Funnily enough, it wasnt until I’d cruised past the ABCs web site, that I’d completely forgotten about “Celebrate humanity” hour…..
Our central heating has been roaring along most of the day….nice and toasty warm…human ingenuity and technology being used and celebrated to keep us warm and happy…..I guess the warmists ware all huddled around a candle sitting in there mud huts. I wonder if they turned their wine humidifiers down a notch in sympathy with the cause-du-jour?
Not forgotten the Earth Hour. Lights on everywhere and I put up some strings of Christmas lights too. I don’t think anyone hereabouts is aware either way and there was no mention of it on the ABC “News”.
Likewise, Earth hour went unnoticed at my house. Maybe I just switched the lights off and went to bed.
Incidentally the National Co-ordinate or for Earth hour is/was Anna Rose. Some readers may remember her as the clueless young woman who featured on an ABC program 2 years ago called I can change your mind. She visited the Jonova household, but was unable to comprehend a scientific discussion about the tropospheric hot spot.
After Anna Rose’s rabbit in the spotlight intellectual experience at the Nova-Evans house I’m not surprised she has developed an aversion to well illuminated areas, well except for inner city streets, cafes, apartments, theatres, hospitals, offices, and any other convenience that improves quality of life well yes she’s right and we should be ashamed of ourselves.
We should consider ourselves lucky to have such a bright spark like Anna exposing our wrongs in the spotlight of truth.
Was this not the very same drag on the national IQ person who refused to meet, or debate with… someone who’s name I cannot recall, as she refused to engage in debates with people who aren’t climate scientists, or some such…?
despite the fact that her academic qualifications are about as scientifically relevant as a pack of tarot cards, of course…
I didn’t realize it was that time of the year but I’ve still got over 12 hours to go (Eastern Daylight Time US.) I’m gonna try and rig my welder to run a 2kw xenon arc lamp I brought home from work. That will definitely beat North Korea.
I know there is only one hour to go in NSW/Vic/Tas til the end of the calendar day, but hey, if anyone looks at daily stats of electricity, there is still time… 😉
I got an inverter unit and they’re a lot more efficient… and a lot lighter. They still suck down the power though. Who woulda thunk that melting metal would take so much energy. <sarc>Must be why they use CO2 in MIG welder gas… to amplify the energy.</sarc>
I noticed the /sarc. but Helium used in MIG welding gas mixtures are used to increase the heat in the weld for high heat conductive metals, bearing in mind it’s only effective in a weld pool of ~5,000° it’s interesting that Hydrogen whilst not ideal for welding can combine with Oxygen to make H2O that is the major distributer of heat in the earths atmosphere.
Well, you learn something new every day, I always thought Argon was the gas of choice. I didn’t realise other mixes were commonly used. I shall, as the French say, go to sleep less stupid tonight.
And the massive calamities following the world’s “hottest” year ever continue to leave a wake of heat related disaster.
Here in East Central Florida, Catastrophic Anthropogenic GlobalCoolingWarmingClimate ChangeClimate DisruptionClimate [insert currently approved scary term here] is so bad that all our UHI contaminated weather monitoring stations are 10°F below normal this morning. If the horrendous effects of CO2 don’t abate soon I’m going to have to buy deicers for my water troughs, winterize my pool and get the tanks for my propane fireplace refilled. You know something is really wrong when you have to run the heaters on March 28th… in Florida.
What’s the “new normal” gonna be… March, in like a lion out like a polar bear?
Fellow Unleaded Followers,
How the hell can I turn my attention to Earth Hour.
I have to watch the races, tennis, League, Aussie Rules, Union, A-League and the NSW election coverage.
Between all of these strenuous activities, I have to wash the dishes.
I would dearly love to partake of Earth Hour, bur I just can’t find the time.
You can get in the spirit by sparing a minute or two to turn your oven on full blast, open the door and set your wet dishes in front of it until they dry. It it gets too hot you can turn on your A/C as well. Earth will appreciate the extra CO2.
There is a huge difference between liberals and labor. For anyone not see this is to expose one,s lack of political knowledge. Understanding of money and budgets is the main difference. And that was shown by krudd turning +40 bill to -180bill in 18 months. But I don,t blame him. He was elected on what he promised, the same as Johnny be good +10%. krudd had up to 70% popularity with best PM loosing his seat to the ABC journo.
Queensland election is the same with the state having more debt per head than Greece they vote 3 years later the same crew that caused it.
Federally shorty is more popular than Abbott after not producing anything. But wait we live in the country that the voter knows best.
So he is the guilty one here? The voter that says that there is no difference between liberal and labor.
There is a huge difference between liberals and labor. For anyone not see this is to expose one,s lack of political knowledge.
I am not so sure. What I see is a lack of political philosophy from both parties but particularly the Liberal Party.
The Liberal Party was founded by Robert Menzies as a middle of the road party. He tried to rouse the “forgotten people” to vote him back after the Conservatives of the time had lost the plot. Being “middle of the road” is not a viable political philosophy (in my view), particularly if others are also trying to gain the middle ground.
Menzies was successful because the Labour party of the time had got itself dragged far to the left by communist unions. Gough Whitlam finally got rid of some of that (not all, but enough) and Labour came storming back.
Now neither party can explain its political philosophy and voters are in quandary.
I’m not a citizen of Australia so I cannot directly affect what goes on there. What I can do is suggest that a close examination of this document, in concert with a comprehensive public disussion of each of the issues presented in it, be undertaken by all those who are interested in having an impact on what actions will ultimately be taken when the Australian government presents their final proposal in mid 2015.
Disappointing, yes. But in practice the US will never ratify the treaty and neither will many other countries. If every single country on earth except us joined we would be so penalised and excluded that we might as well join. This is just lip service.
In that article here’s the first time I’ve ever heard this:
David Gruen, the senior economist in the department of prime minister and cabinet who is chairing the task force reviewing Australia’s targets, said last week that “nothing of value would be achieved” in the global fight against climate change “if emissions-intensive economic activity in Australia ceases, only to be replaced by more emissions intensive activity overseas which produces essentially the same goods or service”.
Our Federal politicians continue to argue over Renewable Energy Targets in spite of there being clear evidence that greenhouse global warming is not happening.
The area of the Earth least affected by mankind is the polar regions. Both the North and South Polar regions experience the same sunshine and have had the same rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration, 1.7 ppm per annum, for the period 1975 to 2013. However their temperature changes have been markedly different.
In summarising 36 years of satellite lower tropospheric temperature measurement, Dr John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, stated that the fastest warming spot on the globe has been in Baffin Bay, in the Arctic, where temperatures have risen 0.82 C per decade since 1978. This is in contrast with the fastest cooling area which has been in East Antarctica near Dome C, where temperatures have been dropping at the rate of 0.50 C per decade.
There appears to be no reported climate model prediction for the above outcome nor any credible explanation coming from climate scientists. Yet under these conditions of identical sunshine and rate of increase of CO2 concentration, the greenhouse global warming proposition surely must predict the same amount of warming at both Poles. Further complicating matters is the fact that there is no known natural physical process, other than radiation out into space, that can remove heat energy from the coldest region of the Earth, the South Pole. Heat always travels from hot to cold.
Nobody, scientist or non-scientist, has any explanation of this differential warming of the Earth from cooling in the South to heating in the North because mankind has never had this data before. It is certainly not due to the greenhouse effect because the rate of increase in CO2 has been much the same across the whole of the globe.
Perhaps our politicians should leave our CO2 alone, especially as, via photosynthesis, it is the ONLY source of the oxygen that we breath.
“Our Federal politicians continue to argue over Renewable Energy Targets in spite of there being clear evidence that greenhouse global warming is not happening.”
Well yes, that should tell you the whole thing is pure theatre and they have been given their instructions and now just have to put the window dressing on the pre-decided direction.
I’m hoping people will wake up to the fact that the whole dog and pony show is a fully scripted and controlled affair.
John Howard is Socialist- he brought in the ultimate Left wing nirvana of gun control.
Barry Unsworth was once quoted saying some years before Port Arthur “until we have a masssacre in tasmania we wont have gun control.”
Times change and we move on, I no longer work weekends so I’m just sitting at home watching the movie Exodus as I unwind from work. Earth Hour, though we talked about it last week, wasn’t even on my radar for this weekend.
As happens with many of us as we get busy time and it’s passage sometimes becomes a blur. Last year at this time I was working nights but off on weekends and couldn’t begin to tell you what I did for Earth Hour, slept through it most likely. However the year before was a rather memorable Earth Hour for me. I was at work and had four 60 kW diesel generators running at full load. Now THAT is an “Earth Hour”, everything in those sets from the metal to the plastic, the rubber to the fuel came from the Earth, and I’ll celebrate reliable power like that any day.
I’m looking forward to reading about others’ celebrations of all that we have, thanks to modern technology, as the hour passes westward. As for me; it’s bedtime in Victoria. Goodnight All! 🙂
Hmmm…. OK. I’m getting into this Arts Degree, arty farty stuff, so try this:
The Science with no Cheer.
Oh it’s-a lonesome away from your ice-box and all
when the barmaid goes deaf to your dry thirsty call
But there’s nothing more lonesome, morbid or drear
To open the fridge to warm beer, yes, warm beer
Now the bar owner’s waiting for the hipsters to come
As he fondles the rear of a greenie’s tight bum
The maid’s looking for ‘panky, but the cook is a queer
He’s looking for Merlot when he just needs some beer
Then Flim-flam rides up on his wanky old bike
And the bar-flies announce that he’s just an old dyke
The smile on his face quickly turns to a sneer
As the barman confirms that he’s not welcome here.
Then Al pal comes in smothered in dust and flies
And holding his book that’s so full of lies
When he’s told that, he says “what’s this I hears?”
“This book has been proofed by 200 peers”
Now there’s a dog on the v’randa, believes none of this
And growls that these plonkers are taking the piss.
Al hurries for cover and he cringes in fear
As the dog eats his book and shits in his ear
And young Michael the suer, for the Nth time in his life
Goes crying to ‘Bama because he’s lied and in strife
He walks into the White House and makes it quite clear
That the lurk, it’s all over, and the end is so near
Oh it’s hard to believe that the gullible still
Think the warming is real and we’ll pay the bill
But the sceptics are happy and I know they’re sincere
Because the warmists are weeping into their beer.
Oh it’s-a lonesome away from your ice-box and all
when the barmaid goes deaf to your dry thirsty call
But there’s nothing more lonesome, morbid or drear
To open the fridge to warm beer, yes, warm beer
Some people think that global average temperatures will start to cool in the next decades, maybe causing another Little Ice Age, with London’s Thames River freezing completely again.
The suggestion doesn’t consider changes made to structures on the Thames since the early 1800s. Because of the changes the river is now unlikely to freeze completely, even if there is another ‘Little Ice Age’. Before the 1800’s the river was wider and slower, and impeded by the Old London Bridge. The bridge was demolished in 1831/1832 and replaced with a new bridge with wider arches, allowing the tide to flow more freely; and the river was embanked in stages during the 19th century, all of which made the river less likely to freeze completely. … Also, there are 45 locks upstream of London, each with one or more adjacent weirs. It is conceivable that the locks could be opened to *increase the flow if there was ever a risk of the river freezing. (Of course, ice is less likely to form on water that is flowing quite quickly.)
I’m going with almost, but not quite zero physical detectable change, until I drop off the perch.
__
Disclaimer: This of course depends on how much BOM rigs the national temp record over the next 20 to 30 years, in which case impromptu wild climatic swings may occur, causing global calamity, panic, and broad economic disruption leading to the collapse of civilization and an anthropogenic induced crash in the seagull population at the local landfill.
PY:
agree about the change with the removal of Old London Bridge, but there was some freezing of the Thames since although not in London. Don’t forget that there are/were 2 coal fired power stations installed just upstream of Old Bridge site sending out warm water.
Says both 1891 and 1895. Not sure but 1895 was very cold winter. Reports of some ice in winters 1962/3, 2013/4 and 2014/5 but not enough for an Ice Fair. The Serpentine (London lake) froze in 1900, 1917. 1940, 1963, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.
NOTE the recent influence of Global Waerming.
I threw out all those nasty curly energy saving if-you-break-it-mercury-gets-into-the-carpet globes. Instead I get the globes with the halogen inserts. Not a fan of LEDs, namely as they are semiconductors and more vulnerable to power issues/”surges”. For camping, LEDs rock, lower power consumption, etc.
Perhaps fo rnext earth hour, we should set up a “earth hour experience” where we take $50 per person, and give them a candle, sheet music with “Kum bah ya” on it, a mocked up mud hut, a whip for self flagallation, and a low speed eco friendly “thrill ride” in a hybrid of your choice, and a signed copy of Al Gores power bill from one of his McMansions?
A video of that might have to go in the pool room….
… except they need to be in the clear wilds of Northern Canada, Svalbard Norway or similar location for this time of the year. Then they might learn something about Nature and energy as well.
It comes as quite a shock when a politician answers a question with a reasoned response, instead of the usual sound bite nonsense. He actually sounds as if someone is home and the lights are on. I might even listen to what he was saying even if I did not agree with him.
No, but it helps. Sensible message in the video from Copenhagen Change Institute should appeal to advocates of Green Energy too who are serious about Climate Change.
Don’t forget it’s the Bloggies this weekend !
Although the Awards will be rolling out over 2 1/2 hours this event will be in coincident time everywhere, unlike Earth Hour that had to be spread over 25 hours to flog it out for as long as possible.
From 20:00 EST (UTC -5) or is it EDT (UTC-4) . Isn’t that about 9am Monday in WA ?
Better allow for at least an hour either way to be safe as clocks are changing in many places this weekend too eg. for Summertime in Europe.
Follow the Bloggies on Twitta’ to get updated as they happen.
This is the fourth, and last, comment I’m posting on Joanne’s Unthreaded Weekend Threads. I thank everyone who has rated or responded to my comments.
In this comment I argue that if object-to-object energy transfer via means other than radiation exists, the presence of backradiation to an object does not necessarily increase the temperature of that object. Since all atmospheric greenhouse gases can remove energy from the Earth’s surface via conduction and convection, and since via evaporation water vapor (the primary greenhouse gas) plays a role in the removal of energy from the Earth’s surface, the fact that atmospheric greenhouse gases backradiate energy to the Earth’s surface is not, by itself, sufficient to justify a greenhouse-gas-based Earth surface temperature increase. Atmospheric greenhouse gases may in fact increase the Earth’s surface temperature; but not simply because greenhouse gases backradiate energy to the Earth’s surface.
As mentioned in my three previous comments, the heat-trapping nature of greenhouse gases is often used to persuade people that atmospheric greenhouse gases increase the Earth’s surface temperature. In this comment I analyze a situation where the energy-rate-equilibrium (ERE) temperature of active material [in this comment, active material is material possessing an internal source of thermal energy] is lowered when completely surrounded by inert material [in this comment, inert material is material devoid of all internal sources of thermal energy] such that the inert material (a) absorbs all radiation, not just radiation in sub-bands of the IR band, emanating from the active material and (b) radiates a portion of the absorbed radiation back to the active material. In the sense that greenhouse gases can be called heat-trapping gases, the inert material can be called heat-trapping material. Thus, in this comment I show a situation where inert heat-trapping material completely surrounding active material results in a decreased, not increased, active material temperature.
[Note: Formatting restrictions on Joanne’s blog make it difficult to present a complete argument in “comment” form. To overcome these restrictions, a more complete rendition of this comment can be found in a PDF file at [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ejn20s9glptl2qv/solid-sphere-shell_temperatures_with_conduction_heat_current_02PDF.pdf?dl=0] Furthermore, an Excel spreadsheet can be found at [https://www.dropbox.com/s/y5b4bb1z3t9p8n1/solid-sphere-shell_temperatures_with_conduction_heat_current_02Excel_extra.xlsx?dl=0]. That spreadsheet was used to perform the numerical calculations of the Example appearing near the end of this comment. If you’re interested in the complete theory, bypass this comment and go directly to the PDF file. The Equation numbers found in this comment correspond to the Equation numbers from the referenced PDF file.]
The underlying physical principle that allows backradiation to exist with cooler object temperatures is that although backradiation increases the rate energy enters an object, if the material that backradiates energy also supports energy transfer from the object via non-radiative processes, then the rate of energy transfer away from the object via non-radiative processes may overcome the rate of energy input to the object via backradiation. Under those conditions, it is possible that for an object in ERE, the temperature of the object drops in the presence of backradiation. In this comment, I analyze a case for which the rate of energy transfer away from an object via non-radiative processes is larger than the rate of backradiation into that object by an amount sufficient to result in a lower object temperature. The case examined in this comment consists of three Scenarios. Scenario 1: an active solid sphere in the vacuum of cold space. Scenario 2, same as Scenario 1 with the addition of a surrounding, thin, non-touching, inert, concentric spherical shell. Scenario 3, same as Scenario 2 with the addition of inert thermally conducting rods connecting the active solid sphere to the inert surrounding shell.
The Greenhouse Effect Theory is the proposition that greenhouse gases [in this comment a greenhouse gas is matter in gaseous form that both absorbs and radiates electromagnetic energy in sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band] present in the Earth’s atmosphere increase the Earth’s surface temperature relative to what the Earth’s surface temperature would be in the absence of those gases. A common argument for the Greenhouse Effect Theory goes as follows.
The Sun’s effective temperature (approximately 5,778 Kelvin) is sufficiently high that solar radiation exists at frequencies that are for the most part outside (above) the IR band, and as such solar radiation (incoming radiation) passes essentially unattenuated through the Earth’s atmosphere where the incoming radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The surface absorbed solar radiation heats the Earth’s surface thereby causing the Earth to radiate electromagnetic energy (outgoing radiation). Because the Earth’s surface temperature is approximately 288 Kelvin, most of the outgoing radiation is in the IR band, where a portion of the outgoing radiation is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases. Atmospheric greenhouse gases re-radiate a portion of their absorbed energy in all directions. Some of the greenhouse gas radiation will thus be directed towards and absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The radiation originating from and returned to the Earth’s surface via radiation from greenhouse gases is called backradiation, [in this paper “backradiation” is electromagnetic energy originating from an inert object that is directed towards and absorbed by the active object that supplies the energy to the inert object.] Because (a) the rate of incoming radiation absorbed by the Earth’s surface is essentially unaffected by the presence of atmospheric greenhouse gases, and (b) atmospheric greenhouse gases backradiate a portion of their absorbed energy towards the Earth’s surface, atmospheric greenhouse gases increase the rate the Earth’s surface receives energy. To maintain energy-rate-equilibrium (ERE), an increase in Earth surface temperature must follow an increase in the rate the Earth’s surface receives radiated energy.
The name commonly given to this temperature increase is the Greenhouse Effect. The kernel of this argument is that backradiation increases the rate energy enters an object and, therefore, everything else being equal must increase the object’s ERE temperature. The fallacy with this argument is that the material that backradiates energy may also remove energy from the object via means other than radiation (e.g., via convection, conduction and evaporation) at a rate sufficient to lower, not increase, the object’s temperature. If the material that induces backradiation to an object also supports energy transfer from the object via means other than radiation, then it is not always the case that backradiation leads to higher object temperatures. In fact, backradiation and lower object temperatures can exist simultaneously. This paper derives equations for just such a situation. Since (a) all greenhouse gases can remove energy from the Earth’s surface via conduction and convection, and (b) water vapor (the dominant greenhouse gas) plays a role in the removal of energy from the Earth’s surface via evaporation, this paper nullifies the claim that by itself the presence of atmospheric greenhouse gas backradiation to the Earth’s surface is sufficient to conclude the Earth’s surface temperature will increase. Atmospheric greenhouse gases may in fact result in higher Earth surface temperatures; but if so, the argument justifying those higher temperatures requires more than the statement that atmospheric greenhouse gases backradiate energy to the Earth’s surface.
Consider three scenarios:
Scenario 1
Assume an active solid sphere of radius Rsp (greater than 0, less than infinity) exists in the vacuum of cold space. Assume evenly distributed just beneath the solid sphere’s surface is a source of thermal energy at a constant rate H (greater than 0, less than infinity). Assume the surface of the solid sphere acts like a blackbody—i.e., (a) it absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, and (b) radiates electromagnetic energy according to Planck’s Blackbody Radiation Law, which applied to a blackbody surface characterizes the electromagnetic radiation emitted from a planar differential surface element, dS, at temperature T (Kelvin). Specifically,
PE_dS,df,dW is the power (energy rate) emitted in the frequency interval between f and f+df from a planar differential unit of blackbody surface area, dS, into the differential solid angle dW defined with respect to dS.
T is the temperature in Kelvin of the planar differential blackbody surface area.
h is Planck’s constant, approximately 6.62606957 x 10^(-34) Joule seconds.
c is the speed of light in a vacuum = 299,792,458 meters per second.
k is Boltzmann’s constant, approximately 1.3806488 x 10^(-23) Joules per Kelvin.
B is the acute angle [greater than or equal to 0, less than or equal to pi/2] between (a) the normal to the planar differential surface area dS …and… (b) the vector from dS in the direction to the differential solid angle dW. [Note: The normal to the planar differential surface area dS is the line that passes through dS and is perpendicular to the dS plane.]
dW is a differential solid angle defined with respect to dS. [Note: In a polar coordinate system (r,theta,phi), dW = SIN(theta)*dtheta*dphi, where theta is the polar angle and phi is the azimuthal angle. For a coordinate system (a) whose origin is at dS, (b) whose polar angle reference line points along the normal to dS away from the coordinate system origin (in either direction), and (c) whose azimuthal angle reference line is (i) in the plane of dS, and (ii) points away from the coordinate system origin in an arbitrary direction, then (a) for 0 less than or equal theta less than or equal pi/2, B=theta, and (b) for pi/2 less than or equal theta less than or equal pi, B=pi minus theta.
Finally, assume the material making up the solid sphere is highly thermally conducting so that the temperature of the solid sphere is for all practical purposes everywhere the same. By definition, in ERE the rate energy leaves an object (or any designated portion thereof) is equal to the rate energy enters the object (or the designated portion). Since the solid sphere is isolated in cold space, (a) the only way energy enters the solid sphere is via its internal source, and (b) the only way energy leaves the solid sphere is via radiation from its surface. The curvature of the surface of a solid sphere is such that no radiation emitted from the solid sphere’s surface is directed towards any other portion of the solid sphere’s surface. Thus, all energy radiated from a solid sphere’s surface leaves the solid sphere. Since for Scenario 1 the only object is the solid sphere and the solid sphere exists in the vacuum of cold space, there is no radiation (backradiation or otherwise) incident on the surface of the solid sphere.
By integrating Planck’s Blackbody Surface Radiation Law over (a) frequencies from 0 to infinity, (b) the solid angles of a half plane (polar angle from 0 to pi/2, azimuthal angle from 0 to 2*pi), and (c) the surface of a solid sphere of radius Rsp and surface temperature everywhere Tsp,I, it can be shown that the rate radiated energy leaves the solid sphere is 4*pi*sigma*(Rsp)^2*(Tsp,I)^4 (the Stefan-Boltzmann Law). In ERE the rate energy enters the solid sphere equals the rate energy leaves the solid sphere. Thus, for the isolated solid sphere in ERE:
H = 4*pi*sigma*(Rsp)^2*(Tsp,I)^4 (20)
where: sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (approximately 5.6704013×10-8 Watts per square meter per Kelvin to the fourth power).
Solving Equation 20 for Tsp,I gives:
Tsp,I = {H/[4*pi*sigma*(Rsp)^2]}^0.25 (30)
Scenario 2
Surround the solid sphere of Scenario 1 with an inert, concentric, thin spherical shell whose inner surface radius Rsh is greater than Rsp. Assume the shell is sufficiently thin such that for all practical purposes the radius of the shell’s outer surface is equal to the radius of the shell’s inner surface. Assume both the shell’s inner and outer surfaces act like a blackbody. Assume the spherical shell’s thermal conductivity is such that for all practical purposes the temperatures over both the inner and outer shell surfaces are equal and everywhere the same. For Scenario 2 the system is defined to be the solid sphere and the concentric spherical shell. Note: (a) that all radiation from the surface of the solid sphere is directed towards and absorbed by the shell’s inner surface; (b) some of the radiation from the shell’s inner surface is directed towards the solid sphere where it is completely absorbed, and the remainder of the radiation from the shell’s inner surface is directed towards the shell’s inner surface where it is completely absorbed, but no radiation from either the solid sphere or the shell’s inner surface escapes the system to space; and (c) all of the radiation from the shell’s outer surface is directed away from all system components—i.e., all radiation from the shell’s outer surface escapes to space. For these conditions, in ERE the rate energy is radiated from the shell’s outer surface must be H, and the ERE equation for the Scenario 2 system as a whole is
H = 4*pi*sigma*(Rsh)^2*(Tsh,rad_only)^4 (40)
Where Tsh,rad_only is the surface temperature (in Kelvin) of the outer surface of the shell. The subscript rad_only denotes the fact that energy is transferred between the solid sphere and the shell via radiation only—i.e., no conduction or convection. In Scenario 3 energy transfer between the solid sphere and the shell via the non-radiative process of conduction is allowed.
Solving Equation 40 for Tsh,rad_only gives
Tsh,rad_only = {H/[4*pi*sigma*(Rsh)^2]}^0.25 (50)
Using Equations 30 and 50 I can generate an ERE equation for Tsh,rad_only that is a function of the solid sphere radius, the shell’s outer surface radius and the isolated solid sphere’s ERE surface temperature. Specifically,
Tsh,rad_only = Tsp,I * sqrt(Rsp/Rsh) (60)
Equation 60 states that the ratio of the shell’s ERE outer surface temperature to the isolated solid sphere’s ERE surface temperature is the square root of (Rsp/Rsh), which is less than 1–i.e., for a finite radius shell, the shell’s ERE temperature is less than the isolated solid sphere’s ERE temperature.
Since the shell is extremely thin, for all practical purposes the temperature of the shell’s inner surface will be the same as the temperature of the shell’s outer surface. Since both the solid sphere’s surface and the shell’s inner surface act like blackbodies and since for all practical purposes (a) the shell’s inner surface temperature is the same as the shell’s outer surface temperature, and (b) the shell’s inner surface area is the same as the shell’s outer surface area, in ERE the rate energy is radiated from the shell’s inner surface will be the same as the rate, H, energy is radiated from the shell’s outer surface.
For concentric blackbody spherical objects, (a) the ERE rate, Hrad_shell_to_sphere, energy is radiated from the shell’s inner surface towards and absorbed by the solid sphere is
Hrad_shell_to_sphere = H*(Rsp/Rsh)^2 (70)
and (b) the ERE rate, Hrad_shell_to_shell, energy is radiated from the shell’s inner surface towards and absorbed by the shell’s inner surface is
Hrad_shell_to_shell = H*[1 – (Rsp/Rsh)^2] (80)
[See the referenced PDF file for a derivation of Equations 70 and 80.]
This means that in ERE the total rate energy is input to the solid sphere is H (the internal rate of energy) plus H*(Rsp/Rsh)^2 (the rate of backradiated energy from the shell’s inner surface). For Scenario 2, the only way energy can leave the solid sphere is via radiation. For a blackbody sphere the rate radiation leaves the surface of the sphere is equal to the product of (a) the Stefan-Boltzmann constant sigma, (b) the sphere’s surface area 4*pi*(Rsp)^2, and (c) the fourth power of the sphere’s surface temperature Tsp,rad_only in Kelvin. In ERE, that rate must equal the rate energy is input to the solid sphere. Thus, for the solid sphere to be in ERE
H + H*(Rsp/Rsh)^2 = 4*pi*sigma*(Rsp)^2*(Tsp,rad_only)^4 (90)
Except for the case when Rsh equals infinity, Equation 120 states that for Scenario 2, the ERE surface temperature of the solid sphere when surrounded by a concentric spherical shell is greater than the ERE surface temperature of the isolated solid sphere. However, Equation 120 also states that as Rsh goes to infinity, the ERE surface temperature of the solid sphere when surrounded by the concentric spherical shell approaches the ERE surface temperature of the isolated solid sphere (Scenario 1).
Scenario 3
As with Scenarios 1 and 2, an ERE equation for the solid sphere can in principle be generated. Unfortunately, the Scenario 3 solid sphere ERE equation contains terms that for geometric reasons may be difficult to determine. To overcome this difficulty, I generate a solid sphere ERE equation (called the upper-bound-equation) whose solid sphere temperature solution is guaranteed to be greater than the actual solid sphere temperature. Thus, the solid sphere temperature solution of the upper-bound-equation is an upper bound for the actual solid sphere temperature. Since Scenario 3 differs from Scenario 1 only be the addition of inert material (shell and connecting rods) and the added inert material backradiates energy to the solid sphere, if the solid sphere upper-bound temperature is less than the temperature of the solid sphere in isolation (Scenario 1), then I have constructed a situation where (a) in the absence of the added inert material, no backradiation is incident on the solid sphere, (b) the added inert material backradiates energy to the solid sphere, and (c) the ERE temperature of the solid sphere in the presence of backradiation is lower than the ERE temperature of the solid sphere in the absence of backradiation. If successful, such a construction negates the argument that all else being equal the ERE temperature of an active object must increase in the presence versus absence of backradiation.
