JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
read all:
14 Feb: Toronto Sun: Truth first casualty of climate wars
For starters, ‘carbon’ isn’t the same thing as ‘carbon dioxide’
by BOB CARTER, WILLIE SOON and TOM HARRIS
Why is it that when politicians make basic science mistakes in support of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming, no government agency or university representative corrects them?
It is not as if such errors are rare; they happen all the time.
For example, climate modellers correctly label their speculations of future temperatures as “projections”, meaning that they have no validated forecast skill.
Yet lawmakers treat the models as providing forecasts or predictions…
It is not just our political leaders who get away with misrepresenting climate science.
It’s also done by many scientific organizations and even individual scientists…
Climate change research has been politicized to the extent that much of it has become a travesty of proper scientific process.
The main reason this is not more often labelled fraud is the fear of legal and other reprisals…
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/02/14/truth-first-casualty-of-climate-wars
230
Is there a Canadian resident reading this who can supply us with a reliable circulation figure for the Toronto Sun ?
50
Ja the son is directly overhead a-beh-oot……now.
51
We appear to have a stoned Yonnie … 🙂
80
He was perfectly coherent just 11 minutes ago, below. Perhaps it’s a satire (un-notified).
30
Nope
Just silly, low-level sarcasm … to which he’s fully entitled 🙂
30
Latest figures given in wiki are :-
As of the end of 2007, the Sun had a Monday through Saturday circulation of approximately 180,000 papers and Sunday circulation of 310,000.
2012 figures are = Toronto Sun with 169,219 copies
http://j-source.ca/article/7-interesting-facts-newspaper-canada-2012-circulation-data-report
20
OK, thanks
On those numbers (albeit Wiki), not a big shaker and mover
31
Well, Toronto is full of warmists, so it can still have a good impact.
20
Predictably, some of the comments on the Toronto Sun article say that the authors are in the pay of BIG OIL. Even the warmist Wikipedia can only report that: “In 2012, documents acquired from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 (USD) “as part of a program to pay ‘high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message’.” While Carter did not deny that the payments took place, he declined to discuss the payments. Carter has emphatically denied that his scientific opinion on climate change can be bought.” WOW! A whole $2ok pa!
20
Take a look at some of the warmists who are on the payroll of Big Oil. Start with Dana Nutticelli.
31
“Big Oil” is not threatened in the least by global warming activities. Coal may be to some extent, but even that is not as much as the press and others would have you believe. Oil companies make millions off of solar and wind plants they participate in. They virtually all have “green” departments that are looking for ways to get cleaner energy. In spite of what the environmentalists say, there is no way we can stop using coal, oil, gas and etc without starting a world war. We can only cut back so far without causing civil wars. People who now have lights, heat, air conditioning, phones, cars, etc are not going to live with only wind and solar. Riots will occur at every juncture. Realistically, “Big Oil” is here to stay. Besides, a huge number of others such as Gore have made millions off of oil. Many besides Dana still do. None gave away the “dirty oil money” they have. It’s all complete nonsense. “Big Oil” is just fine with Big Al and his theories. After all, oil is actually a business and they know how to adapt and win in a market.
60
Look up Al Gore and Occidental Petroleum Company’s history.
Al’s OK with ‘Big Oil’ and to a lesser degree coal exports.
40
Grants Search:- The Rockefeller Brothers Fund
http://www.rbf.org/content/grants-search
Bill McKibben’s 350_dot_org: 6 grants from 2003 totalling US $875,000.00
Bill McKibben’s 1Sky_dot_org: 7 grants between 2007-2011 totalling US $2,100,000.00
(includes US $1 million ‘start-up’ grant)
The Sierra Club: 12 grants from 2009 totalling US $1,665,000.00
Friends of the Earth: 7 grants from 2009 totalling US $777,500.00
This small sample doesn’t even scratch the surface of grants awarded by the RBF to activists (eg. Greenpeace: US $550,000) and climate research units globally (eg. Center for Climate Strategies: US $5,171,600.00).
Please note that you must APPLY for a Grant.
Oh…almost forgot;
The Heartland Institute => Your search results: 0 Grants
The Global Warming Policy Foundation => Your search results: 0 Grants
20
Just found an interesting Rockefeller Brothers Fund grant;
The Pacific Institute (President; Peter Gleick): 5 grants between 2004-2008 totalling US$670,000.00.
10
Pat,
Thank you so much for all your hard work promulgating the discussion of climate science in the main stream media. I very much enjoy seeking out your posts that show what various other folks around the world are reading and hearing.
LYW,
Vic
60
A good article. Thanks. However it shows the timidity of non scientists to embrace the simple chemistry of life.
“Another example: carbon dioxide is an essential factor in photosynthesis and plant growth, yet politicians regularly dub it a “pollutant”.”
“Essential factor”? CO2 is not a ‘factor’, just involved or even a catalyst. Photosynthesis is the capture of CO2 to form all plant matter.
Early scientists could not work out how plants grew as they used no soil, so they wrongly concluded plants were made wholly from water.(Jan Baptiste Van Helmont 400 years ago) If a 50 ton tree used the soil, there would be a hole around the tree, not a bulge.
CO2 and H2O are converted during photosynthesis to plants, CH2 and our oxygen O2. The CH2 forms the sugars and carbohydrates which are most the body of the plant. CO2 is not an essential factor, it is the plant and the O2 is how all other life on earth can live. Then we carbon lifeforms recombine the plant CH2 or meat CH2 with aerial O2, regaining the original sunlight energy and this powers our muscles and brains, converting it back to CO2 and H2O. Cars do this too, but without the brain. Dried, humans are 86% Carbon by weight.
A factor in Plant growth? No, all plant growth is captured CO2, captured as CH2s, strung together generally in long chains. A plant is solid hydrocarbon, carbon. So when plants rot we get gas and coal and oil, so plants are made from CO2. Break these long chains and we get paraffin, kerosense, diesel, petrol. We also get soaps and fats. The whole animal kingdom is lengths of long chain carbohydrates. All our food, everything which is not rock and air and water. Plants are stored solar energy using carbon capture. Oil, gas, coal are only rotted plants, not pollution either.
There is talk of the ‘good earth’ and then sand. In the good earth you can have rotted plant matter but you can grow plants with no soil. The matter in the soil can supply water, trace elements, change friability and water holding properties and anchor the plants but plants are made from CO2 and H2O with little else. Add 2% Calcium for bones and you have animals.
The refusal of both sides of the argument to accept that photosynthesis is carbon dioxide capture, carbon capture is a key problem in calling CO2 pollution’. There is also a perception that trees are somehow better than grasses in carbon or light capture, but that is another crazy perception more akin to ancient tree worship than fact.
Without water and CO2, you cannot have plants at all. More water and more CO2 are a good thing for our world. A bit of heat wouldn’t hurt in the glacial area of Europe and the US above 40 degrees, uninhabitable in the last ice age. Glaciers do nothing and ice is useless. So is snow, apart from skiing. CO2 is not inimicable to life. This small, invisible gas is the stuff of all life. Without it, we do not even have O2 to breathe or plants to eat. CO2 is pollution? Why not call H2O pollution as well? You would have to be nuts.
50
Sorry, I used carbohydrates (CH2O), Carbon plus water and hydrocarbons (CH2) loosely as interchangeable. They are not in the vast and wonderful world of organic chemistry. However practically they are all CH2s, two hydrogens to one carbon for the purpose.
10
A tour de Force TDF and fascinating to read.
10
I know it’s off topic but for the benefit of anyone who missed it yesterday:
Could I quickly remind all commenters of the importance of concluding with a /sati, /sarc, /flip, /friv or /paro tag if your post is intended to be understood other than literally, or even if you’re in doubt as to whether or not you believe what you’re saying?
Thanks. Please excuse the digression.
40
Brad would you class this as Juvenalian satire or bordering on teasing?
People who are fans of satire tend to pick up on the intended nuances of the content with the result of being entertained whilst prompted to think about any message conveyed or enhanced by the medium, for the satirically challenged the point is entirely missed which can also be an added bonus to the author.
I personally avoid obvious tags or explanations when conveying humor as my experience is that people will get to know your style and thus part of your personality through your writing but I feel this works best when you’re honest with yourself and can use this to connect to your intended audience.
After initially criticizing your Climate Nuremberg site, mostly on grounds of lowering ourselves to alarmists levels, I have grown to appreciate your style and look forward to your future writing endeavors, for we that have little to give let us not lose our panache.
70
Let me guess: you’re thinking, what’s the worst that can happen? How seriously could anyone really get hurt.
Well, you know what:
I personally avoid helmets when making short trips on my motorbike. How much damage can grass do to my head?
I personally avoid wearing protection—unless it’s with a male partner—when I play badminton or squash. I mean really. How much damage could a ball hit by a chick, or by a ball or ‘cock hit by a chick, really experience? Or a cock: if a chick, or a ‘cock or ball hit by a chick, hit a cock, is that really gonna be the end of the world? I doubt it. If you’ve ever seen a ‘cock what’s the first thing you notice about it? The rubber. It softens the ‘cock. Why do you think they do that? Because everybody just looooves soft ‘cocks? LOL of course not—it’s to protect your cock et hoc genus omne.
I personally avoid vaccinating my kids.
The list is endless.
But just because it’s more fun to skip precautions doesn’t mean it’s right, does it?
Anyway, I know you’re not listening. Right now all you’re thinking is: who’s this fuddyduddy old spoilsport and what would he know about it? I’m young, and that means I’m invincible!
No, I’m not a mindreader, hehehe, don’t worry!
It’s just that I used to be you. You’re me. Everyone is, I think.
So instead of giving you yet another lecture about putting on your seatbelt, I’m going to show you a car wreck instead.
Look at it. Slowly.
A real train wreck, isn’t it?
Still think kidding around is all fun and games?
I did… until the victim was me.
40
This is where the blending of humor can take many directions, laughingly funny to darkly funny or Avant-garde, I remember pre internet people communicated through many alternate mediums that offered anonymity that began at the start of our existence with the risk of offense causing tangible damage, the desire to delve into this behavior at least once could be one of the many hidden flaws humans are wired with due to many evolving flaws.
If you’re genuinely upset over a self perceived sexual indentity crisis then remember it’s 2015 and a bits changed since 1915 so relax and take a deep breath, otherwise carry on and once again good luck in your endeavors.
