guys listened to ABC Radio. There were 2HD, 2KO, and 2NX, so I think it would have been 2KO.We all had to start work at 0750, so a bunch of us would stand around listening to it every morning just prior to heading off to work, which might have seemed odd, a bunch of twenty somethings all standing around listening to what is seemingly ridiculous schoolboy humour.
But then, I guess that sort of stands to reason. Nearly every one of us loved Monty Python and Auntie Jack too.
Tony.
00
Thanks Byron for finding the episode featuring “victim of circumstances”. My recollection was not quite accurate but the outcome was the same.
Must say a lot of the logic used by warmists and politicians about climate change is comparable to Greenbottle’s, who has the ability to prove that an elephant is the same thing as an ironing board!
00
Has the CRU data slowed? Was curious to see their versions of Jan and Feb 2012 but only the SST for Jan appears.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
00
A very simple way to hide the decline?
00
I saw that PMOD is used for TSI but this seems to be also suffering some adjustments and being discussed.
Does anybody have some updated information on this?
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/judithgate_ipcc_consensus_was_only_one_solar_physicist
http://www.acrim.com/TSI%20Monitoring.htm
00
From sky NEWS ‘Climate changing despite cool years’.
http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=728761&vId=
Dr Karl Braganza, BoM’s climate monitoring manager:-
OK. How?
Dr Paul Fraser, who leads the greenhouse gas research team:-
Again. How?
The “basic physics” was presented to the US Senate by Dr Roy Clark in his EPA Submission ‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2’. In short, IR-C DLR from GHGs(+clouds) in the 4 – 16 micron range of the EM spectrum is an ineffective ocean heating agent or insulator because it only penetrates 10 microns and absorbency DECREASES 1000 times relative to IR-B in the solar range. See H&Q73:-
http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif
An insulation effect at the cool-skin layer (as promulgated by Peter Minnet, Real Climate and Rob Painting, Skeptical Science) would be ineffective because energy would still be lost radiatively and evaporatively even if conduction was inhibited (it isn’t).
If heat from the atmosphere is “transmitted” to the ocean the temperature gradient must be atm => ocean but global average atm temperature is about 3 C COOLER than the ocean and atm LAGS ocean. And that’s not accounting for the respective specific heat capacities – Braganza and Fraser don’t seem ready for that level of “basic physics” even when the atm => ocean gradient does exist.
It astounds me that Braganza and Fraser can disseminate such rubbish and not be taken to task by physics experts who understand the nature of radiative heating, heat transfer and insulation.
H&Q73 is commercially driven and copyrighted experimental science, there are corroborations but H&Q73 is cited 1682 times so I think its reputable. The copyright is held by OMLC (Oregon Medical Laser Centre). Where are the Australian equivalents from the medical radiography and oceanography fraternity?
Even if Braganza and Fraser are right (they’re not), they then have to quantify how much of the atmospheric warming supposedly “transmitted” to the ocean is anthropogenic.
Braganza then has another little problem at the end of the article:-
He’s right for when sea level WAS increasing but now its not. Jason-1/2 GMSL shows sea level deceleration since 2004 and flat since beginning of 2010. HadSST shows surface sea temperatures falling since 2005.
How would Australia’s Ministry of Truth deal with Braganza and Fraser I wonder?
00
I suppose that should have been:-
How would Australia’s Ministry of Truth deal with sky NEWS?
00
Hi Richard,
A person does not need a physics degree to understand that net energy transfer is FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere.
All that is necessary is to look out a window – an activity obviously beyond the capacity of Messrs Braganza and Fraser.
Most times one will see clouds, and if there are no clouds, then wait a couple of hours and look again.
Clouds are the visible, physical manifestation of the transfer of energy from the oceans to the atmosphere.
It really is quite simple, and I have no idea why clowns like the above two, Trenberth, Jones, Mann and the rest of them have so much difficulty with it. Sunlight heats the oceans, the evaporation process transfers the heat to the atmosphere where it rises, the water vapour eventually condenses out, causing precipitation in one direction (down), and energy loss in the other (out into space).
Viewed this way, far from the atmosphere being a “blanket” that keeps the planet “warm” (the Green House theory), the atmosphere in conjunction with the oceans instead ultimately act as a great big evaporative air conditioner that keeps the place COOL.
The process is the planet’s equivalent of humans perspiring.
If the reader can’t see why and how, imagine what would happen if we could cover all the world’s oceans with a layer of Gladwrap.
If the imagination can’t stretch that far, google “swimming pool blanket” instead.
00
memoryvault #4.2 I think we are on the same page.
The opposing paradigms as I see them are:-
GHE warmng/cold space (Luke-warmers Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton, Singer, Miskolczi et al and all the warmists)
GHE cooling/neutral space (Slayers, yourself and me too).
I think the “blanket” analogy is only really applicable to the troposphere in humid locations (not the entire atmosphere) and even then it is more about human “feel” when perspiration does not evaporate rather than a negligible radiative effect of water vapour.
00
.
Yes, as it so happens I am with the Slayers and not with the lukewarmers – which includes our host by the way, so we must tread politely.
However, for the purpose of the exercise, it matters not one whit if there are some things having a minor opposing heating effect on the atmosphere – like greenhouse gases. At the end of the day the overwhelming effect must be one of cooling – that is, net energy transfer from the oceans to the atmosphere by way of evaporation.
If the day ever comes that I can look out my window over Moreton Bay and witness clouds quietly sublimating back into the ocean (net energy transfer from the atmosphere to the ocean), THAT is the day I’ll start to give some credence to the theory of greenhouse gas-inspired “global warming”.
In the meantime I’ll stick with basic high school physics. The sun heats the oceans which evaporate and cool the planet’s atmosphere. Anything that adds to the heating effect will simply speed up the evaporative process, which, in turn, increases the energy loss from the oceans, speeding up the cooling process in response.
Within certain reasonably defined parameters, the system is self-regulating.
00
“Within certain reasonably defined parameters, the system is self-regulating”
By the hydrological cycle I would add. That can be ruinous as a large number of Australians can vouch.
00
Yes. I blame it all on CAGW.
If we hadn’t spent so much time, money and effort trying to prove a trace gas has magical properties, we might have gotten around to building flood-proof highways and railways by now. We might have built and maintained decent levy bank systems to protect towns prone to flooding.
We may have even managed to build a lot more dams, both for flood mitigation, and to store water against the days of inevitable drought.
Heck, we might have even had some time and money to learn how live with bushfires.
Yes, CAGW has a lot to answer for.
00
CAGW co-respondents CSIRO, BOM and Media have to answer for Kurnell and Wonthaggi too.
I suspect there may be a little nervousness in-house at each. Hence this reporting (same as sky NEWS but from SMH):-
“bound”? No doubt there’s the usual disclaimer at the bottom of ‘State of the Climate’
00
Re “No doubt there’s the usual disclaimer at the bottom of ‘State of the Climate’”
Bottom of the page, Australian Government CSIRO Bureau of Meteorology:-
Then right at the bottom of the web page there’s the link to # Legal Notice and Disclaimer:-
Synopsis: we’re climate scientists and we know better than you but if you accept our opinion and we’re wrong that’s your problem
00
Hi Richard C (NZ)
Totally agree with your comment: “I think the “blanket” analogy is only really applicable to the troposphere in humid locations (not the entire atmosphere)”.
The problem with using the term “Greenhouse Effect” is that it means different things to different people.
Stating an area of operational interest for the “blanket” is a good idea.
00
Memory Vault. Thank you for your three posts on this section (4) of the thread. They provide the simplest most easily understood explanations of the basics of this subject that I’ve ever seen. You said nearly everything I have wanted to say but couldn’t find the right way to express.
When reading all the pontifications of these people living in their virtual reality worlds of computer modelling, I’ve wondered whether they ever did basic physics or even learnt about such things as photo-synthesis. The main source of external heat for Earth greets each of us every morning, unless it’s cloudy, but we still know it’s there and as you correctly say, the clouds cool us and are a manifestation of heat transfer. IMHO the start of comprehension for anyone is really that simple.
People have been understandably confused by all the conflicting pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and seem to have forgotten the basics they were taught at school. Thank you again for reminding us.
I’ve taken the liberty of saving your posts for possible use when needed, if that’s OK by you.
00
.
Hi Keith,
Thanks for the compliment. Please feel free to use my comments anywhere you choose. Accreditation is not necessary.
However, please do not give me credit for making the nature of nature simple. Nature does that by itself, out of necessity. The Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that ALL coupled thermodynamic systems will devolve towards the simplest (least energetic) possible form.
