The other day I took part in a discussion of AGW. I asked one of the participants why he believed CO2 gas in the Earth’s atmosphere causes global warming. His argument (logic) was in four parts. (1) At Earth atmospheric temperatures and pressures, CO2 is a gas. (2) Because CO2 gas both absorbs and radiates electromagnetic energy in sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band, CO2 gas is a greenhouse gas. (3) Greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere “trap heat” within the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system. (4) Heat trapped within the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system causes the temperature of the Earth’s surface to increase. Therefore, atmospheric CO2 causes global warming.
[Note that the above argument imposes no temperature restrictions on the “heat-trapping” nature of atmospheric greenhouse gases—in particular, on CO2. That is, the above logic implies that atmospheric CO2 will trap heat in the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system independent of the temperature of the CO2 gas.]
Before reading further, ask yourself if you (the reader) have encountered a greenhouse-gas/heat-trapping argument that for all practical purposes is the same as above. Now I’m NOT arguing that CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere won’t produce an increased Earth’s surface temperature. The Earth/Earth-atmosphere is a complex thermodynamic system; and there may be reasons why atmospheric CO2 level affect Earth surface temperature–maybe hotter, maybe cooler. What I am arguing is that in isolation the responder’s logic for establishing the existence of CO2 induced global warming is woefully inadequate—primarily, as I will show, because as a “stand-alone” argument the logic implies runaway global warming as long as greenhouse gases remain in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Consider an Earth with an atmosphere that is devoid of all greenhouse gases. Although cyclical phenomena (day/night, winter/summer, precession of the Earth’s axis-of-rotation, etc.) will cause fluctuations in the Earth’s surface temperature, provided the rate thermal energy enters the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system doesn’t change, when averaged over (a) the Earth’s surface area and (b) time intervals much longer than the period of the longest cyclical phenomena, the Earth surface temperature should converge to a single temperature–or at least settle in a small range of temperatures. Let the area-averaged, time-averaged surface temperature in the absence of all atmospheric greenhouse gases be Tno_greenhouse_gases. Now inject CO2 gas into the Earth’s atmosphere and stipulate that the injected CO2 is a greenhouse gas. According to the logic of the responder, (1) because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the injected CO2 will trap heat in the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system, and (2) the trapped heat will produce an increase in the area-averaged, time-averaged Earth surface temperature. Bottom line, atmospheric CO2 will cause the area-averaged, time-averaged Earth surface temperature to increase to a value greater than Tno_greenhouse_gases.
No matter how much higher the CO2-atmosphere, area-averaged, time-averaged Earth surface temperature is relative to the greenhouse-gasless, area-averaged, time-averaged Earth surface temperature, (1) the greenhouse gas nature of CO2 doesn’t change (i.e., CO2 remains a greenhouse gas over a wide temperature range); and (2) provided the CO2 doesn’t leave the atmosphere, atmospheric CO2 will continue to trap heat within the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system. But according to the responder’s logic, heat trapped within the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system increases the Earth’s surface temperature. Thus, independent of the area-averaged, time-averaged Earth surface temperature at any instant in time, greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause the area-averaged, time-averaged Earth surface temperature to increase.
Using the logic of the responder then, the conclusion is that as long as CO2 in gaseous form remains in the Earth’s atmosphere, via greenhouse gas trapping of heat the Earth’s area-averaged, time-averaged surface temperature will increase without bound. Because the Earth’s atmosphere currently and for the past several hundred million years has contained greenhouse gases, obviously either (a) the area-averaged, time-averaged Earth surface temperature does not increase without bound, or (b) the rate of temperature increase is so small as to be a non-issue for time periods on the order of several hundreds of years, or (c) other phenomena “release heat” from the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system at a cumulative rate comparable to the rate atmospheric greenhouse gases “trap-heat.” If (a), as a “stand-alone” justification of CO2-induced global warming, the responder’s logic is a non-sequitur. If (b), atmospheric CO2 is not a practical problem. If (c), shouldn’t we fully understand the “heat-releasing” phenomena before we panic and institute a campaign to regulate mankind’s use of fossil fuels?
The only reason that the CO2 mechanism ever got any traction is that scientists heard of other scientists making the claim and wrongly assumed that the claims were properly verified and most importantly limited by boundary conditions stipulated in the research.
The reality was devastating.
A small and severely limited mechanism involving human origin CO2 was given unjustified pride of place in the Earths thermodynamic workings.
Without the complicating involvement of the temperature range in which the IR -CO2 absorption mechanism works there are a number of basic problems for the theory.
1. CO2 may absorb ground origin IR but immediately distributes that energy to other non greenhouse gases.
The gas parcel expands, rises and takes that CO2 out of the loop. A new gas parcel rushes in and the process repeats.
2. Water and natural origin CO2 absolutely swamp any human CO2 effect from all sources and from a quantitative point alone this invalidates the AGW thesis.
3. Adding further to the inability of CO2 to be a problem is the asymptotic effect that shows that more CO2 is basically an irrelevance to the AGW issue.
4. It is a scientific impossibility given the nature of the system that the Earth can be heated by GH gases
and all that can happen is that solar energy contained within solid material of the biosphere will take a little longer to travel the reduced thermal gradient to outer space. The thermal gradient is of course reduced by the presence of clouds.
No “heating” just slower cooling of an already energised surface.
one must also consider that if you double the number of CO2 molecules radiating to space then the cooling capability of the biosphere increases with the concentration change. Increased CO2 MUST have a nett cooling effect on the total earth energy balance. That is it must cool the stratosphere more than it heats the surface. If you heat the surface and cool the stratosphere you increase delta T across the atmosphere – what must happen? Convection must increase. The GHG theory says convection decreases. Satellites say that increased GHG increases IR emission to space inline with the intuitive solution – the models are wrong. Increasing radiative gasses in the atmosphere cannot reduce radiation to space unless that CO2 can REDUCE convection.
The problem with these debates is that since you’re a “luke warmer” they’re not telling you something you don’t already agree with. The problem is dangerous climate change. But essentially all of the “studies” implying these terrible impacts are utter crap from top to bottom. Now I’m not going to go into the nuts and bolts of these (they’re too numerous) but they all share one thing in common. As their input data, or as a prerequisite for their reliability…they require high climate sensitivity. EVERYTHING in this recent vilification of CO2 is about warming rates…rates that quite simply have never existed. Even when you cherry pick say, 1975 to 2005, there’s just not enough warming, something just under .2C/decade. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2005/trend
So this is where you can see the whole marketing aspect of global warming. They claim/worry about 3C or higher amounts of warming. But then they defend that claim with basic greenhouse gas theory, which is only good for about 1.2C per doubling. They often use “half” in one way or another. When questioned for consensus they ask scientists if its likely more than half the warming is because of anthropogenic forcing.
Always make it clear that you have no problem with basic greenhouse gas theory…and don’t let them get away with defending half. Their claim is contingent on about 3C of warming. I usually open with something like, until the early 2000s it seemed reasonable to assume there MIGHT be stronger positive feedbacks. BUT if you looked at the official temperature data now and had to guess if the next decade would get warmer or stay the same/drop…it looks pretty obvious that the cycle is trending towards level/cooler http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend
I also like to show them that IPCC projections clearly assumed a continuation of the 80/90s warming, while skeptics assumption of low sensitivity make perfect sense given the ups and downs of the temperature record. Its amusing pointing at the red/orange line and ask…do you think its likely THAT trend could go a decade without producing a statistically significant “record high”?
Side note: That graph is contingent on the surface record being correct…and it’s pretty obvious at this point a significant amount of the warming is actually erroneous adjustment.
EVERYTHING in this recent vilification of CO2 is about warming rates
This is the thing. There is no statistically significant difference between the warming rates of the late 1800’s, early 1900’s and between 1978 and 1998. None (Professor Phil Jones, CRU East Anglia). No climate scientist will try to argue that the earlier two warming periods were anything other than natural.
There is no “signature” for CO2 “forcing” in the temperature record. It has not and cannot be measured. It is ONLY a hypothesis without a jot of empirical evidence to support it. None.
1/4 of the total of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution have occurred since 1998, yet the temperature trend since then has remained flat. The planet cooled between 1940 and 1975 while CO2 emissions escalated.
The AGW/CO2 hypothesis is falsified by clear empirical evidence. The warming periods correlate with the PDO, not with CO2.
Not 40 years of cooling, it should bottom out in about 10-15 years after a total of around 25-30 years (25-30 warming, then 25-30 cooling). The cycle its self is about 50-60, although I recall reading that the proxy record indicates it can go as long as 80.
What is causing it…well Judith Curry and others have proposed the stadium wave hypothesis. People with a background in electronics would probably prefer to treat/refer to it more like an RC circuit or other timing circuit. Its not fully understood but the reasonable assumption (not to be taken as law, obviously) is that the climate subsystems like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation, etc…all impact each other and various feedbacks. As one system becomes active in one way it induces changes in the others, which eventually cause them to change states as well. Sort of like the PDO tips over the AMO then the AMO tips over the PDO (a GROSS oversimplification)
Lots of speculation on what causes it or times it. It could be that its a planet-wide climate oscillation that’s sympathetic to the solar cycle changes. I really wouldn’t put too much stock in anyone’s opinions yet. But we know the oscillation is there and that its been going on for thousands of years at least.
I’ve never been called a “lukewarmer” before. Do I believe gases (both greenhouse and non-greenhouse) can have an effect on the distribution of Earth surface temperatures both with respect to position and time? Yes. Do I believe that effect might induce a change in the area-averaged/time-averaged Earth surface temperature? Yes. Do I have an opinion as to the sign of that change and/or the magnitude of the change with respect to a change in CO2 levels? No to both. Do I believe a valid case has been made that to save the Earth we must curtail our use of fossil fuels? Absolutely NOT. To address “global warming/or global cooling” whichever is occurring, would I impose any restrictions on mankind’s use of fossil fuels? Absolutely NOT.
As regards my feelings about the area-average/time-averaged Earth surface temperature, my positions may make me a “lukewarmer.” However, my feelings about the furor over mankind’s use of fossil fuels puts me firmly in the “anti-AGW” camp.
The spectrum of light including heat radiation is very wide, measured either as wavelength or frequency. Radiant heat as infra red light is far wider than visible light and CO2 only blocks a small part of it at very specific frequencies. So if 1% is blocked the first time, the next time it is thus only 1% of 1%. So heat escapes quite easily, as before.
Then how much CO2 is actually needed to cause this greenhouse effect? Not much and it was already there at the start of the 20th century. From now at a concentration of 0.04%, quadrupling the CO2 would only increase the effect by 5%, like drawing a second blind over an existing one.
The far greater greenhouse gas is water. It blocks a very large part of the IR spectrum, is far more prevalent and forms clouds which reflect incoming light which CO2 cannot and blocks the sun in the first place. Unlike CO2, clouds are not invisible. Lord Monckton’s analysis of clouds shows that cloud variation alone could fully explain the bump in world surface temperatures at the end of the 20th century. For every molecule of CO2 produced, you get one of H2O but no one has seriously proposed water as a major threat to humanity. We live on water, near water, drink water and we are made of water. Laughable. CO2 is more mysterious simply because it is invisible and sounds like a chemical. Who fears Oxygen Dihydride?
What is not obvious, what most people cannot truly believe, is that the other major component of all plants and thus all animals, is CO2. Dry out the water and humans are 86% Carbon and burn like dry wood. Carbon lifeforms. If Carbon is pollution, we are ‘pollution’. Mind you, I do know some people for whom that is a reasonable description but not because of their chemical composition.
CO2 is the gas of life as much as O2. When you breathe in, the air has 22% O2. When you breathe out, 13% O2, 24% CO2 and 100% humid. Rapid water/air exchange of CO2 and O2 over 40 m2 of lung. As a much later development of life on planet earth, we are in total symbiosis with plants who need our CO2 and we need their O2. They convert the energy of the sun, CO2 and water into hydrocarbons (sugars) and O2. We eat the plants and convert their hydrocarbons back into CO2 and water, the cycle of life. If CO2 is evil pollution, so is all life on earth. More CO2, more life on earth.
Having survived many ice ages and hotter times, humans and their ancestors have experienced many levels of CO2. To claim that one specific level of CO2 is ideal is absurd. Further to claim that mankind determines CO2 levels in the atmosphere is unproven science fiction.
Finally, CO2 has increased 50% in the 20th century. Point to the disastrous warming. There is every indication that the last drought was nowhere near as bad or hot as the Federation drought 100 years ago.
In fact we could do with some Global Warming in Melbourne. I do not see any press releases from the BOM or the Climate Institute about the coldest January in many years. Like a medieval religion, Climate Change relies on the fires of hell to scare people into paying.
Say,TdeF, Penn and Teller got hippies to sign a petition to
ban water.)Plenty of water here in Melbourne town at the
moment, global warming from that ol’Cee Oh Too not so much.
I prefer Oxygen dihydride but either one works. You can make it very clear to people, but no one clicks. The People Against Everything.
As explained by Dr. Patrick Moore, no Greens understand Chemistry except perhaps that one German woman he remembers. Before Carbon, banning Chlorine was Green policy and still may be. Forget NaCl and PVC. All banned. As he points out, you cannot ban the periodic table or any part of it. It is like banning the number 5 from the multiplication table.
That phrase ‘Greenhouse gas’ or the even more dubious ‘greenhouse effect’ are just wrong as a type of definition.
As Professor Wood’s experiment showed that greenhouses do not require ‘special’ gasses to warm them, thus the phrases are worthless.
These phrases were introduced by those that agree with CO2 catastrophically warming the air because it obscures the reality of the argument. The link to most ordinary people is that they know what a greenhouse is, and that it gets warmer inside than the outside atmosphere. By continuously linking greenhouses with ‘Global warming’ the CAGW advocates are winning the argumet in the publics eyes as this oversimplification appears logical to much of the public. By reusing the CAGW advocates’ language, as they like it to be used, you allow them control of the argument.
Is there a scientific definition for a ‘greenhouse gas’ or ‘greenhouse effect’? (and I do not mean wikipedia definition.) As far as I can tell there are many many different ones, but no agreed, definative, scientific one.
Using phrases such as ‘Infra-red active gases’, and the ‘effects of IR active gases’, is IMO a much better way to explain these things.
An excellent point. Control of the language. Otherwise Greenhouse gas does seem to express the idea that CO2 can trap some infra red, like glass which traps all infrared. Agreed, Greenhouses do not require special gases as the glass does all the work.
CO2 is however very poor compared to glass, trapping only a few narrow wavelengths. The analogy is reasonable by way of explanation for those who understand how greenhouses work. However the differences with a real Greenhouse abound. Firstly, CO2 only traps a few narrow bands of infrared, so it is very porous. Next heat will escape on the second attempt at a different wavelength. Then there are no actual walls and roof to contain the heat and hot air does rise. The world system is also stormy and turbulent, allowing the hot gas to rise to the top and radiate. Lastly, there is no solid floor, 66% water and changing from the equatorial forests to the deserts of the forties to the cold of the arctic.
So while the analogy explains the science principle, but no one could suggest that it was a perfect model for planetary conditions. There simply is no hothouse.
I’m a professional infrared astronomer who spent his life trying to observe space through the atmosphere’s back-radiation that the environmental activists claim is caused by CO2 and guess what? In all the bands that are responsible for back radiation in the brightness temperatures (color temperatures) related to earth’s surface temperature (between 9 microns and 13 microns for temps of 220K to 320 K) there is no absorption of radiation by CO2 at all.
In all the bands between 9 and 9.5 there is mild absorption by H2O, from 9.5 to 10 microns (300 K) the atmosphere is perfectly clear except around 9.6 is a big ozone band that the warmists never mention for some reason.
From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2.
This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it’s so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface.
The whole theory of a CO2 greenhouse effect is wrong yet the ignorant masses in academia have gone to great lengths trying to prove it with one lie and false study after another, mainly because the people pushing the global warming hoax are funded by the government who needs to report what it does to the IPCC to further their “cause”.
I’m retired so I don’t need to keep my mouth shut anymore. Kept my mouth shut for 40 years, now I will tell you, not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. Just to let you know how stupid the global warming activists are, I’ve been to the south pole 3 times and even there, where the water vapor is under 0.2 mm precipitable, it’s still the H2O that is the main concern in our field and nobody even talks about CO2 because CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K. Not at all. Therefore, for Earth as a black body radiator IT’S THE WATER VAPOR STUPID and not the CO2.
After all these years I still have no idea how CO2 warms the planet. I know a fair bit about electromagnetic radiation and thermal heat transfer through solids, gases and liquids. I know a lot about CO2 and its radiation signature. Also H2O, that other ‘greenhouse’ gas. I understand the theory of blackbodies and the rules governing net energy transfer.
I understand how sunlight can warm these gases and warm the atmosphere and that energy will not reach the surface resulting in less warming of the surface.
I cannot understand how night time radiation from the surface warms CO2 in the air above. The CO2 in the air will be at the local air temperature at whatever altitude. At night CO2 will not see 2.7micron radiation (~800C) or 4.3micron radiation (~400C) but it will indeed see radiation over the 13micron to 17micron band, some 18% of the total radiation leaving a surface at 15C (288K and 400w/m^2), utilising some 3,800 lines of radiation. Problem is these bands of radiation CANNOT heat anything much above -30C (243K peak radiation at 13micron). That same CO2 will be radiating over those 13 to 17micron bands cooling the night air and half that energy does reach the surface but the surface is much warmer than -30C so no warming there.
If we want back radiation from the atmosphere we must talk about clouds. Here we see the blanket effect where radiation from the bottom of the clouds, very close to black body range, reduces the rate of cooling of the surface such that heat stored during the day now returns. Thermal heat transfer in a solid is quite slow.
Very good. My other point was reflection, stopping light from even entering the atmosphere. CO2 is invisible on the way in, but clouds reflect. UV gets through but visible light is blocked. This reduces temperatures. The idea that one small effect and one effect alone determines the earth’s temperatures ignores what everyone knows, that clouds have a huge impact on the weather, not CO2. In fact when you talk about weather, you are generally talking about wind and water. As this scientist points out, even Ozone has a far bigger effect than CO2 but is never mentioned.
That piece highlights the nature of the scam; taking a mechanism that is real and demonstrable in laboratory conditions and then claiming that it is the one and only mechanism at work in the complex situation of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Complex interactive physical and chemical systems like the system in dispute requires a little more science and engineering than has ever been available to Climate Science.
Indeed Climatologist must have known this because they refused assistance and collaboration from mainstream scientists ; and that was because they needed to delay the discovery of the sham by the general public.
“CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K.” (0C = 273K so this range is -50C to +47C)
(Each surface temperature corresponds to wave length of Infra Red radiation. The colder the surface, the longer the radiation wavelength._
So this lifelong professional astronomer specialising in back radiation says CO2 back reflection is insignificant, even in cold Antarctica at -50C. End of story. There is really nothing more to say. That is the end of the Hot House effect for planet Earth.
Mostly what I have done is to say that if what they are proposing is true ie CO2 takes in more energy from ground to redistribute to the local gas parcel, THEN, man made CO2 is quantitatively irrelevant because of water and natural origin CO2.
I certainly haven’t looked at whether the gas parcel is heated by the inbound frequencies even before the ground origin IR comes into action.
If the inbound energy heats the gas parcel before the IR then it makes the greenhouse scenario even less important.
The Human Origin CO2 CAGW claim can be disposed of easily and I agree there is too much laxity in the definition of GHG.
Like the term “forcing” it is a nonsense when there are correct physical concepts available to explain the system
No No Keith you miss something very important Temperature is the average kinetic energy of the parcel of air, if Temperature is transferred to the surface then the energy is NO LONGER in the molecule to heat it. The atmosphere cannot be heated by the photon “On the way through” it either has that kinetic energy or it does not.
In fact for IR Radiation the molecule doesn’t even heat, it enters a higher quantum state (internal bonds vibrating with different modes) it only where the vibrating molecule falls from that state a moment later that it either passes the photon on via radiation, or hits something and transfers the energy (probably to a Nitrogen or Oxygen molecule) as heat.
OK Griss you like picking off those little points, yes strictly it is motion but didn’t I just finish pointing out the equivalence between (average) Kinetic Energy and Temperature?
There is also the phenomenon of greenhouse growers adding CO2 to increase growth rates of plants. I believe the practise did nothing to warm the environment, but merely stimulated growth as CO2 became a limiting factor to plant growth in the warm/humid environment of the glasshouse.
I agree that the language used in a discussion can have a significant impact on what people take from the discussion–especially lay people. I believe the terms “greenhouse gas” and “greenhouse effect” are deliberately used by AGW proponents because to the average person the word “greenhouse” implies a volume of space hotter than the greenhouse’s immediate surroundings. As such, by calling CO2 a greenhouse gas AGW proponents are well on their way to convincing lay people that because CO2 is surrounds the Earth’s surface, CO2 must increase the Earth’s surface temperature. As much as I dislike those terms, they appear throughout most discussions of AGW. As such, to completely ignore them seems folly to me.
When I use the term “greenhouse gas,” I mean any matter in gaseous form that both absorbs and radiates electromagnetic energy in sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band–no more or no less. I, too, would much prefer the term “infrared active gas;” and you’re probably correct that by using the term “greenhouse gas” instead I’ve put myself behind the eight-ball trying to discuss the effects of atmospheric CO2 on Earth surface temperatures. Given the choice of using a term that is misleading but almost everyone is familiar with or using a term that is more accurate but not commonly used, I guess I’ll stick with the commonly used term. I don’t like it, but that’s the way I see the issue.
At one time I read a comment by Dr. Roy Spencer on either his blog or Anthony Watts’ blog in which Dr. Spencer defined the greenhouse effect. I just spent and hour trying to find the reference, but I failed. However, as best I recall Dr. Spencer defined the “greenhouse effect” to be the increase in the Earth’s surface temperature and the lower Earth atmosphere temperature resulting from the presence of atmospheric “greenhouse gases.” Once you’ve (or more accurately, I’ve) caved in to the use of greenhouse gas, it’s a small step to accept the term “greenhouse effect.” This doesn’t mean that even though greenhouse gases radiate electromagnetic energy in sub-bands of the IR band and some of that energy will be radiated downward (i.e., towards the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere), the net effect of the presence of atmospheric greenhouse gases is to warm either the Earth’s surface or the lower atmosphere. In particular, because it takes large amounts of heat (energy) to convert water to water vapor and as such evaporation removes heat from water and thus tends to cool Earth surface water (oceans), someone will have to explain to me why the presence of water vapor, which in large part comes from evaporation of oceans at an average rate of 120 centimeters of water depth per year) in the Earth’s atmosphere on balance isn’t a component of a large evaporative air conditioner; and as such if anything the presence of water vapor (a greenhouse gas) in the Earth’s atmosphere isn’t indicative of a net cooling effect on the Earth’s surface temperature.
The term that upsets me is “trap heat.” In my opinion, when it is said that greenhouse gases “trap heat” the implication is that a portion of the heat leaving the Earth’s surface never escapes the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system. That is, as long as heat is being generated by the Earth, a continuous portion of that heat for all time during which greenhouse gases exist in the atmosphere is accumulating within the Earth’Earth-atmosphere system. Much like a lint trap in a dryer “traps lint.” Such an implication is nonsense. Like all matter, greenhouse gases may store thermal energy (heat) but eventually the rate energy enters the Earth will equal the rate energy leaves the Earth. When this condition occurs, (a) a new temperature distribution may exist, but (b) heat is not being trapped.
I wrote: … and as such if anything the presence of water vapor (a greenhouse gas) in the Earth’s atmosphere isn’t indicative of a net cooling effect on the Earth’s surface temperature.
That sentence should have been: … and as such if anything the presence of water vapor (a greenhouse gas) in the Earth’s atmosphere is indicative of a net cooling effect on the Earth’s surface temperature.
” I asked one of the participants why he believed CO2 gas in the Earth’s atmosphere causes global warming.”
Am looking forward to the next such discussion.
Hope to ask why they think the moon has a higher black body temperature at the same average solar distance. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
Do know the answer but hope to enjoy watching warmists and slayers alike struggle with it.
“Do know the answer but hope to enjoy watching warmists and slayers alike struggle with it.”
Truth is you don’t know and wouldn’t know about a black body surface even if it bit you on the ;;;
While some may posture by talking about Black Body Coefficients and the like it is an irrelevance to the Man Made CO2 – Atmopsheric Temperature problem.
KK the reason for the difference is the lower albedo of the moon. Us electronics people get to do black body calcs for the real world. EG transistors on heatsinks etc. Do you?
Thanks for a preview of the fun.
I’m so glad that you feel your understanding of “transistors” is relevant to CAGW.
Maybe you Could help Ban Ki Moon and the IPCCC.
Please contact them, they can do with some help and you might even get to meet one of those famous film star guys, just forgotten his name for the moment , but you know.
KK
ps If you have an Albedo problem maybe you should see a doctor?
“Maybe you Could help Ban Ki Moon and the IPCCC.”
Natural variation seems to be taking care of them. Keen to see all sides explain the next round of cooling.
My apologies for the comments following your 1.4 above.
Unfortunately after corresponding with the PSI group over the last few weeks I have become overly sensitive to mention of “black bodies” and other planets in this discussion.
Reed Coray, your argument and those of your responders is not quite right. The effort to say CO2 has no effect is wrong. The counter that the effect is unbounded ignores its logarithmic nature. The main issues are in the feedbacks, not CO2 per se. For layman level (with technical footnotes for those so inclined, see seceral essays in ebook Blowing Smoke: essays in energy and climate. The foreward is from Judith Curry. If you don’t know who she is, better look that up. And I am on your side, and some of JoNova’s stuff is featured. And other of her stuff updated and echoed.
Kinky, that is truly kinky. Why not read up and get back. Water vapor is not a feedback and not by far the most important GHG? Ground level saturation ( ignoring the altitude effect)? Come on, you are just giving ammo to warmunists. Please don’t.
No there are feedbacks – Nett negative ones, for example if AGW were true and suppose the earths surface did heat by say 5 degrees, then what happens, Well the radiation from the surface increaes by (295/288)^3. The increase in temperature gradient increases convective loss, and more of that extra 5 Degrees goes into the oceans. More than 80% of that 5 degrees is immediately lost, so for every 5 degrees of GW actually 1 degree occurs. Now the IPCC says 5 degrees of CO2 induced warming would cause 15 degrees of warming – remember that our CO2 warming got reduced by a factor of 5 by the Negative feedbacks, well positive feedbacks have to be of the order of 15 x to get there. That’s a loop gain of over 0.95, now if you were to suppress just about any one of the negative feedback modes and you would suffer wild instability, with temperature swinging between the boiling point of water and freezing point of CO2.
Note that none of the feedbacks either negative or positive take the same TIME, that is they are not phase coherent, any EE will tell you that such a system with such high gain feedback loops is going to oscillate – climate models are naive because they don’t take account of time constants of all the various feedback modes they are simple scalar models analogous to doing a DC analysis of an amplifier, the scalar DC analysis tells you NOTHING about the systems dynamic behaviour.
Back radiation falling upon water will cause more evaporation. Is that not a negative “feedback”?
Warmists claim that this evaporation is a positive feedback, because water vapor is a GHG and more of it means more heat “trapped”…. but we know it’s not quite that simple.
Yes Backslider the energy of evaporation will be radiated to space, and the water body will be cooler, the atmosphere could be warmer while the evaporation happens and before the energy is radiated off. Humid weather, moderates the highs and lows, but a 20 – 33 degree climate on average is hotter than a 0 – 40 degree climate.
Isn’t it true that the “logarithmic nature” applies to the level of atmospheric CO2–not the fact that CO2 is present? That is, the rate heat is trapped may be a logarithmic function of the amount of atmospheric CO2. The argument of the responder, however, said nothing about CO2 levels. His logic implies atmospheric greenhouse gases, and in particular atmospheric CO2, “trap heat” at any level; and “trapped heat” causes a temperature rise. Thus, the “logarithmic behavior” is irrelevant to both the responder’s logic and my analysis of his logic. According to the responder, as long as CO2 (or any greenhouse gas) at any level exists in the atmosphere, heat will be trapped and the temperature will rise.
In any event, as a number approaches positive infinity (i.e., is unbounded), doesn’t the logarithm of that number also approach infinity–i.e., is also unbounded? I agree not anywhere near as rapidly as the number itself, but the “unbounded nature” still holds for the logarithm of a number.
“The argument of the responder, however, said nothing about CO2 levels. His logic implies atmospheric greenhouse gases, and in particular atmospheric CO2, “trap heat” at any level; and “trapped heat” causes a temperature rise.”
Of course people are confused! That wicked term “greenhouse gas” keeps getting used!
Explain to the responder that this planet is not like a simple greenhouse and the so called ‘greenhouse gas’ effect was overturned by Professor Wood many decades ago. This planet is not a greenhouse – period.
There are IR active gases and they have an effect – but they are not ‘greenhouse gases’.
Ah yes, but think of the chemical equation for combustion, CO2 does not ADD to the atmospheric mass, it replaces an O2 with a CO2 so the Process is bounded at 1 ATM (well actually at the point there is insufficient oxygen for combustion), global warming must be bounded because the atmosphere is bounded. The analysis is wrong CO2 warming IS bounded.
No matter how many explanations I read about the Green House Gas Effect Theory, the answers always fail to satisfy. Either I am too dim witted to understand (possible), or there is something wrong with the explanation.
As usual you reason things out with careful logic.
For Sliggy,
I had not seen thoses figures from NASA before, giving an effective black body temperature of the moon, which is higher than the Earth, however it is not a problem for the Slayers. The Slayers have a number of explanations for the surface temperature of the Earth, none of which involve a green house gas effect.
Thanks Peter C. Yes I am aware of greenhouse gases on the moon like the abiotic “fossil” fuels that turn up on most of the moons in our solar system. Am also aware of mass in any real world thing. Have seen it save the device when the maximum pulse duration of a transistor driven way beyond the thermal runnawy point is short compared to the off time between pulses.
“The Slayers have a number of explanations for the surface temperature of the Earth,”
Yes but does the gas pressure one work on the hotter moon with its lower gravity?
Either I am too dim witted to understand (possible), or there is something wrong with the explanation.
Possible, but not the leading hypothesis surely. The Scientists™ have had 25 years of uncontested airtime to explain it to the intelligent public. I think you’d be well within your rights, at this point, to invoke the Feynman rule on their asses: “if you can’t explain it to a class of undergrads, you don’t understand it.”
PS From me as well, thanks to Reed for the thought and effort he put into that summary!
I have to disagree with your point about CO2’s radiative abilities. Gases are lousy radiators at pressures found in most of the mass of our atmosphere. They can absorb energy at their vibrational frequencies but will run into another atom/molecule and lose that energy by collision with another atom/molecule long before they can radiate. Take, for example, Aurora Australis. It occurs at pressures of 1 Torr or less and requires extremely energetic particle collisions to occur. None of that happens at pressures much above 7 Torr or 32km, and it’s really rare that low since it’s usually limited to 100km or higher, but can happen with enough energy input.
All the ways we use gases as radiation sources have two things in common, near vacuum pressures and massive inputs of energy. For example neon lamps start at 2,000 volts and go up. And those are really turning the gas into a plasma. CO2’s use in lasers not only requires massive inputs of power, either by electrical or high frequency RF, but also requires a mix of gases to drive the CO2… and the CO2 breaks down in the process unless a specific mix of gases and elements are added to “reform” it back into CO2. Needless to say, those conditions are not found anywhere in our atmosphere. If CO2 could radiate from simple heating, we could make a CO2 laser with a couple of LWIR mirrors, a tube and a heating element instead of a bunch of rare gases and exotic power supplies.
On top of all that, even if you could get the CO2 to radiate, its fundamental wavelengths are so long that very little energy is emitted at it’s peak… around -80°C. So, unless you’re using a whole lot of energy and a whole lot of CO2 and concentrating it (like a laser does) that rare as a unicorn radiative CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is only going to be able to warm up the center of Antarctica in the middle of winter thanks to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
</radiation rant>
We needed more analysis like this when the mess first started.
You have shown that while there is a theoretical mechanism attached to CO2 it actually occurs at temperatures that are so low the energy is irrelevant to life on Earth; it is bloody freezing!
But but….. if hot air rises, why isn’t it hot up there?
Ah yes!
The good old Lapse Rate, where temperature falls with altitude at the rate of 6.4 Degrees C for every thousand metres (which is the same as 3.5 degrees F for every thousand feet) in normal Atmospheric conditions.
Geez… first Planck radiation and thermodynamics and now that pesky Ideal Gas Law on top of that insidious gravity induced pressure gradient. You’d think our atmosphere was controlled by physics and chemistry instead of taxes, government funded pseudo-scientists and politicians who are “protecting our children” from Mann Made Global Climate [insert currently approved scary term here].
The scary part is that I learned all this stuff in High School chemistry and physics. Unfortunately (for my bank account) I didn’t think to ignore it and get on the extremely lucrative CO2 is Evil grant band wagon so instead of a Gulfstream and a 22,000ft² mansion I’m stuck in the Obama economy with an upside down mortgage, a couple of dozen rescued animals and a pile of Veterinary bills. That’s the high price of Science for ya.
You all have Rutherglen featured here. For a more comprehensive but now 4 months dated global overview, see essay When Data Isnt in ebook Blowing Smoke. Rutherglen is justnonemof many examples.
On GISS temperature data: If you constantly have to be manipulating your data to try and prove your theory, then perhaps there is something wrong with your theory.
Why is 1950 (or thereabouts) such a magic year? Around then all natural climate cycles supposedly ceased abruptly and were replaced by man induced CO2 climate change.
