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
Gosh Jo! What can I comment on?!
It’s Sunday evening now.
OK. My gripe about the ABC and BBC and any other ‘documentary’ producers:
1. The infernal racket that drowns out the presenter’s commentary
2. The concentration on the presenter at the expense of the subject being presented.
Do these annoy others and deter them from watching these programmes?
180
Annie I have all but given up on trying to sit through an ABC or SBS documentary because I’m always waiting for the claims or sneaky hints of climate change, sustainability, biodiversity, anti development, gender equality, same sex relations, global this embrace that…FFS! they just won’t give up so I’ve boycotted TV for the most part and go online for information and entertainment, minus the ad’s also.
We went to the movies the other night and have noticed the cinema showing TV ad’s on top of the usual local ones and previews, fair enough advertising is an income but we counted 12 extra TV ad’s on top of the usual fare with one patron yelling out “I came to watch a movie not a giant TV!” LOL they had a point though, TV may be headed for a slow death not because of competing technology but of the content of programmimg offered is insulting and pissing people off.
Oh we saw the movie ‘Fury’ it’s very graphic and well done but has a dark feel to it, I enjoyed the honesty of war it portrayed but felt a bit down afterwards, it’s not a kids film.
131
Ha Ha! Yonnie. All those things too.
I long ago gave up going to the films (movies) as I was fed up with having my brains done in by excessive noise.
100
Sounds like the UK!
60
It does seem odd the way BBC typically interviews their ‘specialist correspondents’ rather than call on real experts.
BBC are scared to engage the public on issues of the day lest they say the wrong thing.
Thus the only public reactions we see broadcast are the most anodyne soundbites matching the party line & making the public seem really duped or dumb.
130
I began to notice the interview tactics of the ABC were becoming very similar to the BBC when interviewing a non-believer, (political or climate.) The interviewer becomes hostile; throws aggressive contra-arguments, dominates the conversation and gives little time to actually allow the poor bugger to answer questions.
This bias sticks out like the proverbials from our ‘fair and balanced’ public propagandist- broadcasters.
130
There was a good example of what you describe recently when they had to give ex Environment Minister Owen Pattersson some air time on Radio 4. He was almost disarmingly amiable in response.
40
Read here of the “progressive” gatekeeping of opinion in the US lame stream media. You will be sickened –
http://nypost.com/2014/10/25/former-cbs-reporter-explains-how-the-liberal-media-protects-obama/
30
You are right Konrad, I am sickened but not surprised. In the land of the free, hey?
10
Could be their Superannuation is invested in Climate Works and they all use Hewlett-Packard computers when drafting their scripts.
40
Television is just an orgy of narcissism which only masochists would watch.
90
Which is why we rarely watch it!
00
I saw an interview with one of the journalists involved in the Watergate affair recently. He said while he was proud of the reporting they did, he lamented the fact that it seemed to be the point where the MSM stopped focussing on the depth of the story and started focussing on the opinions and personalities of the presenters. He said he was troubled that he had become a celebrity of sorts when the story was the star not him.
Now of course its just normal. Watching ABC morning news is just the Virginia and Michael show. She is so opinionated its sickening and he is just a stupid fop with a floppy head.
So in short …. yes… The way current affairs is presented these days basically ruins the story more often than not.
60
You guys probably haven’t heard of ‘GamerGate’ yet, but you should get acquainted. It’s the first time that the pinko-lefties have had a push-back in the cultural wars. Here is an excellent analysis of the situation:
http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/21/gamer-gate-three-stages-to-obit/
I think that piece also shows that on the AGW side of things we are mostly preaching to ourselves. The other side does not care for the facts. It is simply a means to an end.
131
I tried reading this but couldn’t cope with it. I lack an interest in partnerships coming and going.
I wasn’t the person who red-thumbed however.
70
Agree with you, Annie. Hard going for a subject with no interest and no reward. But no red thumb from me either.
40
If you ever doubted that Australia’s ABC has given up on science and become a branch of the Cult Of Doomsday Global Warming, look no further than …
Mungo Wentworth MacCallum.
A true believer, Mungo chants litanies like only a true believer could:
“But the problem with the so-called global warming pause, spruiked by the sceptics beloved of The Australian, is that it doesn’t make sense;
the heat has to go somewhere.”
> (It does make sense if you can open your mind to the fact that maybe the doomsday heat never existed)
The extra heat is not going away; the question is just how and where in the land, sea or air it is being stored – possibly in the deep oceans, possibly through some other method we have not yet discerned.
The pause may be no more than a statistical blip, to come back and burn us when we have been lulled into the security desperately hoped for by the miners and Abbott.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-20/mungo-abbott-has-been-mugged-by-reality/5826002
. . .
Like a boogieman hiding in the dark, the heat will come back. Be scared!
Then, to re-assure himself; “It will come back” …
“possibly through some other method we have not yet discerned”
It may be a blip. (It may not).
And then you’ll be sorry, Tony Abbott!
Poor ole Mungo, his boogieman doesn’t exist:
Fact Check: Lack of ocean heat puzzles Nasa
http://www.news24.com/Green/News/Lack-of-ocean-heat-puzzles-Nasa-20141006
“The deep ocean may not be hiding heat after all, raising new questions about why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years, said the US space agency on Monday.
Scientists have noticed that while greenhouse gases have continued to mount in the first part of the 21st century, global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising along with them, said Nasa.
Some studies have suggested that heat is being absorbed temporarily by the deep seas, and that this so-called global warming hiatus is a temporary trend.
But latest data from satellite and direct ocean temperature measurements from 2005 to 2013 “found the ocean abyss below 1 995m has not warmed measurably,” Nasa said in a statement.”
110
“possibly through some other method we have not yet discerned”
‘Ere now! Methord we ain’t dissernd? Ain’t no such methord! The science is settled, it is.
60
The idea that the hypothesis might actually be wrong, never occurs to those on the money-train, or their acolytes.
But there again, if I were being paid to think that constantly writing mindless drivel on science blogs was a productive use of my time I … hang on, a minute … ?
50
No No! Rereke W….don’t sell your soul…stay who you are!
00
The thing is, if the likes of Mungo MacCallum were writing with a ‘dirty denier’ view point, then, firstly, it wouldn’t get much exposure on the ABC, and secondly he’d be shouted down, as he is by no means a scientist of any sort, let alone a climate scientist.
Double standards ahoy!
30
Yes…. it’s known as “space”.
20
Ice patch archaeologist to discuss ‘tangible indication’ of climate change
“As the ice patches melt, exposing ancient archaeological and paleobiological materials, the unique archaeological record made visible illustrates a more than 10,000-year presence of native people in the alpine, and provides a tangible indication of climate change in the Rocky Mountain West.”
http://ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/article_bb34ea1d-045c-57ed-8d3d-48c0c7f8a491.html
50
So he proves that the current temperature matches that back when CO2 was below 285 ppm. Will that get him a Christmas Card from the IPCC?