Regardless of how chaotic what passed for climate was in the beginning, the earth has now had a few billion years of devolution towards the the least energetic (complex) system available. The system will continue to devolve towards (but never reach) entropy, forever.
The idea that human beings, through the production of trace amounts of an already trace gas, could in any way impede this energy devolution progress, is akin to suggesting that if we could get the entire population of China to jump up in the air together, when they landed they would irretrievably alter the planet’s orbital path around the sun.
00
My understanding is more along the lines of Rodger Andrew’s hypothesis.
How the Sun Caused All The Recent Global Warming
00
Braganza’s credentials need to be re-examined as he is clearly way off the science … IMHO.
00
Braganza is an environmental activist who got a job with the CSIRO.
In fact the world over, many enviro activists have lerned that they need to be ‘on the inside’ to make a difference. So since about the early 80’s, uni students trained by the perfessors of the hippie movement have found employment not just with the traditional NGO organizations, but with national scientific and research organizations.
Next step is the infiltration of politics, beginning with local governments (they tried but found it too hard to infiltrate politics at the federal level except in isolated cases such as Germany). So now it’s first local, then regional (State) then national.
They have the youth covered. Social media phenomena suits them down to the ground (observe Get UP and other similar movements), so they have generational aspirations.
You got to give credit where credit is due, eco nazis are very well organised with long term plans that are working quite well. They may have stumbled with the Global Warming/Climate Change scam (because they couldn’t get their agenda through before the warming phase changed to the current cooling phase), but in the long run they will win and win handsomely unless a global scale unforseen circumstance takes place.
00
Streetcred #4.3 the OHC build-up is so great it MUST come from the only 2 heat sources available – solar and geo (the latter background 44TW geo flux + as yet unmeasured hydrothermal). The OHC build-up is shown at SkS here:-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg
SkS attribute that build-up to anthropogenic cause but without a scientifically recognized mechanism. IPCC AR4 2007 doesn’t know the mechanism either, they just wing it:-
So it’s only a suggestion and it’s only likely. No mechanism is found at 5.2 and 9.5. No mention of Minnet’s variation of conventional cool-skin physics.
Until the IPCC can come up with some hard-and-fast verifiable and validated mechanism I think we can forget about anthropogenic OHC forcing.
Roger Andrew offers an explanation in his TallBloke’s Talkshop post:-
The TSI plot (Figure 15 blue line) shows the hiatus evident in the SkS Total Heat plot from 1963 – 1977. If the SkS plot began in 1910 instead of 1963 the OHC build-up would be double the 1963 – 2009 “Total” i.e. it’s what the SkS plot DOESN’T SAY, not what it does say.
00
Should have been:-
If the SkS plot began in 1910 instead of 1963 the OHC build-up would be [triple] the 1963 – 2009 “Total”
TSI http://oi44.tinypic.com/jfyvyt.jpg
SkS http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg
00
.
I have no problem with Roger Andrew’s theory – it makes as much sense as any other that I have read, and I’m not really qualified or knowledgeable enough to make an assessment beyond that point.
However, as it is an explanation of how/why the heating effect on the oceans fluctuates in the first place, it is in no way at odds with the concept that the ocean ultimately sheds this heat via evaporation, which in turn cools the planet down.
I concur entirely about Braganza’s credentials. I posted a query with the BoM earlier today asking them to confirm if he really did say that, or was he misquoted. If it wasn’t a misquote then the man shouldn’t even be working at the BoM as the tea lady. The tea would always be cold.
Using his logic, he wouldn’t turn the urn on (reducing the BoM’s carbon footprint), and would rely instead on the water eventually becoming hot as a result of “energy transmitted from the atmosphere”.
00
Its tempting to say that the alleged backradiation heating of the ocean, the ostensible Deus ex machina of AGW, is AGW’s Achilles heel; but in a theory which has no limbs at all that would be inappropriate.
Quite simply backradiation heating of the ocean is impossible for 2 reasons:
1 It is the the UV portion of the solar spectrum which is the most important for heating of the oceans due to its greater penetration beyond the surface and highest energy levels. Solar UV is capable of penetrating the ocean to depths of several meters to cause ocean heating, whereas long wave infrared emission from “greenhouse gases” or the sun is only capable of penetrating the ocean surface a few microns with all energy lost to the phase change of evaporation with no net heating of the ocean.
2 In respect of that evaporation the even more basic flaw of AGW backradiation is that it involves double-dipping, something which the infamous Sherwood ‘wetbulb’ paper ignored:
What Sherwood is proposing is double-dipping, using the same energy twice; that is, the heat used to evaporate the water is counted again as the latent heat of the evaporated water which is then counted again as heating the atmosphere.
00
Richard,
The upper oceans can appear to be warmed by increased diffuse cloud cover. One of the determinants of the depth of mixing in the so-called well mixed layer is the incidence of shorter wavelength visible and UV light. The diurnal variation in heating the vertical column results in thermal instability and mixing in much the same way it does in freshwater lakes.
Increasing scatter of blue and UV components (by diffuse cloud or aerosols) tend to reduce the mixing depth and consequently increase the mean temperature (other factors being equal).
BTW, an obvious mechanism for atmosphere to ocean heat transfer is by melting ice. If the recently publicised information about the rate of ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet is correct, then it accounts for about 0.8mm per year of sea-level rise- but only about one-eighth of the “missing energy” attributed to AGW.
The rest of the rise (I believe) is from the mysterious process the beginning of which predates the modern increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
00
Leo G, how much of the melting ice can be attributed to anthropogenic cause and is the Greenland situation really abnormal?
The “4.3 Trillion tonnes of melting ice in 8 years” scary story did the rounds in NZ recently but looking at that quantity:-
# 4.3 trillion tonne 8 yr ice melt is 0.013% of total ice sheet mass
# At this rate 0.14% of the ice sheets will be gone by 2100
# Adding about 132mm to sea level
# If the ice melt component to total sea level rise ratio of the 18.5mm rise over the 8 yr period is 12 : 18.5 and the ice melt contribution to sea level rise over the next 88 yrs is 132mm at the study period rate, total sea level rise by 2100 will be 203mm or 20.3 cm
# IPCC Scenario B1 (least case) * Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm]
Given HadSST2 has been falling since 2005 I find even that prospect doubtful.
Business as usual to 2100 using local tide guage data would result in the Boretti conclusion for Sydney:-
Is there any support in the long term tide gauge data to the claims that parts of Sydney will be swamped by rising sea levels? Boretti, A., 2012.
Coast. Eng., doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2012.01.006.
Abstract:-
The conclusion reads
Unless some radical warming kicks in soon, no credence can be given to anything more than least case at most. Of course Hansen is hanging out for a really big El Nino as are our local warmists but I don’t like their chances if some of the predictions are anything to go by, one of which was for the present double-dip La Nina to turn into a triple-dip.
00
You want to run that by me a bit more slowly and with a bit more detail?
‘Cos it isn’t “obvious” to me.
00
The main Greenland ice sheet is landlocked so any net melting necessarily involves increased heat transfer through the atmosphere. The rate of sea ice melting is influenced by the mean temperature of the ice and hence indirectly by insolation and in the case of annual sea ice melting indirectly increases heat transfer by reducing albedo.
The melting of polar ice facilitates poleward transfer of heat via the oceans. The formation of polar ice involves transfer of heat from ocean to atmosphere.
00
Leo you say:-
The ICE SHEET melt involves heat transfer from atmosphere to ice but there is no melt water => ocean temperature gradient. The gradient is ocean => melt water i.e. there’s NO heat transfer from atmosphere to melt water to ocean.
SEA ICE has nothing to do with SHEET ICE. Sea ice melts annually so albedo contribution to long-term polar ocean heat is dependent on sea ice extent. That Arctic situation has turned around in recent years so sea ice albedo is no longer contributing to Arctic OHC.
Yes, this is what I said down-thread. SHEET ICE melt water provides a heat sink for warm tropical water, the water contracts as it cools poleward leading to thermosteric SSL fall. The temperature gradient is ocean => melt water so heat transfer is from ocean to melt water, not the other way around.
If you are referring to SEA ICE, there is almost always an ocean => atmosphere temperature gradient anywhere on the planet but sea ice forms due to LACK of SOLAR heating, not ocean to atmosphere heat transfer.
If you are referring to SHEET ICE, the formation of that is due to LACK of ambient heat (it’s cold) and compaction of snow from firn (névé) to ice, not ocean to atmosphere heat transfer.
00
.
Thank you Richard.