Why do so few real scientists in the private sector believe in CAGW, while so few ‘climate scientists’ in the public sector disbelieve in it?
Surely if alarmists were right in their opinions as they continue to outspend sceptics by a factor of 2-3,000 to 1, they should be winning the argument?
Why do left wing politicians – that’s if they ever bothered to follow their stated policies through to their logical conclusions – believe that relying on expensive and unreliable energy sources is a good idea. Do they really believe energy poverty should be made available for as many people as possible?
If CAGW theory had any merit, you would see it clearly in the geological record; the problem is this: it is not there.
Why are alarmists obsessed with the idea of fixing our planet’s climate, when it is self-evident this is totally impossible?
Peter, the climate distraction seems to me to be championed by a semi-autonomous herd of sheeple predisposed to progressive group-think. I say ‘distraction’ because as you have pointed out in your list of rhetorical questions the believers appear to wrestle mightily with their cognitive dissonance, in the end suspending rational thought in favour of belief. Such is the hall mark of religion in whose name irrationality is comfortably justified.
For the political conductors of the climate orchestration, the title of the distraction is irrelevant. This has also been demonstrated recurrently by the ease with which they move from one descriptor to another – global warming to climate change. Climate is only required to remain a distraction while the governing machinery of the new precautionary age is fully installed.
The delegation from China to the Copenhagen Conference told delegates that during 3,600 years of civilisation in China there were three periods warmer than the last warmer period that we now know stalled in 1998. They reported that each warmer period were times of greater prosperity when crops flourished.
1950 as a start year – below is probably just a coincidence .
There was an interesting study recently which looked at temperatures in the UK after the Clean Air Act and smokeless zones brought an end to the famous London Smog (and in other major urban centres)in the 1950s.
It found a strong correlation between winter temperatures rising over the next decade and more as air pollution reduced – presumed to be because sunlight could get through to ground level rather than being blocked by the smog.
Of course any increase in winter temperatures raises the average of the annual mean temperature.
Of course they did … they just voted higher access to ‘free’ money. I saw a couple minutes of TV interviews with both. Newman had half a clue, but Annastacia Palaszczuk came across as horribly inexperienced and naive. My rational assumption was that the LNP would hang on against such a weak opponent. I underestimated the power of stupid once again.
She was unable to answer a question about how much the Goods & Services Tax is, she did not know, and as an excuse said that she doubted most people in the street would know. No Minister.
I’m a Queenslander and I admit to reeling in shock as I watched the result unfold. I expected Newman to lose (never liked him, he’s a tosser) but THE WHOLE STATE? I think I’ve lost faith in the People and the Process. The Bligh Government was an utter cluster$%^&, but 3 years later they’ve put Anna2 in the chair.
As owner of a Business which is about to invest $500 K in capacity and hire two new people, I am considering putting a hold on that decision to assess the real impact. If Business slows, I may hold. If Business is unaffected I will lose all Faith in the Political process, understanding that it has no effect. That would be nice…
I was looking at hiring a few full timers, not now as I’ve lost confidence in the near future. I’ll just continue to use labour hire (backpackers). It’s going to be a rough ride.
I’m a biker.. and have many friends who are bikers.
You should see the expression on some people’s faces when a bunch of us turn up at a pub somewhere. 🙂
Some of us look rough, but the guys I travel with are some of the nicest, calmest guys you could ever wish to meet. Teachers, doctors, tradesmen etc etc.. all walks of life
Like any group, there are bad apples and extremists.
These are the people who you have to weed out, and at times we have.
Painting people with a broad brush is never a good idea.
I can walk into any Rebels Club House and be welcome with open arms. All that I know are decent, hard working business men or tradesmen. As in ANY sector of society, there are some bad people, a minority.
When I was opal mining (13 years) I had a contract put on me over a mineral claim – some bad asses were hired. So, I phoned my local club prez and he made another phone call. It was the funniest thing to be sitting in the pub and have two bad asses sheepishly come over and apologise 😛
I made the mistake of turning on the ABC news at 7:00 last night to find out what was happening North of the Border. For some reason the news was coming from ABC Brisbane (maybe another long weekend in Ultimo). Right at the end of the news and for no particular reason other than the women’s tennis finals were on that night they had a completely gratuitous piece on how the schorching temperatures were felling sports people all over the world, with shots of sweaty tennis players, collapsed players on the ground and shots from LAST year’s Tennis Open showing sweltering crowds. No mention that this year it was cool in Melbourne. They must have had the clip ready to go for this year’s open, expecting it to be hot, and decided to play it anyway, regardless of the fact that it was cooler this year than last. Can you believe it?!
The media have allowed a very negative campaign from Labor to run pretty much without comment. Palmer ran a negative campaign as well but I believe he lost a lot of support. The media concentrated on attacks on Abbott, how unpopular he was and how he didn’t turn up to the campaign launch.
Labor avoided anything to do with paying back debt. They said they will create more jobs (another massive increase in a public service that failed to deliver what the LNP slashed one could). I suppose it makes sense with the number of Victorians moving here that we would have the Victorian mentality (about 1/3 of Victorians employed are in government related jobs I believe. Not sustainable for a country so each state should not try to emulate such a farce).
Several groups including the usual labor dirt slingers GetUp attacked over the Barrier Reef.
Usually such a negative campaign falls hard but the media actively promoted it. On ‘our’ ABC news broadcasts were often ended with Labor propaganda with no LNP side of things. One was on a marginal seat on the Gold Coast that was about a labor candidate ‘stepping up for young people’ and held as an example of the interest young voters have in the election… but only if they supported labor. No LNP side in this for either that electorate or in general for the state. Ironically young people like their voice to be heard as an individual but parties like the Labor party are the furtherest removed from such ideologies, if the caucus or cabinet decide something the whole party HAS to vote that way. No crossing the floor is allowed or you are kicked out of the party..
LNP were too drunk on their landslide victory three years ago and made many mistakes. It wasn’t a mistake to clear out excess baggage in the public service though methods were shoddy the idea was acceptable. Mining on national parks was another blunder. The sheer number of members of parliament allowed some real scum to get in by the looks of it too. Ultimately you vote for a politician but there is a depth to how bad they are (Thompson, Gilliard etc are good examples of lowering the bar further as is the old qld favourite Russ Hinze… if there wasn’t a pie he had his finger in it was because he ate it!)
Enough of my rants though seems like we are in for a rough 3 years.
Yes another 3 years of hell, though I suppose we can profit off the new revitalized feed-in tariffs and other free money at the expense of the poor.
The LNP lost on Asset Leases – Nothing more, it should be noted that the last government mooting Asset Sales also floundered at the polls. If he’d been just a little more imaginative then he could have fixed the budget without the asset leases, now of course it’s on with Agenda 21 and Union rule in Queensland.
I am definitely thinking about pulling up stumps and moving somewhere that has a future – but where? Everywhere I look are leftie nanny states.
… as long as the printing presses are in the hands of the Progressive and liberal spenders. The end game there is not pretty… see Republic – Weimar – collapse of, for the very, very down side.
Queensland elections
So there you have it. They chose a leader who did know how much GST was in oz. She has a polish name that loosely can be translated to “pike” the fish and is completely mispronounced.
People memories are short and the average is indeed stupid. 80 $bb debt, worse than Greece per head.
This is what will happen to the rest of us in less than 2 years. Ets will be back with borrowings increased like a drunken sailor. This country cannot be reformed as you have 2 mln public servants now or 20% of workforce now.
Welcome to the banana republic, eh Argentina. Welcome to the age of the parasite.
But watch how nothing happens in VIC or QLD. It will be as though state politics don’t exist. Federal Labour will demand that state leaders simple hide themselves in their well appointed offices.
You are perhaps discounting that the media will certainly hide, downplay and ignore those State Labor factors, and definitely will massively accentuate an anti-conservative angle at the federal level.
I think the problem generally lies with the 10% or so of voters that don’t follow politics much. In Australia about 45% will vote Labor and Greens and about 45% will vote LNP.
The 10% or so undecided voters who are forced to vote go with their emotions and vote for the more popular leader rather than policy. As an example my 18 year old daughters friends voted labor because they don’t like Tony Abbott. Others looked at the faces of the candidates and preferred the labor leader. As simple as that!
The fact the LNP has done a good job in fixing QLD and had a plan is irrelevant! Those who are not really interested in politics or macro economics will just vote for who appears more likeable 😉
I think it was Churchill who said something like “democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the other forms!” 😉
I have doubts that the federal government can be saved now, not blaming them but with due consideration for relentless negativity from Labor supported by a large section of the leftist media coupled to the ignorance about the politics, the budget, deficit and debt displayed by too many voters. They are gullible and have what I call the Home & Away soap opera mentality, they seem to believe that the cast are not actors.
I stand by my pre-election prediction that if Labor wins, the next thing will be to borrow big time on the bond market to pay off debt, and then increase spending to reward supporters.
Just sit back and watch now because this will be the road map for the next federal election and the future path of Queensland will be the direction Australia will follow in two years.
Wow, just WOW! What a stunning result in Queensland! Finally we are rid of one nasty, divisive and destructive little man.
One to go. Abbortt, are you listening now? Have we got your attention yet? Hello?
Maybe the LNP will finally understand that nasty and divisive politics is not much of a winner. Thankfully the reprisal of the dark days of the Bjelke-Peterson era has been routed. Queenslanders have said no to corruption and attacks on the judiciary, among other things.
I’m hoping the QLD LNP elect Jeff Seeney as their new leader which will condemn them to opposition for a generation or two. Whoo-hoo!
I must say though listening to the sore losers of the LNP there seems to be no awareness at all of what went wrong. They just don’t get it.
What an awesome result and, as even Newman admits, the voters never get it wrong!
I think your comments speak volumes for the intellectual paucity of almost every opinion you hold. No wonder you are a CAGW zealot.
Whatever one may think of Campbell Newman or Denis Napthine as personalities, both made on the whole good economic decisions to reverse the decline into debt enslavement for future generations and deserved on that basis alone to retain government. Because of rusted on people like you who think that endless debt increases are never going to come home to roost, rather than destroying the lives of my children and grandchildren as we devolve into a western version of Argentina, then Australia as the country it once was is lost.
A self sufficient and thriving society has been transformed over two decades to a nation of mendicants, totally divided on tribal and ethnoreligious grounds, herded into cities while regional society flounders, a progressively more ignorant society where the average university graduate is functionally illiterate, and where the people have Queensland have elected to be governed by someone who I wouldn’t trust to be capable of mowing my lawn. And you are cheering?
The difference between you and people like me is that if the side of the political divide I gravitate to racked up mountains of unserviceable debt, threw open borders to broaden their voter base in cynical fashion that killed 1000 people plus, serially made decisions to expand the reach and size of government to no productive benefit, deliberately sabotaged an incoming government with delayed onset contractual expenditure obligations to sabotage the economy upon which we all rely, then I would vote elsewhere.
My vote is to reward those who at least attempt good governance, responsible expenditure, and at least recognized that welfare must be sustainable over the long term or else the whole system will fall down, leaving the most vulnerable out to dry. Your vote on the other hand takes no account of any consideration like that, IMHO, as demonstrated by your rejoicing the election of an incoming premier who will be hopelessly out of her depth and incapable of any semblance of good governance. You are an ideologue, and the lights are on but nobody is home.
Well strangely Fin, I am a person of QLD and I agree with him You might note that the LNP Polled more than the ALP so far by more than 3% – 41.2% LNP to 38.1% ALP, so in fact more QLD voters want the LNP than Labor, telling huh?
If you are talking federally, IMO the Libs definitely piked on curbing spending as much as they should have and every cost saving measure they were game enough to try has been blocked by a hostile senate. As such those senators share the blame for any lack of success in reigning this in.
The poisoning of the well was so effective, with so much put on the lay away (NDIS, NBN, Gonski, and a myriad of others ), again that is the responsibility of Swan and co.
In Victoria, Napthine had a 1.3 billion surplus, and people complained that he was hoarding it!
In Queensland, the Bligh Beattie governments racked up 80 billion in debt, $13 billion of which was “locked in” by the departing government. Return to surplus was a few years down the track, given the inertia of turning around the economy without ruining it, like turning the Queen Mary around.
What Labor have figured out is that the more effective they are at sabotaging the economy they are, the quicker they can return to power because either the “medicine” will be too unpalatable or their opponents can be criticised for failing to succeed in reigning in debt if they take a correct but softer option. It’s a win: win situation, except of course for we plebs who have to carry the economic cost. We are now at a point beyond redemption. Like the rest of the world, financial collapse and global depression, or worse, is inevitable.
The stupidity of the average voter is no defence, and no recommendation either.
“What Labor have figured out is that the more effective they are at sabotaging the economy they are, the quicker they can return to power because either the “medicine” will be too unpalatable or their opponents can be criticised for failing to succeed in reigning in debt if they take a correct but softer option. ”
—
Exactly, that’s a neat approximation of what is happening in Australian politics, the QLD Labor freak show were just the greatest vandals, they moved the fastest, they were the most zealous to poison the system and ensure it’s enfeeblement and selling of the population’s future to banks. And the same scurrilous bunch of Queensland Labor vandals gain power in Canberra as well.
It should be clear as day to the State and National media, and the rest of Australia should be acutely aware of it by now, but are they? Will they be? Would they even care?
Labor will win more often than not, no matter how badly they have performed, no matter how bad damage the county and various states, no matter how much they destroy the country’s future financial and economic functioning and resilience.
What do you again apart from gas bagging and expunging so much co2 that you have so much?
Are u one of the parasites that was mentioned above that live off people like me?
When was last time that you paid any tax?
To even post here confirms that for some the alleged Global Warming is a one sided political issue, not a scientific one.
Who really needs science when you can get the party you want in power? They can then decide on issues of science.
Both on this site and WUWT many of the commenters concentrate on foam-flecked, right-wing, tub-thumping, crazy conspiracy theories about international Marxism, and general discharge of bile. And I am sure there are sites with equally splenetic left-wing commenters.
It is all very tiresome, but I find these two sites have sufficient value to make them worth reading anyway. I try to ignore the political nonsense and concentrate on the important issues of grammar, science, and mockery.
You are a sad creature indeed. Can,t even call you an individual, as the individual thinking alien to you. You hate people like me with passion and (secretly or may be not) wish me dead. But you need me to pay for you, you need me to work hard and shut up. You are the paddler of the new age slavery, dehumanising ideology and for what? For your little unemployment benefit, your little tiny flat or perhaps living in mansion with your parents, with your pot and the blame culture. You blame me for oppressing you.
I came to this country with nothing and yet 30 years later I paid millions in tax. Is this is why you hate me so much because you feel like a failure?
Ask yourself why I could succeed and you can,t. Eh I know because you blame everyone else except yourself.
The Parliamentary Enquiry inti wind turbines has now published 5 submissions, all of them negative about wind turbines.
Anton put his in 2 week or so ago, Now there are submissions by, Regulation Economics, David Archibald and Dr Judy Ryan. Judy’s submission seems long, but it is only 6 pages and includes pictures, which adds to the Mbytes. The pictures tell the story. In short, wind turbines kill birds and they kill people. The final picture is a cartoon by Josh, which sums the thing up nicely.
David Archibald gets a bit distracted attempting to assert the Greenhouse Effect (unfortunately). He does however make the very important point that wind turbines are unsustainable because they don’t return their investment in energy terms. If one was to try to make a wind turbine, using only wind generated power, it would cost 3 times as much as the current ones did to produce. The power from that wind turbine would cost out at 30 cents/kWhr, and that is just for the first generation of wind turbines. The next generation would produce power at 90c/kWhr
Here in Britain, the Department of Environment & Climate Change last week launched its new Global Calculator Tool, so everyone can design policies to save the world from dangerous climate change. Problem is that the model is over-sensitive. By tweaking three levers I could make global emissions go negative without eliminating fossil fuel usage. These were
1. Reducing urban car use from 43% to 29% of journeys in 2050.
2. Reducing the average home area by 2050 to 95m2 from 110m2.
3. Effectively making a sirloin steak (medium rare) and venison in redcurrant sauce things of the past. Actually it is everyone going vegetarian, but I have my preferences. 🙂
Adding them together compared with a baseline of steady emission levels of about 50 GT/CO2e from 2050 to 2100, gave Adding them together gives global emissions of -2.8 GT/CO2e in 2050 and -7.1 GT/CO2e in 2100.
My post is DECC’s Dumb Global Calculator Model.
If you go direct to the tool I suggest you try out the example pathways in the center of the page. In particular the Friends of the Earth Pathway has emissions going slightly negative after 2050. The Vegan Society is the best. This generates -15.1 GT/CO2e in 2100. I cannot see how human beings can absorb CO2 but seeminglingly it is true, as an expert model says so. On a personal level, excessive consumption of pulses tends to increase my GHG emissions. 🙂
Given what’s happened to Greece’s election and what looks like happening elsewhere, such as Spain and Queensland, it appears voters almost everywhere are moving further and further to the left. This is not good news. I see nothing but economic and social catastrophe in the next few years. Even if AGW were true, we’ll have much bigger problems to deal with in quick time. I suppose we have to suffer yet another great and painful lesson in history before we all realize mankind is heading down a very dangerous rabbit hole. Let’s hope we learn sooner rather than later before we get too far into the rabbit hole. There is a point of no return where it’s fatal and mankind ceases to exist. That’s why I believe even if AGW were true, it pales into insignificance compared to the social, political and economic problems at hand.
Peter
When the continuous thread of evil Soviet Union and now docile China was removed it looks like people think it is acceptable to move to the left again. The new generation does not remember that fear and every day reports of the left craziness.
So much suffering and death is coming our way again. It seems humanity can,t live in free capitalism (which we don,t have now anyway).
“He does however make the very important point that wind turbines are unsustainable because they don’t return their investment in energy terms”
they pay off for some who are at the forefront of pushing the CAGW scam though:
31 Jan: Daily Mail: Prince Charles: Hellbent on being a meddling monarch. New book reveals ambition that could cause a British constitutional crisis
By Richard Kayand Geoffrey Levy
As King, his income would be a share in the profits of the Crown Estates – under a new system for which he was agitating over more than 20 years.
And, significantly, offshore wind farms have to pay rent to the Crown Estates, and there are likely to be 7,000 of the giant turbines round the UK
coastline by the year 2020. This could make him the richest monarch in British history… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2933811/Charles-Hellbent-meddling-monarch-New-book-reveals-ambition-cause-constitutional-crisis.html
“A few years ago, talking about weather and climate change in the same breath was a cardinal sin for scientists.
Now it has become impossible to have a conversation about the weather without discussing wider climate trends, according to researchers who prepared the Australian Climate Commission’s latest report.
The report, The Angry Summer, says behind the litany of broken heat and rainfall records this year, a clear pattern has now emerged.
It might even be the case that the mantra chanted after every catastrophic weather event – that it can’t be said to be caused by climate change, but it shows what climate change will do – has become a thing of the past.”
“The bureau’s previous outlook had predicted a dry start to the year, yet early January rain drenched many areas of central Australia and the country’s east.
Dr Watkins says those bursts of heavy rain can be difficult to predict in a long-term outlook.
“So we’re looking at a couple of weather events that have occurred rather than necessarily something that’s been driven by the broad scale climate.”
. . .
T’was only a few years ago … I see what you did there.
How is it the BoM can’t predict rain, but can “confidently” predict drought, and continually fail?
Thechronicle.com: ON January 10, amateur weather buff Neil Pennell did what trained meteorologists did not — predict the devastating and tragic flood event which tore though Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley claiming 23 lives.
re Kevin Marshall (Manicbeancounter) comment on the Global Calculator Tool.
a bit of fun:
2 pages: 28 Jan: Washington Times: Ernest Istook: California protects the chickens, Al Gore targets the humans
(Ernest Istook is a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma)
But while 300 million chickens get more living space, Al Gore and friends want 320 million Americans forced into cramped living quarters — to save the planet. Animal-rights activists push to let free-range chickens wander about, but Mr. Gore and friends want to end the mobility that automobiles provide for people….
The former vice president was part of a presentation at Davos — the elitist World Economic Forum in Switzerland — which outlined a plan from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. For our own good, they want to push people into cities and make us stay there — and spend $90 trillion to make this happen.
We get less legroom; chickens get more drumstick room. Let’s look first at the birds, then at us humans… http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/ernest-istook-california-protects-the-chickens-al-/#!
The Global Calculator tool also thinks that human beings should have less living space to save the planet. Also having less appliances (whether washing machines, or small tablets) is rated as a positive, as it saves you money and means less fossil-fueled electricity consumption. In addition, going without a car, or reducing the heating (in cold climates) or switching off the air conditioning (in hot climates) not only saves you money, but helps save the planet as well.
The thing that this ignores is that larger houses, more appliances and being able to control the climate within your house are all positive impacts on living standards.
For many years I have opposed preferential voting, in the 2013 federal election several Senators gained seats in our Upper House yet the primary votes they attracted were less than 10 per cent of the total vote and in one example about 2 per cent. The only PUP Lower House candidate that gained a seat gained far fewer primary votes that his Liberal National Party opponent in that electorate in Queensland.
And now the day after the Queensland State Election the voting count recorded at the Queensland Electoral Commission website shows that the LNP had the most seats based on primary voting but that Labor will probably form a government after distribution of preferences narrowly.
For those interested here is the QEC voting result late Saturday evening;
Ahead on Primary Vote
No. Seats
Australian Labor Party ALP 35
Katter’s Australian Party KAP 2
LNP LNP 51
Other Candidates 1
For many years I have opposed preferential voting, in the 2013 federal election several Senators gained seats in our Upper House yet the primary votes they attracted were less than 10 per cent of the total vote and in one example about 2 per cent. The only PUP Lower House candidate that gained a seat gained far fewer primary votes that his Liberal National Party opponent in that electorate in Queensland.
And now the day after the Queensland State Election the voting count recorded at the Queensland Electoral Commission website shows that the LNP had the most seats based on primary voting but that Labor will probably form a government after distribution of preferences narrowly.
For those interested here is the QEC voting result late Saturday evening;
Ahead on Primary Vote
No. Seats
Australian Labor Party ALP 35
Katter’s Australian Party KAP 2
LNP LNP 51
Other Candidates 1
Yes, as with the Federal government. In the previous election, most Liberal/NP seats were won on primary preferences. Only 8 Labor seats were and that was in the house of representatives. You have the 14% Greens deciding nearly every labor seat, so they control Labor party policy.
No wonder Labor chase every fringe voter and even ignore their own loyal supporters to please the fringes with issues like Boat people, Islamic terror, Israel, Global Warming, meat, mining, energy until the traditional Labor voters turn their backs in disgust, but only for one term apparently. Stealing the mantle of caring Greens was the smartest decision of the 1990s by the defeated Communists, whatever the country. It is a massive movement with a great image, plenty of funding, automatic support from young mothers, new aspirational voters and the scared. Perfect. As Adam Bandt said to me, “We tell them what they want to hear and when we get power, we do what we like”.
You only have to read Green policy to see that they are not Green at all, but would Marx seem democratic. So the Unions and Anarchist Greens are back in power in three states. It is unbelievable that they can offer to Destroy the Joint and people think it is a good idea.
Oh dear! ….. says Queensland Labor. She might actually win. What do we do?
Take yourself back to that Labor Party meeting following the Newman landslide three years ago. There were just 7 members seated around that table. All the Labor power base had gone, all their most experienced parliamentary members gone, just the rusted on members of always vote Labor seats.
Just seven of them left.
Who to make the boss.
Everyone looks the other way. No one wants to lead after a debacle like that. On a hiding to nothing. So they elect probably the most inexperienced person in the room.
You see the thinking here is that this landslide result is probably a two, maybe three election result to claw back from. She can lead a small group and at the next election, when the inevitable happens and they get half way back, then some of those more experienced people come back into the Parliament, then half way through that next cycle, they can honourably thank Palaszczuk for a job well done, and the Labor status quo is back to normal.
Palaszczuk represents Inala, and she took the seat over from her father. No one really wants Inala, as it is really hard work, being one of 2 seats in Queensland with the greatest number of government dependent people as residents, Woodridge being the other seat.
Pretend you’re a trendy Labor Lawyer, (in fact like Palaszczuk is herself) or a Union Boss, or a staffer whose turn has finally arrived. You want a trendy seat, a comfortable seat, an easy seat, one where you don’t have to do too much, so you can concentrate on the party business instead, shoring up the factions, getting the right number of Union votes behind you for pre selection, ensuring that Union faction puts you in the right place to build up that faction in the parliamentary party room.
So, seven members sitting around that table, all looking the other way. Palaszczuk gets elected, well, probably innocently put up her hand because no one wanted the job anyway. Time for that later when they claw their way back close enough to maybe win an election.
Now it’s come back to bite them on their collective fundament.
She might actually win.
If she does, then they can’t get rid of her. She hasn’t got the factional numbers behind her, and now, a lot of those former Labor heavies are back, the experienced ones, those Labor lawyers, those Union leaders taking their next step up the Labor ladder, those party faithfuls whose time has finally come, all of them way more experienced than Annastacia, and they do have the factions lined up behind them, and their Union backing. And they don’t have a really tough seat to look after like Annastacia does have.
What do they do?
They can’t get rid of her now.
I’m probably even willing to bet that a lot of those Queensland Labor members are now desperately hoping the LNP can hang on, because it makes their job in Opposition easier, and they can honourably get rid of Annastacia as Leader part way through this coming cycle, you know, time to be with her family, to concentrate more on her (very difficult) Electorate, all the right public things to say, while all the time those factions behind the scenes are working up to put their nominee in place. Something like that is easier in Opposition than it would be if she was the Premier
Two Words – Asset Sales…. This issue captain Bligh the election (oh along with Gillard) when she sold part of Q Rail and now has claimed the LNP, will the Q Government finally understand that Queenslanders want to keep their assets?
Still 80Bn in debt does seem like a big challenge for such an inexperienced party, think we can expect another single term government as the new government gets pushed on the debt, especially given Asset Sales are now off the table.
FIN you are off the planet here – do you understand the monumental problem that QLD Labor has now got the monumental problem that WE the citizens of QLD now have? How the hell do YOU propose that we pay back 80 Billion Australian Dollars in debt!
So what you’re saying is that the ALP wish they’d lost the election? Hah! Yeh right, that’ll work!
Now I understand how you come to the conclusions you do about climate change! Are there any more deluded souls in Australian life than neo-con reactionaries? I doubt it.
“Perhaps the most well known feedback comes from melting snow and ice in the Northern Hemisphere. Warming temperatures are already melting a growing percentage of Arctic sea ice, exposing dark ocean water during the perpetual sunlight of summer. Snow cover on land is also dwindling in many areas. In the absence of snow and ice, these areas go from having bright, sunlight-reflecting surfaces that cool the planet to having dark, sunlight-absorbing surfaces that bring more energy into the Earth system and cause more warming.”
So surely as the snow and ice return we can expect a positive feedback that will accelerate cooling. The increased snow cover and cloud cover is contributing to an upward trend in global reflectance since 1999: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal1.html
Surely it is a challenge for the modellers not to be skeptical about global warming theory based on rising CO2 when the evidence so clearly contradicts the modelling.
Admunsen-Scott station in the Antarctic should be a good indicator of Global Warming. Far inland, 2000m up on a plateau and little human activity.
The raw temperatures show less than 0.1°C of cooling per century and with two dubious data points removed (according to Berkley Earth), 0.23°C per century since 1959 to Oct 2013.
Looking at monthly temperatures separately, the warming rate is from J-D (1959-2014)
1.03 -1.79 2.25 -0.28 -1.21 -1.14 -0.87 0.36 2.19 -0.59 3.1 1.71°C/century with an average of 0.4°C per century. A large spread with more of the summer months positive and the colder months negative (up to the end of 2014 with data for Jul and A missing).
Whats interesting is that up to the pause, 1999, most of the months show a negative trend.
-0.55 -3.73 1.97 -0.51 -5.29 -2.92 -0.79 -1.96 -3.64 -3.48 2.16 -1.28 with an average of -1.7°C/century.
The average is 10°C/century for the next 15 years.
I also looked at the differences between the months of consecutive years. There are 3 years where 9/12 of the differences from the previous year were positive and 10/12 in 2005 (from 2004). The average SD of monthly differences from the previous year is 3.11 but its only 1.37 for 2004-2005 so I’m suspicious that the sudden upswing in temperatures is just a systematic error. And one common to many maximum temperature readings in Australia.
I’m happy to respond to most people, and I try to do it in an objective manner without stereo typing or making personal statements, however I find your taking the Lord’s name in vein highly insulting.
I wonder how willing you are to insult the followers of Islam in like manner, or is it only just an opportunity to take cheap shots against people who would normally try to ignore the level of intolerance, bogotry and personal abuse you regularly display.
You’re a Queenslander, you’re self employed, your political party just beat the terrible conservative economic extremists – the least you could do is win with some semblance of grace.
How many times has a sceptic had to point that out?
Its an example where there is no UHI and temperatures taken by scientist rather than PO employees in a place that shouldn’t be affected as much by local factors or humidity.
It was more about using the months separately and how a small adjustment or systematic error can make a difference to the trend. Didn’t you notice how much the temperatures are adjusted?
I object to your use of Jesus’ name as a swear word…you are gratuitously insulting Christians. I bet you wouldn’t use Mohammed’s name in such a way…you wouldn’t dare to.
Jesus Christ on a biscuit and Muhammad in the blender. If you guys are going to whine about taking the Lord’s name in vain you’re not much different than the true believers in the Church of Algore.
I don’t care what you believe so long as your not trying to tax me for it and I reserve the right to skewer all of your sacred goats.
They just want things to be easy, for Government to just give them what they want.
The don’t want the problems solved.
Who cares about debt and deficit, huge debt, where the interest on that debt is actually crippling, where the interest alone is what racks up the deficit, because people don’t want that debt paid off. The money they rake in should go not to paying off that debt, but to give them ….. stuff.
When you have people like Wayne Swan last night saying “what’s wrong with debt and deficit”, and how it’s not as bad as is being made out, then I just know that we’ve lost the moral compass where what you borrow has to be paid back.
Who gets to pay that debt back? What do we have to do to pay that debt back?
No one cares any more. Just rack it up, borrow more, and put off paying it back till, well, whenever.
Abbott’s gone now too.
People do not want to do the hard yards any more. There is always the easy option.
I despair for the future now, because it will not be pretty.
Bread and circuses is not for me I’m afraid.
The people will always get exactly what they deserve.
The fight is very gradually going out of good people. Why would you bother any more?
TonyfromOz, those are criticisms of the system and/or capitalism, and how it works in Australia. But not much to do with global-warming claptrap.
I’m not Australian and won’t comment directly on Australian politics. But, whether my politics are red, blue, green, grey, or skybluepink, I think that wilfully making energy more expensive is a recipe for economic decline and possibly disaster.
It is bad for everybody, bar ‘carbon-traders’. I want the international “green”politics of the would-be carbon traders to be defeated before they splice us all in half with the main shaft.
Tony, I have come to the conclusion that many/most people have just never grown up. They still want their ‘daddy’ or ‘mummy’ to look after them. They think of their government as their ‘parents’ whose job it is is to look after them. Just like kids they think if they get into trouble (such as debt) their parents will bail them out. Just like kids they think their parents have an endless supply of money to do this and don’t understand if the answer is no. Just like kids if they are told there is no money they look at those with money (those who have made a success standing in their own 2 feet) and say take it from them. The education system and parents have failed.
Again Tony, it’s about perceived fairness. Abbott’s budget is perceived as unfair, I don’t understand what it is you neo-cons find so hard to understand about that. I know Abbott doesn’t but I would credit a lump of coal with more brains than him.
The people will always get exactly what they deserve.
You’re kidding right? Tell that to a child born with a disability. It amazes me how you lot always want to reduce everything to simplistic, one sentence aphorisms. The world is more complex than that even if you can’t cope with it.
‘The people will always get exactly what they deserve’ and you take it completely out of context to make Tony look like a type of monster?
Anton Lang has more integrity, insight and general decency than you could ever dream about with that tick turd sized brain of yours.
Seriously mate stand in front of a mirror and have a good look at yourself, if your reflection starts talking when you don’t then don’t worry, it’ll only verify my diagnosis of your condition, fu*#wit.
You’re kidding right? Tell that to a child born with a disability.
You shouldn’t be going on about others being simple. The child gets looked after by society regardless of which party is in power. It could be looked after better if the real reasons for socialism wasn’t to support an ineffective public service with overpaid and underworked employees. I remember something about a $35 M scheme that found a few dozen Aboriginals a job.
The world is not a fair place, FIN. You should get used to it. If you want fair, look in the rules for card and board games. Reality knows nothing about fairness, perceived or otherwise. Reality knows only competition.
FIN: English lesson—”The people always get exactly what they deserve” is not the same as “People deserve everything they get”. You used the latter statement, Tony the first.
Lol, the interest on our debt isn’t crippling, at the federal level it is about $1 billion a month out of a ~$400 billion a year budget. Australia has lower debt relative to GDP now than it did for most of the 1960s and 1970s.
Stick to energy policy, you don’t know anything about economics.
Banana republic, here comes Australia.
Seems Australians, like Greeks, believe that there is a magical money tree, so politicians respond by promising more and more handouts, with no idea where the money will come from.
Again, you just don’t get it do you? Australians are not stupid contrary to your assertions. They can count and certainly understand hip pocket issues.
What you neo-con extremists don’t seem to get is that they do not accept that the wealthy in society get off Scot-free while the lower socio-economic groups have to wear all the pain for structural re-adjustment.
