JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
Bolt Report on tomorrow.. extended to 1 hour 🙂
Enjoy..
and you warmist trolls.. don’t forget to take your blood pressure pills! 🙂
242
Much has been made of the seemingly large reduction in coal fired power generation in the U.S. so perhaps a critical look at the data with an explanation would be helpful.
10 years ago, in 2004, Coal fired power generated just on 50% of all electrical power being generated in the U.S. and Natural Gas fired power came in at 17.9%.
Now, scroll forward four years to 2008. The average age of ALL coal fired power plants in the U.S. was just on 49 years, and let me stress here that’s the AVERAGE age. The expected life span for a typical coal fired plant is only 50 years, so here you can imagine that just on half those plants were almost time expired, and in some cases, at 80+ years, well beyond time expired. Those older plants were being used, not as your typical 24/7/365 supply plants, (Base Load Power suppliers) but used as what is referred to as Rolling Reserve plants, in other words turning and burning, but not supplying power until called upon to add to that Base Load in periods of peak power consumption, which contrary to some spin, is in fact a daily occurrence. As is the case with coal fired power, it cannot be ramped up and down at a moment’s notice. This fast to come online supply is usually the province of Natural Gas fired plants which can supply power on short notice.
What has happened, over those 10 years since 2004 is that those older and ancient coal fired plants have closed down, and have been replaced in their totality by Natural Gas fired plants. The plants which have closed are all in the tiny to small power generation range, as NO plant greater than 800MW in size has closed in the last 6 years I have been watching this and writing about it.
This is borne out in the data for coal fired power as the Capacity Factor for coal fired power has increased quite markedly since 2004, a perfect indicator as to rolling reserve from coal fired power being taken out of the equation, and existing large scale plants (2000MW+) operating as they always have, at a much higher Capacity Factor than the overall, supplying constant and regular power on the 24/7/365 basis.
Now, rather than talk in percentages, I’ll show here actual power consumption data.
Now, in 2014 coal fired (39%) has dropped 394TWH, and Natural Gas fired (27.5%) has risen by 404TWH.
As you can see, coal fired has been replaced totally by Natural gas fired power, and in fact by much more than coal fired has lost.
This is because of the better availability of Natural Gas, and those plants, be they CCGT or OCGT are of much better technology that they were, even as recently as ten years ago.
In that same time, both Wind Power and Solar Power have ramped up considerably, but as you can see from the figures provided here, NOT ONE of those plants has replaced coal fired power, as you can see from the figures, which show that Natural Gas has replaced coal fired in its totality, and in fact by more than the drop in coal fired power.
While Wind has increased its generation by 152TWH, it still only supplies 4% of all power generation, with Solar, (both PV and CSP) ramping up by 8TWH, yet still only supplying 0.22% of all power being generated.
So, while spin concentrates on those two renewables of choice, Wind and Solar, actual data shows an entirely different story altogether.
Tony.
Source for all power generation figures is this link to the EIA
330
Good stuff Tony, keep it up.
BTW here’s the IEA’s projections of co2 emissions until 2040.
You’ll note the OECD countries will increase by ZIP over the next 26 years but the non OECD is soaring over that time. Well over 90% of the increased co2 emissions will come from China, India etc.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/table20.cfm
50
I’ve read the usual spin saying that the considerable ramping up of renewable power in the U.S. has been the cause of the lowering of CO2 emissions from the electrical power generation sector there. As you can see from my original Comment 2, while coal fired power generation has indeed fallen quite markedly, it has been replaced totally by Natural Gas fired power generation, and not by wind and solar power at all.
The U.S. currently has 61,000MW for Nameplate Capacity just for wind power alone. Some perspective on that is that this total of 61,000MW is just a little higher than the total Nameplate Capacity for EVERY power generation source here in Australia, which has 2,660MW Nameplate Capacity for wind power generation.
Now, using today’s dollar value, that current Nameplate Capacity for wind in the U.S. is a construction cost of around $220 Billion, for only 4% of total power generation.
So, after enormous cost, we find from the data that wind has not replaced coal fired power at all, as that, in toto, has come from the Natural Gas fired sector.
Natural Gas fired power emits less CO2 emissions than for coal fired power, and keep in mind here that ALL those U.S. coal fired plants are old technology plants.
So, then, using the actual data, lets then work out emissions total and why they have fallen, and by how much from the power generating sector in the U.S.
This is complex, so bear with me here while I try to explain it as fully as is possible.
For coal fired power CO2 is emitted in the amount of 2.86 tons of CO2 for every ton of coal burned. For Natural Gas fired power CO2 is emitted in the amount of 122 Pounds for every mcf (thousand cubic feet) Of NG burned. Now, in 2004, other sources of CO2 emitting power generation were also quite prevalent, and most of these were also ancient as well, so they have closed down in quite large numbers as well. The 3 forms of generation were Petroleum Liquids, Petroleum Coke, and Other Gases, and in the following I refer to them as Others.
Now, that amounts to a CO2 reduction of 9.65%, which seems pretty substantial, but refer back to Comment 2. It really has nothing whatsoever to do with the ever increasing construction of wind power, (and solar is virtually all but nothing here) but wholly due because of the conversion from old coal fired power to new Natural Gas fired power.
Now, something like that won’t happen here in Australia, because the little gas we do have is being sold into the export market.
Isn’t it amazing how actual data always proves the spin to be false.
Tony.
100
Darwin NT had a F-86 Sabre jet engine rigged up by the NTEC as a back up electricity generator to cover lightning strike damage to the grid and other such emergencies. It was quite impressive to hear it when fired up,it was scrapped when the gas fired power station came on line in the 1980’s
40
Ah! The CAC Sabre, the F-86 the Americans wished they had.
That engine was the English Avon, and it necessitated the virtual redesign of the whole fuselage to accommodate the engine.
I actually got to work on these little beauties, the last of the Mark 32’s at 5OTU right up until this Squadron was disbanded.
It was great duty on the Flight Line during operations, except they used a quite large (and not easy to service out on the flight line that is) Lead Acid Battery, while more modern aircraft, the Mirage at the time had NiCad batteries.
They utilised an IPN starter, volatile at the best of times, and you kept right away on start up, as well as away from the intake.
A very forgiving aircraft with a very average ejection seat, not the usual Martin Baker with shrouds for the overhead handle, but a North American (The Aircraft’s original manufacturer) ejection seat with handles at the waist of the seat, hence sometimes back problems upon ejection.
With the last of those Mark 32’s another problem also developed, because of the more recent Avon engine used.
The whole cockpit area sat higher on the mid section bulge than on original (American) Sabres, and the earlier Australian ones. Because of that, the pilot was seated a little higher and they even needed a new specially designed canopy, and this plexiglass canopy itself had a slightly larger bulge directly over the pilot’s head.
The first thing that happened when the ejection seat handle was pulled was the initiation of small bolts each side of the main canopy rail. These would blow upwards, lifting the canopy a few inches into the airstream, and that sudden airflow would blow the canopy backwards away from the cockpit area, breaking the canopy free from its one small hinge at the back of the cockpit, leaving a now clear space above the pilot in a now open cockpit.
However, that new extra bulge on this latest Mark 32 proved problematic. When the bolts initiated, it worked as designed, lifting the canopy. However, because of this new bulge, the airflow did not get under the canopy but instead, lifted it slightly, hit that bulge, and then forced it back down. The seat then departed up the rail and because of the steel at the front the canopy, it very neatly (sorry to say it like this) severed the pilot’s head.
They found a couple of pilots after ejection, still strapped into their seat, but minus their heads.
Engineers finally found what the problem was and redesigned, not the canopy itself, because that bulge was essential, barely an inch above the pilot’s helmeted head.
They added a new explosive bolt on the seat rail itself, a bolt about half the length of your forearm with a big knob on the end the size of your fist, sometimes painted bright red, called (oddly) the big red bolt, or euphemistically The Jesus Bolt, echoing the pilot’s first thoughts as he realised he would have to eject ….. “Jesus, here goes!”
This explosive bolt fired upwards and shattered the plexiglass canopy into a myriad of tiny pieces, and, umm, the pilot would then ride the rail up through the now shattered canopy.
Worked a charm. All 3 subsequent ejections following the installation of the bolt proved successful for the pilots.
Wonderful airplane to work on, except some electrical componentry was difficult to get at, just keep away from the IPN exhaust on start up.
Tony.
70
Apparently those RR-Avon jet motors made damn fine truck motors too … well at least for our drag-racing, record setting, truck ‘Matilda’ (or was that ‘Waltzing Matilda’) back in 1978. I can remember climbing over it at the time it was being painted up for the big race day. The motor for that one came from one of our locally built Canberra bombers (A Mark 1 Avon??). Some of the spectators got fried from the jet blast.
10
Here in Newcastle we had the very sad and unfortunate situation of having an F86 Sabre fly overhead in a storm on its’ way to land at home base, Williamtown.
It was apparently hit by lightning, the pilot lost control and ejected while upside down.
He went through a two storey building just 100 metres from my old home and was of course, killed.
The aircraft and its’ engine impacted on a road and miraculously nobody else was injured but the pilot.
A very sad day.
KK
30
I think the aerodynamic transition from piston to jet and WW2 drinking culture killed a lot of pilots in the 50s 60s and early 70s?
10
Scotty Allan was a WW1 Fighter pilot,served in the RAF in the 1920’s,flew for Qantas in the 1930’s,RAAF in the 1940’s,back to Qantas 1946,introduced the Lockheed Constellation to Australia and then moved on to the Boeing707,I don’t think it mattered to him if the plane was powered by rubber bands or a ramjet.
40
Not sure alcohol was involved in this case.
I heard the explosion and it was on a very stormy afternoon.
Maybe he was too low, maybe he should have diverted somewhere else; but he just tried to get home poor guy.
KK
00
Hi Tony,
Speaking of solar power, you may (or may not) have seen this;
Massive desert solar plant opens, already a threatened species
The Ivanpah facility uses five square miles of mirrors to turn water into steam. But cheaper photovoltaic cells and natural gas plus shaky funding may make project the last of its kind in the U.S.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-ivanpah-technology-20140302,0,7705685.story#ixzz2uylBKUzb
Google is also a co-owner of this plant.
00
The average daily rainfall across the globe is estimated to be a little over 2mm (Smithsonian) or just under 3mm (Wikipedia) so I will go with 2.5mm.
The 0.6W per square metre of extra energy due to back radiation comes from the IPCC. Over 24h, this is 52kJ/m2. (0.0006kW x 86400s)
The latent heat of vaporization of sea water at 15°C is 2400kJ/kg (MIT). If all the extra energy goes to evaporation of water, that is 21g or about 20mL of extra water evaporated for every square metre of water, or 14mL for every square metre of the Earth, per day. (52kJ/m2 divided by 2400kJ/(kg.m2).
That equates to 14ml of extra rain per 10^6mm2 of surface area.Actually, 90% of the heat goes into just warming the oceans so make that 0.0000014mm extra rain on average. That is 0.6ppm of the average rainfall for the day.
How does someone calling themselves a scientist actually get to claim that flooding is made worse by AGW without the MSM ridiculing them?
271
Ahh! GOOD question! Finding the answer to that question should generate some lively discussion.
110
Vic, you are assuming we have professional journalists in the MSM. We don’t, we have churnalists.
130
The mistake was intentional (subconsiously). Did anyone spot it? Comes out to be 60 ppm.
30
Maybe the majority of the MSM have their superannuation funds invested in so called “green(RED)” schemes???
31
Last evening I saw for the first time two different advertisements on TV with the same message but with different people acting and it was put out by the WWF (one had William Shatner turn off a light) and the caption on the screen said something like ‘what will you be thinking when it goes dark’.
Apparently Earth Hour this year is on March 29 – 8:30 – 9:30 pm (20:30 – 21:30).
Once I saw this advertised, I went to my wall board on which my calendar hangs and I circled the date and entered in bold letters “EARTH HOUR” and the time.
As I have done for the last several years, on the date in question and at the prescribed time, I go around the house and turn every dam light on, I make sure the TV is on and I turn on all 5 or 6 clock radios. I then jump in my truck (I call her the CO2 generator) and I go out on the town, stop in at the local coffee shop, order a coffee to go and then I cruise around for the full hour before returning home and setting everything back to normal.
This is my request and challenge to all of you out there to please act in a similar fashion as I will, to ensure that CO2 levels do go up and I also like to think this is my way of helping the power utility company combat the supposed drop in power consumption for this ‘silly hour’.
http://www.wwf.ca/events/earthhour/
As far as the caption ‘what will you be thinking when it goes dark’. I actually laughed at this caption. Every now and then the power does go out and I remember last winter when our sub-station blew a transformer (I think this is the correct terminology), and we were without power for about 4-hours in the evening (northern latitude) and never mind that it was cold (winter).