I thought I was going to have to get up today and reply to whatever nonsense Leo offered, but I see you have already done it.
I think our problem is people like us are limited to working with latent heat and sensible heat, whereas folks like Leo get to use latent heat, sensible heat, and silly heat.
Silly heat, also known as “Trenberth’s Travesty”, is not constrained by the Laws of Thermodynamics.
It also has a habit of hiding a lot.
Currently it is allegedly lurking somewhere in the “deepest oceans”, where nobody can detect it.
Honest it is – I read it on John
Crook’sCook’s “Septic Science” so it must be true.Apparently it’s going to resurface in forty years and make
global warmingclimate changeglobal climate disruption even worse than we first thought.00
I have to confess mv that I’m looking at the missing energy (not “heat” note) a bit differently lately, the plot is here:-
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Topics/MissingEnergySci.png
The energy goes missing after 2004 at the same time as SST tops out and OHC change drops off. It also coincides with the inclusion of ARGO in ICOADS. The plot is out of date and SSL has now dropped off since 2010.
What you don’t hear about is that there was excess energy from 2002 – 2004 (see plot). I checked with Dr Trenberth wrt the Net Radiation and his response was:-
KT also said:-
He’s referring to TSI around 2008/9. TSI 1995 – 2009 around 1367.5 does not change much but I note that it does drop off from 2004 to 2007ish in this plot:-
http://oi44.tinypic.com/jfyvyt.jpg
From 1995ish to 2007ish, OHC in the missing energy plot is in synch with TSI so TSI is not a candidate.
I find it odd that KT laments (plausibly I think) that “..our observing systems are inadequate” to account for all of the energy with albedo being especially problematic but then instead of pursuing better albedo estimates, posits a flow of warm water DOWN from the 0 – 700m layer to the 700 – 2000m layer as per a model-based Meehl et al study (it is possible I have to admit):-
I have my doubts that the pre-2000 portion of the plot was as nice and tidy as it seems given that observing systems only really improved post 2004 ICOADS ARGO i.e. there was probably excess and missing energy prior to 2002.
Also compare the above OHC change in W.m2 to the OHC change in Joules from 1995 – 2009:-
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate-2012/~/media/CSIROau/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State%20of%20the%20climate%202012/P7-figure1-top_inline.ashx
The surface radiates much differently than the OHC would indicate so KT and Meehl et al may turn out to be right on this.
But the issue remains that the missing energy is not CO2 forced.
I’ve advanced the possibility that unaccounted hydrothermal venting as a result of seismicity changes would increase and decrease heat flow into the deep (2000 – 2500m) ocean in critical El Nino locations. There’s a body of geo science backing this but KT’s response:-
Communication broke down at this point. My next step is to seek the opinion of NZ’s GNS (geologic and nuclear) because the predominant geo science view is that seismicity modulates El Nino contrary to KT’s climate science view.
00
Richard and memory vault,
I use the same concept of sea ice used by the NSIDC and NOAA:
In contrast, icebergs, glaciers, ice sheets, and ice shelves all originate on land.”
00
Exactly Leo, sea ice will form at below 0 C due to the properties of salt water, see:-
Ocean Water Freezing Point Calculator
http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2ofreezecalc.html
So on a rare occasion (I don’t know if it ever happens) you might have a relative trickle of melt water from land ice at 0 C mixing with as yet unfrozen sea water at -0.5 C with a net minimal increase in ocean temperature in a tiny localized area.
But coming from the tropics is bulk sea water at the global average temperature of around 17 C so in the end the ocean heats melt water, not the other way around.
00
.
Richard
RE: THE MISSING HEAT
(Forgive me for continuing to use the slightly incorrect term of “heat” rather than “energy”, but I do so love referring to it as “Trenberth’s Travesty” and that was the terminology in his infamous email).
My purely layman’s view goes like this: the so-called “missing heat” is not a measured (observed) quantity but rather a calculated one, derived from a series of other calculated – not observed – values, which in many cases are, in turn, derived from yet more calculated – not observed – values.
In other words, not much more than somebody’s “best guess”.
Worse, a “best guess” with a truckload of confirmation bias thrown in, since it “needs” to exist to support the CO2 CAGW theory.
Applying Nature’s logic of “the simplest solution is usually the correct one”, the simplest solution is somebody guessed wrong and there is no “missing heat” to find.
.
PS – You guys sure are jumping around on the the thread.
00
And yes I am jumping round on the thread mv a) I followed Leo and b) I just hit the wrong Reply button.
My bad on b)
00
mv,
Actually it is observed quantities of incoming solar radiation and outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR) at TOA giving net radiated energy.
But where it goes wrong is that the observing systems are inadequate to account for when there is a net surplus or deficit (missing energy) i.e if there is a deficit, where did the energy go?
This assumes that the TOA satellite measurements were accurate in the first place of course.
00
As I keep saying Richard, I’m just a layman simply applying what I learned in high school physics to all this “climate science”. Nonetheless, I’m a reasonably well-read layman on the subject, even if half of what I read goes over my head.
According to my layman’s understanding of the facts, the above statement is demonstrably incorrect.
Incoming solar radiation (ISR) is not an “observed quantity”. It is derived from a calculated value of total solar irradiance (TSI).
TSI is as far as I am aware, is calculated in two markedly different ways. The more common version is the “flat disk earth” model which assumes the earth is a flat disk receiving equal amounts of sunlight everywhere 24 hours a day, with the result divided by 4 to compensate for the facts that the earth is not a flat disk, all of it doesn’t receive sunlight 24 hours a day, and sunlight doesn’t reach all of it with the same intensity.
I appreciate that’s a pretty unscientific explanation, but please keep in mind that this is the layman’s version. The important thing is that there is enough variation between different calculated models to more than account for “Trenberth’s Travesty”.
Since ISR is the sunlight that actually reaches the earth to warm anything, plus the amount that warms the atmosphere on the way down, we have to make allowances for certain things. First there is the amount of light that is directly reflected because it has no effect. Second is the amount that is scattered, as this has a partial effect. Third is the amount absorbed by water vapour and particulates, because this has a different effect than that which actually reaches the surface.
Again these things can be, and have been, calculated a variety of different ways, and again there is enough discrepancies between the results to account for Trenberth’s Travesty (TT). So far, our “energy equation” looks like this where bg stands for “best guess”:
ISR = TSI (bg) – {reflection (bg) + scattering (bg) + atmospheric absorption (bg)}.
That’s one side of the equation. The other side is the outgoing long wave radiation (OLR). Contrary to your assertion this is not a measured quantity either. To quote from the very first NASA/GISS paper I clicked from a google search (emphasis added):
The same paper goes on to explain that “estimating” and “inferring” OLR runs into the same problems as calculating ISR from TSI – that is, allowing for the effects of scattering, aerosols and clouds. In other words, another two “best guesses”.
So, our second equation looks thus:
OLR = estimated broadband value (bg) OR estimated narrowband value (bg) – {scattering (bg) + aerosols (bg) + clouds (bg)}.
Which gives us our final equation for calculating Trenberth’s Travesty” (TT):
TT = {TSI (bg) – 3 X ( ISR bg’s)} – {OLR (bg) – 3 X (OLR bg’s)}.
So, in summary, Trenberth’s Travesty missing heat could be missing heat, or it could be be the result of any one, or any combination of, errors in no less than eight “best guesses”, all of which are currently subject to significant confirmation bias.
00
mv,
TSI is measured by the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) for budget purposes (and CERES, see below);-
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/index.htm
OLR data relies on satellite mounted radiometer measurements that are then compared to calculations, the article below references the paper you found by Google search (I think)”Determination of top-of-atmosphere longwave radiative fluxes: A comparison between two approaches using ScaRaB data”:-
They are validating their data by 3-way comparison: observation system to observation system and observation systems (2) to calculations (“flux estimates”).
But discrepancies in the OLR 3-way comparisons (your TT) are not ALL the missing energy (but corrections hve been made, see below). The bulk of that arises via the difference between TSI and OLR constrained by OHC and it is OHC measurement that seems to be the major problem.
NASA actually claim that Loeb et al solved the missing energy problem and “found that the satellite and ocean measurements are, in fact, in broad agreement once observational uncertainties are factored in”:-
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/missing-energy.html
Hansen et al (also NASA) in ‘Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications’ also concocted a way of removing the imbalance:-
Trenberth disagrees with both and comments on the uncertainties in Loeb et al here:-
http://davidappell.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/trenberth-response-to-todays-loeb-et-al.html
He describes CERES (20%) and OHC improvements but points out that a major discrepancy remains. Given the implausibility of Hansen et al and the uncertainty of Loeb et al I’m inclined to think that NCAR’s Meehl et al (Trenberth co-author) is more likely on the right track except for what they all have in common:-
Nobody ever says HOW to that one except Peter Minnet’s Real Climate opining and that’s easily disproved.
