Has Europe had its best May skiing since records began ?
While everywhere in particular gets colder, is the Global Average Surface temperature only able to hold its own & avoid cooling by deft recalculation & adjustment ?
Hiking in the Salzkammergut, near Salzburg, in Austria. Temps down to 6 degrees, non-stop icy rain, snow down to about 600 metres, track cut by floods – it must be summer in Europe
This morning, the 1st of “Flaming” June, I needed a coat, hat and gloves. I live in North Yorkshire. Yesterday was warmer but the evening was pretty chilly and we put some heating on. The sun has come out now but I’m not sure I’d describe it as summer. I think London-based little girly forecasters forget that life is different outside the capital!
My poor tomatoes are having to put up with the cold as they are too large to stay indoors!
A few years ago here in Britain we were told have every year the the flowers were blooming earlier and earlier because of global warming. One of the most beautiful natural woodland signs of spring is a carpet of bluebells in April time. Well this morning I took a walk in Workington in the far north of England and the bluebells were in full bloom. The rhododendron in my garden is also somewhat late. A couple of hours ago I took some photos of the late-flowering plants in my garden, and have posted them up here.
We went over to Cockermouth in Cumbria today. There were still loads of bluebells in flower along parts of the A66 and May blossom (which is called May for a reason)is only just out now near home seen on the way back. There is a beautiful potted rhododendron in a house near to us and fantastic wistaria on another house in the same road. Cow parsley is in flower at last and the horse chestnut trees laden with candles, also at last.
We’ve had a very prolonged autumn here in the Central North Island of New Zealand. It was a good thing after the summer drought as it gave our pastures a chance to get away before winter. But I noticed that we still have a lot of trees with leaves on – even in June.
I think the lesson is that the start and end of seasons is not absolute. Long live variability.
People in politically influential positions who personally stand to gain financially, dependent on the direction policy takes, is quite simply unacceptable. Either resign from the post or liquidate all such deeply compromising financial interests.
James,
You should know that Mr Yeo is now in denial of the fundamental truths as revealed by climate models, and as interpreted by the great climate prophets scientists who in turn have their incoherent ramblings scientific interpretations made accessible by a select priesthood an appointed group of public relations consultants, and environmentalists.
Given that he has joined the great mass of heretics anti-science people, it is not news.
No. But we are having a cooler than usual spring. This is mostly from an unusual number of overcast days and probably is just weather. June typically ushers in overcast skies for some reason and I think it just happened earlier this year. I’ll leave it to the meteorologists to explain why June is so often a month of cloudy skies.
“It will get hot soon enough.” Prediction or blind faith? 🙂
The Met is calling at or below normal temperatures due to cold seas around the UK for the rest of June.
The Jet stream is also forecast to stay nearer to the Equator than we are used to.
Meanwhile, Arctic Ice seems to be recovering, or at least melting less slowly than previous years.
Winter Is Coming.
Not to try and outdo your pithy reminder Kevin, though in previous years my father had the habit of never failing to remind us on the passing of 23 June, as we were just gearing up for summer and looking forward to holidays, :-
‘
Well that was the longest day and we’ve had it’ .
‘It’ll be Christmas before we know it’, usually then went unspoken but was understood by everyone.
I don’t think he was trying to put a dampener on the mood, but he did work outside relished early starts and appreciated daylight for getting things done.
Here on California’s central coast, it is called June Gloom. However, that applies mostly to the areas close to the ocean. Santa Barbara in particular.
In the inland valley where I live, it is predicted to reach 95F today. It is already 78F. Last month, we had quite a few days that didn’t get much above 60F.
Here on California’s central coast, it is called June Gloom.
Lonell,
I haven’t heard that term in quite a while. But everyone seems to have a name for it. My flight instructor called it the Oxnard Crud (I learned to fly at the Oxnard airport). It’s actually a summer long phenomenon along the whole coastline, although it seems to be at it’s worst in June.
I just yesterday explained to a warmist that there is no ‘hot spot’ in the troposphere, and that stratospheric cooling does not appear to be following the models, either.
He called that a ‘strawman’ argument.
A college student.
Just how damn dumb are they getting these days? Anyone else been given a completely ridiculous argument, in the face of easily-verifiable Facts?
Anyone else been given a completely ridiculous argument, in the face of easily-verifiable Facts?
It happens all the time, Otter.
What makes it worse, is that people will Google a question, find a long Wikipedia article that matches their search criteria. They will then cherry-pick the one sentence, or perhaps a paragraph, that appears to support their belief, and then ignore the rest of the article.
It is a form of confirmation bias.
It happens quite a lot with legal matters, where you find a case where circumstances dictate a non-standards judgement. People will seize on that one exception, and treat it as if it were the rule. The give-away is that such exceptions, which set a precedent, are usually given a name, to set them apart from the body of case law.
College students, recent post-graduates, you expect them to be downright dangerous for at least 2 years beyond graduation. Problem is, there are no “elders” policing the territory.
At 19S 146E I heard “Isn’t it hot” when there was a bit of “angry summer” down south, but here was a balmy 32C and 60RH.
If the ‘hot spot’ existed we should have noticed something, but iirc the “first sign” of CAGW got moved to someplace else.
Cold here is <16C and has been occurring 3-4 weeks earlier than usual.
We had, what, 3-4 quite hot days in most of the coastal cities.
Nothing that could be called a heat wave by any standard.
Mostly it was actually pretty “ordinary”, unfortunately.
Yes, there were a few hot days in the centre of Australia, but well.. how unusual is that !!
Kinky Keith: “Townsville is another country”.
We washed up on these shores 23 years ago. There are worse places to live. Like where Cpt Cook came from. He is reputed to have said words to the effect of “not suitable for [white races] better leave this to the [original inhabitants]”. Funny thing is, if you sailed up the coast Cook came from, you could easily form exactly the same opinion.
Otter: “Townsville? How are the Power Puff girls doing?”
Doesn’t ring a bell. Is this a phenomenon we have been fortunate to miss? Charity runs maybe?
A 15km run being referred to as a “fun run”?
Well I could see how it might be seen as a ‘strawman’ in that it might conceivably be wrong, but it wasn’t put up there by the IPCC itself for knocking down.
So referring to it as a ‘strawman’ demonstrates either a poor grasp of reasoning and argument or just more sophistry in itself. You know, in that dishonest but transparent way that certain types will reveal their intentions by projecting their own behaviour onto others.
I do like the way this whole Global Warming debacle has introduced some to at least a few elements of discourse though.
What do you mean, never peer reviewed? Every statement made on this blog gets reviewed by literally several hundred people. That should be peer review enough for anyone. 😉
What you quote was actually a rhetorical question, asked by Roy Hogue, at Comment #4.
rhetorical n. a question to which no answer is required: used esp for dramatic effect. An example is, Who knows? (with the implication that Nobody knows)
Source: Collins English Dictionary, Complete and Unabridged, 10th Edition.
You really should try to keep up with the the adult conversation, you know. It is not hard if you can concentrate.
What you quote was actually a rhetorical question, asked by Roy Hogue, at Comment #4.
Actually Jo asked it at the top of this thread and I presume it was a way to spark some conversation.
In any case, yes it was a rhetorical question that didn’t necessarily need an answer. TheInquirer makes himself a first class jerk with every comment. He comes across as very angry. I think he needs some professional help.
Someone is very very touchy. Predictions not working out for eh inquirer? Must be tough being “on the wrong side of history”
For the record, we have many many flanneries of rain out this way. It’s fantastic.
If only all that extra rainfall could be stored somewhere for later use. Using one of those things called an, ummmm, oh that’s right – a Dam!
But hey, let’s build a great big desal plant instead – it’ll be much more expensive, and only of any real need in the event that all the catastrafarian predictions about the never ending drought were true.
It is a sad state of affairs when even psychologists get published in the MSM as long as they support the PC line on climate change. Here the Lewandowsy embarrassment of a paper is propagated in the New Yorker:
There is obviously an international conspiracy of psychologists, to undermine any and all free-thinking.
Since it is an international conspiracy, it must be funded by somebody. I suspect it is funded by aliens, living in Atlantis, hidden in the middle of the Bermuda triangle.
Hey, that makes just about as much sense as this article, or Lewandowsky’s “science”, for that matter.
The ‘medicalising of dissent’. That’s a great expression for putting the control freaks back in their box. I’ve to try it on my boss, when he tries dismissing my next idea.
There is obviously an international conspiracy of psychologists, to undermine any and all free-thinking.
Or they’re simply taking advantage of an opportunity to enhance their standing with their peers. Climate change, AKA global warming, is now firmly embedded in popular culture so a lot of this stuff is simply, monkey see, monkey do.
They will stay in their comfort zone which means they must play along with the rest of their tribe.
An example of the new universal cyber mind
where the payoff is that your own brain is in perfect resonance
with those of all the other, obviously intelligent and sane, thinkers of the world.
All the others are conspiracy theorists.
Truth is judged by the number of Neural Connections that a topic can bring about.
You are dead right. The internet, and especially social media, means that “the truth” is being defined by consensus and the human need to be part of the tribe.
Safety is being within a group that can mobilise itself in response to any perceived threat.
The free-thinkers are outside of the tribe, and are therefore to be ridiculed, feared, and ultimately attacked.
Those who rely on the consensus, to give them a sense of security, will not be the first to break ranks, and they will use all sorts of strategies, tactics, and lingual tricks, to deny anything that is not sanctioned by the consensus.
It is also why those within the tribe will vehemently attack outsiders, and call them deniers. That is what we see from the trolls, and even from “professional academics” like Lewandowsky (who should know better).
It’s the school playground without the physical and emotional interaction that creates the “Reality” of the exchange.
The meeting I went to last week had a couple of this group amongst the majority who were struggling to get some sense and consideration for their mistreatment.
The Warmbots had No and I mean absolutely no understanding of the crushing damage they were doing to honest hard working people looking for hope.
The internet is full of misinformation that sounds so real and in one sense you can’t blame “bots” for being what they are.
The fact is that “bots” are dangerous and their behaviour has nasty consequences and the problem of living in a cyberworld must soon be faced and fixed.
They may get to where they can “own” your body. But the only way they can “own” your mind is if you let them. If we must go down, then we must go down fighting to the last breath. I don’t know of any other way to keep my self-respect. And that is the most valuable thing I have.
Fighting may mean many things, including trying to convince people by facts and rational argument. But whatever it comes to mean, we must do it.
Mirror People carry around a virtual mental mirror to represent themselves. Its purpose is to reflect exactly what each of their fellow mirror people reflect with their virtual mental mirrors. Somehow they are able to pretend they are protected from reality by hiding behind their mirrors. I suspect they are hiding from themselves and not very successful at doing it.
Their terror leaks out as fear of global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate disruption, the sky is falling, peak oil, exhaustion of resources, …. They are right about one thing, they are running out of a very important resource: rationality. The lights are on, the radio is playing, but no one is at home and hasn’t been home for a very long time.
I’ve recently discovered a French left-wing philosopher called Pascal Bruckner (translated into English). He is not your usual Lefty. He doesn’t just think outside the box, he rips the box to shreds and turns it into growing medium to germinate his ideas. ATM I’m reading, “The Tyranny of Guilt”, an essay on Western Masochism, in which he destroys the Left-wing establishment’s presumption that because we’re white, rich and developed we must be evil. Bruckner is about 2 laps ahead of your mirror syndrome, Lionell, but if you can get hold of the book, it’s worth reading. There’s a prequel called,”Perpetual Euphoria, on the duty to be happy” and a sequel called, “the Fanaticism of the Apocalypse” which got him declared a non-person by the French Left, where he turns his attention on general doom-mongering to devastating effect. The books stand alone, but for best effect should be read in sequence.
Recommended reading for the long, cold Australian Winter – and the long, cold NH Summer. 🙂
ATM I’m reading, “The Tyranny of Guilt”, an essay on Western Masochism, in which he destroys the Left-wing establishment’s presumption that because we’re white, rich and developed we must be evil.
Kevin,
That puts him squarely at odds with Obama, who definitely is guilty about white, rich and developed. Oops, sorry! Obama is only half white by parentage but he’s sure out to get the white, rich and successful (developed) for their success.
It sounds like Pascal Bruckner isn’t so far left as he might seem. Whats the ISBN of the book?
Is it cold where I am?, I live in Ballarat of course it’s bloody cold! 🙂
Our local paper (Fairfax) is always trying to drum up scare stories on AGW since the drought broke 3 years ago, and local warmists are not much help either.
True the milder weather lingered longer in Autumn and rainfall was slightly lower than average and 2 weeks ago alarmists were carrying on about another drought, now with plenty of rain and daily temps of 10c to 12c they still won’t shut up but cherry pick a so called “unusual or extreme weather events” which equates to a sunny day or a storm.
I grew up here and my first 20 years of working was outside, all I can say is Winter was bloody cold then and it’s bloody cold now.
I was refereeing a rugby match in Ballarat twenty-odd years ago: there was some standing water on the pitch, the players all got wet, the wind picked up, and around half time the snow started. Then it got cold. Three players left the field with hypothermia. Captains and I agreed that we had all had enough, so I blew no-side, and we all adjourned for somewhere warmer.
Yes, it gets cold in Ballarat.
I remember freezing in Ballarat back in the 1980s. We had been camping in the Grampians and had had enough. All we wanted was a good dose of hot fish and chips to see us on our way to Melbourne!
Guess what? it’s still cold today in Ballarat.
I think almost everyone in Victoria has a freezing cold Ballarat story, have a guess why indoor sports are popular here or most babies are born here in Easter 😉
In the 80’s here there was a big Scout jamboree held in the bush around Ballarat it was spring and must’ve thought it safe to camp out, well you know what thought thought and sure enough heaps of poor Scouts were admitted for hypothermia with the leader stating the weather predictions looked ok, what happened to “be prepared”?!
Too much rain here in South East Queensland to even get on the farm but it hasn’t been overly cold. We have had a few nights where the temperature went down to 8C or 7C but other than that nothing unusual about the weather.
Sounds particularly boring and mundane, I know. I guess the MSM won’t have any major headlines about angry summers or bitter winters to put on their front pages. They might have to resort to new levels of scare mongering to sell papers. Only time will tell.
Hey, I know it seems I’m mentioning this a bit lately, but again, have a look at this chart for the generated wholesale cost for electricity for the 5 States east of W.A.
Now that the data is in for the whole Month, look at the costs for South Australia. Note the column headed Peak RRP. That’s the cost for the time period between 7AM and 10PM, 15 hours, you know when everyone is actually not asleep.
I just want to point something out here.
Last Summer, for all the 3 Months, there were 5 days when the electricity cost spiked upwards beyond $100/MWH.
That’s 5 days in 3 Months. Those 5 days were stinking hot and actual consumption was high, averaging 1900MW on each day with a peak on one day of 2200MW.
Now, compare that, 5 days in 3 Months with the costs for this Month. There was 15 days in this one Month alone where the cost spiked up beyond that $100/MWH. Of those 15 days, three were beyond $200/MWH and one of them was $462/MWH. Not just a short time spike but averaged over 15 hours. That’s 46 cents per KWH, power they could only sell at retail for around 26 to 30 cents per KWH.
The average cost for the whole Month was $120/MWH, and this is more than double the next highest State average for the Month, and that day when it was $462, well that was 9 to 10 times higher than the Other States for that day.
What is worth noting here is that May is in the benign Season when consumption is always lower, not the huge Summer peaks, or the larger Winter peaks. Both Spring and Autumn always have lower consumption, and for South Australia that consumption has been averaging 1600MW each day, so it’s around 300MW lower than for the 3 Month Summer average.
So, how come there were 15 days in May when costs spiked beyond $100/MWH and yet barely 5 days in the three Months of Summer.
Well, you see, South Australia closed down the 50 year old Playford Coal Fired Plant, and they made the decision to only run the 35 year old Northern Coal Fired Plant for the three Months of Summer, closing it down when Summer ended.
So 5 days in 3 Months with a coal fired plant dumping 500MW into the grid.
15 days in one Month without that coal fired power, just relying on their Wind power to deliver for the State, and the more expensive smaller plants.
That price spike is because to actually have enough power to cover every consumer in the State, then all those plants specifically designed to just supply for a few hours a day to top up the grid now have to run virtually all day. Their costs are always higher, hence the price spike.
So, in reality, Wind Power is not supplying what the State is actually consuming, and without even that aging coal fired plant South Australia is really struggling to find enough electricity to cover their needs, even when consumption is way down, and even coal fired Victoria is supplying power every day into the South Australian grid.
This is actual data that shoots holes right through a reliance on Wind Power.
Have you heard anything at all in the media about this?
There was an article in the weekend courier mail blaming the rise in prices on a variety of factors. Volatility in pricing was one of them, and this could be neatly explained by your renewables deconstruction above but only in the case of SA. I don’t think Qld has fallen for the wind scam in as big a way, or have they?
Another factor listed was that part of the price rise was just temporary to raise cash for buying retail power for customers that haven’t been able to pay previous bills and are in arrears. ie power on credit until the balance is repaid.
Hang on, I thought, if the high price has led people to being unable to pay, and the inability to pay has led to the price going up… hmmm!
Have we at long last found the single solitary ONLY real runaway positive feedback in global warming?
Brisbane was mild last night at the rugby thanks due to the low cloud cover that filled in late afternoon. Nice autumn day today, little nip in the air.
it’s a “grey” issue, writes Patricia, who gives a Gillard voter the final word:
1 June: Australian: Patricia Karvelas: Axing carbon tax a grey vote winner
DITCHING the carbon tax tops the list of vote-switching issues for older Australians, followed by having a world-class healthcare system and a strong economy…
As a former employee of the Water Board, Mr Kimpton is financially better set up than his wife. “It’s a bit of a worry, things could get worse. For the moment, we are reasonably comfortable but it could easily soon see it going sour,” he said.
“Yes, I’m concerned about the cost of living but my main worry for the moment is this medical bit. Joy has been in hospital twice and we’ve been lucky. The things she had, it meant she got in without any question but she could have to go in for a third time and that could be whenever the government decides when they have a bed available for her.”
He said he was worried the carbon tax would make life harder, but conceded something needed to be done about the environment. Asked how he planned to vote he laughed and said: “Would you believe Julia?” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/axing-carbon-tax-a-grey-vote-winner/story-fn59niix-1226654812836
it was a “young” issue in December, wrote Patricia!
5 Dec 2012: Australian: Patricia Karvelas: Young Australians more concerned about the economy than climate
FORGET the environment, it’s the economy, stupid. Young Australians have dumped the environment from the top of their concerns and replaced it with the economy…
Dr Dalton said the decline in the importance of the environment may be a response to the breaking of the drought and the carbon tax.
“What’s also surprising, and which I’m sure will be a major worry to green groups and those with an interest in tackling climate change, is how young people’s concern around the environment has plummeted since last year,” she said… http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/economics/young-australians-more-concerned-about-the-economy-than-climate/story-e6frg926-1226530049092
When i leave say, an outdoor table on the lawn for a few days, the grass underneath grows a lot faster than the surrounding area. The opposite occurs with grass under a tree or shrub. Is this in any way germane to the subjects of solar influence, carbon dioxide, green houses or cloud cover etc. This is counter intuitive (at least to me).Since it is a wet lazy sunday afternoon, is there anyone who feels inclined to help me with an explanation.
Is this in any way germane to the subjects of solar influence, carbon dioxide, green houses or cloud cover etc.
Not really DV.
There’s lots of reasons why the grass won’t grow under trees or shrubs apart from competition for sunlight. Competition also exists for moisture and nutrients. Plus an awful lot of plants add substances to the ground via their roots and during the breakdown of fallen leaves, that discourage other plants. Pine trees are notorious for this.
Under the garden table, however, all things are pretty much equal, apart from the sunlight.
It is a common fallacy that plants grow towards sunlight. They don’t. Plants grow away from lack of sunlight.
A plant can sense the intensity of light around it. If sunlight is more intense to the left of the plant, the plant needs to bend to the left to reach it. So the plant stimulates growth on the right hand side of its stem. The right hand side grows quicker than the left, and the plant subsequently bends to the left – towards the light.
Through the course of the day, as the sun travels across the sky, your grass under the table registers the varying intensity of light, first on one side, then on another, stimulating growth on the “dark” side, first on one side then on the other. The end result is that it grows taller than the surrounding grass.
Thank you MV for your explanation, which i follow and understand, it now occurs to me however, that if i were to erect an open slatted roof over my vegie garden i will get much faster growth than normal because of the effects you describe. It seems to me there well may be commercial implications.Investors will be welcome.
No, what you will end up with, with your slatted roof, is tall, spindly, unhealthy vegies. At the end of the day it is all about sunlight and photosynthesis. More is good.
Not much point in having a ten foot high tomato plant with only three hard, tasteless cherry-size tomatoes on it.
That’s assuming, in its weakened state, that the plant hasn’t picked up a disease and died already.
.
If you want better vegies, put up a wall of clear plastic around your garden beds – only needs to be about 18 inches high, and introduce a source of CO2. Go look on You Tube under something like “CO2 for vegie gardens” for ideas. It’s all there.
Thank you but i’m not busting to get better vegie’s, just looking for a way to make a “quick quid” as my father would have said.At my age i can’t be watching the grass grow, time is running out.
The table is obviously trapping outgoing radiation, and back radiating to the grass, causing an enhanced greenhouse effect. As we know form AGW predictions, this will cause rising temperatures and drought under the table which will….Oh hell! Could there be something not quite right about climate “science”?
I never did get the hang of this new-fangled “climate science”.
Especially the bit about Stephan Boltzman’s black and grey balls.
I mean, despite the fact that mine are bluish, they also radiate heat.
But I’ve never been too worried about my undies catching fire or anything catastrophic like that.
MV:
I must admit I’m not that expert in climate “science”. As far as I can see you make it up as you go along, being in mind that if the facts disprove the theory then the facts are wrong and have to be altered.
Thus low arctic ice levels show the Earth is getting warmer. Low arctic ice levels ‘explain’ why the Northern Hemisphere gets colder (you ignore the Southern half as inconvenient). Higher arctic ice levels means the Earth is getting warmer, so you are a Denier paid by Big Oil if you feel cold etc.
As far as I can make out, it is not necessary for a “Climatologist” to bay at the full moon, but I am sure that some feel the urge to do so.
““As far as I can make out, it is not necessary for a “Climatologist” to bay at the full moon, but I am sure that some feel the urge to do so.””
Full Moon Bayer
That has a nice rhythmic cadence (or ending).
In the future picture dictionary we shall find an image of one of the better known CAGW prognosticators (suggestions accepted?), and this – – –
Climatologist (noun): full moon bayer; a late 20th and early 21st Century prophet whose failed predictions of doom led to – – – and so on and so on.
“An icy spring means that the mountains between France and Spain are still covered in snow, with Eric Charre, the resort’s director, saying people should ‘take advantage of all the snow that has not melted’.
There were heavy falls across the Pyrenees throughout April and May, leading to regular avalanche alerts. Stations in fact had to shut down at one point during the winter because there was too much snow.
Mr Charre said that slopes running between 1600m and 2500m in altitude ‘have as much snow as there was in winter’.”
31 May: Port Macquarie News: Melissa Pretorius: Climate Change no con
HUMAN induced climate change is not a conspiracy or a con, but a real and serious threat to Australia, Parliament agreed this week.
Australia’s scientific community has praised the move.
It comes as Federal Independent MP Rob Oakeshott moved a motion for the House of Representatives to confirm the science community was right and climate change posed serious problems for Australia.
“Let us see where the bums land, from all members of parliament, in support of the very best advice in the science community,” Mr Oakeshott said this week.
“The advice is real and the question for the House today is whether or not we accept it.” Labor, the Liberals and the National Party supported the motion unanimously…
Mr Creamer (president of Climate Change Australia’s Hastings branch) said the show of confidence was heartening for activists and Mr Oakeshott had again showed leadership on this “critical issue”…
“It’s essential that this scheme – and all of its component parts – be retained by the next government and not replaced with less-effective measures.”…
Mr Oakeshott said the motion finally endorsed the work of Australia’s science community in confirming man-made climate change was not a con.
“No more games,” he said. “Today Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott were joined at the hip on climate change,” Mr Oakeshott said.
“Today, the unprecedented attacks on our science community come to an end.” http://www.portnews.com.au/story/1539100/climate-change-no-con/?cs=257
.
I have spent the last few weeks putting together a website, a blog, and a Facebook presence, complete with funny memes for people to send each other, actively encouraging folks to vote informal at the next federal election, as a form of protest.
I have also put together a campaign to make the effort worthwhile for those that do vote informal, and to promote the concept.
I will be kicking it off at the beginning of July assuming an election is not called for before September 14.
.
I’m afraid it’s a little more complicated than that, BS.
The Party Political System has now worked its way through to its logical conclusion, wherein about 20% of “swinging voters” now decide the outcome of all elections.
Since at any given election these 20% will all want something or other (probably different from what they wanted last time) elections have become little more than auctions, as the major parties vie to outdo each other to “buy” the votes of that 20%.
This wasn’t so much of a problem back when each of the major parties had some kind of identifiable underlying philosophy that people could relate to, but these days they don’t.
There is now no hope of the current system delivering good governance, so we either gradually degenerate to third world banana republic status, or we try and fix the system.
The only place where we can effect such a change is by forcing the Senate to revert to its correct function as House of Review of legislation introduced by the House of Representatives.
That means getting a team of conservatives into the Senate to counter the Greens and to force the proper application of the review process. The question is, do enough people care enough to support it?
.
Traditionally about 4% of people vote informal every election. It requires about 14% of the vote to win a seat in the Senate in a Half-Senate election, and about 7.5% to win a seat in a Full Senate election (as occurs after a Double Dissolution).
That means an active “vote informal” campaign that resulted in an 18% informal vote would indicate possible support for the idea in a Half-Senate election, and 12% would indicate support for the idea in a Full Senate election after a double dissolution.
Tony Abbott has stated publicly he will call a double dissolution if the Senate blocks his attempt to repeal the carbon tax. Word on the street is that Bill Shorten will replace the LIAR after the next election, and Mr Shorten has stated he will work with the Greens to block any attempt to repeal the carbon tax.
.
Under those circumstances there is a very real chance that my “vote informal” campaign could see a group of six or more conservative Senators elected, beholden to no party, simply with an ideal and desire for a return to good governance, within the next couple of years.
I have come to the conclusion that voting should remain compulsory, but there should be a permanent option on all ballot papers;
[] None of the the above
I think it makes a valid statement that none of the candidates deserve your vote. I think that this gives a message in itself that may be listened to if this option becomes a significant proportion of the vote.
.
You just precisely outlined the campaign I will be running, Truthseeker.
The candidate’s name is Themm Nunnov, and I’ll be encouraging people to vote for him by drawing a box under the last candidate’s name, putting a “1” in it, and writing Themm’s name next to the box in the same way as the Electoral Commission does it – surname first.
Does doing this eg putting Vote 1 Themm Nunnov get recorded as a specific type of Informal Vote, or does it get classified the same if I put a line through the whole card? Dave.
There are no classifications to informal votes. They are just counted together. However, the informal vote has been pretty consistent at 4% for a long time.
Going off past elections, it seems when people are totally peeved for whatever reason, rather than vote informal, they don’t vote at all, and cop the automatic $20.00 fine. In the last two by-elections in Victoria, for instance, over 30% of the electorates failed to vote, probably because the Liberals didn’t run a candidate.
They could have saved themselves $20.00 and voted informally, but they didn’t. The informal vote stayed pretty close to the 4% norm.
On that basis I reckon it’s pretty reasonable to assume any significant increase in the informal vote over the 4% average, can be counted as a “vote4Themm”.
A 12% informal vote would mean an 8% “vote4Themm”, which is enough for a Senate seat in a full Senate election following a double dissolution.
So I vote for Nunnov Themm – along with the other members of Vote4Themm, and so now 12% is informal. But 8% voted for Nunov Themm, which is enough for a senate seat following a double dissolution.
.
Then we put together the Review Commission, a group of people to run on a shared Senate ticket in each state. Members of the Review Commission have no policies. Instead, they have a Charter of Review, to which all proposed legislation coming before the Senate, is subjected.
The Charter of Review starts off with “Is there a mandate for this legislation”? (ie, was it covered in the previous election campaign).
If there is no mandate, the next question is, “Then is there a compelling reason to pass it now”? (eg – is there some kind of emergency?)
Na mandate and no good reason, the legislation is rejected by the Review Commission, and not supported in the voting.
If there is a clear mandate then the next series of questions are based on affordability and honesty: was the electorate given all the facts, were the costings realistic, and so forth.
If the figures are honest, then comes the question of “can we afford it”? With a $20 billion (at least) structural hole in our budget, governments for the foreseeable future that want to spend money on something, are going to have to find it from money they already have. In other words, spending more on ‘X’ means spending less on ‘Y’.
Where a clear mandate exists, based on honest figures given to the electorate, and the country can afford it, the Review Commission supports the legislation, regardless of which party has formed government.
If the figure are rubbery, the Review Commission formally requests an independent costing. The results are made public, public reaction is gauged, and the legislation is supported or rejected accordingly.
In summary, if the government has obtained an honest mandate based on transparent financing, that doesn’t incur additional overall government expenditure, the legislation is supported.
Fail anywhere in the Review Process, and the legislation is rejected.
The Review Commission campaigns for the Senate by publishing their intended Charter, and invite public discussion and input.
.
It can’t be that hard.
I reckon by the election after the next one, which quite possibly will be a full senate election, a group called “Tar and Feather All Politicians” could win at least one seat in each state, based solely on the protest vote.
That’s better, I was beginning to get worried about Themm.
So this election only and in the senate only, go for Nunnov Themm, to see if the idea is worth going for in a double dissolution. You only have to have 500 (I think as party members) and candidates for each state. I like it a lot more now.
Keep the Bastards honest is Back.
But I was going to vote for the Greens (even though it’ll probably make me sick) in the Senate this time to force a double dissolution ASAP.
Yes, the idea is unashamedly based on the original Don Chip idea of the Australian Democrats “keeping the bastards honest”. They did a reasonable job of it, too, until they decided to become just another political party and have “policies”.
People who nominate to become part of the senate team sign an agreement to vote only in accordance with the Charter of Review. Further, that failure to do so constitutes their immediate voluntary resignation from the Commission. This agreement would form part of the Commission’s constitution, lodged with the Electoral Commission.
As near as I can tell, there is an interesting, untried loophole in the Federal constitution, with regards to Senators. Unlike the House of Reps, where there is no reference to political parties, in the senate they are specifically referenced.
For instance, on the ballot paper a voter can simply vote for the party of their choice (“above the line” vote), meaning the voter never voted for an individual at all, merely the party (grouping) they represent.
Second, where a vacancy occurs within the senate, the replacement is officially chosen by the Premier of the state the senator represents. But the Premier MUST choose the candidate nominated by the party of the replaced senator.
Now, it seems to me, that if a person was elected as part of the Review Commission team and then started voting with disregard to the Charter of Review, thereby rendering themselves “resigned” from the Review Commission, then the Review Commission would have grounds for a legal challenge to the senator’s legitimacy, to have him removed and replaced by another member of the group from the same state.
As I said, all theory – nothing like that has ever happened. But that’s how I read the relevant parts of the Australian constitution.
Just by way of clarification, vote4Themm is in the House of Representatives, this election only, to judge the level of support for an alternative, and to send a message of protest to ALL our current politicians.
Assuming the support is there, as evidenced by the informal vote this election, we get the Review Commission off the ground by approaching likely identities to form a senate team.
I’m thinking of people like the well-known female editor of a certain on-line blog, her husband, and a motley band of writers and scientists they loosely knock around with, for starters.
But before I take it that far, and start asking for money and support, I want to be able to demonstrate that it is feasible – that support is there – hence good old Themm.
Go for it MV. I am heartily tired of our useless politicians. We get sold the line that the more we pay, the better quality we will get. I see their pay and conditions rising at what almost seems like an exponential rate and the quality falling at similar rates. Generalisations are dangerous but you get the point. Give them all a kick in the pants, i’m a lifelong Liberal supporter (66 yr.old) but for the first time i’ll vote informal in Sept.
And if all the life long Liberal supporters vote informal, what happens then? Oh yes, more of Julia and her gang.
For a start, BS, there’s far more reason to believe disenchanted Labor voters will vote informal, than LIB/NAT voters in this coming election. Truth is, having studied the “comments” sections of all the main online news services and blogs, it seems that voter dissatisfaction with ALL the major parties is running at an all-time high.
It must also be remembered that only formal votes actually count towards the result. A candidate doesn’t have to get a “minimum” number of votes of the total electorate. There is no “quorum” of votes required to make an election valid.
Even if 50,000 people voted informal in an electorate, and only 100 cast formal votes, the result is worked out exactly the same way, with (I reckon) pretty-much the same result, as if everyone made a formal vote. In this case, a landslide victory for the Coalition.
.
But, as I said before, if you’ve got a better idea, I’m all ears.
No problem voting informal if you are in a strong one way or the other seat. I think I once lived in a swing electorate for one election. Those who do not are effectively disenfranchised. While I’d rather see the Libs in power I can’t stomach the local idiot in Groom.
I take your point BS but what can we do, i write to political parties frequently and just get the standard reply. I thought the Liberals were going to shake up N.S.W but O’Farrell is another one of these “let’s form a committee mob”. I want politicians with the wit to know what needs to be done and the will to do it and not be trying to appease everything bambi brigade tree hugging minority with a sign on stick.
This week was the last straw for me. We find out that Liberals and Labor doing a secret backroom deal to gouge our taxes to fund their upcoming electoral soiree’s. What really blew me away was, ONE/ it was a secret deal with the enemy and TWO/ when the secret got out, Abbott (fearing a backlash) changed his mind saying the time isn’t right.
Do you mind Mr Abbott, but this was shameless deal you did in secret and the time will never be right. A pox on both your houses. These comments from a lifelong Liberal voter.
Dumb Voter: Abbott wanted to end the corporate cash and related expectation of being heard, his letter was acceptance in principle, the government knows that he is an advocate of transparent funding of political parties and based on that they cunningly plotted to gain his attention and then, the details, were unacceptable and with his colleagues the Bill proposed was rightly rejected.
The ICAC revelations regarding NSW Labor funding of so called independents when Richard Torbay is questioned will be interesting. And the coal mining connections of Windsor who sold gamily property to a coal miner and then purchased property where mining is planned.
I have probably misunderstood one or both of the following, but there seems to be a contradiction.
Under those circumstances there is a very real chance that my “vote informal” campaign could see a group of six or more conservative Senators elected, beholden to no party
Oakeshott, Windsor and Wilkie have probably ensured no new Independent will get elected at federal level for at least 20 years.
Will the informal vote campaign in this election lead to independant Senators being elected?
Presumably Yes, since that’s the whole goal, but then how does this plan overcome the Oakeshott Factor?
Thanks MV. I see it now. They are not independent Senators, they are beholden to a party whose purpose and rules are constant and known from the start.
Ah yes, good old Themm!
I never thought I’d hear myself say it.
You are a dumb voter, the more I read the more obvious it is. Sixteen years of NSW state Labor incompetence and you blame the Coalition trying to correct the financial mess and lack of progress inherited.
This has turned into a bad day for me. First it was Pat’s revelation about the Oakshot vote, now HJ has lobbed the FOI story into the tent. Liberal HQ will be getting another please explain tonight, to which i no doubt will receive the usual Blah Blah Blah response.
No less than seven utterly vitriolic, abusive comments, aimed at various commenters, without actually offering any kind of alternative to the current situation other than “vote Liberal”.
Most of our climate change trolls can’t manage that.
.
Didn’t you read Pat’s comment about the parliamentary vote supported by unanimously ALL parties, including the Liberals, that “climate change is real, and humans are responsible”?
Didn’t you read the follow-up post by handjive, with the link to the article about the pollies UNANIMOUSLY voting to hide their expenses from FOI exposure?
Didn’t you follow the articles through the week detailing how the “faceless men” of the Labor Party, plus a representative for Gillard, met in secret with the “faceless men” of the Liberal Party, plus a representative for Abbott, to cook up a deal to gouge another $58 million out of the taxpayer, to fund their next election campaign?
.
You state:
You obviously know nothing.
Okay, enlighten us with your wisdom.
This country is currently on a fast track for economic oblivion, regardless of who wins the next election. We are currently $350 billion in debt, with an annual structural deficit of $20 billion (at least). Labor is going to “solve” the problem with a budget of $391 billion government expenditure this financial year. Liberals are going to “solve” the problem by spending $1 billion less.
We are also hurtling towards a massive energy shortfall crisis that will lead to total fuel poverty for millions of Australians by the middle of 2015, and the attendant total collapse of our manufacturing industry, right about the same time as the so-called mining boom closes up shop for good.
Both Labor and Liberal intend addressing this major problem with more of the sunbeams and pixie breath policies that got us here in the first place.
And your answer is – wait for it – “vote Liberal” – again.
Thank you MV, I was having a relaxing day and a bit of stir on an unthreaded thread when old mate Dennis burst into my conciousness and conclusively proved that i am indeed a know nothing dumbvoter. I don’t know what ICAC is going to reveal about Richard Torbay nor do i know what goes on in the Tony Windsor Family Trust or whatever tool he uses to do his business, but old mate Dennis does. I didn’t know that when Tony Abbott said “the timing isn’t right” he really meant “we don’t like the details” but old mate Dennis knew. I won’t go on, i know when i’m out of my league, and feeling that a lifetime of keen political observance has taught me nothing is somewhat disappointing.
.
On the contrary DV,
Far from being “out of your league”, you’ve just made the Big League.
.
Coming to terms with the fact that Australia’s political-party dominated political system is corrupt to the core – on EVERY side of the fence, is a majorly painful step.
You have nonetheless made it, so congratulations.
After a few more elections voting Liberal with nothing ever changing, even our good friend Dennis will eventually figure it out as well.
Hello Dennis, if your still there, Richard Torbay was a star recruit for the Abbott team for most of last year if my failing memory serves me correctly. As i said earlier, a pox on both their houses.
I use a different method. Since they are all corrupt or incompetent or most often both, I just vote against whoever is currently in power (i.e. for the opposing major party).
In the faint hope that this will result in a revolving door, and that, eventually, the penny will drop and they will start working for the people instead of their own filthy feathered nests.
The issue of “net flows” has been stretched literally beyond belief in the climatology world. The Second Law is talking about an isolated system (See Wikipedia – “Laws of Thermodynamics”) and any physicist should be able to tell you that a system in physics has a very specific definition. (Also see Wikipedia “System.”) It can of course have a single component (often represented by a one-way heat transfer between two objects) but if it has more than one component, then the components must be interdependent.
Now, if radiation from a cooler atmosphere were actually able to add thermal energy to a warmer target on the surface, say a rock beside a tidal lake, then that is the first “component.” The problem then to consider runs like this: if that extra energy is then stored for a while (say, until high tide) and the energy then transfers to some water on the surface by conduction, and then that same parcel of energy eventually gets back into the atmosphere with two further “components” such as evaporative cooling of the water, followed by subsequent release of latent heat, where then is the interdependence between any of these four separate components which you are in effect assuming to be all part of the one system, as defined by the Second Law? Sorry, the very first component (if it could occur) is not just a component of a larger system and it would be an outright and indisputable violation of the Second Law.
Think of Venus. Every 4-month long day its surface warms by 5 degrees, and then it cools by five degrees as the atmosphere radiates to space during the 4-month night. The surface temperatures are in the vicinity of 730K to 735K approximately. It takes a lot of energy to warm it by 5 degrees, and it doesn’t happen in the first day of sunshine, especially when you remember that such Solar radiation reaching the surface has only about one tenth of the power of that reaching Earth’s surface. So there must be a process in which energy builds up during the 4 month day.
Now we know that about 97.5% of incident Solar radiation is either reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere, so obviously the atmosphere will warm while the Sun is shining, but gradually over 4 months – say I.25 degree per month.
Clearly we are not talking about a radiative process warming the surface here, because incident radiation would have to be about 16,100W/m^2 into the surface to have any effect in that temperature range. And if it were it could probably do the job in a few hours, not 4 months. Furthermore, we at PSI would insist that any such radiation having any effect on such a hot surface would have to be directly from a hotter source, namely the Sun. We just don’t believe in non-interdependent components violating the Second Law, so we rule out radiation from the colder atmosphere. In any event, with only about 10W/m^2 of incident insolation entering the surface, there’s not a lot of energy to play with for back radiation, now is there?