I remember sitting around with my 2-coal oil burning lamps on full blast and after about 15-minutes stating to my wife my displeasure in no uncertain terms of not being able to do anything (couldn’t finish cooking my supper, couldn’t watch TV, couldn’t go on the computer, couldn’t really read a book, couldn’t, couldn’t, couldn’t, couldn’t, et cetera).
My wife and I finally decided to go out for a bite to eat and low and behold my garage door opener didn’t work…aw sh*t!!! I most certainly exclaimed. It took me about 5-minutes to figure out how you can manually open a garage door and believe you me, even though they are balanced or whatever, they are heavy to lift.
So what do I think when it goes dark? I thank my lucky stars that I was born in a time when technology has advanced to the point where I have light when I want light, I have heat when I want heat, I have cool when I want cool, I can refrigerate my food so that it doesn’t spoil, I don’t need a stick to rub so that I can ignite the kindling to make a fire so that I can cook my food, if I get sick I’m pretty sure that there will be a medication that will help me through, I don’t have to walk 800 kilometers or take a horse to go visit my brother (I can get there with my CO2 generator in 8-hours). I’m sure the list can go on and on and on!
Thankfully, with cheap energy and because of cheap energy, we are able to produce all of these wonderful things that we use in our everyday lives.
I WANT TO THANK ALL WHO HAVE BEEN, CURRENTLY ARE AND WILL BE IN THE FUTURE, THE CREATORS OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES.
Without these advancements, we probably wouldn’t know any better and as a result would be in a state of bliss knowing that we have a spear with which to hunt, we’d love that raw steak if we couldn’t get a fire going, we’d have a great cave to live in (a little drafty but livable) and we’d live to a ripe old age of 32 or so. We would actually think we had great lives, short but great.
This is the world that ‘the communists, socialists, greenies, liberals and progressives’ would like to create, except that they would live in the castles where serfs are not allowed except as servants.
That’s my rant!
442
My opinion of the WWF would get me in trouble if I posted on a public blog.
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84752
90
Nice. I live in a flat share in which I rent one room and the only things that use electricity are the light and the laptop, both of which are off when I am out because I don’t like wasting money. I travel by train or bus because a car in Sydney is too much trouble. I have a background in physics and, equally importantly, common sense. I am of course a skeptic.
My flatmates on the other hand are modern inner city left of centre urban dwellers. Lights, TV fans aircons etc are on 24/7. The ONLY form of transport is the car. They are wealthy enough to take at least one major overseas trip each a year. They are convinced that the ABC, the ALP and the various self proclaimed ‘experts’ would never lie and that we are all in danger of CAGW.
When Earth Day arrives it will be interesting to see what happens. I suspect that they may not even know it is on. Assuming they neglect it there will certainly be very little that I can do to celebrate Human Achievement Hour because pretty much everything that can be turned on in the house is already on 24/7.
Perhaps I will suggest that we observe ‘Earth Hour’ and turn off all the lights (just watch TV in the dark). Any ideas?
110
Let your laptop run on battery beforehand and plug it in to charge when URF-OUR is on.
You will use no more power but you will concentrate the use into the period of the urf-our.
40
Get yourself organised first and then without telling them just go and go throw the switch in the power box for your flat if thats possible.
If they kick up a fuss perhaps suggest that you go 24 hours without power just to experience what the [ left wing ] do-gooders want the third worlders to continue to endure in the course of saving the planet while all-the-while they themselves continue to enjoy the good life.
Thats a suggestion only as I would guess that your internal domestic politics with your flat mates would probably make it an unacceptable course of action.
50
I LOVE the idea…. but I still have to live with them the rest of the year. 😉
20
Peter
The other thing to do is to turn the power OFF one hour before earth hour, go like stink for the entirety of “earth hour”, then turn it off again. It’s a little bit like the alarmists “adjusting” (downwards, surprise surprise) the temperatures they don’t like in the past (the 1930’s, for instance).
If we all do this, then we get a nice flat line for the power consumption. It’s mean, small minded and nasty, but anything that cheeses off the greenies can’t be all bad!
Cheers,
Speedy
122
There is a lot of discussion and real fear of exactly that, the lights going dark. I can’t speak for the rest of the world but it’s becoming a big topic here in the U.S. The fear, however, is over sabotage, not generators stopping because of government regulation or lack of fuel.
The possible causes range from a huge EM pulse generated by a nuclear bomb detonated high overhead to the recent episode where a bunch of (thugs, terrorists, other: take your pick) had 20 uninterrupted minutes in which they fired away at the insulators on the transformers at a major power substation, doing damage that took the facility out, taking down everything downline from it as well. The Internet is also now so intertwined with control of the grid that cyber attack is also a big threat. Or so we’re told.
I’m having some trouble separating the fear from the real. For instance: Given the rate at which energy dissipates as it spreads out from its source I’m wondering if any kind of EM pulse weapon could do damage over a very wide area. A nuclear bomb anywhere near enough for that kind of damage would devastate everything around from the heat and the blast.
And it’s not very easy to hack into anything that has been properly secured on the internet either. So the physical attack on a major substation or generating plant seems like the real threat. That one possibility does scare me. Physical security of a network that has hundreds of thousands of miles of power lines and isolated substations is never going to be good.
Nuts to Earth hour. Let’s talk about our real problem. I’m not even sure how bad it really is, much less how we can improve the situation.
If anyone wants to comment I’m all ears (actually eyes). If you have any real insight on EM pulses as a weapon I’m especially interested.
50
They are reputedly easy to build -an explosive inside a coiled conductor carefully wound so it increases in diameter along the length. Yet they are not widely report as being used. This leads to the suspicion that they are not actually effective.
30
Roy Hogue
March 2, 2014 at 2:27 am
Roy this is from Wiki but ties in with some reading I have done previously on EMP effects.
The effects of a nuclear generated Electro Magnetic Pulse [ EMP ] is limited to line of sight so to be effective over a wide region, the nuclear blast must occur at high altitude, something the Americans carried out at least 5 times and the Russians a couple of times as have the British and no doubt the French as well. In fact for the explosion to be fully effective it has to be at satellite orbit heights where the physical blast effects are very low and limited to areas directly under the blast position
Nuclear electromagnetic pulse
Quoted from Wiki;
History
The fact that an electromagnetic pulse is produced by a nuclear explosion was known in the earliest days of nuclear weapons testing. The magnitude of the EMP and the significance of its effects, however, were not immediately realized.[1]
During the first United States nuclear test on 16 July 1945, electronic equipment was shielded due to Enrico Fermi’s expectation of the electromagnetic pulse. The official technical history for that first nuclear test states, “All signal lines were completely shielded, in many cases doubly shielded. In spite of this many records were lost because of spurious pickup at the time of the explosion that paralyzed the recording equipment.”[2] During British nuclear testing in 1952–1953 instrumentation failures were attributed to “radioflash”, which was their term for EMP.[3][4]
The first openly reported observation of the unique aspects of high-altitude nuclear EMP occurred during the helium balloon lofted Yucca nuclear test of the Hardtack I series on 28 April 1958. In that test, the electric field measurements from the 1.7 kiloton weapon went off the scale of the test instruments and was estimated to be about 5 times the oscilloscope limits. The Yucca EMP was initially positive-going whereas low-altitude bursts were negative pulses. Also, the polarization of the Yucca EMP signal was horizontal, whereas low-altitude nuclear EMP was vertically polarized. In spite of these many differences, the unique EMP results were dismissed as a possible wave propagation anomaly.[5]
The high-altitude nuclear tests of 1962, as discussed below, confirmed the unique results of the Yucca high-altitude test and increased the awareness of high-altitude nuclear EMP beyond the original group of defense scientists.
The larger scientific community became aware of the significance of the EMP problem after a three-article series on nuclear EMP was published in 1981 by William J. Broad in Science.[
[ end of quote]
_____________
If anybody is interested in the very destructive future warfare weapons with effects covering a vast scale then this is some quite compulsive reading and is a damn good reason to do everything possible to prevent the outbreak of another global conflict which would likely set civilisation back a couple of hundred years. .
From Wiki again
The main American high altitude Nuclear EMP experiment was StarFish Prime in Operation FishBowl
[quoted ]
The Thor missile carrying the Starfish Prime warhead reached a maximum height of about 1100 km (just over 680 miles), and the warhead detonated on its downward trajectory when it had fallen to the programmed altitude of 400 kilometres (250 mi). The nuclear warhead detonated 13 minutes and 41 seconds after liftoff of the Thor missile from Johnston Island.[6]
Starfish Prime caused an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) which was far larger than expected, so much larger that it drove much of the instrumentation off scale, causing great difficulty in getting accurate measurements. The Starfish Prime electromagnetic pulse also made those effects known to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 1,445 kilometres (898 mi) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights, setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company microwave link. The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian islands.[5]
&
At Kwajalein, 1,400 [nautical] miles [2,600 km; 1,600 mi] to the west, a dense overcast extended the length of the eastern horizon to a height of 5 or 8 degrees. At 0900 GMT a brilliant white flash burned through the clouds rapidly changing to an expanding green ball of irradiance extending into the clear sky above the overcast. From its surface extruded great white fingers, resembling cirro-stratus clouds, which rose to 40 degrees above the horizon in sweeping arcs turning downward toward the poles and disappearing in seconds to be replaced by spectacular concentric cirrus like rings moving out from the blast at tremendous initial velocity, finally stopping when the outermost ring was 50 degrees overhead. They did not disappear but persisted in a state of frozen stillness. All this occurred, I would judge, within 45 seconds. As the greenish light turned to purple and began to fade at the point of burst, a bright red glow began to develop on the horizon at a direction 50 degrees north of east and simultaneously 50 degrees south of east expanding inward and upward until the whole eastern sky was a dull burning red semicircle 100 degrees north to south and halfway to the zenith obliterating some of the lesser stars. This condition, interspersed with tremendous white rainbows, persisted no less than seven minutes.”
[ end ]
21
ROM,
Thanks for that info. It will take me some patient reading to digest it all and so I won’t finish for maybe several days. In retirement there seems to be more demands on my time than ever.
30
Roy Hogue
“In retirement there seems to be more demands on my time than ever.”
I know the feeling Roy 🙂
10
Lets consider the purpose of Earth Hour. Why is it there, and what does it do?
One of the problems faced by the marketing promotion industry, is in measuring the success or otherwise of a campaign.
With products, it is easy, because you can (hopefully) see an up-tick in sales. But with something that is intangible, like changing attitudes about climate change, it is not so easy.
So what they do, is to get the population to collectively participate in an “experiment”, that can (hopefully) show a down-tick in electricity consumption.
As Tony will no doubt attest, this doesn’t work particularly well, because the vast majority of electricity consumption is stuff that you can’t turn off at all. But there will be, they hope, a measurable, if tiny, change to consumption during earth hour.
If they compare that change, to the one last year, and the year before that, they can start to define a trend that measures shifting population attitudes, and thus how effective their activities have been.
Such a demonstration of their effectiveness, if positive, keep the promotional funding coming in, and if negative, indicates that more resources are required in order to push the message harder.
It is a manifestation of the bottom-feeders doing what they do best.
150
No criticism intended, Rereke — but I already knew that. I’d call it plain old fear mongering. I wouldn’t give it any more attention than I give to Earth Day, except to laugh at some of the assertions it brings up.
We do have real problems however, serious vulnerabilities that our enemies are already attacking. We need to be paying attention to those things, not Earth Hour.
We have already seen a rather simple failure spread to much of the northeast United States, including New York City that lasted several days. A lot of people took good advantage of it because there was an uptick in births nine months later. So we can laugh at ourselves over that. But can we laugh over all of Los Angeles going dark for weeks or months? There is a single choke point where a number of power lines come into a single distribution station and if that distribution station went down from say, an explosive laden airplane crashed into it by someone hell bent on getting his 70 virgins, I shudder to think of the consequences because LA would be down for a long time. You don’t repair those big transformers, you replace them. And they are expensive so there are no large reserves at hand. And worse, I’ve been told (can’t verify it) that they’re bought from European manufacturers.
We already have seen from the New York episode that failure on the grid somewhere can cascade rapidly over other parts that were not directly affected as automatic responses kick in and try to transfer the load to other sources. Bingo! Massive overload.
And none of our infrastructure was designed to handle a situation like this by isolating what is still working from what’s failing so as to minimize the damage. At least not as far as I can see.
Again, please comment if you know something I don’t because getting serious about this is a new thing to me.
20
Roy,
What you describe is the engineering principle of ‘resilience’. The system should be designed to withstand the failure of any single component.
To achieve that, you design for ‘redundancy’ where every path through a network has an alternate path that is capable of carrying the load of both, and any distribution center can be taken off line, with its load being switched to other distribution centers. A typical design would be the star-ring model, where you may have a single point (the center of the star) that acts as the main distribution point, with one or more rings of network connections that can be switched together to bypass the main distribution point, for servicing, or in times of failure or attack.