00
mv, FWIW
Meehl, G. A., J. M. Arblaster, J. T. Fasullo, A. Hu, and K. E. Trenberth, 2011: Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods. Nature Climate Change, 1, 360-364, doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1229
Even if you don’t subscribe to any missing energy scenario or to the above paper’s explanation of it, it’s worth a look to get a handle on the climate processes and issues involved especially around El Nino/La Nina, IPO, ENSO, SOI etc.
More importantly, you have to have read a paper like this to know how these guys entwine attribution of increasing GHGs for OHC but without a mechanism at the atm-ocean interface e.g.:-
00
More fictitious hyper-garbage from people that are PAID to deceive politicians and other unwary scientists too busy to check the real FAKE physics behind the perpetual lies (like breaking the laws of thermodynamics hidden in complex diatribe like sub micron radiation levels etc etc…made to fool, complex and time consuming to unravel the hidden crap).
00
That anyone relies on “basic laws of physics” is easily refuteable, as the following thought experiment shows:
We have a 1kW electric radiator. Near to it we place a bar of steel, one end towards the radiator. At the other end we place a thermometer. What we observe is that the measured temperature increases until it reaches some equilibrium temperature, then stabilises. We can vary the size and shape of the bar as well as the material – substitute concrete, plastic, other metals etc – and with enough observations construct a theory that allows us to calculate the equilibrium temperature. All very good.
So now, I take the thermometer and place it under my tongue, extending my feet towards the radiator. The measured temperature does not change as predicted. Why not?
Are the laws of physics wrong? No, they are fine.
Do these laws not apply to me? Yes, they do.
The difference is that we generated our “laws” with measurements from a simple, homogenous, static system (a steel bar), and are now attempting to apply them to a complex, hetrogeneous, dynamic system with feedbacks (a mammal). No-one should be surprised that the results do not match the theory!
So, CO2 in a simple, homogenous, static system (lab experiment) traps heat. How is the world’s climate – a complex, hetrogeneous and dynamic system with feedbacks – going to respond to increased CO2? The answer is, we don’t know and that the experiments we have done to date can not be used to tell us!
00
‘CO2 in the atmosphere is making us all fatter’: Researcher says we are increasing in size as gas levels go up
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2114995/CO2-atmosphere-making-fatter-Researcher-says-increasing-size-gas-levels-up.html#ixzz1pJoA1DeC
The religion continues
00
CO2 is the enemy. It Is the cause of everything bad and everything perceived to be bad. I hate carbon so much right now!
At least we all have an excuse for being overweight.
“It’s not my fault it’s that damn carbon pollution”.
00
It is Mr Rabbits fault.
00
Which ink blot would support your supposition?
00
But..but.. Juliar, I just googled ‘global warming and animals shrinking’, got 2,410,000 results and picked this one which, combined with what you found makes me wonder; is every animal and fish going to be small round and fat in the future, like little bouncing balls?
“As global temperatures rise this century, the result of human-caused climate change, many living things will shrink, thanks to a host of changes in the environment, as well as the direct effects of warming, two researchers write.
If everything were to shrink at the same rate, this wouldn’t be a problem. Smaller plants would feed smaller fish that would feed smaller sharks, for example. However, it appears that organisms don’t all react at the same rate, so change is likely to throw ecosystems out of whack, putting some species at risk of extinction, according to Jennifer Sheridan and David Bickford of the National University of Singapore.” LOL
I wonder if they actually got paid for this drivel?
http://www.livescience.com/16563-climate-change-shrinking-animals.html
As Sonny said, “CO2 is the enemy. It is the cause of everything bad and everything perceived to be bad”. In other words, very versatile and anything the warmists want it to be, but always good for a belly laugh at their expense!
00
.
So, combining the information from your post and Juliar’s, all we have to do is ship our excess CO2 to those places in Africa where people are starving, and we’ll end up with fat pygmies.
00
What do you call a fat pygmy?
Frigme, I don’t know.
00
But some countries in Africa have some of the highest CO2 concentrations in the world so they would already have enough CO2 😉
00
Back on 2nd January, 2012, Ms. Jo had a post titled, “Re writing the dawn of civilization”, featuring the amazing ancient 10,000+ year old construction called Göbekli Tepe, found in Turkey.
Here is an update:
Ancient Builders Created Monumental Structures that Altered Sound and Mind, Say Researchers
All these prehistoric monuments have precession built into them.
The reason Precession occurs is that the Earth not only rotates on its axis … otherwise known as the Axis Munde or World Pillar … it also wobbles.
One revolution of is completed every 25,920 years.
When finally aware of procession, how many observations must be made before it could be confidently engineered into the building?
No wheel, no tools to cut the stone perfectly?
It would appear that humanity is much, much older than we know, and a knowledge is long lost.
00
In June last year at a time when scientists on the UNIPCC and /or Government gravy trains were feeling the heat, Julia Gillard announced a new CSIRO site where the public could go for the alleged “facts” about climate change. Following are some excerpts, and a comment I lodged in response. It centres on one of my pet hates, the language of Doublespeak in climate change initiated by the UNIPCC and other CAGW proponents.
“CSIRO Changing Atmosphere research group leader, Dr Paul Fraser, said the timing of the site’s launch was not related to recent criticism of climate change science and scientists in mainstream media.” (Worth noting Dr.Fraser is a UNIPCC contributor).
“Peta Ashworth said a recent survey of the public carried out by the CSIRO had indicated that around seven percent of 1600 respondents were sceptical of climate change, and that publishing the agency’s climate data would provide further data for their consideration.”
I posted the following comment:
Mon 20/06/2011 – 16:29
What has happened to Anthropogenic Global Warming? I can only find ‘climate change’ mentioned here. Let’s start by having honesty!
Where did the CSIRO take their survey? It wasn’t in sceptic circles because I don’t know anyone there who is sceptical of climate change, because climate has changed naturally, sometimes cyclically and often chaotically since time began, driven by unknown and little understood combinations of multiple local, universal and cosmic factors and forces.
This is why the most stupid question frequently asked is :- “do you believe in climate change”?. It is also the most stupid statement frequently made by our Prime Minister and her minions – ‘I believe in climate change’!
It is a fact of life and requires no belief.. On the other hand, belief and blind faith is what is needed to accept the computer-modelled UNIPCC hypothesis of runaway Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming allegedly caused by a few extra human-induced parts per million of the essential life-sustaining trace gas, CO2.
Whilst it is a small step in the right direction, CSIRO and their Science into Society Group leader, Peta Ashworth and the oddly titled Changing Atmosphere research group leader Dr.Paul Fraser are going to have to come up with something better than a few alarming-looking parts per million and parts per billion graphs which at best may show some correlation, but no proof of any causation in relation to climate and/or temperature trends.
The gullible will swallow anything, but the government along with government-grant sponsored bodies and individuals, the vested interest promotors of CAGW in the MSM and various other organisations have vastly underestimated the intelligence and the feelings of the majority of the general public on this subject!
..
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/390701/csiro_offers_climate_change_data_online/
00
With the imminent imposition of the carbon dioxide tax designed to evolve into an emissions trading scheme, presumably cap and trade, this article on Californi is very topical and should provide a lot of food for thought for Australians. As you’ll see, California has been left “hig and dry”, just as Gillard’s disaster will leave us in the same position!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/los-angeles-tv-station-pans-californias-ab32-climate-bill/#more-59363
00
Say,
having been told at such length, and with such force, that CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic Warming of the Climate, and because they are so dangerous, then the obvious thing would be to stop those emissions, after all this is the end of the World.
If anything else has this much alleged danger attached to it, it would be removed completely, so no one could have access to that dangerous product.
Man made CO2 emissions are largest from the electrical power generation sector, which comprise 35 to 40% of all those emissions.
So, is there an indicator that governments (anywhere) are closing those largest emitters, that large scale coal fired power.
Is there that proverbial ‘canary in the coal mine’ indicator that those in power are doing all they can to protect their people?
I point to what actually is happening, (well, not happening really) in a new Post at my site on just that point.
Climate Change – The Canary In The Coal Mine
And, no, nothing like that is happening at all, anywhere.
Tony.
00
Always a pleasure to read your well researched and articulate contributions.
Thanks.
