Tim Yeo, conservative MP who heads the UK climate change committee has broken the litany. This is a man who’s wanted to decarbonize the Brits for years, and he has just admitted “natural phases” might be to blame. He is only saying the bleeding obvious, but what happened to the official “no debate” doctrine? What exactly are deniers denying now, and where did that overwhelming evidence go?
Tim Yeo 2009:
“The dying gasps of the deniers will be put to bed. In five years time, no one will argue about a man-made contribution to climate change.”
Before he changed his mind. | Daily Mail, Gerry Peev.
Tim Yeo 2013:
[Telegraph, Matthew Holehouse]: “He (Yeo) insisted such action is “prudent” given the threat climate change poses to living standards worldwide. But, he said, human action is merely a “possible cause”.
Asked on Tuesday night whether it was better to take action to mitigate the effects of climate change than to prevent it in the first place, he said: “The first thing to say is it does not represent any threat to the survival of the planet. None at all. The planet has survived much bigger changes than any climate change that is happening now.
He went on: “Although I think the evidence that the climate is changing is now overwhelming, the causes are not absolutely clear. There could be natural causes, natural phases that are taking place.”
Remember, this is what 90% certainty looks like. It looks like skeptics are winning.
This is not just any old politician shifting gears. Yeo was named “Politician of the Year” at the inaugural 2011 Green Business Awards. James Delingpole pointed out that “Trougher” Yeo had other reasons for being so keen about environmental issues — thousands of other reasons. (Most of them, pounds sterling.) Not to mention that Yeo is Chairman of TMO Renewables, a biofuel company. Indeed, according to the Daily Mail in August 2012 other MPs wre pretty cheesed with the deal:
“Mr Yeo lists just over £139,450 in paymentslinked to green companies in the latest MPs’ register of interests.
Furious MPs are now trying to depose him as chairman of the select committee.
One insider told the Mail: ‘We are seeking advice on how this can be done as select committee chairmen are now elected. But there is obviously a potential conflict of interest here.’
Bishop Hill says: Now I’ve heard everything. “…Yeo is once again demonstrating his unerring ability to bend with the wind”
Yeo later qualified things in the way that only politicians can do:
Asked about the comments this afternoon, Mr Yeo said: “It is possible there are natural causes as well, but my view has always been that – for twenty years – I have thought the scientific evidence has been very convincing. The strong probability is that it is man-made causes contributing to greenhouse gas concentrations.”
UPDATE: Dellers is onto it. Beautifully.
Still, it’s good to see Yeo taking at least the first tentative step on the path to redemption. Admitting you were totally wrong about something, that you’ve been made to look an utterly despicable, greedy fool, that even the Conservatives in your constituency hate you, that no one trusts you as far as they can spit, that you’ve done immeasurable damage to your country’s landscape and economy with the abysmally counterproductive environmental policies you not only helped promote but from which you may have benefited financially: these are things no man would ever wish to admit to himself.
H/t Colin.
————————————————–
UPDATE: From the comments people don’t seem to appreciate the full hypocrisy of Yeo’s work (read all of Dellers…. here’s a bit more)
But it’s OK Tim. I can help. In the last two years, for example, you have earned getting on for £250,000 on top of your MP’s salary, from your various green interests. Imagine how much happier you’d be in your skin if you could divest yourself of that money which you have now realised is tainted money. Imagine if you’d been given a blood diamond by Charles Taylor; imagine if you’d produced a DVD called “Now Then, Now Then: the Very Best of Jimmy Savile”: you couldn’t, in all conscience, keep the profits from that, could you?
Well, Trougher, me old mucker, I’m afraid the same rules apply with your green business interests. Here’s the thing: that industry you’ve profited from simply WOULD NOT EXIST had it not been for that toxic combination of junk science and hysterical fearmongering to which you have made such a vocal contribution.
I know quarter of a million quid is small beer next to the profits being raked in by your mates in the renewables industry. But for some people out there it would make a real difference, especially the victims of the wind industry which the Committee for Climate Change (Prop: Tim Yeo) has done so much to encourage.
£50 buys someone a decent night’s sleep in a B & B away from the insomnia-inducing low frequency noise of a wind farm.
UPDATE: Today Tim Yeo insists his views on climate change have not changed one bit and he sings the appropriate hymn: (h/t Pat)
“I accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that human activities are having a major impact on the climate – there is an overwhelming probability that the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from human actions are contributing to climate change.
So was he overhyping something he didn’t believe for the last five years, or is he lying now when he says we are not sure about the cause?
It’s a typical black-is-white statement, a backpedal-from-the-backpedal (I bet his green friends were appalled, he’s probably been fending off horrid emails all day).
” I was in favor of mann-made global warming, before I was against it. “
151
Totally OT. “50 to 1 project: The true cost of ‘action’ on climate change. via Indiegogo”
C’mon Aussie. C’mon!
62
Josh has a great cartoon of Trougher Yeo.
40
So has Fenbeagle, in more of his photo-montage style. The Arroganauts.
20
Well then, one year to go. But wait a minute! Haven’t they been saying this kind of thing for at least the last 20 years? When does their Emperor finally realize he should be embarrassed?
I wonder who the real denier is, don’t you?
331
He looks unrepentant to me.
50
His explanatory statement: “The strong probability is that it is man-made causes contributing to greenhouse gas concentrations”. So? he didn’t go on to say: And that is causing dangerous temperature rises.
30
True. So I will agree that maybe his position is really changed… …maybe it’s changed. But given his past and the implications of the other part of his statement,
I will be extremely skeptical. Politicians are much like chameleons; they can look like one thing when in fact they are another.
70
Either way, he is trying to be many-faced after years of monolithic denier-bashing.
We can chalk up another defeat for what might be called the dictatorship of opinion.
50
Yes Minister
30
Good point; the 2 are different; that is, the first argument is the increase in CO2 caused by primarily humans; and secondly does that increase have a pronounced or even a measurable effect on climate?
Answers: maybe and no.
50
I am probably going to get crucified for this, but …
Tim Yeo is an excellent politician, when you assess him in terms of the attributes and characteristics required to survive and thrive within British politics.
He is excellent because he can read the mood of the general public. He can assess the attitudes of people he meets and talks to. He has some form of “opinion antenna”, that tells him that there is a shift in public perceptions over climate change.
And so, he will adjust his stance, and change his rhetoric, to stay well within the centre of the bell curve.
That is what politicians, world wide, must do. And that is especially true in the U.K.
These people are not leaders (in spite of how they refer to themselves), they are followers. They follow the majority opinion of the general public – they stay within the bell curve.
The drive-by idiots we get here, will claim that it is “only one politician”, as if individual politicians are important (it is another form of appeal to authority), but this politician is a bell-weather for others. Now he has “reassessed”, we can expect others to follow.
What impact that will have on the rest of Europe, is hard to say. It is even harder to assess if it will even be noticed in the U.S. There is so much vested interest in both areas, that change will be much slower. But to quote another British Politician:
“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”. Sir Winston Churchill, 1942.
382
….the centre of the bell curve….
Yeah, I didn’t think he looked too bright
80
Yep. That’s where the swinging ding-a-ling thingy is located, isn’t it?
30
Similar to my thoughts RW, and we don’t do well to ridicule them politicians either. Gentle support and congratulations might be better, as granny used to say “you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar”.
True for their own self-serving survival in politics but what we all need are leaders. We have too many self-serving politicians around the world. I wish they weren’t so good at survival.
One of the surest ways they survive is by having plenty of money to toss around.
40
You are quite right RW. But it was always going to be political change ( or less probably a giant court case ) that broke the back of the scam. The scientific argument would just continue go around in circles.
So Yeo’s change of heart is highly significant, especially coming from a very senior politician ( who also had vast vested interests).
We now need similar high level EU polis to follow his lead.