Perhaps you think that the energy entering the TOA will do the trick. Well look at the figures – something like 2,600W/m^2 from memory before any is reflected away, which is much more than half of it. Perhaps we have about 1,000W/m^2 starting on its way into the atmosphere. (That’s to 1 significant figure – it doesn’t matter what the precise figure is.) How could the atmosphere somehow magnify this about 16 times before it comes out of the base of the atmosphere and into the surface, and why would it have so much more success getting through the atmosphere than did the Solar radiation? Remember – no more than 10W/m^2 could be from back radiation that was sending back energy from the surface, which was sending back energy from the Sun. By the way, Science of Doom has a totally incorrect figure of about 158W/m^2 (if I remember correctly) for the incident Solar radiation reaching the Venus surface. You’d think he would have checked the data from the Russian probes before using a figure which is at least 10 times the real one.
So the Venus surface is not heated by any “runaway greenhouse effect.” If you’re not convinced, then think about how energy gets down into the Uranus atmosphere which is mostly hydrogen and helium. I’m happy to discuss any questions you may have about my explanation of what is happening on these planets – and on Earth, where the Sun cannot heat our surface to 288K with direct Solar radiation alone. Just use SBL to convince yourself of this obvious fact.
Radiative forcing is not what is the primary determinant of Earth’s mean surface temperature. As on Uranus and Venus, and throughout the universe, temperatures in any atmosphere have a propensity to follow a temperature gradient which is between about 65% and 100% of the quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. The level of the plot is determined by the need for radiative balance, so that Is the “starting point.” Then, at whatever temperature the plot intersects the surface, we have a pre-determined base supporting temperature which slows all radiative and non-radiative cooling at night, enabling the Sun (if applicable) to warm somewhat the next day, this being but a marginal effect, as is the slowing of cooling as the surface comes back towards the base temperature. No big changes in climate will occur without natural changes in the parameters just mentioned. That is the “New School of Thought” which we are starting to talk about at PSI. Keep watching for a new article on such within a few days.
Everythread the Unthreaded solemnly declared the Unthreaded Thread to be Unthreadable.
.
Which just leaves us with the question:
Can there be “an intent of the thread” in an unthreaded thread?
Surely an unthreaded thread has no intent to be threaded.
But, equally surely, an unthreaded thread must have an intent to be unthreaded.
I do have some nous DAS. I’m wondering, based on some of your posts, whether you have nous, sobriety or a point. Put it to me, the resident know-it-all blank page, and see what you get.
Like I said, if he is so wrong it should be dreadfully easy to prove it. Yet, you use each of his presentations as an excuse to complain that he actually presented something. He does not complain, he explains and does so respectfully. Try proving him wrong and perhaps one of you might learn something.
As other comments I have made here should indicate, I think totally “outside the square” of radiative forcing. I recognise that there cannot possibly be a “runaway greenhouse effect” on Venus, or any radiative forcing causing the Uranus atmosphere to get hotter and hotter – or the Venus atmosphere and surface – or Earth’s.. In short, I think about what must be the real explanation of planetary temperatures, not just in the atmosphere and surface, but in the crust and mantle also.
I find a common physical process is the sole cause of such temperatures. It is a non-radiative process which is the very process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is a spontaneous process which occurs at the molecular level and it is the process in which thermodynamic equilibrium evolves – just as the Second Law says.
That equilibrium is of absolute necessity one in which there is a thermal gradient in a gravitational field. This directly implies that there must be an underlying thermal plot which supports atmospheric temperatures at all altitudes. If there happens to be a surface at some altitude, then the temperature of the atmosphere at that altitude plays the major role in determining that planet’s surface temperature. How else could 10W/m^2 of direct Solar radiation cause the Venus surface to be 730K? Why else would it only cool by 5 degrees during the 4-month night? Think everyone!
I am not going to be drawn into discussions of radiation, even though I did study that topic very extensively the year before last and wrote a comprehensive paper about it as a result of my research.
I see. Since you used a comparison based upon faith to say you see no point in proof, I conclude you hold your views based upon faith. Your faith is that he is wrong because he disagrees with your faith. If that is your belief, then I agree there is no point proving anything. Faith does not require proof or even evidence for then it would not be faith.
Now, what does your complaint and faith he is wrong have to do with science? Answer: nothing!
Yes, I think he is wrong to post the same stuff in every single thread at every opportunity.
Others believe that because this is an unthreaded thread that its ok. I am perfectly happy for them to think that, just as I am perfectly happy with my own views.
(Please let it go as this an OPEN thread therefore he is allowed to post his stuff in it) CTS
Others believe that because this is an unthreaded thread that its ok. I am perfectly happy for them to think that
You cannot control how I THINK, no matter how powerful you feel interjecting wherever you wish…..
(You need to cool it as you are getting tedious with your complaining about someone else.It is clear you are backsliding here which can stop if you drop your obsession with Dougs presence in the OPEN thread) CTS
As for Backslider, we see that he is for banning whatever it is he doesn’t like simply because he doesn’t like it. This is combined with a very strong reluctance to discuss anything substantive, precise, and in context about the scientific issues. In fact, any old term will do,without further examination, if it HE thinks it is good enough. To make matters worse, he appears to think calling someone names and dismissing ideas he admits he hasn’t read is an argument worthy of respect.
At least now he stands fully exposed, by his own words. There is no there, there.
A good point on the face of it but to be honest I can’t comment on DCottons current posts as I no longer read them.
Some time ago when he began posting here I tried to read them, and while they had some OK stuff there was a feeling of disconnectedness about them.
If only he could summarise the content in a more coherent way it may enable a proper analysis of what he is saying.
Constantly repeating “the second law of dynamics” or whatever means little if you can’t deconstruct your idea and really it to people in a more understandable format.
After all, many of us have not done any formal physics for over a quarter of a century.
I agree that Cotton’s postings could be more clearly and more coherently written. However he is politely presenting an alternate set of ideas that deal with some serious issues that work against any form of the so called “greenhouse effect.” His lack of clarity may diminish his effectiveness but it is the ideas expressed that are important and are capable of being supported or refuted.
Backslider, on the other hand, doesn’t agree with the ideas and holds such ideas should not be expressed and dealt with at all. Then, even though he holds they are so very wrong, fails to make an effort to show how they are wrong. He simply asserts and uses the futility of arguing against faith excuse for not doing so. Clearly, his position has nothing to do with science of the matter and every thing to do with some closely held unsubstantiated belief (aka faith). A faith he chooses not to describe or defend.
To give an example of the quality of proof that he should be able to offer, I present the following three considerations.
Consider the details of how a real greenhouse works and how that is quite unlike the earth’s atmosphere. It follows that earth/atmosphere/sun system is NOT a greenhouse and there is no such thing as the as the so called greenhouse effect!
Consider the complexities of light emission and absorption as an energy level resonate process that it results in it being receptor/emitter energy level specific. Radiation from a colder body is itself lower energy than the presumed warmer body it is supposed to heat. The radiation, being a resonant mismatch is not absorbed but may be transmitted, deflected, or reflected.
Consider that the radiation from the surface has left the surface on it way to the CO2 it is aimed at and its energy is no longer there to elevate the surface temperature. Then when that radiation is returned to the surface, it merely replaces the energy the surface had previously lost and cannot by itself elevate the surface temperature. It can at best return the surface energy state to what it was.
Any one of these three things are sufficient to bring the orthodox theories of the so called 97% consensus of cherry picked climate scientists into serious question.
All I ask is that Backslider stand and deliver a similar blow to Cotton’s alternate proposal. No math, no numbers, no complicated relationships. Yet he refuses to do even that much. One suspects he is unable to do so.
Backslider, on the other hand, doesn’t agree with the ideas and holds such ideas should not be expressed and dealt with at all
Wow Lionell, you are so psychic.
The fact is that I cannot be bothered to read Cotton’s postings anymore, since they are like the rantings of a religious zealot and lack clarity, cohesion and coherence.
Thus, I actually do not hold an opinion on such one way or the other (as to whether his theories are correct) – I simply cannot be bothered with it. All it does is to clog up threads with information which I very much doubt many others bother with either.
You on the other hand are like a little puppy growling at the nasty man in defense of your master.
Consider the details of how a real greenhouse works and how that is quite unlike the earth’s atmosphere. It follows that earth/atmosphere/sun system is NOT a greenhouse and there is no such thing as the as the so called greenhouse effect!
EVERYBODY knows that the analogy is a poor fit… however that is what we have. The term should NOT be confused to mean that the earth’s atmosphere behaves just like a greenhouse….. EVERYBODY KNOW THAT… and have done since the beginning…. except Lionell Griffith of course.
Baby steps sonny: The atmosphere is kind of like a greenhouse, but not exactly.
For someone who says he has no opinion one way or another, you have a strange way of dealing with the ideas expressed: a mixture of personal attack and dismissal without explanation. The ideas are left untouched by you.
At least one thing is clear, you will never be confused with someone who is actually polite nor one who deals with ideas in any serious way. If that is what you want to be, that is your problem.
you will never be confused with someone who is actually polite
So now you are polite? Guffaw!!!!
The ideas are left untouched by you
No sonny, I have expressed myself perfectly as to how I feel about SPAM, which was the only point I wished to make.
You however decided to get on your high horse and demand (and you accuse ME of being incessant!) that I challenge the overzealous views of Mr Cotton. I am in no wise interested.
Backslider: The tem “greenhouse theory” is a hundred year old term used when there really was rudimentary understanding of the phenomena. Using the term now, when we know so much more according to the climate scientists, either indicates dishonesty or laziness. One would think that people with such a hugely important theory would be more concerned about accuracy of the naming. We don’t call quantum mechanics “rules for the unobservable” or some other nondescript name (Einstein wasn’t lazy, one supposes). We removed Pluto from the list of planets when our knowledge showed it was not an appropriate designation. Surely a theory about a phenomena that could kill us all would deserve a more accurate name–if it really was science, that is. The use of the inaccurate “greenhouse theory” is designed to appeal to the most uninformed in society. Then the climate change scientists can’t understand why the people who understand science don’t trust them. Maybe if they were a bit more 21st century……
The use of the inaccurate “greenhouse theory” is designed to appeal to the most uninformed in society.
I think that this is total nonsense…. where is Lew to observe the conspiracy ideation? Perhaps he has something there?
So please tell us all Sheri – what is it really called? To me it sounds like we have far more Slayers around here than I envisaged – we all know how uptight they get at the mere mention of the term.
Like I said, everybody knows what in means in reference to the atmosphere.
“Everyone knows what it means?” What in the world does that have to do with accuracy in science? Really? I am blown away by your complete lack of concern over accuracy in science……
Where do you get “slayer” and “conspiracy ideation”? I merely pointed out that there is a huge inaccuracy in terminology. That in no way reflects whether I believe CO2 is warming the planet or not. It just indicates that I am concerned that scientists be accurate, an idea you apparently do not share. (Jumping to personal insults is an interesting way of dealing with science–are you sure you’re not a warmest?? That’s their technique.)
What is it really called? “CO2 is a gas in the atmosphere that is associated with warming of the planet.” We call it CO2 and we describe what it does. Calling it a greenhouse gas implies the atmosphere works like a glass building for plants. People have been known to envision it as such. It’s CO2, plain and simple. If we must get down to kindergarten level for the masses, perhaps calling it an insulating factor. I’ve heard that used, though it was in an article that also included references to a CO2 being a jacket…..Call it CO2 and that’s it. Describe it’s function, if you want. There is no greenhouse.
Take a pill Backslider, you’re starting to sound paranoid. What Sheri said doesn’t make her a “Slayer” and not everything a “Slayer” says is wrong.
As for the term “Greenhouse Effect” what about that is accurate? I happen to agree that the term IS used for propaganda value and thus is designed to appeal to the uninformed. Does that mean conspiracy? Not necessarily, but ask yourself why the consensus climate scientists haven’t bothered to come up with an accurate name for the phenomenon?
I’m not a “Slayer” either. I find some of what they say to be interesting, some of their methods of communicating annoying. Apparently I’m not the only one because several other blogs have banned them.
What Lionell said is that you should put up an argument to D. Cotton that deals with the science. Do you dispute Lionell over his reasoning? I can understand that you might have a variety of reasons not to take up such an argument. The amount of typing alone would discourage me, but Lionell has made a valid point.
What Lionell said is that you should put up an argument to D. Cotton that deals with the science. Do you dispute Lionell over his reasoning?
Please keep up and take the time to read what I wrote above.
I will however say this much: Mr Cotton’s whole modus operandi leaves a lot to be desired, which immediately makes me suspicious of anything he has to say. I really do not have the time for his rants.
(Then you can stop reading his comments “rants” and feel better) CTS
Backslider–I am beginning to see why you cannot write an answer to Mr. Cotton–you seem language challenged. You read “associated with” as “it’s just about”. Are you sure you’re not a warmest–this is the kind of nitpicking about language and the constant misinterpretation I usually get from them.
I don’t expect you to change anything–Though I have to wonder if I complained about the lack of peace in the Middle East, would you tell me you can’t be expected to solve that? Again, very strange reaction to what was an observation.
As noted in my opening paragraph, warmists are not the only nitpicking, language twisters out there. Sadly. (Speaking of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, saying the modus operandi makes you immediately suspicious seems to also trace back to warmists and the unscientific. While a clumsy presentation or pushy one may put people off, it’s about the science. Selling the theory is about how you present it–so are you saying Mr. Cotton is a lousy salesman?)
Perhaps he is, however that is not what I was saying. What I did say is that he is a SPAMMER, which is the only point I wished to make. I really do not care what he believes.
So, you accuse me of nitpicking with words simply because I caught you out on your thinking that “The Greenhouse Effect” is all about CO2… I can understand the misconception, since CO2 is all that warmists go on about when screaming about it.
To quote you on what “The Greenhouse Effect” should be called:
What is it really called? “CO2 is a gas in the atmosphere that is associated with warming of the planet.”
That was it. Don’t you think that’s a rather narrow description?
And there you go again with yet more ideation… oh yes, really, I am a warmist, whereas your self:
Surely a theory about a phenomena that could kill us all would deserve a more accurate name–if it really was science, that is.
Sounds to me like you are scared of the concept… you are at least Slayer fodder.
(You spend a lot of effort complaining about Doug calling him a spammer when you could have done this instead and stop filling up the thread with your complaints:To report “lost” comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support AT joannenova.com.au) CTS
Please keep up and take the time to read what I wrote above.
Yes of course Mr. Polite, we are all here to serve you. In the mean time why don’t you please “keep up and take the time to read what I’ve written. We’ve covered this recently.
The fact is that its been called “The Greenhouse Effect” for a long time. How do you expect me to change that?
For starters how about not making it easy for them to get away with use of an incorrect comparison? Then just stop accusing anyone that points out the fact that it is wrong, of being a Slayer or Lew worthy or some other ideation of yours.
Your own lack of understanding of what it is leaves the door wide open for warmists and all their twisted versions of what it is and how it works.
What lack of understanding? Do you believe we should assist warmists and support their incorrect use of the term Green House???? Where again is the twisted part????????
I’m in agreement with Sheri, you ARE sounding like a warmist.
Interestingly enough, you have 27 posts and Doug has 28. Would that not make you a “co-spammer”?
You called me out on nothing–you failed to grasp the meaning of the language. I am fully aware that water vapor, methane and now possibly CFC’s contribute to warming, plus winds over land can effect the weather over much of the planet, “forcings”, etc all contribute to climate.
Yes, in the context of the warming of the planet and CO2, my definition is narrow. That was the point. I identified the gas and the reason we are using it in regard to a warming planet. In other conversations, we could look at the role of CO2 in plant growth, etc. Then we could call it CO2 and describe its function. I would object to calling it a pollutant, of course, in any context.
Maybe I should have put the /sarc tag on the “phenomena that could kill us all”, though I thought my postings here would make that unnecessary. My apologies and I will identify my sarcasm clearly so as to not confuse you.
KK – That’s why my paper is 20 pages in length. It takes a lot of detailed explanation which has to be abbreviated in comments like this. Fair enough? If you read the paper “Panetary Core and Surface Temperatures” you should find it easy to understand. Start with Section 4 about the Second Law if you wish, which reads …
An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.
Now a “system” in physics comprises interdependent components or just one component. So when energy is transferred from the atmosphere to the surface by, say, conduction at the boundary, thence upward convection it will warm some water vapour molecules which may well radiate some electromagnetic energy back towards the surface. But, if you read my paper on radiated energy, you will see a detailed explanation of the “resonant scattering” (sometimes called “pseudo scattering”) process which immediately re-emits the radiation from the warmer surface so that none of its EM energy is converted to thermal energy, and so there is no heat transfer. What the physics books tell you is that, if there were a transfer of thermal energy in this “component” then the Second Law would have been violated because there is no interdependence between the above two components I have described.
Another way of looking at it is to consider the First Law. When the surface radiates a certain amount of thermal energy to a cooler region of the atmosphere the surface cools. It would need to get back exactly the same amount of energy to warm back up to the original temperature. How is it going to get back more energy?
The Sun cannot warm the surface of Earth with direct radiation to a mean temperature anywhere near 288K. Hence the whole discussion about the atmosphere slowing the cooling of the surface is not relevant to the question, what will the surface temperature reach?
The surfaces of Earth, Venus etc can and do receive energy from the Sun absorbed by the atmosphere and conveyed downwards (following the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient) until it reaches the surface. This is a non-radiative process which is following the process of spontaneous evolving which is in statements of the Second Law. There is discussion of this on the PSI forum under, for example, my article about the 21st century new paradigm shift.
I was reading some of the other comments and thinking the best way to put it and came up with “a kind of greenhouse effect”.
Then I looked down and saw you had hit on it too.
That comment summed it up and was reenforced by Sheri’s later comment criticising Doug for constantly bringing up the term which I will not mention again.
Have asked Doug to try to summarize and break down his theory and present it.
So his reply was to tell me how long it was, 20 pages apparently and between Uranus and ballparks the whole concept is becoming murkier and murkier.
There is a limit to how much “advertising” is acceptable on somebody elses thread and I think maybe we have gone past it.
Hear, hear. This was the only point I ever wished to make re. Mr Cotton. Why everybody else wished to jump in, off topic, and demand this and that from me is…. well, perhaps its because Brooksie and Matttb are so scarce lately?
Kinky Keith: I could go for “a kind of greenhouse effect”. That would help people stop visually a glass building that you grow plants in while still sticking with a term that is familiar.
It seems Mr D Cotton will need to be asked if random noise can cause a cooler object to affect the temperature of a warmer object a few more times.
19.1.1.2.2
The Second Law of Thermodynamics explains a process in which thermodynamic equilibrium evolves spontaneously.
That process produces a gravitationally-induced temperature gradient which explains all planetary atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures, and how the energy gets down there to support such temperatures.
Is that brief and clear enough KK? There’s 20 pages of detail in my paper.
If he is so obviously wrong, prove it! It should be easy to do.
“incident radiation would have to be about 16,100W/m^2 into the surface to have any effect in that temperature range. And if it were it could probably do the job in a few hours, not 4 months.”
I just have a simple question. If 16,100Wm^2 will do the job in about 4 minutes how much would be required to do the job in about 8 minutes?
No more than 16,100W/m^2 because there would then be radiative equilibrium. But if the radiation is less, then it will never get to that temperature. If you are not familiar with Stefan-Boltzmann Law you can easily search for information on such. There is no way that the Venus surface could receive that much radiative flux coming from radiative flux from the Sun which is only about 2,600W/m^2 even before a lot of it gets reflected back to space at top of atmosphere. Do you have any other questions or doubt this obvious fact?
If you are not familiar with Stefan-Boltzmann Law you can easily search for information on such.
Very familiar with it in the form KTB.
You should not ignore KTB. This shows that due to the noise having a wide and continual variation in amplitude that your sudden and narrow equilibrium threshold line idea is nonsense.
K is Boltzmann’s constant, T is the temperature in deg K and B is the bandwidth in Hz.
The near infinite amount of noise bandwidth for a planet shows that amplitude variation can blur an equilibrium line.
The mistake you are making is to treat something that is NOT constant but is a long term average as if it were constant.
The lower end bandwidth of a planet is not just calculated on twice the wavelength proportional to the width of the planet but must also include the magnetic tail length. So as well as being obviously wide at the upper frequency end it is unpredictably wide at the lower frequency end.
Think about a scale balance with a constant weight on one side and a varying weight of the same long term average on the other. The scale would continually shift balance point at random frequencies within the bandwidth range.
if the radiation is less, then it will never get to that temperature.
Yes it will! If you cannot see this in noise amplitude variation just think about rouge waves.
The question is not if it will but how often it will. There is an obvious imbalance on Venus but your theory does not provide a source for the heat.
Aren’t they behaving like warmists, pushing their discredited meme into every post in the vain hope that the shear volume of bamboozle might catch out a few more unsuspecting newbs.
Unthreaded might have been mistaken for unravelling stuff, rather than just a lazy weekend.
According to John Kehr ‘The Inconvenient Skeptic -A comprehensive guide to climate change ‘, the climate of the Earth is controlled by Geography (Continental Drift and Land/Ocean distribution) and Milankovitch Cycles (Variations in the Earth’s tilt and eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit).
Kehr says that the critical factor is the total solar irradiance at 65N ( where most of the land is). He shows that the cycle of Ice Ages over the last 1 million years correlates well with the solar irradiance anomaly at 65N, and when it goes negative an Ice Age is coming!
The current interglacial warm period has lasted longer than average and the next Ice Age is over due. The solar irradiance anomaly at 65N went negative a few hundred years ago. We are enjoying a late Indian Summer.
Therefore Kehr says “Summer has gone, Autumn is fading, Winter is coming!
I feel glad that I live in the Southern Hemisphere. The Ice Age is apparently much less severe down here.
The book is a very good way to learn about climate. He is very clear and easy to read. I would note that he did say if he had to predict, he would say cold is coming. However, he makes few climate predictions but rather concentrates on basic climate information.
John Kehr may have a point, but look up the 100,000 year problem (and the Devil’s Hole). The expected start time of the last interglacial is out by 10-17,000 years on the Milankovitch cycle.
Also, an explanation is needed for the change from 41,000 year cycles pre one million years ago, to 100,000 year cycles with no differentiation between the 95 and 125,000 years expected.
We will know for sure about the coming ice age sometime in the next 10,000 years.
Only being out by 10% nevertheless makes this one of the more accurate pieces of climate “science”.
For Milankovitch timing Try Wikipedia with a grain, or five, of salt, or Google milankovitch cycles timing problems.
For Devil’s Hole try Google devil’s hole Nevada (or Death Valley) milankovitch (that gets the right Death Valley. Or try
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3021/pdf/fs2012-3021.pdf
Peter, your terminology is not quite correct. The Earth is actually in an ice age that has been around since the start of the Pleistocene epoch about 2.6 million years ago. We are awaiting the next glacial period within that ice age.
There is some evidence that the 100,000 year cycle may correlate with variations in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit. The gravitational attraction of Jupiter affects Earth’s orbit and the mean annual distance from the Sun will vary with eccentricity.
The Russian probes dropped onto the surface of Venus provided plenty of data – what’s your point?
Explain with valid physics (as I have) why it is what it is. (Clue: it is physically impossible for it to have anything to do with a radiative greenhouse effect.)
Try this for an alternate Venus theory. The greenhouse theory being wrong does not make just anything else correct. There are other problems to consider. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsA-Q6t8DuA
D Cotton. How do you explain the hotspots? Can you show that the gradient there matches a pressure gradient alone better than a pressure gradient with long term cooling as this theory predicts?
I have never said temperature relates directly to a pressure gradient, now have I? The Ideal Gas Law can be stated in the form ..
pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density.
Hence there is no necessary direct relationship between temperature and pressure or between temperature and density. That’s physics – which I have been studying and helping students with for about 50 years. Is there anything else I can help with?
It is still cold in Canada my contacts advise, here on the mid north coast of NSW 14.6 degC this early evening, and several tree limbs to be cleared tomorrow after high wind speeds.
.
Which “ignorant people” are you talking about, Dennis?
The “ignorant people” who just go on voting Labor in the naive belief that one day Labor will actually get back to “representing” them, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Or the “ignorant people” who just go on voting LIBS/NATS in the naive belief that one day they will actually get back to “representing” them, despite all evidence to the contrary.
An interesting report crossed my desk about a week ago.
Apparently the Mayor of Toronto. Rob Ford, is rumoured to have been videoed smoking crack. Gawker has offered to buy the video for $200,000, and is looking for donations.
So here is a report about something that might have happened, or might not. But the fact is that the social media has already decided and divided on the issue, although nobody has actually seen this video, or even knows if it exists.
If Gawker doesn’t get enough money to buy the video, then we might never know whether or not it exists.
But that doesn’t matter, because the damage has been done. Mr Ford’s reputation has already been trashed by the social media consensus, so he will probably not be in a position to run for office again.
It was not long ago that it was trendy to say “History is Journalism 2.0”.
Seems to me History is little more than the collected works of past Journalists.
With the way Journalism is descending into consensus of gossip rather than consensus of independant sources, can History itself be far behind?
The problem for revisionists is that old printed material still preserves a faithful record, but presumably revisionism gets easier at exponential pace in the Internet era.
As long as the sources that 80% of people will rely on can be revised, the remainder of the dissenting public can be dismissed as cranks on the fringe and “conspiracy theorists”. Unfortunately this is often a genuine charge because there is an entire “alternative history” industry eager to publish on paper a different hypothesis of history – with varying degrees of explanatory power.
You know, rekkers, the more I think about it the more I reckon the problem of History being an embellished or contrived consensus is an old problem.
But yeah, the disappearance of journalistic integrity does appear to be on the rise. The court of public opinion is a back door to feudalistic vigilantism, the opposite of due process in a fair society.
Andrew,
Don’t you think that Wikipedia and its transparent democratisation of knowledge is at the forefront of the disinformation superhighway to which you refer. In spite of overtures to improving access to knowledge to a global audience who lacked exposure to supposedly unbiased and unfettered knowledge ( a noble aim, and a mammoth task too achieved by the collective efforts of tens of thousands), it simultaneously offers the opportunity to set in train a series of politically motivated and/ or flagrantly erroneous beliefs slanted for effect which would be readily accepted as “truth” to become unshakeably entrenched in the public consciousness. It is a disturbing trend, even if intentions were pure, which I doubt, to facilitate an erosion of human knowledge in this way.
We’ve certainly as a species lost our moral and intellectual compass, and possibly also the trail of breadcrumbs as well.
Yes. The potential for Wikipedia to become the walls of the Floyd’s lyrical goldfish bowl has not escaped my attention, and in some ways is more insidious than the controlled corporate media in TV and print.
It’s okay for 99% of topics where there is no obvious motive for manipulation. On the other hand 99% of topics are unimportant most of the time.
I was thinking the other week that as youths we have an enormous ability to take in information, but this seems to be single-shot learning (Hebbian learning in neural lingo) because it is difficult to unlearn and forget the first lessons you see. Under such conditions it’s important for one’s first introduction to any topic to contain only the truth, lest the path to dissonance take root early.
It highlights the whole notion of self-guided unsupervised learning. At some point basic research must do this, obviously, so I guess WP cannot be given any more weight than any other web page.
The general solution is some critical analysis must be done with all sources on a case-by-case basis, whether it is Wikipedia, the TV news, or a dusty tome.
It’s okay for 99% of topics where there is no obvious motive for manipulation.
But there is a motive, look at what Political Correctness has done for us. PC style writing has been found in many of the 99% topics. Free speech isn’t what it used to be.
That Port Macquarie News item is reporting a lie, saying that Tony Abbott agreed with Oakeshott’s cleverly worded “questions” in Question time 28/5/2013.
It was also reported in the Manning Times (Taree area)
Perusal of Hansard for that day shows the process, starting the first part of the question at 14:22:
– Hansard,
Mr Oakeshott – My question is the Prime Minister – and, with the indulgence of the House,I invite the Leader of the Opposition to also answer this question.
Clarification by the Speaker
Mr Oakeshott – Will the Prime Minister , the leader of the other major party, if allowed, confirm for the House today, in a bipartisan way, their personal acknowledgement, acceptance and confidence in the facts and confidence in the facts and evidence in the facts and evidence of man made climate change ?
The Prime Minister has the call and answers (14:23)and absolutely confirms acceptance of climate change along the governments line – carbon pollution – tackle climate change – pricing carbon etc. etc.
Mr Albanese – adds his confirmation of the P.M.’s answer and stated no objection to the Leader of the Opposition to stating his response.
Mr Oakeshott – Speaker, I ask a supplementary question – and with the indulgence of the House, this can be answered at the end of question time as well.
Further – after Mr Albanese moved a motion to allow the Leader of the Opposition to respond (protocol in Question time)
Mr Abbott, Leader of the Opposition (14:28)
I welcome the opportunity to briefly put on the record the coalition’s position in this area. We accept the science that says that sometning is happening to our planet. We accept that – we always have, we always will
Speaker – Order –
Mr Abbott – The question is not whether or not our climate is impacted by human activity – clearly there is a human impact on our climate. The question is how is it best dealt with? The government believes that it should be dealt with, with a great big new tax, the coalition believes that it should be dealt with by a direct actioneasures.
– much more.
What was reported is not what was stated by Tony Abbott.
There is what is said, and then there is what the media wants you to think was said, and then there is what you want to believe was said, and then there is what your mates argue was said.
But if it is Hansard, then that is what was officially said, even if it wasn’t.
.
Can we please stop trying to guild the Lilly with cop-out phrases by Tony Abbott?
The specific vote put to the Parliament was:
Will the Prime Minister , the leader of the other major party, if allowed, confirm for the House today, in a bipartisan way, their personal acknowledgement, acceptance and confidence in the facts and confidence in the facts and evidence in the facts and evidence of man made climate change ?
The motion came after a speech in which Oakeshott stated, in no uncertain terms, that “climate change was real”, and “humans were the cause of it”.
.
The LIBS/NATS voted unanimously in favour of the motion.
.
And there are STILL people out there naive enough to think things will change under a LIB/NATS government.
I was under the impression that Oakeshott asked a question at question time, and sought leave of the Speaker to ask both sides of the house the same question (as he can do as an independent). The answers to those questions go (verbatim) into Hansard, and so are on the record. And that is the point of question time. There are no motions tabled during question time (*), and no divisions (votes) taken either.
What was reported in the media was probably crap, which was why Jefft was correct in referring back to Hansard.
(*) Unless the Australian Parliament has moved totally away from the Westminster tradition (that is similarly used in New Zealand).
I have not personally looked at Hansard for the day in question. But I might, because I am now interested.
If a vote was taken, the proceedings will be recorded, including who called for the vote, and the relative Ayes and Noes. If you have already looked, I will be happy to take your word on the matter. If you can give me the Hansard reference, I would be even happier.
Oakshott’s first question and Abbot’s first response to it were on (Tue) an earlier day than when the vote was moved by Oakshott (Wed).
The Hansard was available the next day.
Oakshott’s 1st question is here, but during Question time only Government ministers can take questions. Therefore Abbot did NOT answer Oakshott.
The question to Abbott was enabled by a motion from Albanese which is here, and is extremely vague.
Abbott’s response is here.
My intepretation is Abbott answered the 1st “climate change” question in the anthropogenic sense, since he knew Albanese was just using the rules to get Abbott to respond to Oakshott’s question.
Either way, clearly Abbott is still wedded to IPCC CAGW consensus.
The next day they had the vote called by Oakshott, which is here.
( Blogger science is light years ahead of Burke Science.)
The CSIRO consensus was then reaffirmed in motion 34.
The exact voting record by members is not recorded, presumably because the initial hand count was so obviously affirmative that division was not required??
I can guess how Abbott voted from his answer the previous day.
I have now looked at Hansard, and can report the following:
1. Oakeshott asked the Speaker if he could ask a question of Gillard, and also have Abbott answer it as well. That request was declined.
2. Oakeshott then asked Gillard (and as an aside Abbott) to confirm her personal acceptance of the evidence for man-made climate change.
3. Gillard then said that she accepted the science, “as I accept other scientific conclusions”, and then went on to explain that the Labour Party believed that carbon pricing schemes were the cheapest way of reducing, “carbon pollution”.
4. The Leader of the House, Albanese, then raised a point of order, saying that the Government would have no objection to Abbott stating his response. That request was declined.
5. Oakeshott the raised a Supplementary Question to ask both parties if there was a, “shared policy commitment” to reach a 5% reduction by 2020.
6, In response, Gillard said, “in the public debate to date it has been viewed as a bipqrtisan policy … aiming ,,, for a 5% reduction by 2020. Again, Abbott was declined the opportunity to respond (this is normal, under Standing Orders).
7. Albanese then asked for Standing Orders to be suspended to, “allow the Leader of the Opposition to address the House for no longer than three minutes …”
8. The motion (to suspend Standing Orders) was put to the vote and agreed to. At this point, question time was effectively suspended.
9. Abbott (making a statement to the house) agreed that the climate was impacted by human activity, but considered that the problem was best dealt with by direct action – planting more trees, better soils, smarter technology. Abbott claimed that would reach the 5% target by 2020, whereas the governments policy of taxation would not.
10. Following that statement, question time was resumed, with a patsy question from Smyth to Gillard about carbon pricing.
I can find no motion on the substance of either Gillard’s answer in question time, nor Abbott’s statement, following the suspension of question time. There was certainly no vote on climate change, let alone a unanimous one. There was, however, a general agreement that, “there is a human impact on our climate,” a statement that should be no surprise to anybody here.
All this is on page 23 of Hansard for 28 May 2013.
Abbott can believe humans are affecting the climate, why not?
The question is how much? Abbott didn’t say that he believed CO2 had any effect, he didn’t agree with anything from the IPCC. He left himself with all options open, while leaving Oakeshott thinking he had stitched him up.
I myself think we’ve had some effect, but it must be small because nobody has been able to quantify it, so 0.03 – 0.08 ℃ in 150 years at a maximum.
well I may be naive but I believe Tony is playing down the middle – he is hoping for a huge swing from the labor side of politics and declaring outright that AGW is BS would turn some of them away. It’s called playing politics.
If you can’t tell the difference between the two party philosophies, as you’ve claimed, then I suggest you vote informal and leave the rest of us who can to vote accordingly.
Coalition would run a surplus.
Coalition would abolish carbon tax.
Coalition would abolish mining tax.
Coalition would have a more functional IR.
Coalition would abolish renewable energy scheme.
Coalition supports private medical system.
Coalition would renew our relations with Indonesia.
Coalition would cut overseas aid.
What would they do with all of the Public Servants?
Think of the money required to pay redundancy. Think of the size of the Social Security budget required to pay the unemployment benefit. Think of the impact on the Canberra property market!
From where? Unlike Howard and Costello, they don’t have a Telstra lying around to flog off. A realistic look at Treasury’s figures shows that, under Labor, next year’s deficit will be around $25 billion. Abbott is promising to spend $1 billion less than Swan. Do the math.
Coalition would abolish the carbon tax.
Yes, and RETAIN the ETS with a floor price of $15.00 per tonne. Abbott will, in all likelihood, “abolish” the carbon tax simply bringing forward the start date for the ETS by 12 months.
Coalition would abolish the mining tax.
Good!! But so what? It never raised any money anyway, it has given the mining companies such a massive tax write-off they will pay very little tax for at least the next three years, and besides, the damage has already been done. $150 billion in cancelled projects.
Coalition would have a functional IR.
That would be Workchoices, that diddled hundreds of thousands of honest Australians out of millions in accrued holiday and long service leave pay. I lost $64,000 last time. Can’t wait.
Coalition would abolish renewable energy scheme.
Wrong! Abbott has repeatedly re-stated his support for the 20% RET – a 20% reduction in fossil fuel use over 20 years. Precisely what has doubled electricity prices over the last five years.
Coalition supports private medical system.
Coalition supports using taxpayer’s money to fund both levels of a two-tier health system. You don’t REALLY believe what you pay in private health insurance actually totally funds the private health system, do you? Besides, the current government supports the private medical system.
Coalition would renew our relations with Indonesia.
So would KRudd. Hardly a game-changer.
Coalition would cut overseas aid.
What overseas aid? In case you missed it, in the last budget the bulk of our aid was redirected to looking after boat people.
.
You left out some things. Like support for yet another monolithic multi-billion $ bureaucracy in the form of the NDIS. And an extra $9 billion for a Gonski in our failed education system. And $30 billion for “their” version of an NBN which is already obsolete, a decade before it’s even finished. Then there’s the multi-billion $ “paid parental leave” package that will tax even more businesses out of business, while at the same time make women of child-bearing age unemployable.
.
Janama, nobody is denying that Abbott and the Libs are a better alternative to Gillard and Labor. Hell, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge would probably be a better alternative. But it’s time for some reality.
As a country, we are now over $400 billion in debt. Even on Treasury’s Alice in Wonderland “guestimates”, we now have a structural (annual recurring) hole in our budget, of around $20 billion a year. It is more realistically closer to $50 billion a year.
The mining construction boom is over, manufacturing is shrinking at the rate of 11% per year, and the services sector are busy off-shoring everything they can. After 30 years of socialist feelgood groupthink running our education system – including apprenticeships – we are now a nation of dysfunctional illiterates with a skills shortage. We have the most expensive housing in the world.
.
It’s time for some serious leadership. Somehow I don’t think “renewed relationships with Indonesia” is really going to make all that much difference.
…….Abbott is promising to spend $1 billion less than Swan. Do the math.
It’s not about how much you spend – It’s about how much you SAVE!! That’s what created the surplus in the previous government.
Coalition would abolish the carbon tax.
…….Yes, and RETAIN the ETS with a floor price of $15.00 per tonne.
Since when? We have no ETS to RETAIN! The aim of reducing emissions by 20% is just that, an aim.
Coalition would abolish the mining tax.
…….. $150 billion in cancelled projects.
Yup – take away the mining and carbon taxes and improve IR plus an increase in business confidence and watch those projects restart!
Coalition would have a functional IR.
……….I lost $64,000 last time. Can’t wait.
Well obviously you were being paid a motsa when your penalties equal the average Australian wage – F**K you and your pain!
Coalition would abolish renewable energy scheme.
……….a 20% reduction in fossil fuel use over 20 years. Precisely what has doubled electricity prices over the last five years.
No – the upgrading of Poles and Wires has upped the prices, the carbon tax has upped the prices, the damn solar and wind subsidies have upped the prices.
Coalition supports private medical system.
……….You don’t REALLY believe what you pay in private health insurance actually totally funds the private health system, do you?
NO I don’t and what we pay in medicare levy doesn’t either. Medicine is getting more and more expensive – there’s no way out other than making those who can afford to pay for it to do so.
Coalition would renew our relations with Indonesia.
………So would KRudd. Hardly a game-changer.
I’m referring to a Government initiative, not some egoist strutting the world stage once again.
Coalition would cut overseas aid.
……….What overseas aid?
$5.7 Billion this year – the boat people were a further $2.7 billion. That’s the NDIS paid for immediately!
Well obviously you were being paid a motsa when your penalties equal the average Australian wage – F**K you and your pain!
No Janama,
Nearly six years of FIFO to remote sites, no annual holidays, working on public holidays including Christmas and Easter, accruing “time off in lieu – somewhere down the track”, no penalty rates, and two days off sick in the whole time.
How much have you been paid in annual holiday pay, paid public holidays, and accrued in long service leave, over the last six years, Janama?
To add insult to injury, because I would not agree to be immediately re-employed – minus all those entitlements, I was left stranded 4,000 kilometres from home and had to get myself back.
Not that any of this matters one whit: a law which allowed unscrupulous employers to cheat their employees – regardless of how much they earn, is a bad law, an unfair law, an evil law.
And just to finish, yes, I earned good money. In the same period of time I brought in over $8 million worth of new contract work, so I reckon I was probably worth it.
.
Most of the rest of your comment is just so wrong, it’s not worth the attempt to rebut it.
Get yourself a copy of the Official Liberal Party Environment Policy and read what they intend to do, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
How much have you been paid in annual holiday pay, paid public holidays, and accrued in long service leave, over the last six years, Janama?
None MV – I’ve been self employed most my life. I don’t get holidays, accrued long service leave and I work when I need to, be it a public holiday or not.
