POSTED in the Satirical Tomes:
News that could have been, but wasn’t.
Climate modelers announced today that in future they would report everything in Hiroshima-atom-bomb-equivalents, or Habe. The President of Climate-Scientists-Anonymous said the old system of joules was boring, and no one understood what ten-to-the-twenty-two meant anyhow. “We leave that stuff to the computers” he said.
“The planet has been building up temperatures at the rate of four Hiroshima bombs of heat every second, and it’s all our fault, say climate scientists.”
— Neda Vanovac, Climate change like atom bomb (interviewing John Cook )
…
Skeptics said they preferred exponentials, but could debunk alarmists with any units. Science Blogger Jo Nova said if Neda Vanovac had called “I would have told her that while John Cook’s figure sounded like a marvelous marketing gimmick, scientifically it was meaningless. For starters, the Sun blasts 1,950 Hiroshima’s worth of energy over the Earth every second (h.t to Wellerstein). So we got four more? Did Cook forget to mention that, or was he just trying to scare people?”
Jo explains that Cook’s units are a parody of science: “The atomic-bomb delivered all the energy in one spot, but the sun spreads it out. Science becomes mindless if you mash up things like volume and area. A million square miles is not like two square feet. McDonalds sells a Hiroshima Bomb worth of Big-Macs every 8.6 days. It’s like a bomb in the same sense that black is like white, 1 is like 2, being alive is like being dead. Things can be equated-to-inanity. Cook has achieved that.”
“Plus there has been no significant warming in the last fifteen years, so technically the rate was more likely to be zero bombs a second (0 Habe), not four. And in any case, the models predicted far more than four-bombs-a-second (4 Habe) — realistically, they missed by as many bombs as they scored.”
Apologies this graph remains in the old units of degrees Celcius.* | Graph: David Evans.
How many bombs do the models miss by?
If pressed to come up with an exact number, Jo Nova says “The rate the Earth warms at is always changing and there are 22 major models and a hundred variations. Pick a number. There are a lot of ‘right’ answers to this question.”
“In 2010, Douglass and Knox calculated that models overestimated reality by 7000 quintillion joules annually.
“Five years of planetary heating amounts to a massive amount of energy. That’s 2,000 days of the sun bearing down on an atmosphere with growing levels of CO2. According to the IPCC favored models, the extra heat stored should be 0.7 x 1022 Joules per year (or 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules per annum or 7,000 quintillion joules).”
That’s 2.2 x 1014 boring Joules, every second. One Habe is (supposedly) 6.3 x 1013 so the models miss by 3.5 bombs a second. Judging by the graph, this is an underestimate. Cook doesn’t mention how he calculated “4” — what years were used, what data-set, or the Habe:Joules conversion he assumed. Frankly the number is so mindless, the process so useless, I can’t be bothered asking. We already know the models are wrong. Who care’s how wrong?”
Skeptical commenter Jaymez claims much of what Cook talks about is widely known to be wrong on internet science sites. “Neda, really should try a search engine sometime.” he said. “We know that there have always been floods and droughts, and the trends have not changed. Storm surges recorded for 5000 years show there have been much bigger storms than any we have seen. Global cyclone activity is low and about the same as it was 30 years ago. Australia had 50 degree days repeatedly in the 1800s and right across the country.”
Where are those extreme storms?
Alex Wellerstein had satirically documented the unit shift as well, and provides a calculator. Credit to him for these calculations:
- The Sun deposits 61.34 billion Hiroshimas worth of energy onto the Earth every year — that’s 168 million Hiroshimas a day, 7 million Hiroshimas an hour, 117 thousand Hiroshimas a minute!
- The USA uses about 24 thousand Hiroshima-equivalents worth of electricity per year!
- The Haitian Earthquake of 2010 was equivalent to around 32 Hiroshimas!
- Each year, McDonald’s sells around 26 Hiroshima-equivalents worth of Big Macs in the United States alone, 42 Hiroshima-equivalents worldwide (1 H-e = 21.4 million Big Macs)!
- My electric bill for last month was for 4.42 micro-Hiroshima-equivalents! (Which is 126.2 nano-Hiroshima-equivalents less than this month last year!)
* (Click on the graph to see the post related to it).
Image: Adapted from Wikimedia Lykaestria
Edited: H-bomb became “:atom-bomb”. Thanks Ace.
Well, I read ‘Neda’ as ‘Nada’ and spent a minute or so dredging up Latin trying to make ‘like a vacuum’, or some such, from Vanovac. That didn’t work so I clicked thru and found this is a real AAP writer. Uff da! That’s the feeling of discovering that your male dog is pregnant.
http://lawzone.com/half-nor/uffda.htm
I have relatives named Cook. Queenslander Cook gives the clan a bad name.
~~~~~~~~~~
Great post! Thanks.
121
I know this isn’t worthy of a 2nd post slot, but re:-
Cook is a parody of science. As is just about every venture he seems to have been associated with.
250
The international unit for logical fallacy is henceforth to be known as the “Cook”.
One poorly drawn analogy = 1 Cook, One ad hominem = 1 Cook, One Argument from authority = 1 Cook, One circular logic = 1 Cook, One unsubstantiated, hysterical claim = 1 Cook, One ignoring evidence and observations contrary to theory = 1 Cook, etc, etc.
I always knew that boy would make a name for himself one day.
170
Being that the “Cook” is such a large unit of measure we need smaller units to measure a small white lie (e.g. answer to “does my bum look big in these jeans?” etc). Perhaps the milliCook of femtoCook? These would be to the Cook as the banana equivalent dose* is to the Hiroshima event.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose
90
Sounds good, BD. But how many MegaCooks or GigaCooks is equivalent to 1 Habe (Hiroshima Atom Bomb Equivalents?
There is a fair bit of force being applied and a pretty rapid expulsion of hot air, but how much can one small, insignificant man be expected to produce compared to a thermonuclear explosion?
It seems to me like one of the unquantifiable imponderables of the universe, but hopefully our technical people can resolve it and give us a rough conversion rate.
30
There is the whole issue of imperial and metric measures to be considered as well. Obviously the imperial equivalent of the “Cook” is the “Gore.” Both four-letter words, I note…
70
I’ll quantify it, but only with a fat grant.
30
I like kook better than “cook” as in “How many kookies per second can you ingest before you laugh yourself to death?”
00
We could always use “cook” as a metric. How many cooks does it take to ruin a science?
00
4 Habe = 1 B.S.
40
I seem to recall from my maths studies that when you weren’t sure how to get the required answer you could always apply “Cook’s Constant” , otherwise known as a “Fudge Factor” – how appropriate
60
You have to give the guy some credit. He somehow managed to leverage his pathetic blog into a well paid sinecure at the university of Queensland.
30
More importantly he is a total waste of space, proselytising a pseudo-science based on false physics.
The astonishing factor is that there can be no CO2-AGW because it’s the working fluid in the heat engine that controls lower atmosphere temperature. It’s easy to prove if you know your physics but will be resisted by these professional purveyors of utter bollocks.
20
As Watts points out, this is a rehash of Hansen same comparison from last year, which Cook didn’t attribute to him.
Putting that in perspective, he equates it to an imbalance of 600 milliWatts per square meter, compared to an influx of solar radiation of 500 watts per squ. meter daily.
It isn’t even measurable.
Cook is just a chancer.
130
Well, he certainly isn’t a scientist, nor even a good journalist, for that matter, as Jaymez more eloquently points out at #4 below.
60
However, he knows his marketing and PR. (Perhaps with a little help from the experts.) This sort of media release is designed purely frighten the average punter. And fear is the driving force behind this whole carefully staged fraud.
00
That’s not marketing or PR. Just unashamed, barefaced bollocks, in the tradition of Deltoid.
(What became of Deltoid ?). Say it as if you believe it and some will follow.
00
In a remarkable coincidence researchers have found that 97% of what John Cook says has indeed been soundly debunked. For example, according to Neda Vanovac’s article in ‘The Australian’, John Cook apparently told Australia’s Climate Action Summit that “Hurricane Katrina and superstorm Sandy are just two examples of how extreme weather will intensify”.