30
Merkel & Hollande as it sinks in they won’t be getting their Christmas bonus from Britain this year.
http://jpg.euractiv.com/files/styles/x-large/public/hollande_merkel_23_oct_2014.jpg?itok=895odtkP
We’ll not in time for Christmas anyway.
60
EU taps Britain for an extra €2 Billion to bail out ailing Eurozone economies. That’s not just the crippled Mediteranean countries but France & Germany are also set to benefit substantially.
50
Which of course, just makes the long term problem worse.
40
Not that I’m in a position to make a complaint but I never understood why the Brits wanted to join the EU. They gave up so much control over their internal affairs and their finances and got so little in return.
70
Getting the odd unexpected bill now & again must seem like a bonus then.
40
The EU was sold to the public as benefitting trade many years ago. The political control came later. If Cameron wants to win the next general election, he’s just been handed the means by the EU itself. I don’t know any Brit who wants to stay in!
50
It was originally the “Common Market”, and was sold as a tariff-free trading zone. It was “administered” by the EEC The European Economic Council (or some such), that had appointed Commissioners, as permanent employees and functionaries.
This later took unto itself more powers to establish a common trading currency (the Euro), administered by the European Central Bank, and thence become the European Union, governed by the European Parliament, whose members have almost negligible power over the Commissioners, who actually run the show.
I may have the sequence and names wrong, in which case, I am happy to be corrected. I just watch the machinations from afar, with some feelings of disgust, I must admit.
The Brits never became full members (they kept the Pound, for example), so they might be able to extricate themselves. But they are likely to face tariff barriers when trading with the bloc, because the French and the Germans can be sore losers, and they may have problems accessing French nuclear-generated power.
50
The UK draws nuclear power from France (2GW) and the Netherlands (1 GW), but it isn’t all one way as they also export at times. It helps balance the grid in both countries.
The current problems in Belgium nuclear plants increase the demand on the french system, so the UK may not get much anyway, when there is a shortfall in supply from all those wind farms.
The bigger threat is the decision by the French Gov. to replace a third of their nuclear capacity with electricity from wind farms???? When the UK has plenty of wind they won’t need power from France (who will also have plenty) but when there is no wind in the UK the same applies in France so there will be no way electricity will flow to the UK.
30
Rereke,
I can make a little fable out of that whether you have all the details right or not.
First the camel gets its nose under the tent and then offers you all sorts of inducements to permit it. Then, whether slowly or speedily, the whole camel follows. Right after that comes the camel’s wife and children, then the in-laws. The word goes out far and wide and more camels come to live in your tent. And finally you’re squeezed into one corner with the camels having most of the tent. Some camels become regulators and you’re soon smothered and bound by every limitation and prohibition the camels can dream up. The camels now own the tent and you’re a second class citizen or worse, a criminal for doing things you once could do without restriction.
But sorry to say it’s not really my fable. Someone beat me to it I’m afraid. A guy with nothing better to do named Saul Alinsky figured this out and published it in, RULES FOR RADICALS. And I suspect he wasn’t the first.
If you try to impose radical change suddenly no one goes for it but when it’s just a little at a time no one notices it until it’s too late.
Roy’s rules derived from the fable:
Always keep as much individual freedom to do as you damned well please as you possibly can. Always keep government limited and small. Always push decision making down to the lowest possible level. Never let one nation be anything but a collection of self governing states with as much sovereignty as possible and as independent of the rest of the states and the national government as they can possibly be.
But oops, that’s not original with me either. It came to me right out of the Constitution of the United States of America. And we’ve let it be subverted ever since it went into effect in 1789, 225 years of ignoring the lesson we learned from being subjects of the King of England instead of free men.
Some of our founders were wise enough to realize that this would happen and wrote that from time to time the blood of patriots might need to be shed in defense of what we really are according to the Constitution. Is this the time? I don’t know. But that fable reminds me of this quote from Benjamin Franklin.
Was he a prophet? I think we’re about to find out.
10
The spelling of “administered” and the capitalization is directly from the quoted text and not a mistake by me.
00
I still think the ‘Yes Minister’ explanation is the best, although this clip does not cover the full conversation, and i don’t have the patience to look harder.
20
Intelligent Britons never wanted to join it; we preferred to stay loyal to our Commonwealth countries.
10
To a leftist, there are no long term problems, just an infinite number of end-to-end short term problems, each stemming from the solutions that preceded it, though the media won’t let on.
50
Yes, but in solving each of those problems we are moving forward, to the next problem, so we are making progress.
Of course, we have yet to figure out what we are progressing towards, but we are confident it will be somewhere, and reachable at some time in the future.
50
ahh yes, the old “we must be seen to be doing something, this is something, lets do that” attitude.
Of course one can be progressing towards something while still moving in circles…
10
Merkel & Hollande as it sinks in they won’t be getting their Christmas bonus from Britain this year.
http://jpg.euractiv.com/files/styles/x-large/public/hollande_merkel_23_oct_2014.jpg?itok=895odtkP
We’ll not in time for Christmas anyway.
20
Be careful who you get to install your Solar Panels.
http://cedrec.com/news/index.htm?news_id=20922
Whereas the self employed & householders are responsible for their own safety and may take more ridks but also more likely to keep their wits about them.
40
As I was watching 3 men putting solar panels on my neighbor’s roof I was more worried about whether they might slip and slide off. The roofs are steep and a composition material that tends to slowly deteriorate and pieces break off — down you go if it happens. They pulled it off without a hitch but I wouldn’t walk around on my roof in such a cavalier manner.
After those panels have been up there a while I’m going over and ask how they’re performing and what the financial and ownership deal is.
50
If the roof was fragile enough to permit them to fall through, how was it supposed to carry the extra weight of the solar panels, especially in high winds?
Curious people would like to know.
30
At least the Rolling Stones came to Adelaide. Last night I went to listen to them outside Adelaide Oval with my son and some of his friends, along with thousands of others. Great weather and just as well because 24 hours later we had an almighty thunderstorm. I was also there in 1973 when they played at neighbouring Memorial Drive for three consecutive nights. Given the “bad boy” image of the Stones then, and the R&R lifestyle, it’s incredible to think that they all survived for another 41 years!
Yes they sounded great, but my son was disappointed that they didn’t play Painted Black. At 20 he’s right into the Stones and Beatles, vinyl records and all the “retro” gear of the 1970s. I just chuckle quietly to myself.
101
My apologies. Your account of the Stones concert merited a thumbs up but I was all thumbs and hit the wrong one ( should have enlarged the image before placing – they are rather close together for early smart phones). Please accept in the spirit intended.