What is government for if it is not to look after the less fortunate in society? Gina Rinehart doesn’t need government help but she sure gets plenty, a fact she conveniently overlooks. But she thinks the unemployed should carry the burden while she continues to pile up money made from the resources that belong to all Australians. It’s about fairness. People hate how Newman & Abbott rule by dividing people and society. I could go on but you get the picture……….
People go in to businesses to make money.
If they make enough money, they can employ other people.
And, as they expand their business they employ more people.
Now, if due to economic circumstances, they stop making as much money,
they reduce their staff numbers.
Also, I can’t remember seeing any battlers around. Oh, you’ve
got the people that say, “woe is me. Give me a hand out.”
In days gone by, these people would have pulled their belt in,
knuckled down, and did whatever it took to get back on their feet.
Nowadays, people want to continue the lifestyle they had while
they were working and then saying they can’t live on the handout.
Mind you, they’ve probably got a mile of debt on their credit cards as well.
And, you and I pay for this.
But, they say, don’t blame me, society owes me a living.
FIN – so many errors in your argument, I can only assume you are wantonly trolling.
Here’s a real simple one for you … no, resources do not belong to “all Australians.” They belong to the Australians in the states in which they occur. You have been drinking too much of the Labor Koolaid again… never let the facts get in the way of a good ideological rant. All about entitlement … nothing about responsibility. I can happily debate mining royalties with you all day … guarantee the score will be 100-0 in my favour by the end of it.
Last I checked, Rhinehart’s company employed thousands in highly paid jobs to contruct Roy Hill iron ore mine. Again, don’t let those trivial facts bother you. And no, I am no fan of GR … think she is a piece of work, but the company is employing plenty of good people. Tax payers.
But please keep trolling … you look increasingly dense every time you post.
BTW I am no fan of Abbott either… he royally screwed up an opportunity to be a mature leader. One wonders what someone like Costello could have done as leader instead of Abbott.
You don’t seem to get it FIN. It is not about Gina Rinehart taking the food from someones mouth. Its about the influence that she can have on society with her money. These people work hard and smart to keep their companies going. They want an Australia where someone similar people can get rewarded as well for working smart and hard. They want to live in a big pond.
They do not want an Australia where someone who doesn’t contribute can share the wealth. There are people attacking her in the ABC who are making more money than an MP or even the Prime Minister and do bugger all, and then do that badly. They prance around like socialists but tweet that they bought an expensive car. These people want the influence of Gina Rinehart, not to feed the poor. They want her wealth and not something to get by on until they get back on their feet.
The real reason to hype up the class warfare (and CAGW).
When the interests of mankind are at stake, they will obey with joy the man whom they believe to be wiser than themselves. You may prove this on all sides: you may see how the sick man will beg the doctor to tell him what he ought to do, how a whole ship’s company will listen to the pilot.
Too bad the “lower socio-economic groups” are the hired not the hirer. Kind of hard to raise their “socio-economic” status when no one is hiring because those dastardly wealthy who get off “scot-free” according to you have decided to keep their money and close up shop.
Your sort has never understood economics and never will. You don’t even understand the society around you other than in terms the media spoon fed you.
What is government for if it is not to look after the less fortunate in society?
“Less fortunate …”? You think it comes down to luck? You think that people have no responsibility for their own lives?
You obviously haven’t heard the expression, “The harder I work, the luckier I get.”
Some dozen or so years ago, a young guy came into our office, and just asked the receptionist for a job. She laughed at him, and told him to go away. He just smiled and sat on the waiting couch. One of my partners saw him, and asked him who he was waiting to see. The guy said, “The person who will give me a job”. My partner said, “Well I don’t think we have any vacancies, just now”.
To which the young man replied, “Well I am on the dole, because I can’t get a job, and I can’t get a job because I lack work experience, so I figured that if I worked for you for free, I could get some.”
And that was how we got our first intern. The guy worked for us for a while, and then applied for, and got, a real job, with the assistance of a reference from our company. Last I heard, he was doing just fine.
The less fortunate in society, are those who are told, and believe, that you have to play the game according to the Government’s rules.
‘Mr Trewin (BoM) also noted that the Bureau had recently changed its Melbourne monitoring site from the Royal Society of Victoria on La Trobe Street in the city to Olympic Park, near Rod Laver Arena. Maximum temperatures recorded at the new site were on average 1.2 degrees cooler, particularly on cool days, because air coming from the south and west was travelling over parklands rather than the through the city.’
The data for the old site and the new one overlap for 1 1/2 years. The mean maximum for the new site is 20.09 and 20.84°C for the old one (1.2, particularly on cool days?). Just using the 2014 data and the difference its still only 0.8°C.
The old temperatures were taken in a botanic garden up until 1906 when the city site was opened. BOM don’t mention the actual change date but there appears to be a sudden change in temperatures about 1906. No UHI of course!
as i vote for none of them, i would simply say Newman got carried away with power, having such a huge majority. he made enemies within his Coalition, with minority parties, & with many voters who didn’t like his dictatorial style. talk of raising (and/or broadening) the GST rate, which is devastating to those with the least disposable income, was another negative.
asset sales, whether of the kind Anna Bligh advocated (which was to fund schools & hospitals) & which caused her popularity to plummet, or the Newman kind, which morphed into “leasing” (to pay down debt, PLUS fund road-building & new schools & hospitals) are a no-no for many Queensland voters, right or wrong.
as an informal voter, my biggest beef was Newman calling the election at a time which meant zillions of campaign ads went to air during the Australian Open tennis & the mute button had to work overtime! how shallow am i?
31 Jan: Brisbane Times: Kristian Silva: Queensland Election 2015: Green vote to drop but still derail Newman
Newspoll figures published in The Australian on Saturday show The Greens are set to pick up 6 per cent of the total Queensland vote, down from 7.5 per cent at the 2012 election.
However in Ashgrove, Galaxy polling figures in The Courier-Mail show Greens candidate Robert Hogg will receive about 8 per cent.
Coupled with Labor’s Kate Jones’s 48 per cent and about 2 per cent for independents, preferences are likely to go against the LNP…
“We are the ones who have been pushing the important initiatives in solar, for the reef, for energy, for innovation in this state,” Mr Worringham said.
Federal Greens leader Christine Milne said the Greens wanted to force Mr Newman out of office.
“It’s very clear that people are disillusioned with the old political parties. They’re disillusioned with the revolving door between business and politics and the deals that are done in back rooms,” she said.
“In the seat of Ashgrove, the Greens decided to preference the Labor party to run Campbell Newman out of Ashgrove, out of Queensland.
“The Greens are absolutely committed to getting rid of Campbell Newman.”… http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-state-election-2015/queensland-election-2015-green-vote-to-drop-but-still-derail-newman-20150131-132ri2.html
ABC have a story up:
KAP (Katter’s Australian Party) ready to make deal with Labor on forming government
and Sky News has:
(Independent MP Peter) Wellington will back minority Labor govt
Queensland is back to a Labor Govt and, as they have pretty much avoided announcing any policies, who knows what will come of it. i expect nothing positive.
personally, i would like a clean-out of our entire political class.
however, if FIN doesn’t understand who the power brokers are behind the CAGW scam, and what the cost will be to the poor here, there and everywhere, then i would suggest FIN investigates the matter further.
“It’s very clear that people are disillusioned with the old political parties. They’re disillusioned with the revolving door between business and politics and the deals that are done in back rooms,” she said. [- Christine Milne]
—
If that were even remotely or partially true the Greens and PUPs would have been elected in droves.
Instead it was almost entirely ALP and LNP seats and a trifling number of independents elected.
But Christine Milne has never let any key facts of observation and their reality get in the way of one of her warped psycho-rants, or absurd claims of victory in the face of total electoral defeat.
But it is clearly depicting the nexus of common interests between Greens and Labor, and if Labor trash the economy and its functioning, all the better, as it saves the Greens from ever trying or having to do anything which they really believe in.
“The Greens are absolutely committed to getting rid of Campbell Newman.”…
Wow! Christine said that?
That is a bit like me claiming I am absolutely committed to eating the last slice of pizza. For her to try and claim her little joke party actually sat down to make a rational and heartfelt decision on which way they placed their preferences… if that discussion even happened, it would have lasted all of 17 seconds.
The LNP won 51% to Labor’s 38% in first preferences, the other parties getting the remainder.
It’s pretty simple. After the historical electoral rejection of the Bligh Government, the Queensland electorate reverted back to normal voting patterns with a protest vote against the LNP and preference deals that handed an unexpected victory to QLD Labor….. and it’s pretty much as simple as that.
Now Palachook is stuck with trying to balance a budget that abandons infrastructure projects like the Abbott point Coal Terminal, Coal Seam Gas plants, along with continued government spending on those “Government Assets” that cost more to run because they are government run…. etc.
The LNP really didn’t to much out of the ordinary, they didn’t do nearly half of what they should have done. Hopefully the LNP will be ruthless in opposition and better sense prevails in three years time at the next election…. We will see.
Liberal governments shouldn’t be cutting spending and trying to retire Labor debt…. They should simply cut taxes and repeal regulation and let Labor explain themselves when they try and raise taxes to pay for their outrageous debt… Let Labor run government broke or cut spending.
The Liberals shouldn’t be playing “Bad Cop” to Labor’s “Good Cop” routine for creating bigger and bigger Government.
“… Now Palachook is stuck with trying to balance a budget that abandons infrastructure …”
I guarantee you that won’t be a problem JH, budgets are optional, if not discouraged in heroic fruitcake land.
“Why not?”
To be blunt, Newman was pure authoritarian creep and people sensed it. Last week he effectively said that if you don’t vote an LNP member into your local seat their could be no money for your area. Paraphrased, but that was the gist of it. That isn’t exactly governing for all of the people if elected.
When I heard him say that I knew he was a goner, prior to that I thought he would probably win. But I didn’t expect him to actually get roundly kicked out of Parliament. But he was definitely arrogant, and somewhat on the nose even with conservatives.
The Anti-Bikie laws in QLD are simply draconian, outrageous and sought to undermine legal due process and assumption of innocence by the State and its police. I’m no bike club member, wouldn’t ever consider being one, always thought they were weirdos, but I do ride sport bikes and they way Newman prejudiced bike riders and made them out to all be criminal, and took away their civil legal protections and harassed and attacked them and painted them as the hobgoblins of the day was absolutely shameless. It should have got a lot more coverage than it did.
In retrospect Newman deserved no less than to get kicked out of government and out of the parliament. But I’m sufficiently despondent about Queensland politicians lies to not bother to cast a vote, anyway.
What I can say is that after the scurrilous routine across the board considered lies in campaign adds, from Labor, Greens and PUP (Clive Palmer was a particular disgrace in that regard), I have an even far lower opinion of the rest of them, even when compared to Newman.
This Palachook Govt (yes, that’s a far better colloquial spelling of it) will be a farce-disaster among the clowns in the main-ring. There’s a very good chance I’ll be moving to WA before they get kicked out too.
The scale of the polarised record landslides, away from Labor towards the LNP to vote in Newman, then away from Newman, towards Labor again, in just 2.5 years, is really a measure of the distrust, disgust and despondency of the electorate toward Queensland politics, and the effect of mandatory voting simply captures that rejectionist reactiveness.
As I see it is democracy is not prospering here, quite the reverse is happening, and by the time the media finally realise it and face it, the political disaffection will be far deeper and more widespread.
They’ll love another recession – another excuse to spend the kids & grandkids wealth.
Don’t you love how they carry on about saving the world for the children when chanting about climate change, but when it comes to fiscal responsibility it becomes “F^%& the kids, we need to save the economy! Fire up the priniting presses!”
Are you aware that on ABC election coverage last night the former world’s greatest treasurer Wayne Swan commented that debt and budget deficit are not a problem? Maybe he will be appointed a consultant to the new Queensland Premier. She seems to be clueless so Wayne should get away with being her financial adviser.
I believe you are right Eric Worrall, it has been my concern for some time and before Rudd Union Labor left office I commented to friends that if the Coalition is returned to government in 2013 they will have a tough job ahead of them as the nation heads into recession and national prosperity declines, all because of Labor federal and state mismanagement.
@ Eric, virtually zero tariffs into and out of Asia coming into play, lowering AUD, and dramatically lowering oil, is all highly stimulative, both in Australia and also for Asia, as they can buy from Australia much cheaper. That is effectively what occurred in mid-2009 (with some enormous Asian stimulus applied, which hasn’t occurred yet). But then again economic action is mostly a con game and if the optimism is not there in small business and investors it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I remain optimistic, but east Asia may be a bit less optimistic this time.
Cheers for the link Ian, I’ve followed the China story fairly closely and would just add that people have been saying how bad China (and EU, and US, and Japan) is, for about 5 years now, and it’s growing (officially) at over 7% still.
So I don’t worry at all, I respond to what’s happening, with an eye to what might happen, and remain optimistic to the likely case that Asia will still want almost everything we can produce and sell to them, and mostly at an economic and profitable price-point.
I find Michael Pettis and a few others provide a good background on trends and likely developments in the economy, finances and somewhat on trade in the region.
Not recession, depression. Free capitalism has been destroyed and there is no normal mechanism to get out of this mess. The US will never repay its debt and the default is inevitable. The stimulus er money printing is just the delay of the economic catastrophe. When that happens all GW crap will be forgotten.
Planets and satellite moons are not still cooling off in their cores. The Moon’s surface gets colder than -200°C on the dark side, so that would expedite cooling from its core which is hotter than 1300°C and so that core could easily have cooled right down if the Sun’s energy were not in fact maintaining its temperature.
Sounds crazy. doesn’t it? But the laws of physics can be used to prove it is fact that the Sun is keeping everything at existing temperatures.
No one really knows if their cores were hotter or colder than existing temperatures at the time of formation. To be sure they were molten, but less-hot temperatures could still correspond to molten states. The point is that by now they have attained radiative balance with the Sun and will not cool (even in their cores) unless the Sun itself cools or, more precisely, unless the solar radiation that is not reflected reduces in intensity.
It is not a coincidence that the sub-surface temperature gradients (“lapse rates” if you wish) appear to be close to the expected quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the matter, namely g/Cp. We can prove why this is the expected temperature gradient using Kinetic Theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics as in the development here that is based on sound physics.
Solar radiation maintains existing temperatures by the inward heat transfers by conduction and diffusion (or “free convection”) whichever is possible above and below a planet’s surface.
Note that, in particular, the temperature gradient forms by such processes even in insulated sealed cylinders because it does not require physical movement of gases at velocities such as occur in wind of any form from a breeze to a hurricane. In fact such wind (“forced convection”) tends to level out the gradient, as happens above the South Pole.
And that’s why Stephen Wilde is wrong in what he says, and why he can’t prove me wrong without proving the Second Law itself wrong.
this Trenberth nonsense has been picked up by the Minneapolis Star Tribune & North Denver News – i want to highlight the mention of ***Goldilocks:
30 Jan: The Conversation: Does global warming mean more or less snow?
by Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist at National Center for Atmospheric Research
Disclosure Statement: Kevin Trenberth receives funding from the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.
As first glance, asking whether global warming results in more snow may seem like a silly question because obviously, if it gets warm enough, there is no snow. Consequently, deniers of climate change have used recent snow dumps to cast doubt on a warming climate from human influences. Yet they could not be more wrong…
By contrast, the heaviest snowfalls occur with surface temperatures from about 28°F to 32°F – just below the freezing point. Of course, once it gets much above freezing point, the snow turns to rain. So there is a ***“Goldilocks” set of conditions that are just right to result in a super snow storm. And these conditions are becoming more likely in mid-winter because of human-induced climate change…READ ON http://theconversation.com/does-global-warming-mean-more-or-less-snow-36936
i posted the following “Goldilocks” piece on a recent thread, easy to find it online:
28 Jan: UK Telegraph: Humanity is ending its Goldlilocks geological era
In the space of one lifetime, human interference is bringing the conditions of the Holocene – the only ones in which we know we can flourish – to an end, writes Geoffrey Lean
It has been a Goldilocks geological era.
here’s another, reinforcing the religious nature of CAGW. read it all for quotes by all the usual CAGW suspects:
14 Jan: Special for CNN: David Ray Griffin: The climate is ruined. So can civilization even survive?
(David Ray Griffin is emeritus professor of philosophy of religion at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. His most recent book is Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis? The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.)
LINK: 11 ways climate change affects the world – 11 photos
The climate crisis “threatens the survival of our civilization,” said Pulitzer Prize-winner Ross Gelbspan…
Civilization was made possible by the emergence about 12,000 years ago of the “Holocene” epoch, which turned out to be the ***Goldilocks zone – not too hot, not too cold. But now, says physicist Stefan Rahmstorf, “We are catapulting ourselves way out of the Holocene.”… http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/14/opinion/co2-crisis-griffin/
“Goldilocks” is appearing in all kinds of news items in recent weeks – about the economy as well as the climate, but where did it start?
am presuming it was:
6 Jan: Press Release: Eight new planets found in ‘Goldilocks’ zone: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
final comment for today. talk about a spooky Poll! check out the loaded questions. i’ve excerpted some, but all are worth noting.
it ASSUMES a lot and, as it has been said, “When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.”:
30 Jan: NYT: The New York Times/Stanford University Poll on Global Warming
An overwhelming majority of the American public, including nearly half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to the poll
pdf. 17 Pages:
[2014-2015] Q14A. If the world’s temperature did increase over the past 100 years, do you think this increase was caused mostly by things people did, mostly by natural causes, or about equally by things people did and by natural causes?
Q14B. Assuming it’s happening, do you think a rise in the world’s temperature would have been caused mostly by things people do, mostly by natural causes, or about equally by things people do and by natural causes? …
[2015] Q16. If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how serious of a problem do you think it will be for THE WORLD – very serious, somewhat serious, not so serious, or not serious at all? …
Q17A. [Assuming it’s happening,] How much do you think global warming has hurt you personally – a great deal, a lot, a moderate amount, a little or not at all? …
Q17B. [Assuming it’s happening,] If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how much do you think it will hurt you personally—a great deal, a lot, a moderate amount, a little or not at all? …
Q18A. [Assuming it’s happening,] If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how much do you think it will hurt future generations—a great deal, a lot, a moderate amount, a little, or not at all? …
[Nov-2010, 2012, 2013, 2015] Q33. As you may have heard, greenhouse gases are thought to cause global warming. In your opinion do you think the government should or should not limit the amount of greenhouse gasses that U.S. businesses put out? …
Q69. Next, I will read you a statement that could be made by someone who wants to be a United States Senator or President of the United States. Here is the statement:
“I believe that global warming has been happening for the past 100 years, mainly because we have been burning fossil fuels and putting out greenhouse gasses. Now is the time for us to be using new forms of energy that are made in America and will be renewable forever. We can manufacture better cars that use less gasoline and build better appliances that use less electricity. We need to transform the outdated ways of generating energy into new ones that create jobs and entire industries, and stop the damage we’ve been doing to the environment.”
If a candidate says this, would this make you more likely to vote for this candidate, less likely to vote for this candidate, or would it not affect how likely you would be to vote for this candidate?
(66% MORE LIKELY)
Q70. Next, I will read you a statement that could be made by someone who wants to be a United States Senator or President of the United States. Here is the statement:
“The science on global warming is a hoax and is an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the American people. I don’t buy into the whole man-caused global warming mantra. We must spend no effort to deal with something that is not a problem at all. We should not invest in windmills and solar panels as alternative energy sources. Instead we should continue to focus on our traditional sources of energy: coal, oil, and natural gas. We should expand energy production in our country, including continuing to mine our coal and doing more drilling for oil here at home.”
If a candidate says this, would this make you more likely to vote for this candidate, less likely to vote for this candidate, or would it not affect how likely you would be to vote for this candidate?
(67% LESS LIKELY)
(FINAL QUESTION):
QTEA. Do you consider yourself to be a supporter of the Tea Party movement, or not?
I somewhat reluctantly accept your criticism but the Griss is not a troll. He is v.often a last line of defence. His reason and knowledge is commendable and I appreciate it. Personally I wish there were no moderators, but I can,t get on any leftie blogs not because of the ad hominem abuse but because they can,t stand my ideas.
So far I have been called a denier with no moral values good for beheading. The Griss provides passion and saves me from responding to the lefty trolls.
Being polite has nothing to do with PC. Being rude just diminishes you, it has no affect on the person you are being rude to.
However, being extremely polite, and excruciatingly nice, overwhelmingly pleasant, and incredibly erudite, when addressing the moribund non-thinkers, with their brains in their trousers, confuses the excrement out of them.
Don’t apologise, your comment stands all on it’s own.
At work yesterday my crew had a bit of a conversation during down time that began when one remarked that she was recently in the Philipines and noted conversations with people were graphic, very heavy with innuendo and accepted with humour, but would be frowned upon here as very un-PC and more than likely ending up in front of the Professional Standards Committee after some lefty sook had a whinge. It ended with a unanimous assessment – ‘for a country priding itself on freedom of speach our governments have done an awful lot to deprive us of it’.
There were also some further comments about the rot setting in with Howard’s putrid gun laws – another time perhaps.
I miss Memory Vault. You say he has gone elsewhere. I am glad that he is still going. I might follow him up.
Actually I think Jo lets a lot of comments through that might be a bit offensive ( to some). The test is humor.
Griss gets away with it because he makes me laugh out loud, more often than not. It helps that I agree with him, most of the time. Even so, I think it makes the blog lively and interesting. I hope that nothing changes.
Memory Vault, although a West Aussie, lives in Queensland. He told me he is not interested in returning to Jo’s blog. His insight is sorely missed, particulary in regards to the Queensland result.
Being from Victoria I should probably keep my head down on this one but I will try to make a couple of points for consideration.
When I look back at the various nation’s leaders including Australia and our States it becomes apparent that right through recent history and my lifetime of 76 years the voters usually have far too high expectations for the political leaders regardless of the Party that they elect.
Good opposition leaders often don’t make good prime ministers or premiers as it means a radical change in the leaders psychology to make the transition from not being accountable for your claims as when you are in opposition to carrying the can for every probable and possible thing that can, will and does go wrong when you are voted into power and become the leader .
Conversely somebody who have may turned out to be an excellent leader of a nation may never get near power because his party is on the nose with the voters or he is too far down the pecking order or he / she are not ruthless and power hungry enough to force their way into leadership contention. Or many other reasons that never allows them to be percieved as leadership material let alone get near the center of power.
So nobody even within the power structure let alone external to the power structure will ever know if that person might have been a very good choice as leader.
Most of all it appears in the Australian context both Federal and State that we can only expect a really good leader and their leadership group to emerge perhaps once a generation, say every twenty five years or so on the average.
When I look at other nation’s leaderships the same very general rule seem s to apply there as well .
In my time Britain prior to WW2 had some seriously bad political leadership. It was only when Churchill was elected leader that the British finally got the leader they needed to take on the might of the Nazi regime.
Atllee wasn’t too bad. Thatcher was almost out on her ear until the Argies decided to take on the UK in the Falkland Islands and then Maggie came into her own and rebuilt Britian from that point.
The current mob in the UK are pitifully incompetent.
Australia wasn’t any better until Menzies after about two or three goes finally became PM although he had it damn easy compared to later PM’s with the Democratic Labour Party splitting from what at the time was a virtually communist union run ALP.
The following PM’s to Menzies were a very ordinary bunch with a few disasters scattered amongst them such as McMahon and even Frazer who had the numbers after the disaster that was Whitlam, to remake Australia and failed miserably.
Hawke and Keating as a leadership team were excellent but I suspect that if they didn’t have each other then neither would have been much chop as PM as Keating subsequently proved.
Howard and Costella, another excellent leadership team combination.
The USA and Europe, Russia after Stalin, Japan, China and India have similar very uneven in quality leadership histories with Germany being the pick of the European nations for leadership quality.
In Germany the post war leadership had all been hardened during the times of the 1930’s and 40’s during the rise and fall of the Nazi’s and those leaders knew what it took to get Germany up and running again due to their very hard earned experience as kids and young adults during those war years.
With Merkel, the daughter of an east German Lutheran minister that line is about ended so we will see what happens there in the future.
I won’t go into the Australian states leadership quality or who was what and where but again the leadership quality is very patchy when we look at the record.
Henry Bolte although hated by some on the left was an excellent Victorian leader who was elected by the Liberal Party as a stand in until all the old political bulls of the Liberals could sort themselves out in the back rooms.
He remained premier of Victoria for 17 prosperous years.
The message I think is you will not as voters get the leadership you expect when you vote regardless of the party political affiliation.
Most of the time the voters will be disappointed but just rarely they will come to realise following the installation of new leader and leadership team that they might just have happened upon a leader who can and does make a difference towards a significantly better future for all voters.
And unlike a bad, never ending dictatorship that is only terminated by forceable disposal or death of the dictator, in another three or four years, you, the voter will get another chance at expressing your opinion on that past and probable future leaders and their teams.
And the choice will once again be yours to stuff up or to the benefit the nation and the state [s]
ROM
Always read with great interest your posts. Your Summary of the leaders not surprisingly comes from the English point of view.
Let me do a quick summary from the Eastern Europe point of view.
When you celebrated the end of the war, half of Europe was enslaved with half of its people still think that Churchill was weak and ultimately became a traitor. In fact he was little different with Neville chamberlain. However, to his credit he did not agree to hitler,s peace offers after France,s defeat. But at the end of the war he forbid the polish forces march in London. To the Poles this would never be a victory parade as the GB already disowned the polish government in exile. The fact the Poles fought and died on the side of the Brits knowing since Stalingrad that the war was lost for their country attests to their gallantry and the polish national anthem that recognises not only their freedom but freedoms of all people and this is why they continued to fight for you.
Then after the war the west did everything possible to pay off the soviet Russia to keep Eastern European quiet. The change came with Margaret Thatcher that together with Ronald Reagan liberated Europe and finally ended the II WW in 1989.
Dariusz @ 34.1
Yes , I did post from the european angle as there was so much more that could have been posted on this subject
The way in which Poland and it’s people were just consigned to the wast basket of post war Europe was one of the most traitorous things the west has ever done.
The immediate pre war Polish intelligence agency got it’s hands on the first of the German Enigma machines by staging a truck crash.
The machine or it’s details some of which Polish mathematicians had already deciphered were then handed over to the French when defeat looked likely.
The French then handed the details to the British who used the intelligence gained from the Polish mathematicians, they were then the best in the world at that time , to defeat the German U boats which Churchill later said it was the only thing he really feared through out the war, that the U Boats would cut Britain’s supply links and thus starve her into submission.
The Polish squadrons during the Battle of Britian in 1940 shot down very close to 20% of all the German aircraft destroyed during the Battle.
The Polish Navy’s destroyers were partricularly aggressive during the many naqval battles of WW2
The Polish Division played a big role in destroying the German Army formations during the crucial Falaise Pocket battle where the Germans drove west in the hope of cutting through the American Army to the west coast of the Calais Peninsula and thereby isolating the very large American Army formations racing through the northern interior of France towards Paris and cutting it’s supply lines.
The resulting battle where the Polish division played a crucial part in defeating the German Army and then came close to closing off their escape route back to eastern France. and the German border. The German army in France never recovered from this massive defeat which made the task of the Allied armies much easier.
At the end of the war, the allies had had enough and just literally dismantled their armies leaving the Soviets under Stalin with the world’s largest standing army ready to advance to the west coast of France bar for the fact that the Americans had the atomic bomb which Stalin already knew about by the 1944 when the Soviet spies, Ethel and Julius Rosenbergs had handed on all the details of the American nuclear developments to the Soviet intelligence agency, the NKVD.
Poland whose prewar population was given as in excess of 24 millions lost over 6 million of her citizens to German terror and then the Soviets equally terrible terror after the Russian occupation initially in conjunction with the Germans in 1939 and again when the Soviets overran Poland as the Germans were defeated.
Poland and the Polish at the center of the Europe continent and as the invasion route of armies across central European plains for some two and half thousand years have always done it hard .
I feel deeply for the Poles and have for along time ever since I started to read history in my teenage years.
At my age i have started to unload many of those past treasured items such as some of my books . But somewhere in my pile there are a few books which my descendants will have to dispose of.
I have Nikita Kruschev’s book from his Glasnost Tapes. “Kruschev Remembers” It’s very self serving but gives another Russian view of history.
I also have the personal biography of Svetlana Alliluyeva, Stalin’s daughter . The first part of this biography is very interesting as her time during war time and the period of Stalin’s greatest power .
Her mother committed suicide and her brother, Stalin’s son died in a German prisoner of war camp despite the Germans offering to do a swap with the Russians.
I have read some of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn such as “One day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” but have only read a part of his “Gulag Archipelago”
Plus “Brighter than a Thousand Suns”, the story told by nuclear physicist Robert Jungk of the politics and the development and building of the first nuclear bomb.
Plus many, many more books and etc on history.
And yes; “Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it”
Speaking of elections, stuck in the fine print was a by election here in SA this weekend.
Liberals held with a swing against, but postal votes are still to come so the final swing is likely to be rather minor.
What is always amusing is to see how the mighty Greens party went.
In 2014 The Greens got 15.3% of the primary. This weekend? 12.9%
That sounds rather bad until you realise that this 12.9% is based off only 18513 ballot papers. When you factor in that probably 4000 postals are likely to turn up, then it is actually shocking. I predict it will actually drop below 10%
So, the big question to our friend Christine; Was the anti Greens swing due to Federal Issues??
The Australian Federal Government has funded Universities & our national broadcaster ABC
They have been let to run their own political agendas over the last 40 years and we’re surprised at the current thinking emanating through these organisations. Add in all the professions they influence, it’s not a surprise that today we have a totally different generation with their own mindset.
Both ALP & LNP have been funding these, to tell all NOT to vote conservative, yet in theroy both parties are similar in their politics (except spending but not stupidity) and basically conservative on the surface.
It’s going to take a collapse of our economy (States & Federal) before Australians wake up.
I’ve had a good life and despair at the current results. BUT this is what people now want.
Let them have it, and maybe it’ll come quicker than people realise.
On 27 January the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology jointly released their “New climate change projections for Australia” and the CSIRO advised that the research paper “Greenhouse warming increases frequency of devastating La Nina events”, involving their staff, had been published in “Nature Climate Change”. Both cases were based on results from applying IPCC computer climate models.
It is incredible that anyone would use the IPCC climate models when they have repeatedly been wrong with their predictions. Even worse, the models are predicated on the IPCC claim that increased atmospheric CO2 concentration causes an increase in global temperature when data from the CSIRO/BoM own field stations plainly show this to be false. The agencies undertake CO2 and temperature measurements at Cape Grim, NW Tasmania, at Macquarie Island and the Antarctic bases of Casey and Mawson. The resulting data is freely available on the Internet.
Statistical analysis shows that there is no significant correlation between monthly changes in both CO2 concentration and temperature. In fact the correlation coefficients are negative in every case meaning that a rise in CO2 would cause a fall in temperature, however the probability result shows the values are not significantly different from zero.
Further, analysis shows that correlation between annual increments in each variable are, again, not statistically significant, some being negative values, so there is definitely no measurable causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. Hence there is no justification to issue catastrophic climate predictions based on the erroneous IPCC premise.
However, correlation between the CO2 data and the relevant Satellite lower tropospheric temperature reveals that the annual increment in CO2 concentration is highly correlated with the average satellite temperature for the period concerned with negligible probability that the correlation is zero. This means that in all likelihood the increase in temperature since the last ice age has been driving the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, not the reverse as the IPCC would have us believe.
It is sad to see once highly respected Australian institutions sink to such a low level, failing to even analyse their own field data. More concerning is the waste of taxpayers money and the unwarranted actions or anxiety that may arise in the minds of some individuals or corporations.
Supporting evidence is given by the data from the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, which is the global reference point for historic CO2 atmospheric concentration values. The correlation between the monthly CO2 change and the monthly temperature change was 0.02 with 64% probability that the value could be zero. The correlation between the annual CO2 change and the annual temperature change was 0.11 with 2% probability that the value could be zero. The correlation between the annual average temperature and the annual change in CO2 was 0.69 with negligible probability that the correlation is zero. The Tropics Land satellite lower tropospheric temperature data from University of Alabama, Huntsville, was used for the calculations. Clearly the temperature drives the rate of change in the CO2 concentration.
Thanks Griss, while I understand atmospheric temperature increase must release more CO2 from the oceans, my guess is that the major contribution may be biogenic. For example yeast generates CO2 and, with a poor knowledge of biology, I suspect that there are millions of little beasties out there consuming carbon (the fourth most abundant element) from organic and inorganic matter, turning it into CO2. This is where JoanneNova could come in, as I understand that she has a background in biology which has been studiously ignored in the debate in the drive to prove man-made catastrophic climate change.
“In fact the correlation coefficients are negative in every case meaning that a rise in CO2 would cause a fall in temperature, however the probability result shows the values are not significantly different from zero”
¯
Now that can’t possibly happen as the ‘science’ has been settled. UK Met Office, Obama, EU head nutjob on Climate change, UN’s Bank in Moon, and even Australias BOM all say the science is settled so it must be just so true – right?
¯
How will they make 2015 ‘The hottest year EVA!’ if CO2 cools the planet?
Very nice Bevan, can’t fault your argument. If only Greg Hunt could utter your comment verbatim the Conservatives would win the next election, after the dust settles.
Thanks el gordo, it has been sent to Greg Hunt, Ian Macfarlane, Tony Abbott, Julie Bishop and many others but such emails rarely generate action in my experience.