20
In the sense you state Rere he is indeed an excellent politician. And that is why the UK is in trouble: its politicians have no commitment to what they believe (rightly or wrongly) to be the truth, but only to keeping in power by discerning trends in the electorate. It is deeply immoral. The moral way, in contrast, is to campaign consistently for what you believe is true, and if your beliefs are out of fashion then do your best to educate the public by arguing for your views. At least that way you can look at yourself in the mirror each morning.
I predict that Tim Yeo will say that he has changed because the data have changed. Prepare your hard questions which expose this claim to scrutiny.
110
They have been cunningly manipulated and few were brave enough to question the left’s global warming switched to climate change crusade, and don’t forget that until more recent years a majority of voters were sucked in by the propaganda blitz too. Politicians dare not oppose public opinion and the left has exploited this very well.
Howard’s Coalition government signed the Kyoto Protocol but declined from ratifying it and exposing Australia to possible heavy financial penalties if the greenhouse emissions target was not achieved (remember greenhouse?) and they established a greenhouse office to create plans to reduce greenhouse emissions. Even in 2007 the voters agreed with the Rudd global warming action promised including an emissions trading scheme which his deputy Gillard and others later forced him to abandon.
Since then, since Copenhagen, voters have swung away from the alarmist side as more truth has been revealed.
50
So, Rereke, I guess that you mean he’s completely insincere. After all, that is the behavior you describe — having no conviction about anything except that he wants to be a big man.
There are far too many of them in politics.
160
And not one of them is worth the oxygen it takes to keep them alive.
90
True! Now if we could just use them for paperweights or something useful like that… 😉
10
Charisma beats substance in politics most of the time
40
Also true — unfortunately. 🙁
10
RW
Your comment on the timing of this business is interesting.
People are being seriously damaged financially because of the green dream and Money Drives everything.
There is big trouble head for the climate industry as people try to recoup losses due to fraudulent political decisions.
“There is nothing that concentrates the senses quite like the knowledge that you are going bankrupt tomorrow morning.”
Many are now there; backs to the wall and in dire straights.
Politicians are going to be very uncomfortable very soon since legal action is now the only resort left to these desperate victims of Klimate Change.
KK 🙂
130
That is a good observation KK.
The most dangerous people, are people with nothing left to loose.
Those who fantasise about how “everybody will be better off, in an egalitarian and environmentally sustainable society”, fail to recognise what history has demonstrated, time and again: It is the strongest and the most ruthless, and the least caring, and the most immoral who rise to the top.
Starting a revolution is comparatively easy. Surviving it, and remaining in charge, is a lot more difficult.
50
One of the situations described at the meeting last night was of a 92 year old woman who needed to sell to go into care.
Her house had been on the market for 18 months and council’s 149 annotation meant No Sale.
On this thread Dennis mentioned the Green buy-up of good farming land by green groups, with I assume Government Grants.
The fate of that property doesn’t bear thinking about in the hands of green looneys and our local lake situation has all the hallmarks
of left nutters out to punish waterfront owners who by definition must be rich and deserve all they get.
For everyone affected by this lake problem there are a string of relatives and others who will catch on.
If hard working savers who put a lifetimes effort into their country can be treated so badly then we needed to change things quick smart.
KK 🙂
90
KK,
I hope you’re right. But remember this fact, politicians quickly become adept at dodging the bullets. Things frequently need to get very bad before they actually feel real heat.
40
True Roy
I was in this case thinking of a very specific local situation where it is very easy to put the pieces together.
As Dennis said earlier, some farming land has been Re-Zoned and removed from productive farming and also from proper land management.
That’s a policy issue and not easy to fight.
The situation I am looking at was discussed by Cohenite who mentioned that in the case of Local Government annotating land titles with damaging information about flood levels there may be a legal issue arising from the fact that there are NO FACTS.
I can’t see any “Scientist” standing up in court to confirm the basis of LMCC actions;
Specifically that oceans will rise by 900 mm in the run up to 2100.
Even if they went to Court they could be easily shot down; it is that clear cut scientifically.
Local tidal gauges show an annual sustained rate of apparent sea level rise somewhere between 0.45 mm and 0.9 mm per year; this is about the length of a finger and no big deal.
Even the “Standardized and Corrected” values from the satellites only show 3 mm worldwide but the actual local vaues must be given greater weight in a sane world.
The Council action has a very doubtful legal basis and needs to be attacked in Court as a number of people believe. One fellow at the meeting suggested it was time for a class action on the issue.
Whatever two good things have become apparent.
People can see a way out of the problem and they may now have some hope:There are challenge able legal aspects to the procedures in place and there is a growing public awareness of the rorting that is taking place around environment activism.
We can live in hope.
KK 🙂
41
KK,
I read your more detailed account of the situation. It looks like a case of the voters voting for someone else, someone with an actual stake in the results of the council’s actions.
Legal action may also lead to something. But knowing how it can work here, I wonder what the chances of success really are. You can certainly judge that better than I can. But courts don’t seem to be the best arbiters of such matters.
In any case, good luck! And I don’t mean that sarcastically.
30
Hence definition of a politician: “A person who finds a crowd and tries to get in front of it.”
The “conviction” politician has gone way of the dinosaur.
With apologies to Niccolo, this is a new Machiavellian age of ruthless political opportunism.
End-game, however, remains same as that for a prince in medieval Italy – survival at all (and almost any) cost.
70
A nice reassuring thought:
No politician will ever get out of this world alive.
40
Nice thought. But remember, we don’t get out of this world alive either. And they pull the strings that may well put some of us out of this world long before they go.
I’m not really reassured at all.
20
It’s “bell-wether,” mate.
10
Yes.
wether = castrated goat
weather = not climate
I take RW’s analysis to mean “For a rat he’s a great rat”.
10
Re: Rich’s emendation to bellwether referring to the Yeo scandal. I had to look that one up:
Never before have I read such a gloriously appropriate impaling, with a single word, of the situation, the man, the moment, the party and the tinkling sound!
30
That’s very true RW and it gives me hope for the future. We may condemn the pollies for lack of leadership, but if he’s an example, they won’t stick their neck out, but at least they follow the polls – and the people are the polls.
This would seem that they may be finally listening to a changing awareness in the community, rather than the agenda-driven dogma from the elites. After all, their jobs depend on attention to mainstream opinions. Thank god for what’s left of democracy.
Thanks for that.
20
It looks like the light is beginning to switch on with this guy. I think it will be glowing brightly soon.
20
I wonder if he isn’t just a believer in the gospel of AGW who has sensed the change in the wind, but having swallowed the CO2 nonsense, he also swallowed the claims of funds flowing from big oil etc. and is trying to edge his way in to get some of those mythical funds.
It doesn’t really matter which, we don’t want him and he is now an embarrassment to the greenies.
10
These political scum can reverse on a sixpence and claim it never happened.
Pity about Gillard whose whole salvation has been to be unassailable.
She ain’t now…..
70
When Yeo says “human action is merely a “possible cause”” of climate change is he referring to humans decimating millions of square miles of natural forest ecology to create farmland?
21
No. But possibly humans decimating millions of square miles of natural forest for BIOFUEL may be an issue… go the greens!!!!
160
Take a look.
40
What was I saying yesterday about the greens actions usually causing more damage than they are trying to prevent?
80
I don’t know, but the reason is that Green policies are not designed to solve problems, but rather to perpetuate crises and, by extension, their own influence.
50
Backslider that chart looks like a hockey stick.
Colin the planet is covered in old examples of “natural forest ecology” that has been naturally destroyed. Note the ancient forests under Antarctica. Do you think lack of human intervention against natural self destruction of forest ecology could allow climate change?
30
Siliggy
I imagine the environment and climate change in lockstep. I am just tired of the term “climate change” being used to referring to CO2 induced bad weather. The greens have been so completely co-opted by CAGW madness they seem to have lost sight of how to be good stewards of the environment.
50
And that is why the extreme highly political Green left is on the way out, to be replaced by focused on environment only issues political players.