50
1966, a monster year for the Stones.
First they release that wonderful album Aftermath, closely followed by the new Single Paint It, Black. That single was so popular, it was hurriedly added to the U.S. release of that album Aftermath, while not appearing on the original UK version.
Everyone considers The Beatles to have been the big innovators in music at the time, but the Stones were also doing new things with non traditional instruments as well, as evidenced on Paint It, Black, as it was the first Number One Hit song to include the playing of a Sitar, played on that song by Brian Jones. The band also began touring those monster Hammond B3 organs, a huge unwieldy instrument to cart around on tour, and other bands had already started doing the same thing, with these and also the larger and heavier C3, both with that wonderful sound of the Leslie rotating speaker.
Brian also played other instruments on that albums well, notably the Dulcimer on Lady Jane, perhaps my favourite song from that album, also notable for not having any drums played in the song.
Aftermath was the first studio album by the Stones to be recorded outside the UK, all of it done in LA, and in fact, doing what a lot of bands and artists were coming there to do, record an album using the legendary group of session musicians called The Wrecking Crew, most notable of those for Aftermath being Jack Nitzsche.
The melody for Lady Jane was later reprised by Neil Young in 1973 for a live album that did not get released until late 1975. Neil had lost 2 good friends, Danny Whitten, guitarist from his long time backing band Crazy Horse and tour roadie Bruce Berry. Neil Young was despondent over the death of his two close friends, and just, umm, borrowed the melody from this Stones hit Lady Jane, and just wrote up new lyrics for the song to reflect his mental state at the time.
I have links to my music Posts at my home site with both songs, and the Stones version of Lady Jane is on that second Post for the Neil Young song.
Sunday Music – Paint It, Black
Sunday Music – Borrowed Tune
Tony.
70
It was Paint It, Black, thanks Tony. I tried to impress the group by guessing the opening song. I said it wouldn’t be Start Me Up (too obvious) and probably not Jumpin’ Jack Flash and went for It’s Only Rock ‘n’ Roll. I said Satisfaction would be near the end.
Well they did start with Jumpin’ Jack Flash after all and my choice was the third song. The final encore was Satisfaction which the late and great DJ John Vincent always said was the “world’s greatest lie”!
Eddie – no problems mate!
20
It is interesting to me that, of the 15 songs on the US album release, the only ones that are instantly recognisable today are:
Mother’s Little Helper, Lady Jane, Under My Thumb, Out of Time, and Paint it Black.
Only five out of fifteen? I guess it comes down to radio air-time. Were those five all released as singles, as well?
10
Rereke,
Only three songs from the album were released as Singles, Paint It Black, and Mother’s Little Helper were the main two, but on that second Single, Lady Jane was on the B Side, and both songs became hits.
While Paint It, Black was on the US Aftermath album, it only appeared in album form in the UK on compilation albums. (Best Of, etc)
This was at a time when any song longer than three and a half minutes tops was all but ignored by commercial radio, umm until Macarthur Park I suppose. Jim Webb has a lot to answer for when it comes to that song, I’m afraid.
Tony.
00
Really, I could not have done better! Far better than NME, Melody Maker or Rolling Stone( that egregious publication). Too wasted to write my own.Gotta have a yarn with Neil- a bit off the rails on the mother nature thing…..
00
Went to see the stones back in the eighties live at Leeds supported by george thorougood what a gig that was . Sadely another one of the greats died this morning ,the lead singer of cream Jack Bruce R I P. On a lighter note its halloween party
50
woops pressed the wrong key ; its halloween party time at my local welfare today so i’m going to dress up as a climate change denier and scare the kids but how whould a denier dress as compared to an alarmist ???
90
It may be a bit late to get a T-shirt printed now, but a T-shirt with the RSS temperature record emblazoned across it wouldn’t be over-the-top.
My T-shirt’s got my Gravatar across it – courtesy of Josh.
60
It was of course the over 18 year temp. record that I meant, in celebration of Global Not Warming’s great coming of age.
60
A T shirt with just the letters “AGNW” on it might be interesting.
Maybe with the ‘N’ in a different colour.
50
Top idea Joe!
I may get my Josh Gravatar on the back and the RSS grinding halt on the front.
The trouble is that Skeptics do believe that the climate has always changed and it is the eugenocidal warmist cult followers that scare children while plotting to cull them.
60
Deserves a thread of its own. The possibilities are endless.
30
thanks joe , i might also stick a few lumps of coal to an old straw hat then stick a smoke bomb on the top, then set off the smoke bomb when the DJ plays the monster mash
40
Rate-Of-Cooling and Temperature Changes
Many people believe that an increase in the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases: (a) will have negligible effect on the rate the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere absorbs solar energy, but (b) will decrease the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere Rate-Of-Cooling, and (c) it is this Rate-Of-Cooling decrease that causes an increase in the average Earth surface temperature. Assuming part (a) of the belief is valid, this comment examines parts (b) and (c) of that belief. People reading this blog likely have moderate to extensive familiarity with greenhouse gases and global warming. To minimize the likelihood that the reader “jumps to conclusions” based on his/her familiarity with global warming, I begin the discussion by considering an example of “rates” that is weakly related to global warming, but illustrates “rate issues” that I believe are relevant to the relationship between Rates-Of-Cooling and global warming.
[Side Note: When applied to a system, possible denotations of the term “Rate-Of-Cooling” are: (a) the rate energy leaves the system; (b) the time-rate-of-change of the temperature of a defined point (or average temperature of a set of defined points) within the system, and (c) the time interval it takes for heat which first manifests itself at a defined point within the system to escape the system. Independent of the rate the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere absorbs solar energy (i.e., independent of the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere Rate-Of-Heating), in this “comment” the term “Earth/Earth-Atmosphere Rate-Of-Cooling” denotes the rate energy leaves the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere to space. Thus, for an Earth/Earth-Atmosphere in energy-rate-equilibrium (ERE) the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere Rate-Of-Heating …equals… the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere Rate-Of-Cooling–but both rates may be non-zero.]
Consider two scenarios of water entering a pipe. Scenario 1—At time t=0, water of density “p” and mass-rate “R” (mass per unit time) enters the base (bottom) of a vertically-oriented, empty, cylindrical pipe of inner radius “r” and length “lp”. As measured from the base of the pipe, the level of the water in the pipe is zero for all time before time 0 and starts increasing at time 0. Starting at time 0, the level of the water in the pipe will rise for a time interval “TFlp” such that the mass of the water in the pipe (R*TFlp) equals the pipe volume (pi*lp*r^2) multiplied by the density of water. Mathematically,
R*TFlp = (pi*lp*r^2) * p
Solving the above equation for TFlp gives
TFlp = pi*lp*r^2*p/R
As measured from the base of the pipe, for time 0 < t < TFlp = pi*lp*r^2*p/R: (a) the height, “h(t)”, of the water in the pipe is given by
h(t) = R*t/(pi*r^2*p),
(b) the rate water enters the pipe is R, and (c) the rate water leaves the pipe is zero.