The whole concept of “parcels” of air is totally inapplicable when considering natural (free) convective heat transfer, which includes conduction and diffusion by definition, but occurs only in the absence of wind or any other forced convection. PARCELS OF AIR CAN ONLY BE HELD TOGETHER IN FORCED CONVECTION.
Temperature is a measure of mean molecular (INTERNAL) kinetic energy. Heat transfers in natural convection can only occur via molecular collisions, because all wind of any form is excluded. If air moves because of pressure differences, that is wind. When net molecular movement is able to be detected in natural convection it is because of excess thermal energy driving the net motion away from that source.
A molecule only “knows” about how hard it is hit by another molecule. It “knows” nothing about buoyancy, pressure or density in neighboring regions. The overall speed of heat transfer in natural convection depends entirely upon the differences in energy potentials, and those energy potentials must take into account molecular (internal) gravitational potential energy and not just molecular (internal) kinetic energy. When those energy potentials become equal, that is when natural convection stops because we then have maximum entropy and so we have the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
Thus, in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, because we have no unbalanced energy potentials, we thus have homogeneous (PE+KE) for internal (molecular) energy. Thus, because PE varies with altitude, we have a temperature gradient.
Natural convection only starts again when the energy potentials become unbalanced, normally due to the absorption of new thermal (kinetic) energy. The direction of the resulting convective heat transfer will be from the higher energy potentials to the lower energy potentials, and that may be downwards to warmer regions because we are including gravitational potential energy in the entropy calculations, not just kinetic energy.
And that obviates the “need” to try (incorrectly) to explain with back radiation the obvious short fall of energy into the surface.
Day after day in modern macro-economics, investors are bombarded with ‘odd’ seasonal adjustments that spuriously lift (in the case of growth-related variables) or reduce (in the case of inflation-related variables) data to ensure a constant flow of “we must keep offering free/cheap money” narrative-confirming news.
However, as The Telegraph reports, it appears this “seasonal adjustment” smoke-screen has reached the just as bifurcated opinioned world of global warming trends and Climate-Gate…
Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.
Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.
Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.
When Stephen Wilde writes on Roy Spencer’s site “Free convection is not mostly conduction/diffusion. It is the physical movement of a parcel of gas … It can occur very rapidly ..” he is totally incorrect because he is talking about forced convection.
The ONLY process which establishes the temperature gradient is that process which is exemplified in the “hot car in garage” example wherein the level of thermal (kinetic) energy per molecule in the car is lowered and that in the garage raised as thermal energy is transferred out the car doors and into the closed garage by way of molecular collisions and diffusion. We all know this is not occurring “very rapidly” and yet the example represents a greater temperature difference than would normally be found in adjacent regions in the troposphere, and so it is faster than most free (natural) convection.
What Stephen Wilde keeps referring to in his confusion is not free convection at all: it is forced convection involving wind which is caused by the pressure differences to which he refers.
Natural (“free”) convection is caused by differences in energy potentials and nothing else.
That does not necessarily imply a difference in temperature (kinetic energy) because, if there is a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, then the difference in molecular KE is nullified by an opposite difference in molecular gravitational PE, such that (PE+KE)=constant. This is the well known situation wherein convective heat transfer can cease in calm conditions at around dawn, even though the environmental lapse rate is still apparent.
So all of Stephen Wilde’s conjectures about parcels of air rising and then falling when they run out of macro KE (which does not affect temperature) and all his talk about pressure differences that cause wind in all its forms, and all the references to cells (wherein wind cycles around) is not in any way related to the process which forms the temperature gradient (slowly) in the tropospheres of Earth, Venus, Uranus etc etc.
2 Feb: ABC AM: Abbott to dump PPL scheme in effort to prop up leadership
MALCOLM TURNBULL: The Prime Minister has the support of all members of his Government.
JAMES GLENDAY: That’s Malcolm Turnbull, the Communications Minister, and that statement isn’t correct.
In the wake of a shocking Queensland election result and several disastrous polls for the Coalition, a number of MPs fear electoral oblivion and ***want him or Foreign Minister Julie Bishop to take the leadership from Tony Abbott… http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4172112.htm
***a number of MPs want Turnbull back? name them, ABC. are they Labor MPs?
Howard ‘frustrated’ by leadership talk
NEWS.com.au-18 hours ago
Ms Bishop along with Malcolm Turnbull and Mr Morrison are said to be …. “Malcolm is very charming but the ETS is still a very bitter medicine …
above story/link has been changed to:
2 Feb: News Ltd: Lanai Scarr: Tony Abbott admits he has lessons to learn from Queensland poll
Some MPs have privately said they are “still a bit nervous” about Mr Turnbull returning to the party leadership.
“Malcolm is very charming but the ETS is still a very bitter medicine for some people,” ***one MP said.
“He didn’t listen to the party on that, so I guess he needs to show he’s changed.”
***Another MP said: “I’m still a little bit nervous about Malcolm but all the feedback is that he has genuinely changed.”
Mr Turnbull is flying back from the United States this afternoon and is not due to land until after Mr Abbott’s Press Club address… http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-admits-he-has-lessons-to-learn-from-queensland-poll/story-fncynjr2-1227204027919
***name the MPs, News.
btw malcolm sees no need to change…he says people will accept “unpopular” decisions (like the ETS?)…if he explains/advocates for them?
People will accept unpopular decisions if they understand the need: Turnbull
The Conversation AU – Jan 30, 2015
Leaders must be “explainers and advocates, unravelling complex issues in clear language”, Communications Malcolm Turnbull has said, outlining a strategy for selling hard economic messages. Turnbull also said it was vital, for reasons of both social justice …
Malcolm Turnbull’s LA leadership line hits home
The Daily Telegraph-16 hours ago
As Mr Abbott was floundering in Australia, Malcolm Turnbull gave a 5000-word speech where he declared a successful leader was one who had the ability to make the public understand unpopular policy…
Malcolm Turnbull rubs shoulders with Hollywood stars at G’Day USA
The Australian-15 hours ago
Also in attendance was Federal Liberal MP and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull who could not escape questions about the …
wow. Malcolm with Hollywood stars! that should impress the ABC overnight Hollywood Trivia quiz bunch.
have you been following Greg Laden’s new self-inflicted humiliation (the bungled attempt on Willie Soon’s livelihood)? I believe this is the precise moment at which Laden’s lifetime of simulated morality begins to unravel:
Under fire even from long-time mini-Gregs, or bin Ladens if you prefer, he blunders into an undeniable denial that he ever called for Soon’s firing… so I pointed out that if he’d signed the petition calling for Soon to be fired he had just made a rather amateurish liar of himself. This comment, which never sees the light of day, nevertheless forces Laden into the dignity-free position of denying that he’d denied signing the petition, while of course he can’t afford to admit signing either. (I predict fun for the whole family when the signatures are made public.) Many, many of us have subsequently asked point-blank: did you have the gonadal maturity to put your own name to the petition you’re spruiking, yes or no??
You should ask him too, just for fun (everybody). He’ll delete your question.
BK
spectators rugged up at the tennis, justin langer rugged up and shivering at the T20 cricket (in Summer, no less), but here we go!
2 Feb: Business Spectator: The Climate Institute: How much heat can sport handle?
*This is the executive summary of a report – Sport and Climate Impacts: How much heat can sport handle? – published by The Climate Institute today.
Climate change and extreme weather events threaten the viability of Australian sport as it’s currently played, either in the backyard, at local grounds or in professional tournaments.
Heatwaves, changed rain patterns, floods and drought are challenging playing grounds and facilities around the country…
Sport is embedded in Australian society, and central to our culture and economy…
But sport can’t go on as it has.
Global warming is likened to extreme weather on steroids…
This report finds that most sports are struggling to cope, especially at the local level…
Read the full report here https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/2/2/science-environment/how-much-heat-can-sport-handle
2 Feb: The Conversation: Just not cricket – how climate change will make sport more risky
by Liz Hanna, Director NHMRC Project: Working in the Heat – Health Risks and Adaptation Needs at Australian National University
Disclosure Statement
Liz Hanna receives funding from an NHMRC grant to research impacts of heat on human population, specifically workers, and has previously received other NHMRC project grants to identify health impacts, acclimatisation limits and adaptive options. She is President of the Climate and Health Alliance and Fellow at the Research School of Population Health, National Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health at ANU
As the new report (on which I was an advisor) points out, 80% of Australians aged 15 and over engage in sporting activities… http://theconversation.com/just-not-cricket-how-climate-change-will-make-sport-more-risky-36839
guess this might impress that tiny minority of Aussies who don’t follow sport!
31 Jan: NYT: Burt Helm: Climate Change’s Bottom Line
It was 8 degrees in Minneapolis on a recent January day, and out on Interstate 394, snow whipped against the windshields of drivers on their morning commutes. But inside the offices of Cargill, the food conglomerate, Greg Page, the company’s executive chairman, felt compelled to talk about global warming.
“It would be irresponsible not to contemplate it,” Mr. Page said, bundled up in a wool sport coat layered over a zip-up sweater. “I’m 63 years old, and I’ve grown up in the upper latitudes. I’ve seen too much change to presume we might not get more.”
Mr. Page is not a typical environmental activist. He says he doesn’t know — or particularly care — whether human activity causes climate change. He doesn’t give much serious thought to apocalyptic predictions of unbearably hot summers and endless storms…
***Mr. Page is a member of the Risky Business Project, an unusual collection of business and policy leaders determined to prepare American companies for climate change. It’s a prestigious club, counting a former senator, five former White House cabinet members, two former mayors and two billionaires in the group…
On Jan. 23, the group released the second chapter of the Risky Business project, focused on the effects on the Midwest: “Heat in the Heartland.” A report on California is next. With $1.7 million in grants from the MacArthur Foundation and others, the group is hiring a full-time staff.
The group is led by three men: Tom Steyer, the hedge fund billionaire whose super PAC spent $73 million last year attacking Republicans who denied climate change and promoting awareness of the issue; Henry M. Paulson Jr., the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs and the Treasury secretary under President George W. Bush; and Michael R. Bloomberg, New York City’s former mayor and the billionaire founder of the financial information company Bloomberg L.P. Each spent $500,000 to commission the Risky Business research and each has his own particular goals for the initiative, all of which would be served by making the climate threat feel real, immediate and potentially devastating to the business world…
A majority of Americans in 2014 surveys by Pew Research and Gallup acknowledged climate change was happening, and 83 percent of Americans say that without emissions reductions, global warming will be a problem in the future, according to a January survey conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the environmental group Resources for the Future…
Mr. Paulson called Mr. Page, whom he knew from the Latin America Conservation Council. Through a contact of Ms. Gordon’s, they signed up Henry G. Cisneros, the former housing and urban development secretary under President Bill Clinton and now a real estate developer. Mr. Steyer called Robert E. Rubin, the former secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton and a longtime friend and mentor from their days at Goldman Sachs…
***Mr. Paulson works on the upper floors of a skyscraper in downtown Chicago, with a conference room overlooking the Chicago River. In January, the wind across it is cutting, and ice floes drift along the sides. By midcentury, if the Risky Business report is right, those ice floes will be gone… http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/business/energy-environment/climate-changes-bottom-line.html?_r=0
1 Feb: SMH: Peter Hannam: NSW signs up to global climate group
The Baird government has moved to burnish its climate change credentials, becoming Australia’s first conservative government to sign up to The Climate Group.
NSW will join South Australia and Tasmania as the only Australian states to be members of the international non-profit organisation, which brings business, governments and communities together to promote renewable energy and cut carbon emissions blamed for global warming. Both SA and Tasmania signed up under Labor-led governments.
“We believe that sustainable economic growth and environmental conservation are intrinsically linked aspirations,” Rob Stokes, Environment Minister, said. “We are already working hard to make sure that there are no barriers to businesses making decisions that environmentally, and economically, make sense.”…
NSW has distanced itself over the past year from conservative counterparts, including the Abbott government, on climate and other issues. It backed leaving the Renewable Energy Target as it is, in contrast to the Abbott government’s efforts to cut the 2020 goal by as much as 40 per cent, and has spent $3 million preparing climate change studies for expected impacts to 2030 and 2070…
“We strongly believe in protecting the vulnerable by providing the community with the best available science and energy efficiency solutions,” Mr Stokes said, adding the government’s role to make the most accurate information “make it accessible to local decision makers so they can decide what actions are appropriate to minimise the potential risks of climate change”.
London-based The Climate Group shut its Australian offices in mid-2013, citing an “increasingly challenging political environment for action on climate change” at the time…
(The Climate Group’s ***Libby Ferguson) NSW was “a forward-thinking state” with “progressive renewable policies”…
“We believe climate change doesn’t need to be a political issue, but one that is focused on building a strong low-carbon economy”… http://www.smh.com.au/environment/nsw-signs-up-to-global-climate-group-20150201-13301u.html
***LinkedIn: Libby Ferguson
Experience:
Government Liaison
Invest Victoria, State Government of Victoria, Australia (New York)
May 2011 – August 2013 …
Inward Investment Manager (Europe)
Invest Victoria, State Government of Victoria, Australia
February 2008 – July 2008
Business Development Manager
Invest Victoria, State Government of Victoria, Australia
2006 – 2008
Strategic Projects Officer
Invest Victoria, State Government of Victoria, Australia
February 2004 – September 2005 https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/libby-ferguson/4/b36/273
“The Baird government has moved to burnish its climate change credentials, becoming Australia’s first conservative government to sign up to The Climate Group.”
Darn these left-wing political parties…
When will they wake up and realise they have been CONNED !!
1 Feb: WSJ: Bjorn Lomborg: The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism
Exaggerated, worst-case claims result in bad policy and they ignore a wealth of encouraging data.
It is an indisputable fact that carbon emissions are rising—and faster than most scientists predicted. But many climate-change alarmists seem to claim that all climate change is worse than expected. This ignores that much of the data are actually encouraging. The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we’re seeing about 90% less temperature rise than expected.
Facts like this are important because a one-sided focus on worst-case stories is a poor foundation for sound policies…
In the Oxford University database for death rates from floods, extreme temperatures, droughts and storms, the average in the first part of last century was more than 13 dead every year per 100,000 people. Since then the death rates have dropped 97% to a new low in the 2010s of 0.38 per 100,000 people…
Alarmism has encouraged the pursuit of a one-sided climate policy of trying to cut carbon emissions by subsidizing wind farms and solar panels. Yet today, according to the International Energy Agency, only about 0.4% of global energy consumption comes from solar photovoltaics and windmills. And even with exceptionally optimistic assumptions about future deployment of wind and solar, the IEA expects that these energy forms will provide a minuscule 2.2% of the world’s energy by 2040…
Instead, we should focus on investing in research and development of green energy, including new battery technology to better store and discharge solar and wind energy and lower its costs. We also need to invest in and promote growth in the world’s poorest nations, which suffer the most from natural disasters… http://www.wsj.com/articles/bjorn-lomborg-the-alarming-thing-about-climate-alarmism-1422832462
the personality cultists in the media can’t stop the Turnbull propaganda:
1 Feb: The Conversation: Michelle Grattan: The public would want a new prime minister to change the government’s agenda
It’s also that Abbott’s troubles aren’t just appalling salesmanship and broken promises but the substance of the government’s policies, so that switching leaders would require the recalibration of its agenda…
If Turnbull became leader, he’d have one very specific policy problem – what to do about “direct action”. We know he thinks this approach to climate change is (to adopt an Abbott phrase from another context) absolute crap. But Coalition troops would be outraged if he returned to advocating a market-based approach – while the public would know he was a hypocrite if he didn’t… http://theconversation.com/the-public-would-want-a-new-prime-minister-to-change-the-governments-agenda-37031
2 Feb: Business Spectator: Tristan Edis: Tony must turn to Turnbull
Deposing yet another PM runs an extremely high probability of turning the electorate off politics completely. But something has to change to turn around the Coalition’s fortunes.
That must start with policy approach…
Malcolm Turnbull would make an excellent prime minister, but now is not the time. The next best thing would be for him to replace Hockey as Treasurer, thereby taking on a more central role in the direction of the government.
He will moderate some of the extremists in the Coalition who are heavily responsible for the government’s troubled predicament. The first and easiest change he could drive would be to force the government to give up on their ideological crusade against the renewable energy sector. They could agree tomorrow to Labor’s compromise on the Renewable Energy Target and it would cost the budget and electricity consumers nothing.
In addition, Turnbull’s ability to communicate in more than three-word slogans will be essential to explaining why the government needs to make difficult changes to repair the budget… https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/2/2/policy-politics/tony-must-turn-turnbull
Howard ‘frustrated’ by leadership talk
NEWS.com.au-18 hours ago
changed to:
2 Feb: News Ltd: Lanai Scarr: Tony Abbott admits he has lessons to learn from Queensland poll
then it changed to:
Is Malcolm ready to make a move?
NEWS.com.au-2 hours ago
& now this is the start of the piece, same url throughout!
2 Feb: News Ltd: Tony Abbott admits he has lessons to learn from Queensland poll
MALCOLM Turnbull has failed to rule out he is interested in the Liberal Party leadership.
Returning to Sydney from the US into a storm of leadership chatter the Communications Minister said he would be focused on Tony Abbott’s speech at the National Press Club in Canberra today.
But the former Liberal leader who was tossed out by his party in 2009 failed to rule out he was interested in Mr Abbott’s job.
“Look the only thing we should be interested in on the political front today is the Prime Minister’s speech to the National Press Club in a few hours,” Mr Turnbull said when asked if he was interested in the leadership.
“He is going to be laying out his agenda for the future and I think everyone will be tuned into that. That’s where we should be concentrating and that is certainly what I will paying attention to today.”… http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-admits-he-has-lessons-to-learn-from-queensland-poll/story-fncynjr2-1227204027919
“the Earth may today hold half as much water in its depths as is currently flowing in oceans on the surface, Panero said—an amount that would approximately equal the volume of the Pacific Ocean. This water is continuously cycled through the transition zone as a result of plate tectonics.”
So sea levels could rise or fall depending on the capture and release of this water.
THESE ARE THE FAULTS IN THE CLIMATE MODELLING PARADIGM …
Hansen, Trenberth et al made the huge mistake of thinking they could explain Earth’s surface temperature by treating the surface as a black body (which it is not because there are sensible heat transfers also involved) and then adding the flux from the colder atmosphere to that from the Sun and then deducting the non-radiative outward flux and finally using the net total of about 390W/m^2 in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to get a temperature of 288K.
Of course to get the right result they had to fiddle the back radiation figure up to 100% of the incident Solar radiation before it enters the atmosphere. Thus they devised an energy-creating atmosphere which delivered more thermal energy out of its base than entered at its top.
To obtain their “33 degrees of warming” they effectively assumed that the main “greenhouse” gas water vapor warms the surface by 10 t 15 degrees for each 1% concentration in the atmosphere. Then they had to promulgate the myth (proven contrary to evidence) that deserts are colder than rain forests, though they did not enlarge on that and admit their conjecture meant at least 30 degrees colder where there is a 3% difference in water vapor.
Then they worked out their 255K figure (ignoring the T^4 relationship) and said it was the temperature about 5Km above the surface. Perhaps it is, but they then used school boy “fissics” and assumed the surface temperature would be the same in the absence of their GH gases In fact the surface would receive less solar radiation than the region 5Km further up.
So they had to reinvent the Second Law of Thermodynamics incorporating two major errors into their version of that law. The first error was to disregard the effect of gravitational potential energy on entropy, and the second error was to disregard the fact that the law applies to each independent process. Their version of the Second Law could be used to “prove” that water could flow up a mountainside provided that it flowed further down on the other side.
They need to think, like Newton, and realize that when an apple falls off a tree then entropy increases, just as the Second Law says it will. So too does entropy increase when a molecule “falls” between collisions unless, that is, the sum of molecular gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy remains constant and there is thus a gravitationally induced temperature gradient.
To prove their paradigm they would need to construct a Ranque Hilsch vortex tube and somehow ensure that the huge centrifugal force did not cause a huge temperature gradient in the cross-section of the tube. Until those promulgating the hoax can do that they have contrary evidence staring them in the face.
I love reading these wonderful posts, but unfortunately have just let out a very big **Yawwwwnnnnn**
OMG, 12.30am!!
Past my bedtime. I wonder if myself and the rest of the Northern Territory will wake up to another Chief Minister tomorrow? I mean seriously, do these guys stay up later than me just to kick each other in the b*lls??
The study of the thermodynamics of the atmosphere lies wholly within the discipline of physics. Correct me if I’m wrong. but my understanding is that climatology courses do not include anywhere near as much physics as is covered in a degree in science with a major in physics, such as I have.
More importantly, physics is about understanding the real world. If you use equations and “laws” of physics, you need to know about the prerequisites for these to apply. Many of my students over the years have not understood such.
For example, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation only applies to true black and gray bodies, and such bodies have to be perfectly insulated against any loss of thermal energy by conduction and other sensible heat transfers. And of course a black body is not transparent like the thin surface layer of the oceans. So all James Hansen’s fiddling with back radiation in order to get the magical 390W/m^2 to “explain” the surface temperature of 288K is garbage, because radiation is not the primary determinant of that temperature, for the simple reason that it is not a black or gray body and only the solar radiation should be counted anyway.
You have to understand that you can only claim that sensible heat transfers occur only from warmer to cooler regions in a horizontal plane, because, as we saw above, the equations for thermodynamic potentials are derived with the assumption that gravitational potential energy does not vary.
You have to understand that the Second Law is all-pervasive and plays a part in determining what happens in all heat transfers and other energy transfers also. That’s why the density gradient is a result of the Second Law. To claim that the state of thermodynamic equilibrium has no density gradient in a gravitational field would be ludicrous. It is just as ludicrous to claim that it has no temperature gradient. There must be no unbalanced energy potentials, and that sure ain’t the case for the assumed isothermal troposphere.
It is not greenhouse gases which establish the temperature gradient: it is gravity. Until you understand that fact, you will never understand the downward convective heat transfers which explain why all planets’ surfaces are hotter than their tropospheres.
You can forget about the garbage “science” which claims that the Sun’s radiation plus radiation from a planet’s colder troposphere somehow explains the planet’s surface temperature. It doesn’t. Not on Earth. Not on Venus and certainly not at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus where there is no solar radiation or surface, yet it’s hotter than Earth’s surface down there.
You can forget the garbage “science” which then claims the temperature gradient (aka “lapse rate”) is caused by rising parcels of air that could only be held together by wind in all its forms. Such a process does not form the expected temperature gradient. Only the very slow diffusion process does so – that same process that you see when your car has been heated up by the Sun in your driveway and you then drive it into your garage, close the garage door and open all the car doors. That is not wind even if you can detect very slow advection due to net molecular motion.
What does happen on every planet is that radiative balance is attained with the Sun, though in detail the planet cools on its dark side and warms back up by the same amount on its sunlit side. The temperature gradient is formed at the molecular level due to the force of gravity acting on molecules as they move between collisions. We see physical evidence of a (centrifugal) force field redistributing molecular (micro) kinetic energy and producing hot and cold streams of gas in a Ranque Hilsch vortex tube.
So radiative balance sets the overall mean temperature in the troposphere and then gravity induces a temperature gradient. That gradient is then reduced in magnitude by intermolecular radiation between molecules of water vapor and other so-called greenhouse gases. We know water vapor reduces the gradient, so the thermal profile rotates downwards at the surface end. It is ludicrous to think that water vapor raises surface temperatures by most of “33 degrees” when in fact it lowers them and empirical evidence confirms this. There’s more evidence here.
The other day I took part in a discussion of AGW. I asked one of the participants why he believed CO2 gas in the Earth’s atmosphere causes global warming. His argument (logic) was in four parts. (1) At Earth atmospheric temperatures and pressures, CO2 is a gas. (2) Because CO2 gas both absorbs and radiates electromagnetic energy in sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band, CO2 gas is a greenhouse gas. (3) Greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere “trap heat” within the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system. (4) Heat trapped within the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system causes the temperature of the Earth’s surface to increase. Therefore, atmospheric CO2 causes global warming.
[Note that the above argument imposes no temperature restrictions on the “heat-trapping” nature of atmospheric greenhouse gases—in particular, on CO2. That is, the above logic implies that atmospheric CO2 will trap heat in the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system independent of the temperature of the CO2 gas.]
Before reading further, ask yourself if you (the reader) have encountered a greenhouse-gas/heat-trapping argument that for all practical purposes is the same as above. Now I’m NOT arguing that CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere won’t produce an increased Earth’s surface temperature. The Earth/Earth-atmosphere is a complex thermodynamic system; and there may be reasons why atmospheric CO2 level affect Earth surface temperature–maybe hotter, maybe cooler. What I am arguing is that in isolation the responder’s logic for establishing the existence of CO2 induced global warming is woefully inadequate—primarily, as I will show, because as a “stand-alone” argument the logic implies runaway global warming as long as greenhouse gases remain in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Consider an Earth with an atmosphere that is devoid of all greenhouse gases. Although cyclical phenomena (day/night, winter/summer, precession of the Earth’s axis-of-rotation, etc.) will cause fluctuations in the Earth’s surface temperature, provided the rate thermal energy enters the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system doesn’t change, when averaged over (a) the Earth’s surface area and (b) time intervals much longer than the period of the longest cyclical phenomena, the Earth surface temperature should converge to a single temperature–or at least settle in a small range of temperatures. Let the area-averaged, time-averaged surface temperature in the absence of all atmospheric greenhouse gases be Tno_greenhouse_gases. Now inject CO2 gas into the Earth’s atmosphere and stipulate that the injected CO2 is a greenhouse gas. According to the logic of the responder, (1) because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the injected CO2 will trap heat in the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system, and (2) the trapped heat will produce an increase in the area-averaged, time-averaged Earth surface temperature. Bottom line, atmospheric CO2 will cause the area-averaged, time-averaged Earth surface temperature to increase to a value greater than Tno_greenhouse_gases.
No matter how much higher the CO2-atmosphere, area-averaged, time-averaged Earth surface temperature is relative to the greenhouse-gasless, area-averaged, time-averaged Earth surface temperature, (1) the greenhouse gas nature of CO2 doesn’t change (i.e., CO2 remains a greenhouse gas over a wide temperature range); and (2) provided the CO2 doesn’t leave the atmosphere, atmospheric CO2 will continue to trap heat within the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system. But according to the responder’s logic, heat trapped within the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system increases the Earth’s surface temperature. Thus, independent of the area-averaged, time-averaged Earth surface temperature at any instant in time, greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause the area-averaged, time-averaged Earth surface temperature to increase.
Using the logic of the responder then, the conclusion is that as long as CO2 in gaseous form remains in the Earth’s atmosphere, via greenhouse gas trapping of heat the Earth’s area-averaged, time-averaged surface temperature will increase without bound. Because the Earth’s atmosphere currently and for the past several hundred million years has contained greenhouse gases, obviously either (a) the area-averaged, time-averaged Earth surface temperature does not increase without bound, or (b) the rate of temperature increase is so small as to be a non-issue for time periods on the order of several hundreds of years, or (c) other phenomena “release heat” from the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system at a cumulative rate comparable to the rate atmospheric greenhouse gases “trap-heat.” If (a), as a “stand-alone” justification of CO2-induced global warming, the responder’s logic is a non-sequitur. If (b), atmospheric CO2 is not a practical problem. If (c), shouldn’t we fully understand the “heat-releasing” phenomena before we panic and institute a campaign to regulate mankind’s use of fossil fuels?
273
Good outline Reed.
The only reason that the CO2 mechanism ever got any traction is that scientists heard of other scientists making the claim and wrongly assumed that the claims were properly verified and most importantly limited by boundary conditions stipulated in the research.
The reality was devastating.
A small and severely limited mechanism involving human origin CO2 was given unjustified pride of place in the Earths thermodynamic workings.
Without the complicating involvement of the temperature range in which the IR -CO2 absorption mechanism works there are a number of basic problems for the theory.
1. CO2 may absorb ground origin IR but immediately distributes that energy to other non greenhouse gases.
The gas parcel expands, rises and takes that CO2 out of the loop. A new gas parcel rushes in and the process repeats.
2. Water and natural origin CO2 absolutely swamp any human CO2 effect from all sources and from a quantitative point alone this invalidates the AGW thesis.
3. Adding further to the inability of CO2 to be a problem is the asymptotic effect that shows that more CO2 is basically an irrelevance to the AGW issue.
4. It is a scientific impossibility given the nature of the system that the Earth can be heated by GH gases
and all that can happen is that solar energy contained within solid material of the biosphere will take a little longer to travel the reduced thermal gradient to outer space. The thermal gradient is of course reduced by the presence of clouds.
No “heating” just slower cooling of an already energised surface.
KK
322
one must also consider that if you double the number of CO2 molecules radiating to space then the cooling capability of the biosphere increases with the concentration change. Increased CO2 MUST have a nett cooling effect on the total earth energy balance. That is it must cool the stratosphere more than it heats the surface. If you heat the surface and cool the stratosphere you increase delta T across the atmosphere – what must happen? Convection must increase. The GHG theory says convection decreases. Satellites say that increased GHG increases IR emission to space inline with the intuitive solution – the models are wrong. Increasing radiative gasses in the atmosphere cannot reduce radiation to space unless that CO2 can REDUCE convection.
120
Well said bob.
KK
50
Its all balanced out by the atmospheric temperature/pressure gradient.
Bushfires emit a huge amount of heat and CO2, does that heat get “trapped” by all that CO2?
Nope. It just gets dissipated like any other heat anomaly.
90
“unless that CO2 can REDUCE convection.”
Which , of course IT CAN’T !!
CO2 has a specific heat slightly less than air.
This means that a trace increase in CO2 decreases the lapse rate by a tiny, measurable amount.
ie, a tiny measurable cooling.
note.. an trace increase in CO2 may also increase the radiative cooling rate, but again, I suspect, immeasurably.
50
The problem with these debates is that since you’re a “luke warmer” they’re not telling you something you don’t already agree with. The problem is dangerous climate change. But essentially all of the “studies” implying these terrible impacts are utter crap from top to bottom. Now I’m not going to go into the nuts and bolts of these (they’re too numerous) but they all share one thing in common. As their input data, or as a prerequisite for their reliability…they require high climate sensitivity. EVERYTHING in this recent vilification of CO2 is about warming rates…rates that quite simply have never existed. Even when you cherry pick say, 1975 to 2005, there’s just not enough warming, something just under .2C/decade. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2005/trend
So this is where you can see the whole marketing aspect of global warming. They claim/worry about 3C or higher amounts of warming. But then they defend that claim with basic greenhouse gas theory, which is only good for about 1.2C per doubling. They often use “half” in one way or another. When questioned for consensus they ask scientists if its likely more than half the warming is because of anthropogenic forcing.
Always make it clear that you have no problem with basic greenhouse gas theory…and don’t let them get away with defending half. Their claim is contingent on about 3C of warming. I usually open with something like, until the early 2000s it seemed reasonable to assume there MIGHT be stronger positive feedbacks. BUT if you looked at the official temperature data now and had to guess if the next decade would get warmer or stay the same/drop…it looks pretty obvious that the cycle is trending towards level/cooler http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend
I also like to show them that IPCC projections clearly assumed a continuation of the 80/90s warming, while skeptics assumption of low sensitivity make perfect sense given the ups and downs of the temperature record. Its amusing pointing at the red/orange line and ask…do you think its likely THAT trend could go a decade without producing a statistically significant “record high”?
http://i.imgur.com/pttmZTB.png
Side note: That graph is contingent on the surface record being correct…and it’s pretty obvious at this point a significant amount of the warming is actually erroneous adjustment.
142
This is the thing. There is no statistically significant difference between the warming rates of the late 1800’s, early 1900’s and between 1978 and 1998. None (Professor Phil Jones, CRU East Anglia). No climate scientist will try to argue that the earlier two warming periods were anything other than natural.
There is no “signature” for CO2 “forcing” in the temperature record. It has not and cannot be measured. It is ONLY a hypothesis without a jot of empirical evidence to support it. None.
1/4 of the total of anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution have occurred since 1998, yet the temperature trend since then has remained flat. The planet cooled between 1940 and 1975 while CO2 emissions escalated.
The AGW/CO2 hypothesis is falsified by clear empirical evidence. The warming periods correlate with the PDO, not with CO2.
30
Oh yes…. and the latter warming was a whopping 0.3 degrees….. run chicken little, run!!!!!!
20
It’s pretty clear from this graph usn’t it that we should expect at least 40 years of cooling since the last peak: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend
Do we know the cycle that is driving this clear up/down heartbeat?
20
Not 40 years of cooling, it should bottom out in about 10-15 years after a total of around 25-30 years (25-30 warming, then 25-30 cooling). The cycle its self is about 50-60, although I recall reading that the proxy record indicates it can go as long as 80.
What is causing it…well Judith Curry and others have proposed the stadium wave hypothesis. People with a background in electronics would probably prefer to treat/refer to it more like an RC circuit or other timing circuit. Its not fully understood but the reasonable assumption (not to be taken as law, obviously) is that the climate subsystems like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation, etc…all impact each other and various feedbacks. As one system becomes active in one way it induces changes in the others, which eventually cause them to change states as well. Sort of like the PDO tips over the AMO then the AMO tips over the PDO (a GROSS oversimplification)
Lots of speculation on what causes it or times it. It could be that its a planet-wide climate oscillation that’s sympathetic to the solar cycle changes. I really wouldn’t put too much stock in anyone’s opinions yet. But we know the oscillation is there and that its been going on for thousands of years at least.