Of course this is all theory – it just so happens that I am a member of the IEEE, but have never actually held a practicing certificate. But I do know that all of the electrical generation and distribution network does require maintenance from time to time. The fact that you have never noticed when the main distribution point is maintained, indicates that the network probably has resilience designed in.
The problems in the East Coast, and at Chernobyl, both seem to have come down to operator error. In the first case, somebody panicked and threw the wrong switches, and in the second case, a supervisor went strictly by the book, even though the book did not envision the problems they were dealing with.
But none of this is to do with the exercise known as Earth Day, which is solely designed to assess the propaganda penetration index of the green message.
40
I understand resilience. But the particular place I noted above has power lines coming in from at least 4 different places. You drive under all of them heading north on Interstate 5 out of Los Angeles. I’m sure that if one of those must be taken offline the system will withstand it. But destruction of the whole substation is a disaster.
The concentration of so much of the system’s capacity in that one place happened long before terrorism became a threat. It was certainly a matter of convenience and cost to co locate all that infrastructure because all the power lines come in from the same general northeast direction. But now it’s a huge vulnerability.
Interestingly, one of those lines is relatively new and it’s a two cable DC system. It probably handles as much power as one of the older three phase systems on those two cables because there’s no surface effect. Nice technology.
00
Nice ideas for neutralising Earth Hour guys, but you don’t need to. If there was anything less effective than the effect of CO2 on climate it has to be the dent that Earth Hour (doesn’t ) make on the power grids.
I understand it to becimperceptible. All hot air shall we say .
40
I’ve got an idea, ‘Humanity Hour’ when we celebrate the progress of mankind by powering up everything connected to the grid.
The possibilities of led and laser displays and the old faithful array of 1,000 watt floodlights are endless. Could be bigger than Christmas!
Well…better than sitting in the dark, isn’t it?
30
Good thinking, more of us should do that to help stabilse the grid that the Earth Hour people are trrying to irresponsibly destabilse for that hour.
20
When it comes to loss of power at home a generator that supplies the minimum needed to sustain vital functions of the home is the best answer.
Portable gasoline generators are not that expensive and can make a huge difference. I have my natural gas furnace rigged to use power from my generator. I can run my furnace, fridge/freezer, a couple lights and TV with the power. My submersible pump for my well is 220 and I have to unplug everything but the furnace to run it but since we use a water cooler I only need the pump for flushing toilets and such.
Every fall I check my set up out for serviceability and make sure to have 15 gallons of new gasoline with fuel stabilizer in it on hand. Come spring that fuel is used to run my mowers.
It really is worth the cost and effort. Since 2001 when we bought this home and moved in we have lost power twice for periods of several days due to ice storms. Eventually I will buy one of those whole house on demand units that can be run off natural gas or diesel fuel.
60
Sounds solid, but gasoline is risky stuff. Now a small thermonuclear generator is virtually harmless when turned off. I would like to see every home fitted with one, or two to allow for the occasional core meltdown by inexperienced operators. Sure would keep the greenies out of our neighbourhood.
30
I do hope you’re kidding. 🙂
Small doesn’t equal foolproof and therefore doesn’t equal safe either.
21
RAH look at some of the smaller Diesel generators that are super quiet, I used one recently at work running an arc welder for 8 hours at 100-120 amps and it was the size of a suitcase, the best part was how quiet it was (60db @ 3m) but the power output never faltered during operation (about 3kva I think) I was impressed as a continuous droning noise drives me crazy, that’s probably why I switch off when warmists start talking. 😉
No matter how great humans are at inventing useful things to better our lives there will always be self serving idiots trying to repress such efforts, that is Earth Hour in a nutshell with emphasis on “Nuts”.
100
Steve Goddard is thinking this might be a hot summer, based upon how this winter has shaped up compared to 1936 winter. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
Also, if I may: It appears things are going to stay colder than usual, right into spring. Any thoughts on a potentially busy tornado season, due to this?
20
We don’t get many tornados down under, mate …
Crocodiles ate ’em all …
100
We do get tornados down under, bro. One of them took our neighbors barn, half of his chooks, and most of his avocado crop. At least, that is what my cussies told the cops. 😉
100
Was the avocado crop eerily similar to a tomato plant?
30
Probably but with a distinct absence of the sort of round red thingies that usually hang on tomato plants.
🙂
30
We get them. When we had two a year ago near Yarawonga, I read a comment along the lines of “I’m 74 years old and I had never heard of a tornado in Victoria before in my life. It must be GW”.
I lived through one when I was a kid so I thought that I would check up on this. There is a list on Wikipedia of these storms (not everything on there is BS). My storm wasn’t actually considered a tornado but a mini cyclone so it wasn’t on the list.
In 1976, two people died when there parked car was blown 100m by a tornado. About 120 years ago, Nhill was completely destroyed and about 100 years ago, Brighton, a suburb of Melbourne had serious damage from a F3 tornado.
There was also one near Sydney about 40 years ago that sent a tractor in a national park flying for 200m, so we get pretty big ones.
50
We get tornadoes alright’ There is a type of tornado alley to the north of the Wimmera town of Dimboola that runs west to east through two locations called Arkona and Katyil.
They get tornadoes every few years through there and they do some real damage.
My brother had a tornado a few years ago which went through a heavy 90 acre sized patch of timber he keeps as a nature reserve right along side of the Western Highway at Dimboola.
It dipped in and out of the timber a couple of times and where it dipped into the heavy gum timber, trees a foot or more through were twisted off and smashed up let alone the very big branches stripped from the larger trees.
Missed his home by about 200 metres.
He had firewood for another couple of years after that
30
‘…based upon how this winter has shaped up compared to 1936 winter. Anyone have any thoughts on that?’
Its hard to know, depends on many factors so I wouldn’t like to hazard a guess, but its certain CO2 has no part to play and natural cycles are dominant.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/february-1934-lake-ontario-froze-over/
10
The Great lakes froze again 60 years later, in the early 1990s, so what is happening now is possibly an anomaly. Perhaps its a precursor to a mini ice age.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/greatlakes_amo_2014050_lrg_0.jpg
20
On further inspection it now appears the 20 year cycle is the new norm.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/february-1979-all-five-great-lakes-frozen-over/
20
Wind Industry Study: Electricity Prices Skyrocketing In Largest Wind Power States
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/02/27/wind-industry-study-electricity-prices-skyrocketing-in-largest-wind-power-states/
A newly published paper by the American Wind Energy Association illustrates that electricity prices are rising more than four times the national average in nine of the 11 states with the most wind power consumption. In Texas, the only one of the 11 states with significantly declining electricity prices, deregulation rather than wind power is causing the decline in electricity prices. The findings are a huge blow to advocates of renewable power mandates and wind power subsidies…
…AWEA Shoots Self in Foot
In its attempt to rebut the common-sense, objectively documented fact that forcing people to purchase electricity from expensive sources raises electricity prices, AWEA merely shot itself in the foot regarding its bogus economic claims. AWEA also put state legislators on notice to be very careful regarding any self-serving claims AWEA might present in the future. Thank you for making my point for me, AWEA!
60
Just a bit of alarm of a different nature at 3 AM. Has WWIII started in the Crimea?
20
Not in my opinion. Obama of course, is talking big threats but he’ll deliver nothing but hot air. He’s not willing to take on Russia, he and Putin are bosom buddies. And in case no one noticed, Europe is the place with the real vested interest in Crimea. And where are they and what could they actually do if they had the nerve? I think not much. There’s all that Russian oil at stake and they’ll keep that foremost in their considerations. So as much as I wish I could swat down Putin and as much as I side with the rebels, I’m going to sit back and watch.
I think we’re looking at another Hungary in, what was it, the late 1950s. A great tragedy but hardly WWIII.
So we’ll see meaningless boycotts (already threatened by Obama), threats of all sorts, a lot of hot air and arm waving but Russia will keep exactly what it wants to keep.
70
And where is the UN, that wonderful organization of nations supposedly ready, willing and able to prevent just such problems as this?
70
Too busy in Africa.
Speaking of Africa, here is the latest in energy news. All Africa is a good source to see what else is going on there.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201402281596.html?aa_source=mf-hdlns
20
Working on a carbon tax. I was about to expound on the current issues (Ukraine/Georgia/MENA/CAR/China/Middle-East and Indonesia) but digress as even with intelligent people, religious ideologies and propaganda seem to unfortunately supersede reason. Follow the financials and you will see what I mean. IMHO, the UN et.al. caused global warming, The IMF caused financial issues and their solutions are symptomatic of giving economic cyanide to a patient that has a common cold. They (failed administrations) need an excuse to distract from the real issues at hand and it couldn’t be more obvious. Just tune in and the psychological blame game begins.
Just remember those who are at fault are doing the blaming.
40
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-01/greatest-propaganda-coup-our-time
20
MUST READ
Syria’s Chemical Weapons Stockpiles to be Transferred to the Italian Mafia?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syrias-chemical-weapons-stockpiles-to-be-transferred-to-the-italian-mafia/5369399
Does the disposal of Syria’s chemical weapons by the two selected waste disposal companies, namely Finland’s Ekokem and France’s Veolia require a contractual arrangement (or “agreement”) with Italy’s most powerful criminal syndicate on behalf of the Nobel Peace Prize winning Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)?
Read down. Its a long saga…
On September 12, last year, Syria’s President al-Assad committed to surrender Syria’s chemical weapons, with the caveats that the United States must stop threatening his country and supplying weapons to the terrorists. He has been as good as his word. The same cannot be said for the US and its boot licking allies.
Three days earlier US Secretary of State John Kerry – who had been killing Vietnamese in the US onslaught on Vietnam as American ‘planes rained down 388,000 tons of chemical weapons on the Vietnamese people (i) – had threatened Syria with a military strike if the weapons stocks were not surrendered within a week, stating that President Assad: “isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done.”…
All in all, why was Albania considered?
It is surely coincidence that on 3rd October last year, Tony “dodgy Iraq dossier” Blair, also an enthusiastic backer of Washington and NATO in their Balkans blitz, was appointed as advisor to the Albanian government to advise the impoverished country how to get in to the EU. Heaven forbid he might have advised that taking on lethal weapons no one else was prepared to touch, might tick quite a big approval box and made a call to someone somewhere in Washington. This is of course, entirely speculation.
However, as Pravda TV opined at the time, apart from the sorely needed financial boost: “It will increase the status and prestige of a poor country in Europe, Albania is in Europe’s backyard, in this case it will be going foreground.”(iv)
Belgium and France also Decline: “There Remain very few Candidates” for the Task; “the Hunt Continues”
Belgium and France also declined an invitation to dispose of Syria’s weapons, with Ralph Trapp, a consultant in disarming chemical weapons quoted as saying that “there remain very few candidates” for the task; “the hunt continues” commented The Telegraph (18th November 2013.)
The trail goes cold as to how many other governments may have been frantically begged to accept cargo loads of poisoned chalices as the US imposed clock ticked, but Italy caved in allowing around sixty containers to be transferred from a Danish cargo ship to a US ship in the Italian port of Giola Tauro, in Calabria, with further consignments also expected to arrive.
The permission caused widespread demonstrations in Southern Italy, the government accused of secrecy and one demonstrator summing up the prevailing mood:
“They are telling us that the material carried is not dangerous, but in fact nobody knows what is inside those containers.”
Not dangerous eh? Does any government, anywhere ever tell the truth?
Italy Says Yes. Not Dangerous. Send the WMD to Calabria. It will Help the Local Economy, But Watch Out for the Calabrese Mafia
The Giola Tauro port (right), which accounts for half the Calabria region’s economy “has been in crisis since 2011”, with four hundred workers on temporary redundancies- out of a total workforce of thirteen hundred. Not too hard to arm twist, the cynic might think.
The port also suffers from allegations of being a:
“ major hub for cocaine shipments to Europe by the Calabria-based ‘Ndrangheta mafia.” However, Domenico Bagala, head of the Medcenter/Contship terminal where the operation is planned countered with: “Since Gioia Tauro handles around a third of the containers arriving in Italy, it is normal that it has more containers that are seized”, adding: “We operate in a difficult territory but we have hi-tech security measures in place.”
Calabria is, in fact, plagued by corruption and organized crime. A classified cable from J. Patrick Truhn, US Consul General in Naples (2nd February 2008) obtained by Wikileaks stated:
“If it were not part of Italy, Calabria would be a failed state. The ‘Ndrangheta organized crime syndicate controls vast portions of its territory and economy, and accounts for at least three percent of Italy’s GDP (probably much more) through drug trafficking, extortion and usury.” Further: “During a November 17-20 visit to all five provinces, virtually every interlocutor painted a picture of a region …throttled by the iron grip of Western Europe’s largest and most powerful organized crime syndicate, the ‘Ndrangheta.”(v)
Moreover:“The ‘Ndrangheta is the most powerful criminal organization in the world with a revenue that stands at around fifty three billion Euros (seventy two billion U.S. dollars – forty four billion British pounds)” records Wikipedia, noting operations in nine countries, on four continents. Arguably, a less ideal transit point than Calabria for a stockpile of chemical weapons would be hard to find.