10
It’s an ill wind that’s blowing in the wrong direction for the alarmists. What a shame!
Yeo has been around a long time so he knows which way the wind is blowing.
30
The science is still a bit uncertain and so just to be on the safe side I think that Yeo should still keep hauling in vast amounts of public money…
30
This of course is quite big news and, hopefully the thin edge of the wedge. The real issue is that the whole concept that “radiative forcing” can affect climate is not based on any valid physics. The day-to-day energy from the Sun is not what is maintaining surface temperatures. Rather, it is all the energy in the atmosphere which has piled up over the life of the planet with gravity maintaining a temperature gradient, as it does on all planets with significant atmospheres. All that “33 degrees of warming” is more than explained by this non-radiative mechanism which is continually and spontaneously maintaining the thermal gradient. It is, in fact, the very process referred to in the Second Law of Thermodynamics whereby thermodynamic equilibrium “evolves spontaneously” with a state of maximum accessible entropy.
The planet Uranus helps us understand why temperatures have nothing much to do with direct Solar radiation. At the base of the Uranus troposphere there is no surface and no incident Solar radiation gets down that far. Yet the temperature is 320K and it keeps on getting hotter the further down you go. For more detail, see this and the following comments …
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/unthreaded-week/#comment-1279495
512
So what would happen if the sun went out?
Do similar things happen in the storage tank of a solar water heater?
Look back over the TSI records and the Arctic sea ice records. I think the relatonship is obvious.
31
The sun is predicted to go out with a bang in a few billion years. I am not worried about it. Are you?
Is your solar water heater 70 miles tall and does it contain a compressible fluid? The atmosphere is roughly that deep and is a compressible fluid. That makes a huge difference in how each system behaves.
50
I do not have a solar hot water system because they do not creat enough precious life giving Co2.
The heat source would still be the sun if it was compressible and 70 miles tall. The point was that darkness does not indicate the source of the heat. The temperature gradient does not either.
20
“The atmosphere is roughly that deep and is a compressible fluid”
umm, by definition, “fluid” is probably a bit wide to describe the atmosphere well.
mostly gas, but compressible, hence it has a density gradient… and being a gas, is ruled mostly by the ideal gas laws relating pressure and temperature.
20
Fluid is a more generic term than liquid or gas. However within a body of a liquid or gas, flow dynamics is very similar and vastly different from a solid. Hence, the designation of being a fluid.
10
However, are temperature dynamics similar?
00
No because a liquid does not follow the gas laws in which compression results in a temperature increase. This fact led directly to the kinetic theory of gas behavior and the identification that the temperature of a gas is proportional to the average kinetic energy of the gas particles. The average kinetic energy in this instance is a function of gas density plus the work done to compress the gas.
A liquid such as water is not compressible under normal conditions and thus does not have a density change and no temperature change derived from pressure change. Even at extraordinary pressures, you get a phase change that may lead to a volume change. However the temperature dynamics of the liquid phase are not even close to that of a gas.
20
“flow dynamics is very similar and vastly different from a solid”
Agreed.
Fluid can also describe certain solids to an extent.
I much prefer to think of the atmosphere as a gas, with some H2O liquid and some small bits of solids. But it acts like a gas, not like a liquid, due to its compressability.
just semantics, sorry You can use “fluid” , I’ll call it a gas. 😉
00
You are kidding right? Can I have some of whatever you are smoking?
Listen sonny. When I go out and stand in the sun, what do I feel? Do I feel the sun’s warmth, or do I feel the temperature gradient which has piled up over the life of the planet?
131
And at night you would feel far cooler air around you if the rate of cooling had not been slowed (and almost stopped in the early hours of the morning) by the supporting temperature at the base of the atmosphere, as explained in Section 9 of my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.” If you find any of the physics hard to understand, I’m happy to answer genuine questions about such. If you also find it hard to understand how energy gets down into the Uranus atmosphere where no Solar radiation reaches, then you’ll find the non-radiative mechanism explained in Sections 4 to 8.
Douglas Cotton
Physicist and Climate Science Researcher
26
And this is where you miss everything. If its a cloudy night it will be far warmer…. due to…. the GHE.
21
Actually, on a cloudy night the you stay warmer because clouds reflect some of the radiated heat back to the surface, thus the rate of cooling is slower. I don’t see how this mechanism has anything to do with greenhouse effect. The cloud layer is like a partially silvered mirror, passing some radiation on through and reflecting the rest in some random direction but one way or another, back to the surface.
Sorry but pilots are required to master a lot of basic meteorology to get a license. And this is pretty basic.
10
Well, there are many versions of “Greenhouse Effect” floating around these days, however what you describe is the classic Greenhouse Effect. It has been argued that the term is not a very good analogy, because greenhouses work in a different way, however this was the original meaning of the term when applied to climate.
00
Backslider,
I understand your point. But — the “greenhouse effect” that is the major subject of this blog has to do with CO2, water vapor and other gasses in the atmosphere and whether they can influence Earth’s temperature. Clouds are 100% liquid water, not vapor, hence the effect they have is entirely from a different mechanism, reflection. No other component of the atmosphere can reflect anything back to the surface.
Clouds can cause very high differences in temperature compared with what it would be without cloud cover. Greenhouse gasses provably can’t cause a noticeable difference at all, maybe no difference at all. That’s why I think it’s good to make the distinction.
10
There is also the matter of the release of latent heat as water vapour condenses to its liquid form.
An enormous amount of energy is transfered UPWARDS by this mechanism.
ie. It COOLS the surface of the Earth.
When the latent heat is released, of course it causes heating below the condensation level, both because of released radiant heat and because the temperature pressure gradient is changed.
H2O and the ideal gas laws RULE the atmosphere.
10
A little factette..
When an aircraft flying at altitude takes in air and compresses it to 1 atmosphere pressure (so the people inside can breathe).. they very often have to COOL it ! This is one reason they often only compress to about .9 atms.
ie the air at altitude contains more energy per mole than at the surface.
10
Andy,
They always have to cool it. This is no problem because at altitudes where the cabin is actually being pressurized, outside air temperatures are very low. The cooling has to be regulated to avoid getting too cold.
Cabin pressure is kept at about 8,000 feet equivalent (considerably below .9 atms) for two reasons. One, it’s much less stressful on the air-frame than 1 atmosphere. Two, most airports are above sea level and it’s kind of silly to arrive at, say Denver Colorado, elevation one mile, with an airplane pressurized to sea level; you would not be able to open the doors which are held against their seals by internal pressure.
Cabin pressure will be approximately what outside pressure is until you get above 8,000 and then stays at that level. When you descend through 8,000 the cabin pressure starts to follow outside pressure again. This is why your ears “pop” when you climb and descend.
All this happens automatically. The crew just sets the cabin pressure they want and then monitors the system in case it’s not doing what it’s supposed to.
8,000 feet is no problem for normal healthy individuals but can be a problem if you have certain medical conditions. In which case, be aware of the real situation and consult your doctor before flying.
10
I don’t need to be “taught” beginner stuff like this that I have studied far more than yourself and found not to be in line with valid physics.
I am talking about a totally different new paradigm in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.” Did you notice the word “core” in the title? You won’t have the slightest clue what the paper is about unless you spend an hour or so studying it and the cited references.
00
Yes that’s perfectly right. But it proves nothing under the new paradigm which has nothing to do with radiative forcing or greenhouse effects. You are talking about a local weather condition – not global mean climate, where water vapour is roughly constant over the whole globe – just in different places at different times.
00
And further…. if I am out in a dry desert the night will be fricken freezing… because there are less GHGs….
22
H20, the only atmpospheric gas that can be at any of its three phase (solid, liquid, gas…. for the uneducated) is the only thing that effects energy transfer rates from the surface to the upper atmospghere in anything more than an infinitesimal amount.