The Earth Systems Research Laboratory at NOAA addressed themselves to the question:
“Concerning the issue of whether storms (Sandy and the nor’easter) are signals of the impact of climate change on extreme weather:”
From the executive summary of that report came the following points relevant to both Katrina and Sandy:
• No significant increase in Atlantic hurricanes since the late 1880s has been observed.
• The number of hurricanes that make U.S. landfall has not significantly increased or decreased.
• There is low scientific confidence that overall storminess has changed,
One of the world’s leading experts on Hurricanes, Dr Chris Landsea from NOAA’s National Hurricane Centre was giving a talk after super storm Sandy. Roger Pielke conveyed part of a presentation Landsea gave after super-storm Sandy made landfall.
“Chris explained that he has no doubts that humans affect the climate system through the emission of greenhouse gases, and this influence may affect tropical cyclones. He then proceeded to review theory and data from recent peer-reviewed publications on the magnitude of such an influence. Chris argued that any such influence is expected to be small today, almost certainly undetectable, and that this view is not particularly controversial among tropical cyclone climatologists. He concluded that hurricanes should not be the “poster” representing a human influence on climate.
After his talk someone in the audience asked him what is wrong with making a connection between hurricanes and climate change if it gives the general public reason for concern about climate change. Chris responded that asserting such a connection can be easily shown to be incorrect and thus risks some of the trust that the public has in scientists to play things straight.”
I guess this point has been totally lost on the likes of John Cook and other climate activists. But it doesn’t appear to be tricking the public if this recent survey at ‘US News’ online is anything to go by:
Was Hurricane Sandy Caused by Global Warming?
A. 6.11% Yes
B. 93.89% No
http://www.usnews.com/polls/was-hurricane-sandy-caused-by-global-warming-/results.html
221
I am really glad you brought this one up Jo as its the most outrageous piece of alarmist bunk out there (at least for this week).
120
Yet it is still another example of how alarmist bunk is intensifying.
We can look forward to increasingly frequent and more extreme outbursts, as the desperation to maintain funding accelerates.
90
I suppose John Cook could be one of those people who doesn’t mind in what context he sees his name in print, as long as he sees it. Because you have to ask, could he possibly have given Neda Vanovac and Australia’s Climate Action Summit a more unsubstantiated list of wild climate claims?
He can’t have provided any scientific proof for the claims he made. Perhaps he flashed up a reference to a page on his blog site as he went through his talk and thought that would be sufficient for preaching to the gullible converted?
Another of his quotes which made me choke on my breakfast was “………. about 90 per cent of global warming was going into the oceans, which act like a natural thermometer..”
This statement of course means absolutely nothing. 90% of Zero is ZERO! There has been no statistically significant warming since 1998, a period of record global greenhouse emissions. This is not disputed by the world climate scientists or the IPCC, only by zealot activists.
Yes temperatures rose between 1970 and 1998, but they fell between 1940 and 1970 when human greenhouse gas emissions were increasing apace.
Yes scientists have been desperately seeking warming in the oceans, but they haven’t found it at the surface, they haven’t found it in the first 700m, but the desperate scientists have clung to a fractional warming apparently found by the deep diving Argo buoys below 700m. However in the excellent post here, it is clear the “measured warming is not only far less than the models predicted, it is far less even than the instrument error.”
131
Jaymez,
90% of the warming can’t be going into the oceans. I need to post on this, but John Cook’s Skeptical science view is that:=
1. Sea level rise has been rising at a fairly constant for the last 20 years at around 3.2mm per year.
2. Polar ice melt is accelerating. For Antarctica, for instance SKS quotes Velicogna 2009 as a source. Figure 2 shows in 2003 Antarctica gaining 400 GT of ice, but the quadratic downward trend meant a loss of 500 GT in 2009. Similarly for Greenland SKS quotes Velicogna 2009 as a source. Figure 1 shows in 2003 Antarctica gaining 600 GT of ice, but the quadratic downward trend meant a loss of 800 GT in 2009.
It takes about 360GT of water to raise the sea levels by 1mm. So according to John Cook, polar ice change raised sea levels by 2.8mm in 2003, but reduced them by 3.6mm in 2009. That is a switch from -85% to +110% if long-term sea level trend in just 7 years. So other factors changed from accounting from 185% to -10% over the same period. A major part of this is thermal expansion. So could it be that oceans have switched from warming to cooling? After all, such an important paper are Velicogna 2009 can’t be wrong.
60
Strange that calling skeptics names hasn’t been enough for Mr Cook that he now has to resort to calling numbers by names. Skeptics have been undiminished by being called “deniers”. Does he think conversely that ocean heat content will be miraculously inflated if he calls the units an ominous name?
Can we expect solar activity to issue an unconditional surrender any time soon?
All the same, our cute carbon tax Down Under isn’t doing much to reign in the Little Boy and the Fat Man of global CO2 emissions. The kid with the firecracker has to pay a fine while the atomic playboys run free.
Echoes of Strangelove; As the global warming scam now bombs, plenty of climate cowboys are riding it all the way down.
– – – – – –
(bzzzt!)
Juliett Oscar, this is Alpha Papa Two, the Apostrophe Patrol has detected two intruders. Radioing co-ordinates now.
[+] 1,950 Hiroshima’s worth of energy
[+] Who care’s how wrong?
Fire for effect, out.
70
So well put AP2.
I suppose in the Hiroshima’s case, they might arguably be considered as belonging to Hiroshima, as being ‘Hiroshima’s worth’, rather than just the plural of Hiroshima, but in the latter case , yes it seems an open and shut case of rampant autocorrect.
20
Alpha Papa Tree, copied your last. Suggesting that in the War On Error, appointing a defense barrister, a proper trial, and any pretense of Due Process are all very out of fashion these days, over.
30
Dear John, it’s not a case of “filtering down” — the public are ahead of you. They used to think there was a consensus, now they realize thousands of scientists disagree.
When have all scientists ever been surveyed?
284
quote “When have all scientists ever been surveyed?”.
John thinks he did this survey with his last paper. Kinda tells you something me thinks…
40
Not at all. He surveyed climate scientists. I’m talking about scientists. There’s a difference.
171
But, but … surely Climate Scientists are the most knowledgable about climate ( if not about science). What’s wrong with conflating Climate Scientists with scientists in general .
10
Exactly Joe.
Only climate scientists are ‘qualified’ to speak on the subject. So the other scientists (other than psychologists) are not climate scientits and so should shut up. They don’t get a say or a vote. They therefore don’t exist, QED.
00
Just a small correction to the otherwise nice H-e calculator:
case("kilowatthour"):
var J = 360000*X;
var He = J/Hiroshima_equivalent;
var msg = "kilowatt hours is";
break;
One Joule is 1W/s and one kWh is 1kW/hour, thus it should be:
3600 x 1000 = 3,600,000 and not 360,000
Anyway, very funny article. What was it in the school: You cannot compare apples and oranges, as the one is mobile phones and the other is eatable commodities – LOL
50
I knew it commonly as apples an’ pears , Orange being a Mobile Network operator & Apples a Mobile Device.
10
I know John Cook’s drivel really doesn’t deserve this much attention, but the fact he has been appointed a research fellow at a highly tax payer funded University really gets up my nose.
I wouldn’t expect anyone other than a non-scientist, activist to make a statement like:
“120 climate records were broken in Australia this January, including the hottest month and the hottest day.”
The fact that he can say it at Australia’s Climate Action Summit and have it dutifully reported in ‘The Australian’ by Neda Vanovac shows just how naive he is and how gullible some reporters can be.
If Vanovac was impressed enough to report that ‘factoid’, then this one should make the front page of ‘The Australian.’