I assume you signed an employment contract and, as you said, you were well paid.
Work choices is dead and buried as you well know and to bring it up is just playing games. It’s got to the stage now that restaurants in Sydney aren’t opening on weekends and cruise ships are arriving at circular quay with nowhere to feed their passengers when they embark to explore Sydney Town. That’s how stupid the IR laws are.
Most of the rest of your comment is just so wrong, it’s not worth the attempt to rebut it.
Here is my take on the subject of global warming. The main components of the atmosphere, nitrogen, oxygen and argon, which make up 99.9% of the air we breath, cannot cool down by emitting radiation. Most people seem to believe that warm air rises and cools. Certainly the temperature drops, but not the energy level. Air that absorbs energy from the surface carries that energy up to the altitude where it can be radiated to space. “But the air cannot radiate!” Quite right. The ‘greenhouse gases’ radiate. Mostly CO2. Between the surface and the altitude of radiation is a thermal system. Energy passes through the atmosphere to warm the surface. The air in contact with the surface warms and rises up the adiabatic slope. Lots of other things happen up the slope like clouds and things. But essentially the energy keeps rising because something at the top is radiating away to space and that something is mostly good old CO2. Be grateful for it. It keeps a cool spot up in the atmosphere so warmed air below can keep rising.
It’s been seasonally cool in the US–snow in New York, snow in the mountains north of where I live (Big Horn mountains in Wyoming–3 feet or more). Had to keep the heat on in our cabin over Memorial Day. Today is supposed to be warmer, but mostly we are seasonal or below. It’s not really uncommon for this time of year, if you go by past experience, not the weather forecaster. I rarely put garden plants out before the first of June. It’s just that the media has nuts with this “global warming” nonsense and see everything as proof of impending doom.
Regarding ‘informal votes” – – – If I understand this, the idea is to vote incorrectly so as to not have to pay a $20 penalty or “If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs.” http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Voting_Australia.htm#compulsory
In the USA voting is not compulsory [only 1 in 4 registered voters turned out for the recent vote for LA mayor] but we do have a place on ballots for write-in names. You can write in any name you wish, even your own, and people do so. I can write in Banjo Paterson if I decide he would make a better choice than the ones listed. Sometimes there is a real write-in candidate that may not have made it onto the ballot in a regular way (say as a party candidate).
The madness of crowds doesn’t let little inconvenient science facts get in the way of the delusion.
The delusion is their blanket, their warm thermal blanket wrapping itself around them where from under its cover snuggled tight they argue with great passion against each other on the degree of warming given them by their trace blanket which is practically 100% hole in the atmosphere as temperatures outside plummet into a new LIA.
I like reading books by meteorologists. The late Robin Stirling in “The Weather of Britain” points out that in a really cold spell, the air will be freezing from the ground right up to the stratosphere.
He also tells us that in the evening, frost will form first on the ground and on surfaces which will lose heat most rapidly. As the night passes, the depth of frosty air will increase as successive layers of air are chilled by mixing and conduction.
Practical observations of what happens in the atmosphere, and a relief from the endless CO2 handwringing!
that great “authority” – the World Bank – which wants a Global Carbon Dioxide currency – appears unconcerned that a likely new Govt in Australia in Sept would rock their boat in any way! links to the report:
31 May: CleanTechnica: Silvio Marcacci: World Bank Finds 60 Carbon Pricing Systems In Place Or In Development
(Silvio is Principal at Marcacci Communications, a full-service clean energy public relations company based in Washington, D.C._
This wide-ranging assessment comes from no less an authority than the World Bank, which announced their findings this week in a new report “Mapping Carbon Pricing Initiatives: Developments and Prospects.”
The Bank’s findings once again underling the growing momentum toward an interconnected global carbon market working to fight climate change and spur the transition to a global clean energy economy…
“Even as the first generation of the carbon market stutters…it is progress at the country level that gives hope,” said Rachel Kyte, World Bank vice president for sustainable development. “Carbon pricing is emerging and carbon markets have a future.”…
***In addition, carbon taxes are cited in Australia, British Columbia, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom…
Linkages between the EU and Australia and California and Quebec, and potentially the EU and China, will create efficiencies and benefits for each system…
***Bank analysts also note the growing trend of existing or scheduled systems expanding coverage of domestic emissions, with Australia and Korea now targeting 60% coverage, California eyeing 85% coverage, and New Zealand targeting 100% coverage within a few years… http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/31/world-bank-finds-60-carbon-pricing-systems-in-place-or-in-development/
31 May: Noosa News: Adam Carroll: Opposition bungled Gillard dismissal bid says independent
(Rob Oakeshott)”If the no confidence motion is because of the ‘carbon tax’, then I ask Tony Abbott and Chris Pyne why they personally voted in full confidence in Parliament last week for the science of man-made climate change? Why would I now support a Coalition carbon tax that costs taxpayers more and does less?,” Mr Oakeshott said… http://www.noosanews.com.au/news/opposition-bungled-gillard-dismissal-bid-says-inde/1890140/
31 May: Manning River Times: Parties agree on the science of climate change
IT’S official. The Liberal, National and Labor parties all agree on the science of climate change and all agree to reduce carbon emissions by exactly the same amount by 2020…
(Rob Oakeshott)”While one thing is said in the parliament and another on the ground in some electorates across the country, the integrity of Australia’s scientific community has taken, and continues to take, a beating.
“There is bipartisanship on climate change and on the need to respond to the pollution question, and now those positions have been made very clear, I hope the mistrust of Australia’s finest climate scientists, among the best in their field in the world, comes to an end.
“The politics of this issue has been allowed to undermine science in a way never before seen in this country and it’s time it came to an end.”
Mr Oakeshott said it wasn’t just science under attack, but experts in other fields as well all for the sake of political one-upmanship…
“We do our nation no favours at all if we allow the men and women who are the experts in their fields to be denigrated and ridiculed for political expediency,” Mr Oakeshott said.
“These are the people who are charged with providing governments with the best advice, based on data, research and investigation and yet, for political reasons, often have their reputations tarnished because their objective advice doesn’t fit with a certain political message.
“The time for cheap shots against our scientists and our public servants has come to an end and I invite the Labor, Liberal and National parties to show bipartisanship for my Notice of Motion on Treasury and Finance, just as they did today during Question Time on climate change,” Mr Oakeshott said. http://www.manningrivertimes.com.au/story/1540447/parties-agree-on-the-science-of-climate-change/?cs=1467
“The politics of this issue has been allowed to undermine science in a way never before seen in this country and it’s time it came to an end.”
Indeed, to completely misrepresent, distort & hold science hostage to political patronage. What’s he playing at though ? Trying to portray a consensus of politicians ? Who’s he trying to kid ?
Abbott accepts the science for what it is or rather perhaps for what it has become.
.
And what’s the paltry 5% . Is that all he can establish agreement on. Countries considering CO2 a serious threat (however misguidedly) are touting 20% for 2020. Perhaps that’s why he didn’t mention the Greens, or did he just forget them ?
3 June: Courier Mail: Robyn Ironside: Campbell Newman sorry for soaring power prices, wants debate over solar bonus feed-in tariff
PREMIER Campbell Newman has vowed to rein in the “mind-blowing, excessive” increase in electricity prices, flagging likely new charges for households with solar panels…
“It’s a matter of national competitiveness now. People in the US and Canada and even the European Union now are paying less than us (for electricity). It has to be dealt with.”
He said he also wanted a debate over the solar feed-in tariff which was “ultimately costing other Queenslanders”.
“The solar feed-in tariff sees a relatively small group of households get a very lucrative deal, far too lucrative in many cases, and the rest of the households are paying for that,” the Premier said.
“Roughly 180,000 households are benefiting with low power prices or getting cheques and well over 1.5 million are paying for that benefit to those people.”
The Courier-Mail understands 92,600 Queensland households pay nothing for power or get money back as a result of the generous solar feed-in tariff introduced by the previous Labor government.
Under the deal, residents with solar are paid 44c a kilowatt hour for power – about 21c a kilowatt hour more than what it costs them.
The Newman Government has slashed the benefit for new solar panel installations to 8c.
Mr Newman described the situation as “just ridiculous”.
“The solar tariff feed-in situation is one that sees those with the financial means to pay for panels win at the expense of poorer households and disadvantaged people,” he said… http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/campbell-newman-sorry-for-soaring-power-prices-wants-debate-over-solar-bonus-feed-in-tariff/story-e6freoof-1226655448771
One of Australia’s most senior climate scientists is highly critical of Canadian research suggesting a re-think on the reason behind global warning.
Professor David Karoly is one of Australia’s leading experts on climate change.
He was a lead author on the fourth intergovernmental panel on climate change assessment report. He’s a review editor on the fifth assessment report.
Although the paper is “peer-reviewed,” Karoly believes this paper is wrong.
He also is an author of the Karoly/Gergis paper which failed peer review.
My assessment of this is the study is completely wrong. A number of other studies have looked at the magnitude of the likely impact of chlorofluorocarbons on changing global temperatures.
This has been done in both the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assessments and in a number of other studies and yes, chlorofluorocarbons are a small contributor to global warming through their role as a greenhouse gas. But, much, much smaller than the role of carbon dioxide.
So you see we have to downplay every other alternative in an effort to stop CO2 from becoming a bit part player, the gravy train can only survive as long as CO2 is bad.
Just another attempt to blame it all on “Evil Man” now the wheels have well and truly fallen off the CO2 meme.
Climate goes in 25 to 30 year (roughly) cycles of warming and cooling, overlaid on a larger cycle of around 150 years (roughly) warming and cooling. Here are the periods (roughly) since we came out of the LIA:
The period 1850 to 2000 was a 150 year overall warming cycle, so it will now get progressively cooler over the next 150 years, interspersed with 30 year (roughly) warming and cooling periods. That’s how I learned it in Junior High School in 1966, and so far nothing has happened to falsify the hypothesis.
This latest “ozone depletion theory” goes nowhere to explain the warming periods 1850 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940, which predate the use of CFC’s
The entire “ozone hole” business is a furphy. For a start, there is no ozone “layer” to get a “hole” in it. The principal source of atmospheric ozone is sunlight striking oxygen (O2) molecules, resulting in the formation of the oxygen allotrope, “ozone” (O3). Simply put, no O2, no ozone. No sunlight, no ozone.
The so-called “ozone hole” that “mysteriously appears” over Antarctica is a purely natural, cyclical phenomenon, the result of the lack of sunlight over the previous three months.
Ozone concentration is measured in “Dobson Units”, which in turn are measured with a “Dobson Spectrophotometer”. Both are named after their inventor, Professor Gordon Dobson. In 1957 Professor Dobson won the “International Geophysical Man of the Year” award for his work using the entirely natural and cyclical depletion of ozone at Antarctica, to prove the existence of, and map, the upper air currents we now refer to as the “slipstream currents”, which are responsible for much of our weather patterns.
All this was explained in Dobson’s book, “Exploring the Atmosphere”, originall published in 1962, which was one of my physics textbooks in Senior High School.
Unfortunately Dobson’s work did not fit the requirements of post-modern science, so, like Tesla and others, he has been quietly “disappeared” from the science and history books, including the internet.
Some pastoralists in South Australia’s north are reporting drought breaking rains and the best start to winter for several decades.
“Hopefully it means some winter feed that we just haven’t had for quite a number of years. 1995 was the last time we had anything like this.”
Kathleen Allan from Yass says the rain was a great relief after many dry months; freshening pasture for her new lambs and adding inches to the level of her dams.
Janama, this is where the problem lies. We need to effect change back to rational thought and conclusions for the improvement of Australian citizens. However with people around convinced by “the science” it is going to be a very long fight.
I don’t agree with “MV” although I do share his frustration. I don’t think the Libs are a wasted vote yet. If they get in with a majority and then force a change in thinking away from the current norm I would be happy. Let’s not try and move the whole of the mountain let’s try and erode it away bit by bit.
What worries me most of all is the ICLEI, Agenda 21 and “Sustainable Development”. It has the capacity to change everything that our society has stood for since Federation and and perhaps before. It has the capacity to remove our property rights even further than what they are at present and doing this behind closed doors. Everything for the “greater good” at the expense of the individual. Personally I find it offensive.
I really think these elected professionals should be held accountable but of course that will never happen. I would like to know how many councils in Australia have signed up to the ICLEI and follow their doctrines. I find this morally repulsive and have troubles dealing with it or expressing myself fully. Detestable !!
In the meantime, my idea is to vote for the Libs, don’t give them a chance to change their minds and vote out these Councillors who are in favour of ICLEI and Agenda 21. That’s all we can do to hopefully improve this great country.
I really think these elected professionals should be held accountable but of course that will never happen. I would like to know how many councils in Australia have signed up to the ICLEI and follow their doctrines. I find this morally repulsive and have troubles dealing with it or expressing myself fully. Detestable !!
Bob they don’t hide it as far as I know. Go to http://www.iclei.org/our-members/iclei-members.html as there’s a list of members,but I don’t know if they have removed councils or others that requested to be removed from that list.
I still think there’s bit change coming re Wind Farms. You may want to read what John Madigan and Nick xenophon think about them,and they aren’t alone on it either.
@ Rereke, Memory Vault,
Better late than never – the Tinyurl for Hansard 28th May 2013
Place into the toolbar http://tinyurl.com/ltbfqag
Start p22 heading Climate Change
– I feel it was an unnecessary question, placed as a trap by Rob Oakeshott, possibly instigated by the government.
Anthony Albanese was too willing to move for a response from Tony Abbott.
Question time normally does not allow debate, only a question and an answer response.
To those who still believe there is a greenhouse effect:
Why do you say the greenhouse effect is real? If it were real on Earth then it should operate on any planet with a significant atmosphere. Back radiation can indeed slow radiative surface cooling. So too can oxygen and nitrogen slow non-radiative cooling by conduction at the surface-atmosphere boundary. But something else has to raise a planet’s surface temperature before we worry about how slowly its cooling. That “something else” sets the maximum temperature. If it were direct incident Solar radiation, then it certainly is not raising the Venus surface to 730K with only about 10W/m^2 reaching the surface. And it would only get to about 255K (not 288K) on Earth, now wouldn’t it?
Consider Uranus, then. It receives about 3W/m^2 of Solar radiation which is nearly all absorbed and re-emitted in the uppermost layers of its atmosphere. There the temperature is about 53K whilst the radiating temperature is similar at about 59K. (See Wiki)
About 350Km further down is the base of the theoretical troposphere where, according to the Wikipedia article “Uranus” sub-heading “Troposphere” the temperature is about 320K. But of course there is no significant Solar radiation reaching down there, and no surface anyway, and so it is not a greenhouse effect which is supplying the necessary energy to keep it that hot. Nor is there any evidence of significant net outward energy flow from the centre. So it’s not a hot planet cooling off, and it’s not generating energy in its centre or core.
I have explained the heat transfer by the spontaneous process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What’s your explanation?
If it were real on Earth then it should operate on any planet with a significant atmosphere.
No. It should operate anywhere that outgoing surface continuum radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. Uranus has no solid or liquid surface and Venus has almost no sunlight reaching its surface, therefore we would not expect to see a measurable greenhouse effect on either Venus or Uranus. So the rest of your disproof does not logically follow.
However I accept that your inability to disprove the theory is not enough to justify believing in the greenhouse effect.
I would certainly like to know the truth of the matter, so here’s how I see it.
Back radiation can indeed slow radiative surface cooling.
Yes, that’s the greenhouse effect.
Water vapour is evaporating and convecting and transporting heat upwards to the stratosphere where it and CO2 can radiate the energy back into space. Last time I checked a joule takes a lot longer to travel 60km upwards by convection than when travelling at the speed of light. So each joule spends longer at lower altitude. The energy density below the point of absorption is therefore higher than if the infrared had proceeded uninterrupted. This is true even before the back-radiation occurs. Higher energy density manifests as higher temperature.
The net effect of GHGs differs between altitudes. At low pressures CO2 has few neigbours so its effect is one of radiatively cooling the planet at TOA. (I had to explain that to a warmist three years ago.)
At high pressures the photon-energised CO2 and H2O are likely to bump into other molecules before re-emitting the absorped photon energy, so the redirection of LWIR energy into kinetic energy at low altitudes by IR gases leads to a greenhouse effect there.
When the high and low altitude effects of GHGs are combined, all one can really say is that they overall redistribute solar energy within the atmosphere.
Without any atmosphere the volume over which the day/night energy see-saw operates would be confined to a few meters of rocks and the surface temperature at noon would be higher, due to the high energy density.
After adding an atmosphere but no IR gases, the surface would be only slightly cooler due to the atmosphere taking up a finite amount of surface energy simply due to its heat capacity, so slightly lowering the energy density at the surface, but the temperature would still be quite high because the lack of GHGs means the surface is still the only thing that can eject energy back to space.
After adding some GHGs (IR gases) the TOA can then emit thermal radiation, plus it allows convective cycles, so the outgoing energy is now stretched out over a much larger volume, the lower layers have a lower energy density, you get a vastly cooler surface temperature.
After adding more GHGs to an atmosphere that already has plenty enough GHGs at TOA to cool itself, what happens? Well more energy is redirected away from surface radiation into low altitude convection and back-radiation, this leads to the surface cooling slower at night, more joules are taking the slow train instead of the fast train, so the effect at low altitude is to increase energy density and the surface equilibrium temperature. At the same time the greater supply of GHGs at TOA allows it to cool itself quicker, but the low altitude redirection of radiation into convection means the thermosphere does not receive energy as quickly, so the greater TOA cooling ability is partly offset by being underutilised. So you have stratospheric and thermospheric cooling.
The weather balloons have shown both stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming over the last 50 years, though the latitudinal extent and strength of the warming were wrong in the IPCC models.
Harry Huffman’s fairly successful calculation of equivalent temperatures in Venus for pressure/temperature combinations on Earth can be interpeted as meaning that beyond a certain saturation level, adding more CO2 than is necessary doesn’t lead to a cooler temperature.
The HITRAN absorption spectrum for the lower atmosphere shows a thin band around 15um where CO2 absorbs 20 times more energy than water does in that band. This is still such a tiny slice of the LWIR spectrum that I doubt CO2 makes much difference to the greenhouse effect (probably the only point we can agree on). Nonetheless it is not zero so from at least a philosophical point of view (ie a Physics point of view) a greenhouse effect from CO2 exists.
Water vapour by comparison is huge in LWIR absorption across a broad range and in theory it is the #1 GHG.
The end result of Earth’s GHG concentration on temperature I think is probably a U-curve with an optimum minimum temperature at the inflection point. Too few or too many GHGs for the given insolation and the surface is hotter. Evaporated water forms clouds that produce a negative feedback. So we’re lucky in the sense that the most powerful GHG has a negative feedback, and the GHG with no negative feedback (CO2) happens to be quite weak.
Hypothetically If all water was removed from the atmosphere the lack of cloud would increase insolation by 15% but most surface IR could escape to space about 3600000 times faster, so in ballpark figures the effect would be surface cooling. CO2 would still be present in the upper atmosphere at the same concentration so Earth’s cooling ability overall would be the same, but the energy is distributed higher in the atmosphere so the tropospheric GHE is reduced and the surface is cooler.
Just to turn the tables then, if you don’t believe the greenhouse effect exists, how are water molecules able to conspire to emit their IR in only the upwards direction? And do they have teleportation devices that allow them to convect at the speed of light? How will you arrange for energy density to remain the same when some Joules with stars in their eyes get stuck in traffic? Does the energy go on a diet and lose some weight to exactly offset their greater density?
Well my sarcasm there is just highlighting that I do not know how you can conserve energy and not have a greenhouse effect from IR-active gases. It’s the No-GHE Hypothesis that I see as having the most challenges in front of it.
You ask why I say the GHE is real and the above is my current answer. Which part of it is either demonstrably false or technically unknowable? I’d like to know.
So, then, does this look like perhaps a new Texas Oil Rush?
I received this in an email from a friend in the U.S. this afternoon, so I’ll just copy most of it into a block quote, and this was dated 24May2013. The Cline Shale Deposit is near Midland in the East of Texas close to the New Mexico border,.
If early estimates prove to be even close to true, the vast amounts of recoverable oil and natural gas will make the Cline Shale go down in history as the largest shale play ever. Communities across the Permian Basin have already been feeling the effects of surging exploration activity, and indications are that the pace may pick up rapidly.
The Cline Shale is about 140 miles long, 70 miles wide, and 200-550 feet thick stretching through the Permian Basin and southward. Test wells are exceeding expectations and indicate the shale could contain 3.6 million barrels of recoverable oil per square mile or as much as 30 billion barrels in total. Yes, billion. That’s multiples of the likely production from other well-known shales such as the Bakken up north or the Eagle Ford here in Texas.
Shale formations such as the Cline are still a relatively new source of oil and gas production. Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and other improvements in drilling tools and techniques have been crucial to opening up these fields. Fracking involves injecting a high-pressure mix of water, sand, and chemicals to allow oil and gas to flow out of the fine-grained shales. Texas is full of shales, and the ability to tap them for oil and gas has created a boom in new activity.
The Barnett Shale, which is situated under Fort Worth and a large surrounding area, was one of the first shale formations to be developed. The Barnett’s existence was known for decades before the first wells were drilled in about 1993. After a few slow years, permit activity took off, peaking at 4,145 in 2008. However, the Barnett is primarily a natural gas producer, and today’s much lower prices aren’t as favorable to drilling there. Nonetheless, thousands of wells are completed in the Barnett each year, and production continues to rise.
The Eagle Ford Shale is a 50-mile wide field extending from the Mexican border up into east Texas. The first wells were drilled in 2008, and the number of permits rose quickly to 2,826 in 2011 and 4,143 last year. The Eagle Ford produces more oil than the Barnett and has a high carbonate content that is favorable to fracking.
The Cline is the newest shale to emerge as a major site of activity. Even apart from the sheer magnitude of the recoverable reserves, the mix of oil, dry gas and liquids is particularly favorable given the high oil price environment. In addition, operating costs in the Permian Basin are lower than in some of the other shales, and a longstanding network of suppliers, service firms and other necessities for the business is already in place.
…..
Texas oil production has doubled since 2005 and Texas Railroad Commissioner Barry Smitherman is on record with an estimate that it could double again by 2016 and triple by the early 2020s. The economic benefits of this increase in production are massive, including thousands upon thousands of high-paying jobs. The shales around the state are a driving factor, and it appears that their effects will only magnify with the massive Cline.
No wonder Natural Gas Fired Power Plants are booming in the U.S.
Apparently we have a similar, if not bigger, deposit Tony.
SYDNEY — Australian resources firm Linc Energy said it had uncovered a huge oil deposit in the nation’s vast outback in a discovery hailed Thursday by officials as worth some Aus$20 trillion (US$21 trillion).
Linc said two independent reviews of its three deposits in central Australia’s Arckaringa Basin had estimated there was up to 233 billion barrels of shale oil trapped within its rocks.
“Analysis presented in these reports indicates that the Stuart Range formation and the underlying Boorthanna and Pre-Permian formations are rich in oil and gas prone kerogen that may form the basis of a new liquids-rich shale play,” Linc said in a statement.
The announcement saw Linc’s share price skyrocket 23.6 percent to close at Aus$2.67.
However, officials cautioned that it was too early to say whether the oil could be profitably tapped, and the company sought to distance itself from the high-end valuations.
AGWScienceFiction has taken out the direct Heat from the Sun, longwave infrared aka thermal infrared, and replaced that with the nonsense that shortwaves from the Sun, mainly visible, heat the Earth’s land and water – they can’t, this is a physical impossibility.
It takes heat energy to move whole molecules into vibration, which is what radiant heat from the Sun does.
Shortwaves are titchier, they work on the electronic transition level, the level of electrons, and convert to chemical energy like sugar in photosynthesis, not heat energy.
There is no heat from the Sun in the fictional fisics world of AGW.
So there is no weather, and therefore no climate. It’s climate scientists don’t even know they have no climate.
such a nice CAGW touch to the latest UK political scandal:
3 June: UK The Week: Lords for sale? How the lobbying crisis unfolded
The Sunday Times’ front page links three peers to the lobbying scandal: The paper tells its readers it decided to send undercover reporters to the House of Lords to investigate allegations it had become “infested” with peers acting as paid lobbyists and using parliament as a “business centre”. The reporters covertly filmed three peers – Ulster Unionist Lord Laird, Labour’s Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate and Lord Cunningham – appearing to offer to help a fake South Korean solar energy company. The peers allegedly offer to ask parliamentary questions, lobby ministers and host receptions in the House of Lords in return for cash. Lord Cunningham – a minister under Tony Blair – allegedly offers to write to David Cameron to push the solar energy company’s supposed agenda and is offered a monthly payment of £10,000. “Make that… £12,000 a month. I think we could do a deal on that,” he replies…
The repercussions begin: All three peers deny any wrongdoing, but Lord Laird resigns the Ulster Unionist whip on Sunday morning and refers himself to Westminster authorities. He issues a statement saying: “I have not broken any rules.” Shortly later, the Labour Party announces it is suspending Lord Cunningham, the former cabinet minister, and Lord Mackenzie, a former police chief, “pending further investigation”. http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/53364/lords-sale-how-lobbying-crisis-unfolded
Perhaps, but what’s important is how cold it is at the North Pole.
I’ve never been there but I’m told its melting. Having no understanding of anything much not the least the difference between causation and correlation I naturally assume that it’s because the air is warm there as a result of the greenhouse effect.
The world is at risk and only by “doing something” can we save the world. That “doing something” could include expansion of the government and sacrifice of my rights.
In other words, I’m a brain dead lemming sucking at the MSM’s proverbial teet.
But, Alas I am happy!
It’s very simple, the AGW narrative of The Greenhouse Effect is based completely and utterly on fake fisics. FAKE FISICS. It is something a novelist would come up with in writing a fantasy sci-fi world, similar to ours but completely different.
Because you, generic promoting AGW fictional fisics of the faked Greenhouse Effect, don’t know, or will not grasp, what traditional physics already knows well about the properties and processes of the gases in our atmosphere under gravity, you can‘t, or won’t, see how utterly absurd the physics. It’s a joke. You can’t or won’t appreciate the joke, because you can’t even hear it – perhaps because you don’t have any sound in your empty space atmosphere..
Real physics basics have been changed.
That is a science fact.
You have no properties to your gases, you have no processes because you have no properties.
Your gases are without volume, there is nothing for real world gravity to act on so your massless pretend gases called ideal in real science zoom around empty space and cannot therefore be kept in by gravity – so you bypass that and put in an imaginary container. Where is this imaginary container stopping your massless weightless volumeless without attraction ideal gases from zooming into outer space?
Come on, where is this container?
Why hasn’t it ever been mentioned in real world physics?
What is it made of?
How does it prevent your imaginary ideal gases from zooming to the ends of the universe?
Your imaginary container must be so powerful to prevent the great heat from our millions of degree hot Sun from entering at TOA – show its existence in the real world.
You can’t. You can’t because it doesn’t exist.
Your “physics” basics are a mangled but clever tweaking of real physics basics, giving the property of one thing to another, simply by the bog standard con tricks of lying such as that -18°C represents absence of your “greenhouse gases”, and so on and so on.
Because you don’t have, or know and pretend otherwise, real world physics on the properties and processes of the natural world around us, you can’t or won’t answer my direct science questions. Instead ad homs and strawman responses is all I ever get from any of you, or direct or covert censorship..
If you know real physics basics you will see just how funny your world where you have taken out the atmosphere completely!
Where you go straight from the surface of the Earth into empty space.
You, generic, are a joke as scientists. And someone has educated you to be that.
If that doesn’t bother you then you’re not human..
You say that we don’t get any heat, longwave infrared, from our millions of degree hot Sun!
You don’t understand that is what you are saying because you repeat ad nauseum fake fisics memes produced to distract you from seeing this is what you’re really saying.
You say the great heat from our millions of degrees hot Sun is stopped by some invisible unknown to real science barrier like the glass of a greenhouse!
Or you say that our millions degree hot Sun doesn’t even produce heat!
Gosh, let me know when you can see how ridiculous that is, then I’ll explain why you don’t have any sound either…
No one likes to find himself victim of a con, but we’re all victims of it. We’ve all been made fools of here. Up to you whether you meet that face on or hide from it.
At the moment we have applied scientists who know we get the great heat from the Sun direct, longwave infrared, and have designed windows and window film to block as much of that from entering a room while maximising entry for visible light – why have they done this?
Why are people buying these, expensive, solutions to save on even more expensive air conditioning costs to keep the room cool if there is no direct heat from the Sun entering at TOA?
According to AGWScienceFiction fisics which says that visible light heats matter these windows are maximising the heating of the room!
Soon, it appears inevitable, there will none left in the general population who could design such glass and film, there will just be left oiks who produce them who haven’t the faintest idea how they work. To them it will appear to be magic..
Your fake fisics has taken out the real heat from the Sun.
The Sun’s great millions of degrees thermal energy on the move transferred by radiation.
Trenberth’s missing heat is the missing from his comic cartoon energy budget the real heat from the Sun.
3 June: SMH: Time to switch to ‘Plan B’ on climate change: study
Climate policy makers must come up with a new global target to cap temperature gains because the current goal is no longer feasible, according to a German study.
Limiting the increase in temperature to 2 degrees Celsius since industrialisation is unrealistic because emissions continue to rise and a new global climate deal won’t take effect until 2020, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs said.
“Since a target that is obviously unattainable cannot fulfill either a positive symbolic function or a productive governance function, the primary target of international climate policy will have to be modified,” said Oliver Geden, author of the report, which will be released today as talks begin in Bonn…
European Union leaders will have to develop “clear ideas” on a way forward because the temperature goal, pushed mainly by the 27-member bloc, has failed to trigger successful policies, according to the Berlin-based institute, which advises Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government…
Raising the temperature goal may fail to gain traction at UN talks, where the 52-member AOSIS bloc of island nations and the group of 49 Least Developed Countries are seeking a stricter target to curtail the increase to 1.5 degrees. Envoys have agreed to examine the feasibility of that goal in light of new scientific findings before an accord is reached…
“If the EU wants to maintain its role as a global leader in climate policy, it will have to investigate all options for target modification as soon as possible – even those that seem politically unappealing,” Geden said in the study. http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/time-to-switch-to-plan-b-on-climate-change-study-20130603-2nmes.html
3 June: SMH: Bloomberg: Green bonds win favour with $US100m US offering
Massachusetts, taking a cue from the World Bank, is selling $US100 million in debt called Green Bonds, saying it’s the first US state to issue such securities to fund environmental projects.
The tax-exempt general obligations are modeled after ones from the Washington-based development lender, which has sold more than $US3 billion in green securities since 2008 to help combat climate change.
***Endowments and pension funds that are required to invest in environmental ventures may be attracted to the issue, state Treasurer Steven Grossman said. Proceeds of this week’s sale will be used for improving energy efficiency in state buildings, river revitalization and land acquisition, according to bond documents.
“Since we are engaged in a whole series of green projects, why not let people invest directly in those projects and allow people to have a new asset choice,” Grossman, a 67-year-old Democrat, said by telephone from Boston… http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/green-bonds-win-favour-with-us100m-us-offering-20130603-2nmfp.html
there are so many extraordinary moments in the Daily Mail/Ed Davey article, e.g.
– He will accuse people who argue the planet is not warming are ‘absolutely wrong and really quite dangerous’.
Mr Davey’s speech comes as he faces fierce criticism from his own party for dropping targets for cutting carbon emissions by 2030 –
– Mr Davey will say: ‘This is not the serious science of challenging, checking and probing.
‘This is destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism born of vested interest, nimbyism, publicity seeking contraversialism or sheer blinkered, dogmatic, political bloody-mindedness.’
He claims this ‘tendency’ seize on any scientific uncertainty as proof that green policy and investment in renewable power is ‘hopelessly misguided’ –
– Tory MP Tim Yeo and Labour’s Barry Gardiner have tabled an amendment to set a target to that the power industry will be carbon-free by 2030.
Businesses, environmental organisations, faith groups and trade unions are all calling on MPs to back the move in a vote.
However, Chancellor George Osborne has expressed support for a new ‘dash for gas’ instead of a drive toward renewables and other low-carbon technology in the 2020s.
The Government’s own climate advisers have backed the target to cut emissions by 2030 and said that investing in low-carbon power such as wind farms and nuclear reactors in the 2020s could save consumers billions of pounds compared to relying on gas.
Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said that the amendment was very important because without it the Energy Bill became ‘a bit aimless’.
‘This is the point the investors and business people are making: you’ve got to be really clear about what your route map is and where you want to get to,’ he said –
apart from Greenpeace seemingly being okay with nuclear, it’s also hilarious how Davey will bring up Cook’s 97% Consensus “study”! what a hoot the whole piece is.
just as hilarious as Davey’s planned speech and, again, it’s all about the money:
3 June: ABC PM: Environmental investment campaign targets fossil fuels
BILL MCKIBBEN: It’s gone quickly, also, to churches in the United States, but also in Australia, where parts of the Uniting Church have divested their stock in coal companies. Just saying these companies, you know, they’re running Genesis backwards, you know, they’re de-creating this planet, we can’t keep, in good conscience, profiting from the wreckage of the climate…
BILL MCKIBEEN: And one of the things that’s becoming clear is that these are bad investments. That there’s a bubble in the carbon market the same way that there was in the housing market. That is to say, most countries in the world, including Australia, have signed on to a two degree target for temperature rise, that’s the most we could possibly let the temperature rise. HSBC and Citibank put out a report a few weeks ago saying, if we ever took that two degree target seriously, you’d have to cut the share value of all the big fossil fuel companies by more than half.
That means that either you’re – it means basically if you invest in them you’re betting that the planet will never do anything about climate change. You’re betting that we’re going to tank the earth…
SARAH CLARKE: So the maths of climate change is what you’re also saying is not being listened to?
BILL MCKIBEEN: That’s right. Climate change in essence is a kind of math problem…
SARAH CLARKE: Looking at Australian politics and an election in September; the Coalition, if it does win as suggested, it will roll back the carbon price. How would that be looked upon internationally, and do you think that really will make a difference?
BILL MCKIBEEN: I do. I think the fact that Australia has taken a good, bold step on carbon pricing, is something that the rest of the world has noticed. And in the months since, both the Koreans and the Chinese have emulated this and set up carbon pricing schemes of their own.
So it’s been important, and it would be a clear step backwards, a step out of the 21st Century and back into the 20th, or maybe even the 19th, to just say we can keep pouring carbon into the atmosphere for free… http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3773610.htm
If climate sensitivity determines that a doubling of CO2 from say 380 ppm leads to a temperature rise of say 1 degree Kelvin, what would be the temperature if the atmospheric CO2 rose to around 99 percent? This, where the surface pressure remained around 1 bar and the other gases were removed. What mathematics describes this hypothetical situation? Is the temperature going to be 2632 degrees? If not, why not? Does the greenhouse effect disappear in this situation? Was it ever there in the first place?
The equation isn’t 1,000,000 / 380 -> 2632 degrees. The 1 degree (or whatever climate sensitivity is chosen) rise is for a doubling of CO2. So from 380ppm to 760ppm is 1 degree more, then 1 degree more to 1520ppm, then 1 more to 3040ppm. With 11 doublings, you get to 778,240ppm … i.e. +11 degrees. So a 99% CO2 atmosphere would see between 11 and 12 degrees temperature rise. In theory. If the logarithmic relationship holds up to these extreme levels.
However complex the scientific calculations become, however involved the statistics, the real world comes to mind every time I look up at a vapour trail, with the aeroplane just visible.
Up there, at around 35,000 feet it’s about minus 50 degrees Centigrade, man-made global warming or not.
In such a short distance, the temperature drop is incredible.
Even on top of a 3000 foot hill here in the UK’s Lake district the difference from ground level can be felt.
So how can any credence whatsoever be given to warmist arguments about trivial fraction of a degree changes?
1 June: SMH: Reuters: Gerard Wynn: UK’s climate policies limit
energy options
British policymakers are finding out just how far a climate act passed in 2008 has tied their hands on broad-brush energy policy for the next four decades…
Limiting room for manoeuvre was exactly the idea, to make policy free from the whims and meddling of governments subject to short term electoral cycles, reflecting the fact that climate change is a long-term problem.
The CCC so far has successfully argued for the phase-out of all new, unabated coal-fired power, and parliament next week votes on sharply limiting the role of new gas…
Taking the example of Germany, it is not clear that making such a policy straight-jacket was necessary.
Britain has set binding targets on carbon emissions which have a broader energy impact than Germany’s narrower, binding targets for renewable power.
And Germany already has massive renewable energy capacity, almost all of which was installed before it made binding its long-term targets last year…
One important assumption in the reported savings was a high UK carbon price which may in fact be dragged down by a crash in EU prices, which are now a fraction of those assumed in the CCC report, and which would make gas-fired power cheaper than as calculated.
The CCC said a less ambitious “Plan B” of 100 grams CO2 per kWh “would still prepare sufficiently for the 2050 target, and would still enable the legislated … carbon budget to be met.”…
***The act states that the government can only amend legislated targets “if it appears to the Secretary of State that there have been significant developments in scientific knowledge about climate change, or European or international law or policy.”…
***The government can still set energy policy within the straight-jacket of carbon emissions targets, for example choosing how far to support nuclear or renewables, and whether to back shale gas or give tax breaks for oil exploration.
But the present debate over carbon intensity in 2030 shows how the CCC is proposing firm limits on gas-fired power while the government legislates against any new unabated coal… http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/uks-climate-policies-limit-energy-options-20130601-2ni83.html
sounds like a deal made for nuclear & renewables ONLY. and that’s how the “Greens” got their seat at the BIG table.
Nearly everyone, (including myself until a year ago) is still sucked into the line of thinking first thrust upon the world by the AGW crowd, namely that it is all to do with radiative forcing. Yes, this includes virtually all other PSI members..
I have been thinking this through for a long time and am now firmly of the opinion that all these energy budgets are incomplete, mainly because they don’t show the missing link. On Venus and Uranus that missing link is a huge amount of energy which must flow downwards in the atmosphere. It’s quite a lot on Earth too. Over the life of these planets there has been a build up of thermal energy from the Sun which can’t escape.
So these planets (Uranus, Venus, Earth) are not still cooling off. It’s cold out there where Uranus is because it only receives about 3W/m^2 in the very top of its atmosphere. It could easily have cooled off, but for the one thing that stops it. And that one thing is the gravitationally induced thermal gradient which forms by diffusion at the molecular level,, because molecules in free flight between collisions interchange kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy. In just two lines of calculations, you can derive the -g/Cp value by equating PE and -KE. Kinetic energy will tend towards being homogeneous during collisions, but only at each altitude. Inter-molecular radiation reduces the gradient by up to about a third, but by less than 5% on Uranus where there is just a little methane causing that.
The Clausius (hot to cold) statement of the Second Law is not comprehensive and for conduction and diffusion it only applies in a horizontal plane. The process described in the Second Law means that thermodynamic equilibrium evolves spontaneously, and, in the process of maintaining such equilibrium there must evolve a temperature gradient. Most importantly, extra energy absorbed at higher altitudes can actually flow up this gradient because that will help restore the equilibrium.
The primary determinants of atmospheric and surface temperatures are then based on the autonomous thermal gradient and the overall level of the plot of temperature against altitude. This level is set by the need for radiative balance and, in general, radiative balance cannot be disturbed by internal processes, such as back radiation.
A planet’s surface temperature just depends on where the plot of temperature against altitude intersects the surface. On Uranus the temperature at the base of the theoretical troposphere is about 320K. This is all in line with calculations, and, if there were a surface there, then it too would be 320K – hotter than Earth’s surface, even though no direct solar radiation even reaches down there through 350Km of atmosphere that’s mostly hydrogen and helium. There is thought to be a solid core with about half the mass of Earth, but that’s roughly 20,000Km further down and it may be about 5000K.
So, as on Venus also, where it’s about 730K at the surface, the temperature of a surface is all to do with the height of the atmosphere through which the temperature plot reaches hotter and hotter temperatures the closer it gets towards the surface. It has nothing to do with radiative forcing. It has nothing to do with any greenhouse effect. It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
You have written something I can relate to: “radiative balance cannot be disturbed by internal processes, such as back radiation”.
We both agree on that.