Scenario 3 is identical to Scenario 2 with the exception that energy transfer by conduction between the solid sphere and the shell is allowed via N (greater than 0, less than infinity) inert thermally conducting rods. The properties of each inert connecting rod are:
(1) Cylindrical with a cross-section radius Rrod (greater than 0, less than or equal Rsp).
(2) One concave end with curvature symmetric about the rod center line of radius Rsp.
(3) One convex end with curvature symmetric about the rod center line of radius Rsh.
(4) Center-line length Rsh – Rsp.
(5) Thermal conductivity Krod.
(6) Blackbody surfaces.
For Scenario 3 retain the Scenario 2 ERE assumptions that the temperature of the surface of the solid sphere is everywhere the same, and the temperatures of the inner and outer surfaces of the shell are equal and everywhere the same.
Place each rod between the solid sphere and the shell such that (a) the extension of the rod center line passes through the solid sphere center, (b) the concave end of each rod makes contact with the surface of the solid sphere, and (c) the convex end of each rod makes contact with the shell’s inner surface. The combination of the rod center-line length and concave/convex nature of the rod ends means that the concave end of the rod will everywhere be in contact with the solid sphere and the convex end of the rod will everywhere be in contact with the shell’s inner surface. If two or more connecting rods are used, distribute the rods uniformly over the surface of the solid sphere. [See Figure 2 in the referenced PDF file].
The concave end of each connecting rod makes contact with the solid sphere. The solid sphere will not radiate energy over the area of this contact. Thus, the connecting rods reduce the radiating area of the solid sphere. Call the surface of the solid sphere not in contact with any connecting rod the unobstructed solid sphere radiating surface. By replacing the concave rod end with the convex rod end, an identical argument can be made for the radiating area of the inner surface of the shell. Call the inner surface of the shell not in contact with any connecting rod the unobstructed inner shell radiating surface.
The Scenario 3 system is defined by the active solid sphere, the inert concentric spherical shell and all inert connecting rods. Since the only mechanism for energy to escape the Scenario 3 system to space is radiation from the outer surface of the shell and since the only mechanism for energy to enter the Scenario 3 system is thermal heat generated internally within the solid sphere, in ERE the radiation energy rate from the shell’s outer surface must equal the solid sphere’s internal energy rate, H. As with Scenario 2, in ERE the rate energy is radiated to space from the outer surface of the shell is
4*pi*sigma*(Rsh)^2*(Tsh,rad+C)^4,
where Tsh,rad+C is the ERE temperature of the outer surface of the shell when conduction as well as radiation can transport energy between the solid sphere and the shell. Setting these two energy rates equal and solving for Tsh,rad+C gives
Tsh,rad+C = {H/[4*pi*sigma*(Rsh)^2]}^0.25 (150)
Equation 150 says that for ERE conditions, the Scenario 3 shell outer surface temperature is independent of both the temperature of the solid sphere and the number/composition of the connecting rods. Ignoring constants, the Scenario 3 ERE temperature of the shell outer surface depends only on the rate energy is input to the solid sphere and the outer radius of the shell. As with Scenario 2, I treat the Scenario 3 shell as having the same inner and outer surface temperatures. Thus for all practical purposes, the ERE temperature of the inner surface of the Scenario 3 shell is also Tsh,rad+C and independent of the solid sphere’s temperature.
Let Tsp,rad+C be the ERE temperature of the Scenario 3 solid sphere. One way to determine the value of Tsp,rad+C is to generate an ERE equation for the Scenario 3 solid sphere. Such an equation must include all solid sphere input and output energy rates. Energy enters the solid sphere in three ways: (a) internally at a rate H, (b) absorption of radiation originating from the connecting rods, and (c) absorption of radiation originating from the shell’s inner surface. Energy leaves the solid sphere in two ways (a) radiation from the solid sphere’s unobstructed radiating surface, and (b) conduction via the connecting rods. Since (a) the temperature of the inner surface of the shell is independent of the temperature of the solid sphere, (b) the rate of solid sphere radiated energy loss is proportional to the fourth power of the solid sphere temperature, and (b) the rate of solid sphere conductive energy loss is proportional to the difference between the solid sphere temperature and the shell inner surface temperature, an increase in the solid sphere temperature will produce an increase in the rate of solid sphere energy loss. If energy enters the solid sphere at a rate greater than the solid sphere’s Scenario 3 ERE input energy rate, then for the solid sphere to be in ERE, the resulting solid sphere temperature will be greater than the actual Scenario 3 solid sphere temperature.
I now describe three ways to increase the rate energy enters the solid sphere relative to the rate energy actually enters the Scenario 3 solid sphere. By applying these “ways,” I generate an upper-bound-equation whose solid sphere temperature solution is guaranteed to be higher than the actual Scenario 3 solid sphere temperature, and hence is guaranteed to be an upper bound of the actual Scenario 3 solid sphere temperature.
First, I increase the rate the solid sphere absorbs radiated energy originating from the connecting rods by everywhere setting the temperature of the radiating surface of each connecting rod to the rod’s maximum temperature. Since the temperature of the rod (a) decreases with distance from the solid sphere and (b) cannot be greater than the temperature of the solid sphere, by setting the temperature of each rod’s radiating surface everywhere equal to the temperature of the solid sphere, I ensure that the rate the solid sphere absorbs radiated energy originating from the connecting rods is greater than the actual Scenario 3 rate the solid sphere absorbs radiated energy originating from the connecting rods.
Second, in Scenario 3, energy radiated from each rod will be absorbed by three surfaces: the surface of the solid sphere, the shell’s inner surface, and the surfaces of other rods. If I assume the solid sphere absorbs all of the energy radiated from all rods, I increase the solid sphere energy absorption rate relative to the actual Scenario 3 solid sphere energy absorption rate.
Third, energy radiated from the inner surface of the shell can be divided into two additive parts: energy radiated in the direction of the solid sphere, and energy radiated in “all other directions.” None of the energy radiated in “all other directions” will reach the solid sphere because that energy will be absorbed by either the shell’s inner surface or a connecting rod. In the actual Scenario 3 case, some of the energy radiated from the shell’s inner surface in the direction of the solid sphere will encounter a connecting rod before it reaches the solid sphere. Because the connecting rod surfaces are assumed to be blackbody surface, all of this energy will be absorbed by the connecting rods. Thus, if I assume all of the energy radiated from the shell’s inner surface in the direction of the solid sphere reaches and is absorbed by the solid sphere, the solid sphere absorption rate of this energy is greater than the actual Scenario 3 absorption rate of this energy.
The upper-bound-equation is generated by incorporating each of these increased rates into absorption by the solid sphere. The result will be an increased solid sphere input energy rate, and an increased solid sphere ERE temperature. As argued previously, that solid sphere temperature is an upper bound for the actual Scenario 3 solid sphere temperature.
[Note: In this comment, I’m going to omit the derivation and solution of the upper-bound-equation and proceed directly to an example using real-world parameter values. If you’re interested in the derivation and solution of the upper-bound-equation, see the referenced PDF file. The solid sphere temperature solution of the upper-bound-equation is the set of PDF file Equations numbered 770, 570, 560, 760, 620, and 640.]
EXAMPLE
Set the radius, Rsp, of the solid sphere to 0.1 meters.
Set the radius, Rsh, of the concentric spherical shell to 0.2 meters.
Set the rate of solid sphere internal energy, H, to 60 watts.
Set the thermal conductivity, Krod, of the connecting rods to 401 Watts per meter per Kelvin (the thermal conductivity of copper).
Set the radius, Rrod, of each connecting rod to 0.002582 meters.
Set the number of rods, N, to 6
The above conditions produce the following upper-bound-equation results:
The radiating surface area of all connecting rods, 0.00974 square meters.
The surface area of the solid sphere, 0.125664 square meters.
The unobstructed solid sphere radiating surface area, 0.125538 square meters.
The area of the inner surface of the shell, 0.502655 square meters.
The unobstructed inner shell radiating surface area, 0.502529 square meters.
The rate energy radiated from all connecting rods is absorbed by the solid sphere, 3.4268 watts.
The rate energy is radiated from the solid sphere, 44.1883 watts.
The rate energy is radiated from the shell’s inner surface, 59.9850 watts.
The rate energy radiated from the shell’s inner surface is absorbed by the solid sphere, 14.9962 watts.
The total rate energy enters the solid sphere, 78.4231 watts (includes 60 watts internal).
The rate the connecting rods conduct energy away from the solid sphere, 34.2532 watts.
The temperature, Tsp,I = 302.9K, of the solid sphere in isolation (Scenario 1)
The temperature, Tsp,rad_only = 320.3K, of the solid sphere when surrounded only by the inert concentric spherical shell (Scenario 2)
The temperature, Tsh_rad_only = 214.2K, of the shell when the solid sphere is surrounded only by the inert concentric spherical shell (Scenario 2)
The upper bound temperature, Tubsp,rad+C = 280.7K, of the solid sphere when surrounded by both the inert concentric spherical shell and the inert connecting rods (Scenario 3).
The temperature, Tsh,rad+C = 214.2K, of the shell when the solid sphere is surrounded by both the inert concentric spherical shell and the inert connecting rods (Scenario 3).
In the Example the Scenario 3 upper bound solid sphere temperature is lower than the Scenario 1 (isolated solid sphere) solid sphere temperature. Thus for the Example, the thermal conduction current overcomes backradiation to the solid sphere; and the solid sphere temperature is lowered in the presence of inert backradiating material. Since backradiation exists for Scenario 3, the conclusion is that the presence of backradiation, by itself, does not guarantee an active object temperature increase.
CONCLUSION
Using the Example as a basis for drawing conclusions, it’s every bit as valid to argue that (a) the temperature of an active object with a fixed source of internal energy must decrease if inert matter is added that supports the removal of energy via conduction from the active object, as it is to argue that (b) the temperature of an active object with a fixed source of internal energy must increase if inert material is added that backradiates energy to the active object. The former will likely exist when energy transfer is dominated by thermal conduction. The latter will likely exist when energy transfer is dominated by radiation. The problem is that neither argument is valid. A determination of the temperature change of the active object must include all forms of energy transfer to/from the active object.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/512638.html reports that the average rate of sea level drop from evaporation is 1.2 meters per year. When coupled with (a) the area of the Earth’s surface covered sea by water (approximately 3.67 x 10^14 square meters), (b) the density of sea water (approximately 1,030 kilograms per cubic meter), and (c) water’s heat of vaporization (approximately 2.23 x 10^6 Joules per kilogram), the energy rate required to sustain this level of evaporation is approximately 3.21 x 10^16 Watts, which is (a) a significant fraction (0.184) of the total rate (1.743 x 10^17 Watts) solar energy is incident at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere, and (b) using an average Earth albedo of 0.3, an even larger fraction (0.263) of the rate solar energy is absorbed by the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere system. Furthermore, using an average raindrop speed of 10 meters per second (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/EvanKaplan.shtml), very little (approximately 7.19×10^11 Watts) of this energy returns to the Earth’s surface as internal thermal energy via the conversion of raindrop kinetic energy to thermal energy as raindrops strike the Earth’s surface. Thus, the rate of energy loss from the Earth’s surface via evaporation alone, which is a non-radiative energy transfer process, is significant.
Since for the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere-System, (a) energy at a non-negligible rate can be transferred from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere via radiation/conduction and evaporation, and (b) energy within the atmosphere can be redistributed via radiation, conduction and convection, the claim that atmospheric greenhouse gases will increase the Earth’s surface temperature based solely on the existence of greenhouse gas backradiation is, in my opinion, unwarranted. If, as well may be the case, greenhouse gases induce a positive change to the Earth’s surface temperature, the positive temperature change must be demonstrated—not simply proclaimed on the basis that the Earth’s surface is receiving additional radiation (backradiation).
You have outlined a situation where a heated sphere in a vacuum is in equilibrium with its surroundings. If it is then surrounded by a thin metal sphere (without touching), the surrounding sphere will cause the inner sphere to be warmer. That is a standard explanation of the Greenhouse Theory.
You then show that introducing conducting pathways (inert rods) between the inner and outer spheres can cause the inner sphere to be cooler than before, if the rate of energy transfer via the rods is large enough.
The analogy seems clear. Atmospheric gases can convey heat to the upper troposphere by conduction and convection. Under such conditions it is quite possible that Greenhouse gases may contribute to cooling of the Earth’s surface.
Yes, with one clarification. Conduction via gases at Earth atmospheric pressures is many orders of magnitude smaller than conduction via metals such as copper. Therefore, it’s unlikely conduction plays a major role in energy transfer away from the Earth’s surface. However, at least as I see it, convection, and especially convection coupled with evaporation, moves massive amounts of energy away from the Earth’s surface. So yes, until shown otherwise, I’m not convinced that greenhouse gases (especially water vapor) might have a net cooling effect of the Earth’s surface.
Reed, since you have used the word backradiation or backradiate quite a few times in this comment could you explain where the concept of backradiation came from and in what fields besides climate “science” it is used. I am not aware of any, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other fields which use this term.
That being the case, if it is a term used exclusively for a hypothesis that should have been discarded long ago, why use it at all?
There aren’t any. In Classical thermodynamics we would set a system boundary at the tropopause and just consider Nett flows across the boundary. What happens inside the boundary isn’t important. Over time what we see is there is a Nett flow into the earth, which isn’t at all odd because sunlight is used by earths organisms to create enthalpy. That is it enables endothermic reactions to take place. Anytime an endothermic reaction takes place, or endothermic phase changes from solid to liquid, or liquid to gas, some sunlight is lost.
How photons recycle within the boundary to set the Nett flow across the boundary is really irrelevant.
The big problem with most of this anyway is that climate science assumes that radiation is the ONLY way the earth can cool, and as they say in the classics, “it aint necessarily so”.
I agree. The big problem is that climate science focuses overwhelmingly on energy transfer via radiation. In my opinion they do this because considering the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere as a system, radiation is the overwhelmingly dominant means of energy loss from the system. As you point out, however, radiation is likely not the dominant way energy is removed from the Earth’s surface. Someone once told me (I forget who): Any analysis of Earth surface and Earth atmosphere that gives short shrift to convection is not worth the paper it’s written on. I agree with that sentiment.
Wave energy is about 36kW per square meter,
The energy in the jet stream is about 2 megawatts per square meter (of swept area).
A single lightning bolt is a Billion joules, if we assume a lightning bolt per second and that the energy of the lightning bolt is focussed on a square meter rather than a square centimeter, thats a Billion watts per square meter. Real lightning at 1 per second is probably 100 Billion watts per square meter at the contact point.
Potential energy of the earth relative to the sun 5.33 e27 Mj.
Kinetic energy of earths rotation 2.5 e23 MJ
Kinetic energy of earths orbit around the sun 2.6 e27 MJ
Insolation received by the earth in a year 5.56 e18 MJ.
Extra warming supposed to be catastrophically warming the earth 3 E15 MJ per annum
Lightning energy in a year 1.57 E11 MJ
Photosythesis chemical energy 3 E15 MJ per annum
Human body heat 3.7e13 MJ per annum
Look at this stuff, we are arguing about an energy of about 4 E15 MJ a year among energies up to 2E27 MJ, 800 billion times as large as a whole year of solar insolation. The energy eaten up by plants in photosynthesis is essentially the same as the global warming forcing, photosynthesis alone is enough to explain the radiative imbalance. Human body heat is comparable to the scientists CO2 imbalance (1% or so) these are major influences, are they accounted?
These titanic energies are at work day in day out and yet these scientists say NUP, none of them affect climate
I do often use the word backradiate. I am aware of no “fields” besides climate science that use the term.
Where did the concept of backradiation come from? In my opinion, the word backradiation comes from the following. (a) Surfaces at temperatures above 0K emit radiation. (b) For an inert object (an object devoid of all internal sources of energy and isolated from all other objects), all energy will eventually be radiated away from the object (here I’m ignoring the background radiation apparently present everywhere in the universe) and the object’s temperature will reach 0K. (c) If an active object (an object with a non-zero source of thermal energy) is placed in the vicinity of the inert object, energy will flow from the active object to the inert object. (d) Absorption by the inert object of that energy will raise the temperature of the inert object above 0. (e) At a non-zero temperature, the inert object will radiate energy. (f) Some of that radiated energy will be directed towards and absorbed by the active object. (b) Since in the absence of the inert object the active object receives no incoming radiation, but in the presence of the inert object the active object receives energy from the inert object where the inert object’s energy originates from the active object, to me it’s not unreasonable to characterize the radiation propagating from the inert object to the active object with the word “backradiation” in that is energy returning to its originating source.
I can’t answer your last question. I use the word “backradiation” because the word is invariably introduced (not originally by me, but as time goes on I sometimes introduce the word as is evident from my comment) in any technical discussion of global warming. If I just say “backradiation is a concept used only in climate science, therefore I do not accept your use of the word,” the conversation stops. Experience has taught me that if I want to engage in technical discussions of global warming, I’ll have to hear and probably have to use the word “backradiation.”
I do see one practical use of computing the rate energy leaves a colder surface in the direction of a warmer surface. It’s true that without work being done, heat never flows from cold surface to a hot surface. However, when trying to compute the temperatures of multiple objects in proximity to each other, computing the rate of this virtual heat transfer (as I did in my comment) from cooler objects to warmer objects is one means of arriving at those temperatures.
BTW. Energy can be transferred from hot objects to cold objects via conduction. Conductive heat transfer is often modeled as molecules bumping into each other, which because high temperature molecules have on the average higher velocities than low temperature molecules models, conduction as the transfer of kinetic energy from high velocity molecules to low velocity molecules. However, since molecules have a spread of velocities, it’s not inconceivable that a high-speed molecule on the low temperature side of a conduction process transmit some of its kinetic energy to a low-speed molecule on the high temperature side. Using the logic of “backradiation,” it seems to me we could also have “backconduction,” which as far as I can see could only be used to bring confusion into any discussion. Hell, I think I’ll start talking about “backconduction” and see how many people I can convince that backconduction must be studied.
That is understandable, it is sad though that a made up term that has no meaning or validity to anyone outside of climate “science” is given any credence at all. To continue to use it, even for the purpose of continuing a discussion, is to give it a validity it does not deserve. We (the collective “everyone”) have gotten very, very sloppy and imprecise in scientific discussions. People call things a theory that aren’t, people use made up terms to describe something claiming it is based on physics when physics doesn’t support it, and the list goes on.
Working in the electrical field the “backconduction” notion got a grin. I don’t believe I’ll use the term with anyone I work with though. Things get goofy enough when we talk about current flow and we first have to determine if we are talking about “hole flow” or “electron flow” so we can agree on which direction it is going.
. . . it is sad though that a made up term that has no meaning or validity to anyone outside of climate “science” is given any credence at all.
There are any number of terms the AGW adherents have concocted to promote their belief system on the rest of us, but the one that stands out the most for me is ‘forcings’. This concept does not exist anywhere outside of climate scientism. Nor does it have any validity in physics as you pointed out with regard to backradiation.
To continue to use it, even for the purpose of continuing a discussion, is to give it a validity it does not deserve.
The only proper use of these artificial terms in a conversation is to point out how they mean nothing.
Robert’
It seems much harder with minority and majority carrier mobility. To finally determine no mater the sex, you pee whatever you drink, requires belief! As in I believe I will have another beer!
Hi Robert,
I’m wondering if it might be better to use “Back EMF” and “Signal Reflection” as an analogy for “backradiation” rather than the semiconductor explanations based on “Hole Flow” etc.
AFAIK, outside of semiconductor theory, hole flow (the direction of conventional current) v electron flow has no meaning. If current is the movement of electrons then current is from negative to positive – the opposite of what Ben Franklin proposed.
You misunderstood Max. I am not advocating any analogies, replacements, or anything for the made up, absolutely devoid of meaning term “backradiation.” It’s a crap term and anyone with even a basic semester or two of college level physics should know that. IMO they should know that if they’ve had any high school physics.
Reed mentioned conduction and, I suspect, joked about trying to get people to buy into that to see how many he could talk into studying it. I found that funny as I work in the electrical field, generators specifically, and was thinking of the added confusion we could add to discussions with that term.
I only mentioned “hole flow” and “electron flow” to illustrate that fields of work dealing with electricity or electronics already have their own built in confusions, they don’t need more.
Outside of semiconductor theory “hole flow” or “conventional flow” may have no meaning, but that is the theory taught engineers as they design the semiconductors. In general the technical schools, military, and trade schools teach “electron flow.” As an interesting discussion I recently read on this topic stated, since you never know who wrote whatever book or manual you are using/reading from and which theory they chose to follow it is beneficial to be familiar with both if you plan to work in/with electronics.
So I’m guessing here that neither Robert nor Reed would consider that Time-Domain Reflectometers and Lenz’s Law would indicate something that could be called “backconduction”?
I.e. a signal (or portion thereof), which is returned to the source?
It raises the question of whether anyone can accurately predict the temperature of the planet with their very complex models and super computers? At least two of the obvious forces missing from the calculation are the heat from the earth itself, which is a ball of molten metal at up to 900C and the behaviour of the oceans as a stabilizing heatsink, 340x as massive as the atmosphere. Then you have to add the currents and turbulence in both air and water systems and the massive differences in temperature from the equator at 32C to the poles at say -32C, where one the physical nature of one of the major players, water changes dramatically. Evaporation rates have to be considered with freezing rates and melting rates. Simplistic models are fine for gross calculations but hardly adequate when trying to predict global temperature let alone to an accuracy of 0.5C.
The core premise of Man Made Global Warming though has never been proven and is never mentioned, that mankind is largely responsible for the 50% increase in CO2 in the last century. If that is not true and it is not, we are all just playing meteorologists with models because mankind has no impact on the temperature of the planet. That should hardly surprise anyone.
After all, we only care about the little part of the atmosphere which is the bottom hundred meters of the atmosphere, because that is where we live and where crops grow. A real model would have trouble predicting this temperature to 0.5C accuracy let alone the entire body of air above it, which quickly goes down quickly to -60C at aircraft altitudes. Everyone seems to be playing with differences, trends as they are easier to argue against a stable background, but who said it was stable? Haven’t we just escaped an ice age?
No, this endless fascination with micro meteorology is a distraction from the fact that the world has not heated recently and even if it did, that for all our motor cars and trucks, we cannot even be seen from space. From worshipping the Gods who lived in the clouds to the worshiping of science and the pronouncements of the most high IPCC, nothing has changed. Just the explanations.
If the only answer that has any personal integrity, is “I do not know”, not even Hartland Institute will fund your effort! 99.37% of all critters support “I do not know”! Guess the integrity of AGW?
Will, I am quite capable of creating complex mathematical and physical models. However you have to start with simple concept, simply explained and then prove it with simple calculations, if possible. I find complex explanations difficult to follow and full of arbitrary assumptions which have to be tested, creating a bigger puzzle all the time.
My concern is that in trying to out model professional and qualified climate scientists is that they can easily dismiss us bloggers as amateur scientists and this sort of thing as amateur ramblings.
The core predictions of the IPCC supported models are the point, not how they work or how complex they are. If the predictions are wrong, the model is wrong. No one predicted the temperature would not change for 17 years. In fact, that stability in itself is remarkable, no matter what the reason. At the very least, explanations in hindsight are ridiculous. The 97% of Climate Scientists were completely wrong. That is what matters. Man made Global Warming is not evidence based science and now totally discredited.
“The core premise of Man Made Global Warming though has never been proven and is never mentioned, that mankind is largely responsible for the 50% increase in CO2 in the last century. If that is not true and it is not, we are all just playing meteorologists with models because mankind has no impact on the temperature of the planet. That should hardly surprise anyone.”
“Earthlings” with induced rapid oxidation of any hydrocarbons, for sensible heat or any other clever forms of power from what is, only reflect the immensity of what is. Earthlings can never be more than some trivial irritant on what is. Most earthlings get along with getting along! Hi squirrel, hi frog. “Armadillo” exit to way over yonder. Some very self importantant Earthlings need to fix that! This created weapons for both sides. Do you really think that this “world”, this is, will not handle that with “no” effort?
You’ve pretty much described how I feel about the whole AGW business. I’ve given some of the AGW community’s “selling points” quite a bit of thought. I decided to see for myself if they held up to scrutiny or even made sense. Many of them didn’t. I felt, and still feel, compelled to fight the pervasive AGW hysteria. I do so primarily by donations to blogs like Joanne’s. However, after performing analyses like the one above, I wanted place those analyses on the internet where there was a chance, even a slim chance, that an AGW advocate might read them and if not change is mind, at least get him/her thinking. Joanne’s Unthreaded “Whatever” threads have given me that opportunity. If by so doing I have harmed the fight against AGW hysteria, then my attempts are counterproductive. Anyway, it’s what I felt I had to do.
“Since the shell is extremely thin, for all practical purposes the temperature of the shell’s inner surface will be the same as the temperature of the shell’s outer surface. Since both the solid sphere’s surface and the shell’s inner surface act like blackbodies and since for all practical purposes (a) the shell’s inner surface temperature is the same as the shell’s outer surface temperature, and (b) the shell’s inner surface area is the same as the shell’s outer surface area, in ERE the rate energy is radiated from the shell’s inner surface will be the same as the rate, H, energy is radiated from the shell’s outer surface.”
This is the part of your article that is non-supportable, and a complete fantasy. Such has never been, detected, observed, or ever measured. A complete pseudo-science fabrication. This is never proposed by Planck. This is in conflict with all Maxwell’s equations of EMR. Such a claim would violate projective geometry, and imply an infinite temperature at the centre of any hollow shell with temperature and finite internal emissivity.
Reed Coray March 29, 2015 at 1:34 pm ·
“Robert, I do often use the word backradiate. I am aware of no “fields” besides climate science that use the term.”
Please become familiar with thermal, gravitational, electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields. A potential for energy transfer, never any energy transfer itself. All mass with temperatures has a potential,(something like Volts, or pressure)!
As per 2LTD a potential difference is requires for spontaneous energy transfer. Only gravity can overcome a rigid, adiabatic, reflective boundary. A stout tree between masses appears to overcome gravity. None changes the potential or potential difference
“Where did the concept of backradiation come from? In my opinion, the word backradiation comes from the following. (a) Surfaces at temperatures above 0K emit radiation.”
So you have been brainwashed, by incompetent academics, please get over it! 🙂 The direction of radiative flux reverses when an opposing field strength is higher at whatever frequency. This is called absorptance rather than emittance.
“backconduction”
The term flux is always macroscopic and unidirectional. Potential is never flux. If you wish to redefine the term radiation as potential rather than flux, please so state!
Given the price of a Tesla it is certainly worth leasing a room then leaving it vacant with all power points, water and gas taps off. And just leaving it there.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” UNFCCC Executive Secretary Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels Tuesday.
SMH, 28 March, 2015: The Abbott government has committed Australia to joining the next big global climate pact.
“The global accord is to be agreed in Paris in December. Countries are announcing their carbon targets to take effect from 2020, with the US pledge expected next week.
The paper sets to rest the fear among environmentalists that the Abbott government would be overrun by climate sceptics and refuse to consider
further cuts to carbon output.”
. . .
It’s the scene out of the movie, Thelma & Louise, when they drive the car over the cliff.
Next election, I will choose to have Bill Shorten at the wheel, only because he he was less deceitful and was always sure where he was heading.
If the LNP don’t follow Ted Cruz and denounce global warminhg then I’ll vote Labor just to ensure the people that created this poisonous tree get to taste its fruit.
I’m not a citizen of Australia so I cannot directly affect what goes on there. What I can do is suggest that a close examination of this document, in concert with a comprehensive public disussion of each of the issues presented in it, be undertaken by all those who are interested in having an impact on what actions will ultimately be taken when the Australian government presents their final proposal in mid 2015.
Jo,
I realise that this comment is basically the same as my earlier comment to Andrew McRae. Websites generally don’t appreciate duplicate comments for a variety of reasons. In this case, I believe that the issues involved warrant a link to the official document at every mention of it’s publication so that interested parties can review it’s contents. It’s my intent to repeat this process going forward. I appologise if this intentional duplication causes any problems, and if you disagree with my reasoning for the duplication, I’ll be glad to refrain from doing so in the future.