Of special concern to Carmelo Cozza of the SUL trade union is the port’s neighbouring village of San Ferdinando which has protested the operation: “The schools are right next door!”(vi)
However, when it comes to dodgy dealings, organized crime could seemingly learn a thing or two from the EU. Large amounts of Syria’s financial assets, frozen by the European Union, have simply been spirited from accounts, in what the Syrian Foreign Ministry slams as: “a flagrant violation of law.”
Last week the EU endorsed the raiding of Syria’s financial assets frozen across Europe and the the transfer of funds to
“ … the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) … a flagrant violation of the international law and the UN Charter and understandings reached by the executive board of the OPCW”, commented a Foreign Ministry source, adding: “the European step violates the resolution of the OPCW executive board adopted on 15thNovember 2013 which acknowledged Syria’s stance which was conveyed to the Organization, officially stating the inability to shoulder the financial costs of destroying the chemical weapons.”
The theft of Syria’s moneys was condemned as a: “swindle policy practiced by some influential countries inside the EU at a time when they reject to release frozen assets to fund purchase of food and medicine which is considered the priority of the Syrian state … (meanwhile) the EU allowed its members to arm the terrorist groups which are responsible for bloodshed in Syria … ” the source added.”(vi) It is hard to disagree.
The EU/UN/OPCW has apparently learned well from the UN weapons inspectors and other UN benefits from the Iraq embargo, which bled the country dry from “frozen” assets, to which they helped themselves, as the children died at an average of six thousand a month year after year, from “embargo related causes.” As the UN spent Iraq’s moneys, Iraq’s water became a biological weapon, the lights went off and medical and educational facilities largely collapsed. Are UN embargoes the UN’s shameful new money spinner?
So, can things get worse in the black farce which is the chaotic, dangerous, disorganised disposal attempts of Syria’s chemical materials? You bet they can.
The companies selected to destroy the chemicals are Finland’s Ekokem and the US subsidiary of the French giant Veolia.
———
More info here:
http://dailybail.com/home/the-mafia-is-moving-into-green-energy.html
More to come….
20
Damn Saddam’s chemical weapons get around don’t they.
20
Any boycotts will be meaningless. The biggest way to hit Russia would be with its oil and gas exports. That is not going to happen.
40
And stopping the flow of Russian oil would hurt eastern Europe, evidently quite badly.
20
Russian oil and gas, both
And not just eastern Europe … Germany is now way dependent on oil and gas imported from Russia
Russia and Ukraine have a many centuries old history of both troubled conflict and co-operation. Russia has been invaded quite a few times over history (Napoleon, Hitler are two obvious and appallingly bloody times) so Russians are very nervous of disruption on their borders. They do NOT want NATO sites on their borders any more than the US wants opposing military sites in Cuba
Ukraine tumbling into increasing civil conflict is a real possibility. That would be Putin’s excuse for sending troops into Crimea
Please note: this is not to side one way or the other. Just real-politick
30
And accurate too!
20
Not really a big deal to be honest. The Crimea used to be Russian and the majority of the population are Russian so I don’t see a problem. What happens to the rest of the country is more important.
40
Keith,
It would appear so, however, just like a lot of things, it’s more complicated than that. The natives of crimea were, I think, the crimean tatars. Joe stalin exiled them to other parts of the soviet union in 1944. about 24%(?) of the crimean population are crimean tatars who returned after the fall of the soviet union.
They don’t seem to like the russians much, and the russians don’t seem to like them either.
20
Obama sounding off in Putins general direction is more likely to provoke an. action than anything else, is what I was thinking. Then it happened. Sorry about that.
20
Update on Crimea:
Just this morning I received information that Obama is buying Russian helicopters for the Afghan air force to the tune of $700 million. I would need to verify this before counting on it but I think it entirely possible and it demonstrates why Obama will not do more than bluster. Why would he risk ticking off his bosom buddy and stop the deal for the choppers.
———————————————
It seems likely that any military hardware we leave to the Afghans after we pull out would soon end up in Taliban hands or worse. But why should Obama care?
We have an empty suit in the White House.
Putin must be roaring with laughter.
00
No WW III has not started, nor is it likely to.
Current projections are that Russia will annex the Crimea, as it has to do, in order to protect its influence in the Black Sea. It will also annex the Eastern, Russian speaking, parts of Ukraine itself.
There will be no intervention by NATO, nor by the US acting unilaterally, because there is insufficient logistic infrastructure in place, to make that feasible. Also, Obama does not have the stomach for any conflict.
We may however, see considerable rhetoric and hand-wringing from the EU. Firstly, because it is highly dependent upon Russian oil and gas, and secondly, because it will have to ultimately front up with bailout funding for the Western rump of the Ukraine.
70
I must admit, it was a wise man who once said, “Never make predictions, especially about the future.”
Nevertheless, being aware of this prediction made in 2011 in Pravda of all media, makes the hair on the back of my head stand up somewhat.
40
Good advice. But may I predict the past? 😉
According to reports late yesterday (PDT U.S.) Russia went on into Ukraine and has taken over.
I expect this was held off until after the Olympics in order to keep down the fear factor for those planning to attend from around the world. But the kidd gloves came off as soon as the games were over and the brass knuckles went on.
Would that Obama had even half of Putin’s devotion to his country’s interests.
30
I expect you’ve all heard that news by now. But I couldn’t resist. Bad character flaw I suppose.
30
Hi Rereke,
What are your thoughts regarding the budapest declaration? Not worth the paper it’s written on? I know it’s not a treaty, but I can’t see the ukrainians ever forgiving the west for enabling putins invasion.
Is there any obligation on the UK or the US to support the ukraine?
What if the Ukraine had managed to hang onto a few nukes? There were noises in the ukraine about pulling out off the NPT when russia was strong-arming them over gas supplies (which was a breach of the budapest declaration).
20
Every time anybody in Europe organizes a conference or seminar, that actually manages to agree something, they publish a “declaration”.
And given that Budapest is a beautiful city, with good hotels, and fine restaurants, there tends to be a lot of Budapest Declarations. Which one did you have in mind?
30
Everyone seems to forget Crimea was part of Russia until Kruschev ‘gave’ it to the Ukraine during the Soviet era..
Most of the people in Crimea would naturally support Russia,
Russia’ does not have to go to war to win in the Ukraine, it just needs to turn off the gas.
What better advertisement could be given for fracking in Europe to offset dependence on Russia’s Gazprom gas supplies.
40
I am now having to try and remember my East European history.
The Crimean peninsular was an integral part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, with a land border with Russia until it was annexed by Russia in 1783. The Crimean War of 1853-1856, saw the Turks, with the aid of the British and French, attempt to take the peninsular back again. This was part of the French and British response to what they saw as a very expansionist Russia.
After the 1917 revolution, Crimea became part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR), this included the previous countries of Crimea, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia itself, and was the largest Republic within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
The population of Crimea, was predominantly Tartar, and had little in common with the Russians. Consequently, they tried to align themselves with the German Nazis. After the war ended, Stalin packed the whole Tartar population off to Central Asia, by way of punishment, replacing them with ethnic Russians.
In 1954, Nikita Khrushchev, split the the Ukraine and Crimea away from the old RSFSR, and in so doing, made Crimea an autonomous administrative area within the Ukraine.
And that is where things sat, until the collapse of the USSR, and the various countries emerged out from under the socialist system.
And so they would have remained, had Ukraine not approached the EU for membership. Ukraine sits across several critical supply routes between the oil and gas fields in the East, and Europe in the West, and is therefore of tremendous strategic importance. Also to have the Ukraine closer aligned with Europe, would effectively surround the important Naval Base at Sevastopol, from the landward side. Given the strategic importance of the Black Sea, both for Russia, and for East West trade, this is something that the Kremlin could not allow.
So Putin has used the Russians in Crimea to create problems for the Ukraine government, and thus given himself an excuse to Annex Crimea (and the Eastern, Russian speaking, part of Ukraine), “to protect Russian nationals”. This is the same reason that was given in the occupation of Georgia.
If Ukraine does go it alone with Europe, it will be a much diminished Ukraine.
30
Putin has Crimea. He moved swiftly to get control and safeguard the Black Sea Fleet base.
He might go for all of the Ukraine but I doubt it. The Ukraine is split in 2, and the Ukrainians aren’t that keen on the Russians. After WW2 it took the Russians 3 years and a number of divisions to stamp out armed resistance to their
re-occupation. I doubt that Moscow has forgotten.
SEE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/01/24/this-is-the-one-map-you-need-to-understand-ukraines-crisis/
Putin will settle for Crimea and the eastern part of the Ukraine (which includes the Black Sea coast, leaving the rest landlocked). What will stop him? The EU won’t get around to making a decision before it is all over, and needs russian gas and oil. Obama is irrational and when pushed irresolute, and with the USA really having no interest in the area, he won’t get much domestic backing if he wants to imitate Napoleon.
20
And right on cue, the Russian flag is raised in Kharkiv.
20
And right on cue, the Russian flag is raised in Kharkiv.
(sorry, this is a better link)
10
That does seem to be the picture that is emerging.
Or in less words, this.
Trying to piece together what is happening in Ukraine is tricky with all the propaganda flying around.
The USA has no obvious material vested interest in any part of the Ukraine, yet their President starts making threats over Russia’s aims of a troop occupation. Smells like the USA is financing the EuroMaydan uprising, probably via the Svoboda (“Freedom”) group. (Surely there can hardly be a rebellion in any country today that isn’t operationally supported by the CIA, since it is what they were founded to do.) The USA State Department’s ostensible interest in Ukraine goes back many years at least on the level of rhetoric, possibly on the level of opportunistically eroding Russia’s sympathetic buffer zone. Perhaps in the coming days we will see how much further than rhetoric was the USA’s support.
On the opposite side, there is suspicion that a small group of “masked” men who broke away from the main group of “peaceful” protesters on 1 December and then became violent against police were possibly goons secretly hired by Dmytro Korchinskiy, the leader of the Bratstvo organisation, as a false flag attack to give the Russians an excuse to intervene against EuroMaydan. It’s not impossible in this cloak-and-dagger world. Certainly a pro-western uprising would not want to give the Russians any excuse to intervene physically.
I have not yet got the impression that EuroMaydan were separatists; they probably thought the whole country would join an EU trading bloc without any “imperial entanglements”. Of course from the Russian and EuroSceptic point of view, joining the EU is an imperial entanglement of a different variety.
To increasing Russian anxiety, the Ukraine president had been talking about an EU deal for over three years, with a signature looking imminent two months ago. This is somewhat surprising for two reasons. First Yanukovych was Russia’s preferred candidate for president back in 2004. Secondly, opposing the Kremlin has historically been bad for your health. The Russians probably thought they had finally bought off Yanukovych in January with a 15 billion dollar swap of Russian energy and Ukraine government bonds. The shooting of 25 protesters on 18 February might have been a quid pro quo attempt to cut EuroMaydan’s strength down to ignorable proportions and test how iron-fisted Yanukovych could be.
It’s perhaps understandable that Russia are now upset their guy has suddenly been deposed on Friday and the credibility of previous deals may have gone with him.
The Kremlin are now saying that if anyone who speaks Russian in eastern Ukraine becomes a victim of political violence, then Russia will invade the entire country, not just annexing Crimea. In other news.. “Yanukovych’s remarks come against the backdrop of new tensions in Ukraine, including the takeover of an airport near Sevastopol in Ukraine Friday by unidentified armed men who may belong to the Russian military.”
Fun times ahead for those old foes CIA and SVR.
The worst part is, I have no way of knowing how much of what I’ve just told you is untrue.
I do like me a few rounds of “Jonovians solve the world’s problems.”
10
Or this, from the jrnyquist.com essay “The Hidden USSR”
“So let us fast-forward to the present: What has been happening in Ukraine? Who is on Moscow’s team in Kiev? Most of the parliament, for starters; Yulia Tymoshenko in particular; the heads of the security services and military, excepting all those who are secretly working with the Ukrainian underground. (To know that there is a powerful underground movement, with its own tentacles burrowed into Moscow, is not mere optimism.
It is the way of the world. The Ukrainians were Soviets, and as such they had access to the same game the Russians were playing on them. This must never be forgotten. One only has to think of Golitsyn’s work, or the work of Viktor Suvorov. Ukrainians have experience, access, and a motivation for playing the Russians at their own game. Consequently, understanding what is actually happening in Ukraine is a delicate and difficult challenge, requiring careful analysis and detailed knowledge.)