Now as an extension, what happens if there is a cloud bank?
Energy in the biosphere contained in soil, rock water, living plants, soil bacteria no longer has a “straight out” path to radiate and convect.
Does the cloud bank locally retard heat loss from the biosphere or is that immaterial after the sun goes down for the day.
Whatever the answer I personally think that the fluid flow and heat transfer mechanisms behind this scenario are scarey to contemplate, let alone identify and quantify for use in Global warming Predictions by warmers.
I think we are far better off treating the whole biosphere as a black box where we just monitor the energy balance at the Top of Atmosphere (Solar Input vs Radiated output) and relate it to measured atmospheric temperature, whatever that is, and measured levels of the Daemon Gas CO2.
Whatever, CO2 does not drive World Temps and that is as far as we need to go.
KK: I am in a different ball park to you. I don’t play the “radiative forcing” game because it’s not a universal game that works on all planets. My physics is universal, because it does work above and below the surface of any planet in the universe. Your radiative forcing concepts cannot possibly work on a planet like Uranus for example, which has no radiation from the Sun reaching down below the uppermost layers of its 20,000Km high atmosphere. My theory works very well there, and it works very well on Earth, explaining exactly why the 30-year mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures are lower in moist regions than in similar dry regions. The IPCC says water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and it says such gases cause there to be higher surface temperatures. I don’t buy their radiative forcing concept, so I don’t answer your questions which are just red herrings to me. Go and read “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” or some of my comments above, or elsewhere. You don’t have to, of course. Whether you seek out the truth or not is your prerogative. Doug
Hi. I agree with you you on the need to apply the “universal physics”.
But why then do you go and accuse me of “playing the “radiative forcing” game” when I made no mention of such a construct.
Doug, my comments some time ago related to the apparent constant reference to things like that and also paragraph 6 of the IPCC outline dated ….
You constantly use the term “radiative forcing” which is something that both you and the IPCC wish to do.
If my concept has any sort of Label it would be “Energy Retention”.
I am also not interested in Uranus.
We are dealing with Earth, where believe it or not we have a reasonable chance of measuring the items I listed above :
—- monitor the energy balance at the Top of Atmosphere (Solar Input vs Radiated output) and relate it to measured atmospheric temperature, whatever that is, and measured levels of the Daemon Gas CO2.—-
I think we have already eliminated CO2 as a possible factor in Global Warming so really this whole discussion is just for the sake of putting things in their correct place for those who come to look at the problem later.
History will show the CO2 Hysteria as politically driven, disturbed Group Think and a good target for a Psychology PhD Thesis.
Physics is universal. If you have a guess at how things work to explain Earth’s surface temperature (like perhaps by slowing surface cooling) then that “guess” needs to be tested on other planets. Because if it doesn’t work there, then, maybe it is just a coincidence that it seems to work here. For example, the IPCC says water vapour is a greenhouse gas. They also say greenhouse gases warm the surface somehow. But they are wrong of course because they can only slow cooling. So we are not surprised to find that water vapour cools, because their guess was in the wrong ball park altogether.
So, when they try to apply a greenhouse effect on Venus they get in a real mess – because there is no radiative greenhouse effect in the first place, including Earth. It gets even worse on Uranus because there’s no direct Solar radiation below the upper atmosphere, and there’s no surface for about 20,000Km on the way down. Yet it gets hotter and hotter for only one reason – “heat creep” is a reality on all planets. This renders totally irrelevant all the talk about slowing cooling, because it’s all about what I say in Section 9, which is the result of the process described in Sections 4 to 8 of “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”
Doug – the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect world doesn’t have an atmosphere, it is empty space populated by the imaginary ideal gas; which is without mass or condensable volume or attraction so without weight because not subject to gravity, there is nothing for gravity to work on, nothing to pull because their molecules are hard dots of nothing are unimpeded by each other except in elastic collisions in an imaginary container as they travel at great speeds under their own molecular momentum through empty space because they have no volume to fill it.
So they have no heat transfer by convection because they don’t have molecules capable of expanding and condensing, of becoming lighter and heavier than air, which is at around 98% of our real world atmosphere is predominantly nitrogen and oxygen.
That Air is a heavy volume of fluid real gas, weighing around a ton on our shoulders. This is the real thermal blanket around the Earth keeping the Sun’s direct heating of the surface from escaping too fast.
It is without this, without any atmosphere at all, that the Earth is -18°C.
This is the figure from traditional physics which gives the comparable figure for the Moon as -23°C.
What our real gas atmosphere does is prevent the extremes of heat and cold to which the Moon without an atmosphere is subject to, it does this by the ability of real gases to expand when heated and condense when cooled, so making them lighter or heavier under gravity they will expand and become lighter when heated and rise and will condense and become heavier when cooled and so sink.
This is how heat is transferred in a fluid medium and how we get our weather. Real gases have weight relative to each other under gravity because some have more or less mass than others and because their volumes can expand and condense.
It is this real effect of gases under gravity which create areas of low and high pressure.
Firstly by the real gases expanding and becoming lighter the further away they are from the surface as the pull of gravity becomes weaker, this is what gives the temperature change from through the troposphere. The regular drop with height is explained by gravity’s effect on the volume of real gases as under less pressure they expand. So temperature drops as heat is carried up and away, which is convection, simply by this whole volume of real gas nature under gravity expanding exchanging its heat for linear motion vertically, as the individual volumes expand and become lighter the further they are away from the surface.
Secondly, differential heating of the real gas Air creates combination volumes of real gas, simply called volume (or packet) as the individual volumes expanding and condensing in real gases is a given, is what gives us our winds, which are convection currents, which are volumes of air on the move.
As the volume of hot light expanding gas rises it is displaced by volumes of heavy cold condensed air which sink flowing beneath, which are the convection currents called winds in the atmosphere and simply currents in the ocean where the same effect is seen as volumes of hot water molecules expand and becomes lighter and rise and volumes of cold water sink beneath because heavier.
The volumes, areas, of low pressure are formed because real gases expand when heated so there are fewer molecules of the gas in the same space, there is less for gravity to pull and so are lighter than the norm volume of air and rise. As these rise they cool off and condense, so more of them in the same amount of room and more for gravity to pull on they create areas of high pressure, they weigh down more on us, and heavier they will sink.
Hot air rises and cold air sinks. Winds flow from high to low.
It is this property of our atmosphere of real gases under gravity which moves heat away from the surface and prevents the Earth from having the extreme high temperature as on the Moon without an atmosphere, where it reaches 123°C.
So our winds are convection currents in the fluid medium real gas created by convection, by heat transfer away from the surface of the Earth, but there is more at play here, because different gases have different properties and water though only a variable 1-5% has an even greater ability to convect heat away from the surface than the bulk nitrogen and oxygen.
Firstly because in itself water as water vapour is lighter than air, it is always evaporating, rising in air (water as water vapour takes up 1000 times more room than the same amount of molecules in liquid water), and water has a very great heat capacity which means it absorbs a great deal of heat before it changes phase and takes longer to heat up and longer to cool down. Water in the atmosphere draws in heat from the air around it and as it does this it expands and becomes even lighter than air and rises taking away huge amounts of heat with it, this is our Water Cycle (which does not exist in the AGWSF energy budget).
As an aside, this is useful knowledge for those trying to optimise their heating and cooling. Cold and wet rooms will take more energy to heat because the water absorbs the heat first making the room feel colder longer. Using a dehumidifier to extract the water to leave only the quicker to heat air of nitrogen and oxygen will keep bills down. Cooling a room to save on air conditioning costs conversely is by putting in water to first absorb the heat, from a simple bowl of water to a fountain in a courtyard.
Anyway, our atmosphere of the bulk nitrogen and oxygen real gases cool our Earth down from the extreme high temperature the atmosphere less Moon reaches, and water (which has a residence time of 8-10 days in the atmosphere) with its high heat capacity reduces that further.
Without water but with the rest of the atmosphere in place, the Earth would be 67°C, this is reduced to 15°C by the great cooling effect of water in the Water Cycle with its great heat capacity carrying the heat away from the surface and condensing in the colder heights to liquid water and ice, and colder sinking back to earth precipitating out as rain.
So these two bring the temps down from the 123°C extreme of the Moon without them, the bulk gas air of nitrogen and oxygen and water.
But the Moon without an atmosphere also gets extreme of cold, 153°C, and it is the bulk gas air of mainly nitrogen and oxygen which prevents that on Earth. Think deserts. The temperatures don’t plunge to the extreme of the Moon because the bulk real gas atmosphere weighing 14lbs/sqin, prevents the heat from dissipating as rapidly as it does on the Moon.
This is the real thermal blanket around the Earth, not the practically 100% hole which is the trace gas carbon dioxide.
This, how real gases are and behave under gravity, is why the Earth’s atmosphere was first likened to a greenhouse in traditional science, because real greenhouses both heat and cool to give optimum temperatures for plants.
AGWScienceFiction has by various sleights of hand changed the basic physics of the natural world around us. It lies all the time, in explaining its “Greenhouse Effect” it only gives the warming part of this, it has taken out the cooling effect of real gases in convection, the bulk nitrogen and oxygen of Air which cools the Earth from the 123°C it would reach to 67°C and taken out Water Cycle completely which brings this down still further.
It is without the whole atmosphere that the temperature of the Earth is -18°C, and this is mainly the real gas air of nitrogen and oxygen. AGWSF lies and says it is this temperature with the bulk atmosphere in place and only without its version of “greenhouse gases”.
There is no mechanism for these “AGW greenhouse gases” to bring the Earth’s temp down to -18°C without them, nor to raise the temperature 33°C from this, because without them, which is the mainly “AGW greenhouse gas water”, the temps would be 67°C.
That 33°C is an illusion created by the science fraud of changing the meaning of what is attributed to the -18%deg;C in traditional science, and then, taking out the whole of the real gas atmosphere anyway leaving empty space of pretend massless propertyless gases so that can’t be understood anyway..
This gets so convoluted as every change they’ve made has to been explained from scratch, it’s not until you put it all back that you can see how they done their sleights of hand.
Wind is not what a physicist would call convection, the latter being a very slow process acting at the molecular level and delayed by the timing of molecular collisions. Wind over-rides convection in local regions, but these are weather events, not global climate.
You said This is the real thermal blanket around the Earth keeping the Sun’s direct heating of the surface from escaping too fast.
I used to think along those lines, but the Sun cannot heat the surface of Earth to the observed 288K with direct radiation. On Venus it has no hope of raising the surface to 720K, now does it? So “cooling” from what temperature?
Clearly there has to be another mechanism for heating planetary surfaces, as discussed in my other comments and paper.
Wind is not what a physicist would call convection,
Eh? What else is wind?
In thermodynamics and fluid mechanics, i.e. the fluid mechanics incorporating thermal effects, there is a delineation between “natural” and “forced” convection. The natural convection occurs where the buoyant forces exceed gravitational on a parcel of air; as determined by the temperature of the surface and the surrounding fluid (gas included).
The buoyant forces are changed by the heating of the gas, changing its specific volume. Once natural convection is triggered (approximately when the Nusselt number exceeds 1000), the parcel of air will tend to move against gravity (up), allowing cooler air from the side and above to contact the warming surface. The side movement of cooler air from a hot spot may be considered to be “wind”.
The “forced” convection case is when the fluid movement isn’t driven directly (and for analysis; predominately) by the local temperature gradient. Heat transfer “doesn’t care” why the fluid is moving; merely that it is.
Actually I can agree with most of what you’ve said there Doug.
But I doubt the statement “the temperature of a surface is all to do with the height of the atmosphere” because the gas species composition must make a difference.
If there is a gas component that can absorb available radiation and re-emit in the same (or broader) spectrum, but other neighbouring gases can’t, you have changed the available energy transport mechanisms and so the amount that moves by radiation versus convection will be different than in a different gas mixture. IR allows energy to move up or down with vastly less gravitational work. When the IR gases are at different concentrations at different heights this accentuates the departure of the lapse rate from a purely gravitational one.
The fact that on Earth the thermosphere is higher but hotter than the stratosphere and the stratosphere is higher but cooler than the troposphere proves that the temperature is not a simple function of atmosphere height.
The atmosphere is basically the same height at the equator and the poles, yet at 12km altitude the air over the poles is warmer than the air over the equator. Since the poles receive less solar power than the equator, a difference in water vapour content is one (of many??) possible explanations for this difference in temperature and lapse rate, despite the same height of atmosphere above it.
I can agree “radiative balance cannot be disturbed by internal processes, such as back radiation” but only if you are talking about the TOA where radiation is the only mechanism available.
Another thing I have only recently discovered [1, 2] is that a gas at high pressure is able to absorb across a continuum spectrum like a blackbody, it is no longer confined to narrow molecular spectral lines as it is in the low pressure case.
This leads me to think that there may be some truth to your gravity theory of the temperature gradient but it will only be seen at high pressures where continuum absorption becomes significant w.r.t the particular gas species molecular spectrum. There are few planets where the pressure gets high enough, and I’m not convinced Earth is one of them.
As for my reply to KinkyKeith above, I am in a different ball park to you. I don’t play the “radiative forcing” game. Please read my reply to KK above. The specific heat of the gases makes a difference to the temperature gradient, of course, because it’s in the denominator – all this is in my paper, as is the issue of the troposphere above the poles and all the issues you raise. Try explaining Uranus temperatures with radiative forcing concepts.
By the way, pressure does not maintain high temperatures, as is quite clear from the Ideal Gas Law, because density adjusts to changes in temperature and itself varies with pressure as they have a common cause in gravity.
3 June: ABC: Nuclear power saves lives
by Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen
(Pushker Kharecha is a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Columbia University Earth Institute. James E. Hansen, Goddard’s former director and one of the world’s foremost climate scientists, is an adjunct professor at the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.)
If all the nuclear power in the world was replaced with coal, millions more people would die, and billions more tonnes of greenhouse gases would be released.
THE USE OF NUCLEAR power instead of fossil fuelled power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths and over 60 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide between 1971 and 2009. That’s one of the key results of a paper we recently published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Environmental Science and Technology…
Our findings also have important implications for large-scale ‘fuel switching’ to natural gas from coal or from nuclear. Although natural gas burning emits less fatal pollution and GHGs than coal burning, it is far deadlier than nuclear power, causing about 40 times more deaths per unit electric energy produced.
Also, such fuel switching is practically guaranteed to worsen the climate problem for several reasons…
Human-caused climate change and air pollution remain major global-scale problems. Mitigation efforts for both of these problems should be undertaken concurrently in order to maximise effectiveness. Such efforts can be accomplished largely with currently available low-carbon/carbon-free alternative energy sources like nuclear power and renewables as well as energy efficiency improvements.
We conclude that nuclear energy — despite posing several challenges, as do all energy sources — needs to be retained and significantly expanded in order to avoid or minimise the devastating impacts of unabated climate change and air pollution caused by fossil fuel burning. http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/06/03/3772092.htm
setting aside the health & safety arguments, how about:
30 July 2012: Financial Times: Pilita Clark: Nuclear ‘hard to justify’, says GE chief
Nuclear power is so expensive compared with other forms of energy that it has become “really hard” to justify, according to the chief executive of General Electric, one of the world’s largest suppliers of atomic equipment.
“It’s really a gas and wind world today,” said Jeff Immelt, referring to two sources of electricity he said most countries are shifting towards as natural gas becomes “permanently cheap”.
“When I talk to the guys who run the oil companies they say look, they’re finding more gas all the time. It’s just hard to justify nuclear, really hard. Gas is so cheap and at some point, really, economics rule,” Mr Immelt told the Financial Times in an interview in London at the weekend. “So I think some combination of gas, and either wind or solar … that’s where we see most countries around the world going.”… http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/60189878-d982-11e1-8529-00144feab49a.html
Aus. can deepen CO2 goal at no extra cost: report
BEIJING, June 3 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A collapse in the price of EU carbon credits means that Australia could deepen significantly its pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions at almost no extra cost, according to a new report… http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2398879?&ref=searchlist
Slow start, dim hopes at U.N. climate talks in Bonn
BONN, June 3 (Reuters Point Carbon) – International negotiators met in Germany on Monday for a fortnight of U.N. talks aimed at forging a new global climate pact by 2015, but observers expected little progress on key issues such as whether countries would deepen their emissions reduction pledges or how to raise cash to help poorer nations fight climate change… http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2400133
REUTERS POLL-Analysts cut EU carbon forecasts again
LONDON, June 3 (Reuters) – Analysts have lowered forecasts for European Union carbon permit prices to 2020 for a sixth consecutive month reflecting uncertainty over European Commission plans to reduce market oversupply… http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2399418?&ref=searchlist
I see the Bradley Manning trial has started, for those not familiar with this and are interested to know why the US government is taking him to court just google “manning wikileaks” and watch the video and all your questions will be answered.
The University of Waterloo’s paper on CFC and predicted cooling was to me the climate news of the year. WUWT has not touched greatly on it, nor here. I hope for in depth coverage soon – even on Real Climate!
I’m not sold on it. It might be right, but I haven’t had time to look properly. Call me a skeptic. I may yet be won over when I read it and look at those graphs.
It showed up on Greenie Watch. It’s actually quite interesting–it explains cooling/lack of warming far better than the CO2 theory. The correlation is very high. Of course, causality still needs to be established, but for once a theory actually seems to fit what we see happening.
For the hours of 7AM until 10PM, the wholesale price for electricity was $866.41/MWH, and that’s almost 4 times what they could sell it at for retail, and that’s 15 times higher than the next highest State cost, and more than more than 20 times higher than the cheapest.
Why?
No wind.
For a State that relies so heavily on Wind Power, this is the result.
During that same period of 15 hours, Wind power supplied an average of 20MW, so, from a total of 600 huge towers, barley 10 of them actually had the blades turning, for 15 hours, and for 8 of those hours it was less than 5 of them, sometimes none.
That’s a Capacity Factor of 1.6%, and they were supplying 1.1% of the State’s power demand for that period of 15 hours.
The unintended consequences of no Wind.
Ridiculously high electricity costs.
I can see retailers in South Australia literally screaming out for price rises, and I wonder if the State Government is going to bail them out with the proviso, Shh! please don’t tell anyone.
All the while, that one remaining coal fired plant just sits there, closed since the end of Summer.
Still not a word from anywhere else about this.
This is what we need to focus on to show how wind power fails at every step.
An example of the “heat creep” mechanism which debunks the greenhouse effect
The process of downward diffusion/convection which appears to be transferring heat from cooler to warmer regions does in fact happen in a gravitational field, and this is the non-radiative process which explains all planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures without any need for any greenhouse effect from any radiation. There is no radiation from the Sun in the depths of the Uranus atmosphere, but it’s very hot, because heat does indeed creep down and get trapped there by gravity.
Suppose before dawn on a calm morning we consider a column of the atmosphere 1Km high. Let’s say the base of the column (at the surface) is 7C and the top is 0C. Hence the process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics has done all it will do because thermodynamic equilibrium has evolved spontaneously in a region where we will assume an environmental “lapse rate” of 7C/Km prevails.
Now, the Sun rises and the lower half of our column of air (from the surface up) is still in the shade of a mountain, but the top half is warmed by the Sun as some of the water vapour and other air molecules do in fact absorb incident Solar radiation.
So now let’s assume the top half has warmed and it is now 2C at the top and perhaps still 3.5C at the middle of the column. So the top half is still colder than the lower half. But the thermodynamic equilibrium has been disturbed. The Second Law process now has a propensity towards a new thermodynamic equilibrium in which there is more energy to spread around. The extra energy spreads out and some will head towards the surface because the whole temperature plot rises to a higher level which will be parallel to the original plot once thermodynamic equilibrium is re-established and the gradient gets back to 7C/Km.
There are two limitations upon the temperature of a target to which spontaneous radiation can raise that temperature ..
(a) The temperature of the source of the spontaneous radiation.
(b) The radiative flux which the target receives from the source.
The solar radiation received by the Venus surface is only about 10W/m^2 because only about 2.5% of the original TOA insolation gets through the atmosphere. The Venus surface is thus not heated significantly by direct radiated energy from the Sun, and nor is it by radiation from the atmosphere. With only about 2,600W/m^2 of incident radiation at TOA even before reflection, how could the required 16,100W/m^2 of radiative flux at the base of the atmosphere come only from that far smaller incident flux? Energy would be created in the atmosphere.
Instead, what must happen on Venus, Uranus and other planets, is that some of the thermal energy absorbed in the atmosphere from incident solar radiation is spread out by diffusion and convection over a sloping temperature plane which evolves spontaneously in accord with the process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This allows heat to “creep” up that thermal plane, because all it is doing Is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium which had been disturbed. The gravitationally-induced thermal gradient in effect traps energy that has been absorbed from the Sun over the life of the planet, and it maintains the temperature of the base of the atmosphere, which temperature then prevents the surface cooling too much at night, and, in the case of Earth, allows the Sun to warm it by day when the radiative flux is of course more than the mean 24 hour value.
D Cotton 12:51 pm: “The Venus surface is thus not heated significantly by direct radiated energy from the Sun…”
True. The roughly 164 W/m^2 absorbed mostly into atm. from the sun at Venus orbit has heated up Venus opaque (surface emissivity 1.0) atm. over just 4.1Mln years to near surface equilibrium at ~730K. The Soviets figured this out in the early 1960s prior to sending probes; it is easy to compute once one reads and understands say Goody&Yung text 1964. This is easy to compute from Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet applied to multiple atm. layers. The spreadsheet also serves to calculate observed equilibrium temperatures for earth, earth’s moon and mars et. al. And will work for exoplanets once the simple, basic input data is discovered.
The sun’s roughly 1 W/m^2 absorbed & ~emitted by Uranus has also heated up the deep, similarly optically opaque layers of Uranus atm. over eons into today’s ~equilibrium as explained by fundamental atm. radiation text books. Shield Uranus from the sun (i.e. turn off the sun ~1 W/m^2 theoretically) and Uranus’ heat will creep out over millions of years. Uranus would equilibrate with deep space even though g/Cp still operates.
D Cotton on another thread:
“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.”
A reminder I’ve already explained Uranus & Venus non-dilemma to D Cotton on the last Unthreaded Week thread. What is needed is for D Cotton to understand (actually read) this basic science from the modern text books and specialist papers.
Input the simple Uranus atm. parameters for mass, net insolation and emissivity into Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet w/proper time steps & properly layered and D Cotton can compute a simple estimate how long it will take for Uranus to reach equilibrium with the sun (or deep space) & what any surface temperature might become.
There really is no mystery, text book science has explained this process for decades. The mystery is in D Cotton’s paper not basic text book science.
A reminder D Cotton’s paper Sec. 6 mysteriously attempts and fails to explain the planetary heating process with g/Cp gradient which is an atm. adiabatic process taking place with no loss or gain of heat.
Comment ignored because you most certainly have not explained how the required energy gets down into the Uranus and Venus atmospheres supposedly by radiation. You can’t because it doesn’t get there that way. You have no idea of valid physics, as is easy to see from your wishy-washy attempts to explain energy transfers, and to attempt to debunk my paper.
The Venus surface would just cool off to very cold temperatures if all there was were the mere 10W/m^2 of Solar radiation entering its surface. At could radiate away 16,100W/m^2, so would have no trouble disposing of 10W/m^2. You have no concept of what is explained in my paper and you most certainly do not debunk anything in it with valid physics. No one in the world has been able to do so, because it is correct.
Just look at LtCusper’s first sentence, everyone! The cold atmosphere has transferred heat to the far hotter surface by radiation, says he, and it is supposed to explain how the surface temperature rises each Venus morning. This is a single component system – atmosphere to surface. The Second Law only talks about a system. If a system is more than one component (which this isn’t) then those components have to be interdependent. That’s physics. You can even read it in Wikipedia under “Laws of Thermodynamics” and “System” but LtCusper chooses not to believe this basic physics, and to twist the laws to suit his purposes, namely that the radiation from the colder atmosphere can actually increase surface the temperature by 5 degrees each 4-month-long Venus day.
In 50 years of studying physics, and helping students do very well in the subject, I have never, ever come across any violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as it is clearly stated and as it relates to interdependent components in a system. The “component” of radiation into the surface is not interdependent with, for example, non-radiative cooling of the surface, so it’s all garbage when LtCusper thinks you only have to consider the “net” effect and the Law’s not broken. Well tell the magistrate that it’s OK that you parked for 80 minutes in a one hour zone, because the next time you parked only 20 minutes, so your net average time was 50 minutes.
D Cotton 9:26pm: “…The cold atmosphere has transferred heat to the far hotter surface by radiation, says (LtCusper)…”
D Cotton – you clearly demonstrate a reading comprehension issue; I can better understand why it would be so difficult & it appears impossible for you to read more complex and accurate 2nd law science in say Goody&Yung 1964 whereby the more competent 1960’s Soviet scientists correctly estimated Venus surface temperature to be in the low 700Ks and built their very 1st instrumental probe to read out up to that range of temperatures.
Clearly those guys did not need a “new paradigm” from your paper to get Venus surface temperature range right. They did not need your paper to get Mars right and they would not need your paper to get Uranus (or exoplanets) right. (All they would need for basics is Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet actually.) In fact reading your paper would have slowed them down, taking them time to figure out what was so wrong with your paper. Namely, the gradient g/Cp does not compute planetary global avg. near surface temperature without knowing some starting temperature obtained from a radiative balance with the sun – that’s why they call g/Cp only a gradient.
Here’s what LtCusper wrote exactly clipped in context compared to your ill fated attempt to read it:
“…the sun at Venus orbit has heated up Venus…atm.”
And
“The sun…has also heated up the deep, similarly optically opaque layers of Uranus atm.”
Not their colder atm.s.
Anyway, from the bulk of your writing I get that you have understood very little about how a thermally opaque (surface emissivity = 1.0) atm. such at Venus and Uranus operates in accord with 1st & 2nd law.
To get that understood well & correct, you really do have to start by reading enough Goody&Yung 1964 then progress to the more modern fundamentals of atm. radiation in say Bohren 2006. Clearly you are not competent enough to read & comprehend these basic texts. You do not have the pre-req.s (to use a college admittance term) and your paper does not ref. them. Once you do this reading & comprehending work, just use Dr. Spencer’s work sheet from there as it is demonstrated to work by radiative balance within about 1K.
Keep trying, it is fun & sends me back to re-read the atm. radiation fundamentals to find where you get planetary heat balance so incorrect. This heat balance works to calculate observed surface temperature (and satellite measured) for all the planets & moons (yes, including Uranus) and the atmosphere-less ones too. Simply use Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet if interested.
Radiative heat balance from 1st law (and 2nd) will work for the exo-planets as well – scientist’s specialist papers ref. the correct fundamental basic texts. They will not ref. your paper as it is wrong or at best incomplete since it is not based on more thorough radiative heat balance text books that came before.
D Cotton continues: “The Venus surface would just cool off to very cold temperatures if all there was were the mere 10W/m^2 of Solar radiation entering its surface.”
Ok, all I need to prove this wrong is Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet. Start Earth off with very cold temperatures in Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet (there is input to do so – see “initial surface Temp” box). Same as Venus, Earth’s surface will heat up by the sun to observed temperatures when radiative balance is achieved after a certain time to LTE. Hey, just start Earth off with very hot temperatures, get the same LTE surface temperature. You can’t beat radiative heat balance.
Input Venus parameters and properly layer the calculations for atm.-at-surface opacity = 1.0 and start Venus off with very cold temperatures – same thing will happen get ~730K surface temperature after about 4.1Mln years to long term equilibrium (LTE). EVEN THOUGH only 164 W/m^2 is CONTINOUSLY absorbed by Venus from the sun during that time frame.
It is pretty simple actually, but you just have to do the prior work to get the pre-req.s to do heat balance properly to 1st & 2nd law.
BTW, I explained to you how this works for Venus in the prior weekly thread – you just ignore it writing no one has done so. Makes for some entertainment in this space as you continue to get planetary heat balance so wrong.
D Cotton digs an even bigger hole at 10:02pm (and 9:07pm): “Only the new paradigm in my paper explains what really happens, and it is certainly not radiation that is doing most of the heating, I can assure you. How could it be?”
Because radiative transfer is the only way for the sun to do ALL the heating of a planet above deep space, and the only way for a planet to cool to balance the sun in LTE. Science figured this out correctly for Venus surface temperature a half century before your paper which adds nothing.
And how does the thermal energy absorbed in the uppermost layers of the Uranus atmosphere (from 3W/m^2) then make its way up the temperature gradient (heat moving from cold to hot) by non-radiative processes – and eventually support temperatures of thousands of degrees? It’s one thing to calculate the surface temperature from radiative balance (59K for Uranus) and the gradient – as I have discussed in my paper – but another thing all together to understand the mechanism of “heat creep” also in my paper.
LtCusper says: OK, all I need to prove this wrong is Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet.
Yes, Dr Spencer’s spreadsheet is very good at multiplying the incident radiation reaching the TOA of Venus up to the required 16,100W/m^2 to maintain the surface temperature. It also totally disregards the Second Law and works only within the far less limiting constraints of the First Law of Thermodynamics, except of course for that multiplying of the incident energy flux. Place your faith in his spreadsheet, if you so choose. That’s your prerogative. But don’t bother trying it on Uranus, because no solar radiation gets down far into its atmosphere. Meanwhile I’ll plave my faith in standard physics, as I have for 50 years.
D Cotton 6:47pm: “…(Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet) totally disregards the Second Law…”
No it does not.
Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet works totally in accord with the 2nd law at each time step; entropy is increased during the time the spreadsheet system is increasing near surface global atm. temperature from the initial condition then system entropy is held in steady state LTE. This is completely allowed by the 2nd law. For you not to see this shows a profound misunderstanding of the 2nd law.
I recommend an exercise for you to improve your understanding: compute the entropy value in the spreadsheet at each time step to prove this is true numerically. You may actually have to ref. a text book to learn how to do this. It won’t be found in your paper.
Continuing 6:35pm: “And how does the thermal energy absorbed in the uppermost layers of the Uranus atmosphere (from 3W/m^2) then make its way up the temperature gradient (heat moving from cold to hot) by non-radiative processes – and eventually support temperatures of thousands of degrees?”
For one, the exact same basic way as Venus and Earth et. al. since atm. thermodynamics is universal. There are complications like the orientation of Uranus spin axis.
For two, the out/in heat balance of Venus and Mars is 1.0000 while for Uranus it is 1.0655.
Given such a dense, thermally optically opaque atm. emissivity = 1.0, Uranus internal heat produced in part forces the temperature way up to get out to deep space in equilibrium. I will let you explain why that is once you have placed your faith in standard physics.
LtCusper says: OK, all I need to prove this wrong is Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet.
Yes, Dr Spencer’s spreadsheet is very good at multiplying the incident radiation reaching the TOA of Venus up to the required 16,100W/m^2 to maintain the surface temperature. It also totally disregards the Second Law and works only within the far less limiting constraints of the First Law of Thermodynamics, except of course for that multiplying of the incident energy flux. Place your faith in his spreadsheet, if you so choose. That’s your prerogative. But don’t bother trying it on Uranus, because no solar radiation gets down far into its atmosphere. Meanwhile I’ll place my faith in standard physics, as I have for 50 years.
For radiation to make a surface temperature increase from 730K to 735K each 4-month long Venus day it has to comply with both these requirements, as per standard physics …
(a) It has to have a flux based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, namely about 16,100W/m^2 for 730K. The flux coming into the Venus atmosphere is far less, and hardly any gets through to the surface. How can the atmosphere multiply the flux and how can such flux do so much better at penetrating the atmosphere? Where are the calculations that at least obey the First Law, even though they don’t have a hope of obeying the Second Law, so the whole radiation exercise is hypothetical anyway.
(b) The radiation has to come from a hotter source. That only leaves the Sun. So the only radiation that can have a hope of doing so is the mere 10 to 20W/m^2 of Solar radiation that gets through the atmosphere. So we have about one-tenth of the radiative flux which reaches Earth’s surface. So if that really could heat a surface to 720K, then why wouldn’t Earth be much hotter still? The whole thing is ludicrous.
Only the new paradigm in my paper explains what really happens, and it is certainly not radiation that is doing most of the heating, I can assure you. How could it be?
What does it matter how much carbon or carbon dioxide goes where? There is no need to be concerned any more, anyone, about carbon dioxide. The last straw has been broken. There can be no greenhouse effect anywhere on any planet. The “new paradigm” now explains what happens on all planets in their atmospheres, their surfaces, their crusts, mantles and cores if they have such. And it explains the intuitively obvious fact (also observed in studies of real data) that more water vapour leads to lower surface temperatures.
That alone smashes IPCC propaganda about water vapour being the main greenhouse “gas” which is supposed to be doing most of that 33 degrees of warming on average.
So it’s supposed to be doing, say, 5 degrees of warming in a dry desert, and 50 degrees of warming in a moist region with 10 times as much water vapour in the atmosphere above it. Sheer and utter garbage! You have all had the wool well and truly pulled over your eyes!
The “old paradigm” is smashed when you consider Venus. Each Venus 4-month-long day the surface temperature rises by about 5 degrees, and it cools by 5 degrees at night. Obviously the energy which increases the temperature in the day comes from the Sun. We have only about 20W/m^2 of direct solar radiation getting through the Venus atmosphere in the day, and yet the Stefan-Boltzmann Law tells us we would need about 16,100W/m^2 of radiation to increase the temperature of the Venus surface when it is in the vicinity of 730K. Obviously radiation from the colder atmosphere cannot increase the temperature of the surface, for that would be an outright violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In any event, there is not enough radiative flux entering the atmosphere. So the energy cannot get there by radiation alone and in fact radiation can play only a very small role.
So that leaves only non-radiative processes, and clearly it gets narrowed down to diffusion and convection. The reasons why (and the process whereby) downward diffusion and convection (“heat creep”) can in fact increase the temperature are explained in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”
Has Europe had its best May skiing since records began ?
While everywhere in particular gets colder, is the Global Average Surface temperature only able to hold its own & avoid cooling by deft recalculation & adjustment ?
Chilly for June.
?
110
I like that comment “although there have been promising signs for a good winter south of the equator”.
Hardly fits in with global warming, does it?
Apparently some Spanish resorts in the Pyrenees are also open in June like the French one.
90
Mum said it was snowing in Andorra a couple weeks ago. Perhaps Al Gore was in the neighbourhood.
150
Recalculation doesn’t keep my toes warm.
70
Hiking in the Salzkammergut, near Salzburg, in Austria. Temps down to 6 degrees, non-stop icy rain, snow down to about 600 metres, track cut by floods – it must be summer in Europe
40
This morning, the 1st of “Flaming” June, I needed a coat, hat and gloves. I live in North Yorkshire. Yesterday was warmer but the evening was pretty chilly and we put some heating on. The sun has come out now but I’m not sure I’d describe it as summer. I think London-based little girly forecasters forget that life is different outside the capital!
My poor tomatoes are having to put up with the cold as they are too large to stay indoors!
90
A few years ago here in Britain we were told have every year the the flowers were blooming earlier and earlier because of global warming. One of the most beautiful natural woodland signs of spring is a carpet of bluebells in April time. Well this morning I took a walk in Workington in the far north of England and the bluebells were in full bloom. The rhododendron in my garden is also somewhat late. A couple of hours ago I took some photos of the late-flowering plants in my garden, and have posted them up here.
130
It’s been a great Spring for hay fever sufferers though.
I haven’t even bothered picking up my prescription yet this year.
41
We went over to Cockermouth in Cumbria today. There were still loads of bluebells in flower along parts of the A66 and May blossom (which is called May for a reason)is only just out now near home seen on the way back. There is a beautiful potted rhododendron in a house near to us and fantastic wistaria on another house in the same road. Cow parsley is in flower at last and the horse chestnut trees laden with candles, also at last.
10
We’ve had a very prolonged autumn here in the Central North Island of New Zealand. It was a good thing after the summer drought as it gave our pastures a chance to get away before winter. But I noticed that we still have a lot of trees with leaves on – even in June.
I think the lesson is that the start and end of seasons is not absolute. Long live variability.
00
The Tim Yeo revelation should be headline news the world over.
Billions were spent because the earth was doomed by AGW.
So where are the headlines on news.com.au and bbc.co.uk?
70
James. After realising he had done a Ratner, Yeo recanted with the speed of the seasoned political weasel he is.
130
Re Yeo –
People in politically influential positions who personally stand to gain financially, dependent on the direction policy takes, is quite simply unacceptable. Either resign from the post or liquidate all such deeply compromising financial interests.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/politicians-thieves-and-those-grey-areas-in-between/
Pointman
250
Government was lucky? pointman.
Just after James Delingpole did his Yeo piece (worth reading btw) Mercer gets stitched up.
Serendipity? Planned obfuscation? Combination of the two based on fortunate timing? Whatever, I agree 100% with your comment.
For those who haven’t seen it, here’s the link;
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100219218/trougher-yeo-recants-on-global-warming/
30
James,
You should know that Mr Yeo is now in denial of the fundamental truths as revealed by climate models, and as interpreted by the great climate
prophetsscientists who in turn have theirincoherent ramblingsscientific interpretations made accessible bya select priesthoodan appointed group of public relations consultants, and environmentalists.Given that he has joined the great mass of
hereticsanti-science people, it is not news.20
Is it cold where you are?
No. But we are having a cooler than usual spring. This is mostly from an unusual number of overcast days and probably is just weather. June typically ushers in overcast skies for some reason and I think it just happened earlier this year. I’ll leave it to the meteorologists to explain why June is so often a month of cloudy skies.
It will get hot soon enough.
40
“It will get hot soon enough.” Prediction or blind faith? 🙂
The Met is calling at or below normal temperatures due to cold seas around the UK for the rest of June.
The Jet stream is also forecast to stay nearer to the Equator than we are used to.
Meanwhile, Arctic Ice seems to be recovering, or at least melting less slowly than previous years.
Winter Is Coming.
70
I’ve heard some warnmist say its because of a warmer Arctic,
Not so..
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2013.png
60
Kevin,
In this case it’s experience. 🙂
00
Not to try and outdo your pithy reminder Kevin, though in previous years my father had the habit of never failing to remind us on the passing of 23 June, as we were just gearing up for summer and looking forward to holidays, :-
‘
‘It’ll be Christmas before we know it’, usually then went unspoken but was understood by everyone.
I don’t think he was trying to put a dampener on the mood, but he did work outside relished early starts and appreciated daylight for getting things done.
40
Here on California’s central coast, it is called June Gloom. However, that applies mostly to the areas close to the ocean. Santa Barbara in particular.
In the inland valley where I live, it is predicted to reach 95F today. It is already 78F. Last month, we had quite a few days that didn’t get much above 60F.
51
Lonell,
I haven’t heard that term in quite a while. But everyone seems to have a name for it. My flight instructor called it the Oxnard Crud (I learned to fly at the Oxnard airport). It’s actually a summer long phenomenon along the whole coastline, although it seems to be at it’s worst in June.
00
I just yesterday explained to a warmist that there is no ‘hot spot’ in the troposphere, and that stratospheric cooling does not appear to be following the models, either.
He called that a ‘strawman’ argument.
A college student.
Just how damn dumb are they getting these days? Anyone else been given a completely ridiculous argument, in the face of easily-verifiable Facts?
180
It happens all the time, Otter.
What makes it worse, is that people will Google a question, find a long Wikipedia article that matches their search criteria. They will then cherry-pick the one sentence, or perhaps a paragraph, that appears to support their belief, and then ignore the rest of the article.
It is a form of confirmation bias.
It happens quite a lot with legal matters, where you find a case where circumstances dictate a non-standards judgement. People will seize on that one exception, and treat it as if it were the rule. The give-away is that such exceptions, which set a precedent, are usually given a name, to set them apart from the body of case law.
170
Nobody with a mind takes Wankerpedia seriously as a source of facts.
70
Corrected by wankers
20
College students, recent post-graduates, you expect them to be downright dangerous for at least 2 years beyond graduation. Problem is, there are no “elders” policing the territory.
At 19S 146E I heard “Isn’t it hot” when there was a bit of “angry summer” down south, but here was a balmy 32C and 60RH.
If the ‘hot spot’ existed we should have noticed something, but iirc the “first sign” of CAGW got moved to someplace else.
Cold here is <16C and has been occurring 3-4 weeks earlier than usual.
80
Angry summer, my a**e..
We had, what, 3-4 quite hot days in most of the coastal cities.