I downloaded the linked PDF and began reading, got to the title and first sentence of the intro and it said this as its ideological a-scientific starting point:
Setting Australia’s post-2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions
Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. …
See the graph below of global averaged measured scientific time trend reality (totally flat for the last 9 years), compared to the IPCC’s model prediction trend, which they used to advise and mislead Governmental national policy settings, that harmed people for no discernible measurable material reason, whatsoever.
So given the paper’s title and the very first sentence’s axiomatic starting-point is completely inconsistent with the best current scientific observations we have, showing almost but not quite zero measurable change in global temperature trend in going on 18 years, one must ask; have elements within the Abbott Government and its public advisers and administrators who compiled this document fallen on their heads lately?
__
Or does Canberra just completely reject actual physical scientific state-of-the-art instrumental measurements on the basis of some fundamentalist principle?
I read the document, responded to it, sent a copy of my response to my federal mp.
Some parts of the document are vague enough, eg committing to everything and nothing. Lets hope that is intent rather than incompetence. I guess that could depend on Abbott & Harper surviving? One stand-out item: “carbon leakage”. Has this term been used before or has the UNFCCC Taskforce just invented it? My first thought was that it was a polite way of saying ßµ||šhì†
Thanks Just-A-Guy for searching out that document.
My submission to the document is outside the criteria, and keeps returning to the first sentence: “Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution”.
. . .
Before we can continue, the Abbott Government needs to define the climate it wants, and how it differs from the climate it now has.
If the Abbott Government is aiming to change something, we deserve to be able to identify that change, otherwise the climate doctors go unaudited,
and we continue to sign blank cheques.
Some of the ‘science’ offered is questionable, to be kind.
For example, the Abbott govt. fail to mention the ‘pause’, so, if I submit a question with data on that, it is outside their criteria.
Your welcome. Your link to the story mentioned the doc would be published shortly so . . .
My submission to the document is outside the criteria, . . .
You must be refering to this:
The Australian Government values your views. You are invited to make a submission on Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction target, and in particular on the following issues:
It says they value your views. Just ignore the second part.
Also it says in particular on the following issues. But in general what? In general means anything else of concern.
They need to be made aware that the general public isn’t falling for all this nonsense and that the ppl are aware of what the science shows is really going on in the real world outside of their super-computer based video game models.
What would happen if half or more of the submissions stated that there should be no reduction target with a short explanation on why. Concentrate on one primary reason. You don’t know for a fact that it’ll be rejected.
Thanks for finding that. I’ve just accessed it and read only as far as the release date, yesterday, Saturday March 28. Sorry to be so pedantic about that, but to me it smacks of political obfuscation (surprised?). Firstly, Saturday. In Oz all commentators are usually out at sport or relaxing, but secondly yesterday was election day here in NSW, so some of our commentators were looking at that. And so were we. It was a state election but had federal significance.
Perhaps contributions have closed already? I haven’t got that far yet.
Choose shorty and you will get 10 times worse. Do you really think that he will put less money in the global warming crap you barking
You will never get what you looking for.
I always vote by the well chosen path “who will root me up the arse less” is the only option in this country. The lowest denominator rules and you want to follow that? After the usual high quality of your posts HJ I am disappointed .
Yes well see I make my point again – which ever way you go…you get the same result.
Only with Labor, the path to slavery is faster…with “Socialist Gun control Howard” Liberals, its slower……but it still goes in the same direction…..slavery.
The best slave is one who doesnt realize he is a slave.
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The necessity of unanimous support for the joint statement and resolutions made by the Council of Australian Police Ministers on Friday, 10 May 1996 and support for the proposed increase in the Medicare levy to fund the buy-back of prohibited firearms.
I move this motion in the spirit that has characterised the opposition’s position on the issue of guns and, particularly in recent days, on the issue of the proposed increase in the Medicare levy to fund the buy-back of prohibited firearms. This motion represents a continuation of the position that we took before the election. It also represents a recognition of the need for bipartisan support on this issue.
Some nine years ago the then Premier of New South Wales, Barry Unsworth , whilst leaving a meeting of ministers discussing gun issues, stated that it would take a manslaughter in Tasmania before we got nationally uniform and effective gun laws. Unfortunately for Australia, for Tasmania , for Port Arthur and particularly for the 35 people and their families who were involved in the tragedy a few weeks ago in Port Arthur, he was right. It has taken such a massacre to force all of us to face our responsibilities.
I did live under communism for 20 years and I know a thing or 2 about slavery. If equate Howard and liberates to a lower socialist I,m afraid you have little idea what you talking about. Globalisation has
1. increased of standard of living to unprecedented level in human history
2. Moved 1/3 of the population to mid class level
3. Prevented global and numerous local wars
4. It also was one of the caused of the fall of communism.
5. Slowed down population growth.
6. Reduced strength of the unions
7. Increased competitiveness of Australia
8. Provided stability and equalised world a little bit
9. Increased co2 at logarithmic scale and possible prevention of the coming ice age?
10. Gave birth to global markets of all descriptions including internet
11. Accelerated human ingenuity and thought process
Surely such momentous achievement can,t be overlooked or want to go back the 50ties an apparently safe and slow world where nukes could be fired by an individuals with no control.
We are the voices to prevent the freedom shrink. The individual has more power than ever and this blog is the example.
Yes globalism has to some degree lifted living standards. Perhaps I should clarify further when I say “globalists” I mean those who are committed top bringing in global socialism, which from what I can see, covers a lot, but not all, power brokers around the planet.
My uncle escaped from Communist Hungary and told me many stories, so I’m not talking empty words.
john Howard is a closet Socilaist – one of the main aims of socialism is disarming a population so it can be controlled. JWH delivered australians to the socialists. As to Port Arthur , someone a while back raised a very good point about the shot-to-kill ratio was of a professional special forces marksman, which is hard to gel with Bryant who has incredibly low IQ and to my knowledge never special forces trained.
As devils advocate ( so to speak ) you could possit that a combination of desire and an off-the-wall “opportunity” has allowed gun control in Australia whereby otherwise it would never have happened. I’m not seeing reds under every bed, or anything remotely paranoid. I do know that the powers that be will burn anyone they want to get what they want, though…Hitler had it right when he said ( as CAGW aptly demonstrates ) that if you tell lie big enough for long enough, peopel accept it as truth.
“A BBC presenter found herself in the middle of a Twitter storm after claiming a radio documentary on climate change was balanced because it did not feature any sceptic voice. (h/t Bishop Hill)”
I’ve always maintained that if you find yourself “in the middle of a Twitter storm”, you have probably turned into an ideological zealot, and need to unplug for about five years, to see if things will improve.
What Earth hour? I thought it was a agreed by the masses it’s a moronic gesture for a hoax that never really saw the light of day. Even those at work who are AGW believers never took it seriously. I suppose there will always be a small proportion of the population who are down right stupid.
All Aussie readers would have received their letter from Australia Post last week justifying the next price rise for basic postage, which looks like it will be substantial. It said “Business and government now account for 97% of all letters sent in Australia”. I burst out laughing! 🙂
I think they are actively discouraging private mail, especially overseas mail. I resent paying going on for $3 for a small birthday or Christmas card to be sent. With many friends and family in the UK and other countries it is just too much to pay.
Annie Private mail is very hard to track compared to digital communication methods, the less mail volume will mean a bigger price increase to cover delivery costs, very much a downward spiral in operational viability.
When you have politicians like Democrat Barbara Lee believing that global warming is going to force women into prostitution, we know that us skeptics are on the right side of the debate and winning very comfortably. Therefore, it’s time we call upon all AGW alarmists to either stop talking rubbish (ie, shut up) or provide evidence that is worthy of discussion. Thus far they have not done so in either case. People like Barbara Lee are not only turning people off from AGW discussions, they are helping to make the AGW alarmist cause even more illegitimate that it currently is.
Yes, perhaps, but there’s no denying here thesis is consistent with a general rise in the number of busty strumpets putting it about during the medieval warming period.
The shadow of Earth Hour continues its lonely quest around the planet. Has left Europe, (UK&Ireland) an hour ago and is currently taking a rest, nowhere. It will be resuming in North America (St. John’s, Newfoundland) in the next 1/2 hour.
as Just-A-Guy says – CAGW sceptics can makes submissions:
28 March: Dept of the Prime Minister & Cabinet: UNFCCC: Setting Australia’s post-2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions …
Information on how you can make a submission.
Submissions open Saturday 28 March 2015 and close 3pm AEST Friday 24 April 2015… https://www.dpmc.gov.au/taskforces/unfccc
provide EVIDENCE the public can understand:
26 March: San Jose Mercury News: California’s shift toward renewables makes energy harder to manage
By Kim Smuga-Otto
FOLSOM — California’s electrical grid has a problem — a nice problem, but a problem nonetheless: The state often has too much power.
Nearly 23 percent of California’s energy now comes from renewable sources such as wind and solar, and the state is on track to reach its goal of generating one-third of its energy from renewables by 2020. But feeding all that green energy into the Golden State’s grid — without overloading it — has become a major challenge.
That’s because the state’s aging natural gas plants aren’t nimble enough to turn off when the sun starts shining and then quickly switch back on when it gets dark. And while the technology to generate clean energy is growing by leaps and bounds, efforts to store the power haven’t kept up…
And utilities are having to recalculate how much they should charge for electricity at certain times of the day…
***The last time Californians had to think about their electrical grid was in the early 2000s, when companies such as Enron manipulated energy prices and caused statewide brownouts…
All this solar power is allowing California to cut back on natural gas — which now provides about 60 percent of the state’s energy needs — and other traditional sources of electricity.
But this can be a problem because the sun sets at the same time that people are returning home.
***That causes electricity use to surge, and the power plants that were turned down or even off need to start producing — fast…
***”A big portion of our fleet is not flexible,” said Steven Greenlee, an ISO spokesman. “It cannot be ramped up fast. It cannot start and stop multiple times.”
***It can take up to a day for a typical electrical generator to go from “off” to being able to add electricity to the grid. And as more solar comes online, the ramp-up curve each evening is getting steeper.
Greenlee said the grid needs natural gas plants that can respond to increased demand within 10 minutes.
***This could mean building new plants or retrofitting old ones…
???Nancy Rader, executive director of the California Wind Energy Association, says that wind generation is usually a balancing force on the grid because it normally gets windier as the sun is setting. “It’s going in the right direction at the right time,” said Rader, who doesn’t see over-generation of wind energy as much of a problem because it’s easy to turn off a wind turbine… http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_27796539/californias-shift-toward-renewables-makes-energy-harder-manage
“gender-sensitive frameworks in developing policies to address climate change.”
Don’t be surprised if such “frameworks” just conveniently transfer some American taxpayer dollars to certain activist “women’s groups” or some sort of “study” (conducted by academic Feminists who completely align with the Democrats).
Recognizing the disparate impact of climate change on women and the efforts of women globally to address climate change.
Look at the nonsens that’s in it!
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress—
(1) recognizes the disparate impacts of climate change on women and the efforts of women globally to address climate change;
(2) encourages the use of gender-sensitive frameworks in developing policies to address climate change, which account for the specific impacts of climate change on women;
(3) recognizes the need for balanced participation of men and women in climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts, including in governance positions;
(4) affirms its commitment to support women who are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts to prepare for, build their resilience, and adapt to those impacts, including a commitment to increase education and training opportunities for women to develop local resilience plans to address the effects of climate change;
(5) affirms its commitment to empower women to have a voice in the planning, design, implementation, and evaluation of strategies to address climate change so that their roles and resources are taken into account;
(6) affirms the commitment to include women in economic development planning, policies, and practices that directly improve conditions that result from climate change; and
(7) encourages the President to—
(A) integrate a gender approach in all policies and programs in the United States that are globally related to climate change; and
(B) ensure that those policies and programs support women globally to prepare for, build resilience for, and adapt to climate change.
The funniest feedback response in the article:
This is what passes for intelligence in California.
27 March: BishopHill: Bob spurned
Bob Ward’s latest attempt to silence dissenters from the climate consensus has ended, once again, in ignominious defeat, with the Independent Press Standards people telling him that his complaint against David Rose necessitated his taking a running jump…
As I have noted previously, as far as Ward is concerned the process is the punishment, so I think it’s likely that he will try this line again in the future, regardless of his failure this time round…
comment by M Courtney: The Guardian (LINK) is of course, outraged.
The first comment sums up the reaction to tolerance of heresy.
It doesn’t even occur to them that the article may have been accepted as not false because it was not false… http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/3/27/bob-spurned.html
I’ve been out of the loop due to other commitments. Gee, still haven’t rung Bert in relation to Bob Baldwin!
It looks to me like optics to ensure the watermelons have no ammo, politically and a set up to fail in Paris. Whatever, I’ll consider writing a submission.
This issue will be won on the middle ground, not at the extremes. Threatening to vote for Labor over this move defies logic.
I agree that voting for Liebour is not the way to go.I have said this many times,write to your rep with your opinion and what “You” expect of him.Jo has given us links to many of our Pollies,so make use of them.I have been pestering my rep for a while and for the most part they are “Listening”
Clive, my so called “rep” is a Labor person so it is futile. As far as writing to politicians…I won’t go there as I’ve been attacked here for my opinion on that.
Sorry for you my friend,but if you keep hammering at him,sooner or later he “Will”get the message.I made the mistake of voting for Wellington in the Qld elections and then he sided with Liebour to help them into power.He knows my feelings for “Turn-coats”Funny how some “Independants”side with Liebour”
Your probabaly correct, but I can’t help thinking that someone has to set fire to the rubbish generated by climate alarmist governments and their media.
Someone in authority has to be the first to say it how it is, to get that one big banner headline so that dissunited groups of individuals world wide can finally march together.
Send Ted Cruz letters of support. Donate to his campaign. Volunteer abroad.
27 March: WaPo: Capital Weather Gang: Angela Fritz: PM Update: Chance of showers, flurries tonight into Saturday; Cold Sunday morning
Angela Fritz is an atmospheric scientist and The Post’s deputy weather editor.
Temperatures rose into the upper 40s and low 50s this afternoon, and the sun even poked through the clouds in some areas in the late afternoon — though overall it’s been a grey day…
***There is a chance of snow showers overnight and Saturday morning, but it will be very light and without meaningful accumulation.
Sunday morning will be very cold for this time of year — possibly even breaking the record for the date at Dulles…
At Dulles Airport, models are forecasting lows between 18 and 21, and the record for Sunday (3/29) is 20, from 1982. There is a reasonable chance this record will fall.
Jason Samenow (CAGW alarmist) contributed to this post.
(first comment by scrabblegirl)
Signing off. Just found out that it will begin snowing between 3 and 6 am and will continue through the day, Winter is not letting go of New England.
comment by FIREDRAGON47:
***”without meaningful accumulation”
I’d just like to point out that for some of us any snow accumulation at all is considered “meaningful”. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/03/27/pm-update-chance-of-showers-flurries-tonight-into-saturday-cold-sunday-morning/
what’s the bet Samenow’s contribution was ***”without meaningful accumulation”?
Samenow looks elsewhere for potential CAGW evidence!
27 March: WaPo: Capital Weather Gang: Jason Samenow: Antarctica may have set its highest temperature ever recorded Tuesday
Need another indicator of climate warming in Antarctica?…
Tuesday’s new record is not yet official. Argentina’s Esperanza Base, the site of the record, may not be considered part of Antarctica for the purposes of weather records according to Weather Underground historian Christopher Burt. He explains four different ways Antarctica can be defined in a blog post. Ultimately, for the record to be official, the World Meteorological Organization will need to validate the temperature reading and determine it is, in fact, Antarctic.
Irrespective of whether the record stands, it fits right into the pattern of rapid climate warming recently observed in the Antarctic Peninsula region…
Correction, 9:26 p.m.: An earlier version of this posted wrongly stated a previous Antarctic record high temperature was 62.6F from October 1976 whereas it was actually 62.8F from April 24, 1961.
(Jason is currently the Washington Post’s weather editor. A native Washingtonian, Jason has been a weather enthusiast since age 10) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/03/27/antarctica-may-have-set-highest-temperature-ever-recorded-tuesday/
what chance Earth Hour will have to be rescheduled in future to a time of year when Americans, in particular, might consider a drop in temperatures desirable?
28 March: USA Today: Katharine Lackey: March goes out like a lion? Bitter cold grips East
Bitter cold and snow was ushering in the final weekend of March in the Northeast with below-normal temperatures forecast for the entire eastern half of the country.
Temperatures about 10 to 25 degrees below average were on tap for parts of the Mississippi Valley to the Mid-Atlantic and lower Great Lakes regions, the National Weather Service reported. The cold blast put freeze warnings and hard freeze warnings into effect for parts of the South and Mid-Atlantic.
Across the Appalachians and Upstate New York, lows were forecast to be in the single digits and teens Saturday night, and some record lows will be challenged, according to AccuWeather. Lows along the Interstate 95 corridor will be in the 20s…
Boston will receive more snow on top of its record-breaking season. A total of 110.3 inches of snow has fallen on the city this winter… http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/03/28/winter-weather-northeast/70588552/
27 March: Durham Herald-Sun: Lauren Horsch : Hard freeze Saturday night to threaten plants, records
DURHAM —Just when we thought spring had finally sprung, Mother Nature is revisiting the area with a blast of freezing air overnight Saturday and into Sunday (March 28-29).
Meteorologists with the National Weather Service (NWS) are expecting a hard freeze Saturday night, with temperatures dipping into the low 20s. Some areas could even see temperatures fall to the mid-teens…
“Usually the threat of (a hard) freeze trumps the threat of frost,” Strickler said. “The hard freeze will be very damaging early crops that are out.”
Michelle Wallace, horticulture agent with the N.C. Cooperative Extension in Durham County reminds growers to cover their plants when the threat of frost is eminent…
The temperatures might not only threaten plants, but also hit record lows here.
Strickler said the record low at RDU Airport on for March 29 is 20 degrees. With forecasts leaning toward the low 20s he said the overnight temperatures “do have a shot at the record.”…
People who’ve sheltered tender plants inside throughout the winter only to put them outside in the last couple of weeks, need to move them back inside Saturday night. http://www.heraldsun.com/news/showcase/x642200992/Hard-freeze-Saturday-night-to-threaten-plants-records
28 March: AltoonaMirror PA: John Frederick: Unusually cold winter broke some record lows
This weekend’s unseasonable temperatures continue a long spell of cold weather that began in late November. Most of us have now gone 154 days since our thermometers surpassed 60 degrees…(Registration required for the rest)
All the major parties are signed up to the policy set in train by Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act. They don’t know what they are doing
…
Last week, scarcely noticed south of the border, came the news of the premature closure of Britain’s second largest power station. The giant Longannet plant in Fife, with its 2,400-megawatt capacity, can still supply two thirds of all Scotland’s average electricity needs.
The reasons given for Longannet’s closure early next year were partly the crippling cost of the Government’s “carbon” taxes and the additional £40 million it is being charged for connection to the grid. But the immediate trigger for the decision was Longannet’s failure to win a contract to supply back-up for Scotland’s ever-rising number of wind farms at times when there is insufficient wind.
… Scotland’s energy minister, Fergus Ewing, called the closure of Longannet “a national scandal”, laying the blame squarely on “Westminster” – which is curious considering that his government’s policy is that by 2020 Scotland should produce 100 per cent of its electricity from “renewables”.
The prospect of the early closure of Longannet has brought into sharp focus both the National Grid’s charging structure for electricity transmission and the long-term impacts of Scotland’s national energy policy.
First, charges for transmission are structured to encourage the siting of power plants close to large urban population centres, which for the UK are mostly in the south east. …
However, it’s also crystal clear that Longannet has major population centres on its doorstep in the central belt. Moreover for a plant which began its life over 40 years ago the charging structure, with its incentives for the siting of new plants, makes little sense. Given its strategic importance we should therefore expect some tweaking of the rules to ensure that Longannet remain viable a little longer.
But the viability of Longannet is also being squeezed by our national energy policy which is seeing a rapid growth in intermittent onshore wind farms. When wind output is high the output of fossil fuel plants such as Longannet can fall. While this is good news for carbon emissions, it also cuts steadily into the profitability of fossil fuel plants.
…
Unfortunately our thinking on energy in Scotland has been driven a mix of unquestioning enthusiasm for renewables and politicking on nuclear. Simply stating that Scotland has large renewable resources doesn’t overcome the enormous engineering challenges of converting them into affordable, reliable energy. And a suspicion of nuclear doesn’t alter the fact that new plants to the south with a design life of 60 years will be delivering reliable low carbon energy out towards the end of the century, while Scotland’s wind farms with a design life of order 20 years will need repowering long before then.
If we can’t get our thinking on energy straight, then we have little hope of delivering a balanced supply of low cost, secure and clean energy into the future. Longannet is the first in a number of wake-up calls awaiting us over the coming years.
Salmond & Sturgeon are now fishin’, for a coalition, with Labour, which could give them the balance of power over UK after a hung UK Election in May.
It looks like former UK Tory Prime Minister who succeeded Mrs Thatcher, now Sir John Major is now advising Labour on their election strategy
So that’s what the Conservatives have done to the UK?
UKIP is going to clean up in the May election by the look of things. The policy competition will all be to the Right. In which case there will be no genuflecting to an Paris AGW Summit from a bedded down UKIP dominated UK Government.
Bernd Felsche –
yes, if the CAGW crowd get their way, it will be “Lights Out” every day. give thanx for Christopher Booker.
with the utter contempt for the world’s poor exemplified by the elitist Guardian’s latest CAGW campaign – Naomi Klein’s “Let’s kick oil while the price is down” is a perfect example – we’re all headed for an energy-poor future similar to sub-Saharan Africa.
7.30 mins in, BBC presenter: World Bank projects end of poverty by 2035. it would take a heroic effort. number of poor would have to fall by 1m each week for 15 years. UN to adopt World Bank target at end of this year.
Jim Yong Kim (World Bank) says it will mean increasing agricultural productivity and INCREASING ENERGY. Africa suffers from a lack of ENERGY which is really a crime in this day & age. only 80 gigawatts for the entire sub-saharan Africa.
Podcast 18 mins: 27 March: BBC Business Daily: The End of Poverty?
Can global poverty be wiped out in the next 15 years?
The World Bank thinks so. Linda Yueh hears from the president, Jim Yong Kim, who is confident despite the rising numbers of poor in Africa. Tulanana Bohela reports from Tanzania, one of the fastest growing economies (6% annually) in Africa, but where a third of the population still lives on less than $1.25 a day… http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/bizdaily
9 Feb: World Bank: Mining Companies Can Help Turn On the Lights across Sub-Saharan Africa, Says World Bank
In its report, entitled “Power of the Mine: A Transformative Opportunity for Sub-Saharan Africa”, the Bank calls on the mining industry to work more closely with electricity utilities in the region to meet their growing energy demands. Rather than supplying their own energy on site, mines can become major and reliable customers for electricity utilities or independent power producers (IPPs) which can then grow and develop better infrastructure to bring low-cost power to communities…
Sub-Saharan Africa, as a region, only generates 80 gigawatts of power each year for 48 countries and a population of 1.1 billion people. Two-thirds of people in the region live entirely without electricity and those with a power connection, suffer constant disruptions in supply. Without new investment and with current rates of population growth, there will be more Africans without power by 2030 than there are now.
But new models of power supply for mines are emerging across Sub-Saharan Africa – including mines self-supplying and selling to the grid or serving as anchor consumers for IPPs. The report estimates around $6 billion in potential public-private partnership opportunities for new power generation from clean energy sources (including natural gas and hydropower) in Guinea, Mauritania, Tanzania and Mozambique – countries with strong expected growth in power demand from the mining sector…
By choosing grid-based and cleaner power sourcing options, which are typically priced lower than self-supplied electricity from diesel or heavy fuel oil, mining companies will be able to meet their electricity needs while also helping to light up the community,” said Anita George, Senior Director of the World Bank’s Energy and Extractives Global Practice…
A key element is for countries across Sub-Saharan Africa to continue with their power sector reforms and create an attractive operating environment for IPPs, including renewable energy developers.
The report: “The Power of the Mine: A Transformative Opportunity for Sub-Saharan Africa” was funded by the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) and the South African Fund for Energy, Transport and Extractives (SAFETE). http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/02/09/mining-companies-can-help-turn-on-the-lights-across-sub-saharan-africa-says-world-bank
left unsaid – the tens of billions of dollars in LOANS to the less-developed Nations for energy even the Germans can’t afford!
Sept 2014: World Bank: World Bank Group Climate Lending Grows to Over $11 Billion
It was one of the strongest years on record for renewable energy lending, reflecting growing client demand for hydro, solar, wind and geothermal energy.
In all, the World Bank Group had 220 climate investment projects in over 60 countries worldwide in FY2014. Over the last four years, the group has committed $42 billion to climate-related activities…
In fiscal year 2014, which ended June 30, our total climate investments increased to almost $11.3 billion, with the World Bank (IBRD/IDA) committing $8.8 billion and the World Bank Group’s private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), $2.5 billion…
This demand for climate lending has also been felt by the other large multilateral development banks (African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank).
In the first three years after they began jointly tracking climate finance flows in 2011, the multilateral development banks (including the World Bank Group) delivered nearly US$75 billion (FY11 to FY13) in financing to help developing countries and emerging economies respond to the challenges of climate change… http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/09/09/world-bank-group-climate-lending-grows-11-billion-fy14
WATCH: A laser scan-generated video explores a series of interconnected corridors and rooms in the underground city. Video courtesy Nevsehir Municipality
In 2013, construction workers demolishing low-income homes ringing the castle discovered entrances to a network of rooms and tunnels.
In 2014, those tunnels led scientists to discover a multilevel settlement of living spaces, kitchens, wineries, chapels, staircases, and bezirhane—linseed presses for producing lamp oil to light the underground city.
They do not differ by more than 0.05°C/yr and only for a short time. I wouldn’t have an problem with this if the latter was the data measured and the former a cumulative plot, but the estimates of anomalies are made every month from the long term average and not the previous month, and the latter is the derivative of this data.
. . . but the estimates of anomalies are made every month from the long term average and not the previous month, . . .
This may not be entirely correct and/or I’m not comprehending your meaning. But just to clarify, you may want to review the WoodForTrees description of how the monthly anomalies are calculated for each of the data sets on their site.
Yes, I’m still reading. Before we go on to your comment of March 31, 2015 at 7:31, there seems to be something else that still needs clarifying.
Long term average for that month rather than the latest result of the preceding month.
It’s unclear to me why calculating the anomaly ‘based on’ or ‘relative to’ the latest result of the preceeding month would mean anything?
What they do to calculate the anomalies we see on all those graphs is this.
First they pick 30 consecutive years to find what they call a ‘normal’. They average out all the monthly readings for those 30 years and use that as the ‘base-line’. Now they take each monthly average and calculate whether this is higher, lower, or the same the base-line/normal.
So what we’re looking at on a graph of anomalies is, “By how much, if at all, has the current month’s average temperature deviated from the 30 year base-line average (of monthly normals)”.
Calculating the anomaly ‘based on’ or ‘relative to’ the latest result of the preceding month would mean that there was nothing fishy about the derivatives being so close to each other but the actual measurements drifting wildly apart.
The slight changes add up. But the anomaly is like making an independent measurement each month with an error, and the derivatives usually come out noisier. The big difference in the anomalies shows that there is a lot of uncertainty but that could be due to a systematic error. Below is why I expect that there is also a large random error in both that doesn’t seem to show up in the derivatives.
The big difference in the anomalies shows that there is a lot of uncertainty but that could be due to a systematic error.
I take it you mean that there is a big difference between the anomalies of one data-set and another. For example, between the RSS and the Hadcrut4gl, that you linked to in your original post.
If you’ll allow me to go back to your original comment for just a moment . . .
You said you had a problem with the data in this debate, right? Well so do I, but for a different reason than you. I think it’ll help if I explain what my problem with the data is.
Each one of the organizations that report the monthly temperature anomalies uses a different process or formula for arriving at the monthly average. They also use a different set of land based stations in their calculations. It’s because of these two variables that the anomalies from one data-set to another are so different.
Add to that the fact that the satellites record the temperature of the atmosphere much higher than 1.5 meters above the surface, (1.5 meters is around the height of land based monitering stations), and you’re going to get ‘wild differences’ in the anomalies. Even worse, each of the two satellite data-sets are calculated using a different tecnique!
So now, getting back to the current conversation. I see your point about the way they calculate the anomalies. But if we were to go your route, then we wouldn’t be calculating anomalies any more. Not that doing so would be a bad thing or the wrong thing. I don’t agree that we should be calculating anomalies either. At least not for the purpose they’re currently doing it for, to show if there is an overall trend in heating. But that’s a different conversation we could get into, if you like.
As for the derivatives being so close, think about it. The reason they are so close between data-sets is because of the fact that each data-set is using a different formula to arrive at the anomaly for each month.
Best if I provide an example.