At time t = TFlp, the water reaches the top of the pipe and thereafter water overflows the top of the pipe. Thus, for Scenario 1 three time intervals exist where the combination of the characteristics of the water entering, leaving and within the pipe is different: (1) minus infinity to 0—the time interval when nothing is happening, (2) 0 to TFlp—the time interval during which the water level in the pipe is increasing; (3) TFlp to infinity—the time interval during which the pipe is full of water and water overflows the top of the pipe. As measured from the base of the pipe, the height, h(t), of the water in the pipe, the Rate-Of-Filling and the Rate-Of-Emptying for each of these time intervals are given below:
Time Interval: minus infinity < t < 0
h(t) = 0
Rate-Of-Filling = 0
Rate-Of-Emptying = 0
Time Interval: 0 < t < TFlp = pi*lp*r^2*p/R
h(t) = R*t/(pi*r^2*p)
Rate-Of-Filling = R
Rate-Of-Emptying = 0
Time Interval: TFlp = pi*lp*r^2*p/R < t TFlp” a vertical pipe extension of inner radius “r” and length “le” is connected to the top of the Scenario 1 pipe (the original pipe). Similar to the filling of the original pipe, starting at time TE the level of the water in the pipe extension will rise at a constant rate for a time interval of “TFle” given by
TFle = pi*le*r^2*p/R
at the end of which time the pipe and the pipe extension will both be full of water and water will thereafter overflow the top of the extension.
Thus, for Scenario 2 there are five time intervals where the combination of the characteristics of the water entering, leaving and within the pipe/pipe-extension is different: (1) minus infinity to 0—the time interval when nothing is happening, (2) 0 to TFlp—the time interval during which the water level in the original pipe is increasing; (3) TFlp to TE—the time interval during which water in the original pipe overflows the top of the original pipe; (4) TE to TE+TFle—the time interval during which the water level in the pipe extension is increasing; and (5) TE+TFle to infinity—the time interval during which both the original pipe and the pipe extension are full of water and water overflows the top of the pipe extension. As measured from the base of the original pipe, the height, h(t), of the water, the Rate-Of-Filling and the Rate-Of-Emptying for each of these time intervals are given below:
Time Interval: minus infinity < t < 0
h(t) = 0
Rate-Of-Filling = 0
Rate-Of-Emptying = 0
Time Interval: 0 < t < TFlp = pi*lp*r^2*p/R
h(t) = R*t/(pi*r^2*p)
Rate-Of-Filling = R
Rate-Of-Emptying = 0
Time Interval: TFlp = pi*lp*r^2*p/R < t < TE
h(t) = lp
Rate-Of-Filling = R
Rate-Of-Emptying = R
Time Interval: TE < t < TE + TFle = TE + pi*le*r^2*p/R
h(t) = lp + R*(t – TE)/(pi*r^2*p)
Rate-Of-Filling = R
Rate-Of-Emptying = 0
Time Interval: TE + TFle = TE + pi*le*r^2*p/R < t < infinity
h(t) = lp + le
Rate-Of-Filling = R
Rate-Of-Emptying = R
The time interval “minus infinity to 0” (i.e., before water starts to enter the pipe) is of no interest. Of the four remaining time intervals, the time intervals from (a) “0 to TFlp”, (b) “TFlp to TE”, and (c) “TE to “TE + TFle” are transient in that they exist only for finite time intervals and eventually the conditions of the water in the pipe will be different from the water conditions of any of these finite time intervals. Only the time interval from “TE + TFle to infinity” corresponds to steady-state conditions in that it is only after time “TE + TFle” that the combination of all parameters characterizing the water entering, leaving and within the pipe never changes.
Note that for the steady-state conditions of both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2: (a) the height of the water is constant but at different levels, but (b) the Rate-Of-Filling equals the Rate-Of-Emptying. Furthermore, the Scenario 1 steady-state Rate-Of-Emptying equals the Scenario 2 steady-state Rate-Of-Emptying. Since the Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 steady-state Rates-Of-Emptying are the same but the Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 steady-state water heights are different, it is nonsense to claim that the steady-state Rate-Of-Emptying can be used to compute the height of the water, or for that matter to claim that the steady-state Rate-Of-Emptying has any effect on the height of the water in the pipe. Specifically, to claim that the change in the steady-state Rate-Of-Emptying affects the level of the water in the pipe is not just nonsense, it is wrong. First, the steady-state Rate-Of-Emptying doesn’t change; and even if by changing the Rate-Of-Filling, which would cause a change in the steady-state Rate-Of-Emptying, the change in the Rate-Of-Emptying will have no effect on either the Scenario 1 or the Scenario 2 steady-state height of water in the pipe.
You ask: What has any of this to do with global warming? The answer can be seen by returning to the belief held by many people—specifically: an increase in the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases (a) will have negligible effect on the steady-state Earth/Earth-Atmosphere Rate-Of-Heating, but (b) will decrease the steady-state Earth/Earth-Atmosphere Rate-Of-Cooling, and (c) it is this decrease in the steady-state Rate-Of-Cooling that causes an increase in the average Earth surface temperature. Thus in a “rate” sense, (a) the pipe “Rate-Of-Filling” corresponds to the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere “Rate-Of-Heating”, (b) the pipe “Rate-Of-Emptying” corresponds to the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere “Rate-Of-Cooling”, and (c) the height of the water in the pipe corresponds to the average Earth surface temperature. Note that if a fixed change in the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases does in fact decrease the Rate-Of-Cooling, the decrease can exist only for a finite time interval. If the Rate-Of-Cooling decrease exists forever, then for an unchanged Rate-Of-Heating the Earth’s temperature would rise without bound. This obviously doesn’t happen. Thus, for at least two levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases (before and after the introduction of a fixed amount of greenhouse gases), the steady-state Rate-Of-Cooling is the same. This means that whatever the relationship that exists between the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the Earth surface Rate-Of-Cooling, it is NOT a simple monotonically increasing/decreasing one—i.e., it is NOT such that the higher the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases, the smaller the Rate-Of-Cooling.
To be fair, when most people claim greenhouse gases decrease the “Rate-Of-Cooling”, they don’t explicitly include the “steady-state” caveat; but they also don’t mention that the decrease in the Rate-Of-Cooling is temporary; and provided the Rate-Of-Heating is unchanged, the Rate-Of-Cooling must eventually return to its original value else the temperature will rise indefinitely. In all the AGW discussions I have seen, people often mention a decrease in the “Rate-Of-Cooling; but I have never encountered a discussion of the corresponding (and necessary) increase in the Rate-Of-Cooling.