“12,793 Snow and Cold records broken in less than 2 months”
I don’t even know if that claim is true, but the point is, it is completely irrelevant unless John Cook wants to produce a record of all climate records in Australia dating back at least say 10,000 years to give us any scientific relevance to that statistic he quoted! Records are broken somewhere every day! We are measuring in more places, we are measuring more things; hot, cold, wet, dry, the fact that records are broken is in fact a CONSTANT!
Jo Nova has of course blogged previously on the topic of scary high temperatures this year including:
Hottest summer record in Australia? Not so, says UAH satellite data
Mystery black-box method used to make *all new* Australian “hottest” ever records
Australia – was hot and is hot. So what? This is not an unusual heatwave
As if to make himself seem even more simple minded to those in the know, John Cook added the terrifying news for his accepting crowd that:
“New colours had to be added to temperature maps to denote highs of over 50 and 54 degrees celsius.”
He failed to mention that the added colours were uncalled for as reported by Jo Nova in her post:
How well did that 50 degree forecast work out for the BOM?
212
And the warmists never point out the record for the hottest day ever in the world, 134°f (56.6°c) was set in 1913.
1913
Hmmm. A century ago. Check the hockey stick, and you’d think that in the last century we’d been in a period of out of control straight up warming. It’s easy, though, for things like the urban heat effect and data manipulation to present a false picture of last century’s warming. The one thing they can’t change is the all time record high. This record should have been broken over and over again in the hockey stick scenario. But the 1913 stands.
92
Yes, thereby preventing somebody with a higher qualification from obtaining funding that could be put to better use researching something useful.
172
How many hydrogen bombs a second? The Hiroshima bomb was weak. But you can bet that their numbers are baloney. That all that CO2 is adding ZERO bombs of any sort.
Why zero bombs?
Start things off by noting the lack any EVIDENCE that CO2 does anything: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag
All the fear mongers have is a theoretical model to back their position on the greenhouse effect, yet other competing theoretical models are plausible. And one thing that shows no effect of CO2 is the near identical rates of temperature change seen over ~ two centuries. C3 covers this hear: http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/06/ipccs-gold-standard-hadcrut-confirms-co2s-impact-on-global-temps-statistically-immaterial-insignific.html
Simply put, and it’s so simple that you almost think you shouldn’t even repeat it, in recent times, with much higher CO2, the rate of temperature change is the same as before. And this is over a huge number of years. If CO2 had had any effect we have seen some change, just at least a little change in the slope, if CO2 had some effect.. in periods of temperature increase we would have seen some degree of an accelerated rate, and in temperature declines we would have seen a lesser rate of decline. But nothing of the sort shows up in the evidence. CO2 appears to be doing zero, nil. Am I missing something?
110
Simply put, and it’s so simple that you almost think you shouldn’t even have to repeat it, if you want to see the average rate of change over an interval you have to fit a LINEAR trend to that interval. The trend over the later interval is noticeably larger than over the first one, between 40% and 55% faster (~0.65°:~0.45°). That’s what you were missing.
Quote:
> That all that CO2 is adding ZERO bombs of any sort. …
> CO2 appears to be doing zero, nil.
Nearly zero doesn’t mean none. The most you can say is that CO2 is weak.
Details on Why We Cannot Yet Conclude CO2 Is “ZERO bombs”
The C3 graph is not just seeking to establish a rate of change, it’s seeking to explain the data as having a “statistically insignificant” CO2 component.
To decompose a signal into an explanatory model requires basis functions that have real processes behind them. As John Brignell says “The trend is a property of the data points we have and not of the original process from which they came.” A linear trend is okay if there is a genuinely linear physical source behind it.
Some types of basis functions with an underlying reality that could be defensibly fitted to the temperature graph are linear, sinsusoidal, and logarithmic;
+ An assumed linear influence of LIA recovery.
+ A linear influence resulting from a (hypothesised) logarithmic function of an (so far) exponentially increasing [CO2].
+ A nearly sinsusoidal function of solar activity.
+ A nearly sinusoidal 64-year oceanic oscillation.
See Dan Pangburn’s model as an example, which includes a 4th order function again for a real thermodynamic reason (not just to fit a curve). His solution shows it is not possible to say on the basis of available data whether CO2 has zero influence or a small influence – we don’t know.
Quote:
> If CO2 had had any effect we have seen some change, just at least a little change in the slope
Indeed we did see a little change in the slope. However attributing this entirely to CO2 runs the risk of conflating correlation with causation if other factors are not accurately quantified (see next point).
That’s without even getting into the question of whether the trend is robust to endpoint selection, but C3 chose the endpoints not me.
Quote:
> one thing that shows no effect of CO2 is the near identical rates of temperature change seen over ~ two centuries.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – for a given evidential standard. Indisputably the influence of CO2 has been exaggerated in IPCC models, the purportedly strong CO2 signal should have appeared above the noise in the evidence we do have. Atmospheric physics has advanced sufficiently where political action on mitigating warming should be cancelled.
The graph’s title is correct: CO2 has no significant effect, but that does not mean it has been measured as zero.
What is disputed now is whether a rise of CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm has a net influence on temperature of exactly zero versus some other unknown slightly positive number.
Rounded off, 120 years isn’t two centuries, indeed a major problem with climate science is the willingness to present conclusions as ironclad in spite of (according to Lindzen) a paucity of accurate input data. If ONLY we had 2 centuries of accurate data! We have to be careful about the limits of what can be known.
Again “near identical” doesn’t mean “identical”. The argument really is down to shades of grey now. Our inability to judge visually from that graph any difference in the two quadratic trends is not the same as showing them to actually be identical.
Conclusion
A quadratic fit does not show the average rate of change, does not match the hypothesised CO2 influence, and has no physical reality of any kind behind it, so it was probably chosen to obfuscate the difference in temperature rates instead of making the truth obvious: The 2nd trend is ~45% steeper. There is a name for this practice, it’s called Chartmanship. It’s a way of misleading without lying.
20
Thanks Andrew for your detailed reply.
As you imply, despite conceivably a slightly steeper slope in the later years, you can’t discern out of that any effect of CO2. I’m thinking the difference is so meager that it’s basically a function of noise or, as you say, “chartmanship” (chartsmenship?). So perhaps “nearly identical” is pragmatically or functionally correct. When the warmists contended that there was a hockey stick type change all of sudden from flat to straight up, this essentially incidental difference is about equivalent to nothing. Either way it doesn’t fit the theory of CO2 having a major effect on climate.
10
It’s not just “conceivably” steeper in the later years, it’s a fact the slope is +40% steeper in the later years. That’s not imagination or an opinion, it’s math. Measure it and you will get the same result. But whether HADCRUT4 is a fact of history is a different problem – UHI and all that.
Totally agreed on the rest.
As they say, it’s all academic now.
00
[…] Jo Nova also has a essay on the subject here: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/climate-scientists-move-to-atom-bomb-number-system-give-up-on-expon… Rate this:Share this:Google +1TwitterFacebookStumbleUponRedditDiggEmailLike this:Like Loading… […]
20
I cant fgure out…is this a piss-take or was that guff actually said? The world inhabited by these cretins is either beyond parody or at the point of indeterminate ambiguity.
One thing though, the Hiroshima bomb was not an “H” bomb (fission-fusion) but an “A” bomb (fission)….the “H” in “H Bomb” doesnt stand for Hiroshima but Hydrogen. Theres at least an order of magnitude difference plus the H-bomb is a lot cleaner. Though that didnt stop NATO planning with ernest intent (if push came to shove) detonating not a few “A” bombs over invading Rooskies but many thousands of them across Europe from North to South, ON FRIENDLY TERRITORY, within a few days.
One nuke here or there aint squat in the scale of creation. Indeed, the RAF and USAF killed far more people with conventional incendiary bombs.
————————-
Ace: Thanks. Not being up on my bombs, I wondered… I will fix that. — Jo
60
Ace,
The words were definitely published.
From that, I can deduce that they were written by the journalist. Giving the journalist the benefit of the doubt, they were either direct quotations from John Cook, or the essence of the conversation that the journalist had with John Cook. It was probably a combination of the two, but the relative proportions will remain a matter for conjecture.