Let’s say RSS records an anomaly for JAN2015 of -0.2 and an anomaly for FEB2015 of -0.15. Now, let’s say Hadcrut4gl records an anomaly of -0.1 and an anomaly of -0.05 for the same two months. The difference in the actual anomalies will be 0.1 in both cases, but the derivative will be exactly the same for both of them! 😮 😉
I took a theoretical 0.3°C per decade trend for 30 years and added a random amount to the months of each set between -0.01 and 0.01.
The differences between the derivatives averaged to be 0.1°C/year.
As you can see in the wood for trees plot, the actual range for the derivatives is 0.14°C/year and the two different measurements follow each other closely (excuse me for not doing the sums).
If you’re still reading Abe, taking an error of ±0.05°C for each month you get an error of 0.07°C for the difference between months. That’s an error in the differential of 0.8°C/yr so the differences between the differentials of a repeat of just one should get up to a degree per year.
I was just chasing up some information on steam turbines, and it made me think.
The steam turbine is a multi stage engineering marvel, the driving force for the generator itself.
70’s technology generators were up to 700MW for coal fired units and up to 1100MW to 1200MW for Nuclear units.
Now we have the big Nukes driving 1300MW generators with hopes for 1500MW units. However, there are those new UltraSuperCritical (USC) coal fired plants now capable of operating 1300MW generators.
Now, while Australia will most probably never have Nukes, there is hope that after this CAGW thing goes away, then we have coal enough to support USC plants far into the future.
Now think of a new USC plant with two 1300MW units, so a Nameplate of 2600MW. It’s a pretty huge cost, but hey, I couldn’t care less, and let me explain why.
2600MW – Two units – One plant.
The equivalent Wind power would necessitate (at the average 2.5MW nacelle on top of one tower) 1040 of those towers.
That’s the equivalent almost FIVE large scale wind plants of the same size as the now failed King Island wind plant. That plant was proposed to cost $2.2 Billion, so that’s more than $10 Billion for the equivalent Wind plants, and there’s no way known that USC coal fired plant would cost anywhere even close to half that at worst, and please don’t try and tell me the cost of wind plants is coming down, because it isn’t.
I still couldn’t care less about the cost because that ONE USC plant will deliver three times the power each year, and have a lifespan twice as long as the wind plants.
All that aside, think back now to the top of the Comment where I mentioned turbines. There are two Monster Companies, The Siemens Company and Babcock and Wilcox. They have monster plants all over the World, and employ tens of thousands of people making turbines for every type of plant. There’s no way known are ever going to stop development of turbines for coal fired power.
And the proposed replacement for supply of a Base Load requirement, Concentrating Solar Power, or Solar Thermal (just ask Pixie Anne Wheatley Christine Milne) well, how far advanced are they when it comes to turbine design for those types of plant.
Siemens has a specially designed turbine capable of driving a 125MW Generator, and in use at Ivanpah in the California Desert, and that is so beset by problems that it is barely able to turn unless it gets started up with the auxilliary Natural Gas element of the units, and just the solar element alone barely manages four hours a day in Summer, and that’s utilising the whole solar insolation to heat the compound, because it has no heat retention capability.
125MW, specially designed only for this solar application, and it doesn’t work.
Look at the Maths I’ve mentioned here.
These two renewables of choice cannot compete, and here the word compete is a laughable thing to say.
All put on the backburner because of a ridiculous whatever you want to refer to it as.
And the people who are designing the future of power generation have not even blinked as they proceed with doing what they have always done, building huge components, all of them, for large scale power generation. They are quite obviously not even missing a beat in their further development, so it shows how much faith they have in it succeeding, and these people have quite literally many Billions invested in what they do. They can’t afford to lose on that scale, and they are still moving forwards with what they do.
If you look around long enough, you’ll see that people who have most to lose are not stopping what they do.
Tony,
The nuclear fuel itself, cannot support the temperatures required for USC. Nuclear, however, can easily provide 90% the energy required. If we could get to the efficiency of C2H2+O2 or 2H2+O2,temperatures, nuclear would still provide 85% of that energy.
Can we get the current climate modelers to show what the models say about surface temperature increase with 10% decrease in global wind velocity? Nuclear power for subsurface energy plus wind-farm temperature gain, may prevent the next ice age for the children of those that think they lead! 🙂
You can get more than 600°C out of a molten-salt reactor using known and proven alloys. Nominal operating temperature is around 1000K. Some imagine that they can “fire” a Joule/Brayton cycle gas turbine; open air cycle even and avoid messing about with steam; but eventually they relent when they see all that high quality heat going out the exhaust and put in steam generators with a turbine; or simply for combined heat and power.
Open air cycle only makes sense where water is scarce and other forms of heat rejection are less viable.
But I digress: USC steam can be generated using reactors cooled by molten salts operating at sufficient temperature. In terms of reactor safety, molten salts allow for unpressurised operation within the reactor. A secondary salt loop would carry the heat to steam generators, providing isolation for radioactivity.
Meanwhile back at home in Oz, the Act Government is in trouble with it 90% Renewable Energy Target.
ABC News 24/03/2015:
“A controversial project to build a solar farm next to the rural village of Uriarra has been dumped by the ACT Government after fierce opposition from local residents.”
Won’t there always be a market for power plant in developing countries, even if it’s we who pay for them.
It’s just the West that’s to be economically crippled by not using them. So Tony needs to get pleading developing country status for Oz. if he’s not going to just ignore the UNFCCC process ( for turning developed Economys into F’dconomys).
“They can’t afford to lose on that scale, and they are still moving forwards with what they do. If you look around long enough, you’ll see that people who have most to lose are not stopping what they do.”
Interesting comment RE the generators and economics Tony.
When debt is high in any business, stopping what you’re doing is not always an option, it means cash flow stops sooner, rather than later. They’ll string it out until the plastic is maxed out with no short term line of credit options left, or cash flow.
The good news is these deranged alternate energy rip-offs are inevitably going away. Then we get some sensible policies, well, after the emergency policies that is, except the warped anti-hydrocarbon voodoo that’s been feed to the public will lead to mass hysteria, due fear of the devil molecule.
We could try re-education camps and call it “de-fooling” and get Mr. T to sort them out via forced skateboard training, sans PPE, until they fully de-fool and realize CO2 is actually much preferable to skateboarding down steel step rails.
29 March: UK Telegraph: Robert Mendick: Ed Davey refuses to back wind farms in Lib Dem target seats
A controversial plan to build a series of giant wind farms and a line of pylons across mid-Wales has been recommended for approval – but the Climate Change secretary is refusing to rubber stamp it
The proposed turbines and almost 30 miles of pylons to connect them to the National Grid are so unpopular that Ed Davey, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary and a Liberal Democrat MP, has refused to commit to a planning decision ahead of the general election.
According to sources, three giant wind farms, spread across an area of Mid Wales stretching from Machynlleth to Welshpool, have been agreed but will need rubber-stamping by the incoming secretary of state.
A planning inspector has recommended permission be given for the farms. They each consist of between 17 and 65 turbines up to 450ft tall – equivalent to the height of the London Eye. In all, almost 200 could be built in the coming years…
A source told The Telegraph that the decision was not announced because the wind farms will wreck any lingering hopes that the Liberal Democrats had of regaining Montgomeryshire.
The constituency has been held by the party, largely uninterrupted for 100 years until the colourful MP Lembit Opik was defeated in 2010.
The neighbouring constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire, which will also be affected albeit to a far lesser extent, is currently held by Roger Williams, Liberal Democrat MP since 2001.
The source said: “Three wind farms will be given planning consent but not until after the election…
Sir Simon Jenkins, the former chairman of the National Trust, said of the plan for the wind farms: “It will turn the largest wilderness area of Britain outside a national park into hundreds of square miles of power station. It is all political.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11502016/Ed-Davey-refuses-to-back-wind-farms-in-Lib-Dem-target-seats.html
29 March: SMH: Adam Morton/Lisa Cox: What’s in a target? Australia warned not to ‘cook the books’ on emissions cuts
The Australian government is changing how it expresses climate change targets in way that could make it appear to the public as though it is cutting greenhouse gas emissions more rapidly than it is…
Australia’s emissions were significantly higher in 2005 than 2000. By adopting the later year as a baseline, the government could announce a bigger target number without increasing what it is doing to reduce emissions
into the atmosphere…
A government press release on Saturday adjusted that to describing the target as “equivalent to a reduction of 13 per cent below 2005 levels” and did not mention 5 per cent…
(Climate Institute deputy chief executive Erwin Jackson): “The key test for the government is not whether it uses 1990, 2000 or 2005 – it is whether it
is doing Australia’s fair bit to avoid irreversible and dangerous climate impact on Australia,” he said.
There is no agreed baseline for climate targets at UN talks. The argument in favour of Australia moving to 2005 is that is the year the US, Japan and Canada uses. President Barack Obama last year announced a target of a cut of between 26 and 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025…
Emissions in the US fell between 2000 and 2005, meaning its target would be a larger number if it used the earlier year…
***Experts say the key test of a post-2020 target is less the total number – which can be manipulated by whichever baseline year is chosen – than whether a country is significantly accelerating the pace at which it is cutting
emissions…
Labor has accused the government of not being serious about tackling climate change, but has not committed to a target beyond the minimum 5 per cent cut by 2020.
Targets already announced include the EU, which promised a 40 per cent cut below 1990 levels by 2030. China, an emerging economy that has traditionally been treated differently to western nations, but now the world’s biggest
polluter, has indicated its emissions will stop rising and start to fall by 2030. It is yet to formalise this in a commitment to the UN. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/whats-in-a-target-australia-warned-not-to-cook-the-books-on-emissions-cuts-20150329-1m9ttb.html
***above has a cartoon/illustration by Matt Golding. “Let’s cook the books: Now that’s what i call Direct Action”
which aspect of CAGW is not a result of cooking the books/data/price etc?
24 March: EU Observer: Reform of EU emissions trading system likely to fail
By Wolf Friedrich Spieth
The EU has declared the Emissions Trading System (ETS) to be its key tool for cutting industrial emissions. However, the price for CO2 allowances has been dropping for years, reaching a low point of 3€/tonne in 2013. As a
result, the EU now seeks to “fix” the current ETS – albeit by neglecting its own legal principles…
EU law and principles
Whilst the committee doubtless made such proposals with good intentions, the transfer of the “back-loaded” allowances to the market stability reserve
before the end of the ongoing trading period (end of 2020) would conflict with EU law and principles.
First, if the already “back-loaded” allowances are not released to the market in the ongoing trading period, this is likely to conflict with the principle of legal certainty. Market participants will have developed
legitimate expectations regarding their release in the last two years of the ongoing period.
Second, and of greater legal concern, is that the approach will also result in decreasing the ETS cap of the ongoing trading period and therefore increase the 20 percent CO2 emissions reduction target by 2020 – agreed by the European Council back in 2007…
The quantity of the “back-loaded” allowances equates to six per cent of the total allowances under the cap in the period 2013 to 2020. Therefore, the EU would be changing the reduction target through the backdoor, without any
underlying political decision by the heads of the member states (European Council).
Third, the approach conflicts with the principle of proportionality…
Likewise, there are significant concerns that the commission seeks to encroach on member states’ competencies…
The committee of the permanent representatives of the governments (Coreper) will make its decision this week, on Wednesday (25 March). The Council, parliament and commission will then meet to develop a final text.
Hopefully, the EU institutions will heed these legal concerns before they vote for an instrument that clearly conflicts with established EU principles.
***If not, the measure could be subject to legal action – in particular by member states, whose energy mixes or domestic industries would heavily be affected by the market stability reserve…
(Wolf Friedrich Spieth is partner and co-head of the low carbon energy group
at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Berlin) https://euobserver.com/opinion/128119
Of the 8760 hours in a year, about half of them are in darkness.
If any of these followers of fashion were serious about climate change, as a problem rather than a fashion statement, they’d be calling for an end to the other 4379 hours of waste from floodlighting monuments and public buildings.
That’s funny Craig, which is why you got a thumbs up! What about Berkshire, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Yorkshire and Cumbria? Did they get some too?
Bloggies 2015 !
Only 2 & a half hours to go till the Best Blog Winners start being announced.
Follow it here. https://mobile.twitter.com/Bloggies
Good luck to all that have been nominated & may the Best Blogs win.
Watch at that link Eliza has provided at (Australian times here) 1150 EST (12.50EDT and 10.50 for WA) for the result in Joanne’s category, Best Topical Weblog.
Daylight Saving Time. Can’t stand it. Nothing to do with getting the extra hour of sunlight in the afternoon, but just an economic thing to extend shop trading to get an extra hour of sales, hopefully.
Pickering Post won its category, best Oz or NZ Blog.
AUDIO: 28 March: ABC Science Show: Expedition to show the effects of climate change
Climate talks in Lima in 2014 saw more than 10,000 people gather and achieve little. Meanwhile, the biggest threat to humanity and life on Earth worsens. The 21st Conference of the Parties talks takes place in Paris in early December 2015.
Tim Jarvis is leading 25zero, a plan for groups to climb 25 mountains at the equator, containing glaciers which are predicted to be gone within 25 years as temperatures rise. The idea is to send strong statements and images from the peaks to the COP21 Paris meeting, bringing home effects of climate change which can be seen now. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/expedition-to-show-the-effects-of-climate-change/6353198
ABC’s Williams hosted panels, including Tim Jarvis, at Womadelaide’s “The Planet Talks”, sponsored by Uni of South Australia & David & Clare Paradice:
Womadelaide: 2015 Program 6-9 March: The Planet Talks will be hosted by Robyn Williams (ABC Radio National) and Bernie Hobbs (ex ABC TV’s The New Inventors).
The Planet Talks is presented by the University of South Australia.
Generously supported by ***David & Clare Paradice.
SESSION 1 | 2:00pm – The Silver Lining in the Cloud of Climate Change
Speakers: Cecilia Woolford, Peter Langridge, Bob Brown
Host: Robyn Williams…
Listen to our visionary panel discuss the optimistic future they have seen emerging in business, agriculture, politics and society…
SESSION 2 | 6:00pm – Valuing Our Planet
Speakers: Vandana Shiva, Paul Sutton, ***Tim Jarvis
Host: Robyn Williams
A famous native American proverb says ‘Only when the last tree has died, and the last river been poisoned, and the last fish been caught, will we realise we cannot eat ***MONEY.’
SESSION 3 | 3:00pm – I’m not a Climate Scientist but…
Speakers: Andrew Denton, Rod Quantock, Hannah Gadsby
Host: Robyn Williams
Climate change is no laughing matter … or is it? Science or satire – How do we best communicate climate science and the urgency to act on the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced? Do more people turn to Will Ferrell’s climate change YouTube clips or Al Gore pie charts and PowerPoint’s for the truth? Are people more likely to share on social media Leigh Sales’ 7.30 interview with the world’s leading climate scientists or US political satirist John Oliver’s interviews with them? Who makes more sense of carbon politics, Andrew Bolt or Shaun Micallef? All will be revealed. Sit back and listen to the (comedy) experts… https://www.womadelaide.com.au/program/the-planet-talks
a followup on Robyn Williams/Womadelaide/The Planet Talks which was “generously supported by David & Clare Paradice”, with the session with Tim Jarvis summary saying:
“A famous native American proverb says ‘Only when the last tree has died, and the last river been poisoned, and the last fish been caught, will we realise we cannot eat ***MONEY.’”
take note of Paradice’s CARBON FOOTPRINT, & the fact he handles Superannuation Funds, which are a target of the CAGW crowd:
2013: AFRSmartInvestor: John Stensholt: David Paradice, sage of small stocks
Notwithstanding his Scottish genes, Paradice does enjoy the trappings of a rich life. He has a 1620-hectare farm near Scone in the Hunter Valley in NSW, where the family – wife Claire and their three children – live. It’s where Paradice indulges his hobby of owning horses while Claire runs a small prize-winning cattle operation. Then there’s the penthouse apartment on the top floor of a building in Sydney’s North Bondi with stunning views down the beach. Yes, the railings on the balcony are a bit rusty and the furniture is a bit knocked around, but he and Claire own the entire three-storey building, having stealthily acquired separate apartments over about five years. Until a crash that almost killed him in 2009, Paradice would commute between Bondi and Scone by helicopter…
These days he sticks to flying in a light plane: “It’s reasonably profitable because I rent it out, too, but I don’t like what it represents.”…
He drifted to Melbourne for a stint with Phil Ruthven’s data company IBISWorld, before returning to Sydney to a job at the body charged with investing NSW public servants’ superannuation, the then State Authorities Superannuation Board. By that stage he had the investing bug, especially for the smaller and often more speculative end of the market where returns can be spectacularly boom and bust…
John Nolan, managing director of Warakirri Asset Management and chairman of the investment committee for REST Industry Super Fund, was integral in giving Paradice his start, with a $30 million mandate from the fund…
But Paradice readily admits to moments of panic in the early days. There was one nerve-wracking night when he was so wound up about his fund’s negative one-month performance, he had little sleep…
In particular, Paradice Investment Management has ridden the success of new media companies such as Seek, Realestate.com and ***Carsales.com in the past decade… http://www.afrsmartinvestor.com.au/p/lifestyle/afrmagazine/david_paradice_sage_of_small_stocks_Q7NK3X18cjyKjn7YN8RVdM
Paradice & family live part-time in Denver, Colorado where he has business interests & he’s still raking in the mon
hadn’t finished the Paradice comment…re his CARBON FOOTPRINT:
Paradice & family live part-time in Denver, Colorado where he has business interests.
Full-up at home, Paradice goes global
Kevin Beck, portfolio manager of Paradice IM’s global small-mid cap product: “It’s in a great time zone because you get the close of Europe and the open of Asia, plus it’s a direct hub for United Airlines so it’s easy to get to Europe”…”Each member of the US team will spend two weeks in Denver followed by two weeks travelling”… http://investmentmagazine.com.au/2010/02/full-up-at-home-paradice-goes-global/2/
& he’s still raking in the money, according to AFR:
David Paradice set to break the $10 billion fund mark
The Australian Financial Review-24 Mar 2015
Prominent fund manager David Paradice is set to break the $10 billion barrier, having added $1 billion funds under management in just three months …
—-
such a perfect CAGW fit for Womadelaide & ABC’s Robyn Williams.
LinkedIn: Tim Jarvis, Adelaide, Australia
Global Ambassador WWF-Australia, Leader 25zero, polar explorer, speaker, author, film maker, environmental scientist
2010-present: Senior Associate Sustainability, ARUP
2009-present: Yale World Fellow, Yale University
2014-present: Leader: 25zero
Climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity.
Melting glacial ice is one of the clearest indicators of this complex issue. Nowhere is it more apparent than where you’d least expect to find ice – at the equator. There are now only 25 mountains with glaciers at the equator Within a quarter of a century these glaciers will be gone due to climate change – in some cases, far sooner.
25 Mountains. Zero latitude. 25 years. Zero ice.
Multiple teams will make simultaneous ascents of all 25zero mountains during the 12 days of the COP21 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris (30 Nov – 11 Dec 2015).
Tim Jarvis’ core team will summit 3 mountains in three continents during the 12 days of COP21 – Carstensz Pyramid in Asia, Kilimanjaro in Africa and Chimborazo in South America.
All teams will relay powerful statements and video & still images from the summits of the mountains, requiring action on climate change. This will occur in real time and be sent to governments attending COP21 and to multiple global media outlets reaching millions of people. This will be used to generate thought provoking web and media content in real time and longer term pooled and edited to make a quality broadcast documentary.
For those who can’t get to the 25zero mountains themselves, ‘virtual climbs’ will enable everyone to get involved. Personal accelerometers will measure whatever you choose to climb – whether a local hill or your office building to the equivalent height of 25zero peak(s).
All teams and individuals participating will raise sponsorship for 25 projects that are doing something meaningful to combat climate change. 7 of these will be in the 7 countries in which the 25zero peaks are situated.
***A global media campaign will support 25zero, encourage participation and support fundraising.
Beyond Dec 2015 25zero will continue to use the decline of these glaciers as a global call to action over climate change with future climbs planned for 2016 and beyond involving other teams. https://au.linkedin.com/in/timjarvisam
I went out to a friends that night for a b’day dinner and, ten minutes into my drive, shamefully remembered I had switched off all the lights in the CrabCave before I had left.
I am deep sorry for my carelessness, however I did spend two years back in mining uranium, so I must have some Power Credits I can cash in? 🙂
AUDIO: 28 March: ABC Science Show: Geoengineering – a stimulus for change, an excuse to continue, or even possible?
If geoengineering ever comes to pass, what will be the message? That change is urgent? …
A panel of speakers at this year’s American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in San Jose tossed around a few of the challenges…
Guests include Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Jersey USA http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/geoengineering-e28093-a-stimulus-for-change2c-an-excuse-to-/6353264
8 mins in: Alan Robock, Rutgers (asked by Williams to explain his interractions with the public on geoengineering):
Robock: if i tell people i’m working on geoengineering, they say what’s that. most people don’t even know what it is. when i explain it, they say wow, you are thinking about doing something that crazy?…maybe global warming really is a problem, maybe i should consider global warming more seriously. and there’s been academic research showing that is the reaction of people. if they see you are actually planning or thinking about these geoengineering responses, there must be a real problem.
ABC Host Robyn Williams: Yes indeed…
—
the above proves, once again, that all the talk of geoengineering (now known as “albedo modification”) may be partly about looking for research grants, but it is also a psyop attempt to scare people into agreeing to any & all CAGW policies, no matter how useless or expensive they may be.
because it concerns CAGW, UK Independent is concerned that the CIA is concerned!!! what a joke, called out by the only reader who bothers to comment:
15 Feb: UK Independent: Steve Connor: CIA: Foreign powers may develop ability to manipulate the global climate undetected
Officials are worried foreign countries may develop geoengineering – the deliberate manipulation of the global climate
Consultants working for the Central Intelligence Agency have asked Professor Alan Robock of Rutgers University in New Jersey whether it would be possible for another nation to meddle with the climate without being discovered, he said.
“I got a phone call from two men who said we work as consultants for the CIA and we’d like to know if some other country was controlling our climate would we know about it,” Professor Robock said…
Professor Robock is an expert in geoengineering – the deliberate manipulation of the global climate – and specialises in how large volcanic eruptions cause global cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space, increasing the Earth’s reflectivity, or albedo.
Geoengineering has been the focus of two major studies, one by the Royal Society in Britain and one by the US National Academy of Sciences, which was part-funded by the American intelligence agencies. Both reports concluded that albedo modification poses considerable risks but that geoengineering warrants more research…
“I work on the area of stratospheric aerosols to emulate a volcanic eruption and I’ve identified five potential benefits of that and 26 potential risks,” Professor Robock told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose. “We know the answer to global warming is adaptation and mitigation. We’d rather not have to work on this.”
Nevertheless, Professor Robock and other scientists support research into geoengineering, such as a plan to monitor the aerosol clouds produced by the next large volcanic eruption, using aircraft, high-altitude balloons and satellites…
Stephen Gardiner, a philosopher at the University of Washington in Seattle, warned that modifying the climate through geoengineering risks making the situation worse, especially for future generations…
“This kind of incentive is called the tyranny of the contemporary, and that’s why it’s a considerable intergenerational problem.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/cia-foreign-powers-may-develop-ability-to-manipulate-the-global-climate-undetected-10047669.html#
one comment, from what seems to be a typical Independent reader, MICAH C:
“I’m much more concerned about the CIA manipulating weather than I am any ‘foreign powers.’ As far as I can tell, the CIA is the only group that currently has that capability, and I also happen to believe they’re guilty of putting it to use.”
‘Amid this surfeit of opportunism, Australia is left with a vision shortage. This includes a very specific conundrum: we have the world’s most advanced level of superannuation savings, per capita, with about $1.8 trillion in assets, yet almost none of this enormous investment pool is being recycled into infrastructure bonds to fund national development.’
I rather suspect AstroSamantha my be about to hold her sign up to the window of her space capsule to encourage the Climate to change, as she watches from her lofty perch.
This week the number of comments on Roy Spencer’s February data thread passed the 1,000 mark. This has probably been the most comprehensive discussion of the physics of the atmosphere that has ever been all brought together in a single climate blog thread.
There is a summary on a new thread starting here and I recommend all should read all the author’s comments in that newer thread.
and skip every thing else after you get to the comment that link is pointing to which begins with the words: “The 21st Century Paradigm in climate science is now proven beyond doubt.” This is the point where Silent reader claims that there is a summary. This is false. There is no summary there.
Silent reader also tells us that we should read all the author’s comments in that new thread. The author is Roy Spencer and Roy does not make any comments whatsoever on that thread so this too is false.
Thank you Silent reader for wasting an hour of my life with your deception.
how many blogs are left that entertain your fantacist monotopic spam? BTW I loved your debating technique stated several times to the effect that, “I understand the science so there is no point debating”.
A QUESTION FOR ALL ISOTHERMALISTS (yes that’s you)
How does a fixed location on the equator of Venus acquire the necessary extra thermal energy to rise in temperature from about 732K to 737K over the course of the four-month-long sunlit period? The only transfers of thermal energy by radiation between the surface and atmosphere are always outwards from the hotter surface to the less hot troposphere, day and night. The Sun’s radiation getting through to the surface is less than 10% of what Earth’s surface receives, and that would not “heat” even a blackbody to any temperature above about -130°C, not even in a billion years. That location does cool again by about 5 degrees during the Venus night. So, if the Sun’s radiation were switched off somehow, the whole planet would easily cool by hundreds of degrees in just a century or so. But it will not even cool by 10 degrees in the next billion years if the Sun’s energy keeps on radiating at current levels, warming it back up each day after it cooled by night, just as happens on Earth and all planets and moons. But the Sun’s radiation can only raise the temperature of regions that are less than about 400K, according to Stefan Boltzmann calculations, and so how does that absorbed energy high up in the atmosphere then get to the surface?
The Search lights are on. My house is brighter now than North Korea.
300
That wouldn’t be particularly difficult Dariusz
151
Nice one, Centurion…….
Funnily enough, it wasnt until I’d cruised past the ABCs web site, that I’d completely forgotten about “Celebrate humanity” hour…..
Our central heating has been roaring along most of the day….nice and toasty warm…human ingenuity and technology being used and celebrated to keep us warm and happy…..I guess the warmists ware all huddled around a candle sitting in there mud huts. I wonder if they turned their wine humidifiers down a notch in sympathy with the cause-du-jour?
Earth what…..?
151
Big deal … I struck a match … it was brighter than NK.
50
Do you mean brighter to indicate more intelligent?
40
The Hour of Power, isn’t that a religious programme ?
20
Not forgotten the Earth Hour. Lights on everywhere and I put up some strings of Christmas lights too. I don’t think anyone hereabouts is aware either way and there was no mention of it on the ABC “News”.
120
It’s over here now of course…
40
It’s not over here yet.
Where is it at the moment ?
The Updates are hardly flooding in on WTF’s Live Event tracker
50
Annie
Channel 10 couldn’t help themselves promoting EH at every weather forecast.
R-COO- K+
50
Thank goodness I don’t watch it Ron!
80
BoM’s seasonal forecast wrong, yet again.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=3640
122
Didn’t even realise earth hour had come and gone. It sure is a monumental event.
120
Likewise, Earth hour went unnoticed at my house. Maybe I just switched the lights off and went to bed.
Incidentally the National Co-ordinate or for Earth hour is/was Anna Rose. Some readers may remember her as the clueless young woman who featured on an ABC program 2 years ago called I can change your mind. She visited the Jonova household, but was unable to comprehend a scientific discussion about the tropospheric hot spot.
110
From what I gather, that’s fairly normal for warming worriers.
142
After Anna Rose’s rabbit in the spotlight intellectual experience at the Nova-Evans house I’m not surprised she has developed an aversion to well illuminated areas, well except for inner city streets, cafes, apartments, theatres, hospitals, offices, and any other convenience that improves quality of life well yes she’s right and we should be ashamed of ourselves.
We should consider ourselves lucky to have such a bright spark like Anna exposing our wrongs in the spotlight of truth.
140
Was this not the very same
drag on the national IQperson who refused to meet, or debate with… someone who’s name I cannot recall, as she refused to engage in debates with people who aren’t climate scientists, or some such…?despite the fact that her academic qualifications are about as scientifically relevant as a pack of tarot cards, of course…
60
Posted this as O/T in previous thread, was waiting for weekend
unthreadedunleaded to come up. We’re 3 hours ahead of you, Jo.Earth Hour
28 March 2015 20:30 Eastern Daylight Saving Time (Australia)
Every light in my house is burning brightly.
“Let there be light”
R-COO- K+
90
I didn’t realize it was that time of the year but I’ve still got over 12 hours to go (Eastern Daylight Time US.) I’m gonna try and rig my welder to run a 2kw xenon arc lamp I brought home from work. That will definitely beat North Korea.