My understanding of the AGW alarmist position is as follows. First, before mankind started burning fossil fuels, after averaging out short to medium duration cyclic variations (day/night, winter/summer, etc.): (a) the rate the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere absorbs solar energy is “X”, and (b) the average temperature of the Earth’s surface is “Y”. Second, by burning a fixed amount of fossil fuels and thereby adding a fixed amount of CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere, (a) after averaging out short to medium duration cyclic variations, (a) the rate the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere absorbs solar energy will remain unchanged at “X”, but (b) the average temperature of the Earth’s surface will be “Y + Z”, where “Z” is a positive number. That is, a fixed increase in the atmospheric level of CO2 will, after all transients have died out, result in a fixed increase in the average Earth surface temperature. This may be true; and this comment does not directly address such an effect. However, to say the cause of this temperature increase is a decrease in the Rate-Of-Cooling induced by an increase in the level of atmospheric CO2 is nonsense. For a fixed increase in the level of atmospheric CO2, the change in the Rate-Of-Cooling is temporary. Whatever “causes” the average Earth surface temperature to change is also the “cause” of the temporary change in the Rate-Of-Cooling. To say the “cause” of the temperature change is the temporary change in the Rate-Of-Cooling doesn’t make sense because the Rate-Of-Cooling (a) starts at “Y”, (b) temporarily drops to “Y – epsilon”, but (c) eventually returns to “Y”—i.e., undergoes a temporary increase from “Y – epsilon” to “Y” . So if the temporary decrease in the Rate-Of-Cooling is the “cause” of a temperature rise, why doesn’t the ensuing temporary increase in the Rate-Of-Cooling “cause” a temperature drop? The answer is that the Rate-Of-Cooling is an effect, not a cause of whatever physical phenomena influence temperature.
Finally, some people use the “blanket around a human body analogy” to explain how a change in the Rate-Of-Cooling affects temperature. That is, they say: “When a human body exists in an atmospheric environment whose temperature is significantly below the normal human body temperature, the human will feel cold. Enclosing the body in a blanket reduces the body’s Rate-Of-Cooling and thereby warms the body.” It’s true that surrounding a human body in a cool atmospheric environment with a blanket will slow the body’s Rate-Of-Cooling. That is, the rate heat leaves the body without the blanket will be greater than the rate heat leaves the body with the blanket. However, the presence of the blanket also affects the body’s Rate-Of-Heating. The human body attempts to maintain its internal temperature near 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. When the body is in a cold atmospheric environment, the body tries to generate heat at the rate sufficient to maintain its desired internal temperature. The colder the environment, the greater the rate heat leaves the body, and the harder the body must work (goose bumps, shivering, etc.) to generate heat at the rate necessary to maintain its desired internal temperature. Suppose the temperature of the atmospheric environment is such that the body can generate heat at the rate necessary to maintain its desired internal temperature. When a blanket is placed around the body and the rate of heat loss is reduced, the body reduces the rate at which it internally generates heat to accommodate the decreased rate of heat loss. Thus, placing a blanket around a human body in a cold atmospheric environment not only affects the Rate-Of-Cooling, it also affects the Rate-Of-Heating. As I understand the AGW position, increasing the level of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere may affect the transient Rate-Of-Cooling, but has no effect on either the transient or the steady-state Rate-Of-Heating. Thus, the human body/blanket situation differs from the Sun/Earth-Earth-Atmosphere system; and I believe to compare the two is to compare apples and oranges.
20
Upon reading my lengthy comment, I note that when I copied the comment from a Microsoft Word document to “comment input section” a portion of the comment was dropped. Specifically, the original comment read:
Time Interval: 0 < t < TFlp = pi*lp*r^2*p/R
h(t) = R*t/(pi*r^2*p)
Rate-Of-Filling = R
Rate-Of-Emptying = 0
Time Interval: TFlp = pi*lp*r^2*p/R < t […missing portion here…] TFlp a vertical pipe extension of inner radius “r” and length “le” is connected to the top of the Scenario 1 pipe (the original pipe). Similar to the filling of the original pipe, starting at time TE the level of the water in the pipe extension will rise at a constant rate for a time interval of “TFle” given by
TFle = pi*le*r^2*p/R
at the end of which time the pipe and the pipe extension will both be full of water and water will thereafter overflow the top of the extension.
A portion of the comment that was dropped is below in bold italics.
Time Interval: 0 < t < TFlp = pi*lp*r^2*p/R
h(t) = R*t/(pi*r^2*p)
Rate-Of-Filling = R
Rate-Of-Emptying = 0
Time Interval: TFlp = pi*lp*r^2*p/R < t < infinity
h(t) = lp
Rate-Of-Filling = R
Rate-Of-Emptying = R
The time interval minus infinity to 0 (i.e., before water starts to enter the pipe) is of no interest. Of the two remaining time intervals, the time interval from 0 to TFlp is transient in that it exists only for a finite time interval. Only the time interval from TFlp to infinity corresponds to steady-state conditions in that it is only after time TFlp that the combination of all parameters characterizing the water entering, leaving and within the pipe never changes.
Scenario 2–same as Scenario 1 except that at time t = TE greater than TFlp a vertical pipe extension of inner radius “r” and length “le” is connected to the top of the Scenario 1 pipe (the original pipe). Similar to the filling of the original pipe, starting at time TE the level of the water in the pipe extension will rise at a constant rate for a time interval of TFle given by
TFle = pi*le*r^2*p/R
at the end of which time the pipe and the pipe extension will both be full of water and water will thereafter overflow the top of the extension.
00
Reed
Radiation from a cooler atmosphere can only slow the rate of cooling of a warmer surface which is that portion due itself to radiation. Because the electro-magnetic energy is used for a portion of the surface radiation (that EM energy never being converted to thermal energy in the surface) there is no direct effect on the rate of non-radiative cooling which can accelerate to compensate. See “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” for more detail.
But, as we know, the rate of surface cooling slows in the early morning before dawn, and this is because the temperature at the base of the troposphere is “propped up” by the gravitationally induced temperature gradient. That process is explained from physics in “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All.”
So I hope that helps your understanding as to why sensitivity to carbon dioxide is 0.0C and also why water vapour cools as it reduces the temperature gradient and the thermal plot rotates downwards at the surface end.
00
Driving north on the D118 from the poverty stricken, crumbling and decaying villages of the southern Languedoc yesterday I was stuck by a sign attached to an overhead railway bridge just out of Couiza. It said: “ Front de Gauche – Ecosocialisme”.
And that partly explains why France is going nowhere. Why the bright and motivated young people are leaving. Why there are few jobs. And, why the UK has been issued with an EU demand for an additional contribution to help prop up the French economy.