30
poitsplace,
I’ve never been called a “lukewarmer” before. Do I believe gases (both greenhouse and non-greenhouse) can have an effect on the distribution of Earth surface temperatures both with respect to position and time? Yes. Do I believe that effect might induce a change in the area-averaged/time-averaged Earth surface temperature? Yes. Do I have an opinion as to the sign of that change and/or the magnitude of the change with respect to a change in CO2 levels? No to both. Do I believe a valid case has been made that to save the Earth we must curtail our use of fossil fuels? Absolutely NOT. To address “global warming/or global cooling” whichever is occurring, would I impose any restrictions on mankind’s use of fossil fuels? Absolutely NOT.
As regards my feelings about the area-average/time-averaged Earth surface temperature, my positions may make me a “lukewarmer.” However, my feelings about the furor over mankind’s use of fossil fuels puts me firmly in the “anti-AGW” camp.
51
The spectrum of light including heat radiation is very wide, measured either as wavelength or frequency. Radiant heat as infra red light is far wider than visible light and CO2 only blocks a small part of it at very specific frequencies. So if 1% is blocked the first time, the next time it is thus only 1% of 1%. So heat escapes quite easily, as before.
Then how much CO2 is actually needed to cause this greenhouse effect? Not much and it was already there at the start of the 20th century. From now at a concentration of 0.04%, quadrupling the CO2 would only increase the effect by 5%, like drawing a second blind over an existing one.
The far greater greenhouse gas is water. It blocks a very large part of the IR spectrum, is far more prevalent and forms clouds which reflect incoming light which CO2 cannot and blocks the sun in the first place. Unlike CO2, clouds are not invisible. Lord Monckton’s analysis of clouds shows that cloud variation alone could fully explain the bump in world surface temperatures at the end of the 20th century. For every molecule of CO2 produced, you get one of H2O but no one has seriously proposed water as a major threat to humanity. We live on water, near water, drink water and we are made of water. Laughable. CO2 is more mysterious simply because it is invisible and sounds like a chemical. Who fears Oxygen Dihydride?
What is not obvious, what most people cannot truly believe, is that the other major component of all plants and thus all animals, is CO2. Dry out the water and humans are 86% Carbon and burn like dry wood. Carbon lifeforms. If Carbon is pollution, we are ‘pollution’. Mind you, I do know some people for whom that is a reasonable description but not because of their chemical composition.
CO2 is the gas of life as much as O2. When you breathe in, the air has 22% O2. When you breathe out, 13% O2, 24% CO2 and 100% humid. Rapid water/air exchange of CO2 and O2 over 40 m2 of lung. As a much later development of life on planet earth, we are in total symbiosis with plants who need our CO2 and we need their O2. They convert the energy of the sun, CO2 and water into hydrocarbons (sugars) and O2. We eat the plants and convert their hydrocarbons back into CO2 and water, the cycle of life. If CO2 is evil pollution, so is all life on earth. More CO2, more life on earth.
Having survived many ice ages and hotter times, humans and their ancestors have experienced many levels of CO2. To claim that one specific level of CO2 is ideal is absurd. Further to claim that mankind determines CO2 levels in the atmosphere is unproven science fiction.
Finally, CO2 has increased 50% in the 20th century. Point to the disastrous warming. There is every indication that the last drought was nowhere near as bad or hot as the Federation drought 100 years ago.
In fact we could do with some Global Warming in Melbourne. I do not see any press releases from the BOM or the Climate Institute about the coldest January in many years. Like a medieval religion, Climate Change relies on the fires of hell to scare people into paying.
321
Say,TdeF, Penn and Teller got hippies to sign a petition to
ban water.)Plenty of water here in Melbourne town at the
moment, global warming from that ol’Cee Oh Too not so much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
130
Very funny!
I prefer Oxygen dihydride but either one works. You can make it very clear to people, but no one clicks. The People Against Everything.
As explained by Dr. Patrick Moore, no Greens understand Chemistry except perhaps that one German woman he remembers. Before Carbon, banning Chlorine was Green policy and still may be. Forget NaCl and PVC. All banned. As he points out, you cannot ban the periodic table or any part of it. It is like banning the number 5 from the multiplication table.
171
Reed Coray, TdeF and KK
Just a small point but one that bugs me alot.
That phrase ‘Greenhouse gas’ or the even more dubious ‘greenhouse effect’ are just wrong as a type of definition.
As Professor Wood’s experiment showed that greenhouses do not require ‘special’ gasses to warm them, thus the phrases are worthless.
These phrases were introduced by those that agree with CO2 catastrophically warming the air because it obscures the reality of the argument. The link to most ordinary people is that they know what a greenhouse is, and that it gets warmer inside than the outside atmosphere. By continuously linking greenhouses with ‘Global warming’ the CAGW advocates are winning the argumet in the publics eyes as this oversimplification appears logical to much of the public.
By reusing the CAGW advocates’ language, as they like it to be used, you allow them control of the argument.
Is there a scientific definition for a ‘greenhouse gas’ or ‘greenhouse effect’? (and I do not mean wikipedia definition.) As far as I can tell there are many many different ones, but no agreed, definative, scientific one.
Using phrases such as ‘Infra-red active gases’, and the ‘effects of IR active gases’, is IMO a much better way to explain these things.
130
An excellent point. Control of the language. Otherwise Greenhouse gas does seem to express the idea that CO2 can trap some infra red, like glass which traps all infrared. Agreed, Greenhouses do not require special gases as the glass does all the work.
CO2 is however very poor compared to glass, trapping only a few narrow wavelengths. The analogy is reasonable by way of explanation for those who understand how greenhouses work. However the differences with a real Greenhouse abound. Firstly, CO2 only traps a few narrow bands of infrared, so it is very porous. Next heat will escape on the second attempt at a different wavelength. Then there are no actual walls and roof to contain the heat and hot air does rise. The world system is also stormy and turbulent, allowing the hot gas to rise to the top and radiate. Lastly, there is no solid floor, 66% water and changing from the equatorial forests to the deserts of the forties to the cold of the arctic.
So while the analogy explains the science principle, but no one could suggest that it was a perfect model for planetary conditions. There simply is no hothouse.
80
I am reminded of a comment I copied on steven goddard’s RealScience blog on January 25th, 2014 (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/history-repeats-itself-3/comment-page-1/#comment-312874). I think this pretty well says it all:
140
After all these years I still have no idea how CO2 warms the planet. I know a fair bit about electromagnetic radiation and thermal heat transfer through solids, gases and liquids. I know a lot about CO2 and its radiation signature. Also H2O, that other ‘greenhouse’ gas. I understand the theory of blackbodies and the rules governing net energy transfer.
I understand how sunlight can warm these gases and warm the atmosphere and that energy will not reach the surface resulting in less warming of the surface.
I cannot understand how night time radiation from the surface warms CO2 in the air above. The CO2 in the air will be at the local air temperature at whatever altitude. At night CO2 will not see 2.7micron radiation (~800C) or 4.3micron radiation (~400C) but it will indeed see radiation over the 13micron to 17micron band, some 18% of the total radiation leaving a surface at 15C (288K and 400w/m^2), utilising some 3,800 lines of radiation. Problem is these bands of radiation CANNOT heat anything much above -30C (243K peak radiation at 13micron). That same CO2 will be radiating over those 13 to 17micron bands cooling the night air and half that energy does reach the surface but the surface is much warmer than -30C so no warming there.
If we want back radiation from the atmosphere we must talk about clouds. Here we see the blanket effect where radiation from the bottom of the clouds, very close to black body range, reduces the rate of cooling of the surface such that heat stored during the day now returns. Thermal heat transfer in a solid is quite slow.
50
Very good. My other point was reflection, stopping light from even entering the atmosphere. CO2 is invisible on the way in, but clouds reflect. UV gets through but visible light is blocked. This reduces temperatures. The idea that one small effect and one effect alone determines the earth’s temperatures ignores what everyone knows, that clouds have a huge impact on the weather, not CO2. In fact when you talk about weather, you are generally talking about wind and water. As this scientist points out, even Ozone has a far bigger effect than CO2 but is never mentioned.
40
Tomo
That piece highlights the nature of the scam; taking a mechanism that is real and demonstrable in laboratory conditions and then claiming that it is the one and only mechanism at work in the complex situation of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Complex interactive physical and chemical systems like the system in dispute requires a little more science and engineering than has ever been available to Climate Science.
Indeed Climatologist must have known this because they refused assistance and collaboration from mainstream scientists ; and that was because they needed to delay the discovery of the sham by the general public.
KK
30
Just read this again. Wow!
“CO2 doesn’t absorb or radiate in the portion of the spectrum corresponding with earth’s surface temps of 220 to 320 K.” (0C = 273K so this range is -50C to +47C)
(Each surface temperature corresponds to wave length of Infra Red radiation. The colder the surface, the longer the radiation wavelength._
So this lifelong professional astronomer specialising in back radiation says CO2 back reflection is insignificant, even in cold Antarctica at -50C. End of story. There is really nothing more to say. That is the end of the Hot House effect for planet Earth.
20
Point taken Tomo and fully agree.
Mostly what I have done is to say that if what they are proposing is true ie CO2 takes in more energy from ground to redistribute to the local gas parcel, THEN, man made CO2 is quantitatively irrelevant because of water and natural origin CO2.
I certainly haven’t looked at whether the gas parcel is heated by the inbound frequencies even before the ground origin IR comes into action.
If the inbound energy heats the gas parcel before the IR then it makes the greenhouse scenario even less important.
The Human Origin CO2 CAGW claim can be disposed of easily and I agree there is too much laxity in the definition of GHG.
Like the term “forcing” it is a nonsense when there are correct physical concepts available to explain the system
KK
50
No No Keith you miss something very important Temperature is the average kinetic energy of the parcel of air, if Temperature is transferred to the surface then the energy is NO LONGER in the molecule to heat it. The atmosphere cannot be heated by the photon “On the way through” it either has that kinetic energy or it does not.
In fact for IR Radiation the molecule doesn’t even heat, it enters a higher quantum state (internal bonds vibrating with different modes) it only where the vibrating molecule falls from that state a moment later that it either passes the photon on via radiation, or hits something and transfers the energy (probably to a Nitrogen or Oxygen molecule) as heat.
60
Hi Bob
Not sure of the point being made.
I suspect we are on the same wavelength (excuse the pun) but just expressing it differently.
My concept, very primitif, is that CO2 absorbs ground IR and is very temporarily at a higher energy state than surrounding molecules , say O2 and N2.
There must be an equilibrium reached very quickly with CO2 losing some internal energy and other molecules gaining slightly?
KK
50
Gees, bobl’s done some physics 🙂
“transfers the energy (probably to a Nitrogen or Oxygen molecule) as heat.”
as motion, actually. 😉
heat is a measure of kinetic motion.
50
OK Griss you like picking off those little points, yes strictly it is motion but didn’t I just finish pointing out the equivalence between (average) Kinetic Energy and Temperature?
Sheeze
50
All good !:-)
50
There is also the phenomenon of greenhouse growers adding CO2 to increase growth rates of plants. I believe the practise did nothing to warm the environment, but merely stimulated growth as CO2 became a limiting factor to plant growth in the warm/humid environment of the glasshouse.
20
tom0mason,
I agree that the language used in a discussion can have a significant impact on what people take from the discussion–especially lay people. I believe the terms “greenhouse gas” and “greenhouse effect” are deliberately used by AGW proponents because to the average person the word “greenhouse” implies a volume of space hotter than the greenhouse’s immediate surroundings. As such, by calling CO2 a greenhouse gas AGW proponents are well on their way to convincing lay people that because CO2 is surrounds the Earth’s surface, CO2 must increase the Earth’s surface temperature. As much as I dislike those terms, they appear throughout most discussions of AGW. As such, to completely ignore them seems folly to me.
When I use the term “greenhouse gas,” I mean any matter in gaseous form that both absorbs and radiates electromagnetic energy in sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band–no more or no less. I, too, would much prefer the term “infrared active gas;” and you’re probably correct that by using the term “greenhouse gas” instead I’ve put myself behind the eight-ball trying to discuss the effects of atmospheric CO2 on Earth surface temperatures. Given the choice of using a term that is misleading but almost everyone is familiar with or using a term that is more accurate but not commonly used, I guess I’ll stick with the commonly used term. I don’t like it, but that’s the way I see the issue.
At one time I read a comment by Dr. Roy Spencer on either his blog or Anthony Watts’ blog in which Dr. Spencer defined the greenhouse effect. I just spent and hour trying to find the reference, but I failed. However, as best I recall Dr. Spencer defined the “greenhouse effect” to be the increase in the Earth’s surface temperature and the lower Earth atmosphere temperature resulting from the presence of atmospheric “greenhouse gases.” Once you’ve (or more accurately, I’ve) caved in to the use of greenhouse gas, it’s a small step to accept the term “greenhouse effect.” This doesn’t mean that even though greenhouse gases radiate electromagnetic energy in sub-bands of the IR band and some of that energy will be radiated downward (i.e., towards the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere), the net effect of the presence of atmospheric greenhouse gases is to warm either the Earth’s surface or the lower atmosphere. In particular, because it takes large amounts of heat (energy) to convert water to water vapor and as such evaporation removes heat from water and thus tends to cool Earth surface water (oceans), someone will have to explain to me why the presence of water vapor, which in large part comes from evaporation of oceans at an average rate of 120 centimeters of water depth per year) in the Earth’s atmosphere on balance isn’t a component of a large evaporative air conditioner; and as such if anything the presence of water vapor (a greenhouse gas) in the Earth’s atmosphere isn’t indicative of a net cooling effect on the Earth’s surface temperature.
The term that upsets me is “trap heat.” In my opinion, when it is said that greenhouse gases “trap heat” the implication is that a portion of the heat leaving the Earth’s surface never escapes the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system. That is, as long as heat is being generated by the Earth, a continuous portion of that heat for all time during which greenhouse gases exist in the atmosphere is accumulating within the Earth’Earth-atmosphere system. Much like a lint trap in a dryer “traps lint.” Such an implication is nonsense. Like all matter, greenhouse gases may store thermal energy (heat) but eventually the rate energy enters the Earth will equal the rate energy leaves the Earth. When this condition occurs, (a) a new temperature distribution may exist, but (b) heat is not being trapped.
20
Correction to immediately above comment.
I wrote: … and as such if anything the presence of water vapor (a greenhouse gas) in the Earth’s atmosphere isn’t indicative of a net cooling effect on the Earth’s surface temperature.
That sentence should have been: … and as such if anything the presence of water vapor (a greenhouse gas) in the Earth’s atmosphere is indicative of a net cooling effect on the Earth’s surface temperature.
30
TdeF,
Although I lack sufficient knowledge to agree with everything you wrote, I take no exceptions to your comment. Thank you for your response.
40
” I asked one of the participants why he believed CO2 gas in the Earth’s atmosphere causes global warming.”
Am looking forward to the next such discussion.
Hope to ask why they think the moon has a higher black body temperature at the same average solar distance.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
Do know the answer but hope to enjoy watching warmists and slayers alike struggle with it.
62
Another slilly comment:
“Do know the answer but hope to enjoy watching warmists and slayers alike struggle with it.”
Truth is you don’t know and wouldn’t know about a black body surface even if it bit you on the ;;;
While some may posture by talking about Black Body Coefficients and the like it is an irrelevance to the Man Made CO2 – Atmopsheric Temperature problem.
Water did it!
And still does.
KK
71
KK the reason for the difference is the lower albedo of the moon. Us electronics people get to do black body calcs for the real world. EG transistors on heatsinks etc. Do you?
Thanks for a preview of the fun.
62
I’m so glad that you feel your understanding of “transistors” is relevant to CAGW.
Maybe you Could help Ban Ki Moon and the IPCCC.
Please contact them, they can do with some help and you might even get to meet one of those famous film star guys, just forgotten his name for the moment , but you know.
KK
ps If you have an Albedo problem maybe you should see a doctor?
61
“Maybe you Could help Ban Ki Moon and the IPCCC.”
Natural variation seems to be taking care of them. Keen to see all sides explain the next round of cooling.
70
Siliggy
My apologies for the comments following your 1.4 above.
Unfortunately after corresponding with the PSI group over the last few weeks I have become overly sensitive to mention of “black bodies” and other planets in this discussion.
🙂
KK
41
No worries KK. I deserved it for baiting like that.
40
Thanks.
30
AL Gore was a film star….. wasn’t he?
30
I’m embarassed to have not read the comment a few times before going off the deep end and writing all that Cr%p.
Not Al, Leonardo Di Caprio, looking very scientific in his beard.
KK
30
I was kidding……
30
Reed Coray, your argument and those of your responders is not quite right. The effort to say CO2 has no effect is wrong. The counter that the effect is unbounded ignores its logarithmic nature. The main issues are in the feedbacks, not CO2 per se. For layman level (with technical footnotes for those so inclined, see seceral essays in ebook Blowing Smoke: essays in energy and climate. The foreward is from Judith Curry. If you don’t know who she is, better look that up. And I am on your side, and some of JoNova’s stuff is featured. And other of her stuff updated and echoed.
62
Rud.
I sorry but there is no such thing as a “feedback’
Read my point 1 at 1.1 above.
The CO2 doesn’t do “double duty” and feed backs are nothing more than warmist wishful thinking.
KK
105
OK
Could any of the reds explain what is a “feedback”, please?
KK
20
Kinky, that is truly kinky. Why not read up and get back. Water vapor is not a feedback and not by far the most important GHG? Ground level saturation ( ignoring the altitude effect)? Come on, you are just giving ammo to warmunists. Please don’t.
31
Hi Rud
Have read both your comments and still uncertain what you are saying.
My belief is that there is no such animal as a CO2 feedback operating on water.
Do we agree?
Also the asymptotic effect means that for more CO2 added , there is less “heating” effect.
In fact adding CO2 to current levels will have very little effect on the almost immeasurable effect of CO2.
KK
32
No there are feedbacks – Nett negative ones, for example if AGW were true and suppose the earths surface did heat by say 5 degrees, then what happens, Well the radiation from the surface increaes by (295/288)^3. The increase in temperature gradient increases convective loss, and more of that extra 5 Degrees goes into the oceans. More than 80% of that 5 degrees is immediately lost, so for every 5 degrees of GW actually 1 degree occurs. Now the IPCC says 5 degrees of CO2 induced warming would cause 15 degrees of warming – remember that our CO2 warming got reduced by a factor of 5 by the Negative feedbacks, well positive feedbacks have to be of the order of 15 x to get there. That’s a loop gain of over 0.95, now if you were to suppress just about any one of the negative feedback modes and you would suffer wild instability, with temperature swinging between the boiling point of water and freezing point of CO2.
Note that none of the feedbacks either negative or positive take the same TIME, that is they are not phase coherent, any EE will tell you that such a system with such high gain feedback loops is going to oscillate – climate models are naive because they don’t take account of time constants of all the various feedback modes they are simple scalar models analogous to doing a DC analysis of an amplifier, the scalar DC analysis tells you NOTHING about the systems dynamic behaviour.
30
Oops 293/288
10
Back radiation falling upon water will cause more evaporation. Is that not a negative “feedback”?
Warmists claim that this evaporation is a positive feedback, because water vapor is a GHG and more of it means more heat “trapped”…. but we know it’s not quite that simple.
10
Yes Backslider the energy of evaporation will be radiated to space, and the water body will be cooler, the atmosphere could be warmer while the evaporation happens and before the energy is radiated off. Humid weather, moderates the highs and lows, but a 20 – 33 degree climate on average is hotter than a 0 – 40 degree climate.
00
Rud,
Isn’t it true that the “logarithmic nature” applies to the level of atmospheric CO2–not the fact that CO2 is present? That is, the rate heat is trapped may be a logarithmic function of the amount of atmospheric CO2. The argument of the responder, however, said nothing about CO2 levels. His logic implies atmospheric greenhouse gases, and in particular atmospheric CO2, “trap heat” at any level; and “trapped heat” causes a temperature rise. Thus, the “logarithmic behavior” is irrelevant to both the responder’s logic and my analysis of his logic. According to the responder, as long as CO2 (or any greenhouse gas) at any level exists in the atmosphere, heat will be trapped and the temperature will rise.
In any event, as a number approaches positive infinity (i.e., is unbounded), doesn’t the logarithm of that number also approach infinity–i.e., is also unbounded? I agree not anywhere near as rapidly as the number itself, but the “unbounded nature” still holds for the logarithm of a number.
30
Reed Coray
“The argument of the responder, however, said nothing about CO2 levels. His logic implies atmospheric greenhouse gases, and in particular atmospheric CO2, “trap heat” at any level; and “trapped heat” causes a temperature rise.”
Of course people are confused! That wicked term “greenhouse gas” keeps getting used!
Explain to the responder that this planet is not like a simple greenhouse and the so called ‘greenhouse gas’ effect was overturned by Professor Wood many decades ago. This planet is not a greenhouse – period.
There are IR active gases and they have an effect – but they are not ‘greenhouse gases’.
See comment 1.3.2 above.
50
CO2 is most definitely a greenhouse gas.
Ask any flower grower. 🙂
40
ps.. one of my best mates grows flowers in greenhouses. 🙂
And makes a tidy penny, I might add. !
40
That is the only sense that it can be viewed as a greenhouse gas – when pumped into a glasshouse to make the plants grow better.
The UN-IPCC and the CAGW bandwagoners are just sloppy to to point of ignorant arrogance about how the phrase is used.
Just try a google search for ‘define greenhouse gas’ and see how many 1000 different results you get.
20
Ah yes, but think of the chemical equation for combustion, CO2 does not ADD to the atmospheric mass, it replaces an O2 with a CO2 so the Process is bounded at 1 ATM (well actually at the point there is insufficient oxygen for combustion), global warming must be bounded because the atmosphere is bounded. The analysis is wrong CO2 warming IS bounded.
10
“atmosphere is bounded.”
Yes, by the effect of gravity. 🙂
30
You’re on a roll tonight Griss, must be the election…
20
Well done Reed,
No matter how many explanations I read about the Green House Gas Effect Theory, the answers always fail to satisfy. Either I am too dim witted to understand (possible), or there is something wrong with the explanation.
As usual you reason things out with careful logic.
For Sliggy,
I had not seen thoses figures from NASA before, giving an effective black body temperature of the moon, which is higher than the Earth, however it is not a problem for the Slayers. The Slayers have a number of explanations for the surface temperature of the Earth, none of which involve a green house gas effect.
In the case of the moon, there is a
Green House Effect on the Moon
41
Thanks Peter C. Yes I am aware of greenhouse gases on the moon like the abiotic “fossil” fuels that turn up on most of the moons in our solar system. Am also aware of mass in any real world thing. Have seen it save the device when the maximum pulse duration of a transistor driven way beyond the thermal runnawy point is short compared to the off time between pulses.
“The Slayers have a number of explanations for the surface temperature of the Earth,”
Yes but does the gas pressure one work on the hotter moon with its lower gravity?
30
Possible, but not the leading hypothesis surely. The Scientists™ have had 25 years of uncontested airtime to explain it to the intelligent public. I think you’d be well within your rights, at this point, to invoke the Feynman rule on their asses: “if you can’t explain it to a class of undergrads, you don’t understand it.”
PS From me as well, thanks to Reed for the thought and effort he put into that summary!
110
I have to disagree with your point about CO2’s radiative abilities. Gases are lousy radiators at pressures found in most of the mass of our atmosphere. They can absorb energy at their vibrational frequencies but will run into another atom/molecule and lose that energy by collision with another atom/molecule long before they can radiate. Take, for example, Aurora Australis. It occurs at pressures of 1 Torr or less and requires extremely energetic particle collisions to occur. None of that happens at pressures much above 7 Torr or 32km, and it’s really rare that low since it’s usually limited to 100km or higher, but can happen with enough energy input.
All the ways we use gases as radiation sources have two things in common, near vacuum pressures and massive inputs of energy. For example neon lamps start at 2,000 volts and go up. And those are really turning the gas into a plasma. CO2’s use in lasers not only requires massive inputs of power, either by electrical or high frequency RF, but also requires a mix of gases to drive the CO2… and the CO2 breaks down in the process unless a specific mix of gases and elements are added to “reform” it back into CO2. Needless to say, those conditions are not found anywhere in our atmosphere. If CO2 could radiate from simple heating, we could make a CO2 laser with a couple of LWIR mirrors, a tube and a heating element instead of a bunch of rare gases and exotic power supplies.
On top of all that, even if you could get the CO2 to radiate, its fundamental wavelengths are so long that very little energy is emitted at it’s peak… around -80°C. So, unless you’re using a whole lot of energy and a whole lot of CO2 and concentrating it (like a laser does) that rare as a unicorn radiative CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is only going to be able to warm up the center of Antarctica in the middle of winter thanks to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
</radiation rant>
50
Thumbs-up x10
🙂
20
We needed more analysis like this when the mess first started.
You have shown that while there is a theoretical mechanism attached to CO2 it actually occurs at temperatures that are so low the energy is irrelevant to life on Earth; it is bloody freezing!
KK
30
The atmospheric temperature does drop down to -80°C..
near the mesopause, about 80-90km above the surface. 🙂
30
Maybe my comment wasn’t too smart then?
KK
20
Ah, but it was.
There is basically nothing up there.
Molecules of O2 and N2 are often dissociated into O and N mono-atoms.
No CO2 to radiate.
10
But but….. if hot air rises, why isn’t it hot up there?
30
Ah yes!
The good old Lapse Rate, where temperature falls with altitude at the rate of 6.4 Degrees C for every thousand metres (which is the same as 3.5 degrees F for every thousand feet) in normal Atmospheric conditions.
Now watch a whole other argument start.
Tony.
30
Geez… first Planck radiation and thermodynamics and now that pesky Ideal Gas Law on top of that insidious gravity induced pressure gradient. You’d think our atmosphere was controlled by physics and chemistry instead of taxes, government funded pseudo-scientists and politicians who are “protecting our children” from Mann Made Global Climate [insert currently approved scary term here].
40
But but….. where does the temperature go????
00
Gees, do you really need me to explain.
Sorry, not in an explaining mood at the moment 🙂
10
The scary part is that I learned all this stuff in High School chemistry and physics. Unfortunately (for my bank account) I didn’t think to ignore it and get on the extremely lucrative CO2 is Evil grant band wagon so instead of a Gulfstream and a 22,000ft² mansion I’m stuck in the Obama economy with an upside down mortgage, a couple of dozen rescued animals and a pile of Veterinary bills. That’s the high price of Science for ya.
30
Forget Climategate: this ‘global warming’ scandal is much bigger
by James Delingpole
30 Jan 20151395
How can we believe in ‘global warming’ when the temperature records providing the ‘evidence’ for that warming cannot be trusted ?
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/30/forget-climategate-this-global-warming-scandal-is-much-bigger/
140
You all have Rutherglen featured here. For a more comprehensive but now 4 months dated global overview, see essay When Data Isnt in ebook Blowing Smoke. Rutherglen is justnonemof many examples.
60
Climatisme is a religion becomes more and more obvious now that the Pope has joined the cult.
140
Should have posted this earlier but the modem didn’t work (Global warming effect?).
In the Weekend Australian Bernard Salt introduces the word Calamite – someone who is always worried about calamities that might befall them.
Now who do we know like that – SillyFilly, What’shisnam where are you?
00
Just a few thought for the day:
On GISS temperature data: If you constantly have to be manipulating your data to try and prove your theory, then perhaps there is something wrong with your theory.
Why is 1950 (or thereabouts) such a magic year? Around then all natural climate cycles supposedly ceased abruptly and were replaced by man induced CO2 climate change.
Why do so few real scientists in the private sector believe in CAGW, while so few ‘climate scientists’ in the public sector disbelieve in it?
Surely if alarmists were right in their opinions as they continue to outspend sceptics by a factor of 2-3,000 to 1, they should be winning the argument?
Why do left wing politicians – that’s if they ever bothered to follow their stated policies through to their logical conclusions – believe that relying on expensive and unreliable energy sources is a good idea. Do they really believe energy poverty should be made available for as many people as possible?
If CAGW theory had any merit, you would see it clearly in the geological record; the problem is this: it is not there.
Why are alarmists obsessed with the idea of fixing our planet’s climate, when it is self-evident this is totally impossible?
230
Peter, the climate distraction seems to me to be championed by a semi-autonomous herd of sheeple predisposed to progressive group-think. I say ‘distraction’ because as you have pointed out in your list of rhetorical questions the believers appear to wrestle mightily with their cognitive dissonance, in the end suspending rational thought in favour of belief. Such is the hall mark of religion in whose name irrationality is comfortably justified.
For the political conductors of the climate orchestration, the title of the distraction is irrelevant. This has also been demonstrated recurrently by the ease with which they move from one descriptor to another – global warming to climate change. Climate is only required to remain a distraction while the governing machinery of the new precautionary age is fully installed.
70
The delegation from China to the Copenhagen Conference told delegates that during 3,600 years of civilisation in China there were three periods warmer than the last warmer period that we now know stalled in 1998. They reported that each warmer period were times of greater prosperity when crops flourished.
140
“that we now know stalled in 1998”
And that is the big issue.
Each “warmer” period has been cooler than the previous.
Only the raised CO2 level will enable the world to keep feeding itself as temperatures start to drop over the next few years and decades.
91
@ Peter Miller
1950 as a start year – below is probably just a coincidence .
There was an interesting study recently which looked at temperatures in the UK after the Clean Air Act and smokeless zones brought an end to the famous London Smog (and in other major urban centres)in the 1950s.
It found a strong correlation between winter temperatures rising over the next decade and more as air pollution reduced – presumed to be because sunlight could get through to ground level rather than being blocked by the smog.
Of course any increase in winter temperatures raises the average of the annual mean temperature.
80
This is a very good one to show anybody who’s a warmist.
It’s James Hansen himself, showing us all how the USA has cooled since 1940: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
Now, compare his graph on that page to a USA GISS graph today……… wow folks! Look at all that USA warming that came from… where exactly?
20
This is a rather “unadjusted” data series.
And of course the new USCRN stations are severely hampering efforts to produce warming in the US. (cooling trend appox -0.04F/yr in USCRN)
20
Queensland election results.
Labor, and looks like Greens didn’t get a show.
Lesson that the Federal Governemnt could learn:
The best way to deliver an unfriendly budget is in the second term.
150
I wonder how long it will be before Queenslanders realise what they just did?
160
Of course they did … they just voted higher access to ‘free’ money. I saw a couple minutes of TV interviews with both. Newman had half a clue, but Annastacia Palaszczuk came across as horribly inexperienced and naive. My rational assumption was that the LNP would hang on against such a weak opponent. I underestimated the power of stupid once again.
MinusIQ pill anyone?
190
Bulldust it may be a more complex type of stupid if a lot of them just voted for blonds.
80
She was unable to answer a question about how much the Goods & Services Tax is, she did not know, and as an excuse said that she doubted most people in the street would know. No Minister.
90
I’m a Queenslander and I admit to reeling in shock as I watched the result unfold. I expected Newman to lose (never liked him, he’s a tosser) but THE WHOLE STATE? I think I’ve lost faith in the People and the Process. The Bligh Government was an utter cluster$%^&, but 3 years later they’ve put Anna2 in the chair.
As owner of a Business which is about to invest $500 K in capacity and hire two new people, I am considering putting a hold on that decision to assess the real impact. If Business slows, I may hold. If Business is unaffected I will lose all Faith in the Political process, understanding that it has no effect. That would be nice…
200
I was looking at hiring a few full timers, not now as I’ve lost confidence in the near future. I’ll just continue to use labour hire (backpackers). It’s going to be a rough ride.
110
scaper,
I too am considering closing down my business & sacking all staff
Sick & tired of paying out constantly for the handout mentality
QLD was starting to pick up, and if continued I could see a reasonable future
Now… not sure at all
Sell everything, go on the dole and join the other parasites
Sick of fighting them, now it seems a task that is unbeatable.
60
Campbell Newman is an idiot. Most Queenslanders know that most bikers are decent, honest, hard working people. Only a tiny minority are crooks.
61
I’m a biker.. and have many friends who are bikers.
You should see the expression on some people’s faces when a bunch of us turn up at a pub somewhere. 🙂
Some of us look rough, but the guys I travel with are some of the nicest, calmest guys you could ever wish to meet. Teachers, doctors, tradesmen etc etc.. all walks of life
Like any group, there are bad apples and extremists.
These are the people who you have to weed out, and at times we have.
Painting people with a broad brush is never a good idea.
50
Exactly.
I can walk into any Rebels Club House and be welcome with open arms. All that I know are decent, hard working business men or tradesmen. As in ANY sector of society, there are some bad people, a minority.
When I was opal mining (13 years) I had a contract put on me over a mineral claim – some bad asses were hired. So, I phoned my local club prez and he made another phone call. It was the funniest thing to be sitting in the pub and have two bad asses sheepishly come over and apologise 😛
20
I made the mistake of turning on the ABC news at 7:00 last night to find out what was happening North of the Border. For some reason the news was coming from ABC Brisbane (maybe another long weekend in Ultimo). Right at the end of the news and for no particular reason other than the women’s tennis finals were on that night they had a completely gratuitous piece on how the schorching temperatures were felling sports people all over the world, with shots of sweaty tennis players, collapsed players on the ground and shots from LAST year’s Tennis Open showing sweltering crowds. No mention that this year it was cool in Melbourne. They must have had the clip ready to go for this year’s open, expecting it to be hot, and decided to play it anyway, regardless of the fact that it was cooler this year than last. Can you believe it?!
150
“… must … stay … on … message …” – your ABC
80
The media have allowed a very negative campaign from Labor to run pretty much without comment. Palmer ran a negative campaign as well but I believe he lost a lot of support. The media concentrated on attacks on Abbott, how unpopular he was and how he didn’t turn up to the campaign launch.