Nothing that could be called a heat wave by any standard.
Mostly it was actually pretty “ordinary”, unfortunately.
Yes, there were a few hot days in the centre of Australia, but well.. how unusual is that !!
70
Agreed. My use of the aircon was about half of what it was previously.
00
Martin.
Down here in Newcastle it seems that Townsville is another country.
As Andy said; it is dull, wet, and soggy here at the moment.
KK 🙂
20
Townsville? How are the Power Puff girls doing?
20
Kinky Keith: “Townsville is another country”.
We washed up on these shores 23 years ago. There are worse places to live. Like where Cpt Cook came from. He is reputed to have said words to the effect of “not suitable for [white races] better leave this to the [original inhabitants]”. Funny thing is, if you sailed up the coast Cook came from, you could easily form exactly the same opinion.
Otter: “Townsville? How are the Power Puff girls doing?”
Doesn’t ring a bell. Is this a phenomenon we have been fortunate to miss? Charity runs maybe?
A 15km run being referred to as a “fun run”?
50
Apparently it is just a US / Canada thing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrVhnjLvXR0
40
“Better leave this to the original inhabitants”. Captain Cook came from Whitby, UK. He had a point.
10
Well I could see how it might be seen as a ‘strawman’ in that it might conceivably be wrong, but it wasn’t put up there by the IPCC itself for knocking down.
So referring to it as a ‘strawman’ demonstrates either a poor grasp of reasoning and argument or just more sophistry in itself. You know, in that dishonest but transparent way that certain types will reveal their intentions by projecting their own behaviour onto others.
I do like the way this whole Global Warming debacle has introduced some to at least a few elements of discourse though.
40
I guess the undeserved notoriety and tribal, groupthink accolades are worth this sort of anti-science childishness? Not to mention the free PCs?
Laughable.
[Why are you incapable of making a simple comment, without feeling the need to add a jibe and sound supercilious? -Fly]
(Yeah a guy who can’t answer a simple question.Laughable….) CTS
132
You “think” asking people what the weather is like is anti-science? That says a lot about what you think science is.
You are in deep buddy.
291
Hey, TheInquirer knows that asking people what the weather is like is a silly question, because their answers are never peer reviewed!!!!
Tony.
181
Tony,
What do you mean, never peer reviewed? Every statement made on this blog gets reviewed by literally several hundred people. That should be peer review enough for anyone. 😉
70
Ah, you wanted a weather report from your pals?
Jo gives a wink and then pretends she didn’t wink
Dog whistle? Who whistled?
I’m in deep? I think you may be starting to believe your own silliness. At what point should that be classified as madness?
(Still can’t produce a constructive comment) CTS
04
Ah, spotted a secret code. Made an en masse diagnosis!
Ever thought of becoming a Professor of Psychology?
I know a university which “needs” you…
Do keep ’em coming. T.I.
40
I understand there is a vacancy at the UWA?
KK
30
Quiz, Quiz, Quiz, Quiz…. its back to the S(k)S “Trolling For Dummies” classes for you…..
90
What you quote was actually a rhetorical question, asked by Roy Hogue, at Comment #4.
You really should try to keep up with the the adult conversation, you know. It is not hard if you can concentrate.
110
Actually Jo asked it at the top of this thread and I presume it was a way to spark some conversation.
In any case, yes it was a rhetorical question that didn’t necessarily need an answer. TheInquirer makes himself a first class jerk with every comment. He comes across as very angry. I think he needs some professional help.
40
Well, I guess that is a fair cop, Guv.
I never read what Jo writes, I just go right on down to the comments, where all the fun is. 🙂
20
Thank God i thought i was the only one who did that
11
I always get into trouble over that!
10
lol – you guys are here for the street-fights!
20
TheInquirer, June 2, 2013 at 5:04 am · Quote:
” … this sort of anti-science childishness?
TheInquirerTheIgnoramus displays the sort of inquisitiveness of a dolt, because, it is official, weather IS NOW Climate.Do try and keep up with the goalpost moving.
71
Hahaha,
Someone is very very touchy. Predictions not working out for eh inquirer? Must be tough being “on the wrong side of history”
For the record, we have many many flanneries of rain out this way. It’s fantastic.
If only all that extra rainfall could be stored somewhere for later use. Using one of those things called an, ummmm, oh that’s right – a Dam!
But hey, let’s build a great big desal plant instead – it’ll be much more expensive, and only of any real need in the event that all the catastrafarian predictions about the never ending drought were true.
131
It is a sad state of affairs when even psychologists get published in the MSM as long as they support the PC line on climate change. Here the Lewandowsy embarrassment of a paper is propagated in the New Yorker:
http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/conspiracy-theory-climate-change-science-psychology.html
Here’s the chap’s NYU page:
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/gary/
Not a single piece of work on climate or CAGW or anything vaguely related … clearly a great candidate to write the NY article.
110
There is obviously an international conspiracy of psychologists, to undermine any and all free-thinking.
Since it is an international conspiracy, it must be funded by somebody. I suspect it is funded by aliens, living in Atlantis, hidden in the middle of the Bermuda triangle.
Hey, that makes just about as much sense as this article, or Lewandowsky’s “science”, for that matter.
80
The ‘medicalising of dissent’. That’s a great expression for putting the control freaks back in their box. I’ve to try it on my boss, when he tries dismissing my next idea.
40
Or they’re simply taking advantage of an opportunity to enhance their standing with their peers. Climate change, AKA global warming, is now firmly embedded in popular culture so a lot of this stuff is simply, monkey see, monkey do.
They will stay in their comfort zone which means they must play along with the rest of their tribe.
That’s my take on it for whatever it’s worth.
10
Bulldust.
That is really scarey stuff.
An example of the new universal cyber mind
where the payoff is that your own brain is in perfect resonance
with those of all the other, obviously intelligent and sane, thinkers of the world.
All the others are conspiracy theorists.
Truth is judged by the number of Neural Connections that a topic can bring about.
KK 🙂
70
KK,
You are dead right. The internet, and especially social media, means that “the truth” is being defined by consensus and the human need to be part of the tribe.
Safety is being within a group that can mobilise itself in response to any perceived threat.
The free-thinkers are outside of the tribe, and are therefore to be ridiculed, feared, and ultimately attacked.
Those who rely on the consensus, to give them a sense of security, will not be the first to break ranks, and they will use all sorts of strategies, tactics, and lingual tricks, to deny anything that is not sanctioned by the consensus.
It is also why those within the tribe will vehemently attack outsiders, and call them deniers. That is what we see from the trolls, and even from “professional academics” like Lewandowsky (who should know better).
Is there an anthropologist in the house?
130
Social Media seems to bring us back to the school playground, for the rest of our lives.
60
It’s worse than that Joe: “school playground”.
It’s the school playground without the physical and emotional interaction that creates the “Reality” of the exchange.
The meeting I went to last week had a couple of this group amongst the majority who were struggling to get some sense and consideration for their mistreatment.
The Warmbots had No and I mean absolutely no understanding of the crushing damage they were doing to honest hard working people looking for hope.
The internet is full of misinformation that sounds so real and in one sense you can’t blame “bots” for being what they are.
The fact is that “bots” are dangerous and their behaviour has nasty consequences and the problem of living in a cyberworld must soon be faced and fixed.
KK 🙂
62
They may get to where they can “own” your body. But the only way they can “own” your mind is if you let them. If we must go down, then we must go down fighting to the last breath. I don’t know of any other way to keep my self-respect. And that is the most valuable thing I have.
Fighting may mean many things, including trying to convince people by facts and rational argument. But whatever it comes to mean, we must do it.
20
I call that “The Mirror People Syndrome”.
Mirror People carry around a virtual mental mirror to represent themselves. Its purpose is to reflect exactly what each of their fellow mirror people reflect with their virtual mental mirrors. Somehow they are able to pretend they are protected from reality by hiding behind their mirrors. I suspect they are hiding from themselves and not very successful at doing it.
Their terror leaks out as fear of global warming, global cooling, climate change, climate disruption, the sky is falling, peak oil, exhaustion of resources, …. They are right about one thing, they are running out of a very important resource: rationality. The lights are on, the radio is playing, but no one is at home and hasn’t been home for a very long time.
151
Good one Lionell.
KK 🙂
20
I’ve recently discovered a French left-wing philosopher called Pascal Bruckner (translated into English). He is not your usual Lefty. He doesn’t just think outside the box, he rips the box to shreds and turns it into growing medium to germinate his ideas. ATM I’m reading, “The Tyranny of Guilt”, an essay on Western Masochism, in which he destroys the Left-wing establishment’s presumption that because we’re white, rich and developed we must be evil. Bruckner is about 2 laps ahead of your mirror syndrome, Lionell, but if you can get hold of the book, it’s worth reading. There’s a prequel called,”Perpetual Euphoria, on the duty to be happy” and a sequel called, “the Fanaticism of the Apocalypse” which got him declared a non-person by the French Left, where he turns his attention on general doom-mongering to devastating effect. The books stand alone, but for best effect should be read in sequence.
Recommended reading for the long, cold Australian Winter – and the long, cold NH Summer. 🙂
60
Sounds interesting Kevin
KK 🙂
10
Scared to Death by Christopher Booker and Richard North gives a nice summary of the various scares.
e.g. Killer Eggs, Listeria Hysteria, Mad Cows and Madder Politicians etc.
The 70 pages on Global Warming was written pre FOIA, but still reads well.
40
Kevin,
That puts him squarely at odds with Obama, who definitely is guilty about white, rich and developed. Oops, sorry! Obama is only half white by parentage but he’s sure out to get the white, rich and successful (developed) for their success.
It sounds like Pascal Bruckner isn’t so far left as he might seem. Whats the ISBN of the book?
30
They want ‘swarm’ behaviour by the sheeple.
10
Here in drizzly Newcastle NSW, not particularly cold, or warm. Probably about avergae for this time of year.
40
Not a day to go out on.
30
I’m stuck marking assignments anyway, so I’m glad its raining !!
31
sea ice extent is looking good.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
70
Is it cold where I am?, I live in Ballarat of course it’s bloody cold! 🙂
Our local paper (Fairfax) is always trying to drum up scare stories on AGW since the drought broke 3 years ago, and local warmists are not much help either.
True the milder weather lingered longer in Autumn and rainfall was slightly lower than average and 2 weeks ago alarmists were carrying on about another drought, now with plenty of rain and daily temps of 10c to 12c they still won’t shut up but cherry pick a so called “unusual or extreme weather events” which equates to a sunny day or a storm.
I grew up here and my first 20 years of working was outside, all I can say is Winter was bloody cold then and it’s bloody cold now.
100
I was refereeing a rugby match in Ballarat twenty-odd years ago: there was some standing water on the pitch, the players all got wet, the wind picked up, and around half time the snow started. Then it got cold. Three players left the field with hypothermia. Captains and I agreed that we had all had enough, so I blew no-side, and we all adjourned for somewhere warmer.
Yes, it gets cold in Ballarat.
40
I remember freezing in Ballarat back in the 1980s. We had been camping in the Grampians and had had enough. All we wanted was a good dose of hot fish and chips to see us on our way to Melbourne!
00
Guess what? it’s still cold today in Ballarat.
I think almost everyone in Victoria has a freezing cold Ballarat story, have a guess why indoor sports are popular here or most babies are born here in Easter 😉
In the 80’s here there was a big Scout jamboree held in the bush around Ballarat it was spring and must’ve thought it safe to camp out, well you know what thought thought and sure enough heaps of poor Scouts were admitted for hypothermia with the leader stating the weather predictions looked ok, what happened to “be prepared”?!
00
Yeah but Yonnie its always cold in Ballarat no matter what time of year so it does not count 🙂
11
But we had an “ANGRY SUMMER” Oh prepare for thy doom repent now! end/sarc
10
You dont get summer in Ballarat stop joking with our non Victorian brethren 🙂
11
Too much rain here in South East Queensland to even get on the farm but it hasn’t been overly cold. We have had a few nights where the temperature went down to 8C or 7C but other than that nothing unusual about the weather.
Sounds particularly boring and mundane, I know. I guess the MSM won’t have any major headlines about angry summers or bitter winters to put on their front pages. They might have to resort to new levels of scare mongering to sell papers. Only time will tell.
50
Hey, I know it seems I’m mentioning this a bit lately, but again, have a look at this chart for the generated wholesale cost for electricity for the 5 States east of W.A.
AEMO Average Daily Prices May 2013
Now that the data is in for the whole Month, look at the costs for South Australia. Note the column headed Peak RRP. That’s the cost for the time period between 7AM and 10PM, 15 hours, you know when everyone is actually not asleep.
I just want to point something out here.
Last Summer, for all the 3 Months, there were 5 days when the electricity cost spiked upwards beyond $100/MWH.
That’s 5 days in 3 Months. Those 5 days were stinking hot and actual consumption was high, averaging 1900MW on each day with a peak on one day of 2200MW.
Now, compare that, 5 days in 3 Months with the costs for this Month. There was 15 days in this one Month alone where the cost spiked up beyond that $100/MWH. Of those 15 days, three were beyond $200/MWH and one of them was $462/MWH. Not just a short time spike but averaged over 15 hours. That’s 46 cents per KWH, power they could only sell at retail for around 26 to 30 cents per KWH.
The average cost for the whole Month was $120/MWH, and this is more than double the next highest State average for the Month, and that day when it was $462, well that was 9 to 10 times higher than the Other States for that day.
What is worth noting here is that May is in the benign Season when consumption is always lower, not the huge Summer peaks, or the larger Winter peaks. Both Spring and Autumn always have lower consumption, and for South Australia that consumption has been averaging 1600MW each day, so it’s around 300MW lower than for the 3 Month Summer average.
So, how come there were 15 days in May when costs spiked beyond $100/MWH and yet barely 5 days in the three Months of Summer.
Well, you see, South Australia closed down the 50 year old Playford Coal Fired Plant, and they made the decision to only run the 35 year old Northern Coal Fired Plant for the three Months of Summer, closing it down when Summer ended.
So 5 days in 3 Months with a coal fired plant dumping 500MW into the grid.
15 days in one Month without that coal fired power, just relying on their Wind power to deliver for the State, and the more expensive smaller plants.
That price spike is because to actually have enough power to cover every consumer in the State, then all those plants specifically designed to just supply for a few hours a day to top up the grid now have to run virtually all day. Their costs are always higher, hence the price spike.
So, in reality, Wind Power is not supplying what the State is actually consuming, and without even that aging coal fired plant South Australia is really struggling to find enough electricity to cover their needs, even when consumption is way down, and even coal fired Victoria is supplying power every day into the South Australian grid.
This is actual data that shoots holes right through a reliance on Wind Power.
Have you heard anything at all in the media about this?
Nup!
Too embarrassing.
Tony.
160
There was an article in the weekend courier mail blaming the rise in prices on a variety of factors. Volatility in pricing was one of them, and this could be neatly explained by your renewables deconstruction above but only in the case of SA. I don’t think Qld has fallen for the wind scam in as big a way, or have they?
Another factor listed was that part of the price rise was just temporary to raise cash for buying retail power for customers that haven’t been able to pay previous bills and are in arrears. ie power on credit until the balance is repaid.
Hang on, I thought, if the high price has led people to being unable to pay, and the inability to pay has led to the price going up… hmmm!
Have we at long last found the single solitary ONLY real runaway positive feedback in global warming?
00
Brisbane was mild last night at the rugby thanks due to the low cloud cover that filled in late afternoon. Nice autumn day today, little nip in the air.
30
I hate the cold, so I’m really dirty about them doing away with the white Australia policy.
That’s is what has let those little nips into our air.
01
it’s a “grey” issue, writes Patricia, who gives a Gillard voter the final word:
1 June: Australian: Patricia Karvelas: Axing carbon tax a grey vote winner
DITCHING the carbon tax tops the list of vote-switching issues for older Australians, followed by having a world-class healthcare system and a strong economy…
As a former employee of the Water Board, Mr Kimpton is financially better set up than his wife. “It’s a bit of a worry, things could get worse. For the moment, we are reasonably comfortable but it could easily soon see it going sour,” he said.
“Yes, I’m concerned about the cost of living but my main worry for the moment is this medical bit. Joy has been in hospital twice and we’ve been lucky. The things she had, it meant she got in without any question but she could have to go in for a third time and that could be whenever the government decides when they have a bed available for her.”
He said he was worried the carbon tax would make life harder, but conceded something needed to be done about the environment. Asked how he planned to vote he laughed and said: “Would you believe Julia?”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/axing-carbon-tax-a-grey-vote-winner/story-fn59niix-1226654812836
it was a “young” issue in December, wrote Patricia!
5 Dec 2012: Australian: Patricia Karvelas: Young Australians more concerned about the economy than climate
FORGET the environment, it’s the economy, stupid. Young Australians have dumped the environment from the top of their concerns and replaced it with the economy…
Dr Dalton said the decline in the importance of the environment may be a response to the breaking of the drought and the carbon tax.
“What’s also surprising, and which I’m sure will be a major worry to green groups and those with an interest in tackling climate change, is how young people’s concern around the environment has plummeted since last year,” she said…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/economics/young-australians-more-concerned-about-the-economy-than-climate/story-e6frg926-1226530049092
50
Near Hervey Bay, Queensland, it’s currently 22C, and slightly overcast. All about ‘normal’ for this time of year.
10
Tell them what the overnight freeze is, I know Fraser Coast very well
00
When i leave say, an outdoor table on the lawn for a few days, the grass underneath grows a lot faster than the surrounding area. The opposite occurs with grass under a tree or shrub. Is this in any way germane to the subjects of solar influence, carbon dioxide, green houses or cloud cover etc. This is counter intuitive (at least to me).Since it is a wet lazy sunday afternoon, is there anyone who feels inclined to help me with an explanation.
30
Not really DV.
There’s lots of reasons why the grass won’t grow under trees or shrubs apart from competition for sunlight. Competition also exists for moisture and nutrients. Plus an awful lot of plants add substances to the ground via their roots and during the breakdown of fallen leaves, that discourage other plants. Pine trees are notorious for this.
Under the garden table, however, all things are pretty much equal, apart from the sunlight.
It is a common fallacy that plants grow towards sunlight. They don’t. Plants grow away from lack of sunlight.
A plant can sense the intensity of light around it. If sunlight is more intense to the left of the plant, the plant needs to bend to the left to reach it. So the plant stimulates growth on the right hand side of its stem. The right hand side grows quicker than the left, and the plant subsequently bends to the left – towards the light.
Through the course of the day, as the sun travels across the sky, your grass under the table registers the varying intensity of light, first on one side, then on another, stimulating growth on the “dark” side, first on one side then on the other. The end result is that it grows taller than the surrounding grass.
90
Thank you MV for your explanation, which i follow and understand, it now occurs to me however, that if i were to erect an open slatted roof over my vegie garden i will get much faster growth than normal because of the effects you describe. It seems to me there well may be commercial implications.Investors will be welcome.
20
Hi DV,
No, what you will end up with, with your slatted roof, is tall, spindly, unhealthy vegies. At the end of the day it is all about sunlight and photosynthesis. More is good.
Not much point in having a ten foot high tomato plant with only three hard, tasteless cherry-size tomatoes on it.
That’s assuming, in its weakened state, that the plant hasn’t picked up a disease and died already.
.
If you want better vegies, put up a wall of clear plastic around your garden beds – only needs to be about 18 inches high, and introduce a source of CO2. Go look on You Tube under something like “CO2 for vegie gardens” for ideas. It’s all there.
50
Thank you but i’m not busting to get better vegie’s, just looking for a way to make a “quick quid” as my father would have said.At my age i can’t be watching the grass grow, time is running out.
20
.
Then check out “upside down gardening” on You Tube.
I originally got into it as, being your vintage, I could no longer do a lot of bending.
Works a treat – especially with CO2 enhancement.
10
MV. How cool. Is there a good way to set up a low maintanance water resevoir? I have a hot sunny spot but those plants will dry out.
00
JO,
Heaps of stuff on You Tube. Try:
“self watering gardens”,
“self watering hanging gardens”, and
“self watering upside down gardens”.
00
MV, don’t you understand climate “science”?
The table is obviously trapping outgoing radiation, and back radiating to the grass, causing an enhanced greenhouse effect. As we know form AGW predictions, this will cause rising temperatures and drought under the table which will….Oh hell! Could there be something not quite right about climate “science”?
30
.
Humblest apologies, Graeme.
I never did get the hang of this new-fangled “climate science”.
Especially the bit about Stephan Boltzman’s black and grey balls.
I mean, despite the fact that mine are bluish, they also radiate heat.
But I’ve never been too worried about my undies catching fire or anything catastrophic like that.
30
MV:
I must admit I’m not that expert in climate “science”. As far as I can see you make it up as you go along, being in mind that if the facts disprove the theory then the facts are wrong and have to be altered.
Thus low arctic ice levels show the Earth is getting warmer. Low arctic ice levels ‘explain’ why the Northern Hemisphere gets colder (you ignore the Southern half as inconvenient). Higher arctic ice levels means the Earth is getting warmer, so you are a Denier paid by Big Oil if you feel cold etc.
As far as I can make out, it is not necessary for a “Climatologist” to bay at the full moon, but I am sure that some feel the urge to do so.
10
““As far as I can make out, it is not necessary for a “Climatologist” to bay at the full moon, but I am sure that some feel the urge to do so.””
Full Moon Bayer
That has a nice rhythmic cadence (or ending).
In the future picture dictionary we shall find an image of one of the better known CAGW prognosticators (suggestions accepted?), and this – – –
Climatologist (noun): full moon bayer; a late 20th and early 21st Century prophet whose failed predictions of doom led to – – – and so on and so on.
10
Cold In France
“An icy spring means that the mountains between France and Spain are still covered in snow, with Eric Charre, the resort’s director, saying people should ‘take advantage of all the snow that has not melted’.
There were heavy falls across the Pyrenees throughout April and May, leading to regular avalanche alerts. Stations in fact had to shut down at one point during the winter because there was too much snow.
Mr Charre said that slopes running between 1600m and 2500m in altitude ‘have as much snow as there was in winter’.”
Might not advance the cause of AGW ?!
20
yet more reason to vote informally:
31 May: Port Macquarie News: Melissa Pretorius: Climate Change no con
HUMAN induced climate change is not a conspiracy or a con, but a real and serious threat to Australia, Parliament agreed this week.
Australia’s scientific community has praised the move.
It comes as Federal Independent MP Rob Oakeshott moved a motion for the House of Representatives to confirm the science community was right and climate change posed serious problems for Australia.
“Let us see where the bums land, from all members of parliament, in support of the very best advice in the science community,” Mr Oakeshott said this week.
“The advice is real and the question for the House today is whether or not we accept it.” Labor, the Liberals and the National Party supported the motion unanimously…
Mr Creamer (president of Climate Change Australia’s Hastings branch) said the show of confidence was heartening for activists and Mr Oakeshott had again showed leadership on this “critical issue”…
“It’s essential that this scheme – and all of its component parts – be retained by the next government and not replaced with less-effective measures.”…
Mr Oakeshott said the motion finally endorsed the work of Australia’s science community in confirming man-made climate change was not a con.
“No more games,” he said. “Today Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott were joined at the hip on climate change,” Mr Oakeshott said.
“Today, the unprecedented attacks on our science community come to an end.”
http://www.portnews.com.au/story/1539100/climate-change-no-con/?cs=257
10
.
I have spent the last few weeks putting together a website, a blog, and a Facebook presence, complete with funny memes for people to send each other, actively encouraging folks to vote informal at the next federal election, as a form of protest.
I have also put together a campaign to make the effort worthwhile for those that do vote informal, and to promote the concept.
I will be kicking it off at the beginning of July assuming an election is not called for before September 14.
33
This is really really stupid.
The Libs would have gone along with the motion to avoid stirring the pot over climate change.
Australia is in the sorry state it is in today BECAUSE OF STUPID VOTERS WHO DO NOT TAKE THINGS SERIOUSLY….
“OH!!! The Libs have been in far too long… time to vote for either Labor or Greens”.
This is how we got Gough Whitlam……
“OH!!! I don’t like any of them…. I’ll vote informal!” (I’m too stupid to know how to vote)
61
.
I’m afraid it’s a little more complicated than that, BS.
The Party Political System has now worked its way through to its logical conclusion, wherein about 20% of “swinging voters” now decide the outcome of all elections.
Since at any given election these 20% will all want something or other (probably different from what they wanted last time) elections have become little more than auctions, as the major parties vie to outdo each other to “buy” the votes of that 20%.
This wasn’t so much of a problem back when each of the major parties had some kind of identifiable underlying philosophy that people could relate to, but these days they don’t.
There is now no hope of the current system delivering good governance, so we either gradually degenerate to third world banana republic status, or we try and fix the system.
The only place where we can effect such a change is by forcing the Senate to revert to its correct function as House of Review of legislation introduced by the House of Representatives.
That means getting a team of conservatives into the Senate to counter the Greens and to force the proper application of the review process. The question is, do enough people care enough to support it?
.
Traditionally about 4% of people vote informal every election. It requires about 14% of the vote to win a seat in the Senate in a Half-Senate election, and about 7.5% to win a seat in a Full Senate election (as occurs after a Double Dissolution).
That means an active “vote informal” campaign that resulted in an 18% informal vote would indicate possible support for the idea in a Half-Senate election, and 12% would indicate support for the idea in a Full Senate election after a double dissolution.
Tony Abbott has stated publicly he will call a double dissolution if the Senate blocks his attempt to repeal the carbon tax. Word on the street is that Bill Shorten will replace the LIAR after the next election, and Mr Shorten has stated he will work with the Greens to block any attempt to repeal the carbon tax.
.
Under those circumstances there is a very real chance that my “vote informal” campaign could see a group of six or more conservative Senators elected, beholden to no party, simply with an ideal and desire for a return to good governance, within the next couple of years.
.
If you’ve got a better idea, I’m all ears.
42
I have come to the conclusion that voting should remain compulsory, but there should be a permanent option on all ballot papers;
I think it makes a valid statement that none of the candidates deserve your vote. I think that this gives a message in itself that may be listened to if this option becomes a significant proportion of the vote.
10
.
You just precisely outlined the campaign I will be running, Truthseeker.
The candidate’s name is Themm Nunnov, and I’ll be encouraging people to vote for him by drawing a box under the last candidate’s name, putting a “1” in it, and writing Themm’s name next to the box in the same way as the Electoral Commission does it – surname first.
Welcome to the vote4Themm campaign.
10
MV,
Does doing this eg putting Vote 1 Themm Nunnov get recorded as a specific type of Informal Vote, or does it get classified the same if I put a line through the whole card? Dave.
00
Dave,
There are no classifications to informal votes. They are just counted together. However, the informal vote has been pretty consistent at 4% for a long time.
Going off past elections, it seems when people are totally peeved for whatever reason, rather than vote informal, they don’t vote at all, and cop the automatic $20.00 fine. In the last two by-elections in Victoria, for instance, over 30% of the electorates failed to vote, probably because the Liberals didn’t run a candidate.
They could have saved themselves $20.00 and voted informally, but they didn’t. The informal vote stayed pretty close to the 4% norm.
On that basis I reckon it’s pretty reasonable to assume any significant increase in the informal vote over the 4% average, can be counted as a “vote4Themm”.
A 12% informal vote would mean an 8% “vote4Themm”, which is enough for a Senate seat in a full Senate election following a double dissolution.
00
MV,
So I vote for Nunnov Themm – along with the other members of Vote4Themm, and so now 12% is informal. But 8% voted for Nunov Themm, which is enough for a senate seat following a double dissolution.
And then what happens?
00
.
Then we put together the Review Commission, a group of people to run on a shared Senate ticket in each state. Members of the Review Commission have no policies. Instead, they have a Charter of Review, to which all proposed legislation coming before the Senate, is subjected.
The Charter of Review starts off with “Is there a mandate for this legislation”? (ie, was it covered in the previous election campaign).
If there is no mandate, the next question is, “Then is there a compelling reason to pass it now”? (eg – is there some kind of emergency?)
Na mandate and no good reason, the legislation is rejected by the Review Commission, and not supported in the voting.
If there is a clear mandate then the next series of questions are based on affordability and honesty: was the electorate given all the facts, were the costings realistic, and so forth.
If the figures are honest, then comes the question of “can we afford it”? With a $20 billion (at least) structural hole in our budget, governments for the foreseeable future that want to spend money on something, are going to have to find it from money they already have. In other words, spending more on ‘X’ means spending less on ‘Y’.
Where a clear mandate exists, based on honest figures given to the electorate, and the country can afford it, the Review Commission supports the legislation, regardless of which party has formed government.
If the figure are rubbery, the Review Commission formally requests an independent costing. The results are made public, public reaction is gauged, and the legislation is supported or rejected accordingly.
In summary, if the government has obtained an honest mandate based on transparent financing, that doesn’t incur additional overall government expenditure, the legislation is supported.
Fail anywhere in the Review Process, and the legislation is rejected.
The Review Commission campaigns for the Senate by publishing their intended Charter, and invite public discussion and input.
.
It can’t be that hard.
I reckon by the election after the next one, which quite possibly will be a full senate election, a group called “Tar and Feather All Politicians” could win at least one seat in each state, based solely on the protest vote.
10
MV,
That’s better, I was beginning to get worried about Themm.
So this election only and in the senate only, go for Nunnov Themm, to see if the idea is worth going for in a double dissolution. You only have to have 500 (I think as party members) and candidates for each state. I like it a lot more now.
Keep the Bastards honest is Back.
But I was going to vote for the Greens (even though it’ll probably make me sick) in the Senate this time to force a double dissolution ASAP.
00
Dave,
Yes, the idea is unashamedly based on the original Don Chip idea of the Australian Democrats “keeping the bastards honest”. They did a reasonable job of it, too, until they decided to become just another political party and have “policies”.
People who nominate to become part of the senate team sign an agreement to vote only in accordance with the Charter of Review. Further, that failure to do so constitutes their immediate voluntary resignation from the Commission. This agreement would form part of the Commission’s constitution, lodged with the Electoral Commission.
As near as I can tell, there is an interesting, untried loophole in the Federal constitution, with regards to Senators. Unlike the House of Reps, where there is no reference to political parties, in the senate they are specifically referenced.
For instance, on the ballot paper a voter can simply vote for the party of their choice (“above the line” vote), meaning the voter never voted for an individual at all, merely the party (grouping) they represent.
Second, where a vacancy occurs within the senate, the replacement is officially chosen by the Premier of the state the senator represents. But the Premier MUST choose the candidate nominated by the party of the replaced senator.
Now, it seems to me, that if a person was elected as part of the Review Commission team and then started voting with disregard to the Charter of Review, thereby rendering themselves “resigned” from the Review Commission, then the Review Commission would have grounds for a legal challenge to the senator’s legitimacy, to have him removed and replaced by another member of the group from the same state.
As I said, all theory – nothing like that has ever happened. But that’s how I read the relevant parts of the Australian constitution.
10
Dave,
Just by way of clarification, vote4Themm is in the House of Representatives, this election only, to judge the level of support for an alternative, and to send a message of protest to ALL our current politicians.
Assuming the support is there, as evidenced by the informal vote this election, we get the Review Commission off the ground by approaching likely identities to form a senate team.
I’m thinking of people like the well-known female editor of a certain on-line blog, her husband, and a motley band of writers and scientists they loosely knock around with, for starters.
But before I take it that far, and start asking for money and support, I want to be able to demonstrate that it is feasible – that support is there – hence good old Themm.
30
Some people have no understanding and we end up with a hung parliament because they are not aware.
10
Go for it MV. I am heartily tired of our useless politicians. We get sold the line that the more we pay, the better quality we will get. I see their pay and conditions rising at what almost seems like an exponential rate and the quality falling at similar rates. Generalisations are dangerous but you get the point. Give them all a kick in the pants, i’m a lifelong Liberal supporter (66 yr.old) but for the first time i’ll vote informal in Sept.
31
And if all the life long Liberal supporters vote informal, what happens then? Oh yes, more of Julia and her gang.
I have decided not to return to Australia.
10
For a start, BS, there’s far more reason to believe disenchanted Labor voters will vote informal, than LIB/NAT voters in this coming election. Truth is, having studied the “comments” sections of all the main online news services and blogs, it seems that voter dissatisfaction with ALL the major parties is running at an all-time high.
It must also be remembered that only formal votes actually count towards the result. A candidate doesn’t have to get a “minimum” number of votes of the total electorate. There is no “quorum” of votes required to make an election valid.
Even if 50,000 people voted informal in an electorate, and only 100 cast formal votes, the result is worked out exactly the same way, with (I reckon) pretty-much the same result, as if everyone made a formal vote. In this case, a landslide victory for the Coalition.
.
But, as I said before, if you’ve got a better idea, I’m all ears.
31
There are some stupid people around, no wonder the left side of politics can fool them
00
No problem voting informal if you are in a strong one way or the other seat. I think I once lived in a swing electorate for one election. Those who do not are effectively disenfranchised. While I’d rather see the Libs in power I can’t stomach the local idiot in Groom.
00
I take your point BS but what can we do, i write to political parties frequently and just get the standard reply. I thought the Liberals were going to shake up N.S.W but O’Farrell is another one of these “let’s form a committee mob”. I want politicians with the wit to know what needs to be done and the will to do it and not be trying to appease everything bambi brigade tree hugging minority with a sign on stick.
10
You are only 66 …. why don’t you run?
10
For whom?
Liberals, and have to support the nonsense Pat’s original post was about. And to what end?
Labor? – Unlikely. Greens? – Be serious.
Independent? – Oakeshott, Windsor and Wilkie have probably ensured no new Independent will get elected at federal level for at least 20 years.
80
This week was the last straw for me. We find out that Liberals and Labor doing a secret backroom deal to gouge our taxes to fund their upcoming electoral soiree’s. What really blew me away was, ONE/ it was a secret deal with the enemy and TWO/ when the secret got out, Abbott (fearing a backlash) changed his mind saying the time isn’t right.
Do you mind Mr Abbott, but this was shameless deal you did in secret and the time will never be right. A pox on both your houses. These comments from a lifelong Liberal voter.
40
Dumb Voter: Abbott wanted to end the corporate cash and related expectation of being heard, his letter was acceptance in principle, the government knows that he is an advocate of transparent funding of political parties and based on that they cunningly plotted to gain his attention and then, the details, were unacceptable and with his colleagues the Bill proposed was rightly rejected.
20
The ICAC revelations regarding NSW Labor funding of so called independents when Richard Torbay is questioned will be interesting. And the coal mining connections of Windsor who sold gamily property to a coal miner and then purchased property where mining is planned.
10
I have probably misunderstood one or both of the following, but there seems to be a contradiction.
Will the informal vote campaign in this election lead to independant Senators being elected?
Presumably Yes, since that’s the whole goal, but then how does this plan overcome the Oakeshott Factor?
00
Apologies Andrew, missed this earlier.
See my exchanges with Dave, starting at 18.1.1.1.1 above for a full explanation of your query.
00
Thanks MV. I see it now. They are not independent Senators, they are beholden to a party whose purpose and rules are constant and known from the start.
Ah yes, good old Themm!
I never thought I’d hear myself say it.
10
You are a dumb voter, the more I read the more obvious it is. Sixteen years of NSW state Labor incompetence and you blame the Coalition trying to correct the financial mess and lack of progress inherited.
00
And the very first major piece of legislation introduced to “clean up Labor incompetence” . . .
Why, ban the sale of unleaded petrol to promote the sale of ethanol, of course.
To “save the planet”, of course.
.
Sorry, Dennis, you live in a fantasy world as much as a rusted-on Labor voter.
01
Yes, and you have been in Siberia for six years chilling out
10
You have my vote, so to speak, MV.
“The major parties have united to increase secrecy around the running of Federal Parliament, with a new law set to prevent revelations about some perks enjoyed by politicians.
Neither party deserves my vote. So be it.
11
This has turned into a bad day for me. First it was Pat’s revelation about the Oakshot vote, now HJ has lobbed the FOI story into the tent. Liberal HQ will be getting another please explain tonight, to which i no doubt will receive the usual Blah Blah Blah response.
01
You obviously know nothing.
10
.
WOW Dennis!!!
No less than seven utterly vitriolic, abusive comments, aimed at various commenters, without actually offering any kind of alternative to the current situation other than “vote Liberal”.
Most of our climate change trolls can’t manage that.
.
Didn’t you read Pat’s comment about the parliamentary vote supported by unanimously ALL parties, including the Liberals, that “climate change is real, and humans are responsible”?
Didn’t you read the follow-up post by handjive, with the link to the article about the pollies UNANIMOUSLY voting to hide their expenses from FOI exposure?
Didn’t you follow the articles through the week detailing how the “faceless men” of the Labor Party, plus a representative for Gillard, met in secret with the “faceless men” of the Liberal Party, plus a representative for Abbott, to cook up a deal to gouge another $58 million out of the taxpayer, to fund their next election campaign?
.
You state:
Okay, enlighten us with your wisdom.
This country is currently on a fast track for economic oblivion, regardless of who wins the next election. We are currently $350 billion in debt, with an annual structural deficit of $20 billion (at least). Labor is going to “solve” the problem with a budget of $391 billion government expenditure this financial year. Liberals are going to “solve” the problem by spending $1 billion less.
We are also hurtling towards a massive energy shortfall crisis that will lead to total fuel poverty for millions of Australians by the middle of 2015, and the attendant total collapse of our manufacturing industry, right about the same time as the so-called mining boom closes up shop for good.
Both Labor and Liberal intend addressing this major problem with more of the sunbeams and pixie breath policies that got us here in the first place.
And your answer is – wait for it – “vote Liberal” – again.
10
Thank you MV, I was having a relaxing day and a bit of stir on an unthreaded thread when old mate Dennis burst into my conciousness and conclusively proved that i am indeed a know nothing dumbvoter. I don’t know what ICAC is going to reveal about Richard Torbay nor do i know what goes on in the Tony Windsor Family Trust or whatever tool he uses to do his business, but old mate Dennis does. I didn’t know that when Tony Abbott said “the timing isn’t right” he really meant “we don’t like the details” but old mate Dennis knew. I won’t go on, i know when i’m out of my league, and feeling that a lifetime of keen political observance has taught me nothing is somewhat disappointing.
30
.
On the contrary DV,
Far from being “out of your league”, you’ve just made the Big League.
.
Coming to terms with the fact that Australia’s political-party dominated political system is corrupt to the core – on EVERY side of the fence, is a majorly painful step.
You have nonetheless made it, so congratulations.
After a few more elections voting Liberal with nothing ever changing, even our good friend Dennis will eventually figure it out as well.
10
Hello Dennis, if your still there, Richard Torbay was a star recruit for the Abbott team for most of last year if my failing memory serves me correctly. As i said earlier, a pox on both their houses.
10
But he was discovered and dumped.
00
I use a different method. Since they are all corrupt or incompetent or most often both, I just vote against whoever is currently in power (i.e. for the opposing major party).
In the faint hope that this will result in a revolving door, and that, eventually, the penny will drop and they will start working for the people instead of their own filthy feathered nests.
But I suppose I’ll still die disappointed.
00
Why climate is NOT all about radiative forcing
The issue of “net flows” has been stretched literally beyond belief in the climatology world. The Second Law is talking about an isolated system (See Wikipedia – “Laws of Thermodynamics”) and any physicist should be able to tell you that a system in physics has a very specific definition. (Also see Wikipedia “System.”) It can of course have a single component (often represented by a one-way heat transfer between two objects) but if it has more than one component, then the components must be interdependent.
Now, if radiation from a cooler atmosphere were actually able to add thermal energy to a warmer target on the surface, say a rock beside a tidal lake, then that is the first “component.” The problem then to consider runs like this: if that extra energy is then stored for a while (say, until high tide) and the energy then transfers to some water on the surface by conduction, and then that same parcel of energy eventually gets back into the atmosphere with two further “components” such as evaporative cooling of the water, followed by subsequent release of latent heat, where then is the interdependence between any of these four separate components which you are in effect assuming to be all part of the one system, as defined by the Second Law? Sorry, the very first component (if it could occur) is not just a component of a larger system and it would be an outright and indisputable violation of the Second Law.