90
That’s the spirit!
I know there is only one hour to go in NSW/Vic/Tas til the end of the calendar day, but hey, if anyone looks at daily stats of electricity, there is still time… 😉
103
Ooooo almost forgot…was using my arc welder a LOT this afternoon…..those things suck the juice like a dying man finding a fully tinnie in a desert….
70
I got an inverter unit and they’re a lot more efficient… and a lot lighter. They still suck down the power though. Who woulda thunk that melting metal would take so much energy. <sarc>Must be why they use CO2 in MIG welder gas… to amplify the energy.</sarc>
120
The irony is wonderful….
60
I noticed the /sarc. but Helium used in MIG welding gas mixtures are used to increase the heat in the weld for high heat conductive metals, bearing in mind it’s only effective in a weld pool of ~5,000° it’s interesting that Hydrogen whilst not ideal for welding can combine with Oxygen to make H2O that is the major distributer of heat in the earths atmosphere.
50
Well, you learn something new every day, I always thought Argon was the gas of choice. I didn’t realise other mixes were commonly used. I shall, as the French say, go to sleep less stupid tonight.
50
And the massive calamities following the world’s “hottest” year ever continue to leave a wake of heat related disaster.
Here in East Central Florida, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global
CoolingWarmingClimate ChangeClimate DisruptionClimate [insert currently approved scary term here] is so bad that all our UHI contaminated weather monitoring stations are 10°F below normal this morning. If the horrendous effects of CO2 don’t abate soon I’m going to have to buy deicers for my water troughs, winterize my pool and get the tanks for my propane fireplace refilled. You know something is really wrong when you have to run the heaters on March 28th… in Florida.What’s the “new normal” gonna be… March, in like a lion out like a polar bear?
132
Fellow Unleaded Followers,
How the hell can I turn my attention to Earth Hour.
I have to watch the races, tennis, League, Aussie Rules, Union, A-League and the NSW election coverage.
Between all of these strenuous activities, I have to wash the dishes.
I would dearly love to partake of Earth Hour, bur I just can’t find the time.
60
You can get in the spirit by sparing a minute or two to turn your oven on full blast, open the door and set your wet dishes in front of it until they dry. It it gets too hot you can turn on your A/C as well. Earth will appreciate the extra CO2.
90
If you haven’t had your full daily dose of outrage yet, try these.
Wet-behind-the-ears lefty says “capitalism doesn’t work” and fails to argue why or provide any alternative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7d-Rx-yBao [5:25]
The Liberal-in-name-only surrender-monkey government gives up more of your privacy with flimsy safeguards.
http://www.news.com.au/national/abbott-governments-metadata-laws-pass-parliament/story-fncynjr2-1227280189739 [580 words]
The Liberal-in-name-only surrender-monkey government aims to replace the carbon tax with the Paris treaty reductions.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/federal-government-commits-to-global-accord-on-climate-20150328-1m9mbm.html [530 words]
A reminder that “Australia is open for (subsidised) business”™ and the main outcome was Stockholm Syndrome.
Sometimes it’s tough being the lone voice of sanity in parliament. [4:55]
100
Anyone care to comment on my long standing assertion that there is no difference between labor and liberal?
All are run by the globalists….this is why they collude so much , to keep the path to slavery well greased.
120
There is a huge difference between liberals and labor. For anyone not see this is to expose one,s lack of political knowledge. Understanding of money and budgets is the main difference. And that was shown by krudd turning +40 bill to -180bill in 18 months. But I don,t blame him. He was elected on what he promised, the same as Johnny be good +10%. krudd had up to 70% popularity with best PM loosing his seat to the ABC journo.
Queensland election is the same with the state having more debt per head than Greece they vote 3 years later the same crew that caused it.
Federally shorty is more popular than Abbott after not producing anything. But wait we live in the country that the voter knows best.
So he is the guilty one here? The voter that says that there is no difference between liberal and labor.
70
I was thinking bigger than your average ignorant voter….
Whichever way we go we get some form of carbon tax.
Which ever way we go we get spied on through meta data
Which every way we go we get an “internet filter”
These are just a few examples
There are some minor differences in some areas, but generally the globalist police state agenda lurches forward regardless of who we have in power.
50
They all went to the same universities.
20
In the UK that’s known as “two cheeks of the same arse.”
10
I am not so sure. What I see is a lack of political philosophy from both parties but particularly the Liberal Party.
The Liberal Party was founded by Robert Menzies as a middle of the road party. He tried to rouse the “forgotten people” to vote him back after the Conservatives of the time had lost the plot. Being “middle of the road” is not a viable political philosophy (in my view), particularly if others are also trying to gain the middle ground.
Menzies was successful because the Labour party of the time had got itself dragged far to the left by communist unions. Gough Whitlam finally got rid of some of that (not all, but enough) and Labour came storming back.
Now neither party can explain its political philosophy and voters are in quandary.
20
Andrew McRae,
I found a link to the official publication released by the Australian Governmet – Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Setting Australia’s post-2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions – Issues Paper.
I’m not a citizen of Australia so I cannot directly affect what goes on there. What I can do is suggest that a close examination of this document, in concert with a comprehensive public disussion of each of the issues presented in it, be undertaken by all those who are interested in having an impact on what actions will ultimately be taken when the Australian government presents their final proposal in mid 2015.
Abe
40
Disappointing, yes. But in practice the US will never ratify the treaty and neither will many other countries. If every single country on earth except us joined we would be so penalised and excluded that we might as well join. This is just lip service.
In that article here’s the first time I’ve ever heard this:
This is something Labor never understood.
50
In the US, Der Fuehrer will declare the treaty ratified by executive order.
50
Our Federal politicians continue to argue over Renewable Energy Targets in spite of there being clear evidence that greenhouse global warming is not happening.
The area of the Earth least affected by mankind is the polar regions. Both the North and South Polar regions experience the same sunshine and have had the same rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration, 1.7 ppm per annum, for the period 1975 to 2013. However their temperature changes have been markedly different.
In summarising 36 years of satellite lower tropospheric temperature measurement, Dr John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, stated that the fastest warming spot on the globe has been in Baffin Bay, in the Arctic, where temperatures have risen 0.82 C per decade since 1978. This is in contrast with the fastest cooling area which has been in East Antarctica near Dome C, where temperatures have been dropping at the rate of 0.50 C per decade.
There appears to be no reported climate model prediction for the above outcome nor any credible explanation coming from climate scientists. Yet under these conditions of identical sunshine and rate of increase of CO2 concentration, the greenhouse global warming proposition surely must predict the same amount of warming at both Poles. Further complicating matters is the fact that there is no known natural physical process, other than radiation out into space, that can remove heat energy from the coldest region of the Earth, the South Pole. Heat always travels from hot to cold.
Nobody, scientist or non-scientist, has any explanation of this differential warming of the Earth from cooling in the South to heating in the North because mankind has never had this data before. It is certainly not due to the greenhouse effect because the rate of increase in CO2 has been much the same across the whole of the globe.
Perhaps our politicians should leave our CO2 alone, especially as, via photosynthesis, it is the ONLY source of the oxygen that we breath.
170
“Our Federal politicians continue to argue over Renewable Energy Targets in spite of there being clear evidence that greenhouse global warming is not happening.”
Well yes, that should tell you the whole thing is pure theatre and they have been given their instructions and now just have to put the window dressing on the pre-decided direction.
I’m hoping people will wake up to the fact that the whole dog and pony show is a fully scripted and controlled affair.
John Howard is Socialist- he brought in the ultimate Left wing nirvana of gun control.
Barry Unsworth was once quoted saying some years before Port Arthur “until we have a masssacre in tasmania we wont have gun control.”
Now what are the odds?
Scripted, controlled, pre-determined.
71
Times change and we move on, I no longer work weekends so I’m just sitting at home watching the movie Exodus as I unwind from work. Earth Hour, though we talked about it last week, wasn’t even on my radar for this weekend.
As happens with many of us as we get busy time and it’s passage sometimes becomes a blur. Last year at this time I was working nights but off on weekends and couldn’t begin to tell you what I did for Earth Hour, slept through it most likely. However the year before was a rather memorable Earth Hour for me. I was at work and had four 60 kW diesel generators running at full load. Now THAT is an “Earth Hour”, everything in those sets from the metal to the plastic, the rubber to the fuel came from the Earth, and I’ll celebrate reliable power like that any day.
80
I’m looking forward to reading about others’ celebrations of all that we have, thanks to modern technology, as the hour passes westward. As for me; it’s bedtime in Victoria. Goodnight All! 🙂
50
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh now this really is getting absurdly stupid…..I laughed that hard I almost wet myself….
I should really buy some straw and send it to the CT so they can grasp at those too….
The CAGW mob really are desperate…this is so stupid its funny.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/executive-style/top-drop/drought-draught-its-the-taste-of-climate-change-20150327-1m9go3.html
Anyone feel like reworking the lyrics to Slim Dustys “Pub with no beer?”
40
Hmmm…. OK. I’m getting into this Arts Degree, arty farty stuff, so try this:
The Science with no Cheer.
Oh it’s-a lonesome away from your ice-box and all
when the barmaid goes deaf to your dry thirsty call
But there’s nothing more lonesome, morbid or drear
To open the fridge to warm beer, yes, warm beer
Now the bar owner’s waiting for the hipsters to come
As he fondles the rear of a greenie’s tight bum
The maid’s looking for ‘panky, but the cook is a queer
He’s looking for Merlot when he just needs some beer
Then Flim-flam rides up on his wanky old bike
And the bar-flies announce that he’s just an old dyke
The smile on his face quickly turns to a sneer
As the barman confirms that he’s not welcome here.
Then Al pal comes in smothered in dust and flies
And holding his book that’s so full of lies
When he’s told that, he says “what’s this I hears?”
“This book has been proofed by 200 peers”
Now there’s a dog on the v’randa, believes none of this
And growls that these plonkers are taking the piss.
Al hurries for cover and he cringes in fear
As the dog eats his book and shits in his ear
And young Michael the suer, for the Nth time in his life
Goes crying to ‘Bama because he’s lied and in strife
He walks into the White House and makes it quite clear
That the lurk, it’s all over, and the end is so near
Oh it’s hard to believe that the gullible still
Think the warming is real and we’ll pay the bill
But the sceptics are happy and I know they’re sincere
Because the warmists are weeping into their beer.
Oh it’s-a lonesome away from your ice-box and all
when the barmaid goes deaf to your dry thirsty call
But there’s nothing more lonesome, morbid or drear
To open the fridge to warm beer, yes, warm beer
201
Sam, o/s visitors might need some music & context:
youtube: Slim Dusty – Pub with no beer
60
Very good 😉
30
Some people think that global average temperatures will start to cool in the next decades, maybe causing another Little Ice Age, with London’s Thames River freezing completely again.
The suggestion doesn’t consider changes made to structures on the Thames since the early 1800s. Because of the changes the river is now unlikely to freeze completely, even if there is another ‘Little Ice Age’. Before the 1800’s the river was wider and slower, and impeded by the Old London Bridge. The bridge was demolished in 1831/1832 and replaced with a new bridge with wider arches, allowing the tide to flow more freely; and the river was embanked in stages during the 19th century, all of which made the river less likely to freeze completely. … Also, there are 45 locks upstream of London, each with one or more adjacent weirs. It is conceivable that the locks could be opened to *increase the flow if there was ever a risk of the river freezing. (Of course, ice is less likely to form on water that is flowing quite quickly.)
70
I’m going with almost, but not quite zero physical detectable change, until I drop off the perch.
__
Disclaimer: This of course depends on how much BOM rigs the national temp record over the next 20 to 30 years, in which case impromptu wild climatic swings may occur, causing global calamity, panic, and broad economic disruption leading to the collapse of civilization and an anthropogenic induced crash in the seagull population at the local landfill.
130
PY:
agree about the change with the removal of Old London Bridge, but there was some freezing of the Thames since although not in London. Don’t forget that there are/were 2 coal fired power stations installed just upstream of Old Bridge site sending out warm water.
See http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/community/memorylane/4061249.Frozen_river_carried_a_coach/
Says both 1891 and 1895. Not sure but 1895 was very cold winter. Reports of some ice in winters 1962/3, 2013/4 and 2014/5 but not enough for an Ice Fair. The Serpentine (London lake) froze in 1900, 1917. 1940, 1963, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.
NOTE the recent influence of Global Waerming.
80
Bugger!
I’ve blown a globe.
120
I wondered why the Globe was smoking a cigarette….. 🙂
80
Hmmm, I didn’t know you were that way inclined ducky … 😉
20
I threw out all those nasty curly energy saving if-you-break-it-mercury-gets-into-the-carpet globes. Instead I get the globes with the halogen inserts. Not a fan of LEDs, namely as they are semiconductors and more vulnerable to power issues/”surges”. For camping, LEDs rock, lower power consumption, etc.
Perhaps fo rnext earth hour, we should set up a “earth hour experience” where we take $50 per person, and give them a candle, sheet music with “Kum bah ya” on it, a mocked up mud hut, a whip for self flagallation, and a low speed eco friendly “thrill ride” in a hybrid of your choice, and a signed copy of Al Gores power bill from one of his McMansions?
A video of that might have to go in the pool room….
50
… except they need to be in the clear wilds of Northern Canada, Svalbard Norway or similar location for this time of the year. Then they might learn something about Nature and energy as well.
60
It comes as quite a shock when a politician answers a question with a reasoned response, instead of the usual sound bite nonsense. He actually sounds as if someone is home and the lights are on. I might even listen to what he was saying even if I did not agree with him.
60
Do you need to be Dim to turn out the lights for Earth Hour ?
Even just symbolically is Turning off the Lights send the wrong message ?
60
No, but it helps. Sensible message in the video from Copenhagen Change Institute should appeal to advocates of Green Energy too who are serious about Climate Change.
20
Don’t forget it’s the Bloggies this weekend !
Although the Awards will be rolling out over 2 1/2 hours this event will be in coincident time everywhere, unlike Earth Hour that had to be spread over 25 hours to flog it out for as long as possible.
From 20:00 EST (UTC -5) or is it EDT (UTC-4) . Isn’t that about 9am Monday in WA ?
Better allow for at least an hour either way to be safe as clocks are changing in many places this weekend too eg. for Summertime in Europe.
Follow the Bloggies on Twitta’ to get updated as they happen.
50
This is the fourth, and last, comment I’m posting on Joanne’s Unthreaded Weekend Threads. I thank everyone who has rated or responded to my comments.
In this comment I argue that if object-to-object energy transfer via means other than radiation exists, the presence of backradiation to an object does not necessarily increase the temperature of that object. Since all atmospheric greenhouse gases can remove energy from the Earth’s surface via conduction and convection, and since via evaporation water vapor (the primary greenhouse gas) plays a role in the removal of energy from the Earth’s surface, the fact that atmospheric greenhouse gases backradiate energy to the Earth’s surface is not, by itself, sufficient to justify a greenhouse-gas-based Earth surface temperature increase. Atmospheric greenhouse gases may in fact increase the Earth’s surface temperature; but not simply because greenhouse gases backradiate energy to the Earth’s surface.
As mentioned in my three previous comments, the heat-trapping nature of greenhouse gases is often used to persuade people that atmospheric greenhouse gases increase the Earth’s surface temperature. In this comment I analyze a situation where the energy-rate-equilibrium (ERE) temperature of active material [in this comment, active material is material possessing an internal source of thermal energy] is lowered when completely surrounded by inert material [in this comment, inert material is material devoid of all internal sources of thermal energy] such that the inert material (a) absorbs all radiation, not just radiation in sub-bands of the IR band, emanating from the active material and (b) radiates a portion of the absorbed radiation back to the active material. In the sense that greenhouse gases can be called heat-trapping gases, the inert material can be called heat-trapping material. Thus, in this comment I show a situation where inert heat-trapping material completely surrounding active material results in a decreased, not increased, active material temperature.
[Note: Formatting restrictions on Joanne’s blog make it difficult to present a complete argument in “comment” form. To overcome these restrictions, a more complete rendition of this comment can be found in a PDF file at [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ejn20s9glptl2qv/solid-sphere-shell_temperatures_with_conduction_heat_current_02PDF.pdf?dl=0] Furthermore, an Excel spreadsheet can be found at [https://www.dropbox.com/s/y5b4bb1z3t9p8n1/solid-sphere-shell_temperatures_with_conduction_heat_current_02Excel_extra.xlsx?dl=0]. That spreadsheet was used to perform the numerical calculations of the Example appearing near the end of this comment. If you’re interested in the complete theory, bypass this comment and go directly to the PDF file. The Equation numbers found in this comment correspond to the Equation numbers from the referenced PDF file.]
The underlying physical principle that allows backradiation to exist with cooler object temperatures is that although backradiation increases the rate energy enters an object, if the material that backradiates energy also supports energy transfer from the object via non-radiative processes, then the rate of energy transfer away from the object via non-radiative processes may overcome the rate of energy input to the object via backradiation. Under those conditions, it is possible that for an object in ERE, the temperature of the object drops in the presence of backradiation. In this comment, I analyze a case for which the rate of energy transfer away from an object via non-radiative processes is larger than the rate of backradiation into that object by an amount sufficient to result in a lower object temperature. The case examined in this comment consists of three Scenarios. Scenario 1: an active solid sphere in the vacuum of cold space. Scenario 2, same as Scenario 1 with the addition of a surrounding, thin, non-touching, inert, concentric spherical shell. Scenario 3, same as Scenario 2 with the addition of inert thermally conducting rods connecting the active solid sphere to the inert surrounding shell.
The Greenhouse Effect Theory is the proposition that greenhouse gases [in this comment a greenhouse gas is matter in gaseous form that both absorbs and radiates electromagnetic energy in sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band] present in the Earth’s atmosphere increase the Earth’s surface temperature relative to what the Earth’s surface temperature would be in the absence of those gases. A common argument for the Greenhouse Effect Theory goes as follows.
The Sun’s effective temperature (approximately 5,778 Kelvin) is sufficiently high that solar radiation exists at frequencies that are for the most part outside (above) the IR band, and as such solar radiation (incoming radiation) passes essentially unattenuated through the Earth’s atmosphere where the incoming radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The surface absorbed solar radiation heats the Earth’s surface thereby causing the Earth to radiate electromagnetic energy (outgoing radiation). Because the Earth’s surface temperature is approximately 288 Kelvin, most of the outgoing radiation is in the IR band, where a portion of the outgoing radiation is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases. Atmospheric greenhouse gases re-radiate a portion of their absorbed energy in all directions. Some of the greenhouse gas radiation will thus be directed towards and absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The radiation originating from and returned to the Earth’s surface via radiation from greenhouse gases is called backradiation, [in this paper “backradiation” is electromagnetic energy originating from an inert object that is directed towards and absorbed by the active object that supplies the energy to the inert object.] Because (a) the rate of incoming radiation absorbed by the Earth’s surface is essentially unaffected by the presence of atmospheric greenhouse gases, and (b) atmospheric greenhouse gases backradiate a portion of their absorbed energy towards the Earth’s surface, atmospheric greenhouse gases increase the rate the Earth’s surface receives energy. To maintain energy-rate-equilibrium (ERE), an increase in Earth surface temperature must follow an increase in the rate the Earth’s surface receives radiated energy.
The name commonly given to this temperature increase is the Greenhouse Effect. The kernel of this argument is that backradiation increases the rate energy enters an object and, therefore, everything else being equal must increase the object’s ERE temperature. The fallacy with this argument is that the material that backradiates energy may also remove energy from the object via means other than radiation (e.g., via convection, conduction and evaporation) at a rate sufficient to lower, not increase, the object’s temperature. If the material that induces backradiation to an object also supports energy transfer from the object via means other than radiation, then it is not always the case that backradiation leads to higher object temperatures. In fact, backradiation and lower object temperatures can exist simultaneously. This paper derives equations for just such a situation. Since (a) all greenhouse gases can remove energy from the Earth’s surface via conduction and convection, and (b) water vapor (the dominant greenhouse gas) plays a role in the removal of energy from the Earth’s surface via evaporation, this paper nullifies the claim that by itself the presence of atmospheric greenhouse gas backradiation to the Earth’s surface is sufficient to conclude the Earth’s surface temperature will increase. Atmospheric greenhouse gases may in fact result in higher Earth surface temperatures; but if so, the argument justifying those higher temperatures requires more than the statement that atmospheric greenhouse gases backradiate energy to the Earth’s surface.
Consider three scenarios:
Scenario 1
Assume an active solid sphere of radius Rsp (greater than 0, less than infinity) exists in the vacuum of cold space. Assume evenly distributed just beneath the solid sphere’s surface is a source of thermal energy at a constant rate H (greater than 0, less than infinity). Assume the surface of the solid sphere acts like a blackbody—i.e., (a) it absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, and (b) radiates electromagnetic energy according to Planck’s Blackbody Radiation Law, which applied to a blackbody surface characterizes the electromagnetic radiation emitted from a planar differential surface element, dS, at temperature T (Kelvin). Specifically,
PE_dS,df,dW = (2*h/c^2)*(f^3)*COS(B)*dS*dW*df/{e^[h*f/(k*T)] – 1} (20)
where
PE_dS,df,dW is the power (energy rate) emitted in the frequency interval between f and f+df from a planar differential unit of blackbody surface area, dS, into the differential solid angle dW defined with respect to dS.
T is the temperature in Kelvin of the planar differential blackbody surface area.
h is Planck’s constant, approximately 6.62606957 x 10^(-34) Joule seconds.
c is the speed of light in a vacuum = 299,792,458 meters per second.
k is Boltzmann’s constant, approximately 1.3806488 x 10^(-23) Joules per Kelvin.
B is the acute angle [greater than or equal to 0, less than or equal to pi/2] between (a) the normal to the planar differential surface area dS …and… (b) the vector from dS in the direction to the differential solid angle dW. [Note: The normal to the planar differential surface area dS is the line that passes through dS and is perpendicular to the dS plane.]
dW is a differential solid angle defined with respect to dS. [Note: In a polar coordinate system (r,theta,phi), dW = SIN(theta)*dtheta*dphi, where theta is the polar angle and phi is the azimuthal angle. For a coordinate system (a) whose origin is at dS, (b) whose polar angle reference line points along the normal to dS away from the coordinate system origin (in either direction), and (c) whose azimuthal angle reference line is (i) in the plane of dS, and (ii) points away from the coordinate system origin in an arbitrary direction, then (a) for 0 less than or equal theta less than or equal pi/2, B=theta, and (b) for pi/2 less than or equal theta less than or equal pi, B=pi minus theta.
Finally, assume the material making up the solid sphere is highly thermally conducting so that the temperature of the solid sphere is for all practical purposes everywhere the same. By definition, in ERE the rate energy leaves an object (or any designated portion thereof) is equal to the rate energy enters the object (or the designated portion). Since the solid sphere is isolated in cold space, (a) the only way energy enters the solid sphere is via its internal source, and (b) the only way energy leaves the solid sphere is via radiation from its surface. The curvature of the surface of a solid sphere is such that no radiation emitted from the solid sphere’s surface is directed towards any other portion of the solid sphere’s surface. Thus, all energy radiated from a solid sphere’s surface leaves the solid sphere. Since for Scenario 1 the only object is the solid sphere and the solid sphere exists in the vacuum of cold space, there is no radiation (backradiation or otherwise) incident on the surface of the solid sphere.
By integrating Planck’s Blackbody Surface Radiation Law over (a) frequencies from 0 to infinity, (b) the solid angles of a half plane (polar angle from 0 to pi/2, azimuthal angle from 0 to 2*pi), and (c) the surface of a solid sphere of radius Rsp and surface temperature everywhere Tsp,I, it can be shown that the rate radiated energy leaves the solid sphere is 4*pi*sigma*(Rsp)^2*(Tsp,I)^4 (the Stefan-Boltzmann Law). In ERE the rate energy enters the solid sphere equals the rate energy leaves the solid sphere. Thus, for the isolated solid sphere in ERE:
H = 4*pi*sigma*(Rsp)^2*(Tsp,I)^4 (20)
where: sigma is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (approximately 5.6704013×10-8 Watts per square meter per Kelvin to the fourth power).
Solving Equation 20 for Tsp,I gives:
Tsp,I = {H/[4*pi*sigma*(Rsp)^2]}^0.25 (30)
Scenario 2
Surround the solid sphere of Scenario 1 with an inert, concentric, thin spherical shell whose inner surface radius Rsh is greater than Rsp. Assume the shell is sufficiently thin such that for all practical purposes the radius of the shell’s outer surface is equal to the radius of the shell’s inner surface. Assume both the shell’s inner and outer surfaces act like a blackbody. Assume the spherical shell’s thermal conductivity is such that for all practical purposes the temperatures over both the inner and outer shell surfaces are equal and everywhere the same. For Scenario 2 the system is defined to be the solid sphere and the concentric spherical shell. Note: (a) that all radiation from the surface of the solid sphere is directed towards and absorbed by the shell’s inner surface; (b) some of the radiation from the shell’s inner surface is directed towards the solid sphere where it is completely absorbed, and the remainder of the radiation from the shell’s inner surface is directed towards the shell’s inner surface where it is completely absorbed, but no radiation from either the solid sphere or the shell’s inner surface escapes the system to space; and (c) all of the radiation from the shell’s outer surface is directed away from all system components—i.e., all radiation from the shell’s outer surface escapes to space. For these conditions, in ERE the rate energy is radiated from the shell’s outer surface must be H, and the ERE equation for the Scenario 2 system as a whole is
H = 4*pi*sigma*(Rsh)^2*(Tsh,rad_only)^4 (40)
Where Tsh,rad_only is the surface temperature (in Kelvin) of the outer surface of the shell. The subscript rad_only denotes the fact that energy is transferred between the solid sphere and the shell via radiation only—i.e., no conduction or convection. In Scenario 3 energy transfer between the solid sphere and the shell via the non-radiative process of conduction is allowed.
Solving Equation 40 for Tsh,rad_only gives
Tsh,rad_only = {H/[4*pi*sigma*(Rsh)^2]}^0.25 (50)
Using Equations 30 and 50 I can generate an ERE equation for Tsh,rad_only that is a function of the solid sphere radius, the shell’s outer surface radius and the isolated solid sphere’s ERE surface temperature. Specifically,
Tsh,rad_only = Tsp,I * sqrt(Rsp/Rsh) (60)
Equation 60 states that the ratio of the shell’s ERE outer surface temperature to the isolated solid sphere’s ERE surface temperature is the square root of (Rsp/Rsh), which is less than 1–i.e., for a finite radius shell, the shell’s ERE temperature is less than the isolated solid sphere’s ERE temperature.
Since the shell is extremely thin, for all practical purposes the temperature of the shell’s inner surface will be the same as the temperature of the shell’s outer surface. Since both the solid sphere’s surface and the shell’s inner surface act like blackbodies and since for all practical purposes (a) the shell’s inner surface temperature is the same as the shell’s outer surface temperature, and (b) the shell’s inner surface area is the same as the shell’s outer surface area, in ERE the rate energy is radiated from the shell’s inner surface will be the same as the rate, H, energy is radiated from the shell’s outer surface.
For concentric blackbody spherical objects, (a) the ERE rate, Hrad_shell_to_sphere, energy is radiated from the shell’s inner surface towards and absorbed by the solid sphere is
Hrad_shell_to_sphere = H*(Rsp/Rsh)^2 (70)
and (b) the ERE rate, Hrad_shell_to_shell, energy is radiated from the shell’s inner surface towards and absorbed by the shell’s inner surface is
Hrad_shell_to_shell = H*[1 – (Rsp/Rsh)^2] (80)
[See the referenced PDF file for a derivation of Equations 70 and 80.]
This means that in ERE the total rate energy is input to the solid sphere is H (the internal rate of energy) plus H*(Rsp/Rsh)^2 (the rate of backradiated energy from the shell’s inner surface). For Scenario 2, the only way energy can leave the solid sphere is via radiation. For a blackbody sphere the rate radiation leaves the surface of the sphere is equal to the product of (a) the Stefan-Boltzmann constant sigma, (b) the sphere’s surface area 4*pi*(Rsp)^2, and (c) the fourth power of the sphere’s surface temperature Tsp,rad_only in Kelvin. In ERE, that rate must equal the rate energy is input to the solid sphere. Thus, for the solid sphere to be in ERE
H + H*(Rsp/Rsh)^2 = 4*pi*sigma*(Rsp)^2*(Tsp,rad_only)^4 (90)
Solving for Tsp,rad_only, gives
Tsp,rad_only = Tsp,I * [1 + (Rsp/Rsh)^2]^0.25 (120)
Except for the case when Rsh equals infinity, Equation 120 states that for Scenario 2, the ERE surface temperature of the solid sphere when surrounded by a concentric spherical shell is greater than the ERE surface temperature of the isolated solid sphere. However, Equation 120 also states that as Rsh goes to infinity, the ERE surface temperature of the solid sphere when surrounded by the concentric spherical shell approaches the ERE surface temperature of the isolated solid sphere (Scenario 1).