The Kremlin has many weapons, many agents, and many deceptions at its command. A former socialist country must, in itself, resemble a “wilderness of mirrors.” The Communists like to confuse the political process in every country. This also applies to Germany, part of which was also a “Communist Country” (i.e., the German Democratic Republic). If we hear that (the conservative) German Chancellor Angela Merkel is now eager to meet with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who has recently been let out of prison, we must first reckon with Merkel’s Communist past before we reckon with Tymoshenko’s role as Moscow’s little helper; for both women have a peculiar relationship to Moscow which extends far back in time.
A German journalist recently wrote to me about Merkel, saying that German intelligence attempted to warn the Christian Democrats that Merkel was “a dangerous person.” But the Christian Democrats didn’t listen, and now Germany is more dependent on Russian natural gas than ever before. As for the situation in Ukraine today, with the dramatic and apparent collapse of the Yanukovych government, I had the chance to speak with Ukrainian activist Boris Chykulay , who explained the situation as follows: “Instinctively people know that they fight against a hidden USSR. You can see this in all the cities now with the fall of so many Lenin monuments.””
21
Also in all of this there are oil resources to be had around the Crimean peninsula which Russia and the Ukraine have been arguing about how to divide up for several years. An annexed Crimea hands all local oil and gas reserves in that region to Russian control. The two Ukrainian North East territories which are predominantly Russian speaking will also likely vote themselves into Russia. The remaining Eastern territories are more evenly linguistically split, and it is those provinces that will provide the biggest headaches.
As for WW-III, some lunatics are proposing that Eastern European armies (possibly some Western presence, observers) be placed along the Western border of the Ukraine. That runs the risk of Russia deciding to take the whole of the Ukraine to provide a buffer (West Ukraine) to their “valid” Russian interests in East Ukraine. I sincerely hope that the idiots proposing the placement of armies along the Western border of the Ukraine wake up from their dreamland state and start thinking of the extended consequences of what will undoubtedly be viewed as Western aggressor provocation.
Otherwise WW3 will happen in about 70 years, it will be caused by a religion.
Awfully bad timing from my point of view, I had been considering a trip to the Crimean peninsula, may have to wait a few years.
00
Ms. Jo Nova: You need to write something about the flap about the ADL insult to Dr. Roy Spencer. See WUWT.
40
A good Sunday read around
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/3/1/the-global-warmist-plan.html
and the comments
20
From the Jenkins article. My addition in italics.
30
And another one
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/a-climate-of-deception-deceit-lies-and-outright-dishonesty/
30
Proof of Climate Change?
COLDEST WEATHER IN MEMORY. MOTOR CARS SNOWED UP. [Britain] [Jan.] SNOW IN MAY. Unusual Weather in England. [May]
GALE AND RAIN FLOODS IN GREAT BRITAIN
HEAT WAVE Extremes in India RECORD OF 124 DEGREES - PHENOMENAL WEATHER UNPRECEDENTED HEAT WAVE EXTRAORDINARY RAINFALL, Calcutta
INDIA UNDER FROST Record Low Temperatures Many Deaths from Pneumonia
WILD WEATHER Violent Duststorms Sydney
LIGHTNING, HAIL, BUSH FIRES WILD WEATHER REPORTED EXTREME HEAT THROUGHOUT STATE 113 DEGREES AT WHITE CLIFFS. WEATHER EXTREMES. COLD FOLLOWS HEAT WAVE. Hailstorm in Perth
DROUGHT IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA Critical Position
QUEENSLAND FLOODS. Bridges Still Under Water
Freak Weather:…….Niagara Freezes:
AMERICA’S WINTER 200 Deaths From Cold Frost Reaches Florida
WHEAT ESTIMATE IN U.S. REDUCED Effect Of Rust, Heat, And Drought
DROUGHT IN CANADA Grasshoppers Eat Rhubarb FARMERS SAD PLIGHT
HEAT WAVE. High Temperatures in New Zealand
EXTREMES IN WEATHER FOR SOUTH AFRICANS Heat Wave For Match Against..
2000 DEAD Cyclone and Floods in Honduras
OUR CHANGING CLIMATE Scientists Talk of Post…..[ Australia’s climate is bad,..]
CLIMATIC ECCENTRICITIES [… more or less of what is regarded as the normal…]
Sorry, these are from 1935. See NoTricksZone for more from JIMBO
100
And since this is an unthreaded weekend, may I ask what everyone here will regard as a stoopid question, because Joanne and everyone else maintains the climate change is real, and it’s natural.
What evidence exists that the “climate” has changed since 1800?
What is “climate” to you?
To me, “climate” is in reference to big stuff, like deserts where there were once fertile plains, lush pastures where there were once deserts, winter temperatures that are similar to previous summer temperatures. Such change has in fact occurred over the millennium. But a few tenths of a degree warmer or cooler, a few millimeters more or less sea level, is just negligible variation.
In the Spring 1890 my Grandfather walked about 100 miles Southwest of Winnipeg. He said that at times he was chest deep in water. Some might call that “climate change”. Since I put in some time working for the water control section of the Manitoba Dept of Agriculture, I know that the same would be the case today if it were not for a network of dikes and drainage channels.
I have an old text “The History of the World” printed in 1880 that discusses such changes in what is now the Middle East, South America, and Europe. There is very little about that which the book describes as the “current climate” that is different than today.
Apart from the asinine definition of “climate change” used by the IPCC, what do YOU consider to be of sufficient variance to warrant it being a “change in climate”? How has the climate of Australia changed since the establishment of Port Arthur? It seems to me that the red centre, the sub-tropics, and the habitable coasts were all in the same place. The climate in Tasmania is still the same as described by the Lieutenant Governor of Van Diemen’s Land.
80
For what it is worth, I always prepend the word “Political” to the phrase “Climate Change”. That makes it so much easier to understand.
30
Socialist Political Climate Change?
20
Simple answer, climate is a chaotic system influenced by a multitude of factors. In nature these factors combine to produce a dynamic system. As a dynamic and chaotic system it’s inherent characteristic is that it will and must be in a constant state of flux. The argument has never been about change, it has been about the rate of change, the cause and the action, if any, that we should take and what that action would achieve at what cost.
10
Rod Stuart:
It’s not a stupid question. What evidence of change is concentrated on the Northern Hemisphere.
It has undoubtedly got warmer in Europe. 1800 was in the Dalton minimum, the last of the cold periods in the last 1000 years.
Evidence of warming is strong when you look at glaciers. The Mont Blanc glacier was advanced in 1685 in retreat by 1745 and advanced again around 1815 (unreliable date from Wikipedia). Melting was evident from the 1850’s and very evident by 1869. It continued retreating into the 1880’s. Much the same applied to all middle latitude european glaciers, but not norwegian nor Icelandic ones. The latter, and alaskan ones, started melting in the early 1900’s about the time that newspapers started speculating about the coming Ice Age. There was much more melting in 1910-1940, and again since ~1955. It does seem to have slowed down recently. NOTE the recent ( post 2000) melting in the Alps e.g. Ützi body and opening up of alpine passes.
The problem is separating the ice from the b*llsh*t, especially on wikipedia. Firstly, we have no direct evidence that glaciers respond immediately to temperature changes. Secondly, the response world wide is not consistent and thirdly, they don’t show evidence of any strong warming since 1940 (trolls will go hysterical at this point).
You may remember David Bellamy being reviled in 2005 for saying that 90% of the glaciers weren’t melting. Only afterwards it turned out that until 2004 many glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere (Argentina, Chile, NZ) were expanding. So were the ones in Antarctica, and as someone pointed out – over 98% of all glaciers are in that continent.
Many maps are useless because of low resolution and missing early dates, or paywalled.
Those in
http://travelguide.all-about-switzerland.info/rhone-glacier-retreat-globalwarming.html
show the Rhone glacier and there are some in http://www.climate-skeptic.com/category/current-weather/page/2
(go down page to “How did Exxon…” (obviously a sceptical site). Quote from there “the recent retreat was matched in its vigour during a period of warming in the 1930s with comparable increases in air temperature. We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s, whereas marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming”.
I hope this is some help.
60
You nail the “cause”.
Climate change? Water wet.
3 miles of ice capping north america transitioning over centuries to now,remnants of a frozen forest on Axel Heiberg Island,at 78 degrees North, sure its climate change, so CC is real.
UN,IPCC, Climate Change(TM), however is something very different.
A political agenda, to rob the many of their freedom and property, cloaked in the illusion of science.
This climate change is whatever it needs to be to install fear in the populace, to stampede them into the pens.
When I consider the kind of vile mendacity required to orchestrate such a scheme, I keep thinking of the Israeli search teams who when to work after WW2.
10
Pielke jnr easily takes the Holdren dumb bum to the cleaners.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/01/white-house-science-adviser-attacks-roger-pieke-jr-for-his-senate-testimony-pielke-responds-with-a-skillfull-counterstrike/#more-104053
Here we find out that Holdren can’t even read and comprehend simple english. How can such a fool and fantasist be Obama’s chief science advisor?
What an embarrassment to USA scientific understanding this donkey has become. But don’t worry he’s only the chief science advisor to the most powerful leader on the planet. Geeeezzzz give me strength.
50
to the most powerful leader on the planet
Neville to be that person you actually have to lead. All jug ears is good at is drawing red lines. Thank goodness he wasn’t at Balaclava in 1854 when there was a real “thin red line” to be drawn.
When he does draw one he is already thinking about where the next one will be.
30
Light Bulb Experiments
Last year Anthony Watts and Curt Wilson published several experiments on his website, which purport to establish a phenomenon underlying the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/28/slaying-the-slayers-with-watts-part-2/
The principle at stake is that a light bulb, which is actively heated by an electric current, can be heated some more by the presence of another light bulb nearby, which is at the same temperature. Alternatively the light bulb is heated by reflection of its own light back on itself.
The Slayers say that it can not happen. Watts and Wilson insist that it can and demonstrate it with their experiments.
I think that Watts made an error in his experimental design and he is not measuring the effect that he thinks he is measuring. I have conducted a series of experiments in which this error is corrected and I found no warming effect at all.
Does anyone know how to create a PDF and post it to the web so I can put up details of my experiments?
40
download and install “CutePDF” or similar.
Then you can write up your experiment in basically any program, and print using CutePDF.
Once in PDF form , there are places you can put files to share just choose
20
You can save as .pdf from Open Office Writer
10
Peter C,
I am going to make a prediction that Anthony Watts’ response will be to put his fingers in his ears a chant “No slayer stuff, no slayer stuff, no slayer stuff”. He does that with anything that disputes his view on the “greenhouse gas” theory. It is his huge blind-spot. You can get the excellent reply from Joe Postma on the light bulb experiment here.
The steel sphere thought bubble that Willis Eschenbach put up is another example of this. He used two solid objects (a steel sphere and a shell), a vacuum and an internal power source as an analogy for a free-flowing gaseous planetary atmosphere with an external power source and a day/night cycle. What could go wrong? Apparently almost everything. You can start by looking here and then go on to here. Willis can do many things very well. Physics is not one of them.
40
Thanks all,
Truthseeker, I could not open your second reference on the Willis steel sphere greenhouse.
10
Peter,
Not sure what happened there. This is the link I meant to give you.
20
There’s several web-based file storage providers which offer free accounts.
Dropbox, Google Drive, box.sk, and plenty more. If you want to stick your two fingers up to the NSA you can try SpiderOak which encrypts all data before it leaves your computer.
So there’s several ways of hosting the file on the web.
In the meantime you could also take your experimental design to a blog where the author may decide to host the PDF on their site and hold a discussion about it. Tallbloke’s Talkshop usually has a small crowd eager to fuss over topics like this. I imagine Judith Curry and ScienceOfDoom would also give it a thorough treatment.
10
Vladimir Putin Decides to celebrate the end of the Sochi Olympics by invading a neighbouring country
Here are some background info for those not across the crimea:
1) The natives of Crimea are the crimean Tatars(?).
2) The Crimean Tatars were forcibly relocated to other parts of the soviet Union in 1944, by the Australian Greens Idol – Joe ‘the arsewipe’ Stalin in 1944
3) The Russians then moved other Russians into the crimea to take their place
4) The Russians are a majority populace in the crimea now, however, about 24% of of the population are crimean tatars who have returned (and don’t like the Russians much, I can’t imagine why).
The Budapest Declaration
1) At the fall of the soviet Union, the Ukraine ended up with literally thousands of nuclear weapons (more than Russia)?
2) The Ukraine agreed to handover all nukes to Russia for disposal and sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty provided Russia, the US and the UK provided guarantees that they would respect and protect the Ukraines’ sovereignty and would not try and manipulate the ukraine economically
3) The Ukraine disposed of it’s nukes in 1996(?)