Labor avoided anything to do with paying back debt. They said they will create more jobs (another massive increase in a public service that failed to deliver what the LNP slashed one could). I suppose it makes sense with the number of Victorians moving here that we would have the Victorian mentality (about 1/3 of Victorians employed are in government related jobs I believe. Not sustainable for a country so each state should not try to emulate such a farce).
Several groups including the usual labor dirt slingers GetUp attacked over the Barrier Reef.
Usually such a negative campaign falls hard but the media actively promoted it. On ‘our’ ABC news broadcasts were often ended with Labor propaganda with no LNP side of things. One was on a marginal seat on the Gold Coast that was about a labor candidate ‘stepping up for young people’ and held as an example of the interest young voters have in the election… but only if they supported labor. No LNP side in this for either that electorate or in general for the state. Ironically young people like their voice to be heard as an individual but parties like the Labor party are the furtherest removed from such ideologies, if the caucus or cabinet decide something the whole party HAS to vote that way. No crossing the floor is allowed or you are kicked out of the party..
LNP were too drunk on their landslide victory three years ago and made many mistakes. It wasn’t a mistake to clear out excess baggage in the public service though methods were shoddy the idea was acceptable. Mining on national parks was another blunder. The sheer number of members of parliament allowed some real scum to get in by the looks of it too. Ultimately you vote for a politician but there is a depth to how bad they are (Thompson, Gilliard etc are good examples of lowering the bar further as is the old qld favourite Russ Hinze… if there wasn’t a pie he had his finger in it was because he ate it!)
Enough of my rants though seems like we are in for a rough 3 years.
40
Yes another 3 years of hell, though I suppose we can profit off the new revitalized feed-in tariffs and other free money at the expense of the poor.
The LNP lost on Asset Leases – Nothing more, it should be noted that the last government mooting Asset Sales also floundered at the polls. If he’d been just a little more imaginative then he could have fixed the budget without the asset leases, now of course it’s on with Agenda 21 and Union rule in Queensland.
I am definitely thinking about pulling up stumps and moving somewhere that has a future – but where? Everywhere I look are leftie nanny states.
80
“Everywhere I look are leftie nanny states.”
The big question is… how long can the money last !!!
70
… as long as the printing presses are in the hands of the Progressive and liberal spenders. The end game there is not pretty… see Republic – Weimar – collapse of, for the very, very down side.
30
The money never lasted. Started with Goss, stalled for a few years under Borbidge then accelerated with Beatty and co afterwards.
Who needs a collider in Europe, we have our very own black hole in the treasury!
30
One for Tony.
20 million dollar wave generator trial, 3/4 funded by taxpayers. 250kW genie, running for 21 mths. Sigh.
http://www.standard.net.au/story/2852498/20m-wave-energy-trial-off-port-fairy/?cs=72
70
There a couple available from earlier trials, just need sand blasting and powder coating
60
40% over budget (so far), 2 years late (so far), will generate a piddling amount of power (if it works), and will last less than 2 years.
What next? Renewable funding?
90
Queensland elections
So there you have it. They chose a leader who did know how much GST was in oz. She has a polish name that loosely can be translated to “pike” the fish and is completely mispronounced.
People memories are short and the average is indeed stupid. 80 $bb debt, worse than Greece per head.
This is what will happen to the rest of us in less than 2 years. Ets will be back with borrowings increased like a drunken sailor. This country cannot be reformed as you have 2 mln public servants now or 20% of workforce now.
Welcome to the banana republic, eh Argentina. Welcome to the age of the parasite.
252
Won’t be too long before Australia is existing purely on its credit card. 🙁
Mind you, having Labor back in in Vic and Qld can only help the Liberals at federal level.
151
You would think that.
But watch how nothing happens in VIC or QLD. It will be as though state politics don’t exist. Federal Labour will demand that state leaders simple hide themselves in their well appointed offices.
50
Are you sure about that Griss? Not according to the polls. But then polls are crap right, just ask the Republicans.
28
As the new Labor governments in Vic and Qld start to again spiral downwards, people will wake up to reality.
Its already happening in Victoria, with them realising they were LIED to about the tunnel and the cost to cancel the project.
At least the tunnel would have been useful, unlike Labor’s desal plants in Vic and Qld.
More monumental WASTE to come from both those Labor governments.
131
You are perhaps discounting that the media will certainly hide, downplay and ignore those State Labor factors, and definitely will massively accentuate an anti-conservative angle at the federal level.
Betcha they do.
80
I think the problem generally lies with the 10% or so of voters that don’t follow politics much. In Australia about 45% will vote Labor and Greens and about 45% will vote LNP.
The 10% or so undecided voters who are forced to vote go with their emotions and vote for the more popular leader rather than policy. As an example my 18 year old daughters friends voted labor because they don’t like Tony Abbott. Others looked at the faces of the candidates and preferred the labor leader. As simple as that!
The fact the LNP has done a good job in fixing QLD and had a plan is irrelevant! Those who are not really interested in politics or macro economics will just vote for who appears more likeable 😉
I think it was Churchill who said something like “democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the other forms!” 😉
60
I have doubts that the federal government can be saved now, not blaming them but with due consideration for relentless negativity from Labor supported by a large section of the leftist media coupled to the ignorance about the politics, the budget, deficit and debt displayed by too many voters. They are gullible and have what I call the Home & Away soap opera mentality, they seem to believe that the cast are not actors.
60
I stand by my pre-election prediction that if Labor wins, the next thing will be to borrow big time on the bond market to pay off debt, and then increase spending to reward supporters.
Just sit back and watch now because this will be the road map for the next federal election and the future path of Queensland will be the direction Australia will follow in two years.
140
Um…..That doesn’t make sense. Oh, right, ALP policy.
40
Sydney experiences its coolest Australia Day in 58 years, it wasn’t in the script.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=3563
130
Wow, just WOW! What a stunning result in Queensland! Finally we are rid of one nasty, divisive and destructive little man.
One to go. Abbortt, are you listening now? Have we got your attention yet? Hello?
Maybe the LNP will finally understand that nasty and divisive politics is not much of a winner. Thankfully the reprisal of the dark days of the Bjelke-Peterson era has been routed. Queenslanders have said no to corruption and attacks on the judiciary, among other things.
I’m hoping the QLD LNP elect Jeff Seeney as their new leader which will condemn them to opposition for a generation or two. Whoo-hoo!
I must say though listening to the sore losers of the LNP there seems to be no awareness at all of what went wrong. They just don’t get it.
What an awesome result and, as even Newman admits, the voters never get it wrong!
138
Yup, they vote for whoever offers the most free stuff. Occasionally they realize they have to rein in spending, but then the largesse wins again.
How long before Queensland is bankrupt?
300
Say goodbye to what’s left of the Queensland economy.
Qld soon to follow Tassie as a “dependent” state. !
180
I only hope you live in Queensland, FIN.
180
Certainly do, and loving it!
118
FIN,
I think your comments speak volumes for the intellectual paucity of almost every opinion you hold. No wonder you are a CAGW zealot.
Whatever one may think of Campbell Newman or Denis Napthine as personalities, both made on the whole good economic decisions to reverse the decline into debt enslavement for future generations and deserved on that basis alone to retain government. Because of rusted on people like you who think that endless debt increases are never going to come home to roost, rather than destroying the lives of my children and grandchildren as we devolve into a western version of Argentina, then Australia as the country it once was is lost.
A self sufficient and thriving society has been transformed over two decades to a nation of mendicants, totally divided on tribal and ethnoreligious grounds, herded into cities while regional society flounders, a progressively more ignorant society where the average university graduate is functionally illiterate, and where the people have Queensland have elected to be governed by someone who I wouldn’t trust to be capable of mowing my lawn. And you are cheering?
The difference between you and people like me is that if the side of the political divide I gravitate to racked up mountains of unserviceable debt, threw open borders to broaden their voter base in cynical fashion that killed 1000 people plus, serially made decisions to expand the reach and size of government to no productive benefit, deliberately sabotaged an incoming government with delayed onset contractual expenditure obligations to sabotage the economy upon which we all rely, then I would vote elsewhere.
My vote is to reward those who at least attempt good governance, responsible expenditure, and at least recognized that welfare must be sustainable over the long term or else the whole system will fall down, leaving the most vulnerable out to dry. Your vote on the other hand takes no account of any consideration like that, IMHO, as demonstrated by your rejoicing the election of an incoming premier who will be hopelessly out of her depth and incapable of any semblance of good governance. You are an ideologue, and the lights are on but nobody is home.
231
Winston, it seems you don’t get it either. Tell it to the people of Queensland, not me. I’m sure they agree with you….not.
125
Fools’ paradise, FIN.
So you’ll feel right at home.
131
Well strangely Fin, I am a person of QLD and I agree with him You might note that the LNP Polled more than the ALP so far by more than 3% – 41.2% LNP to 38.1% ALP, so in fact more QLD voters want the LNP than Labor, telling huh?
60
You need to ask Gerry, not Fin !!
10
BTW, how much of this “mountain of debt” did the Nasty Party actually pay down? Please tell me, I’m dying to know.
111
We could try to explain it to you but obviously you would either not understand or not bother to absorb it.
101
If you are talking federally, IMO the Libs definitely piked on curbing spending as much as they should have and every cost saving measure they were game enough to try has been blocked by a hostile senate. As such those senators share the blame for any lack of success in reigning this in.
The poisoning of the well was so effective, with so much put on the lay away (NDIS, NBN, Gonski, and a myriad of others ), again that is the responsibility of Swan and co.
In Victoria, Napthine had a 1.3 billion surplus, and people complained that he was hoarding it!
In Queensland, the Bligh Beattie governments racked up 80 billion in debt, $13 billion of which was “locked in” by the departing government. Return to surplus was a few years down the track, given the inertia of turning around the economy without ruining it, like turning the Queen Mary around.
What Labor have figured out is that the more effective they are at sabotaging the economy they are, the quicker they can return to power because either the “medicine” will be too unpalatable or their opponents can be criticised for failing to succeed in reigning in debt if they take a correct but softer option. It’s a win: win situation, except of course for we plebs who have to carry the economic cost. We are now at a point beyond redemption. Like the rest of the world, financial collapse and global depression, or worse, is inevitable.
The stupidity of the average voter is no defence, and no recommendation either.
161
“What Labor have figured out is that the more effective they are at sabotaging the economy they are, the quicker they can return to power because either the “medicine” will be too unpalatable or their opponents can be criticised for failing to succeed in reigning in debt if they take a correct but softer option. ”
—
Exactly, that’s a neat approximation of what is happening in Australian politics, the QLD Labor freak show were just the greatest vandals, they moved the fastest, they were the most zealous to poison the system and ensure it’s enfeeblement and selling of the population’s future to banks. And the same scurrilous bunch of Queensland Labor vandals gain power in Canberra as well.
It should be clear as day to the State and National media, and the rest of Australia should be acutely aware of it by now, but are they? Will they be? Would they even care?
Labor will win more often than not, no matter how badly they have performed, no matter how bad damage the county and various states, no matter how much they destroy the country’s future financial and economic functioning and resilience.
120
..as a mendicant.
50
He’s almost certainly on the public teat, be it public service or the dole !
131
Self-employed actually Griss.
012
“Self employed”. Lol.
100
So, how do you “employ” yourself, FIN. Do tell. I’m a GP with heavily socialised practice with 80% of my patients bulk billed. Now your turn.
120
Crickets……..
Still looking for employment FIN? Quel surprise.
100
Typo alert “quelle surprise”
110
So was the Artful Dodger.
90
Probably some greenie type scam , reliant on the public purse to keep it going.
70
Probably calls the dole as self employed.
40
Some on the dole could be considered ‘self-employed’, working hard to ensure that they remain on the dole.
70
Perhaps he was referring to his sex life?
60
What do you again apart from gas bagging and expunging so much co2 that you have so much?
Are u one of the parasites that was mentioned above that live off people like me?
When was last time that you paid any tax?
40
Reprisal is an act of vengeance. I think you mean reprise.
Glad to get rid of that divisive lot then and get back politicians who do what they are told, by the Greens and the Unions.
Who needs representative politics when we can all be happy.
Surely winning the Asian cup was far better, for a barracker.
100
To even post here confirms that for some the alleged Global Warming is a one sided political issue, not a scientific one.
Who really needs science when you can get the party you want in power? They can then decide on issues of science.
100
This should not be a surprise.
Both on this site and WUWT many of the commenters concentrate on foam-flecked, right-wing, tub-thumping, crazy conspiracy theories about international Marxism, and general discharge of bile. And I am sure there are sites with equally splenetic left-wing commenters.
It is all very tiresome, but I find these two sites have sufficient value to make them worth reading anyway. I try to ignore the political nonsense and concentrate on the important issues of grammar, science, and mockery.
20
Yes, you are correct TdeF, re reprisal/reprise.
37
You are a sad creature indeed. Can,t even call you an individual, as the individual thinking alien to you. You hate people like me with passion and (secretly or may be not) wish me dead. But you need me to pay for you, you need me to work hard and shut up. You are the paddler of the new age slavery, dehumanising ideology and for what? For your little unemployment benefit, your little tiny flat or perhaps living in mansion with your parents, with your pot and the blame culture. You blame me for oppressing you.
I came to this country with nothing and yet 30 years later I paid millions in tax. Is this is why you hate me so much because you feel like a failure?
Ask yourself why I could succeed and you can,t. Eh I know because you blame everyone else except yourself.
90
I suspect “it” hates you because you can think for yourself when “it” cannot. Because you are not a failure when “it” is.
50
You idiot!
If it were not for Bjelke Peterson Queenslanders would all be swinging from the trees….. no, wait, they are just about to start doing just that…….
00
Wind Turbine Enquiry
The Parliamentary Enquiry inti wind turbines has now published 5 submissions, all of them negative about wind turbines.
Anton put his in 2 week or so ago, Now there are submissions by, Regulation Economics, David Archibald and Dr Judy Ryan. Judy’s submission seems long, but it is only 6 pages and includes pictures, which adds to the Mbytes. The pictures tell the story. In short, wind turbines kill birds and they kill people. The final picture is a cartoon by Josh, which sums the thing up nicely.
David Archibald gets a bit distracted attempting to assert the Greenhouse Effect (unfortunately). He does however make the very important point that wind turbines are unsustainable because they don’t return their investment in energy terms. If one was to try to make a wind turbine, using only wind generated power, it would cost 3 times as much as the current ones did to produce. The power from that wind turbine would cost out at 30 cents/kWhr, and that is just for the first generation of wind turbines. The next generation would produce power at 90c/kWhr
110
Here in Britain, the Department of Environment & Climate Change last week launched its new Global Calculator Tool, so everyone can design policies to save the world from dangerous climate change. Problem is that the model is over-sensitive. By tweaking three levers I could make global emissions go negative without eliminating fossil fuel usage. These were
1. Reducing urban car use from 43% to 29% of journeys in 2050.
2. Reducing the average home area by 2050 to 95m2 from 110m2.
3. Effectively making a sirloin steak (medium rare) and venison in redcurrant sauce things of the past. Actually it is everyone going vegetarian, but I have my preferences. 🙂
Adding them together compared with a baseline of steady emission levels of about 50 GT/CO2e from 2050 to 2100, gave Adding them together gives global emissions of -2.8 GT/CO2e in 2050 and -7.1 GT/CO2e in 2100.
My post is DECC’s Dumb Global Calculator Model.
If you go direct to the tool I suggest you try out the example pathways in the center of the page. In particular the Friends of the Earth Pathway has emissions going slightly negative after 2050. The Vegan Society is the best. This generates -15.1 GT/CO2e in 2100. I cannot see how human beings can absorb CO2 but seeminglingly it is true, as an expert model says so. On a personal level, excessive consumption of pulses tends to increase my GHG emissions. 🙂
80
Hi all
So what about the Queensland election results!
06
ALP / Katter / Independent Parliament
Run by a mind boggling bright lady called Annastacia Palaszczuk
Going to be a great year, selling up, going on the dole, going to the beach, relaxing
Might even take up a Uni Course in Climate Change.
Might even start doing what the clear majority are doing now
Yippeeee
I’ll see you at the beach mate with all the rest.
Don’t fight them join them Adam
100
“Going to be a great year, selling up, going on the dole, going to the beach, relaxing”
You Queenslander, you !!
Why work your butt off when you can join the rest of the non-productive. 🙂
“Might even take up a Uni Course in Climate Change.’
I think John Cook runs a climate propaganda course of some sort.. he’s up your way, isn’t he ?
50
Given what’s happened to Greece’s election and what looks like happening elsewhere, such as Spain and Queensland, it appears voters almost everywhere are moving further and further to the left. This is not good news. I see nothing but economic and social catastrophe in the next few years. Even if AGW were true, we’ll have much bigger problems to deal with in quick time. I suppose we have to suffer yet another great and painful lesson in history before we all realize mankind is heading down a very dangerous rabbit hole. Let’s hope we learn sooner rather than later before we get too far into the rabbit hole. There is a point of no return where it’s fatal and mankind ceases to exist. That’s why I believe even if AGW were true, it pales into insignificance compared to the social, political and economic problems at hand.
180
Peter
When the continuous thread of evil Soviet Union and now docile China was removed it looks like people think it is acceptable to move to the left again. The new generation does not remember that fear and every day reports of the left craziness.
So much suffering and death is coming our way again. It seems humanity can,t live in free capitalism (which we don,t have now anyway).
60
Peter C says –
“He does however make the very important point that wind turbines are unsustainable because they don’t return their investment in energy terms”
they pay off for some who are at the forefront of pushing the CAGW scam though:
31 Jan: Daily Mail: Prince Charles: Hellbent on being a meddling monarch. New book reveals ambition that could cause a British constitutional crisis
By Richard Kayand Geoffrey Levy
As King, his income would be a share in the profits of the Crown Estates – under a new system for which he was agitating over more than 20 years.
And, significantly, offshore wind farms have to pay rent to the Crown Estates, and there are likely to be 7,000 of the giant turbines round the UK
coastline by the year 2020. This could make him the richest monarch in British history…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2933811/Charles-Hellbent-meddling-monarch-New-book-reveals-ambition-cause-constitutional-crisis.html
50
SMH, March 2013: The Angry Summer:
“A few years ago, talking about weather and climate change in the same breath was a cardinal sin for scientists.
Now it has become impossible to have a conversation about the weather without discussing wider climate trends, according to researchers who prepared the Australian Climate Commission’s latest report.
The report, The Angry Summer, says behind the litany of broken heat and rainfall records this year, a clear pattern has now emerged.
It might even be the case that the mantra chanted after every catastrophic weather event – that it can’t be said to be caused by climate change, but it shows what climate change will do – has become a thing of the past.”
ABC, 29 Jan, 2015:
“The bureau’s previous outlook had predicted a dry start to the year, yet early January rain drenched many areas of central Australia and the country’s east.
Dr Watkins says those bursts of heavy rain can be difficult to predict in a long-term outlook.
“So we’re looking at a couple of weather events that have occurred rather than necessarily something that’s been driven by the broad scale climate.”
. . .
T’was only a few years ago … I see what you did there.
How is it the BoM can’t predict rain, but can “confidently” predict drought, and continually fail?
Thechronicle.com: ON January 10, amateur weather buff Neil Pennell did what trained meteorologists did not — predict the devastating and tragic flood event which tore though Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley claiming 23 lives.
Climate is now weather is now climate.
101
re Kevin Marshall (Manicbeancounter) comment on the Global Calculator Tool.
a bit of fun:
2 pages: 28 Jan: Washington Times: Ernest Istook: California protects the chickens, Al Gore targets the humans
(Ernest Istook is a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma)
But while 300 million chickens get more living space, Al Gore and friends want 320 million Americans forced into cramped living quarters — to save the planet. Animal-rights activists push to let free-range chickens wander about, but Mr. Gore and friends want to end the mobility that automobiles provide for people….
The former vice president was part of a presentation at Davos — the elitist World Economic Forum in Switzerland — which outlined a plan from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. For our own good, they want to push people into cities and make us stay there — and spend $90 trillion to make this happen.
We get less legroom; chickens get more drumstick room. Let’s look first at the birds, then at us humans…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/ernest-istook-california-protects-the-chickens-al-/#!
80
The Global Calculator tool also thinks that human beings should have less living space to save the planet. Also having less appliances (whether washing machines, or small tablets) is rated as a positive, as it saves you money and means less fossil-fueled electricity consumption. In addition, going without a car, or reducing the heating (in cold climates) or switching off the air conditioning (in hot climates) not only saves you money, but helps save the planet as well.
The thing that this ignores is that larger houses, more appliances and being able to control the climate within your house are all positive impacts on living standards.
50
For many years I have opposed preferential voting, in the 2013 federal election several Senators gained seats in our Upper House yet the primary votes they attracted were less than 10 per cent of the total vote and in one example about 2 per cent. The only PUP Lower House candidate that gained a seat gained far fewer primary votes that his Liberal National Party opponent in that electorate in Queensland.
And now the day after the Queensland State Election the voting count recorded at the Queensland Electoral Commission website shows that the LNP had the most seats based on primary voting but that Labor will probably form a government after distribution of preferences narrowly.
For those interested here is the QEC voting result late Saturday evening;
Ahead on Primary Vote
No. Seats
Australian Labor Party ALP 35
Katter’s Australian Party KAP 2
LNP LNP 51
Other Candidates 1
50
For many years I have opposed preferential voting, in the 2013 federal election several Senators gained seats in our Upper House yet the primary votes they attracted were less than 10 per cent of the total vote and in one example about 2 per cent. The only PUP Lower House candidate that gained a seat gained far fewer primary votes that his Liberal National Party opponent in that electorate in Queensland.
And now the day after the Queensland State Election the voting count recorded at the Queensland Electoral Commission website shows that the LNP had the most seats based on primary voting but that Labor will probably form a government after distribution of preferences narrowly.
For those interested here is the QEC voting result late Saturday evening;
Ahead on Primary Vote
No. Seats
Australian Labor Party ALP 35
Katter’s Australian Party KAP 2
LNP LNP 51
Other Candidates 1
50
Yes, as with the Federal government. In the previous election, most Liberal/NP seats were won on primary preferences. Only 8 Labor seats were and that was in the house of representatives. You have the 14% Greens deciding nearly every labor seat, so they control Labor party policy.
No wonder Labor chase every fringe voter and even ignore their own loyal supporters to please the fringes with issues like Boat people, Islamic terror, Israel, Global Warming, meat, mining, energy until the traditional Labor voters turn their backs in disgust, but only for one term apparently. Stealing the mantle of caring Greens was the smartest decision of the 1990s by the defeated Communists, whatever the country. It is a massive movement with a great image, plenty of funding, automatic support from young mothers, new aspirational voters and the scared. Perfect. As Adam Bandt said to me, “We tell them what they want to hear and when we get power, we do what we like”.
You only have to read Green policy to see that they are not Green at all, but would Marx seem democratic. So the Unions and Anarchist Greens are back in power in three states. It is unbelievable that they can offer to Destroy the Joint and people think it is a good idea.
90
Sorry, again a phrase is missing. “Green policy.. would make Marx seem democratic”
30
As John Cleese would probably say “Don’t mention the election”.
I wonder how long Cameron Dick can restrain himself.
40
Apologies for double post
10
Oh dear! ….. says Queensland Labor. She might actually win. What do we do?
Take yourself back to that Labor Party meeting following the Newman landslide three years ago. There were just 7 members seated around that table. All the Labor power base had gone, all their most experienced parliamentary members gone, just the rusted on members of always vote Labor seats.
Just seven of them left.
Who to make the boss.
Everyone looks the other way. No one wants to lead after a debacle like that. On a hiding to nothing. So they elect probably the most inexperienced person in the room.
You see the thinking here is that this landslide result is probably a two, maybe three election result to claw back from. She can lead a small group and at the next election, when the inevitable happens and they get half way back, then some of those more experienced people come back into the Parliament, then half way through that next cycle, they can honourably thank Palaszczuk for a job well done, and the Labor status quo is back to normal.
Palaszczuk represents Inala, and she took the seat over from her father. No one really wants Inala, as it is really hard work, being one of 2 seats in Queensland with the greatest number of government dependent people as residents, Woodridge being the other seat.
Pretend you’re a trendy Labor Lawyer, (in fact like Palaszczuk is herself) or a Union Boss, or a staffer whose turn has finally arrived. You want a trendy seat, a comfortable seat, an easy seat, one where you don’t have to do too much, so you can concentrate on the party business instead, shoring up the factions, getting the right number of Union votes behind you for pre selection, ensuring that Union faction puts you in the right place to build up that faction in the parliamentary party room.
So, seven members sitting around that table, all looking the other way. Palaszczuk gets elected, well, probably innocently put up her hand because no one wanted the job anyway. Time for that later when they claw their way back close enough to maybe win an election.
Now it’s come back to bite them on their collective fundament.
She might actually win.
If she does, then they can’t get rid of her. She hasn’t got the factional numbers behind her, and now, a lot of those former Labor heavies are back, the experienced ones, those Labor lawyers, those Union leaders taking their next step up the Labor ladder, those party faithfuls whose time has finally come, all of them way more experienced than Annastacia, and they do have the factions lined up behind them, and their Union backing. And they don’t have a really tough seat to look after like Annastacia does have.
What do they do?
They can’t get rid of her now.
I’m probably even willing to bet that a lot of those Queensland Labor members are now desperately hoping the LNP can hang on, because it makes their job in Opposition easier, and they can honourably get rid of Annastacia as Leader part way through this coming cycle, you know, time to be with her family, to concentrate more on her (very difficult) Electorate, all the right public things to say, while all the time those factions behind the scenes are working up to put their nominee in place. Something like that is easier in Opposition than it would be if she was the Premier
Queensland Labor is in a real pickle right now.
Annastacia Palaszczuk might actually win.
What do they do then?
Tony.
190
Call on the CFMEU bikies to keep the peace?
80
Don’t talk like a fool.
Bikers are also doctors, lawyers, bridge builders…… you name it.
10
So how did the LNP so royally stuff it up Tony? Please, I’d be genuinely interested to hear your thoughts.
116
Two Words – Asset Sales…. This issue captain Bligh the election (oh along with Gillard) when she sold part of Q Rail and now has claimed the LNP, will the Q Government finally understand that Queenslanders want to keep their assets?
Still 80Bn in debt does seem like a big challenge for such an inexperienced party, think we can expect another single term government as the new government gets pushed on the debt, especially given Asset Sales are now off the table.
FIN you are off the planet here – do you understand the monumental problem that QLD Labor has now got the monumental problem that WE the citizens of QLD now have? How the hell do YOU propose that we pay back 80 Billion Australian Dollars in debt!
60
“How the hell do YOU propose that we pay back 80 Billion Australian Dollars in debt!”
Fin is obviously a green/labor voter..
so his answer will be… borrow more !!
60
So what you’re saying is that the ALP wish they’d lost the election? Hah! Yeh right, that’ll work!
Now I understand how you come to the conclusions you do about climate change! Are there any more deluded souls in Australian life than neo-con reactionaries? I doubt it.
024
FIN,
No need for fingerpointing, if you live there and you’re happy with the result that’s all that matters.
120
Labor announces renewable energy policy with expansion by solar households
Quote Annastacia Palaszczuk (15 seconds, u-tube): “I cant control the weather …”
~ ~ ~
But, isn’t that what solar panels are for:
Solar Energy Conversion Offers A Solution To Help Mitigate Global Warming (via sciencedaily.com)
‘oogle.com: About 11,900,000 results (0.33 seconds)
30
Then again, if Obama promised to stop the rise of the oceans …
Obama speech oceans receding, planet healing (youtube)
And couldn’t:
Wapo: In major shift, Obama administration will plan for rising seas in all federal projects
What chance has Annastacia Palaszczuk of stopping extreme climate?
40
She will win, the LNP can’t form Govt, and Katter and Co will do what they did federally.
i.e. support Gillard, kRudd and the black-Swan.
60
The extend of snow in the northern hemisphere is now showing a long term upward trend:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=4
Will be interesting to see if this year sets a new record.
Greenland ice tracking at top end of 20 year average:
http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
Arctic ice has increased for the last three years:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Antarctic sea ice reached record extent in winter of 2014:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2784196/Sea-ice-surrounding-Antarctica-reaches-record-levels-hits-20-MILLION-square-kilometers.html
The increased snow and ice cover is not something discussed logically in terms of Global Warming theory because it is more evidence that contradicts the theory. From NASA:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page5.php
“Perhaps the most well known feedback comes from melting snow and ice in the Northern Hemisphere. Warming temperatures are already melting a growing percentage of Arctic sea ice, exposing dark ocean water during the perpetual sunlight of summer. Snow cover on land is also dwindling in many areas. In the absence of snow and ice, these areas go from having bright, sunlight-reflecting surfaces that cool the planet to having dark, sunlight-absorbing surfaces that bring more energy into the Earth system and cause more warming.”
So surely as the snow and ice return we can expect a positive feedback that will accelerate cooling. The increased snow cover and cloud cover is contributing to an upward trend in global reflectance since 1999:
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/climanal1.html
Weather at 10am in Melbourne on the 1st day of February is 15C. That is not what I look forward to in a Melbourne summer but I am glad I am not in Dudinka, Siberia:
http://www.9news.com.au/world/2015/01/30/14/40/siberian-town-freezes-over-after-storm-knocks-out-power-and-electricity
or even on the east coast of the USA:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0126/Will-Blizzard-2015-break-the-snowfall-record-in-NYC-and-Boston-video
Surely it is a challenge for the modellers not to be skeptical about global warming theory based on rising CO2 when the evidence so clearly contradicts the modelling.
80
Admunsen-Scott station in the Antarctic should be a good indicator of Global Warming. Far inland, 2000m up on a plateau and little human activity.
The raw temperatures show less than 0.1°C of cooling per century and with two dubious data points removed (according to Berkley Earth), 0.23°C per century since 1959 to Oct 2013.
Looking at monthly temperatures separately, the warming rate is from J-D (1959-2014)
1.03 -1.79 2.25 -0.28 -1.21 -1.14 -0.87 0.36 2.19 -0.59 3.1 1.71°C/century with an average of 0.4°C per century. A large spread with more of the summer months positive and the colder months negative (up to the end of 2014 with data for Jul and A missing).
Whats interesting is that up to the pause, 1999, most of the months show a negative trend.
-0.55 -3.73 1.97 -0.51 -5.29 -2.92 -0.79 -1.96 -3.64 -3.48 2.16 -1.28 with an average of -1.7°C/century.
The average is 10°C/century for the next 15 years.
I also looked at the differences between the months of consecutive years. There are 3 years where 9/12 of the differences from the previous year were positive and 10/12 in 2005 (from 2004). The average SD of monthly differences from the previous year is 3.11 but its only 1.37 for 2004-2005 so I’m suspicious that the sudden upswing in temperatures is just a systematic error. And one common to many maximum temperature readings in Australia.
50
That’s why we call it global warming, not one isolated station in Antarctica warming. Jesus, get a grip.
011
FIN,
I’m happy to respond to most people, and I try to do it in an objective manner without stereo typing or making personal statements, however I find your taking the Lord’s name in vein highly insulting.
I wonder how willing you are to insult the followers of Islam in like manner, or is it only just an opportunity to take cheap shots against people who would normally try to ignore the level of intolerance, bogotry and personal abuse you regularly display.
You’re a Queenslander, you’re self employed, your political party just beat the terrible conservative economic extremists – the least you could do is win with some semblance of grace.
60
Manners to FIN are like a stake through the heart to a vampire. To be avoided at all costs.
40
How many times has a sceptic had to point that out?
Its an example where there is no UHI and temperatures taken by scientist rather than PO employees in a place that shouldn’t be affected as much by local factors or humidity.
It was more about using the months separately and how a small adjustment or systematic error can make a difference to the trend. Didn’t you notice how much the temperatures are adjusted?
20
I object to your use of Jesus’ name as a swear word…you are gratuitously insulting Christians. I bet you wouldn’t use Mohammed’s name in such a way…you wouldn’t dare to.
40
“Jesus, get a grip”
Which of us do you think you are talking to, Fin?
HE isn’t a regular poster here as far as I know.
The other guy.. down there.. well.. he’s one of yours !
40
Jesus Christ on a biscuit and Muhammad in the blender. If you guys are going to whine about taking the Lord’s name in vain you’re not much different than the true believers in the Church of Algore.
I don’t care what you believe so long as your not trying to tax me for it and I reserve the right to skewer all of your sacred goats.
30
As I sort of implied.. I assumed Fin was talking to one of us,
maybe in a case of mistaken identiy. 🙂
My feeling on the issue are just like yours. 🙂
20
DWP,
Well put, at least it’s balanced.
A perfect example of the what real freedom of speech is all about.
30
Yeah, sorry. I could have worded that so much more tactfully. I’ll try harder. 🙂
20
DWP,
No, please don’t try anymore, I think that was hard enough.
10
I think I’m actually convinced now.
People just don’t want things to be fixed up.
They just want things to be easy, for Government to just give them what they want.
The don’t want the problems solved.
Who cares about debt and deficit, huge debt, where the interest on that debt is actually crippling, where the interest alone is what racks up the deficit, because people don’t want that debt paid off. The money they rake in should go not to paying off that debt, but to give them ….. stuff.
When you have people like Wayne Swan last night saying “what’s wrong with debt and deficit”, and how it’s not as bad as is being made out, then I just know that we’ve lost the moral compass where what you borrow has to be paid back.
Who gets to pay that debt back? What do we have to do to pay that debt back?