But certainly the concept of the “habe” (note lower case, since the unit of measurement is not named after a person) was not introduced by John Cook. Such an event requires a modicum of creative thought.
But the propaganda value of the habe is certainly being exploited by Mr Cook in this interview, although with his characteristic trademark ineptness.
70
The global warming alarmists are truly counting on stupidity and propaganda to carry the day. Referring to atom bombs, while catchy, it pales when compared to the power of the sun. If all of man’s energy hitting earth were represented by a golf ball, how big would the ball be representing the sun’s energy hitting only earth? The answer is 120,000+ times the size of the sun. And they are trying to sell us that a trace gas which makes up less than 12/100ths of one percent of all greenhouse gases is driving our climate. Anyone have a used car they need to sell to an alarmist?
61
Aw, come on folks! Give poor self-deluded Cook a break. eh?! It could be that he’s merely following in the footsteps and noble tradition of IPCC-nik Andrew Weaver.
In 2007, Weaver, one of Canada’s dedicated climate modellers (whose recent
histrionic“historic” election to the BC provincial legislature sent our national broadcaster, the CBC, into raptures), had put on his very best alarmingly green advocacy colours to “conservatively” declare that AR 4 would reveal climate change to be “a barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles“.Weaver’s wobbly “conservative” claims
90
Ace #11, I was just about to say the same thing. Cook aptly went for a hydrogen fission bomb (uranium) named ‘Little Boy’. The second fission bomb (plutonium) destined for Nagasaki was named ‘Fat Man’.
So Cook is describing CAGW in terms of ‘Little Boys’?
60
[snip, c’mon…]
30
…and the rationale to harness him to pedal generator, for his own good of course, to alleviate the suffering of the power impoverished.
10
[SNIP. Not here. We aim higher. -Jo]
20
[SNIP NO MORE! – Jo]
30
Jo I dont mean to pee you off, you do great work. But Marquess of Queensbury rules are not applicable when contending with those who are note worthy of them. In the absence of overwhelming force nice guys lose, usually.In this “debate” the cornered animals (best word) are going to play increasingly nasty. Unless we are willing to reciprocate on their level, they will continue to rhetorically prevail.
If something is a Biblical sin, then I think its legitimate to point out when someone is culpable of it.
00
This is not about being nice. It’s about being smart.
They toss stupid names because they don’t have good arguments. We don’t need the personal irrelevant insults because we can make points that matter.
If we adopt their techniques we won’t beat them, we’ll join them in the gutter.
10
You are bandying metaphors, I am giving practical advice. They are still winning. They will continue to do so. Is this “debate” about the millions suffering or maintaining a polite self-image. This is my problem with people on “sceptics” sites, its conducted like a tea party. Well, I come from the gutter. I dont give a monkeys about politeness. I do care about being screwed by thoroughly nasty characters who need to be undermined You need to learn to undermine people by going for their weakness.
There is no “conversation”. You are just talking among yourselves. Nothing in practice is changing. All I see is sceptics reporting other sceptics cockahoop about what other sceptics have said, whilst the [snip crass] piss all over you.
00
Don’t despair Ace. There will always be slimeballs and always be those who are taken in by them.
That’s no reason to behave like them. They’ll continue to project their behaviour and hope they can provoke a similar reaction, but people see what they see & the fruit of movements like the Convoy of No Confidence will be borne in September.
00
Solar PV farms installed in desert locations apparently have a horrifying Hiroshima footprint as well.
A PV panel with double AR coating absorbs 97% of incident solar radiation. Desert sand absorbs on average 65%. About 15% of the panel’s absorbed power is converted to electricity, leaving about 83% to heat the panel. Solar panels increase the 24-hour-averaged surface forcing imbalance by 1000 W/m^2*6/24 hours*(0.83-0.65) = 45 W/m^2. Over a year (about pi*10^7 seconds), this adds up to 1.4 GJ/m^2/year, or using the conversion factor of 4.18 GJ/ton TNT, about 0.33 tons TNT/year/m^2.
The Blythe, CA solar PV project (currently scheduled for construction after being passed about like a hot potato) will be 485MW. Using 140 W/m^2 panels, the total panel area is 485,000,000/140 = 3,460,000 m^2. The total equivalent TNT load is 1.14 million tons, or 76 Hiroshima bombs per year. That is a lot of above-ground testing!
Nellis Air Force base has an Obama-blessed 14MW solar PV plant. Using 140 W/m^2 panels, the total area is 100,000 m^2, an equivalent TNT load of 33,000 tons per year, or about 2 Hiroshima bombs per year.
Fortunately, these are in relatively low population areas, so the human impacts should be minimal.
It is remarkable that a flimsy solar panel can withstand a close-proximity detonation of almost 1 ton of TNT every year…
I shudder to calculate the Hiroshimas per year in densely populated regions contributed by rooftop solar.
Perhaps it would be wise to ban the use of solar arrays on buildings that have been designated as fallout shelters…
60
Ask Denmark about their Mountain of broken turbines which can not be recycled,that’s a footprint for you.<:)
60
They have about ten thousand of them stacked up in vast fields in California.
20
[snip c’mon…]
Always escalating the rhetoric to get more attention will finally wear out and then what will they do?
Does anyone feel any extra heat just because these jokers say,
Does anyone feel any extra heat? Do You? Do I? Does your neighbor?
No!
This crap is kindergarten stuff. It deserves to be scorned and ridiculed. It’s the dying last gasp of fools. 🙁
112
I make one attempt at humor and I get clobbered for it? I doubt that anyone would take that seriously. But you’re the boss. 🙂
00
Sorry, some lines are ammunition for people who take things out of context and have no sense of humour.
00
In all seriousness, the underlying need for this (new?) approach from the Alarmists, has been brought about by a belief that the average person in the street cannot get their head around very large or very small numbers.
It is felt that the average person will need something to compare large (or small) numbers against.
So what was needed, was a surrogate that was not just big, but was very, very big. It had to be extremely big. And frightening.
So why not use an Atom bomb? They are frightening, and the destruction caused by each bomb was certainly devastating.
A peripheral benefit from such an approach would, in propaganda terms, transfer that image of devastation onto the concept of climate change. What a brilliant idea? Not!
People who don’t “get” large numbers, still can’t “get” the true impact of an atomic explosion. It is outside their field of experience, and it happened before their parents were even born, so it is ancient history, and it happened somewhere else, and where the people are different in culture and language, and so unintelligible.
John Cook has fallen foul of projection. Like most alarmists, he probably shares his fear of nuclear energy in equal measure with his fear of nature, and naturally occurring weather events (whether extreme, or not). Because he feels the need to hide under the metaphorical bedclothes, he assumes that the rest of the population feels the same way, and will react to the same stimuli.
But he is wrong. Most of this target audience will be like, “meah, whateva”. And most of the people, who will become concerned about the imagery, will be rusted on, vapourous, hand flutterers anyway.
80
RW,
Mr. Cook will fail at this because few are still alive with any way to understand the meaning of 4 Hiroshima bombs every second. That explosion is something I can’t put in perspective with anything else. And I’ve read extensively about it, seen the pictures of the devastation, even the outline of someone burned into the concrete. How can anyone who was not there at the time understand it’s magnitude? It’s totally outside the reality of all but a very few of all humans alive. And the result of all that heat is not visible to anyone, nor is it visible even to the prying eyes of satellites and Argo Buoys.
Cook is simply gasping for air as I said.
If anyone tells you the 4 bombs/second scares them, ask them why they don’t feel the heat.
40
Go back a few threads and Orion spaceships were mentioned. project Orion was the US project to build space boosters powered by nuclear explosions. That puts a sense of scale on it: a small Orion booster would let off 200 propulsion units bigger than a Hiroshima bomb every minute in each ten to twenty minute ascent to orbit.
People think small these days.
30
Depends on the size of the ship. The propulsion units may be quite small, equivalent to a few tens to hundreds of tons of TNT. They are also directed (I never knew you could make a directed energy nuke). See George Dyson’s book on Orion. George is Freeman’s son.