00
Well also Obama is and has done his best to destroy any cheap energy in the USA, the ‘plan’ to totally shut down the US economy. (also see many articles by Alan Caruba on this).
00
Headline:
Shock horror! Planting trees saves Kili!
Now then I wonder what the AGW loonies will make of this?
Wasnt’t the theme……….. warming atmosphere from MMCO2 causes Kilimanjaro snowcap to disappear?
Al Gore, The Guardian UK – would you care to comment?
From here
Same old same old, no one has said anything [apologised for another UN scam-+-scare] about the Ozone hole still being there – BIG as it ever was, either come to think of it…… .
00
Reality begins to bite in Europe — having closed some nuclear plants, the Germans have found their CO2 emissions/KwH go up by 4.4%, causing Greenie head explosions.
German Greens have also discovered that supporting wind farms means trashing the remaining pristine forests in their country.
Meanwhile, in the UK, the insane subsidies to wind and solar have contributed to higher fuel bills and hence greater numbers falling into fuel poverty, the so-called ‘heat or eat’ conundrum, which especially affects the elderly. More Greenie head explosion (except they don’t really mind killing off old people). More here.
00
And now for something completely different … but serious.
A short and very relevant analysis about the middle-east.
http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/uses-of-grievance.html
00
.
I appreciate that this is an open thread, but the article you have linked to is little more than a rather shabby, poorly researched exercise in anti-Palestine, pro-Israel Muslim-bashing propaganda. As such, I’m not convinced it belongs here, open thread or not.
Sephardic (Persian, Arabic and African) Jews are treated as second-class citizens by the Ashkenazi (European) majority in Israel (as are Christians). For the past year Sephardic Jews have been engaged in rolling strikes and protests in Tel Aviv and elsewhere, campaigning against poor working and living conditions, and the virtual monopoly Ashkenazis enjoy in property ownership in the cities. Today the rate of Sephardic Jews leaving Israel greatly exceeds the number moving there.
Conversely, the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel is in Iran, where they are a religious minority protected by special laws and privileges (as are Christians). A significant portion of the Sephardic exodus from Israel has been to Iran.
00
Memoryvault, one thing this always true of Lorenzo’s work is that it is definitely not “poorly researched”. He has been writing and researching in the fields of medieval and modern history for decades. Just like Jo Nova and WUWT, he provides an intelligent and well-reasoned discourse that goes against the “Israel is bad” consensus that you seem to have fallen for. Just like the green-left saying that CO2 is bad for climate, the anti-west left say that Israel is bad under all circumstances. Usually your insight into the science of climate and politics is very good, but in this case you are just repeating a meme that has also been taken up by activists rather than analysts. The politics of the middle east are as complex as the climate system and what he is saying about the Palestinians is observable and rational. If you feel that he is wrong about this, go to his blog and make a comment. He is always up for an intelligent discussion and will treat the opinions of others with the respect that they show to others.
00
.
Truthseeker,
I assure you I am far too old and battle-battered to fall for any memes, left or right.
You presented a link to an article which A) – created a non-existent and inflammatory entity – “Arab Jews”, and then B) – proceeded to make a case that without the protection of Israel’s “European Jews” said “Arab Jews” would be summarily torn to pieces by screaming hordes of Arab Muslims from all the surrounding Arab countries.
I pointed out A) – the correct terms are Sephardic and Ashkenazi, B) – according to ongoing news items from a variety of MSM and non-MSM sources Sephardic Jews are not as deliriously happy with their lot as the article implies, and C) – contrary to the thrust of the article Muslims and Jews are quite capable of living in harmony in Muslim countries – like, for instance, Iran.
The simplistic matter of whether “Israel is bad” (or good), never came into it. In fact, I went to great pains to avoid the issue altogether, as it is far, far more complex than “Jew versus Muslim” as presented by most – the author of your linked article included.
00
Memoryvault,
You say you are “far too old and battle-battered to fall for any memes, left or right”, after saying that the piece by Lorenzo is “poorly researched exercise in anti-Palestine, pro-Israel Muslim-bashing propaganda”. Not particularly consistent from my point of view.
Let me make some very important corrections for you. Lorenzo never uses the term “Arab Jews” which you say is inflammatory. He does say “Jewish refugees from Arab lands” which is a non-emotive and accurately descriptive term. At no point were the terms “torn to pieces” or “screaming hordes of Arab Muslims” used by Lorenzo. These are highly emotive and propaganda type terms used by the anti-west, anti-Israeli meme that you say that have not fallen for. Your own language betrays you for all to see. What Lorenzo is talking about is the historical context of modern situations and which have developed over decades, a point that he clearly makes and the outcomes currently observable.
The point of the article is comparing how Jewish refugees effectively disappear into the lands that adopt them (including the Iran example that you have provided), but the Palestinians are refugees regardless of their location or status in other Arab countries (with the exception of Jordan which Lorenzo does point out). It is the double standard and hypocrisy that is being highlighted here. Lorenzo also gives statistics about overall population movements and makes no comment about how “deliriously happy” any particular group may or may not be. The “Israel is bad” was brought into this by your emotive rhetoric. Lorenzo is making a well-reasoned point about the current situation within an historical context. You are the one making emotive straw-man arguments that are not relevant to actual point being made.
00
Mike Stekete has done a third rate hatchet job on Bob Carter in today’s Australian. He tries to sound impartial, but uses unsubstantiated insinuations about the Tobacco and oil industries, for example, to leave the audience with the impression Carter is not credible. He trumpets the findings of the Climate Commission.
For the whole nauseating read…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/scientists-who-trade-in-doubt/story-e6frg7ax-1226301906429
Do so hope Bob will be given the right of reply!
00
You’re being far too kind – it wasn’t even a 3rd rate hatchet job! The environmental “journalist” complains that Bob Carter doesn’t understand that “overwhelming expert scientific consensus” equates to EVIDENCE. At the same time, the “journalist” fails to provide evidence of his own for the human links to climate change/warming, but slips into the tired old routine of ad homs that make up the climate scientists weapon of choice when confronted with the truth.
Agree, and I demand that the Australian newspaper give Rob Carter the right of reply to this slop by Mike Stekete!
Cheers,
Speedy
00
Steketee gave the BOM’s State of the Climate 2012 brochure as the authority for the attack, so no doubt Bob Carter will examine that document for misinformation.
I am intrigued by the chart on page of the brochure indicating increases in ocean heat content since 1970 of 0.25 zettajoule. If that was manifested entirely by expansion it would imply a sea level rise of close to 4 metre since 1970 (with more than 5 degree Celsius increase in the average temperature of the ocean).
I assume the author is asserting that heating occurred almost entirely through the melting of Arctic sea ice (about 12,000 cubic kilometre since 1970) with contributions from the Greenland ice sheet.
This would imply that global warming is a northern hemisphere only phenomenon. Perhaps we should rename it Semi-global Warming.
How do you think atmospheric carbon dioxide increases would manage that trick?
00
My apologies for the inversion error in #13.2 above- the implied notional temperature rise should be 0.2 degree C, not 5 degree, and the associated consequential sea level rise 0.16 metre not 4 metre.
So the heating occurred partly through the melting of Antarctic sea ice and Greenland ice sheets. The question remains though about why there is evidence of increased poleward transfer of heat in the Arctic, but not the Antarctic. Why such a difference?
00
Leo, you’re confusing “heating” with “rise”, they are not interchangeable. Make this substitution and you’ll be on the right track:-
The rest of the “rise” is thermosteric expansion due to solar “heating”.
SSL “rise” from ice melt is the last great hope for the warmist but without radical atmospheric warming there’s going to be some disappointment because the melt rate wont accelerate as it does in their dreams.
00
Richard C
Actually my error was in referring to the Antarctic when I meant to write Arctic (and to clarify that the heat transfer associated with that melting causes a fall in sea level).
The heating I referred to was that related to the increased heat content of the oceans in the BOM document and the sea level rise was the notional one associated with that much heat transfer to the ocean. The Greenland ice sheet melt volume was an additional contribution to the rise and the heat transfer associated with the Arctic sea ice melt was a negative component.
00
Leo I think (along with memoryvault) that you’ve got your wires crossed badly.
Melt water contributes to sea level rise by volume (but only if there’s less evaporation) but there’s no heat transfer from atmosphere to ocean leading to expansion (thermosteric rise).
The temperature of Greenland ice sheet and glacier melt water will be a little above 0 C but meanwhile in the tropics where the major solar heating occurs, the temperature is up around 30 C in places i.e. melt water is a heat sink for the warm tropical water (eventually) leading to contraction (thermosteric fall).