81
Will it just be “fricking freezing” backslider. Well a proper study of 30 years of real temperature data for real inland tropical cities proved with statistical significance that moist regions have lower daily maximum and minimum temperatures than do dry ones. So your anecdotal observation is indeed anecdotal. And it shows me that you never got through reading my paper. And it shows that the so-called greenhouse gas, water vapour does not lead to warmer surface temperatures, but to colder ones. Slide back in your shell!
00
Mr. Cotton: Do you know if any work has been done re. the possibility of CO2/water vapour interaction in the atmosphere? They’re usually considered separately in discussions – but should they be?
00
I’m only referring to the new paradigm, not the old paradigm of radiative forcing and the alleged greenhouse effect. See my paper in the PROM menu at Principia Scientific International if you don’t know what I’m talking about.
Water vapour, as we know, decreases the thermal gradient by inter-molecular radiation (not latent heat release as climatologists guess) and that leads to supported surface temperatures reducing by about 8 to 11 degrees from what they would have been with only about 10% as much water vapour. Carbon dioxide increases the gradient very very slightly due to its specific heat, and reduces the gradient a bit more due to its inter-molecular radiation. I estimate the net effect as being a cooling effect of about 0.002 C degree.
00
Doug, it’s over. The slayers have been destroyed by empirical experiments in not just one but two threads at WUWT. Anyone wanting to further confirm the results of the experiments and has access to both high torr vacuum pump and peltier cooling chips can build the following cleaner version.
Build two evacuated test chambers similar to this one –
http://i44.tinypic.com/2n0q72w.jpg
– with internal matt black target plates and external SW illumination. An exploded view of the internals here –
http://i43.tinypic.com/33dwg2g.jpg
– the only difference between the chambers is the matt black foil layer in chamber 1 between the target plate and the -25C base plate. Shown in cut away here –
http://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg
It does not effect the experiment that the target plate is illuminated from the “back”. Controlled sources of energy external to the chambers is important.
The target plate in chamber 1 will reach a higher temperature. The two shell mathematical model works, as does two shell empirical experiment.
The real reason that the AGW hypothesis fails is not due to errors in radiative physics but rather fluid dynamics and gas conduction. Because of their critical role in tropospheric convective circulation and emission of IR to space from altitude, radiative gases act to cool our atmosphere at all concentrations above 0.0ppm. However it is way too late for PSI to change tack now. When asked “Are radiative gases critical to tropospheric convective circulation?” too many of your players have already answered “No.”
By destroying the “Slayers”, Anthony Watts has also disarmed most of the “sleepers”. They can no longer point to those challenging the “basic Physics” of the “settled science” and shriek “Slayer!”
Losing both the slayers and half the sleepers? It’s been a bad week for AGW promoters 😉
00
You need to understand that I am talking about a new paradigm that has nothing to do with the old paradigm of radiative forcing and greenhouse effects on any planets. This is not the official view of other members of PSI, so what Watts says is totally and utterly irrelevant to the new paradigm, which has not been debunked successfully anywhere, least of all by yourself, because you don’t know or understand what is in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and you don’t understand how it is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Now go and work out the Uranus dilemma and I will discuss it in terms of the new paradigm if you make a genuine effort to think it out and try to explain how sufficient energy gets down into its surface.
00
I have no intention of looking at uranus.
20
The past tense of Wit is Wot.
This joke is so old it has gone wotton. 😉
30
Wot planet are you on?
20
All Gone Wong?
30
You know someone has to do it, you can’t bring up Uranus on the internet and NOT do it, so I’ll do it.
[Snip]
10
Snippety doo dah…. that really was pukeful…
00
What was? It was a clip from Groove Tube. We’re supposed to have a sense of humor.
10
Anton
I don’t even want to think about it, let alone look there.
KK 🙂
00
The Earth has two primary heat sources: Radiant energy from the sun, and conductive energy from the heat that is trapped in the core by the outer cooling of the crust. Any planet of that emerged from a young sun (and was not captured later), and which is of sufficient size and youth, would have the same structure.
I fail to see why Uranus is significant in understanding what happens on the Earth. All we are discussing is the different ratios between radiant and conductive energy in two examples of different sizes and mass.
40
Could the whole question be rejigged as, where do you measure the thermal time constant of the planet?
I need to see proof that neutrinoes from space do not produce significant heat within the planet.
10
Yes and how much energy is added by gravitational and magnetic interaction with our sun and neighbors in the solar system?
10
I notice that the solar wind seems to be able to make the odd comet disappear.
20
Is there an Astrophysist in the house?
10
I would say that heat withing Uranus is from adiabatic (atmospheric) pressure. Earth has 1 bar of atmospheric pressure, Venus has around 91. Uranus has thousands.
Atmospheric heat transfer through conduction and convection still occur regardless of atmospheric pressure, however pressure also creates heat as is witnessed whenever a gas is compressed, such as in a diesel engine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process#Adiabatic_heating_and_cooling
20
Olaf the heat is not created by pressure. The same volume of heat is compressed into a smaller space so the temperature goes up. If the engine did not fire and stopped at the peak compression point then the temperature would be conducted away into the motor and the gas will cool regardless of it being still at high pressure.
20
Siliggy, I’m sure you mean the same volume of gas/air is compressed into a smaller space. However, in an engine block it can be easily “conducted” away to the metal, but on a planet this has to be done via convection or directly radiated. Gases aren’t good at losing heat through radiation. On Venus this is difficult because of the thick cloud layer, and the temp barely changes from day to night.
Most of the “ice giants” radiate more heat than they receive from the sun, likely much of which was trapped primordially but takes billions of years to escape thanks to rapid winds and cloud layers. This also causes friction within the tremendous pressures of the atmosphere, creating more heat. Neptune radiates over 2x the heat of Uranus and it’s further away. Different conditions exist there for this to occur.
The greater the atmospheric pressure, the greater the ability to retain that heat.
Looking at how stars form, the accreting gases under extreme compression get very hot and, when conditions are right, begin the fusion process and “ignite”.
Maybe I should have explained a bit more in depth earlier. There’s a lot to consider.
20
This only happens during the compression process (as work is applied). It does not mean that heat is generated all the time that a gas is in a compressed state. Thus you cannot say “it is hot because it is compressed”.
10
Nope I meant what I said.
“The same volume of heat is compressed into a smaller space so the temperature goes up.”
Heat and temperature are NOT the same thing. Heat can be measured by volume at temperature. Temperature has no volume component.
My wording could be corrected though.
“the temperature would be conducted away into the motor”
Should have been…
The heat would be conducted away into the motor.
Temperature is not conducted but heat is. Temperature does not flow but heat does. Temperature cannot be compressed but heat can (if the heat storage medium is compressed).
Rapid winds would help to get rid of the heat not hinder it’s escape. The long time is more likely to be evidence of another heat source.
Backslider. When compressed air is released from a cylinder the temperature goes down despite work being done. Pressure does not create heat it just stores it at a different temperature. Heat is neither created or lost as pressure changes.
Heat is created by work being done but in all these examples the amount created is so small it is irrelevant to the change in storage.
10
I’m sorry, that’s just wordplay which doesn’t make sense. Heat and temperature are ENERGY, which can be transferred in a number of ways depending on the material wherein it’s contained. The only difference in that is where differing objects/surfaces do not share equilibrium. Either energy is latent/pre-existing or it’s created through certain conditions.
So you’re saying that “heat” is the latent energy/temperature of the gas and, when compressed it gets hotter because it’s in greater concentration?
If that’s the case then it vindicates my earlier assumption, that greater pressure is why there’s a difference in temperature. What’s the temperature of this heat now compared to the surrounds? Greater obviously, even though the energy used to create this temperature difference to its surrounds is the same.
If not due to concentrated latent energy, you have to take into account friction between the compressing gas molecules, causing a rise in gas temperature, energy or “heat” if you like.