As you make the units smaller they get less efficient as you are designing them to blow apart well before as much fission as possible has occurred.
Ted Taylor had some ideas about that using very thin shell plutonium implosion devices but apparently was worried that this would enable mini nukes with very low critical mass.
10
Dagnabbit Mike dont go spoilin good rhetoric with watering down …if you like go the other way and say “you kiddin, for a million tonne payload theyd be spitting 100 megatonners three a second…” Dont forget, Dyson calculated what could be done using one years GDP of the USA…I cannot remember how big the payload was, it was too vast to fit inside my memory. (Actually, thats literally true, harking back to Rarekes comment earlier, some figures are just so vast you cannot retain a sense of how many zeroes they should have on the end when you try to recall). Something like all of Manhatten Island into low Earth orbit.
I was also flabbergasted by the sophistication of nuclear technology recounted in that book. Not just directed blasts, but throttled, pulsed, somersaulted, singing and dancing nuclear pyrotechnics. And blast resistent structures (Lews balls), underground blast containment vessels (graphite lined), all manner of weird shit. They were virtually wizards. And they figured out these things within a few years of the first bomb. And the first bomb took just five years to make. This was all the best part of a century ago. Yet the Iranians, using all the resources of Western university training, purloined Western designs and the height of German engineering, still cannot finish a fecking bomb, even with Russian technicians building their facilities, after forty years (yes, lets admit it, they started under the Shah).
30
I just recently learned there was a competing design team who intended to contain nuclear blasts inside huge spheres with gigantic nozzles, like humungous rocket engines. Easy to find on the web. The designs looked really preposterous. Probably simpler than Orion though. None of that pusher plate and spitting bomblets mechanicals.
00
Well I aint never witnessed no thermonuclear explosion, and I guess Im not likely too now thanks to all they feckin killjoys. Feckin political correctness gone mad!
20
All true, but theres more. Just like “denier” the Hiroshima word is meant to subliminally suggest an association with nasty people…they there nasty Americans who bombed the poor innocent legions of the Rising Sun. We who reject the Eco agenda are all evil holocaust mongering nuke throwers.
Unfortunately Rareke the target audience dont need any concept of scale, they can simply be relied upon to think anything remotely “atomic” is bad. Its just a bad word, whatever it refers to. Like “racist”.
Even now, we can assume the Green wankers are striving to figure out a one-word way of connecting their critics with skin-colour-stereotyping.
50
“he probably shares his fear of nuclear energy in equal measure with his fear of nature, and naturally occurring weather events…”
I’ve recently watched a series of YouTubes of the tsunamies that hit Japan 2011. Nature can destroy a town of houses, shops and industrial buildings within 2 minutes using nothing but 2m of water. Quite incredible.
That sort of thing makes Catastrophic Climate Change pale in comparison. I do think people are far smarter than these “scientists” give them credit. Which is a shame for a scientist to be so far out of touch with his audience, doh!
30
What about mega yoda?
http://what-if.xkcd.com/3/
00
This brings back memories of the Daily Bayonet 🙂
Always good for a laugh.
20
Once again: words used for their emotional impact, context dropped to misdirect and misinform the reader, and statements that are without conceptual content to further confuse the communication. It is rather like I once called a constant information message. No matter how long the message, the actual content is the same. It is full of sound a fury without transferring any meaningful information.
91
Hi Lionell, Yes – Propaganda – intended to deceive.
30
Poor old John “choking his chook” again and in public too,Please John if you must,show some manners and do it in private. <:)
21
What is missing from the global warming debate is the little known fact that many solar panels are defective, and are, in fact, converting electricity into sunlight. This is the cause of global warming. The renewables industry is aware of this, and has quietly promoted the installation of wind farms. These convert electricity into wind, to cool the planet and counter the global warming caused by defective solar panels.
An unfortunate side effect of the extra wind is that it has resulted in more extreme weather events. I don’t understand why more people can’t see this.
And that’s why we need a carbon tax.
—
😀 – Jo
101
Actually, truth is about as daft, tidal generators like the giant at St Malo in fact slow the Earths rotation.
40
I heard that one. Surely it must only be imperceptibly, due to the trapped body of water remaining raised for longer than normal (& not unlike hydro dams retaining water much higher up in the mountains).
Water flows North-South through the Rance Barrage, so velocity effects of the water should have insignificant effect on rotation.
The nearby town of St Malo is worth a visit though, an entirely walled city in the medieval style , it presents a curious and forbidding impression esp. when approached from seaward .
10
Apparently it is friction in the tidal caused movement of water that is causing the Moon to get 1.5 inches farther away every year, and a day will become 1.7 seconds longer over the next 100,000 years.
Lunar Recession
This is happening anyway, and the additional friction of a few tidal power plants makes little difference.
10
Sure, but the point is that in the world of physical laws theres no such thing as a free lunch. Theres no such thing as “renewable energy”, its an oxymoron. Everything is a shift of energy from one system to another.
BTW “… it presents a curious and forbidding impression esp…” I think thats The French!
00
…plus entropy, everything succumbs to entropy, eventually.
00
Let John Cook run amok farting his atom bomb sized outbursts of nonsense as much as he likes, it is like watching a fly that has pulled one of its own wings off trying to take off.
On another front entirely our indigenous community is turning on the self serving slime that have dined out on their misery for decades. NT Chief Minister, Adam Giles has told the “leftie, welfare-oriented people who rely on the misery and the poverty to sustain their own personal economy” to “Get out of the way. Piss off.”.
Watch the destruction of two of the great guilt generators deployed by the cowardly, loathsome left, aboriginal affairs and the environment, unfold over the next few years.
You heard it here first folks!
40
Hiroshima Hiroshima Hiroshima! Jan Brady knows what Nagasaki must be feeling like.
30
Next they will be singing 9999 glaciers sitting on a wall.
30
The risk based climate polemic requires prima facie a lingua franca that conveys horrifying and catastrophic scenarios. These have already been manufactured ad nauseam. God knows that Hollywood provides enough end-times imagery to last us to eternity.
Imagery has been incorporated into the routine ‘weather’ by the use of words like ‘weather bomb’. So now Cook throws in a ‘nuke’. Big deal. The crania of the long suffering public was long since mashed into a soup of habituation.
Cook et al. are tearing their nails out as they slide off the precipice of the rational into the chasm of the desperate.
50
A while ago the ABC used to use mass units of “African elephants” in their news bulletins. I had to look up what one massed. I wonder if they keep an International Standard African Elephant in a vault in Paris?
40
Makes ‘raining cats and dogs’ seem quite tame doesn’t it?
10
some numbers for Cook & Co to contemplate! note all the secrecy:
28 May: NYT: Todd Woody: Solar Industry Anxious Over Defective Panels
The solar panels covering a vast warehouse roof in the sun-soaked Inland Empire region east of Los Angeles were only two years into their expected 25-year life span when they began to fail.
Coatings that protect the panels disintegrated while other defects caused two fires that took the system offline for two years, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenues.
It was not an isolated incident. Worldwide, testing labs, developers, financiers and insurers are reporting similar problems and say the $77 billion solar industry is facing a quality crisis just as solar panels are on the verge of widespread adoption…
The solar developer Dissigno has had significant solar panel failures at several of its projects, according to Dave Williams, chief executive of the San Francisco-based company.
“I don’t want to be alarmist, but I think quality poses a long-term threat,” he said. “The quality across the board is harder to put your finger on now as materials in modules are changing every day and manufacturers are reluctant to share that information.”…
In one case, an entire batch of modules from one brand-name manufacturer listed on the New York Stock Exchange proved defective, Mr. Lemoine said. He declined to identify the manufacturer, citing confidentiality agreements…
“If the materials aren’t good or haven’t been thoroughly tested, they won’t stick together and the solar module will eventually fall apart in the field,” he (Ian Gregory, SolarBuyer senior marketing director) said.