Also, I’m not sure how you calculate a 4m SSL rise since 1970 using the 25TJ OHC increase since 1970 from this CSIRO figure:-
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate-2012/~/media/CSIROau/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State%20of%20the%20climate%202012/P7-figure1-top_inline.ashx
That’s the updated graph of OHC that SKS includes with land here but SkS OHC is out of date:-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg
The OHC increase since 1970 is explained by TSI (blue line) in this graph (red is SST):-
http://oi44.tinypic.com/jfyvyt.jpg
But using your calculation of 4m rise from 25TJ OHC, there should have been 12m rise since 1910 going by TSI. I think you’ve introduced some extra orders of magnitude somewhere.
In any event, CO2 is not the culprit and State of the Climate – 2012 offers no mechanism for OHC CO2 forcing on page 3 Oceans:-
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate-2012/Oceans.aspx
A conspicuous omission in my books.
00
Richard C,
From surveys of Arctic sea ice, the upper surface temperature of perennial sea ice typically ranges down to -65 Celsius, so a mean temperature range of -20 to -35 Celsius for the whole mass is reasonable. Before this ice can melt heat must be transferred to the ice. So the loss of a large mass of this sea ice is associated with a heat transfer FROM THE OCEAN that has the effect of marginally reducing the temperature and volume of the ocean.
The temperature RISE to which I referred was not from that source but was a notional rise from the 0.25 zettajoule change in heat content since 1970, as shown in the BOM report chart.
00
Chris Hill, who wrote this letter to the Editor, is obviously a satirical genius. I quote:
On the other hand, if he’s serious, there is probably a nice fat research grant awaiting…
Cheers,
Speedy
00
Speedy,
I think Chris Hill is on the money.Up until two years ago (when I abandoned daylight saving) a number of the dams on our property would completely dry up over summer. Over the last two years no dam has run dry and as an unforeseen bonus, contrary to our governments excellent climate models, we have had more rain.
Our foolish neighbors on the next property stuck with daylight saving and most of their dams are dry. While it a fact that planted half their property with blue gums none were in their dams so I doubt they are responsible for the sorry state of affairs they find themselves in. As I understand it blue gums were originally a Tasmanian rain forest tree and thus use little water because it rarely rains in Tasmanian according to the CSIRO’s GCMs.
All things considered I think Chris Hill is visionary and we could do worse that having him as the replacement for Flannery who is far to skeptical of CAGW IMHO.
00
Allen
Have you considered becoming a lead author on a UN-funded climate committee? You’re slightly over-qualified but if you dumb down your resume you’d be a shoe-in!
As to ousting the Great Man (Prof “Flim” Flannery) – perish the thought! His is the power to create droughts by decree alone!
Cheers,
Speedy
00
Have you considered becoming a lead author on a UN-funded climate committee? You’re slightly over-qualified but if you dumb down your resume you’d be a shoe-in!
Nice thought but I refuse to have a frontal labotomy. In any event as a farmer I am far to busy living a life of luxury. In 2000 I was paid $2.00 per kilo for my beef cattle, last year the price was $1.85. Whilst this in not quite in line with the retail costs over the past decade I am proud to help deserving companies such as Coles and Woolworths.
00
On a number of occasions I have had to explain to people that under a daylight savings system, when you do your daily reports there will be a 25 hour day somewhere in the mix, and a 23 hour day somewhere else. Those days move around from year to year so there’s always a bit of crap in the reports.
You would be surprised how many people find this difficult to believe, so I just gave up explaining and forced all the clocks to work in GMT. *SHRUG*
00
Julian Assange is running for a seat in the Australian Senate at next years election. A candidate for a ‘Wikileaks party’ will also run in Julia Gillard’s seat of Lalor.
00
Not if he has a conviction.
00
.
No.
Section 44 (ii) of the constitution states:
To the best of my knowledge he is not currently facing any charges under Commonwealth or State law, regardless of what is happening elsewhere.
00
I believe that the general rule in Australian Parliament is that in order to vote, you must actually turn up on the day (physically in person).
00
.
It is not a legal requirement to run for a seat in Parliament that one actually votes.
While it is a crime not to vote, the punishment falls far short of the possible one year (or more) in prison, needed to disqualify a person from sitting.
00
Not if Uncle Sam says “I’ll swap you 2 Murdochs & change for one Assange”
00
Ruth Bonnett, Independent Candidate for Brisbane Central at the upcoming Queensland election, speaks out about the horrific civil rights abuse of primary producers, by the very people who purport to protect ‘human rights’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NWqBXljvqs
Labor-Greens preference deals have been used to take a wrecking ball to farmer’s lives, by denying them basic civil and political rights.
Laws like this belong under totalitarian regimes like Mugabe, not here in Australia.
Urban voters can demonstrate their commitment to human rights by voting for BONNETT who has asked that the Greens and Labor take steps to do what they SAY they want to do: protect human rights.
00
Does anyone know any quality candidates running for a seat in the QLD election? Any realists or people with principle running?
00
.
Peter Wellington in the seat of Nicklin seems to still be doing a good job of actually representing his electorate.
Other than that, I have no idea.
Perhaps other readers can comment on some of the other Independents.
Party hacks, by definition, would fail to meet your criteria.
00
Peter Wellington, the minister for morning teas and ladies luncheons?
Don’t make me spit my coffee through my nose again.
Principled he might be. Actioned, he is not. He may not be a party hack, but he’s hardly worth promoting.
I’m pretty sure you’ll find Peter Wellington looking for a new job next Saturday night.
00
16 March: Post Crescent/USA Today: AP: Susan Montoya Bryan: NM regulators scrap carbon emissions rules
New Mexico regulators pulled the plug Friday on the state’s effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions among coal-fired power plants, refineries and other large polluters.
The Environmental Improvement Board adopted a repeal petition filed last year by utilities and industry groups that were concerned about rising costs and New Mexico’s economic viability.
The vote marks the second time in two months that the board has undone regulations passed in the waning weeks of former Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson’s administration that were aimed at curbing carbon emissions…
The board found that the regulations were not justified, that they violated New Mexico law because they were more stringent than what the federal government requires and that the state’s adoption of federal permitting rules had actually triggered a sunset clause related to the greenhouse gas emissions regulations.
Environmentalists said the federal permitting rules, which have been placed on hold by the Obama administration, won’t do enough to curb emissions.
Last month, the Environmental Improvement Board also scraped rules that would have cleared the way for New Mexico to participate in a regional cap and trade program…
http://www.postcrescent.com/usatoday/article/38820927?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp
00
Morning all.
At the risk of being serious, here’s a practical insight into the effect of a carbon tax.
Queensland Nickel is the largest employer in Townsville, QLD. It produces about 33,000 tonnes of nickel and 2,000 tonnes of cobalt, exclusively from low grade ores imported (yes, imported) from other countries. In this, it is not so much a mining company as a value-adding manufacturing plant. Production cost for QN works out about $20,000/tonne of nickel, which also happens to be the price of nickel on the world market today.
Unfortunately, QN also uses about 500,000 (combined) tonnes of coal and oil in the manufacturing process. As from July 1st, this will incur a carbon tax expense of about A$40 million, or $1300 per tonne of nickel produced, in what the Greens would call “saving the planet”.
Grown-ups, however, would call it “a futile exercise in trashing the economy to buy Green votes.”
A logical option for Clive Palmer (who owns QN) is to shut the plant down as of July 1st, and send their employees to the dole office.
But if QN were forced to shut, history will place the responibility at the feed of Bob Brown and Julia Gillard for this senseless waste.
Cheers,
Speedy.
00
That would be sad. I worked there for a while.
The Indonesians are not helping – they announced that no one is allowed to export ore after 2014. So far they are sticking to their guns despite it being uneconomic to build new smelters. Indo has lots of good nickel ore that QNI could treat. They’re not going to run out of feed for the forseeable. Governments, humpf.
And add to that more metalliferous operations around Australia.
00
Bruce
Not another Metallurgist I suppose? You wouldn’t know Tony Pavlich by any chance?
And yes, the QN tragedy is going to be played out in workplaces across the country. It seems that the “Biggest Polluders” also happen to be the Biggest Employers.
Cheers,
Speedy
00
I certainly would know Tony…from QNI and BHAS. And yes, Jo tolerates us metallurgists in spite of our obvious insanity.
When arguing with CAGW people I trade on the chemistry which I did at uni, which sounds ever more respectable.
And if you haven’t worked it out Bruce here is of course a title not a name.