Gases are largely useless at radiating heat. Their best method is conduction. From this conduction, including gravity, convection is formed. But this is simply stirring. Gases need conduction primarily to lose heat however, there are no solid molecules in space to conduct to, so an atmosphere has to radiate its heat away, which takes far longer, especially if it’s swirling around at high pressures, creating friction and becoming a heat source.
Umm.. If heat is created by work being done but then is suddenly not.. Even when I substitute the word “heat” to energy I get “WTF?” because the gas moving through a valve exchanging energy IS work being done.
Rereke – I believe my work as requested is done here. I’m no longer hijacking this thread. Sorry Jo.
00
Backslider said
I think you are exactly correct. It is just heat in storage from another source.
Olaf Koenders said
Olaf they are different words that mean very different things for a reason.
“Temperature is a physical quantity that is a measure of hotness and coldness on a numerical scale”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature
“In physics and chemistry, heat is energy transferred from one body to another by thermal interactions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
No the energy stored as heat is greater where the gas is denser. It is not the same.
Just compress them to improve this. They are very good at convecting heat. Thus wind helps heat to leave a planet by assisting it to move to a good radiation point.
Who said that? Not me. I pointed out that the quantity makes the work contribution irrelevant.
The greater the mass, the greater the ability to retain that heat. Combine this with the colour of the not black body.
Olaf I think your work is undone here. Im sorry too Jo.
00
Milankovitch and Landscheidt cycles also contribute to climate patterns.
10
Mark D was refering to heat created by tidal water movement etc. As salt water moves in the earths magnetic field an electric voltage is produced. This circuit completed through the planet and MUST produce heat.
00
I don’t recall Mark D talking about water at all. If he were referring to tidal forces then the Moon would be the most obvious one, coupled with Milankovitch. Tidal forces are what keeps Jupiter’s Io boiling inside through friction between rocks.
I’d like to see how these tidal forces creating electricity within salt water around the planet actually build up without being grounded. Any measurable heat produced would mean massive amounts of electricity are available to shoot down aircraft through lightning without clouds.
00
I said:
To be clear, I was referring to any and all such interactions.
Olaf, Siliggy and I have shared some of this going back several years now so some of it is familiar to him but perhaps new to you. There is much more interaction and energy exchange that the one mentioned, the core of the Earth is assumed to contain iron, the earth’s crust and magma is known to be conductive and carry Telluric electric currents. Then there is the whole “electric universe” concept. Moving a conductor in the presence of a magnetic field generates electricity.
Gravity interaction causes ocean and atmospheric tides, there is an energy transfer related to that alone. Friction in the crust, friction in the water, friction in the air all must contribute something by way of energy transfer.
But just ask a climate expert how much energy is transferred in such ways and even more that are possibly unknown. I’ve found no evidence that any of these have been considered in the “energy budget” calculations familiar to the AGW crowd. It is only insolation that is considered, all others are dismissed.
Siliggy is among the first that I ran into that knew something about these (and much more) reasons to be skeptical about what is claimed to be “well known” about the Earth and her place in the Solar System.
I fear, though, that we are way off topic.
20
Absolutely.
Likewise, these are my arguments exactly when it comes to AGW, models etc. They miss all the important, obvious stuff. None of this is new to me, probably only to the AGW crowd.
10
Mark D.
Thankyou for your great comment and sorting out the mess i made by hanging far too much on “etc”.
00
Something that caught my eye in Hoyt’s post on this blog was the calculation he asked his Engineer son to perform.
Somehow his answer seems intuitively correct to me.
If the heat energy released due to the combustion of fossil fuels were the volume of a golf ball, what is the size of sphere necessary to contain the volume representing the energy Earth receives from the sun?
I thing he said 126,000 times the volume of the sun. (Surely it wasn’t 126, 000 times the diameter of the sun??)
Consider this and you will realise that if the sun decided to go on a holiday, it would be damned cold quick, fast, and in a hurry!
70
WHEN do we arrest & prosecute the climate alarmist carpetbagging MURDERERS who encouraged and administered environmental pogroms on innocent poor people?
We know their names. Here is a start:
UK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India’s poor
“(A) working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes.
The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases …”
Greedy green land grabbers
“On Sunday, February 28, 2010, armed troops evicted villagers in Uganda’s Mubende district, to make way for a tree plantation.
The troops were acting on behalf of a British forestry company that claims it fights global warming.”
Why are we paying the Third World to poison its environment?
“In the fields around this giant chemicals factory in Gujarat, the barren soil smells of paint stripper and the water from the well makes you gag.
So why has it been given tens of millions of pounds of taxpayer-funded UN ‘green reward points’, which are traded hungrily on the financial markets at huge profit?”
170
Right on Handjive.
There must be prosecutions ;
after all there is no longer any doubt;
there are crimes being committed and in a sane world someone would be held to account.
KK
60
The End of the Dream
Last night in Newcastle there was a meeting in reaction to specific Global warming based policy by a local councils which ’employs” a number
of Klimate activists.
There was almost violence from one of the regular contributors here, no not me, and it was an exciting night for those after a more rational
society where we are not at the mercy of political opportunists like Mr Yeo.
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1537344/sea-level-policy-disagreement/?cs=305
—————————————————-
Comment
The Council’s sea level policy is not based on guesswork, as Mr Davies comments.
It is not based on science and it is not based on any concern for the residents of Lake Macquarie.
This entire scenario is only based on a political green left agenda arising from the Man Made Global Warming concept that is so beloved of activists and money makers worldwide.
Human origin Carbon Dioxide is not, never has been and never will be capable of causing variations to the Earth;’s Atmospheric Temperature; that is simply a green dream and part of the Green Religion used to control unthinking populations and bleed them dry in the name of a noble cause: The Environment.
Neither will the oceans rise to engulf us; the plain fact is that after the last Ice Age when the 1.5 km thick ice sheet covering places like New York and the northern hemisphere melted it lead to sea level rises of 135 metres total.
When that melt began 20,000 years ago the local Aborigines were living at the existing shore line which was 19 km off the current Newcastle coast and Lake Macquarie was bone dry. Over the last 8,000 years, the oceans have in fact dropped by about 4 metres and are currently the most stable they have been in the last 120,000 years.
Sadly for the alarmists there is no more ice left to melt to raise the oceans; it is all over. The next step is down as we enter the next ice age which is not far away.
The level of technical expertise in LMCC ‘s Climate Change Department is dangerously low and Councillors may soon find them selves enmeshed in legal battles designed to sort fact from fiction.
LMCC’s decision to annotate 149 certificates as “endangered’ because of Global Sea Level rise needs to be tested in court and if there is no basis for the decision then some stern action seeking financial compensation needs to be commenced.
LMCC needs to urgently disband its’ Climate – Environment Obsession Department and use the money to hire some qualified hydraulic Engineers to work out cheap ways of dealing with water encroachment onto properties.
This may sound contradictory because I just said sea levels aren’t rising. True but some properties built on sandy areas are actually sinking and the water may “appear ” to be rising.
Systems of driven piles at strategic spots can cheaply stabilize this problem and a halt to Lake dredging near homes would also help until piles can be driven.
This is an Engineering problem and a drainage problem which Council has just sat on; they need to be very careful because they have now been made aware of the facts and can be liable from this moment on.
They, The Councillors, should all consult lawyers for their own protection because even after all of the hot air I have never heard of any “Scientist” who was game enough to put this “dream” of man made sea level rise to the test in court.
There will be no back up in Court.
——————————————-
The lives of many people at the meeting have been seriously damaged by the LMCC’s actions and they need redress for the wrong done them. Many have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in property valuations.
KK
220
KK good on you and everyone for having a go, this needs to be done to show the “sheeple” it can be done.
They need to get used to the idea it’s ok to stand up for yourselves and hell! it’s even still legal to do so.
70
Credit should go to Cohenite who gave a very useful speech about some of the legal aspects of the setup.
Malfeasance.
I think if a lot of the audience was really in tune with just how much contempt the council staff seemed to have for them, there might have been a punchup.