50
Oh you big gurl’s blouse….
Sorry, no sympathy for you.
11
I understand that you want people to identify humor and satire, but I am inclined to agree that such identification often takes away from the “punch line”, so to speak. This then means that one either has to identify the satire (taking aware from the idea of satire, I believe) or they simply don’t post. What is wrong with asking for clarification of a comment before typing up an angry response? Or type the angry response and then have egg on your face? We’ve all done it and I’m sure we’ll all do it again if someone forgets to identify their intent. I’m certainly opposed to rudeness, but satire is often useful. I know it’s hard to tell, especially over the internet, but what if we just ask before we explode at someone?
41
Putting /grin, or /sarc, at the end of a sentence, is the typographic equivalent of canned laughter, that the Americans (and others) feel they need to put into sitcoms, so that the viewer knows when a joke has been made, and can therefore pretend that they know what is going on (even if they don’t).
40
Issues, dude.
20
James,
you took the words out of my mouth. I was nodding enthusiastically right up to the last word (Sheri is a girl’s name). Other than that, spot on. Still, what are you gonna do?
We just have to keep communicating the science and hope something sinks in while we’ve still got a climate.
30
Brad,
Are you one of my alter egos?
Like, one that acts independently of my conscious thought?
10
Mr Brad,
Forgive me if you don’t ring a bell. I’d love to remember you all individually because there’s not an elitist cell in my body, but I’m no Kevin Trudeau—I’m just human. So please be realistic. A decade of randoms approaching me with their inchoate “doubts,” dumb suggestions and nuisance arguments on a daily basis is going to convolve into a Gaussian yawn at some point, isn’t it? Yes, it’s going to hurt people’s feelings. And I’ve made my peace with that. I had to.
Hang on—James, was it?—did I beat you in a couple of conversations at The Auditor’s a year, year-and-a-half ago?
Anyway, I’m really pressed for time so you’ll have to excuse the conciseness of this comment. Again, it’s not that I don’t think you’re interesting enough! The far bigger reason is that I’m constantly aware of my moral responsibility to maximise utility, and there are other people who could benefit more from what I have to say. So please try not to feel overly brushed-off. It’s not personal.
So, with the niceties of a preamble being an unaffordable luxury on this occasion, I’m afraid I’ll have to jump right in, address the concern/confusion/FAQ/difficulty you’re having, then love you and leave you!
I believe you wanted to know this, Mr Brad:
While unable to comment on specific cases, yes, I alter egos pretty much every time I walk into a room. Anyone who doubts that there really is a Dunning-Kruger epidemic is invited to take a look around the debatosphere.
If, after 5 or 10 minutes, they don’t find themselves vertiginously surprised by just how many people on the internet seem to (blithely, knowingly) pick an argument with me, then… well, I hate to say it but they’re already infected.
🙁
10
We don’t still have a climate. The “climate scientists” and environmental vapourous hand-wringers, stole it all away. It now only exists in a computer model somewhere, being relentlessly tortured until it confesses to being hooked on water vapour, and other chemical substances that, in large quantities, can kill you stone dead.
30
On reading Mike Restin I had a chuckle.
20
“even if you are in doubt as to whether or not you believe in what you are saying”
I am afraid then it is /sarc every time for me. But what if Silly Filly uses it – would we have to take her seriously? If you use it Brad we will be seriously confused as you seem to be channelling Gordon Brittas or his alter-ego Arnold Rimmer.
60
ditto Yonniestone
31
How can any comment on an open thread be “off topic”?
61
That’s easy.
Somewhat harder—metaphysically—would be for a comment to be on-topic here.
Try it. Try writing a comment relevant to the topic of the article Jo didn’t write today (above).
Let me know how it goes.
23
Now try not to think of a pink elephant.
30
JC,
You got half the meme right. You might want to watch Inception again. You must’ve been distracted by the crapness of the movie or something, because that’s not the actual quote.
(Inception is one of those films everybody needs to watch twice anyway! There are so many nuances and details wrong with it that you never notice the first time. Seriously, give it a second chance. If you’re not amazed by how much crapper it is than you originally appreciated, I’ll refund you in full. But I’m pretty strapped for cash now, so you’ll have to “borrow” it from a torrent site i’m afraid.)
See, anyone can try not to think of a pink elephant. It’s not exactly difficult.
The twist is, you have to do it without thinking of a pink elephant.
In other words:
‘Try not to think of a pink elephant without thinking of a pink elephant.’
Because I learned philosophy, however, I’m able to write an order of magnitude more succinctly than normals (who must think the bang/buck ratio I consistently achieve in my climate commentary is the result of sorcery).
So I like to save time by cancelling out common factors and dividing by the pleonasm, giving the terser command,
‘Do not think of a pink elephant.’
22
Brad, the only real problem here is that you are just too full of yourself. Please give it a rest.
32
Backslider,
Thanks for saving me the trouble of asking you if you’re a proper, recognized, hard scientist:
ROFL!
Too full, somewhat pregnant, very unique, oh my!
Is Sir enjoying his word salad? Good—yes, of course, I will convey Sir’s kind remarks to the saladier!
[DID YOU KNOW? The most important ingredient is fresh, pesticide-free letters!]
*recovers composure*
The great thing about a Science degree—actually there’s a couple of different benefits, but the MAIN one—is that after five or six years or however long it takes you, you emerge with this kind of… I don’t know… rigor of thought, a concreteness, a ruthless lucidity and a muscular, Spartan spareness of mind. Whatever you want to call it, it’s absolutely unique to Us. I exaggerate, of course, but you know what I’m getting at. You just don’t get the same je ne sais quoi from a Humanities degree usually.
Oh well, better luck next shibboleth!
14
Brad Keyes,
Gun, foot, bullet.
40
For the benefit of Brad,
“Full of yourself” is the relevant statement to which you refer (not simply “full”) and does not necessarily imply containing as much as possible or not lacking anything. Therefore, one may be a little bit full of oneself or, indeed, totally full of oneself.
Touche,
Vic
60
James:
LOL… It’s tempting, isn’t it? These _____ people would test the patience of a Gandhi.
But that way madness lies. The moment we lose faith in non-violence is the moment we lose the moral high ground we’ve held for 25 years.
Use Your Words.
13
Victor:
Tut tut tut tut tut! Checkmate much? Cheesy as it may be, winners DON’T DO easy, cheap and/or lazy sleaze. Such needlessness spoils the sport for all.
To you go no spoils. At all!!!!!!
11
Thanks for proving my point Brad.
21
Bradley. Here are some dictionary definitions for “full of yourself”:
cocky
confident
overconfident
cocksure
puffed up
arrogant
conceited
a******
egotistical
self-centered
annoying
One can be “too” of any of these.
You lose.
21
No need to thank me. I’m sure anyone would have done the same.
Once I saw you flailingly failing to do so I felt—given my own facility with cogent argument—a kind of Singerian (or plain old Humean, perhaps) duty to wade into the fountain, resuscitate you and show you how things are done properly and safely. Am I a hero? No—at least not for my actions on this occasion. Like I said, any decent person would have done the same, or at least tried.
Without even thinking about it.
11
As I said Brad, you lose. Tough ain’t it (for you)?
20
Backslider,
You scored 1 out of a possible 2.
Bzzt. 🙁
Nope. I’m sure losing is a valid and rewarding hobby for the millions of people who pursue it—I just never got into it, for whatever reason.
(To be honest, I don’t quite “get” the appeal. But hey… whatever floats your boat!)
Ding! 🙂
Yeah, I imagine I would find it a little tricky. At least the first few times.
How did you get so good, just out of interest? (Are you, like, one of those prodigies who started losing when you were two?)
01
D’OH…
To everyone “downstream,” sorry for inadvertently ‘ironizing’ all your comments!!!
Victor and I were winding each other up, but once I’d wound him up what did I totally forget to do? Balance the <wind> tag, of course!!
Anyhoo… better late than never:
<⁄wind>
11
Depends upon to where one attachs said reply within said thread.
30
My best regards to Hans Sachs.
30
You can talk…..
11
Brad, you are the worst offender for making baiting comments and not using any /sarc tags. Go back a couple threads and review your own posts, when you first started posting.
20
Greg,
I know. And nothing can assuage the shame I feel about the person I was, and the innocent people I confused by my selfish, unthinking laziness. If I could go back in time and “edit” the offending posts, do you think there’s anything I wouldn’t give just for a chance to make those words inoffensive and return to the present, 2015, and have the first good night’s sleep, free of shame-dreams and apnea, for the first time in months? To be able to forgive myself, Greg?
Now perhaps you understand why I campaign so hard to educate others about the issue. If I can help just one person avoid going down the path I spent 3 months on, barefoot—a path of broken glass, boiling asphalt and burning cheeks flushed with shame—hasn’t it been worth it?
01
The only thing you are interested in Bradley is attention toward yourself.
None of us are in the slightest interested in what you want. You are a self centered, arrogant twerp.
21
Backslider:None of us are in the slightest interested in what you want.THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! I’ve always wondered why virtually nobody ever replies to my comments! It’s been bothering me for the last couple of weeks. One of my friends said you people were obviously just intimidated and knew better than to step into the ring. But that explanation never really satisfied me, given that the average climate commenter is—how can I pretend to put this nicely?—not exactly famous for having much insight into his or her own intellectual limitations.
But at last I understand (thanks, again, to you Backy).
Thread after thread, virtually every comment I make has persistently stood there unanswered, uncontested and unremarked-upon, but NOT because the Joösphere is full of people smart enough to know when they’re outclassed—not even because there’s a glitch somewhere that stops my comments manifesting themselves to you—but because nobody cares what I say.
It’s so simple! (In retrospect, at least.)
I owe you bigtime for this epiphany, Backmeister dude!
01
Words fail me. I cannot believe what some of the commenters below are suggesting.
It’s incredible how implausible a number of you people sound.
25
It is amazing how pompous you sound, but we are all to polite to mention it.
60
I think that “pompous” is way too kind……
31
You forgot the /sarc tag.
40
Seriously?
You’re actually accusing him, with a straight face, of being that HTML-incompetent? How on earth can you prove he didn’t simply leave it off maliciously?!
Did it even occur to you that, oh, I don’t know, maybe Rereke ISN’T the wide-eyed Amish bumpkin he’d have you believe he is?