The socialists have not yet run out of other peoples’ money to spend.
At the International Socialist Networks conference in London in June this year you could have heard an amazingly stupid presentation from one Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party, who outlined what should be the next steps for the green socialists. Firstly she argued in favour of the idea of a basic income, which people would get whether they worked or didn‘t. According to her, one of the most important effects of this would be “freedom from fear“ since in her foggy view working people would apparently not wake up every morning and feel that their jobs (and therefore their homes and the living standards of themselves, their partners and their children) were under threat, leading to a great improvement in the mental health of the nation. This, she argued, of itself would change wage differentials, as unpopular jobs would not be filled unless they were well paid. This great Marxist thinker used the example that the implementation of such an amazing idea might lead to sewer cleaners being paid more than bankers. In her feeble mind it would also have a big impact upon working hours as people might not choose to work long and anti-social hours if they received a basic income irrespective of whether they were employed. Her final inanity was to promote a gradual progression towards a 21-hour working week which somehow was going to solve unemployment at a stroke. All these things would lead to a new kind of society that would use less energy, would need fewer “useless” consumer goods because the new ecosocialists’ self-fulfilment would be satisfied in other ways. Yes. In other ways. No doubt they’ll take the USSR’s way. Vodka.
When the French, during their revolution, replaced the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit with their new trinity of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity they could not possibly have realised how it would manifest itself. However we can make that assessment now. Just look at the southern region of the Languedoc.
There is no liberty in poverty. But there is equality for all when all live in poverty. Fraternity is all that remains. Fraternity in poverty. Or the new trinity: Poverty, Poverty and Fraternity.
Welcome to the ecosocialisme of the Front de Gauche.
100
And Sam isn’t it amazing how they don’t seem to be able to understand the concept of living within your means. Its the same here. The Greens answer to everything is throw a ton of money at it and raise taxes to pay. Despite almost bankrupting the nation while they shared power, they are now resisting any budget measure aimed at reducing spending and indeed calling for more spending in any areas they have an interest in.
“The socialists have not yet run out of other peoples’ money to spend.”
You got it in one, but they don’t care anyway.
91
Gauche, indeed. I used to suspect many people who supported such inane proposals were bonkers, ’round the bend, or barmy in the crumpet. I’ve belatedly (and reluctantly) concluded that quite a few must be psychopaths, the only full explanation for the 20th Century’s 120,000,000* victims of Socialist Thought.
twenty Holocausts.
20
Well that just beats the $hit outta me.
In Australia we already have a privileged student class that wont undertake any labour that they deem they are over qualified for.
So when the gargage collector is paid more than the bank manager then we will have an elite class of perpetual arts and humanities students for whom there are no employment prospects… similar to now.
So it will fall to the shoulders of the remaining tax payers the burden of supporting militant non-productive members of the community.
That can only end in tears.
71
James,
At the end of the day, and when all else has failed, you can always get inspiration from this movie.
30
Who could forget ‘The Australian’ :), some of those early quirky film noir movies were quite brilliant.
10
Thanks Rereke.
That’s the one.
Fantasy as fact. Coming your way, courtesy of the Front de Gauche.
00
“The socialists have not yet run out of other peoples’ money to spend.”
How I hate this statement, as it is always so true.
ABC, BBC, EU and UN, we are talking to you – you unaccountable monolithic bureaucracies, run purely for the benefit of your super-bureaucrats and never a thought for the 99.9% rest of us.
60
Please add in Greenpeace, WWF, and most any environmental group including politics, and a good many charities too. Unions, pressure groups and self-appointed authorities on any subject. Nothing but power houses, and a waste of somebody else’s money.
10
Agree! I spend a some time in Oloron -sainte-Marie in bas Pyrenees.Same malaise.No-one bloody works! Maybe I can’t blame them.Bring back Petain or Le Pen!
20
Jo,
FYI
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/26/The-Green-Blob-Unveiled-How-UK-Energy-Policy-is-Bought-With-American-Billionaires-Cash
70
As noted previously, an interesting empirical experiment in the UK:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/10/26/lights-on-factories-off.html
One really hopes that Europe/UK is not polar-vortexed this coming NH winter
40
I see in the Australian Financial Review today that Europe is after Australian gas, instead of the Russian version.
It made me smile. Might add impetus to UKIP Euro-separatism and re-ignite The Commonwealth?
In stark contrast, The Weekend Australian Magazine ran an editorial ‘Boo to a Goose‘ by Phillip Adams that seemed quite well written and made a number of nice points about fear in society, notably fear of each other. Numerous similar articles have been written on the subject, all along the lines of ‘fear-mongering injures civil society’. Unfortunately here though, and possibly an agenda requirement for such writers, the inevitable insertion of the climate change fear, the one that is the only, sane, rational and incontrovertible fear that we should be obsessed by. Groan.
I’m afraid I gave up at that point and returned to my novel, promising myself I wouldn’t break my promise not to read, listen of watch any MSM news for at least another year. And it turned out to be a mixed day. A young vertically challenged female constable who’d obviously picked the short-straw and got stuck directing traffic and pedestrians all Sunday in southbank Brisbane utterly lost her bottle much to widespread entertainment when someone decided to cross the road independent of direction, and having looked both ways wandered across nonchalantly. The dark aviator bespectacled public official screeched her maniacal displeasure in a spittle riven lengthy diatribe, which was enjoyed by all, who collectively appreciated that it was about not doing as one was directed, and amounted to a perfect example of psychological projection.
There was pause for thought reflected in this moment in another nice article published in the Australian Financial Review this morning written by Greg Lindsay aptly entitled: Personal freedom leads to economic freedom that highlighted the relationship between personal freedom and wider national economic success, a relationship that in his view needs to be ‘won’ by each generation. The article winds up with a well placed sombre and relevant note of ‘not to be taken for granted’. How right.
40
Sorry, I didn’t read the article, it appears to be paywalled.
However, Australia does have an awful lot of gas… and despite projects like BPs Shah Deniz field in the Caspian being (more or less) on track (although it is far from easy drilling) to provide 10 billion cubic metres of gas per year (and thus, decreasing reliance on Russia, ever so slightly), it’s still a pretty small percentage of European needs.
00
I just don’t understand.
Socialist and feminmists Burned the Bra in demonstrations for women’s rights in the 60’s.
Not a whisper to Ban the Burqua for women currently dominated in a repressive culture.
60
It doesn’t make sense…it’s PC in action.
20
The Burqa might be used for a reason, always be careful what you wish for. 🙁
10
The burqua was used by some men at (I think it was) Birmingham Airport as disguise. Now why would they do that?
40
Annie I don’t know if you clicked on ‘reason’ it was a poor attempt at humor, and no I don’t see any reason to conceal a woman’s face either.