No one cares any more. Just rack it up, borrow more, and put off paying it back till, well, whenever.
Abbott’s gone now too.
People do not want to do the hard yards any more. There is always the easy option.
I despair for the future now, because it will not be pretty.
Bread and circuses is not for me I’m afraid.
The people will always get exactly what they deserve.
The fight is very gradually going out of good people. Why would you bother any more?
Tony.
250
‘Abbott’s gone now too.’
Too early to call, it depends on his infrastructure plans.
91
TonyfromOz, those are criticisms of the system and/or capitalism, and how it works in Australia. But not much to do with global-warming claptrap.
I’m not Australian and won’t comment directly on Australian politics. But, whether my politics are red, blue, green, grey, or skybluepink, I think that wilfully making energy more expensive is a recipe for economic decline and possibly disaster.
It is bad for everybody, bar ‘carbon-traders’. I want the international “green”politics of the would-be carbon traders to be defeated before they splice us all in half with the main shaft.
120
Tony, I have come to the conclusion that many/most people have just never grown up. They still want their ‘daddy’ or ‘mummy’ to look after them. They think of their government as their ‘parents’ whose job it is is to look after them. Just like kids they think if they get into trouble (such as debt) their parents will bail them out. Just like kids they think their parents have an endless supply of money to do this and don’t understand if the answer is no. Just like kids if they are told there is no money they look at those with money (those who have made a success standing in their own 2 feet) and say take it from them. The education system and parents have failed.
90
Again Tony, it’s about perceived fairness. Abbott’s budget is perceived as unfair, I don’t understand what it is you neo-cons find so hard to understand about that. I know Abbott doesn’t but I would credit a lump of coal with more brains than him.
You’re kidding right? Tell that to a child born with a disability. It amazes me how you lot always want to reduce everything to simplistic, one sentence aphorisms. The world is more complex than that even if you can’t cope with it.
016
‘The people will always get exactly what they deserve’ and you take it completely out of context to make Tony look like a type of monster?
Anton Lang has more integrity, insight and general decency than you could ever dream about with that tick turd sized brain of yours.
Seriously mate stand in front of a mirror and have a good look at yourself, if your reflection starts talking when you don’t then don’t worry, it’ll only verify my diagnosis of your condition, fu*#wit.
72
Yonniestone,
thanks for that.
It seems that when it comes to the left, one of their ploys is to take everything said completely out of context.
And me ….. reducing something to one simplistic sentence. You have to be kidding.
Tony.
80
You shouldn’t be going on about others being simple. The child gets looked after by society regardless of which party is in power. It could be looked after better if the real reasons for socialism wasn’t to support an ineffective public service with overpaid and underworked employees. I remember something about a $35 M scheme that found a few dozen Aboriginals a job.
130
The world is not a fair place, FIN. You should get used to it. If you want fair, look in the rules for card and board games. Reality knows nothing about fairness, perceived or otherwise. Reality knows only competition.
40
“Again Tony, it’s about perceived fairness.”
Oh diddums… have you been treated unfairly at some time, you poor little thing. !!
And perceived? by whom?
Those who want a free ride with no risk and no effort ?
Or those who work their butts off, take financial risks, and then get half their earnings taken just so society can support a bunch of lay-abouts.
30
Sorry FIN, we really shouldn’t make fun of you, knowing that you are (SNIPPED). Sorry.
(I deleted the uneeded personal insult) CTS
10
FIN: English lesson—”The people always get exactly what they deserve” is not the same as “People deserve everything they get”. You used the latter statement, Tony the first.
10
Lol, the interest on our debt isn’t crippling, at the federal level it is about $1 billion a month out of a ~$400 billion a year budget. Australia has lower debt relative to GDP now than it did for most of the 1960s and 1970s.
Stick to energy policy, you don’t know anything about economics.
00
Banana republic, here comes Australia.
Seems Australians, like Greeks, believe that there is a magical money tree, so politicians respond by promising more and more handouts, with no idea where the money will come from.
150
Again, you just don’t get it do you? Australians are not stupid contrary to your assertions. They can count and certainly understand hip pocket issues.
What you neo-con extremists don’t seem to get is that they do not accept that the wealthy in society get off Scot-free while the lower socio-economic groups have to wear all the pain for structural re-adjustment.
What is government for if it is not to look after the less fortunate in society? Gina Rinehart doesn’t need government help but she sure gets plenty, a fact she conveniently overlooks. But she thinks the unemployed should carry the burden while she continues to pile up money made from the resources that belong to all Australians. It’s about fairness. People hate how Newman & Abbott rule by dividing people and society. I could go on but you get the picture……….
125
Have you had a conversation with a citizen of Greece? No? Thought so.
110
FIN,
People go in to businesses to make money.
If they make enough money, they can employ other people.
And, as they expand their business they employ more people.
Now, if due to economic circumstances, they stop making as much money,
they reduce their staff numbers.
Also, I can’t remember seeing any battlers around. Oh, you’ve
got the people that say, “woe is me. Give me a hand out.”
In days gone by, these people would have pulled their belt in,
knuckled down, and did whatever it took to get back on their feet.
Nowadays, people want to continue the lifestyle they had while
they were working and then saying they can’t live on the handout.
Mind you, they’ve probably got a mile of debt on their credit cards as well.
And, you and I pay for this.
But, they say, don’t blame me, society owes me a living.
110
Don’t you know that it’s EVIL to go into business and make money…. and employ people….. and improve the economy.
Just ask FIN.
20
FIN – so many errors in your argument, I can only assume you are wantonly trolling.
Here’s a real simple one for you … no, resources do not belong to “all Australians.” They belong to the Australians in the states in which they occur. You have been drinking too much of the Labor Koolaid again… never let the facts get in the way of a good ideological rant. All about entitlement … nothing about responsibility. I can happily debate mining royalties with you all day … guarantee the score will be 100-0 in my favour by the end of it.
Last I checked, Rhinehart’s company employed thousands in highly paid jobs to contruct Roy Hill iron ore mine. Again, don’t let those trivial facts bother you. And no, I am no fan of GR … think she is a piece of work, but the company is employing plenty of good people. Tax payers.
But please keep trolling … you look increasingly dense every time you post.
BTW I am no fan of Abbott either… he royally screwed up an opportunity to be a mature leader. One wonders what someone like Costello could have done as leader instead of Abbott.
161
Again you blame everyone except yourself. Once a looser always a looser
70
You don’t seem to get it FIN. It is not about Gina Rinehart taking the food from someones mouth. Its about the influence that she can have on society with her money. These people work hard and smart to keep their companies going. They want an Australia where someone similar people can get rewarded as well for working smart and hard. They want to live in a big pond.
They do not want an Australia where someone who doesn’t contribute can share the wealth. There are people attacking her in the ABC who are making more money than an MP or even the Prime Minister and do bugger all, and then do that badly. They prance around like socialists but tweet that they bought an expensive car. These people want the influence of Gina Rinehart, not to feed the poor. They want her wealth and not something to get by on until they get back on their feet.
70
Damm. Forgot to delete the ‘someone’.
10
The real reason to hype up the class warfare (and CAGW).
Zenophon c.400BC
30
Too bad the “lower socio-economic groups” are the hired not the hirer. Kind of hard to raise their “socio-economic” status when no one is hiring because those dastardly wealthy who get off “scot-free” according to you have decided to keep their money and close up shop.
Your sort has never understood economics and never will. You don’t even understand the society around you other than in terms the media spoon fed you.
80
“Less fortunate …”? You think it comes down to luck? You think that people have no responsibility for their own lives?
You obviously haven’t heard the expression, “The harder I work, the luckier I get.”
Some dozen or so years ago, a young guy came into our office, and just asked the receptionist for a job. She laughed at him, and told him to go away. He just smiled and sat on the waiting couch. One of my partners saw him, and asked him who he was waiting to see. The guy said, “The person who will give me a job”. My partner said, “Well I don’t think we have any vacancies, just now”.
To which the young man replied, “Well I am on the dole, because I can’t get a job, and I can’t get a job because I lack work experience, so I figured that if I worked for you for free, I could get some.”
And that was how we got our first intern. The guy worked for us for a while, and then applied for, and got, a real job, with the assistance of a reference from our company. Last I heard, he was doing just fine.
The less fortunate in society, are those who are told, and believe, that you have to play the game according to the Government’s rules.
40
Hiding the decline.
‘Mr Trewin (BoM) also noted that the Bureau had recently changed its Melbourne monitoring site from the Royal Society of Victoria on La Trobe Street in the city to Olympic Park, near Rod Laver Arena. Maximum temperatures recorded at the new site were on average 1.2 degrees cooler, particularly on cool days, because air coming from the south and west was travelling over parklands rather than the through the city.’
Lucy Battersby / The Age
40
The data for the old site and the new one overlap for 1 1/2 years. The mean maximum for the new site is 20.09 and 20.84°C for the old one (1.2, particularly on cool days?). Just using the 2014 data and the difference its still only 0.8°C.
The old temperatures were taken in a botanic garden up until 1906 when the city site was opened. BOM don’t mention the actual change date but there appears to be a sudden change in temperatures about 1906. No UHI of course!
00
FIN –
as i vote for none of them, i would simply say Newman got carried away with power, having such a huge majority. he made enemies within his Coalition, with minority parties, & with many voters who didn’t like his dictatorial style. talk of raising (and/or broadening) the GST rate, which is devastating to those with the least disposable income, was another negative.
asset sales, whether of the kind Anna Bligh advocated (which was to fund schools & hospitals) & which caused her popularity to plummet, or the Newman kind, which morphed into “leasing” (to pay down debt, PLUS fund road-building & new schools & hospitals) are a no-no for many Queensland voters, right or wrong.
as an informal voter, my biggest beef was Newman calling the election at a time which meant zillions of campaign ads went to air during the Australian Open tennis & the mute button had to work overtime! how shallow am i?
31 Jan: Brisbane Times: Kristian Silva: Queensland Election 2015: Green vote to drop but still derail Newman
Newspoll figures published in The Australian on Saturday show The Greens are set to pick up 6 per cent of the total Queensland vote, down from 7.5 per cent at the 2012 election.
However in Ashgrove, Galaxy polling figures in The Courier-Mail show Greens candidate Robert Hogg will receive about 8 per cent.
Coupled with Labor’s Kate Jones’s 48 per cent and about 2 per cent for independents, preferences are likely to go against the LNP…
“We are the ones who have been pushing the important initiatives in solar, for the reef, for energy, for innovation in this state,” Mr Worringham said.
Federal Greens leader Christine Milne said the Greens wanted to force Mr Newman out of office.
“It’s very clear that people are disillusioned with the old political parties. They’re disillusioned with the revolving door between business and politics and the deals that are done in back rooms,” she said.
“In the seat of Ashgrove, the Greens decided to preference the Labor party to run Campbell Newman out of Ashgrove, out of Queensland.
“The Greens are absolutely committed to getting rid of Campbell Newman.”…
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-state-election-2015/queensland-election-2015-green-vote-to-drop-but-still-derail-newman-20150131-132ri2.html
ABC have a story up:
KAP (Katter’s Australian Party) ready to make deal with Labor on forming government
and Sky News has:
(Independent MP Peter) Wellington will back minority Labor govt
Queensland is back to a Labor Govt and, as they have pretty much avoided announcing any policies, who knows what will come of it. i expect nothing positive.
personally, i would like a clean-out of our entire political class.
however, if FIN doesn’t understand who the power brokers are behind the CAGW scam, and what the cost will be to the poor here, there and everywhere, then i would suggest FIN investigates the matter further.
90
“It’s very clear that people are disillusioned with the old political parties. They’re disillusioned with the revolving door between business and politics and the deals that are done in back rooms,” she said. [- Christine Milne]
—
If that were even remotely or partially true the Greens and PUPs would have been elected in droves.
Instead it was almost entirely ALP and LNP seats and a trifling number of independents elected.
But Christine Milne has never let any key facts of observation and their reality get in the way of one of her warped psycho-rants, or absurd claims of victory in the face of total electoral defeat.
But it is clearly depicting the nexus of common interests between Greens and Labor, and if Labor trash the economy and its functioning, all the better, as it saves the Greens from ever trying or having to do anything which they really believe in.
Have another salty plumb, sweetie.
90
“The Greens are absolutely committed to getting rid of Campbell Newman.”…
Wow! Christine said that?
That is a bit like me claiming I am absolutely committed to eating the last slice of pizza. For her to try and claim her little joke party actually sat down to make a rational and heartfelt decision on which way they placed their preferences… if that discussion even happened, it would have lasted all of 17 seconds.
30
I’m a Queenslander. “What happened?”, you ask Jo.
The LNP won 51% to Labor’s 38% in first preferences, the other parties getting the remainder.
It’s pretty simple. After the historical electoral rejection of the Bligh Government, the Queensland electorate reverted back to normal voting patterns with a protest vote against the LNP and preference deals that handed an unexpected victory to QLD Labor….. and it’s pretty much as simple as that.
Now Palachook is stuck with trying to balance a budget that abandons infrastructure projects like the Abbott point Coal Terminal, Coal Seam Gas plants, along with continued government spending on those “Government Assets” that cost more to run because they are government run…. etc.
The LNP really didn’t to much out of the ordinary, they didn’t do nearly half of what they should have done. Hopefully the LNP will be ruthless in opposition and better sense prevails in three years time at the next election…. We will see.
Liberal governments shouldn’t be cutting spending and trying to retire Labor debt…. They should simply cut taxes and repeal regulation and let Labor explain themselves when they try and raise taxes to pay for their outrageous debt… Let Labor run government broke or cut spending.
The Liberals shouldn’t be playing “Bad Cop” to Labor’s “Good Cop” routine for creating bigger and bigger Government.
…anyway, that’s my take on it.
161
“… Now Palachook is stuck with trying to balance a budget that abandons infrastructure …”
I guarantee you that won’t be a problem JH, budgets are optional, if not discouraged in heroic fruitcake land.
“Why not?”
To be blunt, Newman was pure authoritarian creep and people sensed it. Last week he effectively said that if you don’t vote an LNP member into your local seat their could be no money for your area. Paraphrased, but that was the gist of it. That isn’t exactly governing for all of the people if elected.
When I heard him say that I knew he was a goner, prior to that I thought he would probably win. But I didn’t expect him to actually get roundly kicked out of Parliament. But he was definitely arrogant, and somewhat on the nose even with conservatives.
The Anti-Bikie laws in QLD are simply draconian, outrageous and sought to undermine legal due process and assumption of innocence by the State and its police. I’m no bike club member, wouldn’t ever consider being one, always thought they were weirdos, but I do ride sport bikes and they way Newman prejudiced bike riders and made them out to all be criminal, and took away their civil legal protections and harassed and attacked them and painted them as the hobgoblins of the day was absolutely shameless. It should have got a lot more coverage than it did.
In retrospect Newman deserved no less than to get kicked out of government and out of the parliament. But I’m sufficiently despondent about Queensland politicians lies to not bother to cast a vote, anyway.
What I can say is that after the scurrilous routine across the board considered lies in campaign adds, from Labor, Greens and PUP (Clive Palmer was a particular disgrace in that regard), I have an even far lower opinion of the rest of them, even when compared to Newman.
This Palachook Govt (yes, that’s a far better colloquial spelling of it) will be a farce-disaster among the clowns in the main-ring. There’s a very good chance I’ll be moving to WA before they get kicked out too.
The scale of the polarised record landslides, away from Labor towards the LNP to vote in Newman, then away from Newman, towards Labor again, in just 2.5 years, is really a measure of the distrust, disgust and despondency of the electorate toward Queensland politics, and the effect of mandatory voting simply captures that rejectionist reactiveness.
As I see it is democracy is not prospering here, quite the reverse is happening, and by the time the media finally realise it and face it, the political disaffection will be far deeper and more widespread.
140
Unmentionable,
I agree with you about the bikie laws for a different reason and from a different perspective.
The laws drive them underground, that’s bad.
Keep them in their colours and keep them on show, it’s easier to distinguish the victims.
20
Labour promised security – and given that we are probably on the brink of a new recession, that promise, however hollow, found an audience.
131
They’ll love another recession – another excuse to spend the kids & grandkids wealth.
Don’t you love how they carry on about saving the world for the children when chanting about climate change, but when it comes to fiscal responsibility it becomes “F^%& the kids, we need to save the economy! Fire up the priniting presses!”
161
Are you aware that on ABC election coverage last night the former world’s greatest treasurer Wayne Swan commented that debt and budget deficit are not a problem? Maybe he will be appointed a consultant to the new Queensland Premier. She seems to be clueless so Wayne should get away with being her financial adviser.
80
I believe you are right Eric Worrall, it has been my concern for some time and before Rudd Union Labor left office I commented to friends that if the Coalition is returned to government in 2013 they will have a tough job ahead of them as the nation heads into recession and national prosperity declines, all because of Labor federal and state mismanagement.
71
@ Eric, virtually zero tariffs into and out of Asia coming into play, lowering AUD, and dramatically lowering oil, is all highly stimulative, both in Australia and also for Asia, as they can buy from Australia much cheaper. That is effectively what occurred in mid-2009 (with some enormous Asian stimulus applied, which hasn’t occurred yet). But then again economic action is mostly a con game and if the optimism is not there in small business and investors it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I remain optimistic, but east Asia may be a bit less optimistic this time.
90
btw, I’m actually a realist too.
30
UM
Then read this and worry
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2015/01/in-china-its-1928.html
00
Cheers for the link Ian, I’ve followed the China story fairly closely and would just add that people have been saying how bad China (and EU, and US, and Japan) is, for about 5 years now, and it’s growing (officially) at over 7% still.
So I don’t worry at all, I respond to what’s happening, with an eye to what might happen, and remain optimistic to the likely case that Asia will still want almost everything we can produce and sell to them, and mostly at an economic and profitable price-point.
I find Michael Pettis and a few others provide a good background on trends and likely developments in the economy, finances and somewhat on trade in the region.
http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/12/how-might-a-china-slowdown-affect-the-world/
00
Not recession, depression. Free capitalism has been destroyed and there is no normal mechanism to get out of this mess. The US will never repay its debt and the default is inevitable. The stimulus er money printing is just the delay of the economic catastrophe. When that happens all GW crap will be forgotten.
40
Planets and satellite moons are not still cooling off in their cores. The Moon’s surface gets colder than -200°C on the dark side, so that would expedite cooling from its core which is hotter than 1300°C and so that core could easily have cooled right down if the Sun’s energy were not in fact maintaining its temperature.
Sounds crazy. doesn’t it? But the laws of physics can be used to prove it is fact that the Sun is keeping everything at existing temperatures.
No one really knows if their cores were hotter or colder than existing temperatures at the time of formation. To be sure they were molten, but less-hot temperatures could still correspond to molten states. The point is that by now they have attained radiative balance with the Sun and will not cool (even in their cores) unless the Sun itself cools or, more precisely, unless the solar radiation that is not reflected reduces in intensity.
It is not a coincidence that the sub-surface temperature gradients (“lapse rates” if you wish) appear to be close to the expected quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the matter, namely g/Cp. We can prove why this is the expected temperature gradient using Kinetic Theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics as in the development here that is based on sound physics.
Solar radiation maintains existing temperatures by the inward heat transfers by conduction and diffusion (or “free convection”) whichever is possible above and below a planet’s surface.
Note that, in particular, the temperature gradient forms by such processes even in insulated sealed cylinders because it does not require physical movement of gases at velocities such as occur in wind of any form from a breeze to a hurricane. In fact such wind (“forced convection”) tends to level out the gradient, as happens above the South Pole.
And that’s why Stephen Wilde is wrong in what he says, and why he can’t prove me wrong without proving the Second Law itself wrong.
10
this Trenberth nonsense has been picked up by the Minneapolis Star Tribune & North Denver News – i want to highlight the mention of ***Goldilocks:
30 Jan: The Conversation: Does global warming mean more or less snow?
by Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Senior Scientist at National Center for Atmospheric Research
Disclosure Statement: Kevin Trenberth receives funding from the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation.
As first glance, asking whether global warming results in more snow may seem like a silly question because obviously, if it gets warm enough, there is no snow. Consequently, deniers of climate change have used recent snow dumps to cast doubt on a warming climate from human influences. Yet they could not be more wrong…
By contrast, the heaviest snowfalls occur with surface temperatures from about 28°F to 32°F – just below the freezing point. Of course, once it gets much above freezing point, the snow turns to rain. So there is a ***“Goldilocks” set of conditions that are just right to result in a super snow storm. And these conditions are becoming more likely in mid-winter because of human-induced climate change…READ ON
http://theconversation.com/does-global-warming-mean-more-or-less-snow-36936
i posted the following “Goldilocks” piece on a recent thread, easy to find it online:
28 Jan: UK Telegraph: Humanity is ending its Goldlilocks geological era
In the space of one lifetime, human interference is bringing the conditions of the Holocene – the only ones in which we know we can flourish – to an end, writes Geoffrey Lean
It has been a Goldilocks geological era.
here’s another, reinforcing the religious nature of CAGW. read it all for quotes by all the usual CAGW suspects:
14 Jan: Special for CNN: David Ray Griffin: The climate is ruined. So can civilization even survive?
(David Ray Griffin is emeritus professor of philosophy of religion at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. His most recent book is Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis? The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.)
LINK: 11 ways climate change affects the world – 11 photos
The climate crisis “threatens the survival of our civilization,” said Pulitzer Prize-winner Ross Gelbspan…
Civilization was made possible by the emergence about 12,000 years ago of the “Holocene” epoch, which turned out to be the ***Goldilocks zone – not too hot, not too cold. But now, says physicist Stefan Rahmstorf, “We are catapulting ourselves way out of the Holocene.”…
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/14/opinion/co2-crisis-griffin/
“Goldilocks” is appearing in all kinds of news items in recent weeks – about the economy as well as the climate, but where did it start?
am presuming it was:
6 Jan: Press Release: Eight new planets found in ‘Goldilocks’ zone: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
kind of funny!
50
Goldilocks!?
Sheez..! It’s a chaotic system you jerkettes!
¯
OK, which one of the three bears is the ignobel Trenberth?
40
final comment for today. talk about a spooky Poll! check out the loaded questions. i’ve excerpted some, but all are worth noting.
it ASSUMES a lot and, as it has been said, “When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.”:
30 Jan: NYT: The New York Times/Stanford University Poll on Global Warming
An overwhelming majority of the American public, including nearly half of Republicans, support government action to curb global warming, according to the poll
pdf. 17 Pages:
[2014-2015] Q14A. If the world’s temperature did increase over the past 100 years, do you think this increase was caused mostly by things people did, mostly by natural causes, or about equally by things people did and by natural causes?
Q14B. Assuming it’s happening, do you think a rise in the world’s temperature would have been caused mostly by things people do, mostly by natural causes, or about equally by things people do and by natural causes? …
[2015] Q16. If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how serious of a problem do you think it will be for THE WORLD – very serious, somewhat serious, not so serious, or not serious at all? …
Q17A. [Assuming it’s happening,] How much do you think global warming has hurt you personally – a great deal, a lot, a moderate amount, a little or not at all? …
Q17B. [Assuming it’s happening,] If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how much do you think it will hurt you personally—a great deal, a lot, a moderate amount, a little or not at all? …
Q18A. [Assuming it’s happening,] If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how much do you think it will hurt future generations—a great deal, a lot, a moderate amount, a little, or not at all? …
[Nov-2010, 2012, 2013, 2015] Q33. As you may have heard, greenhouse gases are thought to cause global warming. In your opinion do you think the government should or should not limit the amount of greenhouse gasses that U.S. businesses put out? …
Q69. Next, I will read you a statement that could be made by someone who wants to be a United States Senator or President of the United States. Here is the statement:
“I believe that global warming has been happening for the past 100 years, mainly because we have been burning fossil fuels and putting out greenhouse gasses. Now is the time for us to be using new forms of energy that are made in America and will be renewable forever. We can manufacture better cars that use less gasoline and build better appliances that use less electricity. We need to transform the outdated ways of generating energy into new ones that create jobs and entire industries, and stop the damage we’ve been doing to the environment.”
If a candidate says this, would this make you more likely to vote for this candidate, less likely to vote for this candidate, or would it not affect how likely you would be to vote for this candidate?
(66% MORE LIKELY)
Q70. Next, I will read you a statement that could be made by someone who wants to be a United States Senator or President of the United States. Here is the statement:
“The science on global warming is a hoax and is an attempt to perpetrate a fraud on the American people. I don’t buy into the whole man-caused global warming mantra. We must spend no effort to deal with something that is not a problem at all. We should not invest in windmills and solar panels as alternative energy sources. Instead we should continue to focus on our traditional sources of energy: coal, oil, and natural gas. We should expand energy production in our country, including continuing to mine our coal and doing more drilling for oil here at home.”
If a candidate says this, would this make you more likely to vote for this candidate, less likely to vote for this candidate, or would it not affect how likely you would be to vote for this candidate?
(67% LESS LIKELY)
(FINAL QUESTION):
QTEA. Do you consider yourself to be a supporter of the Tea Party movement, or not?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1512693/global-warming-poll.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/29/us/politics/document-global-warming-poll.html?_r=1
10
The Frozen Thames 1677
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/The_Frozen_Thames_1677.jpg
10
I somewhat reluctantly accept your criticism but the Griss is not a troll. He is v.often a last line of defence. His reason and knowledge is commendable and I appreciate it. Personally I wish there were no moderators, but I can,t get on any leftie blogs not because of the ad hominem abuse but because they can,t stand my ideas.
So far I have been called a denier with no moral values good for beheading. The Griss provides passion and saves me from responding to the lefty trolls.
91
Sorry replay #30
20
‘I can’t get on any leftie blogs not because of the ad hominem abuse but because they can’t stand my ideas.’
This is a problem, they sniff anyone who stands outside groupthink. We could swap names of left wing blogs that have banned us.
40
“but the Griss is not a troll”
I try not to be rude to anyone who didn’t start it or deserve it.
They kick…. they can expect to get kicked back.
Those who want to cry about it.. that’s up to them.
PC has gone too far !!
70
Being polite has nothing to do with PC. Being rude just diminishes you, it has no affect on the person you are being rude to.
However, being extremely polite, and excruciatingly nice, overwhelmingly pleasant, and incredibly erudite, when addressing the moribund non-thinkers, with their brains in their trousers, confuses the excrement out of them.
30
“Being rude just diminishes you, it has no affect on the person you are being rude to.”
I don’t feel diminished. But then, I’m never particularly rude. 🙂
And have you seen those trolls get their knickers in knots just from a little bit of light sledging ? ! 🙂
11
Dariusz,
Don’t apologise, your comment stands all on it’s own.
At work yesterday my crew had a bit of a conversation during down time that began when one remarked that she was recently in the Philipines and noted conversations with people were graphic, very heavy with innuendo and accepted with humour, but would be frowned upon here as very un-PC and more than likely ending up in front of the Professional Standards Committee after some lefty sook had a whinge. It ended with a unanimous assessment – ‘for a country priding itself on freedom of speach our governments have done an awful lot to deprive us of it’.
There were also some further comments about the rot setting in with Howard’s putrid gun laws – another time perhaps.
30
Spelling has gone to the dogs as well. “Freedom of speach”, indeed.
00
Rereke,
Sorry – that should be “Freadom of speach.”
10
Much better!
00
Thanks Andrew,
I miss Memory Vault. You say he has gone elsewhere. I am glad that he is still going. I might follow him up.
Actually I think Jo lets a lot of comments through that might be a bit offensive ( to some). The test is humor.
Griss gets away with it because he makes me laugh out loud, more often than not. It helps that I agree with him, most of the time. Even so, I think it makes the blog lively and interesting. I hope that nothing changes.
120
Memory Vault, although a West Aussie, lives in Queensland. He told me he is not interested in returning to Jo’s blog. His insight is sorely missed, particulary in regards to the Queensland result.
00
Hi Peter, which Andrew comment is this about?
01
There was one, which seems to have disappeared.
[SNIP The long comment of Andrews was useful. We will make some changes to the report this link. I’ve sent it to Griss and the mods too. – Jo]
22
That’s awful.
If there’s one ideology I can’t abide it’s climate deletionism!
Plus Andrew is great.
Anyone know what he wrote?
00
Yes. And I ain’t saying nuffin !!!
He actually withdrew the post himself.[Mod CTS took out the long moderation related comment. – Jo].And I agree with a reasonable amount of what he wrote.
01
And how did you come to believe that?
Or are you saying something you don’t actually believe?
[Email coming your way Andrew – Jo]
00
Being from Victoria I should probably keep my head down on this one but I will try to make a couple of points for consideration.
When I look back at the various nation’s leaders including Australia and our States it becomes apparent that right through recent history and my lifetime of 76 years the voters usually have far too high expectations for the political leaders regardless of the Party that they elect.
Good opposition leaders often don’t make good prime ministers or premiers as it means a radical change in the leaders psychology to make the transition from not being accountable for your claims as when you are in opposition to carrying the can for every probable and possible thing that can, will and does go wrong when you are voted into power and become the leader .
Conversely somebody who have may turned out to be an excellent leader of a nation may never get near power because his party is on the nose with the voters or he is too far down the pecking order or he / she are not ruthless and power hungry enough to force their way into leadership contention. Or many other reasons that never allows them to be percieved as leadership material let alone get near the center of power.
So nobody even within the power structure let alone external to the power structure will ever know if that person might have been a very good choice as leader.
Most of all it appears in the Australian context both Federal and State that we can only expect a really good leader and their leadership group to emerge perhaps once a generation, say every twenty five years or so on the average.
When I look at other nation’s leaderships the same very general rule seem s to apply there as well .
In my time Britain prior to WW2 had some seriously bad political leadership. It was only when Churchill was elected leader that the British finally got the leader they needed to take on the might of the Nazi regime.
Atllee wasn’t too bad. Thatcher was almost out on her ear until the Argies decided to take on the UK in the Falkland Islands and then Maggie came into her own and rebuilt Britian from that point.
The current mob in the UK are pitifully incompetent.
Australia wasn’t any better until Menzies after about two or three goes finally became PM although he had it damn easy compared to later PM’s with the Democratic Labour Party splitting from what at the time was a virtually communist union run ALP.
The following PM’s to Menzies were a very ordinary bunch with a few disasters scattered amongst them such as McMahon and even Frazer who had the numbers after the disaster that was Whitlam, to remake Australia and failed miserably.
Hawke and Keating as a leadership team were excellent but I suspect that if they didn’t have each other then neither would have been much chop as PM as Keating subsequently proved.
Howard and Costella, another excellent leadership team combination.
The USA and Europe, Russia after Stalin, Japan, China and India have similar very uneven in quality leadership histories with Germany being the pick of the European nations for leadership quality.
In Germany the post war leadership had all been hardened during the times of the 1930’s and 40’s during the rise and fall of the Nazi’s and those leaders knew what it took to get Germany up and running again due to their very hard earned experience as kids and young adults during those war years.
With Merkel, the daughter of an east German Lutheran minister that line is about ended so we will see what happens there in the future.
I won’t go into the Australian states leadership quality or who was what and where but again the leadership quality is very patchy when we look at the record.
Henry Bolte although hated by some on the left was an excellent Victorian leader who was elected by the Liberal Party as a stand in until all the old political bulls of the Liberals could sort themselves out in the back rooms.
He remained premier of Victoria for 17 prosperous years.
The message I think is you will not as voters get the leadership you expect when you vote regardless of the party political affiliation.
Most of the time the voters will be disappointed but just rarely they will come to realise following the installation of new leader and leadership team that they might just have happened upon a leader who can and does make a difference towards a significantly better future for all voters.
And unlike a bad, never ending dictatorship that is only terminated by forceable disposal or death of the dictator, in another three or four years, you, the voter will get another chance at expressing your opinion on that past and probable future leaders and their teams.
And the choice will once again be yours to stuff up or to the benefit the nation and the state [s]
90
ROM
Always read with great interest your posts. Your Summary of the leaders not surprisingly comes from the English point of view.
Let me do a quick summary from the Eastern Europe point of view.
When you celebrated the end of the war, half of Europe was enslaved with half of its people still think that Churchill was weak and ultimately became a traitor. In fact he was little different with Neville chamberlain. However, to his credit he did not agree to hitler,s peace offers after France,s defeat. But at the end of the war he forbid the polish forces march in London. To the Poles this would never be a victory parade as the GB already disowned the polish government in exile. The fact the Poles fought and died on the side of the Brits knowing since Stalingrad that the war was lost for their country attests to their gallantry and the polish national anthem that recognises not only their freedom but freedoms of all people and this is why they continued to fight for you.
Then after the war the west did everything possible to pay off the soviet Russia to keep Eastern European quiet. The change came with Margaret Thatcher that together with Ronald Reagan liberated Europe and finally ended the II WW in 1989.
60
Dariusz @ 34.1
Yes , I did post from the european angle as there was so much more that could have been posted on this subject
The way in which Poland and it’s people were just consigned to the wast basket of post war Europe was one of the most traitorous things the west has ever done.
The immediate pre war Polish intelligence agency got it’s hands on the first of the German Enigma machines by staging a truck crash.
The machine or it’s details some of which Polish mathematicians had already deciphered were then handed over to the French when defeat looked likely.
The French then handed the details to the British who used the intelligence gained from the Polish mathematicians, they were then the best in the world at that time , to defeat the German U boats which Churchill later said it was the only thing he really feared through out the war, that the U Boats would cut Britain’s supply links and thus starve her into submission.
The Polish squadrons during the Battle of Britian in 1940 shot down very close to 20% of all the German aircraft destroyed during the Battle.