That’s what happened in 2011 at a year-old Australian solar plant, Mr. Meydbray of PV Evolution said. Testing confirmed that substandard materials were causing the Chinese-made modules’ protective coating to degrade, he said. The power plant operator declined to be identified…
All solar panels degrade and gradually generate less electricity over time. But a review of 30,000 installations in Europe by the German solar monitoring firm Meteocontrol found 80 percent were underperforming. Testing of six manufacturers’ solar panels at two Spanish power plants by Enertis Solar in 2010 found defect rates as high as 34.5 percent…
First Solar, one of the United States’ biggest manufacturers, has set aside $271.2 million to cover the costs of replacing defective modules it made in 2008 and 2009…
Mr. Wenham, the Suntech executive, said manufacturers needed to be held accountable and advocated creating testing labs not beholden to the industry that would assess quality.
“We need to start naming names,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/business/energy-environment/solar-powers-dark-side.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
about 2 weeks ago, neighbours told me they saw a report on tv news the night before about an aluminium (pipe?)factory fire at yatala on the gold coast, which was said to have been caused by defective solar panels. to this day, i have been unnable to find any mention of it on TV news websites they watch, or anywhere else online. are such events (no doubt covered by insurance) more widespread than reported?
28 May: CBS: Expert Stresses Solar Panel Safety After Webster Blaze
Earlier this month, a solar panel on the roof of Webster Groves High School caused a two alarm fire. Caleb Arthur, owner of Missouri Sun Solar, says solar panel fires are rare but can happen because they generate energy…
Arthur says the fire was likely caused by a faulty wire in the junction box that houses the wires.
“You have a wire, then you have a plastic that covers that wire. It’s like a hard rubberized plastic,” Arthur says. “If anything was ever to cut into that or touch it, it can actually short out just like if you have ever seen a wire hit something and sparks go flying, that’s mostly what can happen with a solar panel.”…
Solar panel fires can also cause a high risk of electrocution for firefighters working with the panels.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/05/28/expert-stresses-solar-panel-safety-after-webster-blaze/
30
21 June: Courier Mail: Josh Alston: Lights go out for Lewis family with impending elecricty price hikes
Because with five children in the house, electricity price hikes of around 21 per cent to come in from July 21 are set to really hurt the family’s bottom line.
The price hikes are a bitter pill for Mrs Lewis to swallow after the family shelled out more than $4000 to have eight solar panels installed in a bid to escape exorbitant electricity bills.
Those panels have had little effect, with the family’s average bill sitting at around $800 a quarter.
From July 1 those bills could blow out to close to $1000 a quarter.
“How are we going to afford to pay for it,” Mrs Lewis said.
“You do all the right things, you get solar panels … it’s definitely not fair…
http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/lights-go-out-for-lewis-family-with-impending-elecricty-price-hikes/story-fni9r0hy-1226667030471
30
I know this is off topic, but every time I see something like this, it’s well worth the explanation.
This specific example highlights the futility of fitting rooftop solar panels.
Here, in this situation, we can equate the telephone urgers selling these rooftop systems with used car salesmen.
Notice how Mrs. Lewis mentions that here average quarterly electricity bill comes in at $800.
That equates to a daily electricity consumption of around 35KWH. This is just the power consumed FROM the grid, on top of what the panels are generating, which comes in at around 8KWH per day, so a total power consumption of around 43KWH per day, which for a large, and, from the image, a young family, would be close to the average for that size family, and having a large and young family, it would be quite feasible to say that Mrs Lewis is a stay at home Mum.
Now, they have believed the hype they were told that by installing a rooftop system would slash their power bills, so, being a large family, with probably only the one income, they shelled out probably more than they could actually afford for what amounts to a small system, only 8 Panels with a Nameplate Capacity of around 2KW, and a system of this nature will generate around 8KWH on average per day.
Mrs Lewis average consumption is that 43KWH.
As I have said at length, having a rooftop system still sees you as a nett consumer of electricity FROM the grid, as most consumption is after hours, and that split comes in at one third during the day, and two thirds in the evening peak from 4.30PM until 10PM.
That being the case, Mrs Lewis consumption during daylight hours is one third of that 43KWH or around 14KWH.
See the discrepancy now.
The panels only generate 8KWH during daylight hours.
So, in effect, there is NOTHING that is being fed back to the grid for the sake of that 44 cents per KWH FIT, as the residence itself is consuming all the power being generated by the panels.
Admitted, she does have a minor saving as that is 8KWH she is using that the panels have generated, and not using that same 8KWH FROM the grid, so her minor saving comes in at around $160 or so per quarter, so she would notice very little difference in her Bill at all.
It would take major lifestyle changes in a family like this to make what would still only amount to minor reductions in their power bills.
This is a classic case of not understanding what you are getting into in the first place.
So, instead of getting the 44 cents per KWH FIT, thus an effective reduction in their bill, all they are getting is the minor reduction for the power they are not consuming from the grid.
Mrs Lewis, having a young and large family could be doing as many as a couple of loads of washing a day, would probably have a large fridge in constant use, hence the compressor running more often, and children consuming electricity after school, and before the Sun sets, and all of this is the power being generated by the panels, and therefore, not being fed back to the grid, and probably cooking large dinners early as well.
This is a classic case of the salesman doing everything to sell the panels, and not giving Mr and Mrs Lewis the correct and pertinent information.
This is not the fault of Mrs Lewis at all. It’s the charlatan who sold their family that piddling little system, with sureties that their bill would come down.
Tony.
121
.
I have sad news for the Lewis family. The “21 percent rise” they have been told to expect, is a figure plucked from thin air by the media. We got a letter a few days ago from our electricity provider (AGL). From July 1 our “normal rate” will go from 23 cents per KWH, to 32 cents per KWH.
That’s a 39 percent increase.
That means the Lewis family quarterly bill will go from $800.00 to over $1100.00, a rise of over a hundred dollars a month.
It also means their power bill will go up over $24.50 a week, which sort of makes a mockery of the $10.10 “compensation” they got via the tax cuts.
60
.
WTF – I’m with ORIGIN, hope I don’t get that increase?
It would almost be cheaper to buy a diesel generator at those rates – 32 cents per bloody kWh.
Letter off to the local new LNP candidate or it’s THEMM.
00
MV. Wow. 32c?
I wonder what rates others are paying?
00
I went out to Rai Gaita’s Melbourne Law School last week, to hear Clive Hamilton opine about the ‘Anthropocene’ epoch/period/era. Apparently we’re not looking good…
At question time, I commented to the effect that I had been following the AGW issue for years & had read or listened to various people – including Clive, himself, David Karoly, Will Steffen & James Lovelock, at one end of the spectrum, & Richard Lindzen, Rob Carter & Ian Plimer, at the other end. I said my main issue now, was that while all the various climate model predictions showed varying degrees of inexorable increase in global temperatures, the actual measurements were trailing off below the lowest model predictions, a fact even acknowledged recently in Australia by Raj Pachauri. I asked Clive to comment on that ‘pause’ & went on to note that after his previous ‘recommendation’, I had gone along to see the MTC production of ‘The Heretic’ & had come away no more dysfunctional & damaged than before I went, so maybe it wasn’t as bad as he said.
Clive noted my comment that I ‘had been following the issue’ & asked if I had read reports indicating that the current temperature plateau was at a higher level than it had formerly been – I agreed that I had seen those reports. He then acknowledged that he isn’t a climate scientist but can only reproduce, in his amateur way, what they’ve been saying – that there HAS been warming over the last 15 years, although an increased proportion of the warming has been absorbed by the oceans & when you take account of the oceans & the atmosphere, warming has continued. It’s also true that if you look at the earth’s temperature record over the last hundred or so years, you see this repeated process of quite rapid increases in warming & then plateaus & then quite rapid increases in warming. When people like Lindzen say, you know, that the world isn’t warming, essentially what they’re doing is looking at ‘these bits’ (indicating the plateaus) on the graph & ignoring ‘these bits’ (indicating the rapid increases) on the graph. So there aren’t two ends of the spectrum – there’s science, which gets done by people with professional qualifications, checked & reviewed & published – if it’s good enough – in the scientific journal – and there are people like Lindzen, who can’t do that. So, in these situations, you take seriously those people who have authority to speak on this, and there are established ways in which people apply for authority to speak and those like Lindzen don’t have it.