As it was some were aware that a legal challenge could be the next step.
KK
10
More evidence of the insidious UN Agenda 21 totalitarians stealing peoples rights.
.
Farmers outraged over Palerang environmental zones
“Farmers in the Palerang Shire in south-east NSW are up in arms that the local council wants to introduce environmental protection zones on their properties.
They’re concerned it will mean they won’t be able to graze livestock and it could lower their land values.
He says it’s the first time he’s ever felt that his property rights have been threatened.”
“We’ve asked what their evidence is of that and we’ve not been provided with any.”
.
Has the fingerprints of the (un-elected) Totalitarian United Nations climate fraud all over it.
100
Local councils are an easy target for hard core nutters and people don’t realise they are being shafted by these people.
Council rates are high because there is Green Waste or is it Green misappropriation and the basic business of local government is the last thing on the agenda;
Always.
KK 🙂
91
Worry about this local government referendum though.
Easy way to combat it.
Labor voters.. imagine Tony Abbott being able to finacial control your local council.
Liberal voters… imagine Gillard being able to financially control your local council. !
Green voters.. who cares, you will be irrelevant soon.
20
I was in western NSW last week and listened to comments about good farming land being purchased by environmentalist groups determined to lock the land up and return it to its natural state. On one hand the objective is reasonable but on the other hand this will lead to a shortage of farm land and greatly increased havens for feral creatures that impact adversely on farm land and animals. Also adding to the bushfire risks. Red and green tape is driving farmers to the wall and the land grab is another nail in their business coffin. What will we do when our food bowls are reduced in area and what is left produces less?
30
I would love to see legislation that requires the land owner to make every effort to rid their land of feral animals, noxious plants and excessive undergrowth, as well as establishing and maintaining viable fire-breaks and trails
Make the greenies pay or, perish the thought, work, to keep their land viable instead of a noxious mess of vermin ridden fire-prone weeds.
20
Let’s all remember what happened to Peter Spencer and stand up and fight, both there in Oz and here. Agenda-21 can be fought if enough people know what it really is — a power grab aimed at shutting down a huge percentage of civilization.
30
They aren’t “farmers”, they’re “hobby farmers” – rich public servants living off big fat over-generous super-payouts.
Agenda 21 is far less of a problem than the NSW Mining Act, 1992. I recently found out that a Chinese company is going to be allowed to carry out mineral exploration on my Palerang property. I don’t get a say.
22
So Margot what gives you the right to classify that they aren’t ““farmers”, they’re “hobby farmers” – rich public servants living off big fat over-generous super-payouts” given that you have no first hand knowledge of the facts? And if Agenda 21 isn’t a threat why are some states in the U.S banning it based on the reason that the executive branch — in conjunction with accomplices at the international, state, and local levels — has for two decades been quietly attempting to impose the plan on Americans by stealth, mostly using deceptive terms like “Smart Growth” and “Green.” You can see the exact same thing starting to happen here,by councils like the above.
30
It’s defined by the shire council: under 80 acres is a “hobby farm”, and this environmental protection applies to them only, and it’s doing that mainly in recognition of the superior landcare and rehabilitation that those hobby farmers gave been conducting. Nothing to do with any UN plot.
20
Do you mean to say that your shire council has no ICLEI proponents?
00
Oh really Margot?…. and what kind of a “farmer” are you?
20
As a miner, I have myself gone onto a farmer’s “property”, drilled, pegged my claims and MINED them…. did that for 13 years.
Welcome to how things really are.
20
I’m just hoping they decide they have to re-grade all my tracks to get through to wherever they’ve decided to do their digging – save me a heap of money 🙂
20
Well, Maggot, maybe you could talk to Julia?
21
Margot,
Chinese companies are not going to be allowed to carry out mineral exploration on your Palerang property. You would have an Australian Drilling Company doing mineral exploration on your property, not a Chinese company.
You must have more than 80 hectares and definitely not a hobby farm.
What’s the name of the drilling company carrying out tests?
Who is the Chinese client requesting exploration Margot?
Sounds like a duck, looks like a duck probably is bullshlt.
10
I’m not telling you where I am, I have enough problems with ferals and bogan nutters who think they can come onto my property anytime they feel like it.
I think the reason the Chinese have me in their sights is that they’ve been on my property before – in the 1850s – to dig it up.
20
“rich public servants living off big fat over-generous super-payouts”
Oh.. ex Labor/Green politician !! 🙂
20
21
Nice piece, thank you KK.
40
On a matter of Censorship or maybe considering the threat of some action by Council,
The Newspaper did not publish the above comment
KK
10
When I see statements like this I realize just how much better your judgment gets when you’re a real stakeholder in the game vs. a policy maker with no skin to lose if he’s wrong.
Throw the bastards out! You don’t even need the state’s position to back you. Just vote.
10
Tim Yeo, a walking conflict of interest in open sight, just like any other Green politician I suppose.
40
Not that I’m into guns but;
that sounds almost like a hunting situation.
KK 🙂
31
OOP’s, maybe I should’ve said “in plain view” I almost did an Eddie McGuire there.
Your a bad man KK 🙂
20
So now we witness the grand farce, the nearly but not quite irreconcilable tension between political survival and “human survival”, oh, those two impossibly hard choices.
…running out of chairs and the music’s about to stop.
40
Manfred says here:
I just wish the music was something shorter than Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen!
Tony.
80
Tony,
I was aware that this constituted ‘approved’ music by the Third Reich, that it was even Hitler’s personal favorite.
I’ll bet most people on the wider planet aspired to a shorter rendition too, at the time.
It’s not funny how history has a tendency to repeat, left unchecked.
30
MSM spin it:
29 May: Daily Mail: Daniel Martin: Humans may not be responsible for global warming, it may just be a natural phase, says climate change MP
But he said governments should continue to cut carbon emissions, because there was still ‘a risk’ that global warming is caused by mankind…
Mr Yeo’s scepticism puts him at odds with the scientific community. A recent survey of 12,000 academic papers on climate change found 97 per cent agree that human activities are causing the planet to warm…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333056/Humans-responsible-global-warming-just-natural-phase-says-climate-change-MP.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
10
97% could all agree that the sun comes up in the west and sets in the east. They’d all be 100% wrong too.
It really is time to start throwing the bastards out.
40
How Yeo possibly be sure?
After all; there’s still a 0.1% chance of the observed temperature change being anthroprogenic. 🙂
70
29 May: Independent: Tom Bawden: Humans may not be to blame for global warming, says Tory MP Tim Yeo
MP who oversees government policy on climate change says ‘natural phases’ may be the cause of climate change
Mr Yeo insisted that his comments had been taken out of context and said he was highly concerned about the impact of man-made carbon emissions. “It is highly probable that human activity has led to a big increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and highly probable that that is changing the climate.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/humans-may-not-be-to-blame-for-global-warming-says-tory-mp-tim-yeo-8636532.html
29 May: East Anglia Daily Times: Suffolk: Tim Yeo claims “views remain the same” about causes of climate change
South Suffolk MP Tim Yeo has claimed that remarks suggesting that “natural causes” may be partly to blame for global warming were taken out of context.
Mr Yeo, chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, posted a statement on his website after the Telegraph reported that he had said the causes of climate change are “not absolutely clear.”…
Responding Mr Yeo said: “In the light of what has appeared on the Telegraph website suggesting that I have changed my views about climate change, I wanted to make clear that this is not the case.
“My views have remained the same for over two decades.
“I accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that human activities are having a major impact on the climate – there is an overwhelming probability that the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from human actions are contributing to climate change.
“The move to a low carbon economy is not just right environmentally but also in our economic interest.”
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/suffolk_tim_yeo_claims_views_remain_the_same_about_causes_of_climate_change_1_2215452
30
Thanks Pat. I’ve added an update.
It’s a typical black-is-white statement, a backpedal-from-the-backpedal (I bet his green friends were appalled). He can’t have it both ways. He’s trying to play to all groups at once, he can’t deny what he said this week is not the same as what he’s been saying for five years.