Scenario 3
As with Scenarios 1 and 2, an ERE equation for the solid sphere can in principle be generated. Unfortunately, the Scenario 3 solid sphere ERE equation contains terms that for geometric reasons may be difficult to determine. To overcome this difficulty, I generate a solid sphere ERE equation (called the upper-bound-equation) whose solid sphere temperature solution is guaranteed to be greater than the actual solid sphere temperature. Thus, the solid sphere temperature solution of the upper-bound-equation is an upper bound for the actual solid sphere temperature. Since Scenario 3 differs from Scenario 1 only be the addition of inert material (shell and connecting rods) and the added inert material backradiates energy to the solid sphere, if the solid sphere upper-bound temperature is less than the temperature of the solid sphere in isolation (Scenario 1), then I have constructed a situation where (a) in the absence of the added inert material, no backradiation is incident on the solid sphere, (b) the added inert material backradiates energy to the solid sphere, and (c) the ERE temperature of the solid sphere in the presence of backradiation is lower than the ERE temperature of the solid sphere in the absence of backradiation. If successful, such a construction negates the argument that all else being equal the ERE temperature of an active object must increase in the presence versus absence of backradiation.
Scenario 3 is identical to Scenario 2 with the exception that energy transfer by conduction between the solid sphere and the shell is allowed via N (greater than 0, less than infinity) inert thermally conducting rods. The properties of each inert connecting rod are:
(1) Cylindrical with a cross-section radius Rrod (greater than 0, less than or equal Rsp).
(2) One concave end with curvature symmetric about the rod center line of radius Rsp.
(3) One convex end with curvature symmetric about the rod center line of radius Rsh.
(4) Center-line length Rsh – Rsp.
(5) Thermal conductivity Krod.
(6) Blackbody surfaces.
For Scenario 3 retain the Scenario 2 ERE assumptions that the temperature of the surface of the solid sphere is everywhere the same, and the temperatures of the inner and outer surfaces of the shell are equal and everywhere the same.
Place each rod between the solid sphere and the shell such that (a) the extension of the rod center line passes through the solid sphere center, (b) the concave end of each rod makes contact with the surface of the solid sphere, and (c) the convex end of each rod makes contact with the shell’s inner surface. The combination of the rod center-line length and concave/convex nature of the rod ends means that the concave end of the rod will everywhere be in contact with the solid sphere and the convex end of the rod will everywhere be in contact with the shell’s inner surface. If two or more connecting rods are used, distribute the rods uniformly over the surface of the solid sphere. [See Figure 2 in the referenced PDF file].
The concave end of each connecting rod makes contact with the solid sphere. The solid sphere will not radiate energy over the area of this contact. Thus, the connecting rods reduce the radiating area of the solid sphere. Call the surface of the solid sphere not in contact with any connecting rod the unobstructed solid sphere radiating surface. By replacing the concave rod end with the convex rod end, an identical argument can be made for the radiating area of the inner surface of the shell. Call the inner surface of the shell not in contact with any connecting rod the unobstructed inner shell radiating surface.
The Scenario 3 system is defined by the active solid sphere, the inert concentric spherical shell and all inert connecting rods. Since the only mechanism for energy to escape the Scenario 3 system to space is radiation from the outer surface of the shell and since the only mechanism for energy to enter the Scenario 3 system is thermal heat generated internally within the solid sphere, in ERE the radiation energy rate from the shell’s outer surface must equal the solid sphere’s internal energy rate, H. As with Scenario 2, in ERE the rate energy is radiated to space from the outer surface of the shell is
4*pi*sigma*(Rsh)^2*(Tsh,rad+C)^4,
where Tsh,rad+C is the ERE temperature of the outer surface of the shell when conduction as well as radiation can transport energy between the solid sphere and the shell. Setting these two energy rates equal and solving for Tsh,rad+C gives
Tsh,rad+C = {H/[4*pi*sigma*(Rsh)^2]}^0.25 (150)
Equation 150 says that for ERE conditions, the Scenario 3 shell outer surface temperature is independent of both the temperature of the solid sphere and the number/composition of the connecting rods. Ignoring constants, the Scenario 3 ERE temperature of the shell outer surface depends only on the rate energy is input to the solid sphere and the outer radius of the shell. As with Scenario 2, I treat the Scenario 3 shell as having the same inner and outer surface temperatures. Thus for all practical purposes, the ERE temperature of the inner surface of the Scenario 3 shell is also Tsh,rad+C and independent of the solid sphere’s temperature.
Let Tsp,rad+C be the ERE temperature of the Scenario 3 solid sphere. One way to determine the value of Tsp,rad+C is to generate an ERE equation for the Scenario 3 solid sphere. Such an equation must include all solid sphere input and output energy rates. Energy enters the solid sphere in three ways: (a) internally at a rate H, (b) absorption of radiation originating from the connecting rods, and (c) absorption of radiation originating from the shell’s inner surface. Energy leaves the solid sphere in two ways (a) radiation from the solid sphere’s unobstructed radiating surface, and (b) conduction via the connecting rods. Since (a) the temperature of the inner surface of the shell is independent of the temperature of the solid sphere, (b) the rate of solid sphere radiated energy loss is proportional to the fourth power of the solid sphere temperature, and (b) the rate of solid sphere conductive energy loss is proportional to the difference between the solid sphere temperature and the shell inner surface temperature, an increase in the solid sphere temperature will produce an increase in the rate of solid sphere energy loss. If energy enters the solid sphere at a rate greater than the solid sphere’s Scenario 3 ERE input energy rate, then for the solid sphere to be in ERE, the resulting solid sphere temperature will be greater than the actual Scenario 3 solid sphere temperature.
I now describe three ways to increase the rate energy enters the solid sphere relative to the rate energy actually enters the Scenario 3 solid sphere. By applying these “ways,” I generate an upper-bound-equation whose solid sphere temperature solution is guaranteed to be higher than the actual Scenario 3 solid sphere temperature, and hence is guaranteed to be an upper bound of the actual Scenario 3 solid sphere temperature.
First, I increase the rate the solid sphere absorbs radiated energy originating from the connecting rods by everywhere setting the temperature of the radiating surface of each connecting rod to the rod’s maximum temperature. Since the temperature of the rod (a) decreases with distance from the solid sphere and (b) cannot be greater than the temperature of the solid sphere, by setting the temperature of each rod’s radiating surface everywhere equal to the temperature of the solid sphere, I ensure that the rate the solid sphere absorbs radiated energy originating from the connecting rods is greater than the actual Scenario 3 rate the solid sphere absorbs radiated energy originating from the connecting rods.
Second, in Scenario 3, energy radiated from each rod will be absorbed by three surfaces: the surface of the solid sphere, the shell’s inner surface, and the surfaces of other rods. If I assume the solid sphere absorbs all of the energy radiated from all rods, I increase the solid sphere energy absorption rate relative to the actual Scenario 3 solid sphere energy absorption rate.
Third, energy radiated from the inner surface of the shell can be divided into two additive parts: energy radiated in the direction of the solid sphere, and energy radiated in “all other directions.” None of the energy radiated in “all other directions” will reach the solid sphere because that energy will be absorbed by either the shell’s inner surface or a connecting rod. In the actual Scenario 3 case, some of the energy radiated from the shell’s inner surface in the direction of the solid sphere will encounter a connecting rod before it reaches the solid sphere. Because the connecting rod surfaces are assumed to be blackbody surface, all of this energy will be absorbed by the connecting rods. Thus, if I assume all of the energy radiated from the shell’s inner surface in the direction of the solid sphere reaches and is absorbed by the solid sphere, the solid sphere absorption rate of this energy is greater than the actual Scenario 3 absorption rate of this energy.
The upper-bound-equation is generated by incorporating each of these increased rates into absorption by the solid sphere. The result will be an increased solid sphere input energy rate, and an increased solid sphere ERE temperature. As argued previously, that solid sphere temperature is an upper bound for the actual Scenario 3 solid sphere temperature.
[Note: In this comment, I’m going to omit the derivation and solution of the upper-bound-equation and proceed directly to an example using real-world parameter values. If you’re interested in the derivation and solution of the upper-bound-equation, see the referenced PDF file. The solid sphere temperature solution of the upper-bound-equation is the set of PDF file Equations numbered 770, 570, 560, 760, 620, and 640.]
EXAMPLE
Set the radius, Rsp, of the solid sphere to 0.1 meters.
Set the radius, Rsh, of the concentric spherical shell to 0.2 meters.
Set the rate of solid sphere internal energy, H, to 60 watts.
Set the thermal conductivity, Krod, of the connecting rods to 401 Watts per meter per Kelvin (the thermal conductivity of copper).
Set the radius, Rrod, of each connecting rod to 0.002582 meters.
Set the number of rods, N, to 6
The above conditions produce the following upper-bound-equation results:
The radiating surface area of all connecting rods, 0.00974 square meters.
The surface area of the solid sphere, 0.125664 square meters.
The unobstructed solid sphere radiating surface area, 0.125538 square meters.
The area of the inner surface of the shell, 0.502655 square meters.
The unobstructed inner shell radiating surface area, 0.502529 square meters.
The rate energy radiated from all connecting rods is absorbed by the solid sphere, 3.4268 watts.
The rate energy is radiated from the solid sphere, 44.1883 watts.
The rate energy is radiated from the shell’s inner surface, 59.9850 watts.
The rate energy radiated from the shell’s inner surface is absorbed by the solid sphere, 14.9962 watts.
The total rate energy enters the solid sphere, 78.4231 watts (includes 60 watts internal).
The rate the connecting rods conduct energy away from the solid sphere, 34.2532 watts.
The temperature, Tsp,I = 302.9K, of the solid sphere in isolation (Scenario 1)
The temperature, Tsp,rad_only = 320.3K, of the solid sphere when surrounded only by the inert concentric spherical shell (Scenario 2)
The temperature, Tsh_rad_only = 214.2K, of the shell when the solid sphere is surrounded only by the inert concentric spherical shell (Scenario 2)
The upper bound temperature, Tubsp,rad+C = 280.7K, of the solid sphere when surrounded by both the inert concentric spherical shell and the inert connecting rods (Scenario 3).
The temperature, Tsh,rad+C = 214.2K, of the shell when the solid sphere is surrounded by both the inert concentric spherical shell and the inert connecting rods (Scenario 3).
In the Example the Scenario 3 upper bound solid sphere temperature is lower than the Scenario 1 (isolated solid sphere) solid sphere temperature. Thus for the Example, the thermal conduction current overcomes backradiation to the solid sphere; and the solid sphere temperature is lowered in the presence of inert backradiating material. Since backradiation exists for Scenario 3, the conclusion is that the presence of backradiation, by itself, does not guarantee an active object temperature increase.
CONCLUSION
Using the Example as a basis for drawing conclusions, it’s every bit as valid to argue that (a) the temperature of an active object with a fixed source of internal energy must decrease if inert matter is added that supports the removal of energy via conduction from the active object, as it is to argue that (b) the temperature of an active object with a fixed source of internal energy must increase if inert material is added that backradiates energy to the active object. The former will likely exist when energy transfer is dominated by thermal conduction. The latter will likely exist when energy transfer is dominated by radiation. The problem is that neither argument is valid. A determination of the temperature change of the active object must include all forms of energy transfer to/from the active object.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/512638.html reports that the average rate of sea level drop from evaporation is 1.2 meters per year. When coupled with (a) the area of the Earth’s surface covered sea by water (approximately 3.67 x 10^14 square meters), (b) the density of sea water (approximately 1,030 kilograms per cubic meter), and (c) water’s heat of vaporization (approximately 2.23 x 10^6 Joules per kilogram), the energy rate required to sustain this level of evaporation is approximately 3.21 x 10^16 Watts, which is (a) a significant fraction (0.184) of the total rate (1.743 x 10^17 Watts) solar energy is incident at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere, and (b) using an average Earth albedo of 0.3, an even larger fraction (0.263) of the rate solar energy is absorbed by the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere system. Furthermore, using an average raindrop speed of 10 meters per second (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/EvanKaplan.shtml), very little (approximately 7.19×10^11 Watts) of this energy returns to the Earth’s surface as internal thermal energy via the conversion of raindrop kinetic energy to thermal energy as raindrops strike the Earth’s surface. Thus, the rate of energy loss from the Earth’s surface via evaporation alone, which is a non-radiative energy transfer process, is significant.
Since for the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere-System, (a) energy at a non-negligible rate can be transferred from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere via radiation/conduction and evaporation, and (b) energy within the atmosphere can be redistributed via radiation, conduction and convection, the claim that atmospheric greenhouse gases will increase the Earth’s surface temperature based solely on the existence of greenhouse gas backradiation is, in my opinion, unwarranted. If, as well may be the case, greenhouse gases induce a positive change to the Earth’s surface temperature, the positive temperature change must be demonstrated—not simply proclaimed on the basis that the Earth’s surface is receiving additional radiation (backradiation).
71
If I have understood you correctly Reed,
You have outlined a situation where a heated sphere in a vacuum is in equilibrium with its surroundings. If it is then surrounded by a thin metal sphere (without touching), the surrounding sphere will cause the inner sphere to be warmer. That is a standard explanation of the Greenhouse Theory.
You then show that introducing conducting pathways (inert rods) between the inner and outer spheres can cause the inner sphere to be cooler than before, if the rate of energy transfer via the rods is large enough.
The analogy seems clear. Atmospheric gases can convey heat to the upper troposphere by conduction and convection. Under such conditions it is quite possible that Greenhouse gases may contribute to cooling of the Earth’s surface.
32
Peter C,
Yes, with one clarification. Conduction via gases at Earth atmospheric pressures is many orders of magnitude smaller than conduction via metals such as copper. Therefore, it’s unlikely conduction plays a major role in energy transfer away from the Earth’s surface. However, at least as I see it, convection, and especially convection coupled with evaporation, moves massive amounts of energy away from the Earth’s surface. So yes, until shown otherwise, I’m not convinced that greenhouse gases (especially water vapor) might have a net cooling effect of the Earth’s surface.
12
Reed, since you have used the word backradiation or backradiate quite a few times in this comment could you explain where the concept of backradiation came from and in what fields besides climate “science” it is used. I am not aware of any, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other fields which use this term.
That being the case, if it is a term used exclusively for a hypothesis that should have been discarded long ago, why use it at all?
20
There aren’t any. In Classical thermodynamics we would set a system boundary at the tropopause and just consider Nett flows across the boundary. What happens inside the boundary isn’t important. Over time what we see is there is a Nett flow into the earth, which isn’t at all odd because sunlight is used by earths organisms to create enthalpy. That is it enables endothermic reactions to take place. Anytime an endothermic reaction takes place, or endothermic phase changes from solid to liquid, or liquid to gas, some sunlight is lost.
How photons recycle within the boundary to set the Nett flow across the boundary is really irrelevant.
The big problem with most of this anyway is that climate science assumes that radiation is the ONLY way the earth can cool, and as they say in the classics, “it aint necessarily so”.
21
Bobl,
I agree. The big problem is that climate science focuses overwhelmingly on energy transfer via radiation. In my opinion they do this because considering the Earth/Earth-Atmosphere as a system, radiation is the overwhelmingly dominant means of energy loss from the system. As you point out, however, radiation is likely not the dominant way energy is removed from the Earth’s surface. Someone once told me (I forget who): Any analysis of Earth surface and Earth atmosphere that gives short shrift to convection is not worth the paper it’s written on. I agree with that sentiment.
41
Just for the record, insolation is PUNY.
Wave energy is about 36kW per square meter,
The energy in the jet stream is about 2 megawatts per square meter (of swept area).
A single lightning bolt is a Billion joules, if we assume a lightning bolt per second and that the energy of the lightning bolt is focussed on a square meter rather than a square centimeter, thats a Billion watts per square meter. Real lightning at 1 per second is probably 100 Billion watts per square meter at the contact point.
Potential energy of the earth relative to the sun 5.33 e27 Mj.
Kinetic energy of earths rotation 2.5 e23 MJ
Kinetic energy of earths orbit around the sun 2.6 e27 MJ
Insolation received by the earth in a year 5.56 e18 MJ.
Extra warming supposed to be catastrophically warming the earth 3 E15 MJ per annum
Lightning energy in a year 1.57 E11 MJ
Photosythesis chemical energy 3 E15 MJ per annum
Human body heat 3.7e13 MJ per annum
Look at this stuff, we are arguing about an energy of about 4 E15 MJ a year among energies up to 2E27 MJ, 800 billion times as large as a whole year of solar insolation. The energy eaten up by plants in photosynthesis is essentially the same as the global warming forcing, photosynthesis alone is enough to explain the radiative imbalance. Human body heat is comparable to the scientists CO2 imbalance (1% or so) these are major influences, are they accounted?
These titanic energies are at work day in day out and yet these scientists say NUP, none of them affect climate
20
Robert,
I do often use the word backradiate. I am aware of no “fields” besides climate science that use the term.
Where did the concept of backradiation come from? In my opinion, the word backradiation comes from the following. (a) Surfaces at temperatures above 0K emit radiation. (b) For an inert object (an object devoid of all internal sources of energy and isolated from all other objects), all energy will eventually be radiated away from the object (here I’m ignoring the background radiation apparently present everywhere in the universe) and the object’s temperature will reach 0K. (c) If an active object (an object with a non-zero source of thermal energy) is placed in the vicinity of the inert object, energy will flow from the active object to the inert object. (d) Absorption by the inert object of that energy will raise the temperature of the inert object above 0. (e) At a non-zero temperature, the inert object will radiate energy. (f) Some of that radiated energy will be directed towards and absorbed by the active object. (b) Since in the absence of the inert object the active object receives no incoming radiation, but in the presence of the inert object the active object receives energy from the inert object where the inert object’s energy originates from the active object, to me it’s not unreasonable to characterize the radiation propagating from the inert object to the active object with the word “backradiation” in that is energy returning to its originating source.
I can’t answer your last question. I use the word “backradiation” because the word is invariably introduced (not originally by me, but as time goes on I sometimes introduce the word as is evident from my comment) in any technical discussion of global warming. If I just say “backradiation is a concept used only in climate science, therefore I do not accept your use of the word,” the conversation stops. Experience has taught me that if I want to engage in technical discussions of global warming, I’ll have to hear and probably have to use the word “backradiation.”
I do see one practical use of computing the rate energy leaves a colder surface in the direction of a warmer surface. It’s true that without work being done, heat never flows from cold surface to a hot surface. However, when trying to compute the temperatures of multiple objects in proximity to each other, computing the rate of this virtual heat transfer (as I did in my comment) from cooler objects to warmer objects is one means of arriving at those temperatures.
BTW. Energy can be transferred from hot objects to cold objects via conduction. Conductive heat transfer is often modeled as molecules bumping into each other, which because high temperature molecules have on the average higher velocities than low temperature molecules models, conduction as the transfer of kinetic energy from high velocity molecules to low velocity molecules. However, since molecules have a spread of velocities, it’s not inconceivable that a high-speed molecule on the low temperature side of a conduction process transmit some of its kinetic energy to a low-speed molecule on the high temperature side. Using the logic of “backradiation,” it seems to me we could also have “backconduction,” which as far as I can see could only be used to bring confusion into any discussion. Hell, I think I’ll start talking about “backconduction” and see how many people I can convince that backconduction must be studied.
21
That is understandable, it is sad though that a made up term that has no meaning or validity to anyone outside of climate “science” is given any credence at all. To continue to use it, even for the purpose of continuing a discussion, is to give it a validity it does not deserve. We (the collective “everyone”) have gotten very, very sloppy and imprecise in scientific discussions. People call things a theory that aren’t, people use made up terms to describe something claiming it is based on physics when physics doesn’t support it, and the list goes on.
Working in the electrical field the “backconduction” notion got a grin. I don’t believe I’ll use the term with anyone I work with though. Things get goofy enough when we talk about current flow and we first have to determine if we are talking about “hole flow” or “electron flow” so we can agree on which direction it is going.
40
Robert,
There are any number of terms the AGW adherents have concocted to promote their belief system on the rest of us, but the one that stands out the most for me is ‘forcings’. This concept does not exist anywhere outside of climate scientism. Nor does it have any validity in physics as you pointed out with regard to backradiation.
The only proper use of these artificial terms in a conversation is to point out how they mean nothing.
Abe
51
Robert’
It seems much harder with minority and majority carrier mobility. To finally determine no mater the sex, you pee whatever you drink, requires belief! As in I believe I will have another beer!
12
Hi Robert,
I’m wondering if it might be better to use “Back EMF” and “Signal Reflection” as an analogy for “backradiation” rather than the semiconductor explanations based on “Hole Flow” etc.
AFAIK, outside of semiconductor theory, hole flow (the direction of conventional current) v electron flow has no meaning. If current is the movement of electrons then current is from negative to positive – the opposite of what Ben Franklin proposed.
10
You misunderstood Max. I am not advocating any analogies, replacements, or anything for the made up, absolutely devoid of meaning term “backradiation.” It’s a crap term and anyone with even a basic semester or two of college level physics should know that. IMO they should know that if they’ve had any high school physics.
Reed mentioned conduction and, I suspect, joked about trying to get people to buy into that to see how many he could talk into studying it. I found that funny as I work in the electrical field, generators specifically, and was thinking of the added confusion we could add to discussions with that term.
I only mentioned “hole flow” and “electron flow” to illustrate that fields of work dealing with electricity or electronics already have their own built in confusions, they don’t need more.
Outside of semiconductor theory “hole flow” or “conventional flow” may have no meaning, but that is the theory taught engineers as they design the semiconductors. In general the technical schools, military, and trade schools teach “electron flow.” As an interesting discussion I recently read on this topic stated, since you never know who wrote whatever book or manual you are using/reading from and which theory they chose to follow it is beneficial to be familiar with both if you plan to work in/with electronics.
00
Robert,
Yes, I was joking; and to me the idea of “backconduction” is a bad joke.
00
So I’m guessing here that neither Robert nor Reed would consider that Time-Domain Reflectometers and Lenz’s Law would indicate something that could be called “backconduction”?
I.e. a signal (or portion thereof), which is returned to the source?
00
That’s a lot of definition and calculation!
It raises the question of whether anyone can accurately predict the temperature of the planet with their very complex models and super computers? At least two of the obvious forces missing from the calculation are the heat from the earth itself, which is a ball of molten metal at up to 900C and the behaviour of the oceans as a stabilizing heatsink, 340x as massive as the atmosphere. Then you have to add the currents and turbulence in both air and water systems and the massive differences in temperature from the equator at 32C to the poles at say -32C, where one the physical nature of one of the major players, water changes dramatically. Evaporation rates have to be considered with freezing rates and melting rates. Simplistic models are fine for gross calculations but hardly adequate when trying to predict global temperature let alone to an accuracy of 0.5C.
The core premise of Man Made Global Warming though has never been proven and is never mentioned, that mankind is largely responsible for the 50% increase in CO2 in the last century. If that is not true and it is not, we are all just playing meteorologists with models because mankind has no impact on the temperature of the planet. That should hardly surprise anyone.
After all, we only care about the little part of the atmosphere which is the bottom hundred meters of the atmosphere, because that is where we live and where crops grow. A real model would have trouble predicting this temperature to 0.5C accuracy let alone the entire body of air above it, which quickly goes down quickly to -60C at aircraft altitudes. Everyone seems to be playing with differences, trends as they are easier to argue against a stable background, but who said it was stable? Haven’t we just escaped an ice age?
No, this endless fascination with micro meteorology is a distraction from the fact that the world has not heated recently and even if it did, that for all our motor cars and trucks, we cannot even be seen from space. From worshipping the Gods who lived in the clouds to the worshiping of science and the pronouncements of the most high IPCC, nothing has changed. Just the explanations.
71
TdeF March 29, 2015 at 4:13 pm
“That’s a lot of definition and calculation!”
If the only answer that has any personal integrity, is “I do not know”, not even Hartland Institute will fund your effort! 99.37% of all critters support “I do not know”! Guess the integrity of AGW?
12
Will, I am quite capable of creating complex mathematical and physical models. However you have to start with simple concept, simply explained and then prove it with simple calculations, if possible. I find complex explanations difficult to follow and full of arbitrary assumptions which have to be tested, creating a bigger puzzle all the time.
My concern is that in trying to out model professional and qualified climate scientists is that they can easily dismiss us bloggers as amateur scientists and this sort of thing as amateur ramblings.
The core predictions of the IPCC supported models are the point, not how they work or how complex they are. If the predictions are wrong, the model is wrong. No one predicted the temperature would not change for 17 years. In fact, that stability in itself is remarkable, no matter what the reason. At the very least, explanations in hindsight are ridiculous. The 97% of Climate Scientists were completely wrong. That is what matters. Man made Global Warming is not evidence based science and now totally discredited.
60
“The core premise of Man Made Global Warming though has never been proven and is never mentioned, that mankind is largely responsible for the 50% increase in CO2 in the last century. If that is not true and it is not, we are all just playing meteorologists with models because mankind has no impact on the temperature of the planet. That should hardly surprise anyone.”
“Earthlings” with induced rapid oxidation of any hydrocarbons, for sensible heat or any other clever forms of power from what is, only reflect the immensity of what is. Earthlings can never be more than some trivial irritant on what is. Most earthlings get along with getting along! Hi squirrel, hi frog. “Armadillo” exit to way over yonder. Some very self importantant Earthlings need to fix that! This created weapons for both sides. Do you really think that this “world”, this is, will not handle that with “no” effort?
12
So glad you mentioned Armadillo.
10
TdeF, 9:29 pm, 29 March 2015
You’ve pretty much described how I feel about the whole AGW business. I’ve given some of the AGW community’s “selling points” quite a bit of thought. I decided to see for myself if they held up to scrutiny or even made sense. Many of them didn’t. I felt, and still feel, compelled to fight the pervasive AGW hysteria. I do so primarily by donations to blogs like Joanne’s. However, after performing analyses like the one above, I wanted place those analyses on the internet where there was a chance, even a slim chance, that an AGW advocate might read them and if not change is mind, at least get him/her thinking. Joanne’s Unthreaded “Whatever” threads have given me that opportunity. If by so doing I have harmed the fight against AGW hysteria, then my attempts are counterproductive. Anyway, it’s what I felt I had to do.
40
“Since the shell is extremely thin, for all practical purposes the temperature of the shell’s inner surface will be the same as the temperature of the shell’s outer surface. Since both the solid sphere’s surface and the shell’s inner surface act like blackbodies and since for all practical purposes (a) the shell’s inner surface temperature is the same as the shell’s outer surface temperature, and (b) the shell’s inner surface area is the same as the shell’s outer surface area, in ERE the rate energy is radiated from the shell’s inner surface will be the same as the rate, H, energy is radiated from the shell’s outer surface.”
This is the part of your article that is non-supportable, and a complete fantasy. Such has never been, detected, observed, or ever measured. A complete pseudo-science fabrication. This is never proposed by Planck. This is in conflict with all Maxwell’s equations of EMR. Such a claim would violate projective geometry, and imply an infinite temperature at the centre of any hollow shell with temperature and finite internal emissivity.
Reed Coray March 29, 2015 at 1:34 pm ·
“Robert, I do often use the word backradiate. I am aware of no “fields” besides climate science that use the term.”
Please become familiar with thermal, gravitational, electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields. A potential for energy transfer, never any energy transfer itself. All mass with temperatures has a potential,(something like Volts, or pressure)!
As per 2LTD a potential difference is requires for spontaneous energy transfer. Only gravity can overcome a rigid, adiabatic, reflective boundary. A stout tree between masses appears to overcome gravity. None changes the potential or potential difference
“Where did the concept of backradiation come from? In my opinion, the word backradiation comes from the following. (a) Surfaces at temperatures above 0K emit radiation.”
So you have been brainwashed, by incompetent academics, please get over it! 🙂 The direction of radiative flux reverses when an opposing field strength is higher at whatever frequency. This is called absorptance rather than emittance.
“backconduction”
The term flux is always macroscopic and unidirectional. Potential is never flux. If you wish to redefine the term radiation as potential rather than flux, please so state!
03
The seat of Newtown went to the Greens in last night’s state election.
I hear they will have an Earth Hour Competition to find the constituant who uses the least energy until Earth Hour next year.
First prize is a Tesla.
Second prize is two Teslas.
120
Can I get one with Nikola as the autonomous navigator?
30
Given the price of a Tesla it is certainly worth leasing a room then leaving it vacant with all power points, water and gas taps off. And just leaving it there.