So there, Richard…
I went home & thought about this & decided to forward the above description to Richard Lindzen, at MIT, of all places, for his comment. He was unimpressed but conceded there was little he could do about it. Anyway, I understand he’ll be in Brisbane shortly to address a meeting of the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society. Does anyone know if Clive Hamilton or Tim Flannery have an invite?
30
Bill,
the earth has been warming for approx. 3 centuries since the Little Ice Age ended. It ended around 1685 or 1709 depending on your source.
The warming was cyclic, with cool periods in between. Thus the 1720’s and 1730’s were warmer, indeed 7 out of the 10 warmest summers recorded in England occurred in the 1730’s. The glaciers retreated in Europe; Whicker noted that the Mont Blanc glacier in 1745 had retreated “about 2 musket shots”. I am not sure how much that is, but cannot be less than 200 metres.
Things cooled then warmed again in the 1770’s until 1783 when Laki erupted for months in Iceland. Benjamin Franklin noted the cooling at the time. That eruption has been called the biggest in modern times, eclipsing Tambora in 1815/16 (1816 – the year without summer), and the cooling was prolonged and increased by the sun in the Dalton Minimum. There were several large eruptions later, but the glaciers in southern Europe never advanced further than they had in 1685, and sometimes not even that far, and were seen to be retreating from 1850 and the retreat was quite large by 1869. This retreat is one reason why the IPCCites claim the Little Ice Age only ended in 1850.
The glaciers started advancing again in the 1880′ and 90’s leading to claims of a new ice age coming. There was strong warming in the 1920’s and 30’s which various people are trying to ‘adjust’ out of the record. Cooling set in from the 1940’s and was bad in the 60’s and early 70’s; again the amount is now being ‘adjusted’ to reduce the cooling. There was supposedly rapid warming from 1979 (Europe had warm summers 75 &76) until 1995 and the large 1998 el nino effect, but the satellite records don’t agree that there was that much, and lately are showing a retreat to around 1979 temperatures, in line with what happened previously. All this leads some sceptics to think that there are cyclic effects in action.
As for the claim that the last 15 years have been warmer that ever recorded, this is nonsense.
Firstly, there is some doubt as to how accurate those temperature records are.
Secondly, the world has been warming, so it must be warmer that in 1700. Think of a child growing and having his height marked off on a chart. His growth rate may vary, but he will always be the same or taller that previous records.
Thirdly, there have been previous periods when the earth was warmer than before, which were followed by cooling, so saying it is warm doesn’t mean it isn’t going to get warmer.
The problem is that they are fixated on CO2 causes warming, CO2 is going up, therefore the temperature MUST be going up. That they have only been able to claim by two hundredths of a degree (well below the accuracy of measurement) doesn’t mean anything except they are desperate. With the sun going quiet there is every likely hood that there will be cooling until 2030 and perhaps much longer. By then the CO2 controls temperature theory will be doing norwegian blue parrot imitations.
40
Bill
It’s easy in hindsight, but it seems that Clive was saying that only “climate scientists” (and people who agree with them) have a valid opinion to express.
Bulltish.
If the so-called “Non-scientists” like Lindzen say something that is incorrect, then let the climate guru’s correct him – if they are, in fact, guru’s.
If Lindzen is right, then the guru’s need to either change their theory or stop calling themselves scientists. The corruption of climate science and climate science literature is evident in such thing as the Climategate papers.
Perhaps some good questions for Clive:
Where is this “missing heat” that he talks about?
Why can’t he measure it with (say) a thermometer?
Could the “missing heat” have left the building? (e.g. Radiated to outer space?)
If CO2 is a climate driver, why does temperature rise seem to stop, as it has in the last 15+ years?
Surely temperature rise is going to be proportional to economic activity – the CO2 emissions around the dawn of the industrial era would have been negligible?
Why did the mini ice age of the 1700’s occur?
Does this imply that there are significant forces besides CO2 at play?
Why do “climate scientists” try to predict our future climate when they cannot explain the past?
If Clive cannot answer these questions, then why does he get on his hind legs to jawbone about something he doesn’t understand?
Is he nothing more than a propagandist for psuedo-science?
I know a little bit about science and politics, and Clive isn’t talking science.
Cheers,
Speedy
20
Hi Bill,
That’s a good yarn, it’s not often this CAGW debate condenses into real 3D meatspace venues.
I’d echo what Graeme#3 said.
If I ignore the ad hominem parts of Clive’s responses there’s not much left, aside from…
Surely this is unknowable. There was no decent Ocean Heat Content monitoring system until after 2003. If it was “good enough for government work” NASA would not have bothered to build ARGO. The XBTs were very spotty in their deployment.
Sure, we should not focus on the plateaus to the exclusion of all else – the whole graph is significant, the theory must explain the whole record. But warmists want to concentrate on only sections of it that are not inconsistent with their CAGW hypothesis.
Let’s forget for a moment their attempts to get rid of the MWP.
Even in modern times they want to invoke “natural variation” to explain the current plateau but they want natural variation to suddenly switch on in 2001, right on cue, as though natural variation was playing only a minor role in the warming that preceded it. Well no, natural variation can’t just switch on and take over, especially when the formidable power of CO2 was only growing that whole time. Therefore natural variation must have been the main driver the whole time.
Pangburn‘s model confirms 90% of warming can be explained with a CO2 influence of either zero or next to nothing. It predicts 2 decades of cooling starting now.
Scafetta’s cyclic model hindcast 1850 to 1950 temperatures using only weather data from 1950 to 2010, implying that CO2 played almost no role in modern warming. His planetary orbital model also predicts cooling from 2020 to 2045.
Two different empirical top-down techniques arriving at similar conclusions.
As for Clive’s ad-homs, well let’s face facts.
Lindzen published his Ph.D thesis on “Radiative and photochemical processes in strato- and mesospheric dynamics” the year that Clive Hamilton turned twelve and Karoly was ten.
The biased hostility of the top journals and funding bodies in more recent years has been well documented by Spencer and Brasswell (2010), and Robert Pielke Snr (multiple years). In spite of this Lindzen has had 10 climate papers published in serious journals in the last 6 years.
Who made fools of the IPCC modellers by comparing their radiative responses to real CERES data? Lindzen and Choi 2011. Not a bad note to retire on really.
10
15 years to break even! will salt air, & other deterioration, will the panels be performing by then?
28 May: Mackay Daily Mercury: Dominic Geiger: ‘Green’ living reduces household costs
Five years ago, the total cost of solar panel installation was just over $22,000, of which about $10,000 was subsidised.
Even after receiving 44 cents per kilowatt of energy they put back into the grid, Mrs Lane said it would probably take another 10 years to recoup the initial cost…
A SOLAR power system might be saving money for those who have one, but the Queensland Competition Authority says it is costing everyone else.
In a report released earlier this year, the QCA said the 44 cent per kilowatt homeowners with solar panels received as part of the Solar Bonus Scheme was “expected to add around $67 to the average customer’s annual electricity bill in 2013-14”.
This figure was expected to increase to $276 in 2015-16…
http://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/lanes-happy-to-be-green/1883711/
40
meanwhile:
24 June: Reuters: Barbara Lewis: Germany works to weaken EU car emissions law
Germany has put forward a new proposal to weaken EU draft rules on vehicle emission limits for carbon dioxide as it struggles to persuade other nations to help it protect its powerful car industry, EU sources said.
Talks on a legal text are in their final stages, but German efforts to ensure its luxury car makers, such as BMW and Daimler , can continue to produce more polluting, less fuel efficient cars, have complicated the debate.
Last week, Germany had to abandon another proposal it had made because it did not get enough support, the sources said.