Think of Venus. Every 4-month long day its surface warms by 5 degrees, and then it cools by five degrees as the atmosphere radiates to space during the 4-month night. The surface temperatures are in the vicinity of 730K to 735K approximately. It takes a lot of energy to warm it by 5 degrees, and it doesn’t happen in the first day of sunshine, especially when you remember that such Solar radiation reaching the surface has only about one tenth of the power of that reaching Earth’s surface. So there must be a process in which energy builds up during the 4 month day.
Now we know that about 97.5% of incident Solar radiation is either reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere, so obviously the atmosphere will warm while the Sun is shining, but gradually over 4 months – say I.25 degree per month.
Clearly we are not talking about a radiative process warming the surface here, because incident radiation would have to be about 16,100W/m^2 into the surface to have any effect in that temperature range. And if it were it could probably do the job in a few hours, not 4 months. Furthermore, we at PSI would insist that any such radiation having any effect on such a hot surface would have to be directly from a hotter source, namely the Sun. We just don’t believe in non-interdependent components violating the Second Law, so we rule out radiation from the colder atmosphere. In any event, with only about 10W/m^2 of incident insolation entering the surface, there’s not a lot of energy to play with for back radiation, now is there?
Perhaps you think that the energy entering the TOA will do the trick. Well look at the figures – something like 2,600W/m^2 from memory before any is reflected away, which is much more than half of it. Perhaps we have about 1,000W/m^2 starting on its way into the atmosphere. (That’s to 1 significant figure – it doesn’t matter what the precise figure is.) How could the atmosphere somehow magnify this about 16 times before it comes out of the base of the atmosphere and into the surface, and why would it have so much more success getting through the atmosphere than did the Solar radiation? Remember – no more than 10W/m^2 could be from back radiation that was sending back energy from the surface, which was sending back energy from the Sun. By the way, Science of Doom has a totally incorrect figure of about 158W/m^2 (if I remember correctly) for the incident Solar radiation reaching the Venus surface. You’d think he would have checked the data from the Russian probes before using a figure which is at least 10 times the real one.
So the Venus surface is not heated by any “runaway greenhouse effect.” If you’re not convinced, then think about how energy gets down into the Uranus atmosphere which is mostly hydrogen and helium. I’m happy to discuss any questions you may have about my explanation of what is happening on these planets – and on Earth, where the Sun cannot heat our surface to 288K with direct Solar radiation alone. Just use SBL to convince yourself of this obvious fact.
Radiative forcing is not what is the primary determinant of Earth’s mean surface temperature. As on Uranus and Venus, and throughout the universe, temperatures in any atmosphere have a propensity to follow a temperature gradient which is between about 65% and 100% of the quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. The level of the plot is determined by the need for radiative balance, so that Is the “starting point.” Then, at whatever temperature the plot intersects the surface, we have a pre-determined base supporting temperature which slows all radiative and non-radiative cooling at night, enabling the Sun (if applicable) to warm somewhat the next day, this being but a marginal effect, as is the slowing of cooling as the surface comes back towards the base temperature. No big changes in climate will occur without natural changes in the parameters just mentioned. That is the “New School of Thought” which we are starting to talk about at PSI. Keep watching for a new article on such within a few days.
94
Really Mr Cotton… must you SPAM this nonsense all over this blog?
Please find a relevant thread for your guff.
(He is not off topic because this is an open topic thread) CTS
53
If he is so obviously wrong, prove it! It should be easy to do.
50
Its not about right or wrong, its about SPAM. Mr Cotton is now dropping this stuff into every single new thread on this blog.
(It is NOT spam in this thread because this is an open thread) CTS
33
But this thread is unthreaded … so he is within the intent of the thread … just ignore him.
40
Could be a good name for a piece of the old Anglo-Saxon monarch’s material – Everythread the Unthreaded.
20
.
I love it.
Everythread the Unthreaded solemnly declared the Unthreaded Thread to be Unthreadable.
.
Which just leaves us with the question:
Can there be “an intent of the thread” in an unthreaded thread?
Surely an unthreaded thread has no intent to be threaded.
But, equally surely, an unthreaded thread must have an intent to be unthreaded.
.
Does anybody have a threadable answer?
10
MV
How about the Snoopy Response:
Pfsshft!
Or words to that effect.
00
I don’t agree at all…. for the simple reason that he has begun dropping the same stuff into every thread… its SPAM.
13
Rereke is right; it’s an unthreaded thread; why are you trying to thread the thread?
50
Gee maybe you’ve got some nous after all. Can we be friends now?
04
I do have some nous DAS. I’m wondering, based on some of your posts, whether you have nous, sobriety or a point. Put it to me, the resident know-it-all blank page, and see what you get.
10
Backslider,
How is your incessant complaint not itself spam?
Like I said, if he is so wrong it should be dreadfully easy to prove it. Yet, you use each of his presentations as an excuse to complain that he actually presented something. He does not complain, he explains and does so respectfully. Try proving him wrong and perhaps one of you might learn something.
40
Thanks Lionell.
To others:
As other comments I have made here should indicate, I think totally “outside the square” of radiative forcing. I recognise that there cannot possibly be a “runaway greenhouse effect” on Venus, or any radiative forcing causing the Uranus atmosphere to get hotter and hotter – or the Venus atmosphere and surface – or Earth’s.. In short, I think about what must be the real explanation of planetary temperatures, not just in the atmosphere and surface, but in the crust and mantle also.
I find a common physical process is the sole cause of such temperatures. It is a non-radiative process which is the very process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is a spontaneous process which occurs at the molecular level and it is the process in which thermodynamic equilibrium evolves – just as the Second Law says.
That equilibrium is of absolute necessity one in which there is a thermal gradient in a gravitational field. This directly implies that there must be an underlying thermal plot which supports atmospheric temperatures at all altitudes. If there happens to be a surface at some altitude, then the temperature of the atmosphere at that altitude plays the major role in determining that planet’s surface temperature. How else could 10W/m^2 of direct Solar radiation cause the Venus surface to be 730K? Why else would it only cool by 5 degrees during the 4-month night? Think everyone!
I am not going to be drawn into discussions of radiation, even though I did study that topic very extensively the year before last and wrote a comprehensive paper about it as a result of my research.
10
Right Lionell, nice to meet another slayer. I woukld hardly call a couple of comments “incessant”.
I suppose that after that I should begin trying to convince Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept blood transfusions? No thanks!
01
I see. Since you used a comparison based upon faith to say you see no point in proof, I conclude you hold your views based upon faith. Your faith is that he is wrong because he disagrees with your faith. If that is your belief, then I agree there is no point proving anything. Faith does not require proof or even evidence for then it would not be faith.
Now, what does your complaint and faith he is wrong have to do with science? Answer: nothing!
10
Yes, I think he is wrong to post the same stuff in every single thread at every opportunity.
Others believe that because this is an unthreaded thread that its ok. I am perfectly happy for them to think that, just as I am perfectly happy with my own views.
(Please let it go as this an OPEN thread therefore he is allowed to post his stuff in it) CTS
00
CTS – which part of this did you not comprehend?
You cannot control how I THINK, no matter how powerful you feel interjecting wherever you wish…..
(You need to cool it as you are getting tedious with your complaining about someone else.It is clear you are backsliding here which can stop if you drop your obsession with Dougs presence in the OPEN thread) CTS
00
As for Backslider, we see that he is for banning whatever it is he doesn’t like simply because he doesn’t like it. This is combined with a very strong reluctance to discuss anything substantive, precise, and in context about the scientific issues. In fact, any old term will do,without further examination, if it HE thinks it is good enough. To make matters worse, he appears to think calling someone names and dismissing ideas he admits he hasn’t read is an argument worthy of respect.
At least now he stands fully exposed, by his own words. There is no there, there.
00
Hi Lionell
A good point on the face of it but to be honest I can’t comment on DCottons current posts as I no longer read them.
Some time ago when he began posting here I tried to read them, and while they had some OK stuff there was a feeling of disconnectedness about them.
If only he could summarise the content in a more coherent way it may enable a proper analysis of what he is saying.
Constantly repeating “the second law of dynamics” or whatever means little if you can’t deconstruct your idea and really it to people in a more understandable format.
After all, many of us have not done any formal physics for over a quarter of a century.
We understand concepts but not “definitions”.
KK
00
should read “relay”
00
I agree that Cotton’s postings could be more clearly and more coherently written. However he is politely presenting an alternate set of ideas that deal with some serious issues that work against any form of the so called “greenhouse effect.” His lack of clarity may diminish his effectiveness but it is the ideas expressed that are important and are capable of being supported or refuted.
Backslider, on the other hand, doesn’t agree with the ideas and holds such ideas should not be expressed and dealt with at all. Then, even though he holds they are so very wrong, fails to make an effort to show how they are wrong. He simply asserts and uses the futility of arguing against faith excuse for not doing so. Clearly, his position has nothing to do with science of the matter and every thing to do with some closely held unsubstantiated belief (aka faith). A faith he chooses not to describe or defend.
To give an example of the quality of proof that he should be able to offer, I present the following three considerations.
Consider the details of how a real greenhouse works and how that is quite unlike the earth’s atmosphere. It follows that earth/atmosphere/sun system is NOT a greenhouse and there is no such thing as the as the so called greenhouse effect!
Consider the complexities of light emission and absorption as an energy level resonate process that it results in it being receptor/emitter energy level specific. Radiation from a colder body is itself lower energy than the presumed warmer body it is supposed to heat. The radiation, being a resonant mismatch is not absorbed but may be transmitted, deflected, or reflected.
Consider that the radiation from the surface has left the surface on it way to the CO2 it is aimed at and its energy is no longer there to elevate the surface temperature. Then when that radiation is returned to the surface, it merely replaces the energy the surface had previously lost and cannot by itself elevate the surface temperature. It can at best return the surface energy state to what it was.
Any one of these three things are sufficient to bring the orthodox theories of the so called 97% consensus of cherry picked climate scientists into serious question.
All I ask is that Backslider stand and deliver a similar blow to Cotton’s alternate proposal. No math, no numbers, no complicated relationships. Yet he refuses to do even that much. One suspects he is unable to do so.
00
Wow Lionell, you are so psychic.
The fact is that I cannot be bothered to read Cotton’s postings anymore, since they are like the rantings of a religious zealot and lack clarity, cohesion and coherence.
Thus, I actually do not hold an opinion on such one way or the other (as to whether his theories are correct) – I simply cannot be bothered with it. All it does is to clog up threads with information which I very much doubt many others bother with either.
You on the other hand are like a little puppy growling at the nasty man in defense of your master.
10
And here is just how thick you are:
EVERYBODY knows that the analogy is a poor fit… however that is what we have. The term should NOT be confused to mean that the earth’s atmosphere behaves just like a greenhouse….. EVERYBODY KNOW THAT… and have done since the beginning…. except Lionell Griffith of course.
Baby steps sonny: The atmosphere is kind of like a greenhouse, but not exactly.
10
Backslider,
For someone who says he has no opinion one way or another, you have a strange way of dealing with the ideas expressed: a mixture of personal attack and dismissal without explanation. The ideas are left untouched by you.
At least one thing is clear, you will never be confused with someone who is actually polite nor one who deals with ideas in any serious way. If that is what you want to be, that is your problem.
10
So now you are polite? Guffaw!!!!
No sonny, I have expressed myself perfectly as to how I feel about SPAM, which was the only point I wished to make.
You however decided to get on your high horse and demand (and you accuse ME of being incessant!) that I challenge the overzealous views of Mr Cotton. I am in no wise interested.
01
Backslider: The tem “greenhouse theory” is a hundred year old term used when there really was rudimentary understanding of the phenomena. Using the term now, when we know so much more according to the climate scientists, either indicates dishonesty or laziness. One would think that people with such a hugely important theory would be more concerned about accuracy of the naming. We don’t call quantum mechanics “rules for the unobservable” or some other nondescript name (Einstein wasn’t lazy, one supposes). We removed Pluto from the list of planets when our knowledge showed it was not an appropriate designation. Surely a theory about a phenomena that could kill us all would deserve a more accurate name–if it really was science, that is. The use of the inaccurate “greenhouse theory” is designed to appeal to the most uninformed in society. Then the climate change scientists can’t understand why the people who understand science don’t trust them. Maybe if they were a bit more 21st century……
30
Sheri said:
Well said!
10
I think that this is total nonsense…. where is Lew to observe the conspiracy ideation? Perhaps he has something there?
So please tell us all Sheri – what is it really called? To me it sounds like we have far more Slayers around here than I envisaged – we all know how uptight they get at the mere mention of the term.
Like I said, everybody knows what in means in reference to the atmosphere.
01
“Everyone knows what it means?” What in the world does that have to do with accuracy in science? Really? I am blown away by your complete lack of concern over accuracy in science……
Where do you get “slayer” and “conspiracy ideation”? I merely pointed out that there is a huge inaccuracy in terminology. That in no way reflects whether I believe CO2 is warming the planet or not. It just indicates that I am concerned that scientists be accurate, an idea you apparently do not share. (Jumping to personal insults is an interesting way of dealing with science–are you sure you’re not a warmest?? That’s their technique.)
What is it really called? “CO2 is a gas in the atmosphere that is associated with warming of the planet.” We call it CO2 and we describe what it does. Calling it a greenhouse gas implies the atmosphere works like a glass building for plants. People have been known to envision it as such. It’s CO2, plain and simple. If we must get down to kindergarten level for the masses, perhaps calling it an insulating factor. I’ve heard that used, though it was in an article that also included references to a CO2 being a jacket…..Call it CO2 and that’s it. Describe it’s function, if you want. There is no greenhouse.
20
Take a pill Backslider, you’re starting to sound paranoid. What Sheri said doesn’t make her a “Slayer” and not everything a “Slayer” says is wrong.
As for the term “Greenhouse Effect” what about that is accurate? I happen to agree that the term IS used for propaganda value and thus is designed to appeal to the uninformed. Does that mean conspiracy? Not necessarily, but ask yourself why the consensus climate scientists haven’t bothered to come up with an accurate name for the phenomenon?
I’m not a “Slayer” either. I find some of what they say to be interesting, some of their methods of communicating annoying. Apparently I’m not the only one because several other blogs have banned them.
What Lionell said is that you should put up an argument to D. Cotton that deals with the science. Do you dispute Lionell over his reasoning? I can understand that you might have a variety of reasons not to take up such an argument. The amount of typing alone would discourage me, but Lionell has made a valid point.
30
So you think its just about CO2???
Really? The major greenhouse factor is WATER. Water vapor, clouds… you know?
The fact is that its been called “The Greenhouse Effect” for a long time. How do you expect me to change that?
Your own lack of understanding of what it is leaves the door wide open for warmists and all their twisted versions of what it is and how it works.
11
Please keep up and take the time to read what I wrote above.
I will however say this much: Mr Cotton’s whole modus operandi leaves a lot to be desired, which immediately makes me suspicious of anything he has to say. I really do not have the time for his rants.
(Then you can stop reading his comments “rants” and feel better) CTS
11
Backslider–I am beginning to see why you cannot write an answer to Mr. Cotton–you seem language challenged. You read “associated with” as “it’s just about”. Are you sure you’re not a warmest–this is the kind of nitpicking about language and the constant misinterpretation I usually get from them.
I don’t expect you to change anything–Though I have to wonder if I complained about the lack of peace in the Middle East, would you tell me you can’t be expected to solve that? Again, very strange reaction to what was an observation.
As noted in my opening paragraph, warmists are not the only nitpicking, language twisters out there. Sadly. (Speaking of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, saying the modus operandi makes you immediately suspicious seems to also trace back to warmists and the unscientific. While a clumsy presentation or pushy one may put people off, it’s about the science. Selling the theory is about how you present it–so are you saying Mr. Cotton is a lousy salesman?)
10
Perhaps he is, however that is not what I was saying. What I did say is that he is a SPAMMER, which is the only point I wished to make. I really do not care what he believes.
So, you accuse me of nitpicking with words simply because I caught you out on your thinking that “The Greenhouse Effect” is all about CO2… I can understand the misconception, since CO2 is all that warmists go on about when screaming about it.
To quote you on what “The Greenhouse Effect” should be called:
That was it. Don’t you think that’s a rather narrow description?
And there you go again with yet more ideation… oh yes, really, I am a warmist, whereas your self:
Sounds to me like you are scared of the concept… you are at least Slayer fodder.
(You spend a lot of effort complaining about Doug calling him a spammer when you could have done this instead and stop filling up the thread with your complaints: To report “lost” comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support AT joannenova.com.au) CTS
01
Yes of course Mr. Polite, we are all here to serve you. In the mean time why don’t you please “keep up and take the time to read what I’ve written. We’ve covered this recently.
For starters how about not making it easy for them to get away with use of an incorrect comparison? Then just stop accusing anyone that points out the fact that it is wrong, of being a Slayer or Lew worthy or some other ideation of yours.
What lack of understanding? Do you believe we should assist warmists and support their incorrect use of the term Green House???? Where again is the twisted part????????
I’m in agreement with Sheri, you ARE sounding like a warmist.
10
Interestingly enough, you have 27 posts and Doug has 28. Would that not make you a “co-spammer”?
You called me out on nothing–you failed to grasp the meaning of the language. I am fully aware that water vapor, methane and now possibly CFC’s contribute to warming, plus winds over land can effect the weather over much of the planet, “forcings”, etc all contribute to climate.
Yes, in the context of the warming of the planet and CO2, my definition is narrow. That was the point. I identified the gas and the reason we are using it in regard to a warming planet. In other conversations, we could look at the role of CO2 in plant growth, etc. Then we could call it CO2 and describe its function. I would object to calling it a pollutant, of course, in any context.
Maybe I should have put the /sarc tag on the “phenomena that could kill us all”, though I thought my postings here would make that unnecessary. My apologies and I will identify my sarcasm clearly so as to not confuse you.
10
KK – That’s why my paper is 20 pages in length. It takes a lot of detailed explanation which has to be abbreviated in comments like this. Fair enough? If you read the paper “Panetary Core and Surface Temperatures” you should find it easy to understand. Start with Section 4 about the Second Law if you wish, which reads …
An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.
Now a “system” in physics comprises interdependent components or just one component. So when energy is transferred from the atmosphere to the surface by, say, conduction at the boundary, thence upward convection it will warm some water vapour molecules which may well radiate some electromagnetic energy back towards the surface. But, if you read my paper on radiated energy, you will see a detailed explanation of the “resonant scattering” (sometimes called “pseudo scattering”) process which immediately re-emits the radiation from the warmer surface so that none of its EM energy is converted to thermal energy, and so there is no heat transfer. What the physics books tell you is that, if there were a transfer of thermal energy in this “component” then the Second Law would have been violated because there is no interdependence between the above two components I have described.
Another way of looking at it is to consider the First Law. When the surface radiates a certain amount of thermal energy to a cooler region of the atmosphere the surface cools. It would need to get back exactly the same amount of energy to warm back up to the original temperature. How is it going to get back more energy?
The Sun cannot warm the surface of Earth with direct radiation to a mean temperature anywhere near 288K. Hence the whole discussion about the atmosphere slowing the cooling of the surface is not relevant to the question, what will the surface temperature reach?
The surfaces of Earth, Venus etc can and do receive energy from the Sun absorbed by the atmosphere and conveyed downwards (following the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient) until it reaches the surface. This is a non-radiative process which is following the process of spontaneous evolving which is in statements of the Second Law. There is discussion of this on the PSI forum under, for example, my article about the 21st century new paradigm shift.
Doug Cotton
02
No, I do not. I am spending a lot of time countering these people who are CLEARLY harassing me and who you fail to moderate.
00
Whom you fail to moderate.
And you spend your time poorly, countering people you don’t need to counter (unless you are a propaganda supporting warmist).
Get an effing clue. Normally I reserve dumbass for people deserving of the moniker. You aren’t quite there yet.
00
backslider
I was reading some of the other comments and thinking the best way to put it and came up with “a kind of greenhouse effect”.
Then I looked down and saw you had hit on it too.
That comment summed it up and was reenforced by Sheri’s later comment criticising Doug for constantly bringing up the term which I will not mention again.
Have asked Doug to try to summarize and break down his theory and present it.
So his reply was to tell me how long it was, 20 pages apparently and between Uranus and ballparks the whole concept is becoming murkier and murkier.
For the second time I give up.
KK 🙂
00
Hi Mark
I have outlined what would be good to do if Doug was keen to help us understand.
Unfortunately he can’t be bothered but is happy, or perhaps primarily interested in diverting us to his website:
“There is discussion of this on the PSI forum under, for example, my article about the 21st century new paradigm shift.”
There is a limit to how much “advertising” is acceptable on somebody elses thread and I think maybe we have gone past it.
KK 🙂
00
Hear, hear. This was the only point I ever wished to make re. Mr Cotton. Why everybody else wished to jump in, off topic, and demand this and that from me is…. well, perhaps its because Brooksie and Matttb are so scarce lately?
10
Oh yes you are completely innocent for calling people Slayers and any number of undeserved ad-homs!
Dumbass it is. Unless you could muster some kind of slippery apology. (I doubt it)
Dumbass for not recognizing your allies, dumbass for not seeing the really simple logic of several posters, dumbass for being……A Dumbass!
Good day.
00
Right…. but its perfectly ok for you and your ilk to suggest I am a warmist.
Dumbass huh? Well yes, my ass is most certainly dumb… thanks for letting us all know where your own “intelligence” resides.
10
Exactly as I thought and predicted.
I rest my case.
00
Kinky Keith: I could go for “a kind of greenhouse effect”. That would help people stop visually a glass building that you grow plants in while still sticking with a term that is familiar.
10
That should be “visualizing”. (My electricity has been off for hours and I finally have heat and lights–I guess I’m not quite awake yet.)
10
Mark D
It seems Mr D Cotton will need to be asked if random noise can cause a cooler object to affect the temperature of a warmer object a few more times.
19.1.1.2.2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nj_2ZH0sMDo
00
Summary for KinkyKeith:
There is no greenhouse effect on any planet.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics explains a process in which thermodynamic equilibrium evolves spontaneously.
That process produces a gravitationally-induced temperature gradient which explains all planetary atmospheric, surface, crust, mantle and core temperatures, and how the energy gets down there to support such temperatures.
Is that brief and clear enough KK? There’s 20 pages of detail in my paper.
00
I just have a simple question. If 16,100Wm^2 will do the job in about 4 minutes how much would be required to do the job in about 8 minutes?
20
Replace minutes with hours if you like.
20
No more than 16,100W/m^2 because there would then be radiative equilibrium. But if the radiation is less, then it will never get to that temperature. If you are not familiar with Stefan-Boltzmann Law you can easily search for information on such. There is no way that the Venus surface could receive that much radiative flux coming from radiative flux from the Sun which is only about 2,600W/m^2 even before a lot of it gets reflected back to space at top of atmosphere. Do you have any other questions or doubt this obvious fact?
10
D Cotton. Said
Very familiar with it in the form KTB.
You should not ignore KTB. This shows that due to the noise having a wide and continual variation in amplitude that your sudden and narrow equilibrium threshold line idea is nonsense.
K is Boltzmann’s constant, T is the temperature in deg K and B is the bandwidth in Hz.
The near infinite amount of noise bandwidth for a planet shows that amplitude variation can blur an equilibrium line.
The mistake you are making is to treat something that is NOT constant but is a long term average as if it were constant.
The lower end bandwidth of a planet is not just calculated on twice the wavelength proportional to the width of the planet but must also include the magnetic tail length. So as well as being obviously wide at the upper frequency end it is unpredictably wide at the lower frequency end.
Think about a scale balance with a constant weight on one side and a varying weight of the same long term average on the other. The scale would continually shift balance point at random frequencies within the bandwidth range.
Yes it will! If you cannot see this in noise amplitude variation just think about rouge waves.
The question is not if it will but how often it will. There is an obvious imbalance on Venus but your theory does not provide a source for the heat.
30
Aren’t they behaving like warmists, pushing their discredited meme into every post in the vain hope that the shear volume of bamboozle might catch out a few more unsuspecting newbs.
Unthreaded might have been mistaken for unravelling stuff, rather than just a lazy weekend.
20
According to John Kehr ‘The Inconvenient Skeptic -A comprehensive guide to climate change ‘, the climate of the Earth is controlled by Geography (Continental Drift and Land/Ocean distribution) and Milankovitch Cycles (Variations in the Earth’s tilt and eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit).
Kehr says that the critical factor is the total solar irradiance at 65N ( where most of the land is). He shows that the cycle of Ice Ages over the last 1 million years correlates well with the solar irradiance anomaly at 65N, and when it goes negative an Ice Age is coming!
The current interglacial warm period has lasted longer than average and the next Ice Age is over due. The solar irradiance anomaly at 65N went negative a few hundred years ago. We are enjoying a late Indian Summer.
Therefore Kehr says “Summer has gone, Autumn is fading, Winter is coming!
I feel glad that I live in the Southern Hemisphere. The Ice Age is apparently much less severe down here.
60
He has 2 components of a vast non-linear chaotic system. Other authors have many more. Nevertheless, his 2 seem important.
00
The book is a very good way to learn about climate. He is very clear and easy to read. I would note that he did say if he had to predict, he would say cold is coming. However, he makes few climate predictions but rather concentrates on basic climate information.
10
Peter Champness:
John Kehr may have a point, but look up the 100,000 year problem (and the Devil’s Hole). The expected start time of the last interglacial is out by 10-17,000 years on the Milankovitch cycle.
Also, an explanation is needed for the change from 41,000 year cycles pre one million years ago, to 100,000 year cycles with no differentiation between the 95 and 125,000 years expected.
We will know for sure about the coming ice age sometime in the next 10,000 years.
Only being out by 10% nevertheless makes this one of the more accurate pieces of climate “science”.
20
Can you give a reference for,your 100,000 year problem and the Devil’s hole?
00
For Milankovitch timing Try Wikipedia with a grain, or five, of salt, or Google milankovitch cycles timing problems.
For Devil’s Hole try Google devil’s hole Nevada (or Death Valley) milankovitch (that gets the right Death Valley. Or try
pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3021/pdf/fs2012-3021.pdf
00
Peter, your terminology is not quite correct. The Earth is actually in an ice age that has been around since the start of the Pleistocene epoch about 2.6 million years ago. We are awaiting the next glacial period within that ice age.
There is some evidence that the 100,000 year cycle may correlate with variations in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit. The gravitational attraction of Jupiter affects Earth’s orbit and the mean annual distance from the Sun will vary with eccentricity.
00
@D Cotton
So, I take it you have found it warm on Venus?
10
The Russian probes dropped onto the surface of Venus provided plenty of data – what’s your point?
Explain with valid physics (as I have) why it is what it is. (Clue: it is physically impossible for it to have anything to do with a radiative greenhouse effect.)
41
Try this for an alternate Venus theory. The greenhouse theory being wrong does not make just anything else correct. There are other problems to consider.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsA-Q6t8DuA
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL334491CC94CEE42C
D Cotton. How do you explain the hotspots? Can you show that the gradient there matches a pressure gradient alone better than a pressure gradient with long term cooling as this theory predicts?
00
I have never said temperature relates directly to a pressure gradient, now have I? The Ideal Gas Law can be stated in the form ..
pressure is proportional to the product of temperature and density.
Hence there is no necessary direct relationship between temperature and pressure or between temperature and density. That’s physics – which I have been studying and helping students with for about 50 years. Is there anything else I can help with?
31
The differece between that and this below is too subtle for me!
00
It is still cold in Canada my contacts advise, here on the mid north coast of NSW 14.6 degC this early evening, and several tree limbs to be cleared tomorrow after high wind speeds.
10
How could the global warming/climate change scam have been run without the ignorant people?
20
.
Which “ignorant people” are you talking about, Dennis?
The “ignorant people” who just go on voting Labor in the naive belief that one day Labor will actually get back to “representing” them, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Or the “ignorant people” who just go on voting LIBS/NATS in the naive belief that one day they will actually get back to “representing” them, despite all evidence to the contrary.
40
Would it be polite to call a cotton a sew and sew
10
An interesting report crossed my desk about a week ago.
Apparently the Mayor of Toronto. Rob Ford, is rumoured to have been videoed smoking crack. Gawker has offered to buy the video for $200,000, and is looking for donations.
So here is a report about something that might have happened, or might not. But the fact is that the social media has already decided and divided on the issue, although nobody has actually seen this video, or even knows if it exists.
If Gawker doesn’t get enough money to buy the video, then we might never know whether or not it exists.
But that doesn’t matter, because the damage has been done. Mr Ford’s reputation has already been trashed by the social media consensus, so he will probably not be in a position to run for office again.
Welcome to journalism in this Brave New World.
20
It was not long ago that it was trendy to say “History is Journalism 2.0”.
Seems to me History is little more than the collected works of past Journalists.
With the way Journalism is descending into consensus of gossip rather than consensus of independant sources, can History itself be far behind?
The problem for revisionists is that old printed material still preserves a faithful record, but presumably revisionism gets easier at exponential pace in the Internet era.
As long as the sources that 80% of people will rely on can be revised, the remainder of the dissenting public can be dismissed as cranks on the fringe and “conspiracy theorists”. Unfortunately this is often a genuine charge because there is an entire “alternative history” industry eager to publish on paper a different hypothesis of history – with varying degrees of explanatory power.
You know, rekkers, the more I think about it the more I reckon the problem of History being an embellished or contrived consensus is an old problem.
But yeah, the disappearance of journalistic integrity does appear to be on the rise. The court of public opinion is a back door to feudalistic vigilantism, the opposite of due process in a fair society.
10
Andrew,
Don’t you think that Wikipedia and its transparent democratisation of knowledge is at the forefront of the disinformation superhighway to which you refer. In spite of overtures to improving access to knowledge to a global audience who lacked exposure to supposedly unbiased and unfettered knowledge ( a noble aim, and a mammoth task too achieved by the collective efforts of tens of thousands), it simultaneously offers the opportunity to set in train a series of politically motivated and/ or flagrantly erroneous beliefs slanted for effect which would be readily accepted as “truth” to become unshakeably entrenched in the public consciousness. It is a disturbing trend, even if intentions were pure, which I doubt, to facilitate an erosion of human knowledge in this way.
We’ve certainly as a species lost our moral and intellectual compass, and possibly also the trail of breadcrumbs as well.
00
Yes. The potential for Wikipedia to become the walls of the Floyd’s lyrical goldfish bowl has not escaped my attention, and in some ways is more insidious than the controlled corporate media in TV and print.
It’s okay for 99% of topics where there is no obvious motive for manipulation. On the other hand 99% of topics are unimportant most of the time.
I was thinking the other week that as youths we have an enormous ability to take in information, but this seems to be single-shot learning (Hebbian learning in neural lingo) because it is difficult to unlearn and forget the first lessons you see. Under such conditions it’s important for one’s first introduction to any topic to contain only the truth, lest the path to dissonance take root early.
It highlights the whole notion of self-guided unsupervised learning. At some point basic research must do this, obviously, so I guess WP cannot be given any more weight than any other web page.
The general solution is some critical analysis must be done with all sources on a case-by-case basis, whether it is Wikipedia, the TV news, or a dusty tome.
00
But there is a motive, look at what Political Correctness has done for us. PC style writing has been found in many of the 99% topics. Free speech isn’t what it used to be.
00
@ Pat #18
That Port Macquarie News item is reporting a lie, saying that Tony Abbott agreed with Oakeshott’s cleverly worded “questions” in Question time 28/5/2013.
It was also reported in the Manning Times (Taree area)
Perusal of Hansard for that day shows the process, starting the first part of the question at 14:22:
– Hansard,
Mr Oakeshott – My question is the Prime Minister – and, with the indulgence of the House,I invite the Leader of the Opposition to also answer this question.
Clarification by the Speaker
Mr Oakeshott – Will the Prime Minister , the leader of the other major party, if allowed, confirm for the House today, in a bipartisan way, their personal acknowledgement, acceptance and confidence in the facts and confidence in the facts and evidence in the facts and evidence of man made climate change ?
The Prime Minister has the call and answers (14:23)and absolutely confirms acceptance of climate change along the governments line – carbon pollution – tackle climate change – pricing carbon etc. etc.
Mr Albanese – adds his confirmation of the P.M.’s answer and stated no objection to the Leader of the Opposition to stating his response.
Mr Oakeshott – Speaker, I ask a supplementary question – and with the indulgence of the House, this can be answered at the end of question time as well.
Further – after Mr Albanese moved a motion to allow the Leader of the Opposition to respond (protocol in Question time)
Mr Abbott, Leader of the Opposition (14:28)
I welcome the opportunity to briefly put on the record the coalition’s position in this area. We accept the science that says that sometning is happening to our planet. We accept that – we always have, we always will
Speaker – Order –
Mr Abbott – The question is not whether or not our climate is impacted by human activity – clearly there is a human impact on our climate. The question is how is it best dealt with? The government believes that it should be dealt with, with a great big new tax, the coalition believes that it should be dealt with by a direct actioneasures.
– much more.
What was reported is not what was stated by Tony Abbott.
20
Well done, Jefft, and good spot.
There is what is said, and then there is what the media wants you to think was said, and then there is what you want to believe was said, and then there is what your mates argue was said.
But if it is Hansard, then that is what was officially said, even if it wasn’t.
30
.
Can we please stop trying to guild the Lilly with cop-out phrases by Tony Abbott?
The specific vote put to the Parliament was:
The motion came after a speech in which Oakeshott stated, in no uncertain terms, that “climate change was real”, and “humans were the cause of it”.
.
The LIBS/NATS voted unanimously in favour of the motion.
.
And there are STILL people out there naive enough to think things will change under a LIB/NATS government.
The mind boggles.
22
MV,
I was under the impression that Oakeshott asked a question at question time, and sought leave of the Speaker to ask both sides of the house the same question (as he can do as an independent). The answers to those questions go (verbatim) into Hansard, and so are on the record. And that is the point of question time. There are no motions tabled during question time (*), and no divisions (votes) taken either.
What was reported in the media was probably crap, which was why Jefft was correct in referring back to Hansard.
(*) Unless the Australian Parliament has moved totally away from the Westminster tradition (that is similarly used in New Zealand).
30
Rereke,
My understanding is that you are absolutely correct – as far as it goes.
My understanding is also that a vote was taken, and the results were as I have reported.
Do you dispute this?
01
MV,
I have not personally looked at Hansard for the day in question. But I might, because I am now interested.
If a vote was taken, the proceedings will be recorded, including who called for the vote, and the relative Ayes and Noes. If you have already looked, I will be happy to take your word on the matter. If you can give me the Hansard reference, I would be even happier.
20
.
I too checked but Hansard seems to run about a week behind, so could find nothing.
However, Pat’s post at #36 below would seem to confirm that a vote was, indeed, taken.
01
Oakshott’s first question and Abbot’s first response to it were on (Tue) an earlier day than when the vote was moved by Oakshott (Wed).
The Hansard was available the next day.
Oakshott’s 1st question is here, but during Question time only Government ministers can take questions. Therefore Abbot did NOT answer Oakshott.
The question to Abbott was enabled by a motion from Albanese which is here, and is extremely vague.
Abbott’s response is here.
My intepretation is Abbott answered the 1st “climate change” question in the anthropogenic sense, since he knew Albanese was just using the rules to get Abbott to respond to Oakshott’s question.
Either way, clearly Abbott is still wedded to IPCC CAGW consensus.
The next day they had the vote called by Oakshott, which is here.
( Blogger science is light years ahead of Burke Science.)
The CSIRO consensus was then reaffirmed in motion 34.
The exact voting record by members is not recorded, presumably because the initial hand count was so obviously affirmative that division was not required??
I can guess how Abbott voted from his answer the previous day.
10
MV,
I have now looked at Hansard, and can report the following:
1. Oakeshott asked the Speaker if he could ask a question of Gillard, and also have Abbott answer it as well. That request was declined.
2. Oakeshott then asked Gillard (and as an aside Abbott) to confirm her personal acceptance of the evidence for man-made climate change.
3. Gillard then said that she accepted the science, “as I accept other scientific conclusions”, and then went on to explain that the Labour Party believed that carbon pricing schemes were the cheapest way of reducing, “carbon pollution”.
4. The Leader of the House, Albanese, then raised a point of order, saying that the Government would have no objection to Abbott stating his response. That request was declined.
5. Oakeshott the raised a Supplementary Question to ask both parties if there was a, “shared policy commitment” to reach a 5% reduction by 2020.
6, In response, Gillard said, “in the public debate to date it has been viewed as a bipqrtisan policy … aiming ,,, for a 5% reduction by 2020. Again, Abbott was declined the opportunity to respond (this is normal, under Standing Orders).
7. Albanese then asked for Standing Orders to be suspended to, “allow the Leader of the Opposition to address the House for no longer than three minutes …”
8. The motion (to suspend Standing Orders) was put to the vote and agreed to. At this point, question time was effectively suspended.
9. Abbott (making a statement to the house) agreed that the climate was impacted by human activity, but considered that the problem was best dealt with by direct action – planting more trees, better soils, smarter technology. Abbott claimed that would reach the 5% target by 2020, whereas the governments policy of taxation would not.
10. Following that statement, question time was resumed, with a patsy question from Smyth to Gillard about carbon pricing.
I can find no motion on the substance of either Gillard’s answer in question time, nor Abbott’s statement, following the suspension of question time. There was certainly no vote on climate change, let alone a unanimous one. There was, however, a general agreement that, “there is a human impact on our climate,” a statement that should be no surprise to anybody here.
All this is on page 23 of Hansard for 28 May 2013.
20
MV:
Abbott can believe humans are affecting the climate, why not?
The question is how much? Abbott didn’t say that he believed CO2 had any effect, he didn’t agree with anything from the IPCC. He left himself with all options open, while leaving Oakeshott thinking he had stitched him up.
I myself think we’ve had some effect, but it must be small because nobody has been able to quantify it, so 0.03 – 0.08 ℃ in 150 years at a maximum.
10
well I may be naive but I believe Tony is playing down the middle – he is hoping for a huge swing from the labor side of politics and declaring outright that AGW is BS would turn some of them away. It’s called playing politics.
If you can’t tell the difference between the two party philosophies, as you’ve claimed, then I suggest you vote informal and leave the rest of us who can to vote accordingly.
60
So you are saying if Tony comes out with the same dis-association with the truth as Gillard, he’s doing alright? He’s being “honest”?
Tell the electorate “whatever” in order to to get elected, then fill in the details afterwards?
Maybe you would like to explain the difference.
Not in what they SAY,
but in what they DO.
01
Coalition would run a surplus.
Coalition would abolish carbon tax.
Coalition would abolish mining tax.
Coalition would have a more functional IR.
Coalition would abolish renewable energy scheme.
Coalition supports private medical system.
Coalition would renew our relations with Indonesia.
Coalition would cut overseas aid.
I could go on. They would DO all these things.
30
Good grief, Janama!
What would they do with all of the Public Servants?
Think of the money required to pay redundancy. Think of the size of the Social Security budget required to pay the unemployment benefit. Think of the impact on the Canberra property market!
00
Don’t worry about the cost Rereke – they’ll make up for it in boat people and useless green schemes savings. 😉
20
From where? Unlike Howard and Costello, they don’t have a Telstra lying around to flog off. A realistic look at Treasury’s figures shows that, under Labor, next year’s deficit will be around $25 billion. Abbott is promising to spend $1 billion less than Swan. Do the math.
Yes, and RETAIN the ETS with a floor price of $15.00 per tonne. Abbott will, in all likelihood, “abolish” the carbon tax simply bringing forward the start date for the ETS by 12 months.
Good!! But so what? It never raised any money anyway, it has given the mining companies such a massive tax write-off they will pay very little tax for at least the next three years, and besides, the damage has already been done. $150 billion in cancelled projects.
That would be Workchoices, that diddled hundreds of thousands of honest Australians out of millions in accrued holiday and long service leave pay. I lost $64,000 last time. Can’t wait.
Wrong! Abbott has repeatedly re-stated his support for the 20% RET – a 20% reduction in fossil fuel use over 20 years. Precisely what has doubled electricity prices over the last five years.
Coalition supports using taxpayer’s money to fund both levels of a two-tier health system. You don’t REALLY believe what you pay in private health insurance actually totally funds the private health system, do you? Besides, the current government supports the private medical system.
So would KRudd. Hardly a game-changer.
What overseas aid? In case you missed it, in the last budget the bulk of our aid was redirected to looking after boat people.
.