141
You have to have some sympathy for Yeo.
He’s running as fast as he can, one foot either side of the barbed-wire fence.
40
Unfortunately, the likes of him can deny what they have clearly said and that is “on the record” without batting an eye or breaking a sweat. They never mean what they say nor say what they mean except at the moment they say it. It is questionable that they mean what they say even then.
Meaning and truth for them is nothing but a buzzing swirling miasma of foggy intent in what passes for their minds. It is not something fixed out there for everyone to see and verify. All they have to do is *believe* and it is so. If they change what they *believe* their truth changes to match what they believe and the past is supposed to be negated as if it never happened.
00
Sure he can Jo. A politician can burn a candle at both ends for a long time and get away with the contradiction.
Watch him continue to be as influential as ever.
00
That is because almost all the politicians do exactly the same and so offer him a “professional courtesy” get out of jail free card for each contradiction. It is heads they win and tails we lose every time. At least as long as we allow them to stay in office and hold the gun of the government in their hands.
Unfortunately, most of the new people we are allowed to vote for were preselected by the same old bunch of politicians to make sure the policy would continue. Thus, changing the people in office is largely a charade of a change rather than an actual change. Unless and until the ideas guiding the society change, all will remain the same until the collapse. Then things will get worse and a long time will pass before things get better.
00
They are getting it now, natural Earth Cycles contributed to by external, internal and living sources. But the facts hijacked for political purposes by the alarmists and their fellow travellers.
20
Getting into Natural Cycles is all very well, makes it sound almost , we’ll Environmental again.
I’m not saying anything different from what I was saying – 20 years ago. My mind has always been changed.
10
30 May: UK Express: Nathan Yao: Forecasts for global warming ‘too high’
THE effects of climate change may be less severe than had been feared, a dramatic study has revealed.
Australian scientists say predictions for global warming have been too high.
A university team, using ground-breaking research, said an estimate that the planet would warm up by more than 11F (6C) by the year 2100 unless there were huge cuts in carbon emissions was “unlikely”.
However, in a research paper published in the journal Nature Climate Change, the team claimed that a 4F (2C) increase was “very likely” at current emission rates…
The research is adding to a growing body of evidence against extreme global warming.
Met Office figures showed the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has overestimated for the past five years the rate at which the planet is heating up.
Campaigners, such as ex-BBC presenter David Bellamy,insist that “man-made global warming is a myth”.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/403595/Forecasts-for-global-warming-too-high
20
The Chinese delegation to Copenhagen reported that during 3,600 years of civilisation in China there had been three warmer periods than the present warming referred to at the Copenhagen gathering. Each period brought greater prosperity based on higher crop and grass yields and living conditions, etc.
70
29 May: Hobart Mercury: Matt Smith: Carbon tax hole in Lib budget
The Opposition said they would hand back the $37 million carbon tax windfall to Tasmanians in the 2013-14 financial year but not in the years after because they expect the carbon tax to be repealed is Mr Abbott wins the September election.
However, the State Government’s Budget numbers, used as the basis for the alternative budget, include $175 million over three years in revenue from the carbon tax…
Opposition energy spokesman Matt Groom said Ms Giddings was wrong.
“The Premier’s claims are completely wrong,” Mr Groom said.
“Unlike the Premier, we’re not going to bet the future of the budget on the election of a Gillard Government.”
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/05/29/380317_tasmania-news.html
surely Groom could give details as to why the claims are wrong!
00
If forward estimates in a budget, meaning estimated future years spending/revenue, usually a 3 year period of forward estimates following the current budget financial year , includes estimated revenue from a source that will probably not be available, then the budget estimates are wrong. It is reasonable to not expect the Gillard Labor federal government to remain in office after 14 September 2013.
20
good.
Aus. opposition says will cancel govt clean energy loans
BEIJING, May 29 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Australia’s opposition Liberal party said Wednesday it would not honour any contracts signed by the governmental Clean Energy Finance Corporation if it wins the September general election, casting doubt on lending expected to amount to A$800 million ($765 million) before polling day…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2392856?&ref=searchlist
Australia CO2 market could accumulate 40 million surplus: analysts
BEIJING, May 29 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Australia’s emissions market could rack up a surplus of 40 million permits in its first two years, depressing prices and minimising demand for European CO2 allowances, analysts Reputex said Wednesday…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2393029?&ref=searchlist
and the other 93%?
Seven pct of global emissions subject to CO2 price: World Bank
BARCELONA, May 29 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The emitters of seven percent of global man-made CO2 will be required to pay for their pollution, with carbon pricing a growing trend despite dithering by countries to curb their greenhouse gas output and a breakdown of the world’s largest emissions market, the World Bank said Wednesday…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2392688?&ref=searchlist
20
Similar area, different bloke – and a lesson in the useage of English!
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/5/25/lilleys-reply-to-anderson.html
20
Government ministers openly and unashamedly profiting from policies they promote and are responsible for delivering ?
But the profiting business interests are declared in the members register.
Oh, we’ll that’s all right then, I guess.
Is that the only difference between us and a banana republic ?
40
Thats funny i changed computers and now i have comment numbers…yippee…
back OT maybe Tim read this and thought Oh shit……….
http://iceagenow.info/2013/05/summer-coldest-1816-europe/
10
you realise that OT is both On and Off topic?
00
Gee Aye,
Yes thats true, i was hoping the context in which it was used would be enough.
Cheers
00
lease turn the light O when you leave.
00
Some light reading…………and yes i know its not peer reviewed so it does not count.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/IS_THE_COOLING_WORSE_THAN_WE_THOUGHT.pdf
10
Hi all, I’m back… (and Jo, I promise no more crass comments, I hope 😉
Can’t say what I’ve been doing, except I have been on the climate payroll…. oh the irony !!!!
Hasn’t changed my position on climate change one iota (its a farce and a fraud, as even manic AGW politicians are starting to admit) but one has to eat!
30
keep an eye on the WUWT Sea ice page , particularly
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
Where is that black line heading to this year ?????
20
Looks like there it could be a year of substantial ‘adjustments’ required.
20
Welcome back!
Working for Big Green has affected your memory, Andy.
You ask, “Where is that black line heading to this year ?????”
These failed goal post shufflers have read the entrails:
12 December 2007:
The Arctic Summer will be Ice-free by 2013 said Professor Wieslaw Maslowski.
Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski’s analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.
.
31 December, 2012: “Professor Gareth Wyn Jones points out that Prof Peter Wadhams (corr) of Cambridge University, who has been studying the Arctic sea ice for decades, is predicting that the Arctic Ocean will be effectively free of summer ice by 2016, “give or take three years”.
According to Prof Jones: “An obvious conclusion is that this year’s Arctic summer has terminally undermined the position of the [climate change] ‘denialists’ and alerts all sensible, pragmatic people to global warming and the need for much more urgent action to combat the threats posed.“.
.
The black line is looking ominous for those claiming the warmest year ever! The ice aint goin’ nowhere.
20
I’m sort of hoping it starts to dive a bit, and sort of follow the red line..
If not, some of the northern countries could be in for a rather cool next decade or few, as several real scientists have suggested.
But unlike the AGW climate scientists seem to think they have, I don’t have crystal balls.
20
Andy,
These figures must be nonsense. In Britain, Northern Europe and Russia we have been experiencing the coldest winter for 50 years. The Met Office, through their analysis on one of the world’s most powerful computers, has told us repeatedly that this cold weather is because the Arctic is warmer. By implication the sea ice figures must be wrong. It is a fundamental truth of climatology that if there is an apparent conflict between the data and the infallible climate models, then the data has been improperly measured. That is why the global average surface temperature sets has to be continually adjusted to bring them into line with this higher reality.
21
You only have to look down a bit further on the sea-ice page to see the mean temp above 80 deg North
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2013.png
The green line is effectively the 40 year average.