20
I see what you mean Yonnie.
20
You are sure ignoring (or the d word) a lot of feminists if you are going to back the claim,”not a whisper”.
By the way, I can’t recall any feminist suggesting a banning of the bra (prove me wrong) so in addition to an evidence free assertion you’ve made a falacious comparison. Well done James.
15
You really must improve your reading ability Gee Aye. James made no mention of banning anything.
Read it again, and then apologise, there is a good fellow.
51
Firstly it is up to me to apologise as I’ve done many times, when I see fit, not at the behest of a third party’s opinion.
His comment was
He implied that the feminists were not agitating for its banning in the same way they burned the bra, in support of women’s rights. My comment was pointing out that his comment was drawing a fallacious comparison. ie burning a bra can’t be compared with a call for banning the burqa or anything else. Sorry if you misunderstood me to be saying that James said banning the bra.
16
James made two statements: One about feminists, and the other about the Burqa. The subjects are separated by time, and James rightly used two different paragraphs, to convey that separation.
You conflated those two statements to imply that feminists were, or were not, commenting on the wearing of the Burqa.
James was drawing a parallel, but he did not imply the relationship that you seized upon.
52
Well, meaning is in the eye of the one doing the reading. So who was the “not a whisper from”, in your interpretation?
23
Gee Aye,
Meaning is at the discretion of the writer.
Interpretation is at the discretion of the reader.
As a writer I am not responsible for your misinterpretation.
41
Apology accepted.
41
You’ve just dated your age Gee Aye. And you could have just copy/pasted what James wrote and Googled it for yourself.
Those who were watching new fangled colour TV in the 70’s remember well the women’s movement chanting burn the bra (burn = not a spelling mistake).
31
Gee Aye,
Challenge accepted:
“By the way, I can’t recall any feminist suggesting a banning of the bra (prove me wrong)…”
Response:
Germaine Greer.
42
I assume you are talking about Rotherham, in the UK? Where fear of being named and shamed as a racist is more dreadful than anything imaginable.
If you have the stomach for it, have a look at dotsub.com/user/patcondell, and select the video entitled “The real enemy within”.
40
Rereke,
I have cause to deal with terrorists and extremists as part of my normal duties.
Many of the women I observe are required to wear burquas in order to maintain a status for their men within the particular groups to which their men belong.
I witness a number of the women regularly berated and abused publicly by their men merely to conform to the image the man wishes to convey to his group, reinforcing the positions of male and female within their ideology, and enhancing his status in his own group.
I also note a number of these women regularly changing from burquas and hijabs into western style clothing when out of range of scrutiny.
So the direct evidence suggests very strongly that the culture is repressive.
40
James,
I understand. I spent part of my early career in the Middle East, so I have a little experience of the culture, albeit somewhat ancient. So, I understand what you say about male status, and the domination of anybody who is considered their social inferior. And I agree, it leads to a very repressive society.
I certainly remember the alpha males, who had to appear to be in charge, and who had to be seen to gain something in every “discussion”.
But, in retrospect, I know considerably less about the women, and how they lived, or anything at all about domestic arrangements and lifestyle. It was always about the men. Interesting.
40
watching sport late last nite, then turned on ABC RN for the news headlines, only to hear the final 5 minutes of the promised second part of the New Dimensions interview with Paul Rogat Loeb. OMG.
the bit i heard included –
Occupy/Bill McKibben/sustainability/protest/bikes –
really, this is such a politically partisan program, it has no place whatsoever on taxpayer-funded media. period. it should be the first thing cut from ABC; in fact, it should never have been on ABC in the first place.
ABC: New Dimensions: Moving From Despair To Hope In Threshold Times: Part 2 with Paul Rogat Loeb
He admonishes us to avoid isolation, which is a killer of our spirit to persevere. A grassroots movement often unfolds when unlikely people get together and are joined by someone with a recognizable name. But its foundation is not built on hierarchy and that is what makes it so powerful. (hosted by Justine Willis Toms) #3512.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/newdimensions/moving-from-despair-to-hope-in-threshold-times3a-part-2-with-p/5836974
10
26 Oct: Canberra Times: Henry Belot: Would you ride to work if your boss paid you to?
Close to 50 per cent of Australians would ride to work if they were offered financial incentives to do so by their workplace, according to new research from the Heart Foundation and the Cycling Promotion Fund…
Up to 80 per cent of those surveyed said they supported financial incentives to encourage people to ride to work, with a lack of access to a bike being the biggest reason for not riding…
Cycling Promotion Fund spokesman Stephen Hodge said ride-to-work schemes would reduce congestion and carbon output while simultaneously providing health outcomes…
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/would-you-ride-to-work-if-your-boss-paid-you-to-20141026-11c01z.html
in Brisbane, the bikes just sit there, rusting away no doubt…& even Labor isn’t happy!
Dec 2013: Brisbane Times: Tony Moore: Brisbane’s CityCycle hire scheme loses $1 million a year
City Hall remains determined to push ahead with it, however, despite opposition calls to scrap it…
Expenses included $1.1 million in contribution payments, a further $1.1 million in revenue underwriting, $84,000 in staff costs, $22,000 in advertising and promotional costs and $34,000 in safety, including the provision of helmets.
In revenue, the scheme netted $1.3 million in advertising and $88,000 in sponsorship.
Opposition (Labor) leader Milton Dick has repeatedly called for the abolition of the scheme, saying it has cost ratepayers $14 million since 2010…”The only people doing well out of the CityCycle scheme is the French advertising company JC Decaux, who collect all the advertising revenue from the 167 advertising panels and 25 senior advertising sign sites that Council gave them as part of the CityCycle contract,” he said…
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbanes-citycycle-hire-scheme-loses-1-million-a-year-20131206-2ywhw.html
10
LOL.
26 Oct: CarbonBrief: Robert McSweeney: New study strengthens link between Arctic sea-ice loss and extreme winters
Declining Arctic sea-ice has made severe winters across central Asia twice as likely, new research shows. The paper is the latest in a series linking very cold winters in the northern hemisphere to rapidly increasing temperatures in the Arctic.
But the long-term picture suggests these cold winters might only be a temporary feature before further warming takes hold…
The authors of the study agree, saying:
“The frequent occurrence of cold winters may be a temporary phenomenon in a transitional phase of eventual global warming.”…
(Mori, M. et al. (2014) Robust Arctic sea-ice influence on the frequent Eurasian cold winters in past decades, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2277)
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/10/new-study-strengthens-link-between-arctic-sea-ice-loss-and-extreme-winters/
20
Let me see if I can decode this, without my brain turning to mush?
Less sea ice will result in colder winters. This is born out by very cold winters in the Arctic having higher temperatures, and these cold winters will increase the warming.
I think I will go and have a little lie down.