40
Abbott signs up to UN Climate Quackery
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” UNFCCC Executive Secretary Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels Tuesday.
SMH, 28 March, 2015: The Abbott government has committed Australia to joining the next big global climate pact.
“The global accord is to be agreed in Paris in December. Countries are announcing their carbon targets to take effect from 2020, with the US pledge expected next week.
The paper sets to rest the fear among environmentalists that the Abbott government would be overrun by climate sceptics and refuse to consider
further cuts to carbon output.”
. . .
It’s the scene out of the movie, Thelma & Louise, when they drive the car over the cliff.
Next election, I will choose to have Bill Shorten at the wheel, only because he he was less deceitful and was always sure where he was heading.
Abbott to be a one-term government.
58
I’m with you, HJ.
If the LNP don’t follow Ted Cruz and denounce global warminhg then I’ll vote Labor just to ensure the people that created this poisonous tree get to taste its fruit.
76
handjive,
I found a link to the official publication released by the Australian Governmet – Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Setting Australia’s post-2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions – Issues Paper.
I’m not a citizen of Australia so I cannot directly affect what goes on there. What I can do is suggest that a close examination of this document, in concert with a comprehensive public disussion of each of the issues presented in it, be undertaken by all those who are interested in having an impact on what actions will ultimately be taken when the Australian government presents their final proposal in mid 2015.
Jo,
I realise that this comment is basically the same as my earlier comment to Andrew McRae. Websites generally don’t appreciate duplicate comments for a variety of reasons. In this case, I believe that the issues involved warrant a link to the official document at every mention of it’s publication so that interested parties can review it’s contents. It’s my intent to repeat this process going forward. I appologise if this intentional duplication causes any problems, and if you disagree with my reasoning for the duplication, I’ll be glad to refrain from doing so in the future.
Abe
60
I downloaded the linked PDF and began reading, got to the title and first sentence of the intro and it said this as its ideological a-scientific starting point:
See the graph below of global averaged measured scientific time trend reality (totally flat for the last 9 years), compared to the IPCC’s model prediction trend, which they used to advise and mislead Governmental national policy settings, that harmed people for no discernible measurable material reason, whatsoever.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/clip_image028.jpg
So given the paper’s title and the very first sentence’s axiomatic starting-point is completely inconsistent with the best current scientific observations we have, showing almost but not quite zero measurable change in global temperature trend in going on 18 years, one must ask; have elements within the Abbott Government and its public advisers and administrators who compiled this document fallen on their heads lately?
__
Or does Canberra just completely reject actual physical scientific state-of-the-art instrumental measurements on the basis of some fundamentalist principle?
110
I read the document, responded to it, sent a copy of my response to my federal mp.
Some parts of the document are vague enough, eg committing to everything and nothing. Lets hope that is intent rather than incompetence. I guess that could depend on Abbott & Harper surviving? One stand-out item: “carbon leakage”. Has this term been used before or has the UNFCCC Taskforce just invented it? My first thought was that it was a polite way of saying ßµ||šhì†
30
Thanks Just-A-Guy for searching out that document.
My submission to the document is outside the criteria, and keeps returning to the first sentence:
“Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution”.
. . .
Before we can continue, the Abbott Government needs to define the climate it wants, and how it differs from the climate it now has.
If the Abbott Government is aiming to change something, we deserve to be able to identify that change, otherwise the climate doctors go unaudited,
and we continue to sign blank cheques.
Some of the ‘science’ offered is questionable, to be kind.
For example, the Abbott govt. fail to mention the ‘pause’, so, if I submit a question with data on that, it is outside their criteria.
The processes revealed in Jonova’s recent post, “BoM forum been, gone. Rejoice! Invisible problems being solved behind closed doors“, indicates where that is going.
That’s meh.
70
handjive,
Your welcome. Your link to the story mentioned the doc would be published shortly so . . .
You must be refering to this:
It says they value your views. Just ignore the second part.
Also it says in particular on the following issues. But in general what? In general means anything else of concern.
They need to be made aware that the general public isn’t falling for all this nonsense and that the ppl are aware of what the science shows is really going on in the real world outside of their super-computer based video game models.
What would happen if half or more of the submissions stated that there should be no reduction target with a short explanation on why. Concentrate on one primary reason. You don’t know for a fact that it’ll be rejected.
It can’t hurt. It can only help.
Abe
60
Could I have mis-judged the coal-loving Abbott?
UN green climate fund can be spent on coal-fired power generation (theguardian.com, 29/3/15))
30
handjive,
The Japanese have been doing it and will continue to do it.
h/t pat
Abe
10
Thanks for finding that. I’ve just accessed it and read only as far as the release date, yesterday, Saturday March 28. Sorry to be so pedantic about that, but to me it smacks of political obfuscation (surprised?). Firstly, Saturday. In Oz all commentators are usually out at sport or relaxing, but secondly yesterday was election day here in NSW, so some of our commentators were looking at that. And so were we. It was a state election but had federal significance.
Perhaps contributions have closed already? I haven’t got that far yet.
Thanks again
Dave Beach
50
Does Abbott want a straw with his kool-aid?
50
Nah, he bought his own.
When you sup with the Devil you need a very long straw.
110
Choose shorty and you will get 10 times worse. Do you really think that he will put less money in the global warming crap you barking
You will never get what you looking for.
I always vote by the well chosen path “who will root me up the arse less” is the only option in this country. The lowest denominator rules and you want to follow that? After the usual high quality of your posts HJ I am disappointed .
40
Yes well see I make my point again – which ever way you go…you get the same result.
Only with Labor, the path to slavery is faster…with “Socialist Gun control Howard” Liberals, its slower……but it still goes in the same direction…..slavery.
The best slave is one who doesnt realize he is a slave.
50
Barry Unsworth should have played the stock market, to make such a specific prediction and get it 100% correct………what are the odds…..?
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;page=0;query=unsworth%20massacre%20tasmania;rec=1;resCount=Default
Senator BOLKUS(4.17 p.m.) —I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The necessity of unanimous support for the joint statement and resolutions made by the Council of Australian Police Ministers on Friday, 10 May 1996 and support for the proposed increase in the Medicare levy to fund the buy-back of prohibited firearms.
I move this motion in the spirit that has characterised the opposition’s position on the issue of guns and, particularly in recent days, on the issue of the proposed increase in the Medicare levy to fund the buy-back of prohibited firearms. This motion represents a continuation of the position that we took before the election. It also represents a recognition of the need for bipartisan support on this issue.
Some nine years ago the then Premier of New South Wales, Barry Unsworth , whilst leaving a meeting of ministers discussing gun issues, stated that it would take a manslaughter in Tasmania before we got nationally uniform and effective gun laws. Unfortunately for Australia, for Tasmania , for Port Arthur and particularly for the 35 people and their families who were involved in the tragedy a few weeks ago in Port Arthur, he was right. It has taken such a massacre to force all of us to face our responsibilities.
10
I did live under communism for 20 years and I know a thing or 2 about slavery. If equate Howard and liberates to a lower socialist I,m afraid you have little idea what you talking about. Globalisation has
1. increased of standard of living to unprecedented level in human history
2. Moved 1/3 of the population to mid class level
3. Prevented global and numerous local wars
4. It also was one of the caused of the fall of communism.
5. Slowed down population growth.
6. Reduced strength of the unions
7. Increased competitiveness of Australia
8. Provided stability and equalised world a little bit
9. Increased co2 at logarithmic scale and possible prevention of the coming ice age?
10. Gave birth to global markets of all descriptions including internet
11. Accelerated human ingenuity and thought process
Surely such momentous achievement can,t be overlooked or want to go back the 50ties an apparently safe and slow world where nukes could be fired by an individuals with no control.
We are the voices to prevent the freedom shrink. The individual has more power than ever and this blog is the example.
70
Did not read before sending, should read” if you equate Howard and liberals to slower socialists”
Apologies.
40
Hi Darius,
Yes globalism has to some degree lifted living standards. Perhaps I should clarify further when I say “globalists” I mean those who are committed top bringing in global socialism, which from what I can see, covers a lot, but not all, power brokers around the planet.
My uncle escaped from Communist Hungary and told me many stories, so I’m not talking empty words.
john Howard is a closet Socilaist – one of the main aims of socialism is disarming a population so it can be controlled. JWH delivered australians to the socialists. As to Port Arthur , someone a while back raised a very good point about the shot-to-kill ratio was of a professional special forces marksman, which is hard to gel with Bryant who has incredibly low IQ and to my knowledge never special forces trained.
As devils advocate ( so to speak ) you could possit that a combination of desire and an off-the-wall “opportunity” has allowed gun control in Australia whereby otherwise it would never have happened. I’m not seeing reds under every bed, or anything remotely paranoid. I do know that the powers that be will burn anyone they want to get what they want, though…Hitler had it right when he said ( as CAGW aptly demonstrates ) that if you tell lie big enough for long enough, peopel accept it as truth.
QED
20
Thelma understood!
20
“A BBC presenter found herself in the middle of a Twitter storm after claiming a radio documentary on climate change was balanced because it did not feature any sceptic voice. (h/t Bishop Hill)”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/28/bbc-presenter-new-climate-doc-unbiased-because-it-doesnt-feature-sceptics/
90
But surely any skeptics in the room would only unbalance any cosy little climate chats.
40
I’ve always maintained that if you find yourself “in the middle of a Twitter storm”, you have probably turned into an ideological zealot, and need to unplug for about five years, to see if things will improve.
100
That’s “balanced” as in teetering on a knife-edge.
40
“Climate change as ‘leftist malware’ ”
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/28/climate-change-as-leftist-malware/
40
After enjoying the election results in NSW we did not even remember that earth hour had come and gone. Then it was on to Weekend Unleashed.
40
What Earth hour? I thought it was a agreed by the masses it’s a moronic gesture for a hoax that never really saw the light of day. Even those at work who are AGW believers never took it seriously. I suppose there will always be a small proportion of the population who are down right stupid.
30
All Aussie readers would have received their letter from Australia Post last week justifying the next price rise for basic postage, which looks like it will be substantial. It said “Business and government now account for 97% of all letters sent in Australia”. I burst out laughing! 🙂
90
I think they are actively discouraging private mail, especially overseas mail. I resent paying going on for $3 for a small birthday or Christmas card to be sent. With many friends and family in the UK and other countries it is just too much to pay.
50
Annie Private mail is very hard to track compared to digital communication methods, the less mail volume will mean a bigger price increase to cover delivery costs, very much a downward spiral in operational viability.
60
I’m thinking that they ought to spend some time on a Laffer curve exercise.
I’m suspecting that they are already beyond the price for maximum return and further increases will make things worse.
40
They’ve certainly crushed any potential for mail-order businesses out of Australia.
I can get a 10kg parcel from Germany to Australia by “air mail” for about $120. AussiePost: $234.30 in the other direction. Just 1kg will cost $39.10.
That’s absurd. As are postal rates for airmail letters; even postcards. A disincentive and gross disadvantage to sending anything overseas.
40
To those of you who are disappointed that TA will sign on to the global climate quackery, I suggest you vote for an ALA candidate.
30
When you have politicians like Democrat Barbara Lee believing that global warming is going to force women into prostitution, we know that us skeptics are on the right side of the debate and winning very comfortably. Therefore, it’s time we call upon all AGW alarmists to either stop talking rubbish (ie, shut up) or provide evidence that is worthy of discussion. Thus far they have not done so in either case. People like Barbara Lee are not only turning people off from AGW discussions, they are helping to make the AGW alarmist cause even more illegitimate that it currently is.
90
Yes, perhaps, but there’s no denying here thesis is consistent with a general rise in the number of busty strumpets putting it about during the medieval warming period.
110
I thought it was the world’s oldest profession?
20
The shadow of Earth Hour continues its lonely quest around the planet. Has left Europe, (UK&Ireland) an hour ago and is currently taking a rest, nowhere. It will be resuming in North America (St. John’s, Newfoundland) in the next 1/2 hour.
50
as Just-A-Guy says – CAGW sceptics can makes submissions:
28 March: Dept of the Prime Minister & Cabinet: UNFCCC: Setting Australia’s post-2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions …
Information on how you can make a submission.
Submissions open Saturday 28 March 2015 and close 3pm AEST Friday 24 April 2015…
https://www.dpmc.gov.au/taskforces/unfccc
provide EVIDENCE the public can understand:
26 March: San Jose Mercury News: California’s shift toward renewables makes energy harder to manage
By Kim Smuga-Otto
FOLSOM — California’s electrical grid has a problem — a nice problem, but a problem nonetheless: The state often has too much power.
Nearly 23 percent of California’s energy now comes from renewable sources such as wind and solar, and the state is on track to reach its goal of generating one-third of its energy from renewables by 2020. But feeding all that green energy into the Golden State’s grid — without overloading it — has become a major challenge.
That’s because the state’s aging natural gas plants aren’t nimble enough to turn off when the sun starts shining and then quickly switch back on when it gets dark. And while the technology to generate clean energy is growing by leaps and bounds, efforts to store the power haven’t kept up…
And utilities are having to recalculate how much they should charge for electricity at certain times of the day…
***The last time Californians had to think about their electrical grid was in the early 2000s, when companies such as Enron manipulated energy prices and caused statewide brownouts…
All this solar power is allowing California to cut back on natural gas — which now provides about 60 percent of the state’s energy needs — and other traditional sources of electricity.
But this can be a problem because the sun sets at the same time that people are returning home.
***That causes electricity use to surge, and the power plants that were turned down or even off need to start producing — fast…
***”A big portion of our fleet is not flexible,” said Steven Greenlee, an ISO spokesman. “It cannot be ramped up fast. It cannot start and stop multiple times.”
***It can take up to a day for a typical electrical generator to go from “off” to being able to add electricity to the grid. And as more solar comes online, the ramp-up curve each evening is getting steeper.
Greenlee said the grid needs natural gas plants that can respond to increased demand within 10 minutes.
***This could mean building new plants or retrofitting old ones…
???Nancy Rader, executive director of the California Wind Energy Association, says that wind generation is usually a balancing force on the grid because it normally gets windier as the sun is setting. “It’s going in the right direction at the right time,” said Rader, who doesn’t see over-generation of wind energy as much of a problem because it’s easy to turn off a wind turbine…
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_27796539/californias-shift-toward-renewables-makes-energy-harder-manage
40
“Rader…doesn’t see over-generation of wind energy as much of a problem because it’s easy to turn off a wind turbine…”
Except the State’s contract calls for paying for the energy whether the turbine is running or not, iirc.
40
US Democrat jumps the shark…Uses gender card to push Climate Change.
CONGRESSWOMAN CLAIMS CLIMATE CHANGE WILL TURN WOMEN INTO PROSTITUTES
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/26/congresswoman-claims-climate-change-will-turn-women-into-prostitutes/
Look at the nonsensical language she speaks…
Don’t be surprised if such “frameworks” just conveniently transfer some American taxpayer dollars to certain activist “women’s groups” or some sort of “study” (conducted by academic Feminists who completely align with the Democrats).
100
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where do they find these people?
Life would be so dull without fine examples of Congressus Depletedus in action…..
50
…And she’s actually serious about it! Here’s a link to her resolution for Congress.
=> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/26/house-dem-global-warming-will-force-women-to-trade-sex-for-food/
Its entitled:
Look at the nonsens that’s in it!
The funniest feedback response in the article:
30
Patronising twerp talk. Women thrive where there is enough power, food and water…same as everyone else.
Perhaps the term should be feminae congresssae duplicitae.
40
Speaking as a man I think the disproportionate impact of gerbil worming on Wymin is fantastic news
40
In that case, women will have more sexual congress as will men.
20
27 March: BishopHill: Bob spurned
Bob Ward’s latest attempt to silence dissenters from the climate consensus has ended, once again, in ignominious defeat, with the Independent Press Standards people telling him that his complaint against David Rose necessitated his taking a running jump…
As I have noted previously, as far as Ward is concerned the process is the punishment, so I think it’s likely that he will try this line again in the future, regardless of his failure this time round…
comment by M Courtney: The Guardian (LINK) is of course, outraged.
The first comment sums up the reaction to tolerance of heresy.
It doesn’t even occur to them that the article may have been accepted as not false because it was not false…
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/3/27/bob-spurned.html
50
I thought that warmist women were already prostitutes…for big wind and solar.
81
Reply to aussieguy.
41
Scaper I would like to hear your response on the ‘quackery’ mentioned by handjive
20
I’ve been out of the loop due to other commitments. Gee, still haven’t rung Bert in relation to Bob Baldwin!
It looks to me like optics to ensure the watermelons have no ammo, politically and a set up to fail in Paris. Whatever, I’ll consider writing a submission.
This issue will be won on the middle ground, not at the extremes. Threatening to vote for Labor over this move defies logic.
51
I agree that voting for Liebour is not the way to go.I have said this many times,write to your rep with your opinion and what “You” expect of him.Jo has given us links to many of our Pollies,so make use of them.I have been pestering my rep for a while and for the most part they are “Listening”
30
Clive, my so called “rep” is a Labor person so it is futile. As far as writing to politicians…I won’t go there as I’ve been attacked here for my opinion on that.
20
‘It looks to me like optics to ensure the watermelons have no ammo’
This pragmatic approach to get reelected means they will lose their base support, it won’t wash.
They would have been smarter to ignore Paris and get behind Barnaby Joyce to stop fracking in sensitive areas.
11
‘As far as writing to politicians…’
I tend to agree, the politicians have already made up their minds.
My hunch, using only intuition, a continental bullet train network appears just around the corner.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-03/28/content_19934711.htm
20
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/china-bank-australia-to-sign-up-for-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank/story-fn59niix-1227283211266
00
Sorry for you my friend,but if you keep hammering at him,sooner or later he “Will”get the message.I made the mistake of voting for Wellington in the Qld elections and then he sided with Liebour to help them into power.He knows my feelings for “Turn-coats”Funny how some “Independants”side with Liebour”
00
Scaper,
Hey don’t knock the “vote Labor back in to clean their mess up” idea – I got pretty close to 50/50 consensus on that one.
But you are probably right about a better approach, my other idea is to vote in Ted Cruz.
30
Not much we non-Americans can do about that I’m afraid.
20
Your voice about the scam may do much!
32
Annie,
Your probabaly correct, but I can’t help thinking that someone has to set fire to the rubbish generated by climate alarmist governments and their media.
Someone in authority has to be the first to say it how it is, to get that one big banner headline so that dissunited groups of individuals world wide can finally march together.
Send Ted Cruz letters of support. Donate to his campaign. Volunteer abroad.
Give Ted Cruz the match.
30
‘This issue will be won on the middle ground, not at the extremes.’
Thought about it for awhile and (although it pains me to admit it) I have to agree.
Hunt should go to Paris and tell them we are meeting our targets, along with the US, so any attempt to raise the bar will be resisted.
And the plateau in temperatures for 18 years is a fair indication that CO2 is a harmless trace gas, so we won’t be contributing any more monies.
30
27 March: WaPo: Capital Weather Gang: Angela Fritz: PM Update: Chance of showers, flurries tonight into Saturday; Cold Sunday morning
Angela Fritz is an atmospheric scientist and The Post’s deputy weather editor.
Temperatures rose into the upper 40s and low 50s this afternoon, and the sun even poked through the clouds in some areas in the late afternoon — though overall it’s been a grey day…
***There is a chance of snow showers overnight and Saturday morning, but it will be very light and without meaningful accumulation.
Sunday morning will be very cold for this time of year — possibly even breaking the record for the date at Dulles…
At Dulles Airport, models are forecasting lows between 18 and 21, and the record for Sunday (3/29) is 20, from 1982. There is a reasonable chance this record will fall.
Jason Samenow (CAGW alarmist) contributed to this post.
(first comment by scrabblegirl)
Signing off. Just found out that it will begin snowing between 3 and 6 am and will continue through the day, Winter is not letting go of New England.
comment by FIREDRAGON47:
***”without meaningful accumulation”
I’d just like to point out that for some of us any snow accumulation at all is considered “meaningful”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/03/27/pm-update-chance-of-showers-flurries-tonight-into-saturday-cold-sunday-morning/
what’s the bet Samenow’s contribution was ***”without meaningful accumulation”?
Samenow looks elsewhere for potential CAGW evidence!
27 March: WaPo: Capital Weather Gang: Jason Samenow: Antarctica may have set its highest temperature ever recorded Tuesday
Need another indicator of climate warming in Antarctica?…
Tuesday’s new record is not yet official. Argentina’s Esperanza Base, the site of the record, may not be considered part of Antarctica for the purposes of weather records according to Weather Underground historian Christopher Burt. He explains four different ways Antarctica can be defined in a blog post. Ultimately, for the record to be official, the World Meteorological Organization will need to validate the temperature reading and determine it is, in fact, Antarctic.
Irrespective of whether the record stands, it fits right into the pattern of rapid climate warming recently observed in the Antarctic Peninsula region…
Correction, 9:26 p.m.: An earlier version of this posted wrongly stated a previous Antarctic record high temperature was 62.6F from October 1976 whereas it was actually 62.8F from April 24, 1961.
(Jason is currently the Washington Post’s weather editor. A native Washingtonian, Jason has been a weather enthusiast since age 10)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/03/27/antarctica-may-have-set-highest-temperature-ever-recorded-tuesday/
10
what chance Earth Hour will have to be rescheduled in future to a time of year when Americans, in particular, might consider a drop in temperatures desirable?
28 March: USA Today: Katharine Lackey: March goes out like a lion? Bitter cold grips East
Bitter cold and snow was ushering in the final weekend of March in the Northeast with below-normal temperatures forecast for the entire eastern half of the country.
Temperatures about 10 to 25 degrees below average were on tap for parts of the Mississippi Valley to the Mid-Atlantic and lower Great Lakes regions, the National Weather Service reported. The cold blast put freeze warnings and hard freeze warnings into effect for parts of the South and Mid-Atlantic.
Across the Appalachians and Upstate New York, lows were forecast to be in the single digits and teens Saturday night, and some record lows will be challenged, according to AccuWeather. Lows along the Interstate 95 corridor will be in the 20s…
Boston will receive more snow on top of its record-breaking season. A total of 110.3 inches of snow has fallen on the city this winter…
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/03/28/winter-weather-northeast/70588552/
27 March: Durham Herald-Sun: Lauren Horsch : Hard freeze Saturday night to threaten plants, records
DURHAM —Just when we thought spring had finally sprung, Mother Nature is revisiting the area with a blast of freezing air overnight Saturday and into Sunday (March 28-29).
Meteorologists with the National Weather Service (NWS) are expecting a hard freeze Saturday night, with temperatures dipping into the low 20s. Some areas could even see temperatures fall to the mid-teens…
“Usually the threat of (a hard) freeze trumps the threat of frost,” Strickler said. “The hard freeze will be very damaging early crops that are out.”
Michelle Wallace, horticulture agent with the N.C. Cooperative Extension in Durham County reminds growers to cover their plants when the threat of frost is eminent…
The temperatures might not only threaten plants, but also hit record lows here.
Strickler said the record low at RDU Airport on for March 29 is 20 degrees. With forecasts leaning toward the low 20s he said the overnight temperatures “do have a shot at the record.”…
People who’ve sheltered tender plants inside throughout the winter only to put them outside in the last couple of weeks, need to move them back inside Saturday night.
http://www.heraldsun.com/news/showcase/x642200992/Hard-freeze-Saturday-night-to-threaten-plants-records
28 March: AltoonaMirror PA: John Frederick: Unusually cold winter broke some record lows
This weekend’s unseasonable temperatures continue a long spell of cold weather that began in late November. Most of us have now gone 154 days since our thermometers surpassed 60 degrees…(Registration required for the rest)
30
Permanent Dearth Hours in old Blighty:
Christopher Booker writes No one is talking about our utterly mad energy policy
Colin McInnes wrote about this a couple of months ago.
70
Who is given the last word on the announcement of closure of Longannet, Scotland’s largest power station ?
Those champions of putting your lights out and that dreamed up Earth Hour to put us all more symbolically in touch with the coming darkness:-
“WWF Scotland said Longannet was Scotland’s biggest single source of climate change emissions and a combination of factors made the ageing plant’s closure inevitable. ”
It may be less symbolic than we think, when Earth Hours becomes a random & regular occurrence.
70
Who is given the last word on the announcement of closure of Longannet, Scotland’s largest power station ?
Those champions of putting your lights out and that dreamed up Earth Hour to put us all more symbolically in touch with the coming darkness:-
“WWF Scotland said Longannet was Scotland’s biggest single source of climate change emissions and a combination of factors made the ageing plant’s closure inevitable. ”
It may be less symbolic than we think, when Earth Hours becomes a random & regular occurrence.
21
Strangely prophetic words from the Scottish Nationalist’s Leader
“Scotland will be left powerless if it stays in UK, says Nicola Sturgeon gu.com/p/3n8ag/tw“
11
The Nationalist Leadership are fundamentalist Nutters.
Anyone can demonstrate administration skills but don’t trust them with power.
50
Salmond & Sturgeon are now fishin’, for a coalition, with Labour, which could give them the balance of power over UK after a hung UK Election in May.
It looks like former UK Tory Prime Minister who succeeded Mrs Thatcher, now Sir John Major is now advising Labour on their election strategy
30
So that’s what the Conservatives have done to the UK?
UKIP is going to clean up in the May election by the look of things. The policy competition will all be to the Right. In which case there will be no genuflecting to an Paris AGW Summit from a bedded down UKIP dominated UK Government.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-tops-independent-on-sunday-poll-as-the-nations-favourite-party-9069625.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2996899/Ukip-given-second-poll-broadcast.html
Getting interesting, Obama will be isolated, as Australia, Canada and UK will not be keen on any of his pet AGW agenda.
60
Bernd Felsche –
yes, if the CAGW crowd get their way, it will be “Lights Out” every day. give thanx for Christopher Booker.
with the utter contempt for the world’s poor exemplified by the elitist Guardian’s latest CAGW campaign – Naomi Klein’s “Let’s kick oil while the price is down” is a perfect example – we’re all headed for an energy-poor future similar to sub-Saharan Africa.
7.30 mins in, BBC presenter: World Bank projects end of poverty by 2035. it would take a heroic effort. number of poor would have to fall by 1m each week for 15 years. UN to adopt World Bank target at end of this year.
Jim Yong Kim (World Bank) says it will mean increasing agricultural productivity and INCREASING ENERGY. Africa suffers from a lack of ENERGY which is really a crime in this day & age. only 80 gigawatts for the entire sub-saharan Africa.
Podcast 18 mins: 27 March: BBC Business Daily: The End of Poverty?
Can global poverty be wiped out in the next 15 years?
The World Bank thinks so. Linda Yueh hears from the president, Jim Yong Kim, who is confident despite the rising numbers of poor in Africa. Tulanana Bohela reports from Tanzania, one of the fastest growing economies (6% annually) in Africa, but where a third of the population still lives on less than $1.25 a day…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/bizdaily
9 Feb: World Bank: Mining Companies Can Help Turn On the Lights across Sub-Saharan Africa, Says World Bank
In its report, entitled “Power of the Mine: A Transformative Opportunity for Sub-Saharan Africa”, the Bank calls on the mining industry to work more closely with electricity utilities in the region to meet their growing energy demands. Rather than supplying their own energy on site, mines can become major and reliable customers for electricity utilities or independent power producers (IPPs) which can then grow and develop better infrastructure to bring low-cost power to communities…
Sub-Saharan Africa, as a region, only generates 80 gigawatts of power each year for 48 countries and a population of 1.1 billion people. Two-thirds of people in the region live entirely without electricity and those with a power connection, suffer constant disruptions in supply. Without new investment and with current rates of population growth, there will be more Africans without power by 2030 than there are now.
But new models of power supply for mines are emerging across Sub-Saharan Africa – including mines self-supplying and selling to the grid or serving as anchor consumers for IPPs. The report estimates around $6 billion in potential public-private partnership opportunities for new power generation from clean energy sources (including natural gas and hydropower) in Guinea, Mauritania, Tanzania and Mozambique – countries with strong expected growth in power demand from the mining sector…
By choosing grid-based and cleaner power sourcing options, which are typically priced lower than self-supplied electricity from diesel or heavy fuel oil, mining companies will be able to meet their electricity needs while also helping to light up the community,” said Anita George, Senior Director of the World Bank’s Energy and Extractives Global Practice…
A key element is for countries across Sub-Saharan Africa to continue with their power sector reforms and create an attractive operating environment for IPPs, including renewable energy developers.
The report: “The Power of the Mine: A Transformative Opportunity for Sub-Saharan Africa” was funded by the Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP) and the South African Fund for Energy, Transport and Extractives (SAFETE).
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/02/09/mining-companies-can-help-turn-on-the-lights-across-sub-saharan-africa-says-world-bank
left unsaid – the tens of billions of dollars in LOANS to the less-developed Nations for energy even the Germans can’t afford!