So it’s just like Yugoslavia – leaders decide to mix people up, forcibly move them about and rule by fear. Later on the area becomes a complete mess.
Once comment I saw summed it up pretty well – Putins actions in the Ukraine are using the same arguments as that of the germans invading the Czechoslovakian Sudetenland. It looks like the wests response is the same as with Czechoslovakia at the moment.
31
Isn’t Putin reacting to an unstable situation across Ukraine and principally to protect Russian strategic interests in the Black Sea fleet, whereas Hitler was on a mission to get as many pieces as he could collect.
Putin may yet declare the whole of Ukraine a protectorate though and who would stop him ?
30
Did they actually speak this time, or did Obama just ‘have words’ ?
Remember that Barry mistakes Putin for the delinquent teenager and treating anyone like that is more than likely to just bring out such aspects of behaviour rather than allay them.
20
The arguments may sound the same as used by Hitler in annexing Sudetenland, but that would be to only spot the similarities. The underlying reasons are not. Hitler wasn’t relying on landlocked Bohemia for his only warm water access to half the globe, as Putin has already alluded to.
10
It is rather chilly right now in Balaklava. You can hardly blame them for wearing them.
20
Readers might be interested in this post and the articles to which it refers.
20
That’s very good Rod. Your short link is well worth following.
Meanwhile, it seems Ukranian media may be playing on perceptions of war.
These Russian troops look deadly serious, while the Ukranian border guards besieged in their compound look nervous.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10671668/Crimea-dispatch-There-will-be-no-war.-Were-not-going-to-point-our-weapons.html
10
TonyfromOz –
this website doesn’t allow copy/paste – please read, incl comments. it is a scathing critique of a new IEA report below, “The Power of Transformation”:
28 Feb: Financial Post: Peter Foster: The International Energy Agency backs unreliable renewables
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2014/02/28/peter-foster-the-international-energy-agency-backs-unreliable-renewables/
IEA Event: Launch of The Power of Transformation
Webinar: 26 February 2014
Wind, Sun and the Economics of Flexible Power Systems
Wind power and solar photovoltaics (PV) are crucial to meeting future energy needs while decarbonising the power sector. Deployment of both technologies has expanded rapidly in recent years, one of the few bright spots in an otherwise bleak picture of clean energy progress. However, the inherent variability of wind power and solar PV raises unique and pressing questions. Can power systems remain reliable and cost-effective while supporting high shares of variable renewable energy (VRE)? And if so, how?…
This book summarises the results of the third phase of the Grid Integration of VRE (GIVAR) project, undertaken by the IEA over the past two years. It is rooted in a set of seven case studies, comprising 15 countries on four continents…
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/events/event/name,46745,en.html
2 pages: pdf: IEA: The Power of Transformation
Wind, Sun and the Economics of Flexible Power Systems
FACTSHEET
http://www.iea.org/media/presentations/PowerOfTransformation_Factsheet.pdf
20
Wake-up call — again (!) — for the totally hopelessly clueless mainstream:
http://imageshack.com/a/img203/3609/3vkq.png
By the time you people admit this is right, I think it only fair to warn you that you will have been very, very, very far past the limits of people’s patience & tolerance already.
Perhaps you’d better start showing remorse & respect beginning, say, 6 years ago. (Yes, you might have to rewrite history to even have a hope of coming out of this scrape looking like fair, competent judges.)
The residual 18% is simple interannual. (CO2 is undetectable — you can underscore that as many times as you like.)
20
Yes I’ve seen that before in your Climate 101 document. It makes interesting reading. You want us to believe the sunspots affect the southern hemisphere, but not the northern hemisphere, and the acceleration of the sunspot count affects the northern hemisphere but not the southern. How?
The two hemispheres do have slightly different temperature behaviours, it’s a fact, and that’s probably due to different ocean currents and water area coverage. But how does an influence of cosmic origin affect the SH and NH differently? I could understand the SH following the sunspots more closely as via the Svensmark effect an area with more water can produce more clouds and respond to the Svensmark effect to a greater degree than a predominantly land covered region. But that doesn’t show why the NH would follow a totally different solar-based metric. Surely the simplest explanation for the Northern SST data is that it is a slightly mangled version of the Southern SST data, not that it is completely controlled by a different mechanism and indicator.
Also, you aren’t arguing that CO2 has no warming effect, indeed in your document you admit as a possibility that some positive fraction of the 15% unexplained variance may be anthropogenic. You’re just saying AGW is so small that its 20th century effect on temperature can’t be detected. I would be inclined to agree, but there is a difference between failing to detect the effect of CO2 and proving observationally that the effect is low or zero.
The standard and proven radiative transfer equations show a doubling of CO2 adds the “equivalent” of an extra 3.7W/m^2 at the TOA, and comparisons between different instrument readings from 1973 and 1996 show an decrease in CO2 emission band intensity at TOA has actually been observed. So the radiation contribution of increased CO2 is not in much doubt. But even such revered greenhouse experts as Grant Petty had to admit that CO2 has a warming influence on the atmosphere only at the layer of the tropopause and has a cooling effect everywhere else.
The debate is then about how much warming that 3.7W/m^2 can cause. I don’t know which side is correct there, all I know for sure is that whoever claims to be infallible and righteous and makes intimidating threats of reprisal is probably high on mania rather than expertise.
Yeah, the warming effect of CO2 may be very small indeed. But an increase in LWIR irradiance has a warming effect on everything, the ocean and earth do not have special immunity. It’s a question of how close the effect is to zero.
43
Andrew,
Unfortunately you present a burdensome number of misunderstandings / misinterpretations / misrepresentations — some quite serious (sensible parties take careful note) and overall too many to address thoroughly, but I will address a few:
1. That’s a new graph (produced a few days ago), updated with the most recent ~2 years-worth of data.
2. I’ve given notice — for example here — that there’s actually no “15%” linear component.
3. Regardless of what theories say or do not say about CO2, there’s no CO2 signal in the SST record. (So if there’s a CO2 signal, it must be somewhere else.) I’m not here to discuss or debate CO2 theories. I’m here to volunteer observations.
4. I’ve said nothing about magnetics & Svensmark. People are always quick to try to falsely put such words in my mouth. I’ve proposed a trivial extension of Milankovitch — nothing mysterious at all — just plain insolation, but with a few false modeling assumptions eliminated. It has nothing to do with Svensmark & magnetics, so when people rudely persist with misrepresentation, it just leads me to question their motives.
5. I’ve given a law-constrained proof. Sensible, competent parties will acknowledge its validity. The northern hemisphere does NOT follow a completely different index as you suggest. Overall NH & SH follow a similar trajectory, that of the sunspot integral. SCD accounts for NH deviations from the sunspot integral. (Note carefully from the graph that the magnitude of these deviations is small.) The systematic deviations convey (quite precise) information about the differential geometry of the 2 hemispheres. There’s a frequency modulation in the NH — simply due to land-ocean configuration’s role in seasonality — that’s much stronger than in the SH. I’ve given a law-constrained aggregate proof using daily LOD and shown that it’s extensible to AAM. It’s a proof in the mathematical sense of the word. Be aware that this is simple geometry. Do you remember SAS (side-angle-side) and ASA (angle-side-angle) proofs from highschool math? It’s literally that simple, so you’re not on solid ground ignorantly criticizing it. Everyone needs to take independent responsibility for deeply understanding firsthand.
That’s enough for now. (There are other things I must do today, including 8 hours of paid work.) Suggestion: Take independent responsibility for deeply understanding firsthand.
.
11
If you do not want “burdensome” responses then you should not begin with arrogance.
2. >> “I had set a parameter arbitrarily to force that leftover, knowing that militant climate discussion agents would apply extreme social force..”
Oh, so you applied political bias to your analysis and now you expect some sort of “respect” as a methodical seeker of the one natural truth. At least you’re honest about it… 67 days after the fact.
3. >> “there’s no CO2 signal in the SST record”.
Okay, then that is a pretty big deal. Your conclusion is arrived at top-down (removing the effect of all other natural factors) which is fair under the circumstances. Just a question about that which I’m sure you will have documented somewhere already and so a URL is the only answer I will need. Since the integral of sunspot count looks like this and does not look at all like the graph you show, how did you transform the real sunspot integral into that graph? You would have to detrend it, or convolve it with a decay function, or some other technique. I ask simply for reproduceability, as I’m sure when I apply the same function you used I will get the same result.
4. >> “I’ve said nothing about magnetics & Svensmark.”
Correct, I said that as a way of hypothesising how your suggestion of different causality in two hemispheres could be plausible.
>> “People are always quick to try to falsely put such words in my mouth.”
Are they? I hope you aren’t suggesting that I did any such thing. Suggestion: read my words literally. Anyone who had read your Climate 101 document would not have made the interpretation you made about my wording. Presumably you have read your own document.
There is still the issue of explaining how the correlations that you suggest can physically occur. The Svensmark effect is the only lab proven mechanism which we know about that allows solar magnetic activity to alter earth’s climate. I was hardly out of line using this mechanism to justify and support your suggested correlations.
5. >> “The northern hemisphere does NOT follow a completely different index as you suggest.”
Oh, so the NH does not follow a completely different index as YOU suggested in both your linked graph above and in your Climate 101 document. Do you frequently overlay graphs of two completely unrelated variables just for fun? No, you suggested the NH is controlled by “Solar Cycle Deceleration” by overlaying a graph of that figure on top of NH SST. There was no mention at all in that document that this variable (for which you give no definition) explained only the deviations from SH SST. That is a novel backpedalling. If the “Solar Cycle Deceleration” explained the difference between NH and SH then it should have been overlayed against a graph of the hemispherical difference. It was not. (You might have to rewrite history to even have a hope of coming out of this scrape looking like a fair, competent judge.)
Suggestion: get your own story straight before publication.
Presumably numerous “sensible and competent” parties will soon show up here to explain your work better than you can and defend it better than you can. Oh wait, I forgot, every time you apply fudge factors (2.) , don’t communicate (3.), misinterpret (4.), and miscommunicate or make a mistake (5.), it’s actually other people that are to blame for not taking “independent responsibility for deeply understanding firsthand” the topic you claim to be so infallibly expert about. Right, all care but no responsibility eh?
Your arrogance is your main undoing. Solve that and people may actually listen to the substance of your discoveries. If you are right about these causal factors then you do yourself a disservice every time you turn people off with acerbic assertions and intimidation tactics.
02
“every time you turn people off with acerbic assertions and intimidation tactics.”
I took him as a climate catastrophist.
That is their method of putting forth what they call science.
01
Andrew, it’s just insolation gradients. It’s not clear what people don’t understand about that.
10
The Tartar came into the area in the middle ages with the Golden Horde. They were never the majority in the area and abducted a large number of Russians and Ukrainians for slaves during their reign over the region. I’m not sure that the Crimean Russians are going to shed a tear for them while the Ukrainians might cry a few crocodile tears. They had sided with the Nazis also, so things could get really ugly very quickly if cool heads don’t intervene, or more correctly, if the more mischievous stick theirs where it don’t belong.
50
The above is a reply to #15
00
I have been fully involved with temperature for decades.
With 97.8% confidence, I can guarantee that tomorrow’s temperature will be either higher or lower than average – regardless of the geographical location or altitude.
As I gained this expertise in temperature, I diversified into rainfall.
With 98.14% confidence, I can guarantee that tomorrow’s rainfall will be either higher or lower than the average, regardless of geographical location.
I have recently further diversified into the study of snow.
With 94.35% confidence, I can guarantee that tomorrow’s snowfall will be either higher or lower than average, regardless of geographical location.
110
And you can be 100% confident thinking that someone will claim it is proof of Climate Change (caused by carbon pollution, whatever that is).
80
Too right mate!
The parameters may be different but does it make any difference?
I didn’t think so either.
We’re being conned, cobber.
Cheers,
Speedy
40
lots more at the link. how much is speculation, how much fact, i don’t know:
28 Feb: Autocar.uk: Julian Rendell: London set to ban older private petrol and diesel cars
Motorists could soon be banned from driving through the centre of the capital – and the Ultra Low Emissions Zone could spread further, potentially causing issues for millions
London will take another step towards banning older diesel and petrol-powered private cars from the city centre when the proposed Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) is further discussed next week.
A second ‘stakeholder’ meeting is expected to reinforce a proposal to ban diesel cars that don’t meet EU6 emissions standards or petrols that don’t meet EU4 from the central Congestion Charge Zone.
“We announced last February the intention to introduce an Ultra Low Emissions Zone in 2020 for central London and we have been working towards that goal since,” says TfL.
TfL stresses that no decision has been made about the rules governing the ULEZ and that four official proposals for its operation will be formulated, before a single theme goes to public consultation later this year.
However, Autocar understands that the ban on pre-EU6 diesels — cars registered before 2014, and pre-EU4 petrols, as well as any registered before 2005 — was put to an informal vote at the first stakeholder meet in November and won overwhelming support.