That maybe… gasp!… he knew exactly what he was doing—and that he’d probably get away with it, to boot?
Why would a person who was willing to do that lose a minute’s sleep over the NUGATORY possibility that we’d notice a missing sarc tag? IT’S. A. NON. RENDERING. TAG. DUDE. I literally had to go to View > Page Source before I could be certain you weren’t simply being a smartass!
I don’t mean to be snide, but…
When was the last time you read the W3C spec, exactly? Properly, from cover to cover?
Cast your mind back. I’m not asking exact version number, just a ballpark. (Who was the President? How many States were there? That kind of thing.)
05
Brad, I read Jo’s blog every day and, to be honest, I haven’t the slightest idea what you are burbling about.
51
Perhaps I should have added “Please explain” a la Pauline Hansen.
50
Your obdurate venture into unparalleled and unique obliquity of irrationalization is an original rarely witnessed beyond the tranquil assurances of a sanatorium.
70
And the bartender says, why the long words?
03
Don’t you find that employing idomatic use of a private onomasticon mixed with an excessive and redundant verbosity encrypts turgid prose into a knot of opaque inextricability that veils it in an air of verisimilitude?
No, neither did I.
21
Please note the comment number (#3.2) to follow reply threads in their correct sequence – hint #3.2 follows #3.
30
As you are just a metaphysical illusion upon my screen, does your opinion matter one jot?
I doubt it, but I doubt all the time…
40
That is because you are a scientist. That is what they do. That, and being skeptical.
40
Dubito ergo sum
—Johannes Meldrus [?]
10
Dubito ergo sum – literally, “I doubt, therefore I am”. Which is not actually logical because it implies that you can only exist for as long as you doubt you exist.
I think the quote you wanted was dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum, ego existo – Rene Descartes in Principles of Philosophy (1644).
In translation: – “Since I doubt, I think, since I think, I am, thus I exist”.
31
Rereke,
Actually I found the quote I was looking for on my bookshelf. It’s the witty, troubling “koan,”
by a monk (possibly pseudonymous or even apocryphal) named Johannes, whose family name was possibly Meldrus, unless on the other hand he served in or around Melder.
Which is why I wrote ‘Dubito ergo sum‘ and attributed it to Meldrus, indicating with the self-explanatory punctuation mark the questionability of Meldrus’ historical existence.
Still, thanks for searching the wrong period in Western literature and pulling up an argument I wasn’t trying to make from an author I had no interest in quoting, and then “thinking” you were better at reading my mind than I was.
02
By the way, Rereke: do I have the pleasure of meeting a past (or at least future) elected President of the Campus Cartesians, so to speak?
¡Chapeau bas! ¡Encore, bingo, bravo, mon ami!
Whenever I meet un descartesophile it’s more than a safe bet—it’s a matter of inexorably non-negotiable syllogism!—that the following question is correct:
None of you amateur agnotologists majored in Med Stud, did youse?
How the heck could I have known that, you’re wondering? There was no trick to it, I assure you, just magic—the magic of logic.
(Actually, I’d be amazed if you’d taken—not counting high school, of course—ANY Medieval Studies.)
You see, good ol’ René was nothing but a shamelessly unoriginal reinventor of wheels originally invented by monks in the Middle Ages… their writings reduplicated, midrashed, riffed on, revamped and recirculated around a world-wide web of cloistered info-hubs. As century succeeded century the palimpsest manifested like a Polaroid picture, a kind of illuminated tapestry of knowledge, horsehair, faith, vellum, ink and glass-stained light.
And then… the Götterdämmerung.
Or, as we say in Orwellian, the Age of Man. Humanism, terror, the guillotine, licence, liberty, false preachers, fornication, miscegenation, Antipopes, the Avignonian Exile, the poisoned banana of the tree of the fruit of the love of knowledge of the correct method of seeking knowledge of the ways of the world of nature.
You see, Rereke, the Founding Fathers tell us [see the Pseudoaristotle, or pretty much any credible book by Aquinas] that a pip was spat out upon good soil, where the shit beasts had shat sat fat and fertile, flattening in the sun, just waiting for the seminal sperm that would change everything forever. And from that outspat seed grew a mighty tree in the shape of God, with a wide-ass base, stems all the way down to its roots and a trunk that just wouldn’t quit, so that men turned away from God in their hearts, for they saw the tree and knew that it was good—just as good as God, if not (marginally) better—and therefore they called its name Science, which means ‘fully sick.’
But I don’t want to overload you. That’s enough technical information for one day, I think.
01
Hi, Jo.
Thanks for the tip-off.
I’ve been able to do my bit for you and a few others I admire.
“Congratulations! You’ve been randomly selected to be on the panel that chooses the Bloggie finalists. To see your ballot and vote, visit http://2015.bloggi.es/panelist.php and enter the following information:
E-mail: ***@***.com
Authorization key: ******
Remember to submit your ballot by 10:00 PM EST (UTC-5) on Sunday, February 22 for your votes to be counted. Thanks!”
80
If anyone is interested – I’ve just published a new theory of continental drift – how ice-ages give rise to tectonic plate movement due to thermal contraction and expansion and how this then creates the ice-age cycle:
This article explains how much the crust heat/cools over 100 kyears:
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/02/05/toward-a-new-theory-of-ice-ages-iii-global-warming-and-earthquakes/
This article shows the “caterpillar” movement that results:
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/02/06/toward-a-new-theory-of-ice-ages-iv-thermal-crust-expansion-decomposition-and-the-carbon-cycle/
60
Here is something else considering on consensus.
BBC – 23 January 2015
Scientists slow the speed of light
“A team of Scottish scientists has made light travel slower than the speed of light.
They sent photons – individual particles of light – through a special mask.
It changed the photons’ shape – and slowed them to less than light speed.
The photons remained travelling at the lower speed even when they returned to free space……
The speed of light is regarded as an absolute. It is 186,282 miles per second in free space.
Light propagates more slowly when passing through materials like water or glass but goes back to its higher velocity as soon as it returns to free space again.
Or at least it did until now……”
* * *
Via notrickszone, and jimbo in comments.
20
Given that the real speed of light, in a vacuum, is one the fundamental constants in the SI measurement system, changing the speed of light, will change the measurement system, and hence the definition of the speed of light, or the length of a metre, or …, etc …
What is the point of reference? Did they measure the final speed of light in a perfect vacuum, or a whisky induced haze? Is this smoke, or mirrors, or a derivation of klimate seance, I wonder.
By the way, did the article mention what the “normal” shape of a photon was like?
And for the benefit of Brad, who seems to be frivolity-challenged, this is all tongue in cheek.
40
The whisky induced haze makes the photons stagger about a bit, so they only appear to be going slower, because of the meandering path length.
Gran Sasso all over again ?
30
How do you decide the instant a photon crosses the line and just how might this shape change affect that, if the faster one were to only win by a nose say. The pre-ponderance of Italian sounding surnames might seem a little unsettling.
20
Did the notice that they had speeded up the passage of time in the photon’s locality? For that will slow the apparent speed of light when looked at from outside the photon’s reference time frame.
That begs the eternal question though ‘does time pass at a constant rate, if not how could we ever know’ or as Dougas Adams said –
20
For a more poetic exposition on this see the doggerel at comment #19
20
13 Feb: The Conversation: Mike Raupach: the scientist who tallied the world’s carbon budget
by Helen Cleugh, Deputy Director, Oceans and Atmospheric at CSIRO, John Finnigan, Leader, Complex Systems Science at CSIRO & Pep Canadell. Executive director, Global Carbon Project at CSIRO
Dr Mike Raupach died earlier this week after a brief illness. He passed away peacefully at home with his family in Canberra, Australia. He was 64.
Mike was a brilliant and outstanding scientist. He was one of the nation’s foremost climate researchers, focusing on interactions between the climate, the carbon cycle and humans. Crucially, he excelled in communicating with the broader Australian and international community.
***His legacy lives on through the Global Carbon Project, which Mike co-founded and which now engages hundreds of scientists, practitioners, and policy-makers. His research, leadership, and personal commitment have made the project a scientifically rich, innovative and socially relevant international collaboration…
His work on the global carbon cycle and the global carbon budget showed the rapid growth of emissions and declining efficiency of natural carbon sinks, explored current and future emission trajectories linked to economic development, and devised ways to think about the responsibility of nations to address climate mitigation.
As his own research and that of scientists worldwide demonstrated the urgent need to mitigate climate change, Mike increasingly felt a strong moral duty to speak out. His move to ANU’s Climate Change Institute in February last year gave him the opportunity to do this, drawing on both his scientific and his communication skills…
Mike received his BSc in mathematical physics from the University of Adelaide in 1971. For his PhD at Flinders University, he presciently wanted to work on global climate change, but was warned that it was a speculative theory and was instead steered towards micrometeorological research, measuring the turbulent processes that exchange energy and carbon dioxide at the Earth’s surface…
COMMENTS:
#1 Karoly: Mike was a true scholar and a gentle man. My life was enriched by knowing him.
#2 Cory Zanoni, Community Mgr, The Conversation: Hi all. Please keep your comments on this article constructive and respectful. This is an obituary, remember .
#3 Colin Samundsett(replies to Zanoni) An interesting statement that such a comment is felt to be necessary…
http://theconversation.com/mike-raupach-the-scientist-who-tallied-the-worlds-carbon-budget-37575
***from Wikipedia: Global Carbon Project
The Global Carbon Project works collaboratively with the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, the World Climate Programme, the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change and Diversitas, under the Earth System Science Partnership…
In late 2006 researchers from the project claimed that carbon dioxide emissions had dramatically increased to a rate of 3.2% annually from 2000. At the time, the chair of the group Dr Mike Raupach stated that “This is a very worrying sign. It indicates that recent efforts to reduce emissions have had virtually no impact on emissions growth and that effective caps are urgently needed”…
On December 5, 2011 analysis released from the project claimed carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning jumped by the largest amount on record in 2010 to 5.9 percent from a growth rate in the 1990s closer to 1 percent annually. The combustion of coal represented more than half of the growth in emissions, the report found.