00
Bruce
It seems we share some history – I too was at BHAS – an old title that – before QNI. If you knew me from Pirie, you would know that I tend to communicate via humour at times.
Unfortunately, Tony is no longer with us – or have we already had this conversation?
Cheers,
Speedy
00
Speedy – No, sorry to hear it.
00
Bruce
Besides Tony and myself, I can only think of 4 people who fit that demographic – PGW, IBM, NEM, and PER.
I suspect you may be a cousin?
Cheers,
Speedy.
00
Cousin. I used to work for Paul at QNI (my desk was a couple down from Tony’s IIRC), before that I was at GTS.
00
We might have had parallel careers. I used to work for Paul at BHAS, we moved and then came back together at QN in the late 90’s.
You’re lucky to have worked with Paul. He’s a natural mentor in the art of urging metals. I still see him and he’s still one of a kind.
00
It was a bit sudden – had a stroke just after Christmas. He was a good man.
00
making it up as they go along, as usual:
17 March: Stuff New Zealand: Forestry carbon trading in limbo
Some foresters are reported to have sold their credits for a lucrative sum.
But at the moment, things are in limbo.
Carbon prices have plummeted, due partly to the global downturn and to cheap credits from overseas driving down the local price…
However, with the carbon price falling from $21 in April last year to less than $8 today, the trading scheme has all but ground to a halt.
David Rhodes says that needs addressing.
***”We will be hoping they … will alter the rules sufficiently where we end up in a situation where the carbon price is not as volatile as it has been and investors have a much more secure basis for deciding whether they’re going to get in,” he said…
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6590067/Forestry-carbon-trading-in-limbo
00
16 March: Reuters: New Zealand spot carbon slips on weak energy prices
New Zealand carbon prices slipped from last week, tracking sluggishness in the European carbon market on weaker oil prices, but losses were limited as many investors were wary of selling, given prices hovered near the lowest in four weeks.
Spot permits under New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme, or New Zealand units (NZUs), were seen trading at NZ$7.40 ($6.06) on Friday, brokers said, down from NZ$7.90 a week ago…
The December contract of European green Certified Emissions Reductions credits (CERs) fell 1.5 percent on Thursday to 3.98 euros.
“The international price has been the big driver of NZUs,” said Ben Coleman, director of commodities, carbon and energy at Westpac in Auckland…
But the market’s downside has been limited due to decreasing demand to dump NZUs in favour of cheaper CERs, as the spread between the two prices has diminished significantly…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/16/newzealand-carbon-idUSL5E8EF86T20120316
00
the pressure is starting to pay off. don’t back down:
15 March: Reuters: UPDATE 2-UN aviation body hit by carbon emissions dispute
* Working group to evaluate options, report in June
* To consider role of developing countries
* Under pressure to find alternative to EU scheme
The news came as sources said China was suspending the purchase of 10 more Airbus jets, escalating a trade row over airline emissions.
In a decision obtained by Reuters, the council instructed a working group to continue its study of “market-based measures” to deal with aviation emissions and report back at the next council meeting, scheduled for June.
It also asked the working group to evaluate whether the measures being studied can “accommodate the special circumstances and respective capabilities of developing countries”.
The official said a large majority of the council voted for the decision, including China, Russia, the United States, and the European members…
A coalition of more than 20 countries, including China, Russia and the United States, has been organized to oppose the EU scheme, arguing the plan infringes on their sovereignty…
The European Commission has said it was forced to act alone after ICAO failed to come up with a viable plan. It said it will modify its law if the ICAO comes up with an acceptable alternative.
(Additional reporting by Barbara Lewis in Brussels; Editing by Janet Guttsman and Peter Galloway)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/15/airlines-emissions-idUSL2E8EF1Y320120315
00
Did any one here see Malcolm Turnbull on the ABC’s Q & A on Monday 12 March 2012, where he made comment about a sea level rise of “1, 2 or 3 metres”?
Why do they continue to make this stuff up? Abbott needs to get his heavies onto him and shut the silly buggar down.
It’s time he was told that the science doesn’t agree with his scaremongering. Not even the Climate Scare Industry’s Research Organisation can come up with something as silly as three metres of sea level rise; notwithstanding the nonsense contained their 2012 State of the Environment Report.
00
http://www.wakeup2thelies.com/2011/10/21/banking-on-climate-change-a-list-of-bankers-advocating-for-the-australian-carbon-tax/
00
The Chairman of the Climate Scare Industry’s Research Organisation has no science qualifications? Fat pygmy. And there I was thinking that might be a good thing.
Maybe somebody should tell him too.
00
AND..Dr Megan Clark..
Rothschild Zionists..
http://www.davidicke.com/articles/political-manipulation-mainmenu-72/42734-they-dare-not-speak-its-name-rothschild-zionism
..200 years of planed world domination..
00
Oh I think 3 metres is on the cards. I’d love to live to see it.
00
Malcolm has been paid and bought by Goldman Sach. The definition of an honest politician is one who when bought stays bought
00
The entire top management of Goldman Sachs should be arrested…
00
Well then, we were very lucky that the Libs chose Abbott over Malcolm the Muppet Manipulator; even if it was just by one vote.
Does Turnbull see all of us as muppets? His comments on “1, 2 or 3 metres” of sea level rise makes sense in that context.
I’m looking at Abbott with renewed interest, not only to get rid of the destructive Carbon tax, but to keep Malcolm Turnbull and his subversive Goldman Sacks culture away from the leadership.
No wonder the lefties love the muppet man.
00
Another spin on cooling..
http://iceagenow.info/2012/03/aussie-scientist-warns-entered-sharp-cooling-period-due-solar-activity/
00
FYI
http://www.real-science.com/another-smoking-gun-for-the-hockey-team#comments
Also testing to see if comments and pasting work. Other wordpress sites seem to be having problems
(People who run on the wordpress server are the ones having the problems.Jo is paying for her independent server which is why she needs some help on donations to pay it.It is also why you have a far better comment box to use than what wordpress server allows) CTS
00
and what of non-republicans who don’t believe renewables are ready to replace fossil fuels?
15 March: UK Telegraph: John Swaine: Obama hits back at GOP ‘Flat-Earthers’ over rising fuel prices
Barack Obama struck back at his potential Republican opponents in the row over rising US fuel prices on Thursday, comparing them to medieval “Flat-Earthers” for their attitudes towards renewable energy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9146843/Obama-hits-back-at-GOP-Flat-Earthers-over-rising-fuel-prices.html
00
not for the first time, the MSM in the US brings up Romney’s GS ties, yet Obama was the bankers’ choice in 08 and the media told the public he was grassroots!
MSNBC: Martin Bashir: The Goldman Sachs-Mitt Romney connection
Mother Jones’ David Corn explains the strong ties between Goldman Sachs and Mitt Romney and how a scathing op-ed in the New York Times by an ex-Goldman executive could redound upon Romney’s 1% image problem.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/46750624/
i don’t bother to post any more on the fraud being perpetrated during the Republican Caucuses because it is no different to the bipartisan fraud that goes on in every US election of recent years, but the idea that all that Tea Party activism could actually lead to a Romney candidacy, is soooo amusing. damn the MSM.
00
of course, all the pollies are bought and paid for; selected, not elected; and crazy!
15 March: Financial Times: George Parker: Cameron meets New York financiers
David Cameron concluded a three-day trip to the US on Thursday by meeting leading New York financiers, including an encounter with Lloyd Blankfein, the boss of Goldman Sachs, the bank whose business practices have been under fire this week.
After two days enjoying the undivided attention of Barack Obama, the US president, in Washington – an event exposed to the full public spotlight – the New York leg of the trip was more problematic.
A meeting with leading bankers at the New York Stock Exchange was held off camera. Talks focused on the need to remove regulatory barriers for transatlantic financial flows…
For Mr Obama it was a chance to reach out to independent voters by showing he was friends with a “Conservative” politician from the party of Lady Thatcher.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32504ffc-6ed5-11e1-b1b2-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/companies_us/feed//product
15 March: Reuters: UK’s Cameron meets Goldman Sachs, other CEOs in NY
During a lunch at the New York Stock Exchange as part of a three-day trip to the United States, Cameron met Morgan Stanley’s James Gorman, BlackRock’s Larry Fink, George Soros and other leading figures from the world of finance…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/15/britain-cameron-banks-idUSL5E8EF7RQ20120315
Harnden’s politics are not mine, but this is hilarious:
16 March: UK Daily Mail: Toby Harnden: Starstruck David Cameron’s embarrassing fawning over Barack Obama and his ‘beautiful words’
In the video below, Cameron starts speaking at the 8:20 point and almost immediately hails Obama’s ‘strong and beautiful words’. It’s downhill from there.