And a bit of simple calcs, the global sea-ice is about 0.5million km2 above average.
Lots of REAL data to watch on that page
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
01
[SNIP]
…a graph that includes *all* the data shows something quite different:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
[SNIP inflammatory baseless accusation. – Jo]
20
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/05/Figure3-350×261.png
Yes it shows that, just like temperatures, the sea-ice decrease due to natural climate change is starting to reverse, as part of the natural cycle.
Keep your winter woolies handy, little girl !!
00
Thanks crakar24! As a palm tree / sand kind of guy, I am entering denial.
You kindly provided the .pdf IS THE COOLING WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT?
The author, Joe Bastardi states:
“Eventually, though, the transport of moisture from the
lagging low levels will cool the mid levels (increased moisture leading to temperatures falling toward the wet bulb), leading to more instability, more cloudiness.”
Recently reported (2011) Cern expt. suggests:
“It had been known for many years that the level of cosmic rays reaching Earth’s surface was inversely related to the level of sunspot activity on the sun. Svensmark noted also that recent satellite data showed that low-level cloudiness varied with the level of cosmic rays measured at Earth’s surface.”
http://climatescienceamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55:cern-cloud-experiment-confirms-solar-influence-on-climate
NASA/Marshall Solar Physics states:
“Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.”
…the alarmist warming distraction gets worse doesn’t it? A “look over there,” while they grab the money over here,
“it’s for your own good, eh, umm, and that of the planet.”
The alternative, a cloudy, cooling planet is obviously one of those troublesome: “everyone for themselves,” kind of catastrophe.
So, should cooling prove to be the long term established trend, what will the atmospheric scientists, IPCC models, politicians bureaucrats and MSM collectively suggest from their ivory towers is the answer to this truly inconvenient version of climate change? /rhet.
40
From the Telegraph article:
“….Mr Yeo, who was speaking to an audience of energy industry representatives and diplomats at the Westminster Russia Forum……”
Oh, the ‘Westminster Russia Forum’ eh. Sounds like trougher Tim might be getting a better offer – from Gazprom perhaps!
20
Who was that one time Minister for Trade & Industry who got rather to close to Russian olig interests.
20
I couldn’t possibly guess who you refer to!
20
Tim Yeo is our local MP. He has a large majority in a safe Conservative constituency but his entanglement with the Climate Change fraud is a major embarrassment to the Conservative Party rank-and-file members, even if he has the support of the leadership. If he ceases to be our MP I think it will be not at the ballot box but as a result of local party pressure or edicts from Conservative Party HQ. My guess he is manouevring to best secure directorships after his political career ends, though whether that would be erecting or demolishing windmills is anybody’s guess. As the song goes:
70
“…It looks like skeptics are winning.”
Sorry, I see absolutely no evidence of that in the articles quoted. What he has done is carefully chosen his words in such away as to create an “excuse” for the 16 years gap in warming. Saying “natural phases” is his way of creating an excuse for this temporary “phase” of not-warming. Saying man-made factors are “part” of climate change but not all of it deftly castrates the opposition to “mitigation” policies by implying that scepticism ids irrelevant because…in his broad judgement…the “might be” validates the mitigation policies on the “precautionary principle”.
You do a fine job Jo and followers, but nobody will ever unseat the climate fascists from their high horses by rational argument or science alone. There has to be a phase of getting “down and dirty” with them in the media.
30
Tim Yeo seems a good example how Global warming alarmists reside on both sides of the political spectrum – not just the Left. Yeo is an example of the Ruling Political Class that is the number 1 beneficiary – both realised and potential – from Global Warming alarmism. These people increasingly live in a bubble of their own creation – detached from the rest of society that they seek to rule. The general public needs to wake up to these charlatans.
30
The planet stopped getting warmer more than a decade ago.
Change to atmospheric CO2 has no significant influence on average global temperature.
Two papers on line provide some eye-opening insight on possible cause of change to average global temperature.
The first one is ‘Global warming made simple’ at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com/. It shows, with simple calculations, how a tiny change in low altitude clouds could account for half of the average global temperature change in the 20th century, and what could have caused that tiny change. (The other half of the temperature change is from natural ocean oscillation which is dominated by the PDO)
The second paper is ‘Natural Climate change has been hiding in plain sight’ at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html . This paper presents a simple equation that calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a proxy of the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated trajectory overlaid on measurements.
A third paper, ‘The End of Global Warming’ at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ expands recent measurements and includes a graph showing the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature.
10
Sorry Dan, in the second paper….if they can match HadCrud pre-1979..
they are probably WRONG !!!
Pre-1979 HadCrud is a highly manipulated series with very little remnant of reality.
00
Expanding on DP #33
http://endofgw.blogspot.co.nz/
Modelers and atmospheric climate scientists must find this growing disconnect an inconvenient truth to explain. There is after all, a limit to introduced fudge factors and adjustments…is there not?
To witness the importance of one’s whole life work slowly shrinking from the dimensions of a ‘catastrophe’ to the mundane dimensions of ‘irrelevant’ must also be accompanied by an awful deflating sense of self-actualisation.
I think this is what a Babylonian collapse looks like.
30
OT – But interesting.
Solar Panels going up in smoke…
10
I guess we will see an article from Paul Syvret shortly explaining how bad it is that Yeo has profited from his position? Or does he only claim bias financial interest when its attached to views he doesnt agree with.
The irony and the rhino thick hide of it is breathtaking.
20
Protected by both a yellow cloak of political protectiveness and a Teflon cloak of green righteousness, they’re above criticism but to my mind, those greedy pigs are no better than vicious muggers, beating an elderly pensioner to death in the street for her pennies.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/politicians-thieves-and-those-grey-areas-in-between/
Pointman
40
It reminds me of a Sopranos episode where Tony says to a local councilor, “at least my boys are straight up, they put a gun in your face and take your money, you snake around and try make your stealing look legit”.
10
AndyG55-Rather than jump to conclusions of who is right and who is wrong, I plotted all available anomaly data that included pre 1900 data. These include HadCRUT3, HadCRUT4, NOAA, and GISS. They all look very much alike, as they probably should because they all use essentially the same raw temperature measurement database.
Each group processes the data slightly differently from the others. Each believes their method is most accurate. To avoid bias, each anomaly trajectory is shifted (reference-temperature change only) so its average is the same as the average for HadCRUT4 over the time period for which both are given and then the average from the available values (as-shifted if not HadCRUT4) for each year is calculated. This normalizes the set to a single trajectory, with minimum bias, which is shown in Figure 1 in the paper that you referred to.
00
Jones, Hansen. et al…… .. of course they all look much the same !!
A tight-knit cabal of “adjusters”
00
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/the-big-lie-becomes-official-at-noaa/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/
and you should see what Jone’s buddy (Stott iirc) did to the Australian record !!
00
AndyG55 – I am well aware that they mess with the numbers. I keep track of what they have reported over the years. The two links that you gave (thanks for them) refer to U.S. data. The U.S. occupies less than 2% of the planet surface, so the fiddling that they do with U.S. data has only a tiny effect on the global data (which they probably also fiddle with).
Five agencies report recent global data. I plot them all on Figure 1 at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ . IMO they agree acceptably closely after adjusting for offsets due to differences in reference temperatures or whatever. Certainly UAH is not in bed with the rest. “Trust but verify” or in this case, compare.
As to 2012 being a warm year in the U.S. I take that as being about as profound as saying that I drove 10,000 miles last year and the last 50 miles were among the greatest distance traveled for the year.
00
I’m still waiting for anyone on any climate blog to try to explain the Uranus dilemma under the old radiative forcing / greenhouse effect conjecture.
It can only be explained by the new paradigm (in my paper on planetary temperatures in the PROM menu at PSI) which shows why planetary atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures are all able to be calculated the same way, and are all supported by the process whereby thermodynamic equilibrium evolves spontaneously, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics says it will.
00