There are also fears that the ULEZ will be introduced in outer London beyond the North and South circular roads on the same boundary as the current truck/bus Low Emission Zone…
***There are anomalies under the proposal, which will ban low-emitting small cars with EU5 diesels, where DPF particle filters are standard, but allow in large diesel-powered cars and SUVs, which may emit relatively high levels of pollutants.
Events like the annual London-Brighton run and the Regent’s Street Motor Show, based around classic and vintage cars that won’t meet the limits, will also have to be cancelled or moved elsewhere…
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motoring/london-set-ban-older-private-petrol-and-diesel-cars
10
Sounds like a lead baloon coming here!
20
If we pack the carbon dioxide molecules in tetrhedra, we may increase the atmospheric density to the extent that the lead balloons will not “sink” ! ! !
10
The European Commission is pursuing Britain for £300 million in fines for failing to meet EU imposed air quality targets.
EU legal action over air pollution failure
London is among the worst affected and cleaner cars are seen as the better alternative to less cars, if not by the Greens:-
10
So, if the elderly don’t die from exposure when we hike their power bills, we’ll stop them using their old cars to visit doctors or buy food. Perfect!
50
They be much healthier if they get on their bikes.
03
You obviously don’t suffer from Arthritis, of the knee joints? If you are a keen cyclist, then one day you will.
Your argument is ex angustus saeculorum usus – from limited lifetime experience.
40
The Greens don’t want the unfit ones surviving (not a good advert for their allusions to healthy living). Meanwhile while the Greens aren’t yet in charge they will probably just penalise them further by hiking the cost of a congestion zone pass for such geriatrics “clunkers” exhorbitanly.
20
Tim
It would be interesting to do a search and see how often the words “green” and “empathy” appear in the same comunique? Perhaps this is the very first?
Cheers,
Speedy.
30
To Tesla’s Musk: Riiiiiight (Lithium Batteries)
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=228809
Jesus, please stop with the stupid Cramer!
“If you can do 500,000 cars and at the same time blow up the grid….”
Remove the crack pipe from your mouth Jim and find a working brain to have transplanted into your head.
Why am I being such an ass toward Cramer (and others, including the media) on this? Math.
Here’s one example article:
Next week it will reveal plans for a much less sexy innovation that is more important to the company’s future than either of those things: A huge new lithium battery factory dubbed the “Gigafactory” by Tesla founder Elon Musk. The plant is the key Tesla needs in order to produce an “affordable” long-range electric car in substantial enough numbers to join the ranks of the major automakers.
“It’s the future of the company,” said Craig Irwin, analyst with Wedbush Securities. “They need to cut the cost of the battery in half in order to make a half-million cars. This is how they are going to do it.”
Oh really?
But more to the point of this article are the claims that this will “disrupt” energy generation in the United States by suddenly making solar and other similar power sources “usable” on a wide scale.
The problem with solar and wind, specifically, is that they only work when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, respectively. When not there’s no output. The so-called “promise” here is that big batteries can store the energy and thus solve that problem; charge them when there’s sun, drain them when there’s not.
Let’s put some numbers to this, because in my view these claims are crap…
40
Tesla’s packs consist of 7,000 laptop-style battery cells bound together.–Which in November, Forbes reported Panasonic would be supplying. Untested batteries based on a novel concept. Also why Tesla says this will help wind and solar is when the cars fail to perform and sell, they hope to milk taxpayers again by hooking up wind and solar to the batteries. Taxpayers are idiots with deep pockets……
Then there’s the 619% stock increase–which would indicate the Fed is buying Tesla stock. Investors were selling last fall: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2013/11/05/live-tesla-beats-expectations-on-record-sales-investors-decide-to-sell-anyway/
This is the US governmnet pure and simple putting the “quantitative easing” (read stealing from taxpayersa and giving to failing industries) into Tesla in the hopes of extending the gravy train for unworkable energy projects.
50
I thought this article and accompanying video were pretty germane to the GW debate especially since many warming believers in the media are now trying to shut down debate on the subject.
http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2014/02/peter-cathcart-wason-falsification/
20
Fascinating. I will note that correctly identifying the pattern is easier if you are looking at the numbers, rather than having them read to you, at least for me. The confirmation bias does apply to GW (ask “trolls” how many articles they read that criticize GW or how many skeptical classes they have taken–generally only skeptics are willing to take classes that are pro-GW) and it also applies to skeptics at times. We do see what we want to see. How to fix that? Read everything you can on both sides of the issue, including the far-out ideas. Then you are more likely to remove the bias and look at the actual data and arguments.
20
A better way to demonstrate confirmation bias is perhaps like this”
2 4 6
8 10 12
18 20 22
26 28 32
What happens when you get the last three numbers? Do you immediately point out the last number in the series “should” be 32?
02
Yes, very true. There may be all sorts of examples that would satisfy both rules.
You see it a lot. A readiness to jump to conclusions and a tendency for them to be the same conclusions as everyone else does. Hence the power of consensus to simply feed and to reinforce confirmation bias.
10
http://twitchy.com/2014/03/01/lefties-go-full-meltdown-over-time-journos-side-by-side-image-of-obama-and-putin-pic/
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/868/1867/original.jpg
admit it.. you laughed.
10
Scottish mountaineering legend Hamish McInnes says most snow in Scotland’s mountains since 1945 and its cold, powdery & more alpine in character.
While McInnes is a canny skeptic and an engineer with with various practical inventions to his name the BBC milks his observation for all its worth.
10
Here’s something from the Newsmax email newsletter I get. Unfortunately most of them are junk, no better than spam at best. But I keep them coming because they sometimes report things you might not see anywhere else. And here’s one such item. Sorry about no link, I had to copy it from the email and paste it here.
Notice his use of a simple example to refute the IPCC — let’s just look at a time when CO2 was 10 times what it is today.
This is verbatim from Newsmax.
The house of cards is indeed crumbling, bit by bit. I may have to drop my cynicism about it if this keeps up. But now the question is, will the Senate be swayed by his argument? How many times has Chris Monkton made the same argument about the two periods of identical warming? 10? 100? 1,000? Let us hope that the source makes a difference.
We live in fun times. 😉
70
Roy, I get Newsmax too and I share your view exactly: 95% junk, 5% interesting.
Here is the Patrick Moore testimony from WattsUpWithThat a more credible source.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/confessions-of-a-greenpeace-droput-to-the-u-s-senate-on-climate-change/
20
Patrick Moore makes a comment about his Wikipedia entry being political. There is a line in quotes about his leaving Greenpeace not being entirely his decision, in Wikipedia. The citation is Lobbywatch.
10
modern life? hahaha. Oh dear.
10
Jo,
FYI
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/climate-of-fud/#more-4332
00
The GWPF (and BishopHill) link to a Sunday Times article that says
As I found out, Climate Change Act was the likely main reason for energy price rise between 2009 and 2012.
The writedown therefore appears to be the result of politicians believing they can save the world, then blaming others for the harm that their policies cause. In Ed Miliband’s case, it is the energy companies that are blamed, when it legislation that commits Britain to an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 – that Ed Miliband personally sponsored as Secretary of State for Environment and Climate Change – that is to blame.
20
The Sunday Telegraph also has an article about how investors are being put off investing in Britain’s energy future. Only this time it is in renewables.
Wind farm plans in tatters after subsidy rethink
At present onshore wind farms receive A$79 (£42.02) MwH in subsidy by the Renewables Obligation Certificates ROCs. For offshore wind farms it is double that. This is on top of the wholesale price, currently about A$100 MwH.
The article says that the total amount of subsidies will be capped, with a bidding system in place. Major schemes are being shelved.
In the 12 months to August 2013, ROCs were issued to the value of £2.07bn (A$3.88bn), 140% higher than in Jan-Dec 2010. Source. Of this A$3.88bn, A$1.85bn was to wind turbines.
I have looked at the benefits to the planet – assuming the alarmist predictions are correct. The 2006 UK Government Stern Review estimated the social cost of carbon to be $85 t/CO2 (A$96). By 2013, with 1.2% pa increase this equated to A$122 t/CO2. The UK Industry lobby group RenewablesUK estimates that wind farms currently take out 11.16 million tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere annually. That is A$1.36bn of benefit for A$1.85bn of cost. Seems a marginal loss, until you add in the additional grid costs. Also factor in that Stern’s social cost of carbon is are six times the IPCC figure in AR4 of $12 per tonne.
So, investors are shying away from renewables as the British Government tries to start bring some sanity to policy.
10
I posted last week on “Why Climate Change Mitigation Policies Will Always Fail“.
Like in economic theory I make a couple of untenable assumptions. First is that catastrophic global warming will have hugely costly consequences if nothing is done about it. Second, that if every country implements some sort of carbon reduction policies, CAGW will be averted for a small fraction of the cost.
The policy it aimed at the rich countries. Even if all the major countries (ACEJU – Australia, Canada, EU, Japan and USA) reduced emissions by 80% on 1990 levels – like the UK is hell-bent on doing – the people of those countries would be worse off, as they would bear all the cost of policy and most of the residual costs of
climate changeglobal warming. If Australia or Britain unilaterally cut their emissions by 80%, they would bear all the cost of policy and up to 99% of the residual costs of global warming.Climate change mitigation policy will be net harmful to any country that pursues it, even if you believe in the climate catastrophe, AND in the ability of governments to avert disaster.
20
A number of years back I remember reading about scientists experimenting with EMF pulses in the states. They soon discoved the electronics in their cars were fried.
00
would love to see those who have the ability submit 3-minute youtubes to Bolt for possible inclusion in his tv program.
one idea would be “Nova Newsline” – with Jo in the same vein as Gerald Celente behind his bar at home reading a handful of news items of due concern to the public. with lots of humour of course.
for example, the first one – for next week’s program?? (optimism), could be about renewables’ inability to provide base power load, their cost, & the pressure they do/might place on the grid & electricity bills, etc. it could begin with something like “we’d all love to believe wind & solar could replace oil & coal immediately, but…”
another idea i have, but don’t have the computer nous to make, would be to have Satchmo’s “wonderful world” playing (don’t know how copyright goes with ch10) while a powerpoint presentation simply shows on each frame – MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES …EACH FRAME ALSO SHOWING ONE OF THE CRAZY CLAIMS TO DATE & the odd (ODD AS POSSIBLE IN THE LITERAL SENSE TOO) pic of the CAGW team member, when including one that they made, which wouldn’t be easy when it’s the claims of faceless study teams.
another (for Jo) would be 3 minutes on terminology. beginning with something like “when you hear the word “CARBON” as in carbon tax, carbon emissions, what do u think of? (showing the pic of the first result in any online search of a piece of coal) etc
when you hear someone is a climate denier, climate change denier, what does that mean? with explanation of the true, yet varied, positions of CAGW sceptics.
another would be to lead people to CAGW central Reuters Point Carbon & Bloomberg if they want to safeguard their Super/retirement funds etc – with emphasis on carbon (dioxide) emissions trading, fraud, etc.
just putting forward some possibilities for getting the information out to the wider public, especially that which is suppressed by the MSM.
10
How about Tony doing a John Cleese school teacher.
00
It turns out that the oceans are much healthier than anyone thought …
50
Nice find 🙂
10
It is still an Unthreaded Post, so I can add what may seem some boring old electrical Theory (as in learning, eg theory or practical) here, and bear with me, it has a point.
Notice how that whenever there is mention on the bird and bat chopping aspects of wind turbines, the green lobby scoffs at this. Note how when there is mention of the health aspects associated with wind turbines, the green lobby scoffs at this, saying it is somehow psychosomatic or anecdotal, or made up, or totally false, lies, or agenda driven.
While these points and some others are actually part of the overall, what really should be concentrated upon is their total inability to deliver the requisite power, both on the total amount, or its variability. Mention Capacity Factor, and you get dumb looks. They have absolutely no idea, so they concentrate on attempting to shoot down those other aspects, in the main, the health aspects, and how they just pass those health concerns off as virtually nothing.
Now, I want you to think back to the late 70’s, when there was a so called health problem associated with close proximity to overhead high tension wires. This was not anecdotal, nor psychosomatic, as environmentalists all over latched onto it and said it was a major health problem, and they demanded action, showing emotive images of what happens under these cables.
OK now, here comes the boring old electrical theory thing.
The principle of electrical power generation with respect to the generator, (actually a turbo alternator) is this.
Pass a wire capable of carrying an electric current through a magnetic field and an EMF is induced in that wire.
Now, scale that up to a huge level.
Have a monstrously huge magnetic field, in this case, the rotor, which is made up of large magnets wrapped with thick wire carrying a large electric current, and then have a number of these magnetic Poles in a circular formation around the shaft, and a number of these along that shaft, the classic case of a large, nay, huge electromagnet.