40
I definitely laughed out loud at this. Their logic really fuddles the brain!
20
Oh God, they use the old “twice as likely” stuff. So what was the base likelyhood before the artic melted and made Asia so cold? Was it more than 10%, less?
I hope that twice as likely statement was the media’s idea, and wasn’t actualy written in the study.
30
remember:
March 2000: Independent: Charles Onians: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community…
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said…
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
well, now we have:
27 Oct: Independent: Steve Connor: Global warming ‘will make our winters colder’
Britain can expect twice as many severe winters as usual over the coming decades, according to a study supporting the counterintuitive idea that global warming could lead to colder weather in some parts of the world…
Colin Summerhayes, emeritus associate of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, said: “This counterintuitive effect… makes some people think that global warming has stopped. It has not. Although average surface warming has been slower since 2000, the Arctic has gone on warming rapidly throughout this time.”…
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-will-make-our-winters-colder-9819825.html
and the MSM wonders why it has lost all credibility!
20
And the Climate Seance-ists(TM) wonder why they never had any credibility in the first place.
30
In their own minds they are perfectly credible, charitable, charming people.
It’s the plebs outside who constantly don’t understand. Hence the need for better communications.
20
Oh sorry.
I didn’t realise that it was all my fault. My bad.
20
pathetic, Goldenberg:
27 Oct: Guardian: Suzanne Goldenberg: Tom Steyer: the green billionaire pouring millions into the midterms
Former hedge fund executive has given nearly $56m and taken a stand against the Koch brothers by boosting liberal candidates in close races
With just days to go until the elections, it was revealed that Steyer had poured an additional $15m of his personal fortune into his NextGen Climate Action Fund, raising his contributions to $55.9m, according to Federal Election Commission filings on Monday night.
The former hedge fund executive has now emerged as the biggest single donor of this election cycle – at least as far as publicly disclosed donations are concerned – and a favorite new punching bag for Republican opponents, a role previously reserved for Al Gore…
It has already re-cast climate change as an election issue both now and in the 2016 presidential contest, argued Chris Lehane, a Democratic operative who is now NextGen’s chief strategist.
“We call 2014 a pivotal year for climate,” he said. “If you look around it’s clear that climate has emerged as a top -tier issue.”…
And there have been reports he (Steyer) is using NextGen as a dry run for his own future political campaign, perhaps for senator or governor of California…
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/26/tom-steyer-green-climate-change-millions-midterms-koch
10
“America — The best political system that money can buy”. George Carlin
30
It just proves that money can’t do everything! What was that about money being the root of all evil?
10
It never was. The original statement is that “the love of money is the root of all evil.”
20
You are quite correct…my OH reminded me but I didn’t have time to come back to correct myself.
10
We’re not hearing so much from Pachoochoo these days.
Have we just stopped listening or has he learned to think before he speaks & stop putting his foot in his mouth ?
10
We’re not hearing so much from Pachoochoo these days.
Have we just stopped listening or has he learned to think before he speaks & stop putting his foot in his mouth ?
10
If the Earth had no greenhouse gases in its atmosphere and thus no water, no vegetation, in fact nothing but rocks which would probably have mean emissivity of about 0.80, guess what its surface temperature would be.
The surface would receive all the solar radiation, there being no reflection by clouds or oceans and no absorption of incident solar radiation in the atmosphere.
Approximating the Earth to a flat disc receiving a quarter of the solar radiation 24 hours a day (as the IPCC guys do) we get about 315W/m^2 and using our trusty Stefan Boltzmann calculator, we get about 288.7K which is slightly hotter than the existing assumed mean temperature with all that water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and their “polluting” colleagues.
00
People (well climatologists anyway) don’t realise that the Second Law is about all forms of energy, not just the kinetic energy in molecules which gives them their temperature. The Second Law says thermodynamic equilibrium (not just thermal equilibrium) will evolve, and that includes mechanical equilibrium.
So, when a density gradient forms in a gravitational field that is an example of the Second Law in operation, and when a lake levels out again after rain falls on a small section of it, that also is the Second Law operating as entropy approaches the maximum level that is accessible within the constraints of the system.
I believe Josef Loschmidt (a brilliant physicist from the 19th century) realised this about the Second Law, and he deduced correctly that we need to consider the gravitational potential energy in molecules when determining the maximum entropy state, that is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that we only eliminate unbalanced energy potentials (maximising entropy) when the sum of molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy is homogeneous. This means that there is always a propensity to form a temperature gradient in a gravitational field. However, radiating molecules do radiate to each other and have a temperature levelling effect that means that the overall state of thermodynamic equilibrium (taking this radiation into account) has a less steep gradient. In water it is almost eliminated, but not in Earth’s outer crust for example.
Now, the important point is that, when thermodynamic equilibrium is attained (being the same as what climatologists like to call hydrostatic equilibrium, even though they don’t really understand why it is equilibrium at all) then all net non-radiative heat transfer stops. If we add thermal energy at the bottom (for example, the Sun warms the Earth’s surface after dawn) then non-radiative heat flow starts again with net upward transfers. But if instead, we add new thermal energy at the top, as at dawn on Venus and Uranus, then new energy transfer starts again with a net downward direction, this being what I call “heat creep” up the temperature gradient. And this is what really supplies the necessary thermal energy to supplement the Sun’s energy entering Earth’s surface, not back radiation which can’t transfer thermal energy from a colder troposphere to a warmer surface.
10
Maybe this will help people understand. When we have thermodynamic equilibrium we have a temperature gradient in which, if we consider two horizontal planes of molecules separated by the mean free path, then the difference in mean KE equals the difference in gravitational PE. When a molecule with mean PE and KE at the top level moves downwards between the layers, by the time it collides with one on the lower level its KE has increased and its PE decreased so as to match one with mean KE and PE at the lower level. Hence when they collide they have the same KE and so the combined KE after the (assumed elastic) collision is the same as before, causing no further warming or cooling. The opposite happens for molecules moving upwards between the two planes. Hence we have thermodynamic equilibrium. And this also demonstrates why the density gradient is not altered once that same state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves, simply because there’s no further redistribution of KE during collisions.
00
What really “traps heat” is gravity. If you visualised the graph of temperature v. altitude its gradient is induced by the effect of gravity acting on each individual molecule whilst in free path motion between collisions. The gravitationally induced temperature gradient is the very same state of thermodynamic equilibrium which the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will evolve. So the area under that graph represents the thermal energy that is permanently trapped by gravity in every planet’s troposphere, and even in its surface, crust, mantle and core. That is why it’s hotter than Earth’s surface at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus where there’s no direct solar radiation or any surface down there, 30 times further from the Sun than we are. Planetary surface temperatures are not primarily determined by direct incident radiation. There’s more in “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” of course.
00