They predict greenhouse gas emissions to occur according to the IPCC’s worst-case scenario, as CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reaches 500ppm in the 21st century…
no disrespect. RIP Mike Raupach.
however, it us interesting to read through the debate at WuWT on the Global Carbon Project’s 2009 paper, just hours before Climategate shook up the CAGW world:
17 Nov 2009: WUWT: CO2 still going up, but temperature not following the same trend
From Eurekalert: Human emissions rise 2 percent despite global financial crisis
– Despite the economic effects of the global financial crisis (GFC), carbon dioxide emissions from human activities rose 2 per cent in 2008 to an all-time high of 1.3 tonnes of carbon per capita per year, according to a paper published today in Nature Geoscience.
The paper – by scientists from the internationally respected climate research group, the Global Carbon Project (GCP) – says rising emissions from fossil fuels last year were caused mainly by increased use of coal but there were minor decreases in emissions from oil and deforestation.
“The current growth in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is closely linked to growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP),” said one of the paper’s lead authors, CSIRO’s Dr Mike Raupach – ETC
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/co2-still-going-up-but-temperature-not-following-the-same-trend/
20
Browsing in the local Op-shop I came across a Scientific American which seemed to have a couple of interesting articles.
The first, on 2 toned antique Chinese bell chimes won’t be of interest to readers, although they did seem to have rather more advanced ideas on physics before 20BC than certain ‘modern’ “scientists”.
The second was on the advances in solar energy, esp. Solar PV cells. The article pointed out the recent advances in technology which had made those cells much cheaper, and confidently predicted that within a few years large scale plants would supply large amounts of “cheap” electricity, and that within 13 years solar PV would be cheaper than conventional sources such as coal fired electricity.
The date for large units was 1995.
The date for PV becoming cheaper than coal fired was 2000.
The end of coal fired units was predicted around 2008-2010.
The “Scientific” American was April 1987.
Fortunately it was in the free bin.
And the moral of this story is “don’t use linear extrapolation” unless you want to appear as a fool at a later date.
Foreign correspondents: Please copy for Al Gore, Dr. Viner (snow disappearance), the UK Met Office (numerous offences), the IPCC, the BOM, and quite a few others.
140
Solar panels can in fact NEVER be as cost effective as coal simply because sunlight does not fall upon the surface 24 hours a day, nor does it work very effectively when its cloudy. As good as Solar panels may get they will NEVER do better than 1 KW per square meter over 6 out of 24 hours. NEVER. On cloudy days you will only get less than 200 Watts for 5 of 24 hours because thats all the light energy that reaches the ground on those days. The space required means the land costs alone make solar uncompetitive! It takes currently 15 square kilometers to generate even 1 GW if an acre costs say $80k, what is the cost of 15 square km?
140
Hi Bobl,
I’m glad you highlighted the negatives in your assertions and then supplied evidence supporting them. These are the sort of statements that we should make over and over again until the warmists start to try to refute them. For then, they would have the onerous task of disproving a negative.
40
I assume that would only be the land value, itself. You also need to factor in the loss of production from that land, over the life of the installation. Also, no plant matter grows under the the panels, so there is no food for subterranean fauna, which dies off, leaving the land sterile, with whole ecosystems being destroyed.
So even when the panels reach the end of their productive lives, and are removed, the land is ruined, and useless for food production. Isn’t environmentalism a wonderful thing …?
60
Rereke,
Bite sized messages… as you know, I know all that, but the land loss alone is enough to demonstrate how hopelessly inefficient these things are, even if they were 100% electrically efficient, on a dull day they will still only put out 25W per square meter averaged over 24 hours, because thats all the light there is!
Add in the costs of everything else, it only gets worse, greenies love to say Solar doesn’t use resources, but thats wrong, solar uses the scarcest resource of all by the bucketload LAND.
60
Yes Bobi,
I knew that you knew, but I felt that I needed to spell it out to make it nice and simple for Brad, who might not make the connections.
60
Seriously Rereke, don’t do it for Brad. Put it in writing for future posterity and all that, but I fear Brad is wasted space. If I could figure out how to disappear his posts I’d be a lot happier too.
11
Greg,
I can’t remember where I learned the trick, but it’s easily done once you know how. (Now I can’t imagine surfing the climatosphere without it!!! I’ve had to efface from vision many an obnoxious commentator’s ravings over the years LOL.)
It’s just not obvious, which I suppose is a combination of bad documentation (by Windows/Apple) and laziness by the UI designers at the browser companies. Anyway:
— which platform do you use?
(Hopefully it’s Apple or Windows—more exotic ones are beyond my ken, alas.)
—which browser?
(Firefox, Safari, Chrome, …etc)
00
Bobl:
You are mixing your units, but no worries. You will need more land because of shadows etc. and access for maintenance, so I guess a minimum of 80 sq. kilometres. But that won’t stop the hystericals as they will claim there is lots of cheap sunny land in the middle of Australia. They will also claim that improved batteries will enable 24 hour supply. Rubbish, of course as there is the “little” ( /sarc ) matter of the cost of the batteries, the power lines to the customers and the losses in them.
And even in the middle of Australia there are days without much sunlight, so add another 80 sq. kilometres minimum for the batteries in their shelters.
As JLC of Perth would say “do it not even think of this pink elephant”.
And Rereke, I dRove south yesterday morning, it was 35C most of the way, until the last few km. when the temperature dropped to 23C – something to do with the Southern Ocean – but the BoM says you can homogenise over those 70km. On the way I passed a farm with solar panels mounted out on the grass, with several sheep lying in the shade cast. So anybody with the brains of a sheep knows what solar panels are best used for.
50
No 3,
Those chimes from Yunnan were noteworthy because when played to inscribed instructions, they produced a scale of notes the same as was later used in Europe etc as on a piano.
I’ve been lucky enough to pass by the location in China.
What a shame ScAM dropped its decades long rigour soon after that article and wallowed in loose science and speculation. IIRC, I cancelled my subscription about 1989 and donated my collection to the corporate library;.
60
ScAM sent me a free shoulder bag for renewing my subscription, one year. I no longer subscribe, but I still use the bag.
31
I hope you carry that bag on the cold shoulder, just to make a small symbolic gesture of protest RW……oh /sarc.
20
I always carry it on my sinister shoulder, and never on my dexter shoulder. That is a serious gesture of protest.
20
Geoff
One of ScAM’s achievements IMO. Check out
Gale, N.H. and Z. Stos-Gale (1981) “Lead and silver in the ancient Aegean” Cci. Am. 244 (6) 142- 152
for the best cleavage photo I’ve ever seen in a general scientific article.
20
Oops Sci. Am. not Cci. Am in above
10
Thanks for one good laugh today Graeme No. 3. It’s very funny…looking back at old “dire” predictions.
20
Or overly optimistic ones…
10
Looking forward to attend the “climate change briefing” tomorrow
Monday 16 February 2015
5.00pm for 5.30pm – 7.00pm
Hyatt Regency
99 Adelaide Terrace, Perth
Hope Jo you attend as I need your signature on the cover of your and co book “climate change, the facts 2014”
50
It’s behind a paywall but nice to the importance of CO2 in a wine review
50
Does Water Vapour cause Global Warming?
According to The Royal Society video “Climate Change Explained in 60 seconds” Green House Gases, including water vapour and CO2 cause an increase in the Earth surface temperature, by absorbing and re-radiating infra red emissions from the Earth surface.
Water vapour is supposed to be the dominant greenhouse gas, said to be responsible for about 90% of the greenhouse effect. But is that true?
To be even slightly credible the back radiation greenhouse effect must act locally if it is to be effective globally.
Yesterday I mentioned a study by Doug Cotton, in which he compared 15 cites/towns for rainfall and average summer temperatures. All cities were located in the zone 16-24S. To correct for the variation of latitude, and hence insolation, only the hottest month of the year was considered, which turned out to be January (when the noon sun is directly overhead). Cites had to be more than 100km from the coast to minimise any local ocean effect. The Cities were divided into 3 groups, based on rainfall and the average minimum and maximum temperatures compared.
Both average maximum and average minimum temperatures were higher for the middle group than the wet group and higher for the dry group than the middle group. The average maximum temperatures were about 5 degrees cooler in the wet city group and the minimum temperatures were 2C cooler in the wet cities.
Using a different method Carl Brehmer also shows that water has a negative feedback on local temperature, reducing maximum daily temperatures, while increasing night time minimum temperatures slightly. He did this over time at his own location and also by comparing inland cities matched for latitude in the northern hemisphere, but with differing humidity. The humid cities were cooler than the dry cities.
Today I tried a similar study of my own, comparing two locations in Australia; Giles WA and Charleville QLD. These sites were chosen because the Bureau of Meteorology flies balloon soundings from them, because they are both far from the coast, and because they are about the same latitude.
In both cases there has been no rain over the past 15 days. The satellite photograph showed no cloud cover at all over either site.
Giles is very dry, being located in the middle of the Gibson desert. Charleville is somewhat moister, but still fairly arid.
Today:
Giles T max 40.8C (4pm), Dew point 5.4C (7am)
Charleville T Max 37.8C (4pm), Dew point 13.4C (9:30am)
The Dew point gives a measure of the atmospheric moisture. Even though Charlevelle has had no rain over the past 15 days the air was still moister than the air at Giles.
From this I conclude that even the fairly low atmospheric moisture at Charleville was sufficient to cool the surface by 3 degrees C, compared to Giles.
So water vapour in the air (no clouds), is associated with cooler surface temperatures. Hence I conclude that the Green House Gas Effect Theory, as presented by the Royal Society(in the absence of any supporting evidence), is false.
93
Probably why, when people look back in time, they talk of a ‘cold, wet summer’ or a ‘hot, dry summer’.
Did you look at the T min for Giles and Charleville ? I supect the temperature difference between T max and T min may have been greater at Giles with clear sky allowing greater night time cooling. If so that could be taken as cloudy sky and more humid air reducing the rate of cooling – i.e. water vapour acting as a ‘greenhouse gas’.
But in saying that wet, cloudy air prevents insolation warming the earth below them – and I think there is a great deal of truth in the theories that tropical convection (as it cools the surface of the earth) taking hot air laden with water vapour to very high altitudes where heat is released to radiate to space is a significant part of earth’s natural ‘thermostat’.
UK temperatures are often dominated by the prevailing winds – warm air from the south or cold air from the north – and those cause temperature anomalies driven by the position of the jet stream, and how settled or unsettled that position is.
The old British saying that if it rains on St Swithins day it will be a wet summer is generally true and seems related to the jet stream position.