Now, intensely cool that rotor, which further intensifies that magnetic field, and then rotate that construction, the rotor at amazing speed, 3000RPM, snap your fingers, and then snap them again, and that’s 50 rotations of a now huge weight, and imagine the driving force required to make that rotate at that speed.
This monstrously huge magnetic field now induces an EMF in (any) nearby wires capable of carrying an electric current. So, wrap humungous lengths of wire close to this rotating magnetic field, the, umm, Stator, and you now have huge amounts of power.
So, a large moving magnetic field induces a magnetic field.
In exactly the opposite of that, then, as the current moves down the wire, eg, as in High tension wires, it has circular magnetic field around that wire. Whenever current flows down that wire, there is that magnetic field.
Have a higher current and you get a stronger magnetic field.
So then, stand directly under that high tension wire and you are standing in a circular magnetic field.
Now, say you had a wire in your hand capable of carrying an electric current, and then you moved that wire, so, viola, you induce a small current flow in that wire.
Hence we saw all these emotive images of people standing under high tension wires and holding fluoro tubes which glowed ever so slightly.
Booga booga booga, glow in the dark, highly dangerous, Imagine the health effects.
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!
So, people were being exposed to, umm, a magnetic field, and were then told they were somehow in danger.
Give me strength.
EVERY current carrying wire has a circular magnetic field around it, so, umm, look around your home and notice all the electrical things, all with a small circular magnetic field around the wiring when it is turned on, same with everywhere you go.
You don’t want to be standing in a magnetic field, then, umm, move into outer space and never set foot back on Earth, which also has its own magnetic field.
Explain the truth to people and they would prefer to believe the, umm, fantasy.
I used to just laugh, and people would look at me like I was strange.
People will believe ….. whatever they want to believe, anything except the truth.
Now, relate the scare campaign which this engendered and how this was somehow bad, but health aspects associated with wind turbines are somehow non existent or psychosomatic, lies, or agenda driven.
Tony.
30
LOL
The local rag here is always full of opposition and the occaisional obvious (plant) support for a couple of local wind farm proposals. Most of the letters are what you say (100’s so far) so sent in a letter based on your teachings explaining just how crap they are at power generation and it was not published.
Cheers
10
Without any idea of what they were actually saying, they called it by its correct name:
Radiation, radiation radiation. Run away. Run away!
Yep, the electro magnetic field radiated out from around the current carrying wire!
Tony.
10
Tony,
Its no different to the people that try and tell me mobile phones cause brain cancer due to the radiation, when i tell them this is impossible because it is too low in frequency ie non ionised radiation (you can tell they just dont get it), there is a small pause, blink, then they start chanting mobile phones give you cancer again.
Now the heat they generate might give you cancer but not from the RF
Cheers
00
Tony-
Agreed. I will write about birds and wind turbines as a point of the hypocrisy, since most people can relate to dead eagles and condors (which as far as I know, no one is admitting to killing any condors at this point). In some ways, it serves as another doorway into the “not green” aspect. But bottom line, whether the turbines kill birds or not, make people sick or not, the turbines and solar panels can never supply adequate 24/7 energy. It’s just not possible on a large scale. I do encourage people who are worried about greenhouse warming to live completely off the grid–NO power lines whatsoever. It’s surprising how fast they learn that to do so easily is exhorbitantly expensive upfront, requires a ton of maintenance and when it’s been dark and calm for several day, you have no electricity. I also say NO backup power of any kind, especially diesel generators. There are so few takers and none to date has ever forgone the backup diesel or propane generator. What the turbines do the environment is bad, but what would happen if we were foolish enough to believe the fanatsy that these can replace oil, coal and natural gas would be far worse.
10
Crakar24 reporting live from ground zero, Update XXVLC
As you may be aware South Australia has been enjoying the limelight for quite some time as being AGW central. They milked the hot weather they were getting for all its worth but suddenly the attention turned to Morwell in Victoria’s south east, intitial invetsigations suggest a climate activist set the fire to “raise awareness” of the AGW shenanigans going on in their state.
Unhappy with this turn of events the South Australian Moronville Messenger has hit back with a stunning article centralised on the vague early childhood memories of South Australian and ex Greenpeace leader (Gildings) and the irratic ramblings of a bimbo who once lived here.
The double page spread full of halve truths and opinionated crap was intended to wrestle the title of “Home of the AGW” away from Morwell, but does it go far enough to achieve this goal? This journo has his doubts, you be the judge.
I searched for a link but alas due to the unprofessionalism besett upon this state there was none, however i did find this.
http://adelaideadvertiser.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx?code=401
This link should take you to a page which shows the online addition of Sundays paper, from here you should be able to read the story (pages 24 & 25), due to big brother policy i am unable to access the pages so i hope they work for everyone else.
Regards
Crakar
00
Hmm! Wonder what this number is.
Roman numerology. Isn’t it great.
1888 is a lot easier to write than MDCCCLXXXVlll
You wonder why the year 1999 wasn’t represented by MlM, 1000 + 1000 – 1 ….. instead of MCMXClX, 1000 + 1000 – 100 + 100 – 10 + 10 – 1
Now, if any of you have a clock or a watch with Roman Numerals, look at what is there for 4. Instead of IV, it’s IIII.
Tony.
00
The additive-subtractive in Roman numerals is consistent in that the subtracted quantity must be the next-lower order of magnitude as the one from which it’s subtracting.
When I was in the ARes, my unit (WAUR) interacted with 10 Light Horse on occasions. Their unit designation was “XLH”, worn on their epaulettes, etc. I glibly referred to them as “40 Horses”. It’s easy to be “too smart” in the military. 🙂
00
The French still do it. “Ninety-eight” is “four-twenty-ten-eight”.
00
Crakar:
Unlike you I hope no-one else is able to waste their time reading that article. It contains the opinions of former International head of Greenpeace and an environmentalist. Neither live in the State.
I think anybody can easily supply the waffle of these true believers, although neither appears to be completely loopy (good editing?). Suffice to say the article is right up to the standard which is causing the fall in the sales of both the Sunday and weekday newspaper.
I only get** the Sunday Mail for the Sudoku (addict!) which occupies lunch time, the Bridge column and Sherman the Shark in the comics, so I didn’t see the article until you pointed it out.
**strictly speaking this was one of the few I have bought lately, my neighbour went away after cancelling his subscription but the Sunday paper kept getting delivered, so as a good neighbour I tidied up for him. I feel I got it at the right price.
10
GN0.3,
Unlike me? Do you think i hope many people have read it?
Unfortunately we live in a one paper state so the audience is captive, many many people would have read that crap.
Typical of this incestuous, insolated, country hick town.
10
You have a choice…don’t read them. Either buy The Australian if you must have a newspaper or use the internet (although the latter is becoming more pay-walled like the Sunday Mail).
Likewise don’t watch the ABC. A bit difficult if you aren’t brain dead enough for the commercials. Personally I’ve sought refuge in books, a smallish collection of old english comedies and some lecture courses on DVD.
00
P.S. one parent was from Perth, the other from Newcastle. When they ended up in Adelaide in the 1940’s their reaction was much the same as yours.
Adelaide may change but I hold no hope for that.
00
I’m always surprised when I read some of my old novels when I have nothing at hand that is new to read.
I get part way through and it’s like reading something which I haven’t read before. It’s the oddest thing.
My good lady wife tells me it’s probably approaching old age and the things associated with that, but it’s just a wonderful thing.
I read all but three of the original Arthur W Upfield novels about Detective Inspector Napoleon Bonaparte in my early 20’s, for basically the crime fiction aspect, albeit with a distinctly Australian flavour.
When I came back and started to read them again, mainly as a filler, I was absolutely astonished how I had missed perhaps the most important parts about those novels when I first read them. I only picked one of them up as a filler, between novels, and it was a complete new novel with things I had not seen at the first reading, and, as it turned out, the crime itself became but a minor part of the novel, as it was basically social commentary, perhaps the most misunderstood thing about Upfield the author.
To that end, I read every one of them again, closely, and in the end located the missing three novels (of the original 29 of them) and added them to the list.
If I can actually be a little flippant about it, if this is an indicator of age associated conditions, then I look at my bookshelves with real happiness, knowing that there’s so many books I have to read.
Tony.
20
AAP doesn’t quote the Govt until the end of the article:
3 Mar: Australian: AAP: Senators reject bill to scrap Climate Change Authority
Legislation to dismantle the Climate Change Authority was knocked back in the upper house today by Labor and the Australian Greens…
The bill was amended by Labor senator Louise Pratt, who wanted to include the Senate’s concerns about what impact scrapping the authority could have on independent climate science.
But a government effort to pass the amended bill at its second reading stage was defeated 38 votes to 32.
It will be three months before the bill can be reintroduced to the Senate, and a second rejection would be a trigger for a double dissolution…
The Greens are already claiming victory, while environment groups are praising senators for keeping the authority temporarily alive.
The Australian Conservation Foundation said the authority would now be able to continue its work until the new Senate takes over in July.
“The Climate Change Authority is such an important body because it takes the politics out of setting climate policies,’’ spokeswoman Victoria McKenzie-McHarg said in a statement.
Greens leader Christine Milne said Australia could continue to receive high quality independent advice on global warming and a rigorous review of the renewable energy target.
“I am delighted that today the Senate has defeated Tony Abbott’s push to try and tear apart a science-based recommendation and go with his anti-science obsession,’’ she told reporters…
If West Australians at the upcoming Senate election reduce the number of coalition senators, the Senate would then have the numbers to reject government efforts to remove Labor’s climate change legislation, she said…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/senators-reject-bill-to-scrap-climate-change-authority/story-e6frg6xf-1226843760241
00
as some may know, WUWT has had a thread on this today, but how amusing to see it on SMH:
3 Mar: Sydney Morning Herald: Chris Taylor: Tim Cook to climate change deniers: get out of Apple stock
This post was originally published on Mashable.
(end of article: Mashable is the largest independent news source covering digital culture, social media and technology.
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/tim-cook-to-climate-change-deniers-get-out-of-apple-stock-20140303-33uka.html
seriously, the general public has been propagandised so thoroughly by the MSM – across the board – over CAGW, i don’t even see them being angry about the failure of the Govt to scrap the Climate Change “Authority”. the public, in general, cannot be expected to understand the science of climate. i don’t & i don’t believe anyone else does 100% either.
but, if people had the facts & figures as to what it’s costing them now & in the future, they would have made sure Labor didn’t dare side with the Greens today.
00
The truth of the matter is that there is no valid physics which confirms the greenhouse effect or any warming sensitivity to carbon dioxide..
If the radiative forcing concept were valid then it should be possible to apply it on other planets, because physics is universal. But no one – I mean absolutely no commenter on any climate blog out of a dozen or more where I have posed the question – can answer in any other way than what is in my book.
The world should not be spending a trillion dollars over the next few years when it cannot answer this question using the same greenhouse conjecture that they use to justify that expenditure. Failure to answer means failure of their GH conjecture.
I have only just found (this week) one other paper that says what I do about the valid physics which can be used to answer the question, and that physics completely debunks the GH hoax. Note that the solar radiation reaching the Venus surface is less than 20W/m^2.
The trillion dollar question is …
How does the required additional thermal energy actually get into the surface of Venus in order to raise its temperature by 5 degrees (from about 732K to 737K) over the course of its 4-month-day, after it has cooled by 5 degrees during the Venus night?
00
Something all should consider is the obvious fact that all our temperature measurements showing (natural) global warming are made in the first two metres of the troposphere where weather stations must be placed. But the vast majority of the radiation from the surface passes straight through this mere 2 metres which is obviously a very small percentage of the height of the troposphere.
So the temperatures that we measure are primarily determined by sensible heat transfers due to kinetic energy being shared when molecules collide. That is why, at least in calm conditions, the temperature of the first 2m of air above the ocean surface is very similar to that of the first 1mm of the water surface, because it is only molecules in that 1mm (or in fact far less) which can collide with air molecules. In fact it is the predetermined thermal profile in the troposphere which determines the ocean surface temperature by diffusion and conduction, not the other way around.
Now, the models do not calculate the temperature of that 1mm fairly transparent surface layer of water by somehow working out how much of the energy in the warmed ocean thermocline will rise to the surface and what the temperature would thus be, or by any calculations involving sensible heat transfer in the troposphere..
Instead the models do a most ludicrous calculation using the Stefan Boltzmann Law which is only for black and grey bodies that do not transmit any incident radiation, quite unlike that 1mm ocean surface layer.
If the models were to use S-B calculations in any remotely valid way, they should calculate the percentage of solar radiation that is actually absorbed in the first 1mm (or even less) and use that far, far smaller radiative flux in their calculations, which would then give totally incorrect results of course, because radiative flux is not the primary determinant of planetary surface temperatures, as is blatantly obvious on Venus..
01