He takes a cheap shot at Richard Nixon – the easiest possible target in front of a gathering of Obamaphiles – and his own Tory predecessor Ted Heath. He makes corny jokes about cricket and Watergate (‘call in the plumbers’ – Geddit?) and then lauds Obama’s ‘strength, moral authority and wisdom’. No mention of Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher…
Then comes what must surely be one of the most obsequious things Obama – who is well used to adulation – has ever heard. Obama, says Cameron ‘has pressed the reset button on the moral authority of the entire free world’.
What? Pass the sickbag. Whichever way you look at it, that’s ridiculous…
As I argued in this newspaper piece, Cameron is foolish to have ignored the Republicans during this trip. Mitt Romney, the likely GOP nominee, was in New York yesterday and today and was presumably available for a meeting. Cameron’s predecessor Gordon Brown met candidates Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain in Washington in April 2008. President Obama met Cameron in London in April 2009 when the Tory was opposition leader.
For a British prime minister to align himself with one side in American politics is a rookie error. To do it with the party on the opposite side (supposedly) of the political spectrum is pure folly.
And, of course, 41 of the 364 guests were – surprise, surprise – major Obama fundraisers. The White House drew up the guest list but if there’s anyone with backbone in Downing Street (maybe a forlorn hope, I know) there will be a protest about the way Cameron was used to entertain Democratic donors being rewarded for their largesse in an election year.
Come next year, Cameron – assuming he is still in office – may very well find himself having to deal with a President Mitt Romney. If so, the first thing he’ll have to do is mend some fences.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2115562/Starstruck-David-Camerons-embarrassing-fawning-Barack-Obama.html
00
How this guy ever got into the Conservative party, is a mystery. That he now leads it is another a demonstration of the triumph of style over substance. Mainstream party politics is now dominated by a common purpose, where politicians of all persuasions have more in common with each other than with the rest of us. The difference between them is only a matter of emphasis. The whole political process has been hijacked while more and more power is ceded to the unelected beaurocrats of the European Commission.
Cameron, widely suspected of being a Common Purpose stooge with ultra leftist pro-EuroCratic, Marxist sympathies, his coalition partner, the hapless Liberal Democrat leader Clegg, provides the perfect cover for his systematic neutering of the Conservative party and of mainstream concervatism in Britain today
00
This is a good thread for anyone who wants to give Anthony at WUWT a big “thank you”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/i-was-feeling-really-burned-out-and-then-i-read-this/
00
this was apparently on Bishop Hill and now linked in comments at WUWT. have we had it here? total fascism:
17 Feb: Climate & Health Council: Nell Crowden: Call to reveal ALL funding behind climate sceptics
Statement from climate scientists and health professionals:
What motivates the Heartland Institute? As climate and other scientists and health professionals, we view the systematic sowing of unjustified doubt about mainstream international climate science as confusing at best, and inhumane at worst…
(Signatures incl)
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
Stephan Lewandowsky…ETC ETC
http://www.climateandhealth.org/magazine/read/call-to-reveal-all-funding-behind-climate-sceptics-_179.html
00
Prof Ove has really jumped the shark this time:
Sorry, couldn’t resist a triple, it may not have been the good Prof himself, but would have to be from one of his team at UQ.
00
Bishop Hill is linking this:
14 March: Blackswhitewash: Richard Black And Stakeholder Forum
http://blackswhitewash.com/2012/03/14/richard-black-and-stakeholder-forum/
16 March: Bishop Hill: Black’s Whitewash
BBC watchers might be interested in a new blog called Black’s Whitewash, focusing on the activities of BH favourite, Richard Black
comment TerryS: Re: ManicBeancounter
Speaking of possible conflicts of interest. If it is the same person then Ms Philippa Catherine Drew CB MA is a director of Stakeholder Forum and also the Director of Global Issues, Foreign and Commonwealth Office…
comment by Foxgoose: Phillipa Drew had special responsibilities for climate change at the Foreign Office – but retired in 2006.
She”s one of the Civil Service “great & good” who’s cropped up over the years in all sorts of powerful positions – I believe she ran the prison service at one time…
Since she retired, she seems to spend most of her time campaigning on Climate Change and Gay & Lesbian Rights – sometimes simultaneously.
http://www.glli.org/files/conference2009/files/Conference_Speakers.pdf
There an awful lot of people like her in the upper echelons of the Civil Service…
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/3/17/blacks-whitewash.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true
00
the good news, altho it fails to mention plummeting circulation figures:
14 March: Financial Times: Bleak outlook for US newspapers
In recent weeks, LinkedIn, the networking website, and the Council of Economic Advisers have reported that the press is “America’s fastest-shrinking industry”, measured by jobs lost…
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3eef0bc4-6f73-11e1-9c57-00144feab49a.html
00
Christopher Monckton seems to have been making quite an impression with a lecture to some College in the US last week.
A follow up article in the student rag, is attracting almost universal condemnation, for the ‘consensus’.
Is this indicative of an awakening in the youth, and of the almost marginal position now being enjoyed by the CAGW fallacy ?
00
Just watch, how the Views: 1,603 of this article:- “A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth”, are mounting up, at the bottom of the Student Paper’s front page here.
00
“As Earth scientists, we were torn. The College Republicans and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) were hosting Lord Monckton, a globally recognized climate skeptic, on Mon., March 5, and we were not quite sure how to respond. Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger. On one hand, it seemed ludicrous to give Monckton a second of time or thought. On the other, however, dismissing him and allowing his speech without rejection risked that he would have an impact, and a dangerous one at that.
And thus, the college environmentalists – including Environmental Club members, the leaders and members of U-Sustain, concerned citizens, and renowned Earth scientists with PhDs from prestigious research institutions – decided to oppose the presence of Lord Monckton on our campus. We collected en-masse before his presentation to make it unambiguously clear that we would not allow such erroneous discourse to go unnoticed.”
One never has to bother to defend Christopher Monckton. The Lord is more than qualified and willing to look after himself as evidenced in another of his classic responses to those so frightened of free speech and points of view different to their own. Why do such snivelling closed-minded “torn” intellectual minnows set themselves up for such a shellacking?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/17/monckton-in-a-rift-with-union-college-earth-scientists-and-activists/#more-59429
00
oops, the Financial Times article should be dated 16th March.
00
How much money is being spent on this CO2 Tax promotion?
Sea Level Rise – another government department
Funded by the following:
1. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research through the Wealth from Oceans National Research Flagship
2. Australian Government Cooperative Research Centre Program
3. Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC)
4. Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR) – a partnership between CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology
5. Department of Climate Change (Australian Government)
Australian Government Cooperative Research Centre Program is another huge funding arm which mostly goes unnoticed?
Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research is yet another BOM CSIRO brother sister tie up?
What is the total expenditure on ClIMATE CHANGE by this government? All tax payers money!
00
“Goldman Banker Goes Rogue Amid Fed’s Recent Stress Tests Amid w/Naked Capitalism”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1J20wvO1ZY&feature=player_embedded
00
CAWCR explains why rainfall is declining in SE Australia!!!
I’m sure evryone would love to see the reasons for this!
More money down the drain!
The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research has 48 technical reports in their website. It is amazing some are still there:
This one will be good reading for all those in outh East Australia to explain the lack of rainfall? More Money!
“Beware – large PDF download”
Understanding the anthropogenic nature of the observed rainfall decline across south-eastern Australia
And now they have a report to explain the high rainfall in SE Australia compliments of Dr. Karl Braganza!!!! More money!!!
00
Questions for SMH’s Jessica Irvine (one as for Braganza) whose understanding is :-
Question 1) How exactly is the excess energy imputed to the ocean and land from GHGs?
Jessica could benefit from a visit to this thread.
Question 2) Why is the air no longer “heating up” even though the “shield” continues to be created?
I don’t think Jessica knows what she is talking about.
00
Jessica Irvine, Economics Writer for The Sydney Morning Herald.
I hope Jessica’s climate writing (“Political Opinion”) is not an indication of the quality of her economics writing.
00
[…] memoryvault March 17, 2012 at 12:52 pm · Reply […]
00
Note that in an apparent effort to ‘hide the decline’, on March 11, 2012, HADCRUT3 was truncated from 2012.08 to 2011.92 and discontinued. HADCRUT4, its succesor, has not been announced.
See http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm
All the files on this page, Temperature data (HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3/4) (except Absolute) will be updated on a monthly basis to include the latest month within about four weeks of its completion.
See http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
00