A couple of years ago I asked the UK met office about the jet stream and what work they were doing on this to relate its position to historic UK temperatures and ‘climate’. Not a lot at that time from what I was told and they had no data available – but they have since gone down that route.
The Royal Society is undoubtedly a propagandist for AGW and has abandoned scientific principles in doing so.
70
Peter,
Do check with Bill Johnston, known to Jo, who has done stats on rainfall and temps, starting with Bourke NSW IIRC. Rainfall could explain some 30% of the tmax variation.
Geoff.
60
Peter C 9:12pm: “The Dew point gives a measure of the atmospheric moisture.”
Actually Peter the text book measure “for atmospheric moisture” you more properly need for this type of study is the concentration of water vapor in the column over the location of interest. Precipitable water in the column is often the same at different sites even though annual precipitation is less than say 1/3 between those sites. Deserts have low precipitation, not necessarily relatively low atmospheric water vapor. Deserts are dry because they are regions of descending air.
The proper method to perform your study in making a reasonable assumption that the surface temperature min. occurs around 0700 at your location of interest is look up the climatological records for that location & time. Find the lowest (avg.) relative humidity at 0700 (say 29% in June) and the related avg. min. temperature say 81F. This humidity and temperature correspond to water vapor partial pressure of 10.7mb. Convert that vapor pressure to density, find the concentration of water vapor. Properly then compare this vapor concentration & temperature to the other site of interest.
Finding a combination of higher temperature and higher water vapor density means the radiation from the atmosphere at that site is probably greater. Atmospheric radiation at the ground depends on vertical vapor density and temperature profiles – even though records are for surface values. Nevertheless, you could likely win a wager that atmospheric radiation on a clear night often is lower at the site of lower temperature and lower water vapor concentration.
“I mentioned a study by Doug Cotton..Using a different method Carl Brehmer…”
If you look into details of each study, find neither of these studies followed these more correct text book science methods. Look for low values of atmospheric radiation in cold, dry regions of the world (e.g. arctic winter ~ 130 W/m^2).
70
Roger,
Giles: T min 25.5C
Charleville T Min 21.1C
The satellite pictures (which update every hour) show no evidence of cloud forming at either site, either during the day or the preceding and following nights. I don’t think cloud is a factor. Giles was hotter both day and night.
Geoff,
Rain could cause a difference in temperature, but there has been no rain at either site for at least 15 days. If soil moisture was the cause of the difference, would the heat capacity of the water not cause higher night time temperatures at Charleville?
10
LtCusper,
I can look up the night time minimum temps and relative humidities. I don’t think it changes the outcome.
However you mention the total precipitable water in a column of air above the recording site. How high do you have to go? The aerological diagrams show atmospheric moisture at both sites up to 14,000ft, then the air dries out a lot above that.
I don’t have the resources or probably the understanding to calculate the atmospheric water up to 14,000ft, given that the balloon humidity data varies with height.
10
Peter C 6:49am: “I don’t think it changes the outcome.”
Won’t know until you try with the proper text book science. The outcome in terms of annual precipitation, min. T and water vapor concentration similar regional comparison will at least be consistent with that text book science. Suggest try several sites in obviously different regions, desert and farmable. The probabilities will tilt wager-able odds in favor of: if higher temperature & higher column wv concentration, then higher atmospheric radiation at surface. You don’t have to go high in altitude, you can use surface values since most weather is in the lower troposphere.
Pick another site with way more annual precipitation (even 100x e.g. 30inch vs. 0.3inch), say with 0700 relative humidity 74% in May, avg. min. temperature 49F. This will correspond to a water vapor partial pressure of 8.4mb and after conversion to density, a wv concentration of 20% less than the previous example site. In this case the site with way more annual precipitation (farmable 8.4mb) has less “atmospheric moisture” in the column (than 10.7mb pp desert).
The first 10.7mb example would be considered desert and the second 8.4mb eminently farmable which is counterintuitive as the 1st (desert) has 20% more precipitable water vapor. Have to run the numbers with proper science. In this text book example a region called “desert” (evoking an image of sun baked sand dunes) has more “atmospheric moisture” than a farmable region.
50
OK,
I will try some other sites and have a go at calculating moisture from the T min and relative humidity. There are plenty to choose from. However, the Bureau of Meteorology does not fly balloons from most of them. The balloon sites are mostly coastal, because of the locations of airports here in Australia.
10
The study deliberately avoids polar regions, and even non-tropical regions, because of the complications regarding the need to multiply flux by the sine of the angle of insolation, and to also allow for greater absorption due to the longer passage of radiation through the atmosphere. So using polar regions is blatant cherry picking.
00
Well LtCusper, you are still needing to prove with your study (or some published study) that the IPCC implied sensitivity to water vapor is at least 15 degrees of warming for each 1% concentration – and you don’t have a ghost of a chance of doing so, because the GH radiative forcing conjecture is a scam and their “science” simply does not work on other planets either.
What does explain everything correctly is in this website and the linked paper: http://climate-change-theory.com and that hypothesis is supported by experiments, such as with the vortex centrifuge in which a temperature gradient is produced by centrifugal force, just like gravity produces one in every planet’s troposphere. You cannot prove that wrong, because it can be proved with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is the most robust law of all in physics.
00
What came first? chicken or the egg ? ,I think this applies to clouds/water vapour . IMO clouds have the greatest local impact on weather than any other short term variant for temps. Look out the window,dark clouds with prevailing winds means cooler and wetter, clear skies ,warm and dry. This must have have resounding affect on climate over time . The cloud cycles and causation require substantially greater investigation.
10
Thanks gl of fnq,
Undoubtedly correct. There are a lot of clouds where you come from including the fascinating Morning Glory roll cloud.
My focus in the small study of Giles vs Charleville was to examine the effect of water vapour in the context of the Greenhouse Theory.
Greenhouse theory says that invisible water vapour in a clear blue sky will warm the surface of the Earth by absorbing Infrared surface radiation and re radiating half of it back to the surface.
Matching the two sites for latitude (insolation), clear sky and inland location, the Greenhouse theory says that the site with the most water vapour in the air should be the warmer spot, yet we find that the opposite is the case. Charleville had more moisture in the air and was cooler by 3-4C.
Supporters of the Greenhouse theory need to find a reason for that, or abandon the theory.
Clouds are not gas. The IPCC does not know how to model clouds (are they net warming or cooling?). However I think that a few more looks at Giles and Charleville when clouds drift over will give the answer. A subject for a future discussion.
34
The IPCC does not know how to model clouds (are they net warming or cooling?)
Seriously? , THe Earth seems to be about 50 % covered in cloud in every picture I have seen . If the IPCC ignores the effect of world wide cloud coverage ,are they saying it doesn’t matter? , they have no effect? If this is the case ,IMO it puts grave concerns and doubt in my mind as to the credibility in the rest of their methodology.
30
They use parameterization for clouds. The value range is huge—it’s actually amazing the models match as close as they sometimes do. There are attempts to come up with a single parameter, hopefully one that actually mimics clouds, but as far as I know, the models still use various values. There are several elements of models that are parameterized. This was Freeman Dyson’s point about models—they use “fudge” factors where they can’t put in real data.
30
Peter – as you know there are six locations in Australia (out of a total of 15) in my study at the end of this paper, and the data is based on 30 year means, which is far better than your comparison of just one day in two locations. Furthermore, the scientific basis for it is explained in the paper.
10
I agree Doug,
Your study is much more comprehensive. My little study was intended to complement your work. I don’t think that it disagrees with anything that you have said.
00
By the way, in Pierrehumbert’s “gold standard” textbook of climatology he makes the huge mistake of calculating that 255K figure as if there were still just as many clouds reflecting just as much solar radiation as is the case in the real world. In his Earth without water vapour and other greenhouse gases (and without clouds) he still uses 30% albedo, but two thirds of that is due to reflection by clouds that would not exist. If we correct for his mistake, the 255K becomes about 272K.
20
Peter C.
My study (to which you refer) can be read on line at the end my February 2013 paper on the new 21st century paradigm explaining heat transfer mechanisms that support temperatures in all tropospheres, crusts, mantles and cores of all planets and satellite moons. The greenhouse radiative forcing hypothesis has been refuted in that paper which is linked from our group’s website http://climate-change-theory.com
00
The temperature data was based on means over 30 years in the hottest month when the Sun would have passed almost directly overhead in these tropical regions. This saves the need to adjust for acute angles of insolation. The results were sorted by precipitation levels with the wettest location numbered “01” and the driest “15” …
The results for mean maximum and mean minimum temperatures were …
Wet (01-05): 30.8°C 20.1°C
Medium (06-10): 33.0°C 21.2°C
Dry (11-15): 35.7°C 21.9°C
10
even the photos appear designed to communicate to Aussies!
16 Feb: SMH: Peter Hannam: Australian scientists make fresh attempt at explaining climate change
Australia’s leading science body has reissued its climate change booklet in a bid to improve public understanding of the contentious subject.
The Australian Academy of Science was prompted to update the information based on new research and public questions since its original release in 2010.
Most available material is either too technical for the lay reader and usually omits some of the basics, such as how scientists know humans are causing global warming and what future projections are based on, said Steven Sherwood, a climate scientist at the University of NSW.
“There is so much misinformation or confusing information out there, that we thought it would be ***nice to gather in one place an accessible explanation,” Professor Sherwood said…
About 97 per cent of scientists who study the climate accept that humans are having an impact, with carbon dioxide – mostly emitted from humans burning fossil fuels – the primary driver…
Perhaps less well known is the role rising temperatures have on concentrations of water vapour, a key greenhouse gas.
“When global average atmospheric temperatures rise, global water vapour concentrations increase, amplifying the initial warming through an enhanced greenhouse effect,” the report says. “[T]his feedback approximately doubles the sensitivity of climate to human activities.”…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australian-scientists-make-fresh-attempt-at-explaining-climate-change-20150215-13f1ix.html
***how nice. methinks they need Jo’s help.
40
That’s a really good idea. When you start lying you do have to keep updating, to keep the whole edifice from collapsing.
Whereas:-
– No rise in Ave. Temps for 18+ years
– No Hotspot.
– 97% of climate models turned out wrong.
– Historic temperatures repeatedly being readjusted, downwards.
Don’t take much explaining, unless your trying to hide them
60
Say, what would be the best way to spin a new renewable power plant to get the best result possible?