You left out some things. Like support for yet another monolithic multi-billion $ bureaucracy in the form of the NDIS. And an extra $9 billion for a Gonski in our failed education system. And $30 billion for “their” version of an NBN which is already obsolete, a decade before it’s even finished. Then there’s the multi-billion $ “paid parental leave” package that will tax even more businesses out of business, while at the same time make women of child-bearing age unemployable.
.
Janama, nobody is denying that Abbott and the Libs are a better alternative to Gillard and Labor. Hell, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge would probably be a better alternative. But it’s time for some reality.
As a country, we are now over $400 billion in debt. Even on Treasury’s Alice in Wonderland “guestimates”, we now have a structural (annual recurring) hole in our budget, of around $20 billion a year. It is more realistically closer to $50 billion a year.
The mining construction boom is over, manufacturing is shrinking at the rate of 11% per year, and the services sector are busy off-shoring everything they can. After 30 years of socialist feelgood groupthink running our education system – including apprenticeships – we are now a nation of dysfunctional illiterates with a skills shortage. We have the most expensive housing in the world.
.
It’s time for some serious leadership. Somehow I don’t think “renewed relationships with Indonesia” is really going to make all that much difference.
21
Coalition would run a surplus
…….Abbott is promising to spend $1 billion less than Swan. Do the math.
It’s not about how much you spend – It’s about how much you SAVE!! That’s what created the surplus in the previous government.
Coalition would abolish the carbon tax.
…….Yes, and RETAIN the ETS with a floor price of $15.00 per tonne.
Since when? We have no ETS to RETAIN! The aim of reducing emissions by 20% is just that, an aim.
Coalition would abolish the mining tax.
…….. $150 billion in cancelled projects.
Yup – take away the mining and carbon taxes and improve IR plus an increase in business confidence and watch those projects restart!
Coalition would have a functional IR.
……….I lost $64,000 last time. Can’t wait.
Well obviously you were being paid a motsa when your penalties equal the average Australian wage – F**K you and your pain!
Coalition would abolish renewable energy scheme.
……….a 20% reduction in fossil fuel use over 20 years. Precisely what has doubled electricity prices over the last five years.
No – the upgrading of Poles and Wires has upped the prices, the carbon tax has upped the prices, the damn solar and wind subsidies have upped the prices.
Coalition supports private medical system.
……….You don’t REALLY believe what you pay in private health insurance actually totally funds the private health system, do you?
NO I don’t and what we pay in medicare levy doesn’t either. Medicine is getting more and more expensive – there’s no way out other than making those who can afford to pay for it to do so.
Coalition would renew our relations with Indonesia.
………So would KRudd. Hardly a game-changer.
I’m referring to a Government initiative, not some egoist strutting the world stage once again.
Coalition would cut overseas aid.
……….What overseas aid?
$5.7 Billion this year – the boat people were a further $2.7 billion. That’s the NDIS paid for immediately!
20
No Janama,
Nearly six years of FIFO to remote sites, no annual holidays, working on public holidays including Christmas and Easter, accruing “time off in lieu – somewhere down the track”, no penalty rates, and two days off sick in the whole time.
How much have you been paid in annual holiday pay, paid public holidays, and accrued in long service leave, over the last six years, Janama?
To add insult to injury, because I would not agree to be immediately re-employed – minus all those entitlements, I was left stranded 4,000 kilometres from home and had to get myself back.
Not that any of this matters one whit: a law which allowed unscrupulous employers to cheat their employees – regardless of how much they earn, is a bad law, an unfair law, an evil law.
And just to finish, yes, I earned good money. In the same period of time I brought in over $8 million worth of new contract work, so I reckon I was probably worth it.
.
Most of the rest of your comment is just so wrong, it’s not worth the attempt to rebut it.
Get yourself a copy of the Official Liberal Party Environment Policy and read what they intend to do, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.
01
None MV – I’ve been self employed most my life. I don’t get holidays, accrued long service leave and I work when I need to, be it a public holiday or not.
I assume you signed an employment contract and, as you said, you were well paid.
Work choices is dead and buried as you well know and to bring it up is just playing games. It’s got to the stage now that restaurants in Sydney aren’t opening on weekends and cruise ships are arriving at circular quay with nowhere to feed their passengers when they embark to explore Sydney Town. That’s how stupid the IR laws are.
That’s just a copout.
20
Lefties think you have to Spend in order to Save.
(You know, as if saving was just like a tax on spending.)
They’re so used to living off other peoples money that they never seem to get it, the simplest way to save is to just stop spending.
Only Jesus Saves, by giving of himself.
Lefties ‘Save’ by giving of other people’s money.
10
Here is my take on the subject of global warming. The main components of the atmosphere, nitrogen, oxygen and argon, which make up 99.9% of the air we breath, cannot cool down by emitting radiation. Most people seem to believe that warm air rises and cools. Certainly the temperature drops, but not the energy level. Air that absorbs energy from the surface carries that energy up to the altitude where it can be radiated to space. “But the air cannot radiate!” Quite right. The ‘greenhouse gases’ radiate. Mostly CO2. Between the surface and the altitude of radiation is a thermal system. Energy passes through the atmosphere to warm the surface. The air in contact with the surface warms and rises up the adiabatic slope. Lots of other things happen up the slope like clouds and things. But essentially the energy keeps rising because something at the top is radiating away to space and that something is mostly good old CO2. Be grateful for it. It keeps a cool spot up in the atmosphere so warmed air below can keep rising.
40
It’s been seasonally cool in the US–snow in New York, snow in the mountains north of where I live (Big Horn mountains in Wyoming–3 feet or more). Had to keep the heat on in our cabin over Memorial Day. Today is supposed to be warmer, but mostly we are seasonal or below. It’s not really uncommon for this time of year, if you go by past experience, not the weather forecaster. I rarely put garden plants out before the first of June. It’s just that the media has nuts with this “global warming” nonsense and see everything as proof of impending doom.
20
Regarding ‘informal votes” – – – If I understand this, the idea is to vote incorrectly so as to not have to pay a $20 penalty or “If the matter is dealt with in court and the person is found guilty, he or she may be fined up to $50 plus court costs.”
http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Voting_Australia.htm#compulsory
In the USA voting is not compulsory [only 1 in 4 registered voters turned out for the recent vote for LA mayor] but we do have a place on ballots for write-in names. You can write in any name you wish, even your own, and people do so. I can write in Banjo Paterson if I decide he would make a better choice than the ones listed. Sometimes there is a real write-in candidate that may not have made it onto the ballot in a regular way (say as a party candidate).
10
Some people claim that was how Ronald Reagan got elected in the first place 😉
30
The madness of crowds doesn’t let little inconvenient science facts get in the way of the delusion.
The delusion is their blanket, their warm thermal blanket wrapping itself around them where from under its cover snuggled tight they argue with great passion against each other on the degree of warming given them by their trace blanket which is practically 100% hole in the atmosphere as temperatures outside plummet into a new LIA.
10
I like reading books by meteorologists. The late Robin Stirling in “The Weather of Britain” points out that in a really cold spell, the air will be freezing from the ground right up to the stratosphere.
He also tells us that in the evening, frost will form first on the ground and on surfaces which will lose heat most rapidly. As the night passes, the depth of frosty air will increase as successive layers of air are chilled by mixing and conduction.
Practical observations of what happens in the atmosphere, and a relief from the endless CO2 handwringing!
10
Jo,
FYI
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/electric-power-in-florida/#more-3961
00
that great “authority” – the World Bank – which wants a Global Carbon Dioxide currency – appears unconcerned that a likely new Govt in Australia in Sept would rock their boat in any way! links to the report:
31 May: CleanTechnica: Silvio Marcacci: World Bank Finds 60 Carbon Pricing Systems In Place Or In Development
(Silvio is Principal at Marcacci Communications, a full-service clean energy public relations company based in Washington, D.C._
This wide-ranging assessment comes from no less an authority than the World Bank, which announced their findings this week in a new report “Mapping Carbon Pricing Initiatives: Developments and Prospects.”
The Bank’s findings once again underling the growing momentum toward an interconnected global carbon market working to fight climate change and spur the transition to a global clean energy economy…
“Even as the first generation of the carbon market stutters…it is progress at the country level that gives hope,” said Rachel Kyte, World Bank vice president for sustainable development. “Carbon pricing is emerging and carbon markets have a future.”…
***In addition, carbon taxes are cited in Australia, British Columbia, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom…
Linkages between the EU and Australia and California and Quebec, and potentially the EU and China, will create efficiencies and benefits for each system…
***Bank analysts also note the growing trend of existing or scheduled systems expanding coverage of domestic emissions, with Australia and Korea now targeting 60% coverage, California eyeing 85% coverage, and New Zealand targeting 100% coverage within a few years…
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/31/world-bank-finds-60-carbon-pricing-systems-in-place-or-in-development/
00
31 May: Noosa News: Adam Carroll: Opposition bungled Gillard dismissal bid says independent
(Rob Oakeshott)”If the no confidence motion is because of the ‘carbon tax’, then I ask Tony Abbott and Chris Pyne why they personally voted in full confidence in Parliament last week for the science of man-made climate change? Why would I now support a Coalition carbon tax that costs taxpayers more and does less?,” Mr Oakeshott said…
http://www.noosanews.com.au/news/opposition-bungled-gillard-dismissal-bid-says-inde/1890140/
00
Our PM believes (or maybe thinks) that the Carbon Tax will be her long lasting legacy. You have to laugh.
It is like Neville Chamberlain proudly saying he will be remembered for his truce with Hitler.
50
You mean like ‘Carbon Tax in our time’ just like Thatcher’s undoing was the Poll Tax , in her time.
20
31 May: Manning River Times: Parties agree on the science of climate change
IT’S official. The Liberal, National and Labor parties all agree on the science of climate change and all agree to reduce carbon emissions by exactly the same amount by 2020…
(Rob Oakeshott)”While one thing is said in the parliament and another on the ground in some electorates across the country, the integrity of Australia’s scientific community has taken, and continues to take, a beating.
“There is bipartisanship on climate change and on the need to respond to the pollution question, and now those positions have been made very clear, I hope the mistrust of Australia’s finest climate scientists, among the best in their field in the world, comes to an end.
“The politics of this issue has been allowed to undermine science in a way never before seen in this country and it’s time it came to an end.”
Mr Oakeshott said it wasn’t just science under attack, but experts in other fields as well all for the sake of political one-upmanship…
“We do our nation no favours at all if we allow the men and women who are the experts in their fields to be denigrated and ridiculed for political expediency,” Mr Oakeshott said.
“These are the people who are charged with providing governments with the best advice, based on data, research and investigation and yet, for political reasons, often have their reputations tarnished because their objective advice doesn’t fit with a certain political message.
“The time for cheap shots against our scientists and our public servants has come to an end and I invite the Labor, Liberal and National parties to show bipartisanship for my Notice of Motion on Treasury and Finance, just as they did today during Question Time on climate change,” Mr Oakeshott said.
http://www.manningrivertimes.com.au/story/1540447/parties-agree-on-the-science-of-climate-change/?cs=1467
00
“The politics of this issue has been allowed to undermine science in a way never before seen in this country and it’s time it came to an end.”
Indeed, to completely misrepresent, distort & hold science hostage to political patronage. What’s he playing at though ? Trying to portray a consensus of politicians ? Who’s he trying to kid ?
Abbott accepts the science for what it is or rather perhaps for what it has become.
.
And what’s the paltry 5% . Is that all he can establish agreement on. Countries considering CO2 a serious threat (however misguidedly) are touting 20% for 2020. Perhaps that’s why he didn’t mention the Greens, or did he just forget them ?
00
New study links CFCs to Warming.
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html
I’m not convinced however the correlation does look delectable.
I prefer Nicola Scafetta’s explanation.
00
worth reading the comments as well:
3 June: Courier Mail: Robyn Ironside: Campbell Newman sorry for soaring power prices, wants debate over solar bonus feed-in tariff
PREMIER Campbell Newman has vowed to rein in the “mind-blowing, excessive” increase in electricity prices, flagging likely new charges for households with solar panels…
“It’s a matter of national competitiveness now. People in the US and Canada and even the European Union now are paying less than us (for electricity). It has to be dealt with.”
He said he also wanted a debate over the solar feed-in tariff which was “ultimately costing other Queenslanders”.
“The solar feed-in tariff sees a relatively small group of households get a very lucrative deal, far too lucrative in many cases, and the rest of the households are paying for that,” the Premier said.
“Roughly 180,000 households are benefiting with low power prices or getting cheques and well over 1.5 million are paying for that benefit to those people.”
The Courier-Mail understands 92,600 Queensland households pay nothing for power or get money back as a result of the generous solar feed-in tariff introduced by the previous Labor government.
Under the deal, residents with solar are paid 44c a kilowatt hour for power – about 21c a kilowatt hour more than what it costs them.
The Newman Government has slashed the benefit for new solar panel installations to 8c.
Mr Newman described the situation as “just ridiculous”.
“The solar tariff feed-in situation is one that sees those with the financial means to pay for panels win at the expense of poorer households and disadvantaged people,” he said…
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/campbell-newman-sorry-for-soaring-power-prices-wants-debate-over-solar-bonus-feed-in-tariff/story-e6freoof-1226655448771
30
Have we discussed this paper yet
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html#jCp
Its an irony, after all these years of trying to get world agreement to tackle climate change along comes a study which shows we have already done it.
31
Some have discussed it on ABC:
One of Australia’s most senior climate scientists is highly critical of Canadian research suggesting a re-think on the reason behind global warning.
Professor David Karoly is one of Australia’s leading experts on climate change.
He was a lead author on the fourth intergovernmental panel on climate change assessment report. He’s a review editor on the fifth assessment report.
Although the paper is “peer-reviewed,” Karoly believes this paper is wrong.
He also is an author of the Karoly/Gergis paper which failed peer review.
10
Its been peer reviewed…. the warmists must accept it.
40
Karoly claims
So you see we have to downplay every other alternative in an effort to stop CO2 from becoming a bit part player, the gravy train can only survive as long as CO2 is bad.
31
Just another attempt to blame it all on “Evil Man” now the wheels have well and truly fallen off the CO2 meme.
Climate goes in 25 to 30 year (roughly) cycles of warming and cooling, overlaid on a larger cycle of around 150 years (roughly) warming and cooling. Here are the periods (roughly) since we came out of the LIA:
1850 – 1880 warming
1880 – 1910 cooling
1910 – 1940 warming
1940 – 1975 cooling
1975 – 2000 warming
2000 – 2030 cooling
The period 1850 to 2000 was a 150 year overall warming cycle, so it will now get progressively cooler over the next 150 years, interspersed with 30 year (roughly) warming and cooling periods. That’s how I learned it in Junior High School in 1966, and so far nothing has happened to falsify the hypothesis.
This latest “ozone depletion theory” goes nowhere to explain the warming periods 1850 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940, which predate the use of CFC’s
The entire “ozone hole” business is a furphy. For a start, there is no ozone “layer” to get a “hole” in it. The principal source of atmospheric ozone is sunlight striking oxygen (O2) molecules, resulting in the formation of the oxygen allotrope, “ozone” (O3). Simply put, no O2, no ozone. No sunlight, no ozone.
The so-called “ozone hole” that “mysteriously appears” over Antarctica is a purely natural, cyclical phenomenon, the result of the lack of sunlight over the previous three months.
Ozone concentration is measured in “Dobson Units”, which in turn are measured with a “Dobson Spectrophotometer”. Both are named after their inventor, Professor Gordon Dobson. In 1957 Professor Dobson won the “International Geophysical Man of the Year” award for his work using the entirely natural and cyclical depletion of ozone at Antarctica, to prove the existence of, and map, the upper air currents we now refer to as the “slipstream currents”, which are responsible for much of our weather patterns.
All this was explained in Dobson’s book, “Exploring the Atmosphere”, originall published in 1962, which was one of my physics textbooks in Senior High School.
Unfortunately Dobson’s work did not fit the requirements of post-modern science, so, like Tesla and others, he has been quietly “disappeared” from the science and history books, including the internet.
.
(Originally posted at ACM)
51
How’s that global warming drought workin’ out for ya?
.
You know, the drought they said “would never break. The new “normal.”
Remember, it’s Official: Weather IS NOW Climate
* SA gets drought breaking rains
Some pastoralists in South Australia’s north are reporting drought breaking rains and the best start to winter for several decades.
“Hopefully it means some winter feed that we just haven’t had for quite a number of years. 1995 was the last time we had anything like this.”
* Downpour helps save crops
“A low-pressure system brought the wettest start to June in more than 20 years to Albury-Wodonga …”
* Rain a welcome relief for Mallee grain growers
“The forecast is good. They’re saying we are going to have a wet winter so hopefully they might be right for a change.”
* Good rainy start to winter across NSW farms
Kathleen Allan from Yass says the rain was a great relief after many dry months; freshening pasture for her new lambs and adding inches to the level of her dams.
* Rain brings relief for farmers
In the catchment, Burrinjuck Dam had 58 mm, Cabramurra 54 mm, and Hume Dam 49 mm.
.
What was the predictions by the Climate Commission’s Critical Decade report for SE Australia I hear you ask:
2013: Continued increases in HOT AND DRY weather…
That would be a “F” for fail.
30
O/T – Professor Ian Lowe, Head of the Australian Conservation Society, addresses the National Press club.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-29/national-press-club-ian-lowe/4721098
Make sure you have a brown paper bag handy and don’t drink coffee whilst watching it on your computer. 😉
40
Janama, this is where the problem lies. We need to effect change back to rational thought and conclusions for the improvement of Australian citizens. However with people around convinced by “the science” it is going to be a very long fight.
I don’t agree with “MV” although I do share his frustration. I don’t think the Libs are a wasted vote yet. If they get in with a majority and then force a change in thinking away from the current norm I would be happy. Let’s not try and move the whole of the mountain let’s try and erode it away bit by bit.
What worries me most of all is the ICLEI, Agenda 21 and “Sustainable Development”. It has the capacity to change everything that our society has stood for since Federation and and perhaps before. It has the capacity to remove our property rights even further than what they are at present and doing this behind closed doors. Everything for the “greater good” at the expense of the individual. Personally I find it offensive.
There is a bit of a write up at CFACT http://www.cfact.org/2013/06/01/bonn-press-release-un-agenda-21-frustrated-by-property-rights-advocates/
I really think these elected professionals should be held accountable but of course that will never happen. I would like to know how many councils in Australia have signed up to the ICLEI and follow their doctrines. I find this morally repulsive and have troubles dealing with it or expressing myself fully. Detestable !!
In the meantime, my idea is to vote for the Libs, don’t give them a chance to change their minds and vote out these Councillors who are in favour of ICLEI and Agenda 21. That’s all we can do to hopefully improve this great country.
If anyone has a better plan please let me know.
50
Bob Massey, you can find the answer to your question at this link. http://www.iclei.org/our-members/iclei-members.
10
Bob they don’t hide it as far as I know. Go to http://www.iclei.org/our-members/iclei-members.html as there’s a list of members,but I don’t know if they have removed councils or others that requested to be removed from that list.
10
Wind Mills
I cannot believe this poll from Essential Media on Wind Mill support?
76% Support (82% Labour, 71% LNP, 89% Greens????)
11% Oppose
13% Don’t Know
The Question was:
“In general, do you support or oppose building wind farms in Australia to produce renewable energy?”
I really think that 11% know the facts about windmills and (76% + 13%) know nothing about them. 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁
20
How many of those that support these monstrosities have them in their backyard, fowling their vistas or killing their local wildlife 0% I would think.
10
I still think there’s bit change coming re Wind Farms. You may want to read what John Madigan and Nick xenophon think about them,and they aren’t alone on it either.
20
@ Rereke, Memory Vault,
Better late than never – the Tinyurl for Hansard 28th May 2013
Place into the toolbar
http://tinyurl.com/ltbfqag
Start p22 heading Climate Change
– I feel it was an unnecessary question, placed as a trap by Rob Oakeshott, possibly instigated by the government.
Anthony Albanese was too willing to move for a response from Tony Abbott.
Question time normally does not allow debate, only a question and an answer response.
60
To those who still believe there is a greenhouse effect:
Why do you say the greenhouse effect is real? If it were real on Earth then it should operate on any planet with a significant atmosphere. Back radiation can indeed slow radiative surface cooling. So too can oxygen and nitrogen slow non-radiative cooling by conduction at the surface-atmosphere boundary. But something else has to raise a planet’s surface temperature before we worry about how slowly its cooling. That “something else” sets the maximum temperature. If it were direct incident Solar radiation, then it certainly is not raising the Venus surface to 730K with only about 10W/m^2 reaching the surface. And it would only get to about 255K (not 288K) on Earth, now wouldn’t it?
Consider Uranus, then. It receives about 3W/m^2 of Solar radiation which is nearly all absorbed and re-emitted in the uppermost layers of its atmosphere. There the temperature is about 53K whilst the radiating temperature is similar at about 59K. (See Wiki)
About 350Km further down is the base of the theoretical troposphere where, according to the Wikipedia article “Uranus” sub-heading “Troposphere” the temperature is about 320K. But of course there is no significant Solar radiation reaching down there, and no surface anyway, and so it is not a greenhouse effect which is supplying the necessary energy to keep it that hot. Nor is there any evidence of significant net outward energy flow from the centre. So it’s not a hot planet cooling off, and it’s not generating energy in its centre or core.
I have explained the heat transfer by the spontaneous process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What’s your explanation?
53
Consider Uranus
Could there be a better way of putting that ?
10
Why?
Back in thread 16 we discussed Stephan Boltzman’s balls.
Why should Uranus get a free ticket?
20
The first mistake is in the second sentence.
No. It should operate anywhere that outgoing surface continuum radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere. Uranus has no solid or liquid surface and Venus has almost no sunlight reaching its surface, therefore we would not expect to see a measurable greenhouse effect on either Venus or Uranus. So the rest of your disproof does not logically follow.
However I accept that your inability to disprove the theory is not enough to justify believing in the greenhouse effect.
I would certainly like to know the truth of the matter, so here’s how I see it.
Yes, that’s the greenhouse effect.
Water vapour is evaporating and convecting and transporting heat upwards to the stratosphere where it and CO2 can radiate the energy back into space. Last time I checked a joule takes a lot longer to travel 60km upwards by convection than when travelling at the speed of light. So each joule spends longer at lower altitude. The energy density below the point of absorption is therefore higher than if the infrared had proceeded uninterrupted. This is true even before the back-radiation occurs. Higher energy density manifests as higher temperature.
The net effect of GHGs differs between altitudes. At low pressures CO2 has few neigbours so its effect is one of radiatively cooling the planet at TOA. (I had to explain that to a warmist three years ago.)
At high pressures the photon-energised CO2 and H2O are likely to bump into other molecules before re-emitting the absorped photon energy, so the redirection of LWIR energy into kinetic energy at low altitudes by IR gases leads to a greenhouse effect there.
When the high and low altitude effects of GHGs are combined, all one can really say is that they overall redistribute solar energy within the atmosphere.
Without any atmosphere the volume over which the day/night energy see-saw operates would be confined to a few meters of rocks and the surface temperature at noon would be higher, due to the high energy density.
After adding an atmosphere but no IR gases, the surface would be only slightly cooler due to the atmosphere taking up a finite amount of surface energy simply due to its heat capacity, so slightly lowering the energy density at the surface, but the temperature would still be quite high because the lack of GHGs means the surface is still the only thing that can eject energy back to space.
After adding some GHGs (IR gases) the TOA can then emit thermal radiation, plus it allows convective cycles, so the outgoing energy is now stretched out over a much larger volume, the lower layers have a lower energy density, you get a vastly cooler surface temperature.
After adding more GHGs to an atmosphere that already has plenty enough GHGs at TOA to cool itself, what happens? Well more energy is redirected away from surface radiation into low altitude convection and back-radiation, this leads to the surface cooling slower at night, more joules are taking the slow train instead of the fast train, so the effect at low altitude is to increase energy density and the surface equilibrium temperature. At the same time the greater supply of GHGs at TOA allows it to cool itself quicker, but the low altitude redirection of radiation into convection means the thermosphere does not receive energy as quickly, so the greater TOA cooling ability is partly offset by being underutilised. So you have stratospheric and thermospheric cooling.
The weather balloons have shown both stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming over the last 50 years, though the latitudinal extent and strength of the warming were wrong in the IPCC models.
Harry Huffman’s fairly successful calculation of equivalent temperatures in Venus for pressure/temperature combinations on Earth can be interpeted as meaning that beyond a certain saturation level, adding more CO2 than is necessary doesn’t lead to a cooler temperature.
The HITRAN absorption spectrum for the lower atmosphere shows a thin band around 15um where CO2 absorbs 20 times more energy than water does in that band. This is still such a tiny slice of the LWIR spectrum that I doubt CO2 makes much difference to the greenhouse effect (probably the only point we can agree on). Nonetheless it is not zero so from at least a philosophical point of view (ie a Physics point of view) a greenhouse effect from CO2 exists.
Water vapour by comparison is huge in LWIR absorption across a broad range and in theory it is the #1 GHG.
The end result of Earth’s GHG concentration on temperature I think is probably a U-curve with an optimum minimum temperature at the inflection point. Too few or too many GHGs for the given insolation and the surface is hotter. Evaporated water forms clouds that produce a negative feedback. So we’re lucky in the sense that the most powerful GHG has a negative feedback, and the GHG with no negative feedback (CO2) happens to be quite weak.
Hypothetically If all water was removed from the atmosphere the lack of cloud would increase insolation by 15% but most surface IR could escape to space about 3600000 times faster, so in ballpark figures the effect would be surface cooling. CO2 would still be present in the upper atmosphere at the same concentration so Earth’s cooling ability overall would be the same, but the energy is distributed higher in the atmosphere so the tropospheric GHE is reduced and the surface is cooler.
Just to turn the tables then, if you don’t believe the greenhouse effect exists, how are water molecules able to conspire to emit their IR in only the upwards direction? And do they have teleportation devices that allow them to convect at the speed of light? How will you arrange for energy density to remain the same when some Joules with stars in their eyes get stuck in traffic? Does the energy go on a diet and lose some weight to exactly offset their greater density?
Well my sarcasm there is just highlighting that I do not know how you can conserve energy and not have a greenhouse effect from IR-active gases. It’s the No-GHE Hypothesis that I see as having the most challenges in front of it.
You ask why I say the GHE is real and the above is my current answer. Which part of it is either demonstrably false or technically unknowable? I’d like to know.
20
One week to go before the death spiral begins i wonder if Al Gore is feeling nervous?
Remeber Al Gore said on 13th of December 2008, that the “entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years”?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
51
Don’t expect a big cheer from the MSM.
10
So, then, does this look like perhaps a new Texas Oil Rush?
I received this in an email from a friend in the U.S. this afternoon, so I’ll just copy most of it into a block quote, and this was dated 24May2013. The Cline Shale Deposit is near Midland in the East of Texas close to the New Mexico border,.
No wonder Natural Gas Fired Power Plants are booming in the U.S.
Tony.
40
Tony,
Add this
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/6/3/cheshire-gas.html
10
Apparently we have a similar, if not bigger, deposit Tony.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iDu3ucMhmgDHU3rK6zF5nF9vUWLA?docId=CNG.5a3a510bd2c2f58cc1619373c6d6e2c6.161
10
Much systematic exploration assessment needs to happen before an accurate Resource Statement can be confidently made
Linc know this of course, and have said so. Still, early results are at least encouraging
00
Global Warming Fake Fisics:
http://blogs.oregonstate.edu/danieltangw/files/2011/10/Global-Warming-Three-Steps.png
AGWScienceFiction has taken out the direct Heat from the Sun, longwave infrared aka thermal infrared, and replaced that with the nonsense that shortwaves from the Sun, mainly visible, heat the Earth’s land and water – they can’t, this is a physical impossibility.
It takes heat energy to move whole molecules into vibration, which is what radiant heat from the Sun does.
Shortwaves are titchier, they work on the electronic transition level, the level of electrons, and convert to chemical energy like sugar in photosynthesis, not heat energy.
There is no heat from the Sun in the fictional fisics world of AGW.
So there is no weather, and therefore no climate. It’s climate scientists don’t even know they have no climate.
This isn’t real science, it’s a real joke.
20
such a nice CAGW touch to the latest UK political scandal:
3 June: UK The Week: Lords for sale? How the lobbying crisis unfolded
The Sunday Times’ front page links three peers to the lobbying scandal: The paper tells its readers it decided to send undercover reporters to the House of Lords to investigate allegations it had become “infested” with peers acting as paid lobbyists and using parliament as a “business centre”. The reporters covertly filmed three peers – Ulster Unionist Lord Laird, Labour’s Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate and Lord Cunningham – appearing to offer to help a fake South Korean solar energy company. The peers allegedly offer to ask parliamentary questions, lobby ministers and host receptions in the House of Lords in return for cash. Lord Cunningham – a minister under Tony Blair – allegedly offers to write to David Cameron to push the solar energy company’s supposed agenda and is offered a monthly payment of £10,000. “Make that… £12,000 a month. I think we could do a deal on that,” he replies…
The repercussions begin: All three peers deny any wrongdoing, but Lord Laird resigns the Ulster Unionist whip on Sunday morning and refers himself to Westminster authorities. He issues a statement saying: “I have not broken any rules.” Shortly later, the Labour Party announces it is suspending Lord Cunningham, the former cabinet minister, and Lord Mackenzie, a former police chief, “pending further investigation”.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/53364/lords-sale-how-lobbying-crisis-unfolded
10
Is it cold where I am?
Perhaps, but what’s important is how cold it is at the North Pole.
I’ve never been there but I’m told its melting. Having no understanding of anything much not the least the difference between causation and correlation I naturally assume that it’s because the air is warm there as a result of the greenhouse effect.
The world is at risk and only by “doing something” can we save the world. That “doing something” could include expansion of the government and sacrifice of my rights.
In other words, I’m a brain dead lemming sucking at the MSM’s proverbial teet.
But, Alas I am happy!
01
It’s very simple, the AGW narrative of The Greenhouse Effect is based completely and utterly on fake fisics. FAKE FISICS. It is something a novelist would come up with in writing a fantasy sci-fi world, similar to ours but completely different.
Because you, generic promoting AGW fictional fisics of the faked Greenhouse Effect, don’t know, or will not grasp, what traditional physics already knows well about the properties and processes of the gases in our atmosphere under gravity, you can‘t, or won’t, see how utterly absurd the physics. It’s a joke. You can’t or won’t appreciate the joke, because you can’t even hear it – perhaps because you don’t have any sound in your empty space atmosphere..
Real physics basics have been changed.
That is a science fact.
You have no properties to your gases, you have no processes because you have no properties.
Your gases are without volume, there is nothing for real world gravity to act on so your massless pretend gases called ideal in real science zoom around empty space and cannot therefore be kept in by gravity – so you bypass that and put in an imaginary container. Where is this imaginary container stopping your massless weightless volumeless without attraction ideal gases from zooming into outer space?
Come on, where is this container?
Why hasn’t it ever been mentioned in real world physics?
What is it made of?
How does it prevent your imaginary ideal gases from zooming to the ends of the universe?
Your imaginary container must be so powerful to prevent the great heat from our millions of degree hot Sun from entering at TOA – show its existence in the real world.
You can’t. You can’t because it doesn’t exist.
Your “physics” basics are a mangled but clever tweaking of real physics basics, giving the property of one thing to another, simply by the bog standard con tricks of lying such as that -18°C represents absence of your “greenhouse gases”, and so on and so on.
Because you don’t have, or know and pretend otherwise, real world physics on the properties and processes of the natural world around us, you can’t or won’t answer my direct science questions. Instead ad homs and strawman responses is all I ever get from any of you, or direct or covert censorship..
If you know real physics basics you will see just how funny your world where you have taken out the atmosphere completely!
Where you go straight from the surface of the Earth into empty space.
You, generic, are a joke as scientists. And someone has educated you to be that.
If that doesn’t bother you then you’re not human..
You say that we don’t get any heat, longwave infrared, from our millions of degree hot Sun!
You don’t understand that is what you are saying because you repeat ad nauseum fake fisics memes produced to distract you from seeing this is what you’re really saying.
You say the great heat from our millions of degrees hot Sun is stopped by some invisible unknown to real science barrier like the glass of a greenhouse!
Or you say that our millions degree hot Sun doesn’t even produce heat!
Gosh, let me know when you can see how ridiculous that is, then I’ll explain why you don’t have any sound either…
No one likes to find himself victim of a con, but we’re all victims of it. We’ve all been made fools of here. Up to you whether you meet that face on or hide from it.
At the moment we have applied scientists who know we get the great heat from the Sun direct, longwave infrared, and have designed windows and window film to block as much of that from entering a room while maximising entry for visible light – why have they done this?
Why are people buying these, expensive, solutions to save on even more expensive air conditioning costs to keep the room cool if there is no direct heat from the Sun entering at TOA?
According to AGWScienceFiction fisics which says that visible light heats matter these windows are maximising the heating of the room!
Soon, it appears inevitable, there will none left in the general population who could design such glass and film, there will just be left oiks who produce them who haven’t the faintest idea how they work. To them it will appear to be magic..
Your fake fisics has taken out the real heat from the Sun.
The Sun’s great millions of degrees thermal energy on the move transferred by radiation.
Trenberth’s missing heat is the missing from his comic cartoon energy budget the real heat from the Sun.
01
Around here it’s “Wenlock Weather” but on the cool side. Weather changes every couple of hours – usual for round here.
Just seen a rant by Ed Davey full of True Believers’ cliches at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335100/Blinkered-climate-change-deniers-accused-dangerous-publicity-seeking-bloody-mindedness-Energy-Secretary-Ed-Davey.html
00
“to cap temperature gains”?
3 June: SMH: Time to switch to ‘Plan B’ on climate change: study
Climate policy makers must come up with a new global target to cap temperature gains because the current goal is no longer feasible, according to a German study.
Limiting the increase in temperature to 2 degrees Celsius since industrialisation is unrealistic because emissions continue to rise and a new global climate deal won’t take effect until 2020, the German Institute for International and Security Affairs said.
“Since a target that is obviously unattainable cannot fulfill either a positive symbolic function or a productive governance function, the primary target of international climate policy will have to be modified,” said Oliver Geden, author of the report, which will be released today as talks begin in Bonn…
European Union leaders will have to develop “clear ideas” on a way forward because the temperature goal, pushed mainly by the 27-member bloc, has failed to trigger successful policies, according to the Berlin-based institute, which advises Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government…
Raising the temperature goal may fail to gain traction at UN talks, where the 52-member AOSIS bloc of island nations and the group of 49 Least Developed Countries are seeking a stricter target to curtail the increase to 1.5 degrees. Envoys have agreed to examine the feasibility of that goal in light of new scientific findings before an accord is reached…
“If the EU wants to maintain its role as a global leader in climate policy, it will have to investigate all options for target modification as soon as possible – even those that seem politically unappealing,” Geden said in the study.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/time-to-switch-to-plan-b-on-climate-change-study-20130603-2nmes.html
3 June: SMH: Bloomberg: Green bonds win favour with $US100m US offering
Massachusetts, taking a cue from the World Bank, is selling $US100 million in debt called Green Bonds, saying it’s the first US state to issue such securities to fund environmental projects.
The tax-exempt general obligations are modeled after ones from the Washington-based development lender, which has sold more than $US3 billion in green securities since 2008 to help combat climate change.
***Endowments and pension funds that are required to invest in environmental ventures may be attracted to the issue, state Treasurer Steven Grossman said. Proceeds of this week’s sale will be used for improving energy efficiency in state buildings, river revitalization and land acquisition, according to bond documents.
“Since we are engaged in a whole series of green projects, why not let people invest directly in those projects and allow people to have a new asset choice,” Grossman, a 67-year-old Democrat, said by telephone from Boston…
http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/green-bonds-win-favour-with-us100m-us-offering-20130603-2nmfp.html
00
rockape –
there are so many extraordinary moments in the Daily Mail/Ed Davey article, e.g.
– He will accuse people who argue the planet is not warming are ‘absolutely wrong and really quite dangerous’.
Mr Davey’s speech comes as he faces fierce criticism from his own party for dropping targets for cutting carbon emissions by 2030 –
– Mr Davey will say: ‘This is not the serious science of challenging, checking and probing.
‘This is destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism born of vested interest, nimbyism, publicity seeking contraversialism or sheer blinkered, dogmatic, political bloody-mindedness.’
He claims this ‘tendency’ seize on any scientific uncertainty as proof that green policy and investment in renewable power is ‘hopelessly misguided’ –
– Tory MP Tim Yeo and Labour’s Barry Gardiner have tabled an amendment to set a target to that the power industry will be carbon-free by 2030.
Businesses, environmental organisations, faith groups and trade unions are all calling on MPs to back the move in a vote.
However, Chancellor George Osborne has expressed support for a new ‘dash for gas’ instead of a drive toward renewables and other low-carbon technology in the 2020s.
The Government’s own climate advisers have backed the target to cut emissions by 2030 and said that investing in low-carbon power such as wind farms and nuclear reactors in the 2020s could save consumers billions of pounds compared to relying on gas.
Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said that the amendment was very important because without it the Energy Bill became ‘a bit aimless’.
‘This is the point the investors and business people are making: you’ve got to be really clear about what your route map is and where you want to get to,’ he said –
apart from Greenpeace seemingly being okay with nuclear, it’s also hilarious how Davey will bring up Cook’s 97% Consensus “study”! what a hoot the whole piece is.
00
just as hilarious as Davey’s planned speech and, again, it’s all about the money:
3 June: ABC PM: Environmental investment campaign targets fossil fuels
BILL MCKIBBEN: It’s gone quickly, also, to churches in the United States, but also in Australia, where parts of the Uniting Church have divested their stock in coal companies. Just saying these companies, you know, they’re running Genesis backwards, you know, they’re de-creating this planet, we can’t keep, in good conscience, profiting from the wreckage of the climate…
BILL MCKIBEEN: And one of the things that’s becoming clear is that these are bad investments. That there’s a bubble in the carbon market the same way that there was in the housing market. That is to say, most countries in the world, including Australia, have signed on to a two degree target for temperature rise, that’s the most we could possibly let the temperature rise. HSBC and Citibank put out a report a few weeks ago saying, if we ever took that two degree target seriously, you’d have to cut the share value of all the big fossil fuel companies by more than half.
That means that either you’re – it means basically if you invest in them you’re betting that the planet will never do anything about climate change. You’re betting that we’re going to tank the earth…
SARAH CLARKE: So the maths of climate change is what you’re also saying is not being listened to?
BILL MCKIBEEN: That’s right. Climate change in essence is a kind of math problem…
SARAH CLARKE: Looking at Australian politics and an election in September; the Coalition, if it does win as suggested, it will roll back the carbon price. How would that be looked upon internationally, and do you think that really will make a difference?
BILL MCKIBEEN: I do. I think the fact that Australia has taken a good, bold step on carbon pricing, is something that the rest of the world has noticed. And in the months since, both the Koreans and the Chinese have emulated this and set up carbon pricing schemes of their own.
So it’s been important, and it would be a clear step backwards, a step out of the 21st Century and back into the 20th, or maybe even the 19th, to just say we can keep pouring carbon into the atmosphere for free…
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3773610.htm
10
If climate sensitivity determines that a doubling of CO2 from say 380 ppm leads to a temperature rise of say 1 degree Kelvin, what would be the temperature if the atmospheric CO2 rose to around 99 percent? This, where the surface pressure remained around 1 bar and the other gases were removed. What mathematics describes this hypothetical situation? Is the temperature going to be 2632 degrees? If not, why not? Does the greenhouse effect disappear in this situation? Was it ever there in the first place?
00
The equation isn’t 1,000,000 / 380 -> 2632 degrees. The 1 degree (or whatever climate sensitivity is chosen) rise is for a doubling of CO2. So from 380ppm to 760ppm is 1 degree more, then 1 degree more to 1520ppm, then 1 more to 3040ppm. With 11 doublings, you get to 778,240ppm … i.e. +11 degrees. So a 99% CO2 atmosphere would see between 11 and 12 degrees temperature rise. In theory. If the logarithmic relationship holds up to these extreme levels.
00
However complex the scientific calculations become, however involved the statistics, the real world comes to mind every time I look up at a vapour trail, with the aeroplane just visible.
Up there, at around 35,000 feet it’s about minus 50 degrees Centigrade, man-made global warming or not.