The Polish Navy’s destroyers were partricularly aggressive during the many naqval battles of WW2
The Polish Division played a big role in destroying the German Army formations during the crucial Falaise Pocket battle where the Germans drove west in the hope of cutting through the American Army to the west coast of the Calais Peninsula and thereby isolating the very large American Army formations racing through the northern interior of France towards Paris and cutting it’s supply lines.
The resulting battle where the Polish division played a crucial part in defeating the German Army and then came close to closing off their escape route back to eastern France. and the German border. The German army in France never recovered from this massive defeat which made the task of the Allied armies much easier.
At the end of the war, the allies had had enough and just literally dismantled their armies leaving the Soviets under Stalin with the world’s largest standing army ready to advance to the west coast of France bar for the fact that the Americans had the atomic bomb which Stalin already knew about by the 1944 when the Soviet spies, Ethel and Julius Rosenbergs had handed on all the details of the American nuclear developments to the Soviet intelligence agency, the NKVD.
Poland whose prewar population was given as in excess of 24 millions lost over 6 million of her citizens to German terror and then the Soviets equally terrible terror after the Russian occupation initially in conjunction with the Germans in 1939 and again when the Soviets overran Poland as the Germans were defeated.
Poland and the Polish at the center of the Europe continent and as the invasion route of armies across central European plains for some two and half thousand years have always done it hard .
I feel deeply for the Poles and have for along time ever since I started to read history in my teenage years.
30
ROM
I wish I had a 1/10th of your knowledge about the English history. You put me to shame. Many thanks for your kind words.
Dariusz
00
What saddens me, is that this history is no longer taught in schools. People who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Ukraine is a worry, especially with the degree of political corruption on both sides of its Eastern border.
War is sharpening his scythe, yet again.
30
At my age i have started to unload many of those past treasured items such as some of my books . But somewhere in my pile there are a few books which my descendants will have to dispose of.
I have Nikita Kruschev’s book from his Glasnost Tapes. “Kruschev Remembers” It’s very self serving but gives another Russian view of history.
I also have the personal biography of Svetlana Alliluyeva, Stalin’s daughter . The first part of this biography is very interesting as her time during war time and the period of Stalin’s greatest power .
Her mother committed suicide and her brother, Stalin’s son died in a German prisoner of war camp despite the Germans offering to do a swap with the Russians.
I have read some of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn such as “One day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” but have only read a part of his “Gulag Archipelago”
Plus “Brighter than a Thousand Suns”, the story told by nuclear physicist Robert Jungk of the politics and the development and building of the first nuclear bomb.
Plus many, many more books and etc on history.
And yes; “Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it”
30
People repeat history even when they know history because “it will never happen to them the way it did in the past”.
20
20 days ago that beach location in the photo used to be mountains.
CURSE YOU RISING SEA WATER!!! 😛
50
And the water in the lagoon is actually melt water from the glacier that was there a couple of weeks ago.
20
Speaking of elections, stuck in the fine print was a by election here in SA this weekend.
Liberals held with a swing against, but postal votes are still to come so the final swing is likely to be rather minor.
What is always amusing is to see how the mighty Greens party went.
In 2014 The Greens got 15.3% of the primary. This weekend? 12.9%
That sounds rather bad until you realise that this 12.9% is based off only 18513 ballot papers. When you factor in that probably 4000 postals are likely to turn up, then it is actually shocking. I predict it will actually drop below 10%
So, the big question to our friend Christine; Was the anti Greens swing due to Federal Issues??
60
Since Whitlam & Fraser
The Australian Federal Government has funded Universities & our national broadcaster ABC
They have been let to run their own political agendas over the last 40 years and we’re surprised at the current thinking emanating through these organisations. Add in all the professions they influence, it’s not a surprise that today we have a totally different generation with their own mindset.
Both ALP & LNP have been funding these, to tell all NOT to vote conservative, yet in theroy both parties are similar in their politics (except spending but not stupidity) and basically conservative on the surface.
It’s going to take a collapse of our economy (States & Federal) before Australians wake up.
I’ve had a good life and despair at the current results. BUT this is what people now want.
Let them have it, and maybe it’ll come quicker than people realise.
80
On 27 January the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology jointly released their “New climate change projections for Australia” and the CSIRO advised that the research paper “Greenhouse warming increases frequency of devastating La Nina events”, involving their staff, had been published in “Nature Climate Change”. Both cases were based on results from applying IPCC computer climate models.
It is incredible that anyone would use the IPCC climate models when they have repeatedly been wrong with their predictions. Even worse, the models are predicated on the IPCC claim that increased atmospheric CO2 concentration causes an increase in global temperature when data from the CSIRO/BoM own field stations plainly show this to be false. The agencies undertake CO2 and temperature measurements at Cape Grim, NW Tasmania, at Macquarie Island and the Antarctic bases of Casey and Mawson. The resulting data is freely available on the Internet.
Statistical analysis shows that there is no significant correlation between monthly changes in both CO2 concentration and temperature. In fact the correlation coefficients are negative in every case meaning that a rise in CO2 would cause a fall in temperature, however the probability result shows the values are not significantly different from zero.
Further, analysis shows that correlation between annual increments in each variable are, again, not statistically significant, some being negative values, so there is definitely no measurable causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. Hence there is no justification to issue catastrophic climate predictions based on the erroneous IPCC premise.
However, correlation between the CO2 data and the relevant Satellite lower tropospheric temperature reveals that the annual increment in CO2 concentration is highly correlated with the average satellite temperature for the period concerned with negligible probability that the correlation is zero. This means that in all likelihood the increase in temperature since the last ice age has been driving the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, not the reverse as the IPCC would have us believe.
It is sad to see once highly respected Australian institutions sink to such a low level, failing to even analyse their own field data. More concerning is the waste of taxpayers money and the unwarranted actions or anxiety that may arise in the minds of some individuals or corporations.
Supporting evidence is given by the data from the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, which is the global reference point for historic CO2 atmospheric concentration values. The correlation between the monthly CO2 change and the monthly temperature change was 0.02 with 64% probability that the value could be zero. The correlation between the annual CO2 change and the annual temperature change was 0.11 with 2% probability that the value could be zero. The correlation between the annual average temperature and the annual change in CO2 was 0.69 with negligible probability that the correlation is zero. The Tropics Land satellite lower tropospheric temperature data from University of Alabama, Huntsville, was used for the calculations. Clearly the temperature drives the rate of change in the CO2 concentration.
120
“Clearly the temperature drives the rate of change in the CO2 concentration.”
Temperature is most probably ONE component that drives the rate of CO2 change.
70
Thanks Griss, while I understand atmospheric temperature increase must release more CO2 from the oceans, my guess is that the major contribution may be biogenic. For example yeast generates CO2 and, with a poor knowledge of biology, I suspect that there are millions of little beasties out there consuming carbon (the fourth most abundant element) from organic and inorganic matter, turning it into CO2. This is where JoanneNova could come in, as I understand that she has a background in biology which has been studiously ignored in the debate in the drive to prove man-made catastrophic climate change.
00
“In fact the correlation coefficients are negative in every case meaning that a rise in CO2 would cause a fall in temperature, however the probability result shows the values are not significantly different from zero”
¯
Now that can’t possibly happen as the ‘science’ has been settled. UK Met Office, Obama, EU head nutjob on Climate change, UN’s Bank in Moon, and even Australias BOM all say the science is settled so it must be just so true – right?
¯
How will they make 2015 ‘The hottest year EVA!’ if CO2 cools the planet?
😕
50
“How will they make 2015 ‘The hottest year EVA!’ if CO2 cools the planet?”
Haven’t you been watching Gavin’s “adjustment” antics?
He will do.. whateverittakes. !!
50
Like this?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/1/17/look-back-in-wonder-josh-309.html
and
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/1/31/it-was-the-best-of-times-josh-312.html
10
Very nice Bevan, can’t fault your argument. If only Greg Hunt could utter your comment verbatim the Conservatives would win the next election, after the dust settles.
40
Thanks el gordo, it has been sent to Greg Hunt, Ian Macfarlane, Tony Abbott, Julie Bishop and many others but such emails rarely generate action in my experience.
20
This is very easy to see if you overlay a graph of CO2 levels over a graph of SST’s.
I saw one somewhere, sorry don’t recall where.
00
The whole concept of “parcels” of air is totally inapplicable when considering natural (free) convective heat transfer, which includes conduction and diffusion by definition, but occurs only in the absence of wind or any other forced convection. PARCELS OF AIR CAN ONLY BE HELD TOGETHER IN FORCED CONVECTION.
Temperature is a measure of mean molecular (INTERNAL) kinetic energy. Heat transfers in natural convection can only occur via molecular collisions, because all wind of any form is excluded. If air moves because of pressure differences, that is wind. When net molecular movement is able to be detected in natural convection it is because of excess thermal energy driving the net motion away from that source.
A molecule only “knows” about how hard it is hit by another molecule. It “knows” nothing about buoyancy, pressure or density in neighboring regions. The overall speed of heat transfer in natural convection depends entirely upon the differences in energy potentials, and those energy potentials must take into account molecular (internal) gravitational potential energy and not just molecular (internal) kinetic energy. When those energy potentials become equal, that is when natural convection stops because we then have maximum entropy and so we have the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.
Thus, in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, because we have no unbalanced energy potentials, we thus have homogeneous (PE+KE) for internal (molecular) energy. Thus, because PE varies with altitude, we have a temperature gradient.
Natural convection only starts again when the energy potentials become unbalanced, normally due to the absorption of new thermal (kinetic) energy. The direction of the resulting convective heat transfer will be from the higher energy potentials to the lower energy potentials, and that may be downwards to warmer regions because we are including gravitational potential energy in the entropy calculations, not just kinetic energy.
And that obviates the “need” to try (incorrectly) to explain with back radiation the obvious short fall of energy into the surface.
21
“Hottest Year On Record?” Think Again! Meet ‘Seasonally-Adjusted’ Seasons
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-01/hottest-year-record-think-again-meet-seasonally-adjusted-seasons
Day after day in modern macro-economics, investors are bombarded with ‘odd’ seasonal adjustments that spuriously lift (in the case of growth-related variables) or reduce (in the case of inflation-related variables) data to ensure a constant flow of “we must keep offering free/cheap money” narrative-confirming news.
However, as The Telegraph reports, it appears this “seasonal adjustment” smoke-screen has reached the just as bifurcated opinioned world of global warming trends and Climate-Gate…
Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.
Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay.
Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century.
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline.
30
Warmist conspiracy theory.
http://theaimn.com/csiro-missing-climate-change-data/
00
All those links on that page worked for me.. sort of..
Looks like CSIRO have been doing some site updates…. badly !
10
When Stephen Wilde writes on Roy Spencer’s site “Free convection is not mostly conduction/diffusion. It is the physical movement of a parcel of gas … It can occur very rapidly ..” he is totally incorrect because he is talking about forced convection.
The ONLY process which establishes the temperature gradient is that process which is exemplified in the “hot car in garage” example wherein the level of thermal (kinetic) energy per molecule in the car is lowered and that in the garage raised as thermal energy is transferred out the car doors and into the closed garage by way of molecular collisions and diffusion. We all know this is not occurring “very rapidly” and yet the example represents a greater temperature difference than would normally be found in adjacent regions in the troposphere, and so it is faster than most free (natural) convection.
What Stephen Wilde keeps referring to in his confusion is not free convection at all: it is forced convection involving wind which is caused by the pressure differences to which he refers.
Natural (“free”) convection is caused by differences in energy potentials and nothing else.
That does not necessarily imply a difference in temperature (kinetic energy) because, if there is a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, then the difference in molecular KE is nullified by an opposite difference in molecular gravitational PE, such that (PE+KE)=constant. This is the well known situation wherein convective heat transfer can cease in calm conditions at around dawn, even though the environmental lapse rate is still apparent.
So all of Stephen Wilde’s conjectures about parcels of air rising and then falling when they run out of macro KE (which does not affect temperature) and all his talk about pressure differences that cause wind in all its forms, and all the references to cells (wherein wind cycles around) is not in any way related to the process which forms the temperature gradient (slowly) in the tropospheres of Earth, Venus, Uranus etc etc.
20
woke up to this today:
2 Feb: ABC AM: Abbott to dump PPL scheme in effort to prop up leadership
MALCOLM TURNBULL: The Prime Minister has the support of all members of his Government.
JAMES GLENDAY: That’s Malcolm Turnbull, the Communications Minister, and that statement isn’t correct.
In the wake of a shocking Queensland election result and several disastrous polls for the Coalition, a number of MPs fear electoral oblivion and ***want him or Foreign Minister Julie Bishop to take the leadership from Tony Abbott…
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4172112.htm
***a number of MPs want Turnbull back? name them, ABC. are they Labor MPs?
Howard ‘frustrated’ by leadership talk
NEWS.com.au-18 hours ago
Ms Bishop along with Malcolm Turnbull and Mr Morrison are said to be …. “Malcolm is very charming but the ETS is still a very bitter medicine …
above story/link has been changed to:
2 Feb: News Ltd: Lanai Scarr: Tony Abbott admits he has lessons to learn from Queensland poll
Some MPs have privately said they are “still a bit nervous” about Mr Turnbull returning to the party leadership.
“Malcolm is very charming but the ETS is still a very bitter medicine for some people,” ***one MP said.
“He didn’t listen to the party on that, so I guess he needs to show he’s changed.”
***Another MP said: “I’m still a little bit nervous about Malcolm but all the feedback is that he has genuinely changed.”
Mr Turnbull is flying back from the United States this afternoon and is not due to land until after Mr Abbott’s Press Club address…
http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-admits-he-has-lessons-to-learn-from-queensland-poll/story-fncynjr2-1227204027919
***name the MPs, News.
btw malcolm sees no need to change…he says people will accept “unpopular” decisions (like the ETS?)…if he explains/advocates for them?
People will accept unpopular decisions if they understand the need: Turnbull
The Conversation AU – Jan 30, 2015
Leaders must be “explainers and advocates, unravelling complex issues in clear language”, Communications Malcolm Turnbull has said, outlining a strategy for selling hard economic messages. Turnbull also said it was vital, for reasons of both social justice …
Malcolm Turnbull’s LA leadership line hits home
The Daily Telegraph-16 hours ago
As Mr Abbott was floundering in Australia, Malcolm Turnbull gave a 5000-word speech where he declared a successful leader was one who had the ability to make the public understand unpopular policy…
Malcolm Turnbull rubs shoulders with Hollywood stars at G’Day USA
The Australian-15 hours ago
Also in attendance was Federal Liberal MP and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull who could not escape questions about the …
wow. Malcolm with Hollywood stars! that should impress the ABC overnight Hollywood Trivia quiz bunch.
20
Far-Left Conservatives!!
Libs will NOT get my vote if Turnbull is leader at the next election.
I have emailed several of them, stating this.
10
Jo,
have you been following Greg Laden’s new self-inflicted humiliation (the bungled attempt on Willie Soon’s livelihood)? I believe this is the precise moment at which Laden’s lifetime of simulated morality begins to unravel:
http://gregladen.com/blog/2015/01/willie-soon-fire-him-soon/#comment-218811
Under fire even from long-time mini-Gregs, or bin Ladens if you prefer, he blunders into an undeniable denial that he ever called for Soon’s firing… so I pointed out that if he’d signed the petition calling for Soon to be fired he had just made a rather amateurish liar of himself. This comment, which never sees the light of day, nevertheless forces Laden into the dignity-free position of denying that he’d denied signing the petition, while of course he can’t afford to admit signing either. (I predict fun for the whole family when the signatures are made public.) Many, many of us have subsequently asked point-blank: did you have the gonadal maturity to put your own name to the petition you’re spruiking, yes or no??
You should ask him too, just for fun (everybody). He’ll delete your question.
BK
11
Of course he can’t delete your question if you tweet it to @GregLaden 🙂
11
Just don’t do it if you’re one of those people who find it devastating to be blocked on Twitter by a mental eunuch.
In other words if you’re one of those people who don’t exist.
11
“have you been following Greg Laden’s new self-inflicted humiliation”
ummm, that would mean going to Laden’s blog.
sorry, but I had one stomach op last year, don’t want to bring on another. !
30
spectators rugged up at the tennis, justin langer rugged up and shivering at the T20 cricket (in Summer, no less), but here we go!
2 Feb: Business Spectator: The Climate Institute: How much heat can sport handle?
*This is the executive summary of a report – Sport and Climate Impacts: How much heat can sport handle? – published by The Climate Institute today.
Climate change and extreme weather events threaten the viability of Australian sport as it’s currently played, either in the backyard, at local grounds or in professional tournaments.
Heatwaves, changed rain patterns, floods and drought are challenging playing grounds and facilities around the country…
Sport is embedded in Australian society, and central to our culture and economy…
But sport can’t go on as it has.
Global warming is likened to extreme weather on steroids…
This report finds that most sports are struggling to cope, especially at the local level…
Read the full report here
https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/2/2/science-environment/how-much-heat-can-sport-handle
2 Feb: The Conversation: Just not cricket – how climate change will make sport more risky
by Liz Hanna, Director NHMRC Project: Working in the Heat – Health Risks and Adaptation Needs at Australian National University
Disclosure Statement
Liz Hanna receives funding from an NHMRC grant to research impacts of heat on human population, specifically workers, and has previously received other NHMRC project grants to identify health impacts, acclimatisation limits and adaptive options. She is President of the Climate and Health Alliance and Fellow at the Research School of Population Health, National Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health at ANU
As the new report (on which I was an advisor) points out, 80% of Australians aged 15 and over engage in sporting activities…
http://theconversation.com/just-not-cricket-how-climate-change-will-make-sport-more-risky-36839
guess this might impress that tiny minority of Aussies who don’t follow sport!
20
one of the funniest CAGW pieces yet!
31 Jan: NYT: Burt Helm: Climate Change’s Bottom Line
It was 8 degrees in Minneapolis on a recent January day, and out on Interstate 394, snow whipped against the windshields of drivers on their morning commutes. But inside the offices of Cargill, the food conglomerate, Greg Page, the company’s executive chairman, felt compelled to talk about global warming.
“It would be irresponsible not to contemplate it,” Mr. Page said, bundled up in a wool sport coat layered over a zip-up sweater. “I’m 63 years old, and I’ve grown up in the upper latitudes. I’ve seen too much change to presume we might not get more.”
Mr. Page is not a typical environmental activist. He says he doesn’t know — or particularly care — whether human activity causes climate change. He doesn’t give much serious thought to apocalyptic predictions of unbearably hot summers and endless storms…
***Mr. Page is a member of the Risky Business Project, an unusual collection of business and policy leaders determined to prepare American companies for climate change. It’s a prestigious club, counting a former senator, five former White House cabinet members, two former mayors and two billionaires in the group…
On Jan. 23, the group released the second chapter of the Risky Business project, focused on the effects on the Midwest: “Heat in the Heartland.” A report on California is next. With $1.7 million in grants from the MacArthur Foundation and others, the group is hiring a full-time staff.
The group is led by three men: Tom Steyer, the hedge fund billionaire whose super PAC spent $73 million last year attacking Republicans who denied climate change and promoting awareness of the issue; Henry M. Paulson Jr., the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs and the Treasury secretary under President George W. Bush; and Michael R. Bloomberg, New York City’s former mayor and the billionaire founder of the financial information company Bloomberg L.P. Each spent $500,000 to commission the Risky Business research and each has his own particular goals for the initiative, all of which would be served by making the climate threat feel real, immediate and potentially devastating to the business world…
A majority of Americans in 2014 surveys by Pew Research and Gallup acknowledged climate change was happening, and 83 percent of Americans say that without emissions reductions, global warming will be a problem in the future, according to a January survey conducted by The New York Times, Stanford University and the environmental group Resources for the Future…
Mr. Paulson called Mr. Page, whom he knew from the Latin America Conservation Council. Through a contact of Ms. Gordon’s, they signed up Henry G. Cisneros, the former housing and urban development secretary under President Bill Clinton and now a real estate developer. Mr. Steyer called Robert E. Rubin, the former secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton and a longtime friend and mentor from their days at Goldman Sachs…
***Mr. Paulson works on the upper floors of a skyscraper in downtown Chicago, with a conference room overlooking the Chicago River. In January, the wind across it is cutting, and ice floes drift along the sides. By midcentury, if the Risky Business report is right, those ice floes will be gone…
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/01/business/energy-environment/climate-changes-bottom-line.html?_r=0
10
1 Feb: SMH: Peter Hannam: NSW signs up to global climate group
The Baird government has moved to burnish its climate change credentials, becoming Australia’s first conservative government to sign up to The Climate Group.
NSW will join South Australia and Tasmania as the only Australian states to be members of the international non-profit organisation, which brings business, governments and communities together to promote renewable energy and cut carbon emissions blamed for global warming. Both SA and Tasmania signed up under Labor-led governments.
“We believe that sustainable economic growth and environmental conservation are intrinsically linked aspirations,” Rob Stokes, Environment Minister, said. “We are already working hard to make sure that there are no barriers to businesses making decisions that environmentally, and economically, make sense.”…
NSW has distanced itself over the past year from conservative counterparts, including the Abbott government, on climate and other issues. It backed leaving the Renewable Energy Target as it is, in contrast to the Abbott government’s efforts to cut the 2020 goal by as much as 40 per cent, and has spent $3 million preparing climate change studies for expected impacts to 2030 and 2070…
“We strongly believe in protecting the vulnerable by providing the community with the best available science and energy efficiency solutions,” Mr Stokes said, adding the government’s role to make the most accurate information “make it accessible to local decision makers so they can decide what actions are appropriate to minimise the potential risks of climate change”.
London-based The Climate Group shut its Australian offices in mid-2013, citing an “increasingly challenging political environment for action on climate change” at the time…
(The Climate Group’s ***Libby Ferguson) NSW was “a forward-thinking state” with “progressive renewable policies”…
“We believe climate change doesn’t need to be a political issue, but one that is focused on building a strong low-carbon economy”…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/nsw-signs-up-to-global-climate-group-20150201-13301u.html
***LinkedIn: Libby Ferguson
Experience:
Government Liaison
Invest Victoria, State Government of Victoria, Australia (New York)
May 2011 – August 2013 …
Inward Investment Manager (Europe)
Invest Victoria, State Government of Victoria, Australia
February 2008 – July 2008
Business Development Manager
Invest Victoria, State Government of Victoria, Australia
2006 – 2008
Strategic Projects Officer
Invest Victoria, State Government of Victoria, Australia
February 2004 – September 2005
https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/libby-ferguson/4/b36/273
30
“The Baird government has moved to burnish its climate change credentials, becoming Australia’s first conservative government to sign up to The Climate Group.”
Darn these left-wing political parties…
When will they wake up and realise they have been CONNED !!
10
‘Darn these left-wing political parties…’
** chuckle ** Labor Lite
I despair.
20
They are too busy trying to conn voters into thinking they care (well they do care, about getting re-elected).
10
1 Feb: WSJ: Bjorn Lomborg: The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism
Exaggerated, worst-case claims result in bad policy and they ignore a wealth of encouraging data.
It is an indisputable fact that carbon emissions are rising—and faster than most scientists predicted. But many climate-change alarmists seem to claim that all climate change is worse than expected. This ignores that much of the data are actually encouraging. The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we’re seeing about 90% less temperature rise than expected.
Facts like this are important because a one-sided focus on worst-case stories is a poor foundation for sound policies…
In the Oxford University database for death rates from floods, extreme temperatures, droughts and storms, the average in the first part of last century was more than 13 dead every year per 100,000 people. Since then the death rates have dropped 97% to a new low in the 2010s of 0.38 per 100,000 people…
Alarmism has encouraged the pursuit of a one-sided climate policy of trying to cut carbon emissions by subsidizing wind farms and solar panels. Yet today, according to the International Energy Agency, only about 0.4% of global energy consumption comes from solar photovoltaics and windmills. And even with exceptionally optimistic assumptions about future deployment of wind and solar, the IEA expects that these energy forms will provide a minuscule 2.2% of the world’s energy by 2040…
Instead, we should focus on investing in research and development of green energy, including new battery technology to better store and discharge solar and wind energy and lower its costs. We also need to invest in and promote growth in the world’s poorest nations, which suffer the most from natural disasters…
http://www.wsj.com/articles/bjorn-lomborg-the-alarming-thing-about-climate-alarmism-1422832462
10
the personality cultists in the media can’t stop the Turnbull propaganda:
1 Feb: The Conversation: Michelle Grattan: The public would want a new prime minister to change the government’s agenda
It’s also that Abbott’s troubles aren’t just appalling salesmanship and broken promises but the substance of the government’s policies, so that switching leaders would require the recalibration of its agenda…
If Turnbull became leader, he’d have one very specific policy problem – what to do about “direct action”. We know he thinks this approach to climate change is (to adopt an Abbott phrase from another context) absolute crap. But Coalition troops would be outraged if he returned to advocating a market-based approach – while the public would know he was a hypocrite if he didn’t…
http://theconversation.com/the-public-would-want-a-new-prime-minister-to-change-the-governments-agenda-37031
2 Feb: Business Spectator: Tristan Edis: Tony must turn to Turnbull
Deposing yet another PM runs an extremely high probability of turning the electorate off politics completely. But something has to change to turn around the Coalition’s fortunes.
That must start with policy approach…
Malcolm Turnbull would make an excellent prime minister, but now is not the time. The next best thing would be for him to replace Hockey as Treasurer, thereby taking on a more central role in the direction of the government.
He will moderate some of the extremists in the Coalition who are heavily responsible for the government’s troubled predicament. The first and easiest change he could drive would be to force the government to give up on their ideological crusade against the renewable energy sector. They could agree tomorrow to Labor’s compromise on the Renewable Energy Target and it would cost the budget and electricity consumers nothing.
In addition, Turnbull’s ability to communicate in more than three-word slogans will be essential to explaining why the government needs to make difficult changes to repair the budget…
https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2015/2/2/policy-politics/tony-must-turn-turnbull
00
But the WHOLE idea of a RET is to cost electricity consumers a lot.
You can’t replace $30 product with $110 product** without a rise in cost. A partial replacement just raises the cost a bit less.
** and that doesn’t include the oink, oink margin.
10
what was:
Howard ‘frustrated’ by leadership talk
NEWS.com.au-18 hours ago
changed to:
2 Feb: News Ltd: Lanai Scarr: Tony Abbott admits he has lessons to learn from Queensland poll
then it changed to:
Is Malcolm ready to make a move?
NEWS.com.au-2 hours ago
& now this is the start of the piece, same url throughout!
2 Feb: News Ltd: Tony Abbott admits he has lessons to learn from Queensland poll
MALCOLM Turnbull has failed to rule out he is interested in the Liberal Party leadership.
Returning to Sydney from the US into a storm of leadership chatter the Communications Minister said he would be focused on Tony Abbott’s speech at the National Press Club in Canberra today.
But the former Liberal leader who was tossed out by his party in 2009 failed to rule out he was interested in Mr Abbott’s job.
“Look the only thing we should be interested in on the political front today is the Prime Minister’s speech to the National Press Club in a few hours,” Mr Turnbull said when asked if he was interested in the leadership.
“He is going to be laying out his agenda for the future and I think everyone will be tuned into that. That’s where we should be concentrating and that is certainly what I will paying attention to today.”…
http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-admits-he-has-lessons-to-learn-from-queensland-poll/story-fncynjr2-1227204027919
00
Well that was fun. At least the press club serves decent vegetarian options.
10
Evidence has been presented that argues that rock circulating in the mantle feeds world’s oceans even today. http://news.osu.edu/news/2014/12/17/study-hints-that-ancient-earth-made-its-own-water%E2%80%94geologically/
“the Earth may today hold half as much water in its depths as is currently flowing in oceans on the surface, Panero said—an amount that would approximately equal the volume of the Pacific Ocean. This water is continuously cycled through the transition zone as a result of plate tectonics.”
So sea levels could rise or fall depending on the capture and release of this water.
10
The most interesting theory I ever heard was it rained for millions of years on Earth and filled the oceans. I’ll have to find that source….
00
THESE ARE THE FAULTS IN THE CLIMATE MODELLING PARADIGM …
Hansen, Trenberth et al made the huge mistake of thinking they could explain Earth’s surface temperature by treating the surface as a black body (which it is not because there are sensible heat transfers also involved) and then adding the flux from the colder atmosphere to that from the Sun and then deducting the non-radiative outward flux and finally using the net total of about 390W/m^2 in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to get a temperature of 288K.
Of course to get the right result they had to fiddle the back radiation figure up to 100% of the incident Solar radiation before it enters the atmosphere. Thus they devised an energy-creating atmosphere which delivered more thermal energy out of its base than entered at its top.
To obtain their “33 degrees of warming” they effectively assumed that the main “greenhouse” gas water vapor warms the surface by 10 t 15 degrees for each 1% concentration in the atmosphere. Then they had to promulgate the myth (proven contrary to evidence) that deserts are colder than rain forests, though they did not enlarge on that and admit their conjecture meant at least 30 degrees colder where there is a 3% difference in water vapor.
Then they worked out their 255K figure (ignoring the T^4 relationship) and said it was the temperature about 5Km above the surface. Perhaps it is, but they then used school boy “fissics” and assumed the surface temperature would be the same in the absence of their GH gases In fact the surface would receive less solar radiation than the region 5Km further up.
So they had to reinvent the Second Law of Thermodynamics incorporating two major errors into their version of that law. The first error was to disregard the effect of gravitational potential energy on entropy, and the second error was to disregard the fact that the law applies to each independent process. Their version of the Second Law could be used to “prove” that water could flow up a mountainside provided that it flowed further down on the other side.
They need to think, like Newton, and realize that when an apple falls off a tree then entropy increases, just as the Second Law says it will. So too does entropy increase when a molecule “falls” between collisions unless, that is, the sum of molecular gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy remains constant and there is thus a gravitationally induced temperature gradient.
To prove their paradigm they would need to construct a Ranque Hilsch vortex tube and somehow ensure that the huge centrifugal force did not cause a huge temperature gradient in the cross-section of the tube. Until those promulgating the hoax can do that they have contrary evidence staring them in the face.
10
I love reading these wonderful posts, but unfortunately have just let out a very big **Yawwwwnnnnn**
OMG, 12.30am!!
Past my bedtime. I wonder if myself and the rest of the Northern Territory will wake up to another Chief Minister tomorrow? I mean seriously, do these guys stay up later than me just to kick each other in the b*lls??
‘Night all.
00
The study of the thermodynamics of the atmosphere lies wholly within the discipline of physics. Correct me if I’m wrong. but my understanding is that climatology courses do not include anywhere near as much physics as is covered in a degree in science with a major in physics, such as I have.
More importantly, physics is about understanding the real world. If you use equations and “laws” of physics, you need to know about the prerequisites for these to apply. Many of my students over the years have not understood such.
For example, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation only applies to true black and gray bodies, and such bodies have to be perfectly insulated against any loss of thermal energy by conduction and other sensible heat transfers. And of course a black body is not transparent like the thin surface layer of the oceans. So all James Hansen’s fiddling with back radiation in order to get the magical 390W/m^2 to “explain” the surface temperature of 288K is garbage, because radiation is not the primary determinant of that temperature, for the simple reason that it is not a black or gray body and only the solar radiation should be counted anyway.
You have to understand that you can only claim that sensible heat transfers occur only from warmer to cooler regions in a horizontal plane, because, as we saw above, the equations for thermodynamic potentials are derived with the assumption that gravitational potential energy does not vary.
You have to understand that the Second Law is all-pervasive and plays a part in determining what happens in all heat transfers and other energy transfers also. That’s why the density gradient is a result of the Second Law. To claim that the state of thermodynamic equilibrium has no density gradient in a gravitational field would be ludicrous. It is just as ludicrous to claim that it has no temperature gradient. There must be no unbalanced energy potentials, and that sure ain’t the case for the assumed isothermal troposphere.
It is not greenhouse gases which establish the temperature gradient: it is gravity. Until you understand that fact, you will never understand the downward convective heat transfers which explain why all planets’ surfaces are hotter than their tropospheres.
10
You can forget about the garbage “science” which claims that the Sun’s radiation plus radiation from a planet’s colder troposphere somehow explains the planet’s surface temperature. It doesn’t. Not on Earth. Not on Venus and certainly not at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus where there is no solar radiation or surface, yet it’s hotter than Earth’s surface down there.
You can forget the garbage “science” which then claims the temperature gradient (aka “lapse rate”) is caused by rising parcels of air that could only be held together by wind in all its forms. Such a process does not form the expected temperature gradient. Only the very slow diffusion process does so – that same process that you see when your car has been heated up by the Sun in your driveway and you then drive it into your garage, close the garage door and open all the car doors. That is not wind even if you can detect very slow advection due to net molecular motion.
What does happen on every planet is that radiative balance is attained with the Sun, though in detail the planet cools on its dark side and warms back up by the same amount on its sunlit side. The temperature gradient is formed at the molecular level due to the force of gravity acting on molecules as they move between collisions. We see physical evidence of a (centrifugal) force field redistributing molecular (micro) kinetic energy and producing hot and cold streams of gas in a Ranque Hilsch vortex tube.
So radiative balance sets the overall mean temperature in the troposphere and then gravity induces a temperature gradient. That gradient is then reduced in magnitude by intermolecular radiation between molecules of water vapor and other so-called greenhouse gases. We know water vapor reduces the gradient, so the thermal profile rotates downwards at the surface end. It is ludicrous to think that water vapor raises surface temperatures by most of “33 degrees” when in fact it lowers them and empirical evidence confirms this. There’s more evidence here.
00