Why, call up the ABC of course, and when the journo arrives, ask him is he knows anything about power generation, and when the desired answer (umm, no) is forthcoming, then half the battle is won.
Witness the article at this link from the ABC about the new solar power plant near Milmerran, which is close to Toowoomba.
Note just this one paragraph: (my bolding)
2000MW. Wow! That’s huge. That’s the Nameplate Total for this plant. It will be constructed in 100MW sections over the next 8 years, and has a hoped for life span of 30 years, but keep in mind as they build those section, then each section will only have a 25 year life span, at the absolute best. So, at the full 2000MW, there will only be perhaps a 17 year life span, if all goes absolutely perfectly, and trust me, that will never be the case, as plants of this nature degrade their Capacity Factor on a yearly basis.
Then comes the truth.
At no stage ….. EVER ….. will this plant generate its total of 2000MW, not even for the five minutes at the peak of the half sine wave of daylight power generation on the clearest of mid Summer days.
The (umm, Industry Standard) total power generation is measured across a full year.
The theoretical total for a solar PV plant of this type is around a Capacity Factor of 17%. (for a plant of this nature closer to the Equator than if it was more Southerly here in Australia) That figure of 17%, when extrapolated down from that yearly average to an average daily total, means an average power delivery equating to 340MW per day. Summer will see larger delivery and Winter less delivery.
For a clear cloud free mid summer day, the plant may actually deliver the equivalent of around 600MW.
They proudly say that the plant will have warehouses (???) full of batteries, so the plant can deliver its power not only during daylight hours, but also at night.
Soooooo, let me see now. Not all the power generated during daylight will be delivered to the grids as a (perhaps) half of it is diverted to charge up the batteries, and then when the Sun sets the batteries supply the power for the inverters to supply the grid with power. (Keep in mind Power Out can only equal Power In, umm, minus the losses with the introduction of now 2 extra steps.)
Either way, you will still only be averaging that 340MW (at best) of power on a daily basis, because you can only generate the one lot of power, so pat for the grid, and part for the batteries.
Now, just down the road at Milmerran is a coal fired power plant and it’s only an 850MW plant, so in fact way smaller (in Nameplate) than this wonderful new solar plant.
Let’s take just the one bright clear mid summer day, and compare the two plants, the 2000MW solar plant and the 850MW coal fired plant, just for say a full 14 hour bright clear sunny mid summer day.
Over that 14 hour period this wonderful new solar plant will generate in total 8,400MWH in total.
Over that same 14 hour period the much smaller coal fired plant will generate 11,900MWH.
Uncanny isn’t it, that a plant which is only 42.5% of the size of the solar plant delivers 1.42 time more power.
Look at the life span of the solar plant, and compare the total power delivery with that of this nearby coal fired power plant.
The coal fired plant (only 42.5% of the Nameplate for the Solar Plant) will deliver more than three times the power to the Queensland power grid, (closer to 3.5 in fact) and long after the last of the power is delivered from the solar plant, that coal fired plant will still be delivering power, probably for a further five years.
Please don’t try and tell me that solar power plants like this will replace coal fired power, because it’s, well, a flat out lie.
Tony.
260
And the solar plant will cover 5000 hectares, or 50 square kilometers, or 19.3 square miles.
What is the cost of the land ???
110
And the lost production?
60
And, for those not familiar with the area, this is prime Darling Downs farmland. What a waste!
70
Vacant land is pretty cheap out that way. Much of the land is sold as ‘bush blocks’ for ‘weekend retreats’. Costs about $50,000.00 for 8 hectares. I believe, at best it is marginal cattle country. Unfortunately the country is not ‘attractive’ enough for the greenies to want an environmental impact study.
Thanks Tony for your info.
20
I have a 5Kw system that on one particularly foul winters day produced 330 watts over 8 hours of daylight. Extrapolating that to 2000Mw should give around 16,500Kw. You never hear of the minimum output of these loony schemes. As I live in Melbourne you could probably double that total.
60
I wonder how all those solar cells covering the 5,000 hectare site at Bulli Creek will change the local climate/temperatures/weather.
Are there any studies covering this type of change?
Has a full enironmental impact study been done for the project, if so what does it say, where is it?
50
Let me show you what an actual power generation curve for a solar PV installation looks like. This image is for an installation at UQ (The University of Queensland) and this is for a large (ish) system of almost 1600KW. (1.6MW)
Now, while this is considerably smaller than the proposed 2000MW plant out near Milmerran, this is at around the same latitude and is indicative for all PV systems.
I have purposely selected the best day of generation so far this year, the 16th January 2015, a bright clear sunny mid Summer day.
Power Generation Curve 16Jan2015
Note how generation starts at around 5.30AM and ends at around 6.30PM, so 13 hours in all of power generation.
The curve is similar to a half sine wave, and note I only said similar.
The absolute maximum generation was for around ten minutes close to 1.30PM and was 1146KW, which is 72% of the Nameplate.
The average power delivery for the day (this 13 hour daylight period) equates to around 690KW, which is 43% of Nameplate
The Capacity Factor for the whole of 2014 came in at 16%, which equates to an average daily power generation equivalent to 250KW.
You can change dates by clicking any date at the bottom of screen, or look at any day in any Month by using the menu at the right of the curve image.
Tony.
70
These people sound like used car salesmen. “She’s a great car, gets 40 mpg*, clean, and low mileage. It’s a steal at this price**. Your friends will be so envious.”
(*downhill with a tail wind)
(**hundreds over book but you’re not smart enough to actually check that)
60
They’re building a solar farm on the Sunshine Coast too. I haven’t taken any interest in it at all, but I know where it’ll be built… on an old sugar cane field behind Coolum. It’s subject to flooding, the soil is all acid sulphate, and the swamps are salt water, and we’re in a category 5 cyclone area.
A worse place for an array of solar panels would be hard to find.
20
I think I have a pretty good handle on characterizing modern Climate Science. However, I need help completing the lists of Lesser Beliefs and Apostles. So far I have:
Modern CLIMATE SCIENCEDefinition: A quasi-religious, fear-mongering, invective-spewing belief system.
Logo: Hockey Stick
Defining Belief: Anthropogenic Global Warming is the root cause of everything that has a net detrimental effect on anything good.
Lesser Beliefs:
(1) Exhaling is Original Sin.
(2) CO2 is a pollutant.
(3) Mankind is not part of nature.
(4) Mankind is a pox on GAIA.
(5) You’re either a “Believer” or you’re an environment-destroying, CO2-emitting SOB.
(6) If you’re a “Believer,” all Sins are forgiven.
(7) “Tipping Points” occur at a rate of one-per-hour.
• • •
• • •
• • •
Motto: Keep the gravy train rolling.
Leadership:
High Priest and Defender of the Immaculate Hockey Stick: Dr. Michael (Sueu) Mann.
Apostles:
Al (Hanging Chad) Gore—in charge of SS (Settled Scientology).
Dr. Peter (The Impersonator) Gleick—in charge of ED (Ethics Department).
Dr. Phil (Excel) Jones—in charge of CRUD (Climate Research Unit Department).
Dr. Stephan (Blink-Blink) Lewandowski—in charge of PMS (Psychologically Misleading Studies).
Dr. Ben (Sluggo) Santer—in charge of ARP (Apostate Re-education Program).
Dr. Chris (SOS) Turney—in charge of LSD (Lost Scientologists Department).
• • •
• • •
• • •
200
You could add the mascot.
The polar bear.
60
How about the goals?
Posts constantly moving.
50
Lesser Beliefs:
(1a) Indulgences can be purchased (ETS etc)
(8) Incorrect thoughts are evil and cause bad weather.
50
Reed Coray
“Dr. Stephan (Blink-Blink) Lewandowski—in charge of PMS (Psychologically Misleading Studies).”
I thought they said Lewandowski was mysteriously moved and is now in charge of the Parapsychology Wing.
Or maybe I mis-read.
20
Reed ,
don’t forget most religion has a cast of really , really evil bad guys who are responsible for everything really , really bad n’ evil n’ stuff
Satan Incarnate : Big Oil
Lesser Demons : Any other reliable & efficient energy suppliers plus any large scale Western mining , agriculture or manufacturing based concerns
Coven leaders : Science blog writers of all sorts who aren’t carbophobic and and/or points out prediction failures of CAGW doctrine ( CAGW can never be wrong obviously so failures of prediction must be the result of dark arts )
Warlocks & Witches : Any mainstream journalist who isn’t carbophobic and and/or points out prediction failures of CAGW doctrine
apostates : scientists who don’t subscribe to CAGW
infidels and heretics : the rest of us .
20
What about agnostics? I don’t believe in agnostics.
20
We need a Conan to break up this coven.
10
Excellent, Reed. Do you mind if I post your “Modern Climate Science” essay on the Climate Discussion Group on Facebook?
20
James, You have my permission. However, I like the suggestions made by several commenters. I don’t have time to officially include them now. See this thread in seven or eight hours. You can wait or not wait–your choice.
BTW. I want to thank all those who provided inputs to the description of Modern Climate Science.
00
I appreciate the inputs from the commenters of Joanne’s blog. For what it’s worth, I’ve incorporated some of the suggestions into my characterization of Modern Climate Science. My updated characterization appears below.
Modern CLIMATE SCIENCEDefinition: A quasi-religious, fear-mongering, invective-spewing belief system.
Logo: Hockey Stick
Defining Belief: Anthropogenic Global Warming is the root cause of everything that has a net detrimental effect on anything good.
Lesser Beliefs:
(1) Exhaling is Original Sin.
(2) CO2 is a pollutant.
(3) Mankind is not part of nature.
(4) Mankind is a pox on GAIA.
(5) You’re either a “Believer” or you’re an environment-destroying, CO2-emitting SOB.
(6) If you’re a “Believer,” all Sins are forgiven.
(7) “Tipping Points” occur at a rate of one-per-hour.
• • •
• • •
• • •
Motto: Keep the gravy train rolling.
Mascot: Polar bears resting on ice floes.
Timelines: We have exactly ten years from an ever changing start date to save the world from runaway global warming.
Satan Incarnate: Big Oil.
Lesser Demons: Manufacturers, coal producers, and all mining operations.
Apostates: The three percent of scientists who don’t believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Leadership:
High Priest and Defender of the Immaculate Hockey Stick: Dr. Michael (Sueu) Mann.
Apostles:
Al (Hanging Chad) Gore—in charge of ISS (Indulgences Settled Scientology).