In such a short distance, the temperature drop is incredible.
Even on top of a 3000 foot hill here in the UK’s Lake district the difference from ground level can be felt.
So how can any credence whatsoever be given to warmist arguments about trivial fraction of a degree changes?
10
Cockermouth, Workington and Lakes District. You guys should form the NW England Nova club.
00
I still have not seen behind the leaf 🙂
11
😀 Why don’t you and the leafer get a fricken room for God’s sakes.
10
you are in the room
01
Andrew i am more an evergreen guy, i generally dont go for the deciduous types.
Cheers
01
1 June: SMH: Reuters: Gerard Wynn: UK’s climate policies limit
energy options
British policymakers are finding out just how far a climate act passed in 2008 has tied their hands on broad-brush energy policy for the next four decades…
Limiting room for manoeuvre was exactly the idea, to make policy free from the whims and meddling of governments subject to short term electoral cycles, reflecting the fact that climate change is a long-term problem.
The CCC so far has successfully argued for the phase-out of all new, unabated coal-fired power, and parliament next week votes on sharply limiting the role of new gas…
Taking the example of Germany, it is not clear that making such a policy straight-jacket was necessary.
Britain has set binding targets on carbon emissions which have a broader energy impact than Germany’s narrower, binding targets for renewable power.
And Germany already has massive renewable energy capacity, almost all of which was installed before it made binding its long-term targets last year…
One important assumption in the reported savings was a high UK carbon price which may in fact be dragged down by a crash in EU prices, which are now a fraction of those assumed in the CCC report, and which would make gas-fired power cheaper than as calculated.
The CCC said a less ambitious “Plan B” of 100 grams CO2 per kWh “would still prepare sufficiently for the 2050 target, and would still enable the legislated … carbon budget to be met.”…
***The act states that the government can only amend legislated targets “if it appears to the Secretary of State that there have been significant developments in scientific knowledge about climate change, or European or international law or policy.”…
***The government can still set energy policy within the straight-jacket of carbon emissions targets, for example choosing how far to support nuclear or renewables, and whether to back shale gas or give tax breaks for oil exploration.
But the present debate over carbon intensity in 2030 shows how the CCC is proposing firm limits on gas-fired power while the government legislates against any new unabated coal…
http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/uks-climate-policies-limit-energy-options-20130601-2ni83.html
sounds like a deal made for nuclear & renewables ONLY. and that’s how the “Greens” got their seat at the BIG table.
00
Nearly everyone, (including myself until a year ago) is still sucked into the line of thinking first thrust upon the world by the AGW crowd, namely that it is all to do with radiative forcing. Yes, this includes virtually all other PSI members..
I have been thinking this through for a long time and am now firmly of the opinion that all these energy budgets are incomplete, mainly because they don’t show the missing link. On Venus and Uranus that missing link is a huge amount of energy which must flow downwards in the atmosphere. It’s quite a lot on Earth too. Over the life of these planets there has been a build up of thermal energy from the Sun which can’t escape.
So these planets (Uranus, Venus, Earth) are not still cooling off. It’s cold out there where Uranus is because it only receives about 3W/m^2 in the very top of its atmosphere. It could easily have cooled off, but for the one thing that stops it. And that one thing is the gravitationally induced thermal gradient which forms by diffusion at the molecular level,, because molecules in free flight between collisions interchange kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy. In just two lines of calculations, you can derive the -g/Cp value by equating PE and -KE. Kinetic energy will tend towards being homogeneous during collisions, but only at each altitude. Inter-molecular radiation reduces the gradient by up to about a third, but by less than 5% on Uranus where there is just a little methane causing that.
The Clausius (hot to cold) statement of the Second Law is not comprehensive and for conduction and diffusion it only applies in a horizontal plane. The process described in the Second Law means that thermodynamic equilibrium evolves spontaneously, and, in the process of maintaining such equilibrium there must evolve a temperature gradient. Most importantly, extra energy absorbed at higher altitudes can actually flow up this gradient because that will help restore the equilibrium.
05
The primary determinants of atmospheric and surface temperatures are then based on the autonomous thermal gradient and the overall level of the plot of temperature against altitude. This level is set by the need for radiative balance and, in general, radiative balance cannot be disturbed by internal processes, such as back radiation.
A planet’s surface temperature just depends on where the plot of temperature against altitude intersects the surface. On Uranus the temperature at the base of the theoretical troposphere is about 320K. This is all in line with calculations, and, if there were a surface there, then it too would be 320K – hotter than Earth’s surface, even though no direct solar radiation even reaches down there through 350Km of atmosphere that’s mostly hydrogen and helium. There is thought to be a solid core with about half the mass of Earth, but that’s roughly 20,000Km further down and it may be about 5000K.
So, as on Venus also, where it’s about 730K at the surface, the temperature of a surface is all to do with the height of the atmosphere through which the temperature plot reaches hotter and hotter temperatures the closer it gets towards the surface. It has nothing to do with radiative forcing. It has nothing to do with any greenhouse effect. It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
05
Doug
You have written something I can relate to: “radiative balance cannot be disturbed by internal processes, such as back radiation”.
We both agree on that.
Now as an extension, what happens if there is a cloud bank?
Energy in the biosphere contained in soil, rock water, living plants, soil bacteria no longer has a “straight out” path to radiate and convect.
Does the cloud bank locally retard heat loss from the biosphere or is that immaterial after the sun goes down for the day.
Whatever the answer I personally think that the fluid flow and heat transfer mechanisms behind this scenario are scarey to contemplate, let alone identify and quantify for use in Global warming Predictions by warmers.
I think we are far better off treating the whole biosphere as a black box where we just monitor the energy balance at the Top of Atmosphere (Solar Input vs Radiated output) and relate it to measured atmospheric temperature, whatever that is, and measured levels of the Daemon Gas CO2.
Whatever, CO2 does not drive World Temps and that is as far as we need to go.
The rest is politics.
KK 🙂
02
KK: I am in a different ball park to you. I don’t play the “radiative forcing” game because it’s not a universal game that works on all planets. My physics is universal, because it does work above and below the surface of any planet in the universe. Your radiative forcing concepts cannot possibly work on a planet like Uranus for example, which has no radiation from the Sun reaching down below the uppermost layers of its 20,000Km high atmosphere. My theory works very well there, and it works very well on Earth, explaining exactly why the 30-year mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures are lower in moist regions than in similar dry regions. The IPCC says water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and it says such gases cause there to be higher surface temperatures. I don’t buy their radiative forcing concept, so I don’t answer your questions which are just red herrings to me. Go and read “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” or some of my comments above, or elsewhere. You don’t have to, of course. Whether you seek out the truth or not is your prerogative. Doug
13
Doug
Hi. I agree with you you on the need to apply the “universal physics”.
But why then do you go and accuse me of “playing the “radiative forcing” game” when I made no mention of such a construct.
Doug, my comments some time ago related to the apparent constant reference to things like that and also paragraph 6 of the IPCC outline dated ….
You constantly use the term “radiative forcing” which is something that both you and the IPCC wish to do.
If my concept has any sort of Label it would be “Energy Retention”.
I am also not interested in Uranus.
We are dealing with Earth, where believe it or not we have a reasonable chance of measuring the items I listed above :
—- monitor the energy balance at the Top of Atmosphere (Solar Input vs Radiated output) and relate it to measured atmospheric temperature, whatever that is, and measured levels of the Daemon Gas CO2.—-
I think we have already eliminated CO2 as a possible factor in Global Warming so really this whole discussion is just for the sake of putting things in their correct place for those who come to look at the problem later.
History will show the CO2 Hysteria as politically driven, disturbed Group Think and a good target for a Psychology PhD Thesis.
KK 🙂
00
Physics is universal. If you have a guess at how things work to explain Earth’s surface temperature (like perhaps by slowing surface cooling) then that “guess” needs to be tested on other planets. Because if it doesn’t work there, then, maybe it is just a coincidence that it seems to work here. For example, the IPCC says water vapour is a greenhouse gas. They also say greenhouse gases warm the surface somehow. But they are wrong of course because they can only slow cooling. So we are not surprised to find that water vapour cools, because their guess was in the wrong ball park altogether.
So, when they try to apply a greenhouse effect on Venus they get in a real mess – because there is no radiative greenhouse effect in the first place, including Earth. It gets even worse on Uranus because there’s no direct Solar radiation below the upper atmosphere, and there’s no surface for about 20,000Km on the way down. Yet it gets hotter and hotter for only one reason – “heat creep” is a reality on all planets. This renders totally irrelevant all the talk about slowing cooling, because it’s all about what I say in Section 9, which is the result of the process described in Sections 4 to 8 of “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”
04
Doug – the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect world doesn’t have an atmosphere, it is empty space populated by the imaginary ideal gas; which is without mass or condensable volume or attraction so without weight because not subject to gravity, there is nothing for gravity to work on, nothing to pull because their molecules are hard dots of nothing are unimpeded by each other except in elastic collisions in an imaginary container as they travel at great speeds under their own molecular momentum through empty space because they have no volume to fill it.
So they have no heat transfer by convection because they don’t have molecules capable of expanding and condensing, of becoming lighter and heavier than air, which is at around 98% of our real world atmosphere is predominantly nitrogen and oxygen.
That Air is a heavy volume of fluid real gas, weighing around a ton on our shoulders. This is the real thermal blanket around the Earth keeping the Sun’s direct heating of the surface from escaping too fast.
It is without this, without any atmosphere at all, that the Earth is -18°C.
This is the figure from traditional physics which gives the comparable figure for the Moon as -23°C.
What our real gas atmosphere does is prevent the extremes of heat and cold to which the Moon without an atmosphere is subject to, it does this by the ability of real gases to expand when heated and condense when cooled, so making them lighter or heavier under gravity they will expand and become lighter when heated and rise and will condense and become heavier when cooled and so sink.
This is how heat is transferred in a fluid medium and how we get our weather. Real gases have weight relative to each other under gravity because some have more or less mass than others and because their volumes can expand and condense.
It is this real effect of gases under gravity which create areas of low and high pressure.
Firstly by the real gases expanding and becoming lighter the further away they are from the surface as the pull of gravity becomes weaker, this is what gives the temperature change from through the troposphere. The regular drop with height is explained by gravity’s effect on the volume of real gases as under less pressure they expand. So temperature drops as heat is carried up and away, which is convection, simply by this whole volume of real gas nature under gravity expanding exchanging its heat for linear motion vertically, as the individual volumes expand and become lighter the further they are away from the surface.
Secondly, differential heating of the real gas Air creates combination volumes of real gas, simply called volume (or packet) as the individual volumes expanding and condensing in real gases is a given, is what gives us our winds, which are convection currents, which are volumes of air on the move.
As the volume of hot light expanding gas rises it is displaced by volumes of heavy cold condensed air which sink flowing beneath, which are the convection currents called winds in the atmosphere and simply currents in the ocean where the same effect is seen as volumes of hot water molecules expand and becomes lighter and rise and volumes of cold water sink beneath because heavier.
The volumes, areas, of low pressure are formed because real gases expand when heated so there are fewer molecules of the gas in the same space, there is less for gravity to pull and so are lighter than the norm volume of air and rise. As these rise they cool off and condense, so more of them in the same amount of room and more for gravity to pull on they create areas of high pressure, they weigh down more on us, and heavier they will sink.
Hot air rises and cold air sinks. Winds flow from high to low.
It is this property of our atmosphere of real gases under gravity which moves heat away from the surface and prevents the Earth from having the extreme high temperature as on the Moon without an atmosphere, where it reaches 123°C.
http://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html
So our winds are convection currents in the fluid medium real gas created by convection, by heat transfer away from the surface of the Earth, but there is more at play here, because different gases have different properties and water though only a variable 1-5% has an even greater ability to convect heat away from the surface than the bulk nitrogen and oxygen.
Firstly because in itself water as water vapour is lighter than air, it is always evaporating, rising in air (water as water vapour takes up 1000 times more room than the same amount of molecules in liquid water), and water has a very great heat capacity which means it absorbs a great deal of heat before it changes phase and takes longer to heat up and longer to cool down. Water in the atmosphere draws in heat from the air around it and as it does this it expands and becomes even lighter than air and rises taking away huge amounts of heat with it, this is our Water Cycle (which does not exist in the AGWSF energy budget).
As an aside, this is useful knowledge for those trying to optimise their heating and cooling. Cold and wet rooms will take more energy to heat because the water absorbs the heat first making the room feel colder longer. Using a dehumidifier to extract the water to leave only the quicker to heat air of nitrogen and oxygen will keep bills down. Cooling a room to save on air conditioning costs conversely is by putting in water to first absorb the heat, from a simple bowl of water to a fountain in a courtyard.
Anyway, our atmosphere of the bulk nitrogen and oxygen real gases cool our Earth down from the extreme high temperature the atmosphere less Moon reaches, and water (which has a residence time of 8-10 days in the atmosphere) with its high heat capacity reduces that further.
Without water but with the rest of the atmosphere in place, the Earth would be 67°C, this is reduced to 15°C by the great cooling effect of water in the Water Cycle with its great heat capacity carrying the heat away from the surface and condensing in the colder heights to liquid water and ice, and colder sinking back to earth precipitating out as rain.
So these two bring the temps down from the 123°C extreme of the Moon without them, the bulk gas air of nitrogen and oxygen and water.
But the Moon without an atmosphere also gets extreme of cold, 153°C, and it is the bulk gas air of mainly nitrogen and oxygen which prevents that on Earth. Think deserts. The temperatures don’t plunge to the extreme of the Moon because the bulk real gas atmosphere weighing 14lbs/sqin, prevents the heat from dissipating as rapidly as it does on the Moon.
This is the real thermal blanket around the Earth, not the practically 100% hole which is the trace gas carbon dioxide.
This, how real gases are and behave under gravity, is why the Earth’s atmosphere was first likened to a greenhouse in traditional science, because real greenhouses both heat and cool to give optimum temperatures for plants.
AGWScienceFiction has by various sleights of hand changed the basic physics of the natural world around us. It lies all the time, in explaining its “Greenhouse Effect” it only gives the warming part of this, it has taken out the cooling effect of real gases in convection, the bulk nitrogen and oxygen of Air which cools the Earth from the 123°C it would reach to 67°C and taken out Water Cycle completely which brings this down still further.
It is without the whole atmosphere that the temperature of the Earth is -18°C, and this is mainly the real gas air of nitrogen and oxygen. AGWSF lies and says it is this temperature with the bulk atmosphere in place and only without its version of “greenhouse gases”.
There is no mechanism for these “AGW greenhouse gases” to bring the Earth’s temp down to -18°C without them, nor to raise the temperature 33°C from this, because without them, which is the mainly “AGW greenhouse gas water”, the temps would be 67°C.
That 33°C is an illusion created by the science fraud of changing the meaning of what is attributed to the -18%deg;C in traditional science, and then, taking out the whole of the real gas atmosphere anyway leaving empty space of pretend massless propertyless gases so that can’t be understood anyway..
This gets so convoluted as every change they’ve made has to been explained from scratch, it’s not until you put it all back that you can see how they done their sleights of hand.
10
Wind is not what a physicist would call convection, the latter being a very slow process acting at the molecular level and delayed by the timing of molecular collisions. Wind over-rides convection in local regions, but these are weather events, not global climate.
You said This is the real thermal blanket around the Earth keeping the Sun’s direct heating of the surface from escaping too fast.
I used to think along those lines, but the Sun cannot heat the surface of Earth to the observed 288K with direct radiation. On Venus it has no hope of raising the surface to 720K, now does it? So “cooling” from what temperature?
Clearly there has to be another mechanism for heating planetary surfaces, as discussed in my other comments and paper.
05
Eh? What else is wind?
In thermodynamics and fluid mechanics, i.e. the fluid mechanics incorporating thermal effects, there is a delineation between “natural” and “forced” convection. The natural convection occurs where the buoyant forces exceed gravitational on a parcel of air; as determined by the temperature of the surface and the surrounding fluid (gas included).
The buoyant forces are changed by the heating of the gas, changing its specific volume. Once natural convection is triggered (approximately when the Nusselt number exceeds 1000), the parcel of air will tend to move against gravity (up), allowing cooler air from the side and above to contact the warming surface. The side movement of cooler air from a hot spot may be considered to be “wind”.
The “forced” convection case is when the fluid movement isn’t driven directly (and for analysis; predominately) by the local temperature gradient. Heat transfer “doesn’t care” why the fluid is moving; merely that it is.
But it’s all convection.
30
Well said Bernd
00
Actually I can agree with most of what you’ve said there Doug.
But I doubt the statement “the temperature of a surface is all to do with the height of the atmosphere” because the gas species composition must make a difference.
If there is a gas component that can absorb available radiation and re-emit in the same (or broader) spectrum, but other neighbouring gases can’t, you have changed the available energy transport mechanisms and so the amount that moves by radiation versus convection will be different than in a different gas mixture. IR allows energy to move up or down with vastly less gravitational work. When the IR gases are at different concentrations at different heights this accentuates the departure of the lapse rate from a purely gravitational one.
The fact that on Earth the thermosphere is higher but hotter than the stratosphere and the stratosphere is higher but cooler than the troposphere proves that the temperature is not a simple function of atmosphere height.
The atmosphere is basically the same height at the equator and the poles, yet at 12km altitude the air over the poles is warmer than the air over the equator. Since the poles receive less solar power than the equator, a difference in water vapour content is one (of many??) possible explanations for this difference in temperature and lapse rate, despite the same height of atmosphere above it.
I can agree “radiative balance cannot be disturbed by internal processes, such as back radiation” but only if you are talking about the TOA where radiation is the only mechanism available.
Another thing I have only recently discovered [1, 2] is that a gas at high pressure is able to absorb across a continuum spectrum like a blackbody, it is no longer confined to narrow molecular spectral lines as it is in the low pressure case.
This leads me to think that there may be some truth to your gravity theory of the temperature gradient but it will only be seen at high pressures where continuum absorption becomes significant w.r.t the particular gas species molecular spectrum. There are few planets where the pressure gets high enough, and I’m not convinced Earth is one of them.
22
As for my reply to KinkyKeith above, I am in a different ball park to you. I don’t play the “radiative forcing” game. Please read my reply to KK above. The specific heat of the gases makes a difference to the temperature gradient, of course, because it’s in the denominator – all this is in my paper, as is the issue of the troposphere above the poles and all the issues you raise. Try explaining Uranus temperatures with radiative forcing concepts.
By the way, pressure does not maintain high temperatures, as is quite clear from the Ideal Gas Law, because density adjusts to changes in temperature and itself varies with pressure as they have a common cause in gravity.
11
an ABC headline i never thought i’d see!
3 June: ABC: Nuclear power saves lives
by Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen
(Pushker Kharecha is a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Columbia University Earth Institute. James E. Hansen, Goddard’s former director and one of the world’s foremost climate scientists, is an adjunct professor at the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.)
If all the nuclear power in the world was replaced with coal, millions more people would die, and billions more tonnes of greenhouse gases would be released.
THE USE OF NUCLEAR power instead of fossil fuelled power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths and over 60 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide between 1971 and 2009. That’s one of the key results of a paper we recently published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Environmental Science and Technology…
Our findings also have important implications for large-scale ‘fuel switching’ to natural gas from coal or from nuclear. Although natural gas burning emits less fatal pollution and GHGs than coal burning, it is far deadlier than nuclear power, causing about 40 times more deaths per unit electric energy produced.
Also, such fuel switching is practically guaranteed to worsen the climate problem for several reasons…
Human-caused climate change and air pollution remain major global-scale problems. Mitigation efforts for both of these problems should be undertaken concurrently in order to maximise effectiveness. Such efforts can be accomplished largely with currently available low-carbon/carbon-free alternative energy sources like nuclear power and renewables as well as energy efficiency improvements.
We conclude that nuclear energy — despite posing several challenges, as do all energy sources — needs to be retained and significantly expanded in order to avoid or minimise the devastating impacts of unabated climate change and air pollution caused by fossil fuel burning.
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/06/03/3772092.htm
setting aside the health & safety arguments, how about:
30 July 2012: Financial Times: Pilita Clark: Nuclear ‘hard to justify’, says GE chief
Nuclear power is so expensive compared with other forms of energy that it has become “really hard” to justify, according to the chief executive of General Electric, one of the world’s largest suppliers of atomic equipment.
“It’s really a gas and wind world today,” said Jeff Immelt, referring to two sources of electricity he said most countries are shifting towards as natural gas becomes “permanently cheap”.
“When I talk to the guys who run the oil companies they say look, they’re finding more gas all the time. It’s just hard to justify nuclear, really hard. Gas is so cheap and at some point, really, economics rule,” Mr Immelt told the Financial Times in an interview in London at the weekend. “So I think some combination of gas, and either wind or solar … that’s where we see most countries around the world going.”…
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/60189878-d982-11e1-8529-00144feab49a.html
01
Aus. can deepen CO2 goal at no extra cost: report
BEIJING, June 3 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A collapse in the price of EU carbon credits means that Australia could deepen significantly its pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions at almost no extra cost, according to a new report…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2398879?&ref=searchlist
Slow start, dim hopes at U.N. climate talks in Bonn
BONN, June 3 (Reuters Point Carbon) – International negotiators met in Germany on Monday for a fortnight of U.N. talks aimed at forging a new global climate pact by 2015, but observers expected little progress on key issues such as whether countries would deepen their emissions reduction pledges or how to raise cash to help poorer nations fight climate change…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2400133
REUTERS POLL-Analysts cut EU carbon forecasts again
LONDON, June 3 (Reuters) – Analysts have lowered forecasts for European Union carbon permit prices to 2020 for a sixth consecutive month reflecting uncertainty over European Commission plans to reduce market oversupply…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2399418?&ref=searchlist
10
Is it cold where you are?
http://iceagenow.info/2013/06/rochester-mn-snowiest-spring-recorded-snowiest-recorded/
http://iceagenow.info/2013/06/capetown-earliest-june-snowfall-years-emergency-declared/
http://iceagenow.info/2013/06/usa-devastating-freeze-cuts-southern-states-blueberry-volume/
http://iceagenow.info/2013/06/coldest-spring-england-1891/
http://iceagenow.info/2013/06/canada-30-tomato-crop-destroyed-frost/
22
I see the Bradley Manning trial has started, for those not familiar with this and are interested to know why the US government is taking him to court just google “manning wikileaks” and watch the video and all your questions will be answered.
Cheers
11
The University of Waterloo’s paper on CFC and predicted cooling was to me the climate news of the year. WUWT has not touched greatly on it, nor here. I hope for in depth coverage soon – even on Real Climate!
01
I’m not sold on it. It might be right, but I haven’t had time to look properly. Call me a skeptic. I may yet be won over when I read it and look at those graphs.
11
It showed up on Greenie Watch. It’s actually quite interesting–it explains cooling/lack of warming far better than the CO2 theory. The correlation is very high. Of course, causality still needs to be established, but for once a theory actually seems to fit what we see happening.
00
Judas Priest, if Wind is the answer, then someone is asking the wrong question.
Look at the average cost for electricity for South Australia yesterday (03Jun2013) at this chart.
AEMO Average Price Table for electricity
For the hours of 7AM until 10PM, the wholesale price for electricity was $866.41/MWH, and that’s almost 4 times what they could sell it at for retail, and that’s 15 times higher than the next highest State cost, and more than more than 20 times higher than the cheapest.
Why?
No wind.
For a State that relies so heavily on Wind Power, this is the result.
During that same period of 15 hours, Wind power supplied an average of 20MW, so, from a total of 600 huge towers, barley 10 of them actually had the blades turning, for 15 hours, and for 8 of those hours it was less than 5 of them, sometimes none.
That’s a Capacity Factor of 1.6%, and they were supplying 1.1% of the State’s power demand for that period of 15 hours.
The unintended consequences of no Wind.
Ridiculously high electricity costs.
I can see retailers in South Australia literally screaming out for price rises, and I wonder if the State Government is going to bail them out with the proviso, Shh! please don’t tell anyone.
All the while, that one remaining coal fired plant just sits there, closed since the end of Summer.
Still not a word from anywhere else about this.
This is what we need to focus on to show how wind power fails at every step.
Wrong question – Stark staring obvious answer.
Tony.
20
Interesting interview by Alan Jones with Senator Ron Boswell on renewable energy etc if the Libs get in.
http://www.2gb.com/article/alan-jones-senator-ron-boswell-0
10
Please excuse me, the Prime Minister needs a sandwich.
00
An example of the “heat creep” mechanism which debunks the greenhouse effect
The process of downward diffusion/convection which appears to be transferring heat from cooler to warmer regions does in fact happen in a gravitational field, and this is the non-radiative process which explains all planetary atmospheric and surface temperatures without any need for any greenhouse effect from any radiation. There is no radiation from the Sun in the depths of the Uranus atmosphere, but it’s very hot, because heat does indeed creep down and get trapped there by gravity.
Suppose before dawn on a calm morning we consider a column of the atmosphere 1Km high. Let’s say the base of the column (at the surface) is 7C and the top is 0C. Hence the process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics has done all it will do because thermodynamic equilibrium has evolved spontaneously in a region where we will assume an environmental “lapse rate” of 7C/Km prevails.
Now, the Sun rises and the lower half of our column of air (from the surface up) is still in the shade of a mountain, but the top half is warmed by the Sun as some of the water vapour and other air molecules do in fact absorb incident Solar radiation.
So now let’s assume the top half has warmed and it is now 2C at the top and perhaps still 3.5C at the middle of the column. So the top half is still colder than the lower half. But the thermodynamic equilibrium has been disturbed. The Second Law process now has a propensity towards a new thermodynamic equilibrium in which there is more energy to spread around. The extra energy spreads out and some will head towards the surface because the whole temperature plot rises to a higher level which will be parallel to the original plot once thermodynamic equilibrium is re-established and the gradient gets back to 7C/Km.
Doug
02
Likely no health impact from radiation release at Fukushima. Most impact to health is psychological stress induced by irresponsible reporting.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/japans-radiation-disaster-toll-none-dead-none-sick-20130604-2nomz.html
00
There are two limitations upon the temperature of a target to which spontaneous radiation can raise that temperature ..
(a) The temperature of the source of the spontaneous radiation.
(b) The radiative flux which the target receives from the source.
The solar radiation received by the Venus surface is only about 10W/m^2 because only about 2.5% of the original TOA insolation gets through the atmosphere. The Venus surface is thus not heated significantly by direct radiated energy from the Sun, and nor is it by radiation from the atmosphere. With only about 2,600W/m^2 of incident radiation at TOA even before reflection, how could the required 16,100W/m^2 of radiative flux at the base of the atmosphere come only from that far smaller incident flux? Energy would be created in the atmosphere.
Instead, what must happen on Venus, Uranus and other planets, is that some of the thermal energy absorbed in the atmosphere from incident solar radiation is spread out by diffusion and convection over a sloping temperature plane which evolves spontaneously in accord with the process described in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This allows heat to “creep” up that thermal plane, because all it is doing Is restoring thermodynamic equilibrium which had been disturbed. The gravitationally-induced thermal gradient in effect traps energy that has been absorbed from the Sun over the life of the planet, and it maintains the temperature of the base of the atmosphere, which temperature then prevents the surface cooling too much at night, and, in the case of Earth, allows the Sun to warm it by day when the radiative flux is of course more than the mean 24 hour value.
00
D Cotton 12:51 pm: “The Venus surface is thus not heated significantly by direct radiated energy from the Sun…”
True. The roughly 164 W/m^2 absorbed mostly into atm. from the sun at Venus orbit has heated up Venus opaque (surface emissivity 1.0) atm. over just 4.1Mln years to near surface equilibrium at ~730K. The Soviets figured this out in the early 1960s prior to sending probes; it is easy to compute once one reads and understands say Goody&Yung text 1964. This is easy to compute from Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet applied to multiple atm. layers. The spreadsheet also serves to calculate observed equilibrium temperatures for earth, earth’s moon and mars et. al. And will work for exoplanets once the simple, basic input data is discovered.
The sun’s roughly 1 W/m^2 absorbed & ~emitted by Uranus has also heated up the deep, similarly optically opaque layers of Uranus atm. over eons into today’s ~equilibrium as explained by fundamental atm. radiation text books. Shield Uranus from the sun (i.e. turn off the sun ~1 W/m^2 theoretically) and Uranus’ heat will creep out over millions of years. Uranus would equilibrate with deep space even though g/Cp still operates.
D Cotton on another thread:
“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.”
A reminder I’ve already explained Uranus & Venus non-dilemma to D Cotton on the last Unthreaded Week thread. What is needed is for D Cotton to understand (actually read) this basic science from the modern text books and specialist papers.
Input the simple Uranus atm. parameters for mass, net insolation and emissivity into Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet w/proper time steps & properly layered and D Cotton can compute a simple estimate how long it will take for Uranus to reach equilibrium with the sun (or deep space) & what any surface temperature might become.
There really is no mystery, text book science has explained this process for decades. The mystery is in D Cotton’s paper not basic text book science.
A reminder D Cotton’s paper Sec. 6 mysteriously attempts and fails to explain the planetary heating process with g/Cp gradient which is an atm. adiabatic process taking place with no loss or gain of heat.
20
Comment ignored because you most certainly have not explained how the required energy gets down into the Uranus and Venus atmospheres supposedly by radiation. You can’t because it doesn’t get there that way. You have no idea of valid physics, as is easy to see from your wishy-washy attempts to explain energy transfers, and to attempt to debunk my paper.
The Venus surface would just cool off to very cold temperatures if all there was were the mere 10W/m^2 of Solar radiation entering its surface. At could radiate away 16,100W/m^2, so would have no trouble disposing of 10W/m^2. You have no concept of what is explained in my paper and you most certainly do not debunk anything in it with valid physics. No one in the world has been able to do so, because it is correct.
00
Just look at LtCusper’s first sentence, everyone! The cold atmosphere has transferred heat to the far hotter surface by radiation, says he, and it is supposed to explain how the surface temperature rises each Venus morning. This is a single component system – atmosphere to surface. The Second Law only talks about a system. If a system is more than one component (which this isn’t) then those components have to be interdependent. That’s physics. You can even read it in Wikipedia under “Laws of Thermodynamics” and “System” but LtCusper chooses not to believe this basic physics, and to twist the laws to suit his purposes, namely that the radiation from the colder atmosphere can actually increase surface the temperature by 5 degrees each 4-month-long Venus day.
In 50 years of studying physics, and helping students do very well in the subject, I have never, ever come across any violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as it is clearly stated and as it relates to interdependent components in a system. The “component” of radiation into the surface is not interdependent with, for example, non-radiative cooling of the surface, so it’s all garbage when LtCusper thinks you only have to consider the “net” effect and the Law’s not broken. Well tell the magistrate that it’s OK that you parked for 80 minutes in a one hour zone, because the next time you parked only 20 minutes, so your net average time was 50 minutes.
01
D Cotton 9:26pm: “…The cold atmosphere has transferred heat to the far hotter surface by radiation, says (LtCusper)…”
D Cotton – you clearly demonstrate a reading comprehension issue; I can better understand why it would be so difficult & it appears impossible for you to read more complex and accurate 2nd law science in say Goody&Yung 1964 whereby the more competent 1960’s Soviet scientists correctly estimated Venus surface temperature to be in the low 700Ks and built their very 1st instrumental probe to read out up to that range of temperatures.
Clearly those guys did not need a “new paradigm” from your paper to get Venus surface temperature range right. They did not need your paper to get Mars right and they would not need your paper to get Uranus (or exoplanets) right. (All they would need for basics is Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet actually.) In fact reading your paper would have slowed them down, taking them time to figure out what was so wrong with your paper. Namely, the gradient g/Cp does not compute planetary global avg. near surface temperature without knowing some starting temperature obtained from a radiative balance with the sun – that’s why they call g/Cp only a gradient.
Here’s what LtCusper wrote exactly clipped in context compared to your ill fated attempt to read it:
“…the sun at Venus orbit has heated up Venus…atm.”
And
“The sun…has also heated up the deep, similarly optically opaque layers of Uranus atm.”
Not their colder atm.s.
Anyway, from the bulk of your writing I get that you have understood very little about how a thermally opaque (surface emissivity = 1.0) atm. such at Venus and Uranus operates in accord with 1st & 2nd law.
To get that understood well & correct, you really do have to start by reading enough Goody&Yung 1964 then progress to the more modern fundamentals of atm. radiation in say Bohren 2006. Clearly you are not competent enough to read & comprehend these basic texts. You do not have the pre-req.s (to use a college admittance term) and your paper does not ref. them. Once you do this reading & comprehending work, just use Dr. Spencer’s work sheet from there as it is demonstrated to work by radiative balance within about 1K.
Keep trying, it is fun & sends me back to re-read the atm. radiation fundamentals to find where you get planetary heat balance so incorrect. This heat balance works to calculate observed surface temperature (and satellite measured) for all the planets & moons (yes, including Uranus) and the atmosphere-less ones too. Simply use Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet if interested.
Radiative heat balance from 1st law (and 2nd) will work for the exo-planets as well – scientist’s specialist papers ref. the correct fundamental basic texts. They will not ref. your paper as it is wrong or at best incomplete since it is not based on more thorough radiative heat balance text books that came before.
D Cotton continues: “The Venus surface would just cool off to very cold temperatures if all there was were the mere 10W/m^2 of Solar radiation entering its surface.”
Ok, all I need to prove this wrong is Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet. Start Earth off with very cold temperatures in Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet (there is input to do so – see “initial surface Temp” box). Same as Venus, Earth’s surface will heat up by the sun to observed temperatures when radiative balance is achieved after a certain time to LTE. Hey, just start Earth off with very hot temperatures, get the same LTE surface temperature. You can’t beat radiative heat balance.
Input Venus parameters and properly layer the calculations for atm.-at-surface opacity = 1.0 and start Venus off with very cold temperatures – same thing will happen get ~730K surface temperature after about 4.1Mln years to long term equilibrium (LTE). EVEN THOUGH only 164 W/m^2 is CONTINOUSLY absorbed by Venus from the sun during that time frame.
It is pretty simple actually, but you just have to do the prior work to get the pre-req.s to do heat balance properly to 1st & 2nd law.
BTW, I explained to you how this works for Venus in the prior weekly thread – you just ignore it writing no one has done so. Makes for some entertainment in this space as you continue to get planetary heat balance so wrong.
D Cotton digs an even bigger hole at 10:02pm (and 9:07pm): “Only the new paradigm in my paper explains what really happens, and it is certainly not radiation that is doing most of the heating, I can assure you. How could it be?”
Because radiative transfer is the only way for the sun to do ALL the heating of a planet above deep space, and the only way for a planet to cool to balance the sun in LTE. Science figured this out correctly for Venus surface temperature a half century before your paper which adds nothing.
10
And how does the thermal energy absorbed in the uppermost layers of the Uranus atmosphere (from 3W/m^2) then make its way up the temperature gradient (heat moving from cold to hot) by non-radiative processes – and eventually support temperatures of thousands of degrees? It’s one thing to calculate the surface temperature from radiative balance (59K for Uranus) and the gradient – as I have discussed in my paper – but another thing all together to understand the mechanism of “heat creep” also in my paper.
00
LtCusper says: OK, all I need to prove this wrong is Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet.
Yes, Dr Spencer’s spreadsheet is very good at multiplying the incident radiation reaching the TOA of Venus up to the required 16,100W/m^2 to maintain the surface temperature. It also totally disregards the Second Law and works only within the far less limiting constraints of the First Law of Thermodynamics, except of course for that multiplying of the incident energy flux. Place your faith in his spreadsheet, if you so choose. That’s your prerogative. But don’t bother trying it on Uranus, because no solar radiation gets down far into its atmosphere. Meanwhile I’ll plave my faith in standard physics, as I have for 50 years.
00
D Cotton 6:47pm: “…(Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet) totally disregards the Second Law…”
No it does not.
Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet works totally in accord with the 2nd law at each time step; entropy is increased during the time the spreadsheet system is increasing near surface global atm. temperature from the initial condition then system entropy is held in steady state LTE. This is completely allowed by the 2nd law. For you not to see this shows a profound misunderstanding of the 2nd law.
I recommend an exercise for you to improve your understanding: compute the entropy value in the spreadsheet at each time step to prove this is true numerically. You may actually have to ref. a text book to learn how to do this. It won’t be found in your paper.
Continuing 6:35pm: “And how does the thermal energy absorbed in the uppermost layers of the Uranus atmosphere (from 3W/m^2) then make its way up the temperature gradient (heat moving from cold to hot) by non-radiative processes – and eventually support temperatures of thousands of degrees?”
For one, the exact same basic way as Venus and Earth et. al. since atm. thermodynamics is universal. There are complications like the orientation of Uranus spin axis.
For two, the out/in heat balance of Venus and Mars is 1.0000 while for Uranus it is 1.0655.
Given such a dense, thermally optically opaque atm. emissivity = 1.0, Uranus internal heat produced in part forces the temperature way up to get out to deep space in equilibrium. I will let you explain why that is once you have placed your faith in standard physics.
20
LtCusper says: OK, all I need to prove this wrong is Dr. Spencer’s spreadsheet.
Yes, Dr Spencer’s spreadsheet is very good at multiplying the incident radiation reaching the TOA of Venus up to the required 16,100W/m^2 to maintain the surface temperature. It also totally disregards the Second Law and works only within the far less limiting constraints of the First Law of Thermodynamics, except of course for that multiplying of the incident energy flux. Place your faith in his spreadsheet, if you so choose. That’s your prerogative. But don’t bother trying it on Uranus, because no solar radiation gets down far into its atmosphere. Meanwhile I’ll place my faith in standard physics, as I have for 50 years.
01
For radiation to make a surface temperature increase from 730K to 735K each 4-month long Venus day it has to comply with both these requirements, as per standard physics …
(a) It has to have a flux based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, namely about 16,100W/m^2 for 730K. The flux coming into the Venus atmosphere is far less, and hardly any gets through to the surface. How can the atmosphere multiply the flux and how can such flux do so much better at penetrating the atmosphere? Where are the calculations that at least obey the First Law, even though they don’t have a hope of obeying the Second Law, so the whole radiation exercise is hypothetical anyway.
(b) The radiation has to come from a hotter source. That only leaves the Sun. So the only radiation that can have a hope of doing so is the mere 10 to 20W/m^2 of Solar radiation that gets through the atmosphere. So we have about one-tenth of the radiative flux which reaches Earth’s surface. So if that really could heat a surface to 720K, then why wouldn’t Earth be much hotter still? The whole thing is ludicrous.
Only the new paradigm in my paper explains what really happens, and it is certainly not radiation that is doing most of the heating, I can assure you. How could it be?
01
What does it matter how much carbon or carbon dioxide goes where? There is no need to be concerned any more, anyone, about carbon dioxide. The last straw has been broken. There can be no greenhouse effect anywhere on any planet. The “new paradigm” now explains what happens on all planets in their atmospheres, their surfaces, their crusts, mantles and cores if they have such. And it explains the intuitively obvious fact (also observed in studies of real data) that more water vapour leads to lower surface temperatures.
That alone smashes IPCC propaganda about water vapour being the main greenhouse “gas” which is supposed to be doing most of that 33 degrees of warming on average.
So it’s supposed to be doing, say, 5 degrees of warming in a dry desert, and 50 degrees of warming in a moist region with 10 times as much water vapour in the atmosphere above it. Sheer and utter garbage! You have all had the wool well and truly pulled over your eyes!
The “old paradigm” is smashed when you consider Venus. Each Venus 4-month-long day the surface temperature rises by about 5 degrees, and it cools by 5 degrees at night. Obviously the energy which increases the temperature in the day comes from the Sun. We have only about 20W/m^2 of direct solar radiation getting through the Venus atmosphere in the day, and yet the Stefan-Boltzmann Law tells us we would need about 16,100W/m^2 of radiation to increase the temperature of the Venus surface when it is in the vicinity of 730K. Obviously radiation from the colder atmosphere cannot increase the temperature of the surface, for that would be an outright violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In any event, there is not enough radiative flux entering the atmosphere. So the energy cannot get there by radiation alone and in fact radiation can play only a very small role.
So that leaves only non-radiative processes, and clearly it gets narrowed down to diffusion and convection. The reasons why (and the process whereby) downward diffusion and convection (“heat creep”) can in fact increase the temperature are explained in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”
01