“The latest German proposals are causing problems and really came very late. I’m not sure if we can get a deal,” one EU diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity…
But making less-polluting cars is costly and restricts profit margins, which is why major German manufacturers want to delay the stricter rules.
The previous German plan, which member states rejected in a meeting last week, would have allowed carmakers to carry over credits to pollute accrued before the new rules kick in.
Known as supercredits, these permits are earned if manufacturers produce some very low emissions vehicles, such as electric cars, which German firms are making to meet a separate national target…
BANKING VERSUS MULTIPLYING
The new German proposal has replaced the unpopular idea of accruing supercredits, known as banking, with another technical device, referred to as a multiplier.
It would still buy time for German manufacturers because it would multiply the number of supercredits a manufacturer earns for each low emission vehicle. Talks on Monday will include haggling over the level of the multiplier…
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/article/17718940/germany-works-to-weaken-eu-car-emissions-law/
reuters ends the above with lots of positive spin…naturally.
20
The claim from Cook is:
Now, any lay person upon hearing this will think that this means that atmospheric temperatures have been heating up at this rate. The Hiroshima bomb packed enough heat to set fires within a 4.4 mile radius, thus we can expect 380,160 square miles per day heated up like this.
As I stated when this was first brought up, were it true there would be nothing on the surface of the planet other than dust.
Now, taxpayers are PAYING this person to spread alarmist guff like this. There must be something that can be done about IT?
50
What I find interesting about John Cook is that his only academic qualification is a Bsc(hons) in 1989. From my experience in academia lecturers are encouraged to further their academic skills, in fact to not do so would hinder further employment and promotion yet it appears John Cook has managed to hold his academic positions.
Adjunct Researcher, University of Queensland 2011–present
Climate Communication Research Fellow, Global Change Institute, University of Queensland 2011–present
Adjunct Lecturer, University of Western Australia 2011–present
I would have thought at least a Masters, or some evidence of further advancement in skills would be required to fulfill the above positions.
Don’t tell me that running skepticalscience.com and writing “The Debunking Handbook” with Stephan Lewandowsky counts as advancing your academic skills.
50
It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.
30
agree Janama, what you describe is becoming the norm. It has its downsides as some very experienced people struggle to hold jobs when they’ve demonstrably but not by academic merit, acquired skills and knowledge in their field. I can’t see that Cook’s expertise is relevant or demonstrable.
30
Apparently his recent elevated appointments are in cognitive aspects of ‘communications’. Eg. like stupidity and the exploiting thereof. Nothing to do with science.
60
How about introducing a new unit of measure for large quantities, the XLV. Namely; ex–Labor Voters. This currently approximates about 6 million units. For the future we can have Mega-XLVs, Giga-XLVs and even Tera-XLVs.
Adoption of this unit as standard for measuring impending Climatic disasters would serve as a reminder to future generations.
20
You seem to have confused a newspaper article, targeted at the general public, for science.
16
Wallace Says
You seem to have confused a newspaper article, targeted at the general public, for science.
No confusion here a scientist has prepared a statement to give to the public and even as a true disciple you find it stupid ..
31
You seem to confuse anything published by John Cook as science.
00
Your graph shows an increase in “Major Hurricanes”.
07
If you really want to pick on the graph, pick on the fact that it gives no information about statistical confidence. Without crunching the numbers myself, I’d say that it is not a significant gradient. Do you have evidence that it is?
10
Rather than pick on the graph, I’d rather see proper science performed. That appears unlikely in this forum.
02
Ok, so you have lost your Wallace. I feel sorry for you…. does it hurt?
We are all ears Wally, please perform some proper science for us all.
Waiting……………..
10
So, your interpretation of the graph was incorrect. You were unable to critique a pretty sloppy graph. You are unable to back up your subsidiary statements.
Yes, we’ll all move aside for your logic juggernaut.
In your defence, this particular chamber in which you are silently screaming, is an echo of its former self.
00
Gee Aye, my interpretation was correct. The lower line trends upwards. “Major Hurricanes” is trending upwards – I never claimed that it was doing so with any kind of significance, that was your comment.
00
Mount Pinatubo eruption = energy equivalent to 119 Hiroshima ‘Little Boys’ = half a minute of Cookian temp. build-up.
Will he survive long enough to live this one down?
50
Well, the new unit is created to make easier the understanding of those “experts”.
How about 2 habe casualties per year due to corn ethanol production?
30
Another useful application of the Habe unit: if we take the half of The Manhattan Project cost (estimated as $26 billion dollars in 2013), we get the Habe cost = $13 bn.
So, for example:
will look like this:
LONDON, June 20 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The global head of carbon markets for investment bank Bank of America Merrill Lynch has been appointed to represent business in developed countries on the board of U.N. fund, which was launched to help raise 7.7 Habe in climate finance annually by 2020.
40
Valentin
.
I did the same for the Black Saturday Bush fires and something isn’t adding up.
1. The cost of Black Saturday fires cost $4.4 Billion or 0.34 Habe.
2. They estimate the Black Saturday Bush fires were = to 1,500 Habe.
3. CO2 emissions for Black Saturday were 200 million tonnes.
4. CO2 emissions for 1997 Indonesia fires were 2 Gigatonnes.
So what is a normal electricity power station worth and its CO2 emissions, to have the following:
Habe per tonne of Co2?
40
According to a Japanese friend from Hiroshima the name of the city is pronounced ‘he-rosh-e-mah’ with an emphasis on the second syllable not ‘hero-sheema’.
30
Oh dear I think Cook has really ‘bombed’ with this one. It’s really clutching at straws to say the least and says more about the lack of integrity of Mr Cook than anything else. You don’t improve the communication of any message by making it so unfocused, generalized and vague that it contains absolutely ZERO useful information value…
Reality is against you Mr Cook, and I think you know it.
40
Jo,
Science is sooooooooo screwed up…
Seriously a Nuclear Bomb comparison?
Scientists fail to understand how the “bomb” effects the pressure of our atmosphere and vastly displaces this at the planet surface. It is useless in the vacuum of space with very little to exert against.
They still are getting away from really studying our planet and it’s rotation and tilting with different densities of water vapour and the flow difference/change of water on our planets surface.
Water reflects the sun’s energy and land absorbs and store energy for a short period.
As our planet dries, it will naturally become warmer but the rate of water loss is around 2mm/10,000 years which will increase as the temperature rises but that still is vastly far away into the future.
00
It’s a shame about Cooky. If he had stuck to cartooning he might be reasonably good at it by now.
@Ace – The RAF and USAAF dropped mainly high explosives (TNT) on Germany, not incendiaries, but you are correct that Germany suffered far higher casualties from conventional bombs than Japan did from nukes.
40
The USAF dropped incendiaries on Japan, especially for the benefit of paper houses. Tokyo was up in a puff of smoke. They didnt have political correctness or the concept of “collatoral damage” in those days. The people were the target.
10
I can imagine how the good citizens of Hiroshima must feel about having their city’s name dragged through the mud by global-warmers.
10
John Cook has been using the Hiroshima analogy for a while now. In his infamous 2010 ABC article “Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?”, one of his questions was
In that inflammatory article, his definition of “skeptic” contradicted those in the world’s greatest dictionary.
00
Atom-bombs have already got the exponential, runaway, chain-reaction thing built in.
Woohoo. A perfect vehicle for driving alarmist rhetoric.
If you cannot get your head around big numbers, go for bigger units instead.
This model has a whopping 40dB Amplification too, to help get the message across when nobody’s listening
30
But Jo, isn’t the ‘a lot of right answers’ position precisely what the education sector, here in OZ at least, set out to achieve around four decades ago? Heck, I can run slower than everyone else, I can spell my name as Jhon, I can write an essay that contains absolutely no facts, and I can still get a ribbon? It’s no wonder there are battallions of supposedly educated drones all running around patting each other on the back and agreeing with each other. It’s what they’ve been taught to do. Pick a number? I pick 42. It makes every bit as much sense as any other, and you can get a laugh. And we all need them..
00