Dr. Peter (The Impersonator) Gleick—in charge of ED (Ethics Department).
Dr. Phil (Excel) Jones—in charge of CRUD (Climate Research Unit Department).
Dr. Stephan (Blink-Blink) Lewandowski—in charge of PMS (Psychologically Misleading Studies).
Dr. Ben (Sluggo) Santer—in charge of ARP (Apostate Re-education Program).
Dr. Chris (SOS) Turney—in charge of LSD (Lost Scientologists Department).
• • •
• • •
• • •
10
Make that:
Al (Hanging Chad) Gore—in charge of ISS (Indulgences and Settled Scientology).
10
ARGH! My entering a comment into a Blog is like my golf swing–speed kills. One more try. The entry for Al Gore under the list of Apostles should read:
Al (Hanging Chad) Gore—in charge of IaSS (Indulgences and Settled Scientology).
If I have made yet another entry error, I’ll just let it stand.
10
After mention of it on a thread here I am sitting down reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
Wow! What a book!
I have just been through the part where Francisco d’Anconia lectures on the so called “evil of money” during James Taggart’s wedding reception. What a statement!
Thanks guys, really enjoying it!
60
I must add this to my reading list…
30
Politicians don’t make mistakes when commenting on climate science.
They know very well what that they are deliberately misleading.
They believe that the public will not know any better because they are fools soon to be parted from their money.
Sadly nearly all of the media know the truth as well but the truth is purposely avoided on this subject.
A royal commission is needed as the quickest way to expose this disgraceful fraud.
50
Latest information on climate change
This publication from the Australian Academy of Science aims to address confusion created by contradictory information in the public domain.
It sets out to explain the current situation in climate science, including where there is consensus in the scientific community and where uncertainties exist.
The document is structured around nine questions:
Photo: Melbourne beach
People flocked to the beach for respite one evening during Melbourne’s record breaking four-day heatwave in January 2014, under a sky made hazy by smoke from a scrub fire. by Neil O’Connor
Summary –
Earth’s climate has changed over the past century.
The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, sea levels have risen, and glaciers and ice sheets have decreased in size.
The best available evidence indicates that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause.
. . .
What. No mention of the pause?
60
Heatwaves? The current generations don’t know what a heatwave is.
A tad over 50 years ago (early 1960’s) Melbourne had had about 4 days of high temps (can’t remember how high but it was sure hot). BoM predicted a cool change. The change came up the bay’s western side reached Melbourne, turned and retreated down the eastern side. The change missed suburbs north of Carlton. We then had another 4 or so days of high temps.
A heat wave of 8 – 10 days in all.
May have been about the time of the tragic bush fire in the Dandenongs.
R-COO- K+
40
No pause, no LIA, but increased acidification(!) of the oceans is in.
Looks to me that Nostradamus is alive and well and living in Canberra – all prophesies and no facts, but I’ve yet to read their references.
50
The Ranque Hilsch vortex tube “provides empirical evidence that a force field acting on molecules in flight between collisions causes an interchange of molecular potential energy (relative to that force field) and kinetic energy. This creates a temperature gradient in the plane of the force field because only the kinetic energy component affects temperature. That temperature gradient in a steady force field represents the state of maximum entropy (thermodynamic equilibrium) which the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us will tend to evolve autonomously. We note that specific heat (Cp) appears in the denominator of the temperature gradient, just as it does in expressions for the temperature gradient caused by the force of gravity in all planetary tropospheres.”
Such temperature gradients continue in sub-surface regions of Earth even down to the core. Because the gradient is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, any additional thermal energy supplied at the ccoler (outer) end will disturb that state. The Second Law tells us a new state will evolve and this obviously entails some thermal energy transfer by conduction or convection towards the warmer regions as explained in our group’s website.
Therein lies the explanation as to how thermal energy from the Sun makes its way to the core of any planet or satellite moon, including our own Moon where core temperatures are over 1300°C.
15
Why has this article not made MSM or ABC headlines???????????????
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3RnAsCrzq
Have a read of this. If you thought the communists had disappeared better you think again..
50
The CIA thought hostile nations were trying to control the weather. Today, only friendly ones do that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11414563/Spies-feared-hostile-nations-were-controlling-the-weather.html
40
Farout, the CIA are more clueless than 97% of climate scientists. God help us!!!
10
Doggerel for the demented…
Question from Time
Tell me scholar has this past’s meter of time
Been tallied in hours on an old paradigm?
And tell me scholar is hopeful destiny near?
Or is all future caught in your agnostic fear.
Now is but an instant of this reality’s present,
Relinquished justly to damned memory evanescent.
You’ll regard time’s passage as ordinary as fate,
But its ubiquity shall change at a peculiar rate.
30
See comment #6 for the end of this…
10
That’s too good to be rated as doggerel!
20
I speak as a lover of doggerel.
30
Forgive this demented mind’s owner, I will endeavor to persist in refining it to worthy doggerel.
That I try some rhyme with my faulty eduction, and declining cognative ability, only leads me to a greater lack of insight.
30
Doggerel is good!
10
Warmists clutching at straws bring an end to Last Glacial Max.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0212/Did-oceanic-burps-end-the-Ice-Age
Its a chicken and egg thing, but in my book temperatures warmed first and that released the CO2 from the ocean.
Still, we may need to look closer at this.
50
1) The Ksp (solubility co-efficient) for CO2 is considerably higher in cool water (ice epochs) than warm water. Sudden oceanic “burps” of CO2 in ice epochs is really difficult to argue
2) the highest resolution ice core data we have consistently and persistently records rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations 800-1000 years after temperature rises. This is because of 1)
20
Yes, they’ve already had one go at this.
According to AGW theory rising CO2 absorbs radiation, warming the Earth’s atmosphere
The atmosphere warms the land and the ocean
The warming is most evident at the poles (as the ocean circulates).
In this article it goes
there was a sudden warming
which must be due to lots of CO2
this warmed the atmosphere
which warmed the ocean and the land everywhere EXCEPT the poles (because it didn’t show up in the ice cores).
So you have to believe that CO2 causes warming, which will appear FIRST or maybe LAST at the poles.
See also CO2 causes warming which causes less rain, more rain, less snow, more snow and dandruff in polar bears.
And for Brad Keyes /sarc.
30
Pause Theory
‘So, the best fit “pause” theory is that climate science has temporarily exhausted adjustment rationales. Given the past success in convincing the public, it is quite possible that the official science will simply continue the adjustment process.’
Ralph Park (WUWT guest post)
50
The SMH/Age has another Nobel Laureate arguing that consensus is science:
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/jury-in-on-climate-change-so-stop-using-arguments-of-convenience-and-listen-to-experts-20150215-13et0j.html?rand=167288
The experts art ordained, kneel to their omniscience, pay your carbon tithe, thou shalt be given a place in heaven (where there isn’t as much warming as hell).
50
Of course he argues you should listen to experts—if he didn’t he would feel he wasted his time and money on that PhD. Winning the Nobel Prize didn’t hurt either—for his evidence the universe is expanding. Another really practical field of study, I think, and virtually unverifiable. Let’s be honest. People who perceive themselves as authorities are not going to tell us to ignore authorities. I’m sure had he been involved in the “ulcers are caused by too much acid” debate he’d be telling us to go with that consensus and ignore the unscientific guy over there claiming it’s bacteria. The consensus is always right, you know. We must listen to those who know.
100
Sounds like a professor lecturing his illiterate undergraduates. I am an astrophysicist and nobel laureate, bow down before me and listen you dummies.
30
Notice, too, that the newspaper equates truth in science with a jury verdict. So now science is decided in a court of law—oh, wait, the same thing happened to evolution. And to this day, the fight remains. Funny how people don’t really like courts telling them what to believe. I suppose it has to do with some rather well-known verdicts that were not believed. Again, global warming advocates are their own worst enemies. The newspaper clearly hopes no one would be so poorly schooled as to actually think “the jury” could be mistaken. The newspaper is clearly not understanding people nor science.
10
For the record:
qt.com: 26th Nov 2014
Early-release strategy for Wivenhoe Dam to prevent flooding
“In a statement, Mr McArdle said the early release of water at Wivenhoe could mean up to 1500 fewer buildings would flood across both Ipswich and Brisbane if there was a repeat of the 2011 floods.”
Couriermail, 16 Feb, 2015:
Meanwhile, southeast Queensland is in for a drenching later this week, with the possibility of more than 200mm to fall in Brisbane.
The BoM:
BOM predicts long, hot Summer for NSW north east (ABC)
Cyclones, high fire danger in Queensland summer of extreme weather
Bureau reveals extent of record hot spring as dam levels plunge (SMH, December 3, 2014)
60
Thanx for those handjive.
Another east coast low will be forming off NSW next Sunday, cooler conditions expected.
50
Bulldust –
surely Brian Schmidt, the writer of “Jury in on climate change, so stop using arguments of convenience and listen to experts”, should complain to Fairfax about the misleading pic used to illustrate his piece!
presumably this is the writer, tho i see nothing to suggest he is qualified to declare “The evidence is clear: human activities are changing the Earth’s climate, and what we do now and into the future will strongly influence the world’s weather in the decades and centuries to come.”!
Wikipedia: Brian Schmidt
Brian Paul Schmidt AC, FRS is a Distinguished Professor, Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow and astrophysicist at The Australian National University Mount Stromlo Observatory and Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics and is known for his research in using supernovae as cosmological probes. He currently holds an Australia Research Council Federation Fellowship and was elected to the Royal Society in 2012. Schmidt shared both the 2006 Shaw Prize in Astronomy and the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics with Saul Perlmutter and Adam Riess for providing evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating…
He has said that he wanted to be a meteorologist “since I was about five-years-old” but “… I did some work at the USA National Weather Service up in Anchorage and didn’t enjoy it very much. It was less scientific, not as exciting as I thought it would be—there was a lot of routine. But I guess I was just a little naive about what being a meteorologist meant.” …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schmidt
40
jo had a thread last year: I already have a climate bet with a Brian Schmidt, I’d like to do another.
also:
2012: AustralianClimateMadness: Simon: Quote of the Day: Brian Schmidt
The Nobel laureate Professor Brian Schmidt, announced today as the Australian of the Year, on science and politics:
– Science should inform policy, but must not become politicised, he says. “On issues like climate change, coal-seam gas, water management in the Murray-Darling Basin and stem cells we have seen science and public policy get mixed together,” he said. “We have seen policymakers challenging science, which they are ill-equipped to do. It is important for scientists not to get involved in the policy debate because if we do that then we are tainting the scientific argument.” (source)
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2012/01/21/quote-of-the-day-brian-schmidt/
links to:
2011: AustralianClimateMadness: Simon: Aussie Nobel laureate plugs alarmist line
I was very disappointed to read this article last night:
– An Australian Nobel Laureate has urged climate-sceptic MPs to get a scientific opinion on global warming.
Astronomer Professor Brian Schmidt spoke during a visit to the Sydney Observatory on Wednesday.
He was there with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to endorse a $2 million coalition pledge to restore a Howard government science in primary schools program which Labor axed.
The 2011 Nobel Prize winner for physics had words of advice for politicians who doubted the science of climate change.
“I would encourage anyone who has questions about climate change, especially in politics, to come and talk to the Australian Academy of Science,” the astronomer with the Australian National University told reporters.
“I accept that climate change is inevitable when you add Co2 to the atmosphere. I certainly believe it is something we have to worry about.” (source)…
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2011/12/22/aussie-nobel-laureate-plugs-alarmist-line/
this links to:
a serial CAGW political activist, it would seem.
50
remember this:
10 Feb: Nature: Alexandra Witze: Climate geoengineering schemes come under fire
Influential US group lays out which planet-cooling proposals may work — and which won’t
“The biggest thing about the report is that the government asked for it,” says Jane Long, former associate director for energy and the environment at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, and author of a recent Nature commentary on geoengineering. “That is really important, because it legitimizes the discussion.”…
“Hopefully this will get us an American research programme,” says Alan Robock, an atmospheric scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
The Central Intelligence Agency is a major funder of the report, along with science agencies including the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. Marcia McNutt, former director of the US Geological Survey and current editor-in-chief of Science magazine in Washington DC, led the NRC panel…
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-geoengineering-schemes-come-under-fire-1.16887
seems the want more attention:
15 Feb: Guardian: Ian Sample: Spy agencies fund climate research in hunt for weather weapon, scientist fears
US expert Alan Robock raises concern over who would control climate-altering technologies if research is paid for by intelligence agencies
A senior US scientist has expressed concern that the intelligence services are funding climate change research to learn if new technologies could be used as potential weapons.
Alan Robock, a climate scientist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, has called on secretive government agencies to be open about their interest in radical work that explores how to alter the world’s climate.
Robock, who has contributed to reports for the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), uses computer models to study how stratospheric aerosols could cool the planet in the way massive volcanic eruptions do…
Last week, the National Academy of Sciences published a two-volume report on different approaches to tackling climate change…
The $600,000 report was part-funded by the US intelligence services, but Robock said the CIA and other agencies had not fully explained their interest in the work…
Other funders included Nasa, the US Department of Energy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The CIA established the Center on Climate Change and National Security in 2009, a decision that drew fierce criticism from some Republicans who viewed it as a distraction from more pressing terrorist concerns. The centre was closed down in 2012, but the agency said it would continue to monitor the humanitarian consequences of climate change and the impact on US economic security, albeit not from a dedicated office…
Robock said he became suspicious about the intelligence agencies’ involvement in climate change science after receiving a call from two men who claimed to be CIA consultants three years ago. “They said: ‘We are working for the CIA and we’d like to know if some other country was controlling our climate, would we be able to detect it?’ I think they were also thinking in the back of their minds: ‘If we wanted to control somebody else’s climate could they detect it?’”
He replied that if a country wanted to create a stratospheric cloud large enough to change the climate, it would be visible with satellites and ground-based instruments…
Asked how he felt about the call, Robock said he was scared. “I’d learned of lots of other things the CIA had done that didn’t follow the rules. I thought that wasn’t how my tax money was spent,” he said. The CIA did not respond to requests for comment over the weekend…
“I think this research should be out in the open and it has to be international so there won’t be any question that this technology will used for hostile purposes,” Robock said.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/15/spy-agencies-fund-climate-research-weather-weapon-claim
more psyops. want more funding.
20
15 Feb: Star-Ledger, New Jersey: Taxpayers in 3 counties could be on hook for millions after solar project fizzles
By Ben Horowitz and Seth Augenstein
The concept behind the massive solar project sounded simple enough: borrow $88 million to install panels on public buildings in Morris, Somerset and Sussex counties and then sell excess electricity, using the revenues to pay off the debt.
The concept was called the “Morris model,” held up nationally as an example of how to produce renewable energy through public-private partnerships. It was the second project of its kind and the previous one was hailed as a success.
But now, nearly four years later, taxpayers could be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars the counties owe bondholders, after work ground to a halt amidst cost overruns and lawsuits.
What’s more, the $88 million that must be repaid to bondholders for the 71 projects could cause “unmitigated disaster” to the three counties, according to court filings….
But the market for state solar-energy tax credits — a key part of the deal — plummeted in the months after the deal was struck. Cost overruns mounted, and the developer and contractor became embroiled in a dispute that ended in lawsuits, according to court papers…READ ON
http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2015/02/taxpayers_in_3_counties_could_be_on_hook_for_millions_after_solar_project_fizzles.html#incart_river
20
Another battle over the MDB Plan, hard working farmers up against intransigent environmental bureaucrats.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-08/murray-darling-basin-plan-needs-to-end-farmers-say/6076946
30
Ok, its settled.
Climate change is real!
A newly released booklet says so!
Climate change booklet aims to dispel confusion, misinformation
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-16/climate-change-is-happening-now-scientists-warn/6093724
You can read the 32 page booklet at the link.
Ahhh, booklet. . . its like a baby book. Like a piglet.
The reality is this is more than most people can digest (like a whole piglet).
Most people will just read the contents and headlines (like just eating the bacon).
40
“A senior US scientist has expressed concern that the intelligence services are funding climate change research to learn if new technologies could be used as potential weapons.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/15/spy-agencies-fund-climate-research-weather-weapon-claim
30
And why not?
Put a stinger missile into the base of a wind turbine, and you have a serious damage area multiplier.
30
In relation to the sarc tag , Aussies ( generalisation of course) lend themselves to sarcasm in daily conversation. The Aussie legend through the WW1 and onwards heralded a nuance that characterised the larrican personality. On display most definitely in my time in the military but recently in the dealings with other nationalities at work. We (Aussies) certainly take the piss sonto speak regurely and no one is safe. I recognise it to be our version of your full of it without actually saying so. It does drive the yanks and Indian visitors crazy but they know you have to be on your toes. Hence my love for this site and all the information it displays in my dealings with the warmist crowd , who are so obsessed with their ideology that they dont know what hit them until its too late. Ive had a lot of dealings lately with the warmist crowd and this site is well informative in my interactions with said warmists. The heading about “its being a dissident thinker” is an appt teminalology of my mndset and I thank one and all for their contribution
30
” … , and ensure the sustainability, predictability and additionality or resources.] ”
For all its sophistication this reminds they’re just money grubbers.
What language ?
Tedious, mind-numbing obscurantism which dulls the mind, blinding you to what you’re reading.
20
I switched off auto correct as it was driving mecrazy but you get the gist
20
Read my peer-reviewed paper linked from the website below that has been developed by our group of persons suitably qualified in physics. This is a whole new 21st century paradigm in climate change science. So please visit our “Planetary Physics” group’s website http://climate-change-theory.com as it will blow your mind.
16
There was a discussion on this blog not too long ago about so-called medical miracles that seem to be announced all the time and then just fade away. In the 1990s I recall reading a story claiming that a very large drug company had developed a vaccine to prevent dental decay and that it would be on the market in five years time. I did a Bing on it recently and all I could find was some milk supplement the company was flogging as a dental health aid. So, did the company do it for publicity, or did the researchers do it for funding or did the drug not live up to expectations?
Now comes a ‘breakthrough’ in the prevention of Alzheimer’s. Let’s see where this one goes.
While doing my nightly reading I noticed this story on the BBC website about a new X-ray machine. Now this truly is an exciting new development. You can only begin to imagine where this might lead. For example, changes in the structure and behaviour of atoms as they become magnetised can be studied; it might also give clues to the source of gravity; and it will aid in the development of new materials and the processes needed to synthesise them. This in turn will open up myriad new opportunities. For example, it would speed up research into the development of ultracapacitors, which will make electric cars truly viable and will mean the end of twice daily charging of your mobile devices.
Meanwhile, in socialist Australia, our Australian Research Council is spending our money on truly worthwhile projects, such as:
This shows exactly why Abbott’s absolutely idiotic medical research fund is … well … absolutely idiotic. The Left will insert their own onto the board of the fund and then you’ll find billions being wasted on such things as research into the health effects of global warming on non-English-speaking migrants, and so on.
What a mess this country is. The institutions of this country are populated with the corrupt and the incompetent and ideological zealots. The major political parties are either evil or incompetent and too gutless to govern. There is just no hope. People are now churning through single-term governments as they get rid of one lot who will not do what is expected of them and replace them with the other lot, who also will not do what is expected of them.
I am too old to start again and I am too financially locked-in to this country to move elsewhere, but if I did not have those constraints I would do what so many younger people are doing today, which is to move to Switzerland or the US and leave socialist Australia behind to descend into the violent, divided cesspool it will inevitably become, thanks to government.
20
The US would be a bad choice. We have lawless Democrats destroying the country, millions of illegals here working and soon voting and an arguably incompetent narcissist as the leader of the free world. Go with Switzerland. Or maybe a third world country where you can actually start over and develop a new country with freedom and accomplishment held high, instead of oppression and weakness as the desired qualities.
20
Because of the ever-growing Hispanic vote, fueled by illegal immigration, the Republicans are now too scared to put an end to illegal immigration and deal with the millions of currently undocumented illegals. Yes, Sheri, I agree with you that the US is now a bad choice.
Middle class disenfranchisement is a newest malaise from which Western societies suffer. The burgeoning underbelly of violent, anti-social people created by the Left’s immigration, welfare, youth, education, policing and justice policies is making society hostile and unsafe for all but the few who have the wealth to completely insulate themselves from it.
00
A gentle reminder that projection can be dicey within a chaotic system, David Archibald got it wrong on this occasion.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/archibald_2050_fig6.png
00