Sept 2014: World Bank: World Bank Group Climate Lending Grows to Over $11 Billion
It was one of the strongest years on record for renewable energy lending, reflecting growing client demand for hydro, solar, wind and geothermal energy.
In all, the World Bank Group had 220 climate investment projects in over 60 countries worldwide in FY2014. Over the last four years, the group has committed $42 billion to climate-related activities…
In fiscal year 2014, which ended June 30, our total climate investments increased to almost $11.3 billion, with the World Bank (IBRD/IDA) committing $8.8 billion and the World Bank Group’s private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), $2.5 billion…
This demand for climate lending has also been felt by the other large multilateral development banks (African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank).
In the first three years after they began jointly tracking climate finance flows in 2011, the multilateral development banks (including the World Bank Group) delivered nearly US$75 billion (FY11 to FY13) in financing to help developing countries and emerging economies respond to the challenges of climate change…
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/09/09/world-bank-group-climate-lending-grows-11-billion-fy14
11
PUBLISHED MARCH 26, 2015, NatGeo:
Massive Underground City Found in Cappadocia Region of Turkey
WATCH: A laser scan-generated video explores a series of interconnected corridors and rooms in the underground city. Video courtesy Nevsehir Municipality
In 2013, construction workers demolishing low-income homes ringing the castle discovered entrances to a network of rooms and tunnels.
In 2014, those tunnels led scientists to discover a multilevel settlement of living spaces, kitchens, wineries, chapels, staircases, and bezirhane—linseed presses for producing lamp oil to light the underground city.
30
I turned the house and shed lights on for the hour, but I turned the lights off and did not start vehicles to support the extremists
30
I’ve had a problem accepting the data used in this debate. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979
You can see that the difference at the end is 0.3°C average between 2013 and 2014.
Now look at the derivative. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/rss/mean:12/derivative
They do not differ by more than 0.05°C/yr and only for a short time. I wouldn’t have an problem with this if the latter was the data measured and the former a cumulative plot, but the estimates of anomalies are made every month from the long term average and not the previous month, and the latter is the derivative of this data.
31
RB,
This may not be entirely correct and/or I’m not comprehending your meaning. But just to clarify, you may want to review the WoodForTrees description of how the monthly anomalies are calculated for each of the data sets on their site.
Abe
00
Long term average for that month rather than the latest result of the preceding month.
10
RB,
Yes, I’m still reading. Before we go on to your comment of March 31, 2015 at 7:31, there seems to be something else that still needs clarifying.
It’s unclear to me why calculating the anomaly ‘based on’ or ‘relative to’ the latest result of the preceeding month would mean anything?
What they do to calculate the anomalies we see on all those graphs is this.
First they pick 30 consecutive years to find what they call a ‘normal’. They average out all the monthly readings for those 30 years and use that as the ‘base-line’. Now they take each monthly average and calculate whether this is higher, lower, or the same the base-line/normal.
So what we’re looking at on a graph of anomalies is, “By how much, if at all, has the current month’s average temperature deviated from the 30 year base-line average (of monthly normals)”.
Abe
00
Calculating the anomaly ‘based on’ or ‘relative to’ the latest result of the preceding month would mean that there was nothing fishy about the derivatives being so close to each other but the actual measurements drifting wildly apart.
The slight changes add up. But the anomaly is like making an independent measurement each month with an error, and the derivatives usually come out noisier. The big difference in the anomalies shows that there is a lot of uncertainty but that could be due to a systematic error. Below is why I expect that there is also a large random error in both that doesn’t seem to show up in the derivatives.
00
RB,
I take it you mean that there is a big difference between the anomalies of one data-set and another. For example, between the RSS and the Hadcrut4gl, that you linked to in your original post.
If you’ll allow me to go back to your original comment for just a moment . . .
You said you had a problem with the data in this debate, right? Well so do I, but for a different reason than you. I think it’ll help if I explain what my problem with the data is.
Each one of the organizations that report the monthly temperature anomalies uses a different process or formula for arriving at the monthly average. They also use a different set of land based stations in their calculations. It’s because of these two variables that the anomalies from one data-set to another are so different.
Add to that the fact that the satellites record the temperature of the atmosphere much higher than 1.5 meters above the surface, (1.5 meters is around the height of land based monitering stations), and you’re going to get ‘wild differences’ in the anomalies. Even worse, each of the two satellite data-sets are calculated using a different tecnique!
So now, getting back to the current conversation. I see your point about the way they calculate the anomalies. But if we were to go your route, then we wouldn’t be calculating anomalies any more. Not that doing so would be a bad thing or the wrong thing. I don’t agree that we should be calculating anomalies either. At least not for the purpose they’re currently doing it for, to show if there is an overall trend in heating. But that’s a different conversation we could get into, if you like.
As for the derivatives being so close, think about it. The reason they are so close between data-sets is because of the fact that each data-set is using a different formula to arrive at the anomaly for each month.
Best if I provide an example.
Let’s say RSS records an anomaly for JAN2015 of -0.2 and an anomaly for FEB2015 of -0.15. Now, let’s say Hadcrut4gl records an anomaly of -0.1 and an anomaly of -0.05 for the same two months. The difference in the actual anomalies will be 0.1 in both cases, but the derivative will be exactly the same for both of them! 😮 😉
Abe
00
I took a theoretical 0.3°C per decade trend for 30 years and added a random amount to the months of each set between -0.01 and 0.01.
The differences between the derivatives averaged to be 0.1°C/year.
As you can see in the wood for trees plot, the actual range for the derivatives is 0.14°C/year and the two different measurements follow each other closely (excuse me for not doing the sums).
00
(did the trend thing for a pretty graph)
00
If you’re still reading Abe, taking an error of ±0.05°C for each month you get an error of 0.07°C for the difference between months. That’s an error in the differential of 0.8°C/yr so the differences between the differentials of a repeat of just one should get up to a degree per year.
00
Now this is something interesting…
What is the University Diversity Scam?
=> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g60ON91ClLA
30
Well worth watching. The cost of an education, now has to include all those things they insist on teaching you that you never signed up for.
50
I was just chasing up some information on steam turbines, and it made me think.
The steam turbine is a multi stage engineering marvel, the driving force for the generator itself.
70’s technology generators were up to 700MW for coal fired units and up to 1100MW to 1200MW for Nuclear units.
Now we have the big Nukes driving 1300MW generators with hopes for 1500MW units. However, there are those new UltraSuperCritical (USC) coal fired plants now capable of operating 1300MW generators.
Now, while Australia will most probably never have Nukes, there is hope that after this CAGW thing goes away, then we have coal enough to support USC plants far into the future.
Now think of a new USC plant with two 1300MW units, so a Nameplate of 2600MW. It’s a pretty huge cost, but hey, I couldn’t care less, and let me explain why.
2600MW – Two units – One plant.
The equivalent Wind power would necessitate (at the average 2.5MW nacelle on top of one tower) 1040 of those towers.
That’s the equivalent almost FIVE large scale wind plants of the same size as the now failed King Island wind plant. That plant was proposed to cost $2.2 Billion, so that’s more than $10 Billion for the equivalent Wind plants, and there’s no way known that USC coal fired plant would cost anywhere even close to half that at worst, and please don’t try and tell me the cost of wind plants is coming down, because it isn’t.
I still couldn’t care less about the cost because that ONE USC plant will deliver three times the power each year, and have a lifespan twice as long as the wind plants.
All that aside, think back now to the top of the Comment where I mentioned turbines. There are two Monster Companies, The Siemens Company and Babcock and Wilcox. They have monster plants all over the World, and employ tens of thousands of people making turbines for every type of plant. There’s no way known are ever going to stop development of turbines for coal fired power.
And the proposed replacement for supply of a Base Load requirement, Concentrating Solar Power, or Solar Thermal (just ask
Pixie Anne WheatleyChristine Milne) well, how far advanced are they when it comes to turbine design for those types of plant.Siemens has a specially designed turbine capable of driving a 125MW Generator, and in use at Ivanpah in the California Desert, and that is so beset by problems that it is barely able to turn unless it gets started up with the auxilliary Natural Gas element of the units, and just the solar element alone barely manages four hours a day in Summer, and that’s utilising the whole solar insolation to heat the compound, because it has no heat retention capability.
125MW, specially designed only for this solar application, and it doesn’t work.
Look at the Maths I’ve mentioned here.
These two renewables of choice cannot compete, and here the word compete is a laughable thing to say.
All put on the backburner because of a ridiculous whatever you want to refer to it as.
And the people who are designing the future of power generation have not even blinked as they proceed with doing what they have always done, building huge components, all of them, for large scale power generation. They are quite obviously not even missing a beat in their further development, so it shows how much faith they have in it succeeding, and these people have quite literally many Billions invested in what they do. They can’t afford to lose on that scale, and they are still moving forwards with what they do.
If you look around long enough, you’ll see that people who have most to lose are not stopping what they do.
Tony.
121
Tony,
The nuclear fuel itself, cannot support the temperatures required for USC. Nuclear, however, can easily provide 90% the energy required. If we could get to the efficiency of C2H2+O2 or 2H2+O2,temperatures, nuclear would still provide 85% of that energy.
Can we get the current climate modelers to show what the models say about surface temperature increase with 10% decrease in global wind velocity? Nuclear power for subsurface energy plus wind-farm temperature gain, may prevent the next ice age for the children of those that think they lead! 🙂
22
You can get more than 600°C out of a molten-salt reactor using known and proven alloys. Nominal operating temperature is around 1000K. Some imagine that they can “fire” a Joule/Brayton cycle gas turbine; open air cycle even and avoid messing about with steam; but eventually they relent when they see all that high quality heat going out the exhaust and put in steam generators with a turbine; or simply for combined heat and power.
Open air cycle only makes sense where water is scarce and other forms of heat rejection are less viable.
But I digress: USC steam can be generated using reactors cooled by molten salts operating at sufficient temperature. In terms of reactor safety, molten salts allow for unpressurised operation within the reactor. A secondary salt loop would carry the heat to steam generators, providing isolation for radioactivity.
20
Meanwhile back at home in Oz, the Act Government is in trouble with it 90% Renewable Energy Target.
ABC News 24/03/2015:
“A controversial project to build a solar farm next to the rural village of Uriarra has been dumped by the ACT Government after fierce opposition from local residents.”
40
Won’t there always be a market for power plant in developing countries, even if it’s we who pay for them.
It’s just the West that’s to be economically crippled by not using them. So Tony needs to get pleading developing country status for Oz. if he’s not going to just ignore the UNFCCC process ( for turning developed Economys into F’dconomys).
50
Interesting comment RE the generators and economics Tony.
When debt is high in any business, stopping what you’re doing is not always an option, it means cash flow stops sooner, rather than later. They’ll string it out until the plastic is maxed out with no short term line of credit options left, or cash flow.
The good news is these deranged alternate energy rip-offs are inevitably going away. Then we get some sensible policies, well, after the emergency policies that is, except the warped anti-hydrocarbon voodoo that’s been feed to the public will lead to mass hysteria, due fear of the devil molecule.
We could try re-education camps and call it “de-fooling” and get Mr. T to sort them out via forced skateboard training, sans PPE, until they fully de-fool and realize CO2 is actually much preferable to skateboarding down steel step rails.
Just putting it out there. 🙂
50
Fusion
The Rossie Effect has been replicated, apparently.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/27/parkhomov-again-replicates-rossi-effect-the-challenge-is-before-the-scientific-community/
30
29 March: UK Telegraph: Robert Mendick: Ed Davey refuses to back wind farms in Lib Dem target seats
A controversial plan to build a series of giant wind farms and a line of pylons across mid-Wales has been recommended for approval – but the Climate Change secretary is refusing to rubber stamp it
The proposed turbines and almost 30 miles of pylons to connect them to the National Grid are so unpopular that Ed Davey, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary and a Liberal Democrat MP, has refused to commit to a planning decision ahead of the general election.
According to sources, three giant wind farms, spread across an area of Mid Wales stretching from Machynlleth to Welshpool, have been agreed but will need rubber-stamping by the incoming secretary of state.
A planning inspector has recommended permission be given for the farms. They each consist of between 17 and 65 turbines up to 450ft tall – equivalent to the height of the London Eye. In all, almost 200 could be built in the coming years…
A source told The Telegraph that the decision was not announced because the wind farms will wreck any lingering hopes that the Liberal Democrats had of regaining Montgomeryshire.
The constituency has been held by the party, largely uninterrupted for 100 years until the colourful MP Lembit Opik was defeated in 2010.
The neighbouring constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire, which will also be affected albeit to a far lesser extent, is currently held by Roger Williams, Liberal Democrat MP since 2001.
The source said: “Three wind farms will be given planning consent but not until after the election…
Sir Simon Jenkins, the former chairman of the National Trust, said of the plan for the wind farms: “It will turn the largest wilderness area of Britain outside a national park into hundreds of square miles of power station. It is all political.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/11502016/Ed-Davey-refuses-to-back-wind-farms-in-Lib-Dem-target-seats.html
41
29 March: SMH: Adam Morton/Lisa Cox: What’s in a target? Australia warned not to ‘cook the books’ on emissions cuts
The Australian government is changing how it expresses climate change targets in way that could make it appear to the public as though it is cutting greenhouse gas emissions more rapidly than it is…
Australia’s emissions were significantly higher in 2005 than 2000. By adopting the later year as a baseline, the government could announce a bigger target number without increasing what it is doing to reduce emissions
into the atmosphere…
A government press release on Saturday adjusted that to describing the target as “equivalent to a reduction of 13 per cent below 2005 levels” and did not mention 5 per cent…
(Climate Institute deputy chief executive Erwin Jackson): “The key test for the government is not whether it uses 1990, 2000 or 2005 – it is whether it
is doing Australia’s fair bit to avoid irreversible and dangerous climate impact on Australia,” he said.
There is no agreed baseline for climate targets at UN talks. The argument in favour of Australia moving to 2005 is that is the year the US, Japan and Canada uses. President Barack Obama last year announced a target of a cut of between 26 and 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025…
Emissions in the US fell between 2000 and 2005, meaning its target would be a larger number if it used the earlier year…
***Experts say the key test of a post-2020 target is less the total number – which can be manipulated by whichever baseline year is chosen – than whether a country is significantly accelerating the pace at which it is cutting
emissions…
Labor has accused the government of not being serious about tackling climate change, but has not committed to a target beyond the minimum 5 per cent cut by 2020.
Targets already announced include the EU, which promised a 40 per cent cut below 1990 levels by 2030. China, an emerging economy that has traditionally been treated differently to western nations, but now the world’s biggest
polluter, has indicated its emissions will stop rising and start to fall by 2030. It is yet to formalise this in a commitment to the UN.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/whats-in-a-target-australia-warned-not-to-cook-the-books-on-emissions-cuts-20150329-1m9ttb.html
***above has a cartoon/illustration by Matt Golding. “Let’s cook the books: Now that’s what i call Direct Action”
which aspect of CAGW is not a result of cooking the books/data/price etc?
24 March: EU Observer: Reform of EU emissions trading system likely to fail
By Wolf Friedrich Spieth
The EU has declared the Emissions Trading System (ETS) to be its key tool for cutting industrial emissions. However, the price for CO2 allowances has been dropping for years, reaching a low point of 3€/tonne in 2013. As a
result, the EU now seeks to “fix” the current ETS – albeit by neglecting its own legal principles…
EU law and principles
Whilst the committee doubtless made such proposals with good intentions, the transfer of the “back-loaded” allowances to the market stability reserve
before the end of the ongoing trading period (end of 2020) would conflict with EU law and principles.
First, if the already “back-loaded” allowances are not released to the market in the ongoing trading period, this is likely to conflict with the principle of legal certainty. Market participants will have developed
legitimate expectations regarding their release in the last two years of the ongoing period.
Second, and of greater legal concern, is that the approach will also result in decreasing the ETS cap of the ongoing trading period and therefore increase the 20 percent CO2 emissions reduction target by 2020 – agreed by the European Council back in 2007…
The quantity of the “back-loaded” allowances equates to six per cent of the total allowances under the cap in the period 2013 to 2020. Therefore, the EU would be changing the reduction target through the backdoor, without any
underlying political decision by the heads of the member states (European Council).
Third, the approach conflicts with the principle of proportionality…
Likewise, there are significant concerns that the commission seeks to encroach on member states’ competencies…
The committee of the permanent representatives of the governments (Coreper) will make its decision this week, on Wednesday (25 March). The Council, parliament and commission will then meet to develop a final text.
Hopefully, the EU institutions will heed these legal concerns before they vote for an instrument that clearly conflicts with established EU principles.
***If not, the measure could be subject to legal action – in particular by member states, whose energy mixes or domestic industries would heavily be affected by the market stability reserve…
(Wolf Friedrich Spieth is partner and co-head of the low carbon energy group
at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Berlin)
https://euobserver.com/opinion/128119
21
Earth Hour has now left the building.
https://twitter.com/aol/status/581924617968705537
Of the 8760 hours in a year, about half of them are in darkness.
If any of these followers of fashion were serious about climate change, as a problem rather than a fashion statement, they’d be calling for an end to the other 4379 hours of waste from floodlighting monuments and public buildings.
40
Well thanks to you lot ignoring climate hour its been chucking it down in buckinghamshire all day.
40
Craig,
Buckinghamshire?
There’s still time, Earth hour didn’t begin until 2007, you’ve still got a few years before it reaches you.
50
That’s funny Craig, which is why you got a thumbs up! What about Berkshire, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Yorkshire and Cumbria? Did they get some too?
20
Rain is sent in proportion to the number of green voters in the County.
Somebody up there is trying to dampen their enthusiasm.
30
Bloggies 2015 !
Only 2 & a half hours to go till the Best Blog Winners start being announced.
Follow it here.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Bloggies
Good luck to all that have been nominated & may the Best Blogs win.
20
Watch at that link Eliza has provided at (Australian times here) 1150 EST (12.50EDT and 10.50 for WA) for the result in Joanne’s category, Best Topical Weblog.
Tony.
30
Bah! Humbug.
That time for WA should be 9.50AM.
Daylight Saving Time. Can’t stand it. Nothing to do with getting the extra hour of sunlight in the afternoon, but just an economic thing to extend shop trading to get an extra hour of sales, hopefully.
Pickering Post won its category, best Oz or NZ Blog.
Tony.
30
Interesting read on the history of sunspot counting.
http://nautil.us/issue/22/slow/the-315_year_old-science-experiment
20
Williams was on his usual CAGW crusade this week:
AUDIO: 28 March: ABC Science Show: Expedition to show the effects of climate change
Climate talks in Lima in 2014 saw more than 10,000 people gather and achieve little. Meanwhile, the biggest threat to humanity and life on Earth worsens. The 21st Conference of the Parties talks takes place in Paris in early December 2015.
Tim Jarvis is leading 25zero, a plan for groups to climb 25 mountains at the equator, containing glaciers which are predicted to be gone within 25 years as temperatures rise. The idea is to send strong statements and images from the peaks to the COP21 Paris meeting, bringing home effects of climate change which can be seen now.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/expedition-to-show-the-effects-of-climate-change/6353198
ABC’s Williams hosted panels, including Tim Jarvis, at Womadelaide’s “The Planet Talks”, sponsored by Uni of South Australia & David & Clare Paradice:
Womadelaide: 2015 Program 6-9 March: The Planet Talks will be hosted by Robyn Williams (ABC Radio National) and Bernie Hobbs (ex ABC TV’s The New Inventors).
The Planet Talks is presented by the University of South Australia.
Generously supported by ***David & Clare Paradice.
SESSION 1 | 2:00pm – The Silver Lining in the Cloud of Climate Change
Speakers: Cecilia Woolford, Peter Langridge, Bob Brown
Host: Robyn Williams…
Listen to our visionary panel discuss the optimistic future they have seen emerging in business, agriculture, politics and society…
SESSION 2 | 6:00pm – Valuing Our Planet
Speakers: Vandana Shiva, Paul Sutton, ***Tim Jarvis
Host: Robyn Williams
A famous native American proverb says ‘Only when the last tree has died, and the last river been poisoned, and the last fish been caught, will we realise we cannot eat ***MONEY.’
SESSION 3 | 3:00pm – I’m not a Climate Scientist but…
Speakers: Andrew Denton, Rod Quantock, Hannah Gadsby
Host: Robyn Williams
Climate change is no laughing matter … or is it? Science or satire – How do we best communicate climate science and the urgency to act on the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced? Do more people turn to Will Ferrell’s climate change YouTube clips or Al Gore pie charts and PowerPoint’s for the truth? Are people more likely to share on social media Leigh Sales’ 7.30 interview with the world’s leading climate scientists or US political satirist John Oliver’s interviews with them? Who makes more sense of carbon politics, Andrew Bolt or Shaun Micallef? All will be revealed. Sit back and listen to the (comedy) experts…
https://www.womadelaide.com.au/program/the-planet-talks
more on MONEY and Paradice in the next comment.
20
if i read it right so far…
Twitter:
Weblog of the Year: Watts Up With That? http://wattsupwiththat.com See you next year!
Lifetime Achivement: JoNova http://joannenova.com.au
Best Group or Community Weblog: Watts Up With That? http://wattsupwiththat.com
Best Topical Weblog: Climate Audit http://climateaudit.org
Best Weblog About Politics: The Global Warming Policy Foundation http://thegwpf.org
Best European Weblog: Tallbloke’s Talkshop http://tallbloke.wordpress.com
https://twitter.com/Bloggies
30
That was last year’s Pat.
But this years are now in …
30
WayHey !
Best Topical Weblog Evahhh!
Congratulations Jo.
https://twitter.com/bloggies/status/582359579113222144
Thanks Eddie. News to me. :- ) -J
30
a followup on Robyn Williams/Womadelaide/The Planet Talks which was “generously supported by David & Clare Paradice”, with the session with Tim Jarvis summary saying:
“A famous native American proverb says ‘Only when the last tree has died, and the last river been poisoned, and the last fish been caught, will we realise we cannot eat ***MONEY.’”
take note of Paradice’s CARBON FOOTPRINT, & the fact he handles Superannuation Funds, which are a target of the CAGW crowd:
2013: AFRSmartInvestor: John Stensholt: David Paradice, sage of small stocks
Notwithstanding his Scottish genes, Paradice does enjoy the trappings of a rich life. He has a 1620-hectare farm near Scone in the Hunter Valley in NSW, where the family – wife Claire and their three children – live. It’s where Paradice indulges his hobby of owning horses while Claire runs a small prize-winning cattle operation. Then there’s the penthouse apartment on the top floor of a building in Sydney’s North Bondi with stunning views down the beach. Yes, the railings on the balcony are a bit rusty and the furniture is a bit knocked around, but he and Claire own the entire three-storey building, having stealthily acquired separate apartments over about five years. Until a crash that almost killed him in 2009, Paradice would commute between Bondi and Scone by helicopter…
These days he sticks to flying in a light plane: “It’s reasonably profitable because I rent it out, too, but I don’t like what it represents.”…
He drifted to Melbourne for a stint with Phil Ruthven’s data company IBISWorld, before returning to Sydney to a job at the body charged with investing NSW public servants’ superannuation, the then State Authorities Superannuation Board. By that stage he had the investing bug, especially for the smaller and often more speculative end of the market where returns can be spectacularly boom and bust…
John Nolan, managing director of Warakirri Asset Management and chairman of the investment committee for REST Industry Super Fund, was integral in giving Paradice his start, with a $30 million mandate from the fund…
But Paradice readily admits to moments of panic in the early days. There was one nerve-wracking night when he was so wound up about his fund’s negative one-month performance, he had little sleep…
In particular, Paradice Investment Management has ridden the success of new media companies such as Seek, Realestate.com and ***Carsales.com in the past decade…
http://www.afrsmartinvestor.com.au/p/lifestyle/afrmagazine/david_paradice_sage_of_small_stocks_Q7NK3X18cjyKjn7YN8RVdM
Paradice & family live part-time in Denver, Colorado where he has business interests & he’s still raking in the mon
10
Moderation.. You can never have too much moderation.
https://twitter.com/bloggies/status/582359579113222144
20
WayHey !
Best Topical Weblog Evahhh!
Congratulations Jo.
10
hadn’t finished the Paradice comment…re his CARBON FOOTPRINT:
Paradice & family live part-time in Denver, Colorado where he has business interests.
Full-up at home, Paradice goes global
Kevin Beck, portfolio manager of Paradice IM’s global small-mid cap product: “It’s in a great time zone because you get the close of Europe and the open of Asia, plus it’s a direct hub for United Airlines so it’s easy to get to Europe”…”Each member of the US team will spend two weeks in Denver followed by two weeks travelling”…
http://investmentmagazine.com.au/2010/02/full-up-at-home-paradice-goes-global/2/
& he’s still raking in the money, according to AFR:
David Paradice set to break the $10 billion fund mark
The Australian Financial Review-24 Mar 2015
Prominent fund manager David Paradice is set to break the $10 billion barrier, having added $1 billion funds under management in just three months …
—-
such a perfect CAGW fit for Womadelaide & ABC’s Robyn Williams.
30
Tim Jarvis’s LinkedIn is worth noting too:
LinkedIn: Tim Jarvis, Adelaide, Australia
Global Ambassador WWF-Australia, Leader 25zero, polar explorer, speaker, author, film maker, environmental scientist
2010-present: Senior Associate Sustainability, ARUP
2009-present: Yale World Fellow, Yale University
2014-present: Leader: 25zero
Climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity.
Melting glacial ice is one of the clearest indicators of this complex issue. Nowhere is it more apparent than where you’d least expect to find ice – at the equator. There are now only 25 mountains with glaciers at the equator Within a quarter of a century these glaciers will be gone due to climate change – in some cases, far sooner.
25 Mountains. Zero latitude. 25 years. Zero ice.
Multiple teams will make simultaneous ascents of all 25zero mountains during the 12 days of the COP21 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris (30 Nov – 11 Dec 2015).
Tim Jarvis’ core team will summit 3 mountains in three continents during the 12 days of COP21 – Carstensz Pyramid in Asia, Kilimanjaro in Africa and Chimborazo in South America.
All teams will relay powerful statements and video & still images from the summits of the mountains, requiring action on climate change. This will occur in real time and be sent to governments attending COP21 and to multiple global media outlets reaching millions of people. This will be used to generate thought provoking web and media content in real time and longer term pooled and edited to make a quality broadcast documentary.
For those who can’t get to the 25zero mountains themselves, ‘virtual climbs’ will enable everyone to get involved. Personal accelerometers will measure whatever you choose to climb – whether a local hill or your office building to the equivalent height of 25zero peak(s).
All teams and individuals participating will raise sponsorship for 25 projects that are doing something meaningful to combat climate change. 7 of these will be in the 7 countries in which the 25zero peaks are situated.
***A global media campaign will support 25zero, encourage participation and support fundraising.
Beyond Dec 2015 25zero will continue to use the decline of these glaciers as a global call to action over climate change with future climbs planned for 2016 and beyond involving other teams.
https://au.linkedin.com/in/timjarvisam
20
Best Politics Blog follows James Dellingpole to Breitbart.
http://tinyurl.com/ng5cemq
30
A well earned Lifetime Achievement for Steve McIntyre
http://tinyurl.com/qesc8ux
(With stiff competition in there from Tallbloke )
30
I went out to a friends that night for a b’day dinner and, ten minutes into my drive, shamefully remembered I had switched off all the lights in the CrabCave before I had left.
I am deep sorry for my carelessness, however I did spend two years back in mining uranium, so I must have some Power Credits I can cash in? 🙂
50
many congrats to jo for her bloggies wins.
Robyn Williams’ second CAGW piece this week:
AUDIO: 28 March: ABC Science Show: Geoengineering – a stimulus for change, an excuse to continue, or even possible?
If geoengineering ever comes to pass, what will be the message? That change is urgent? …
A panel of speakers at this year’s American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in San Jose tossed around a few of the challenges…
Guests include Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Jersey USA
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/geoengineering-e28093-a-stimulus-for-change2c-an-excuse-to-/6353264
8 mins in: Alan Robock, Rutgers (asked by Williams to explain his interractions with the public on geoengineering):
Robock: if i tell people i’m working on geoengineering, they say what’s that. most people don’t even know what it is. when i explain it, they say wow, you are thinking about doing something that crazy?…maybe global warming really is a problem, maybe i should consider global warming more seriously. and there’s been academic research showing that is the reaction of people. if they see you are actually planning or thinking about these geoengineering responses, there must be a real problem.
ABC Host Robyn Williams: Yes indeed…
—
the above proves, once again, that all the talk of geoengineering (now known as “albedo modification”) may be partly about looking for research grants, but it is also a psyop attempt to scare people into agreeing to any & all CAGW policies, no matter how useless or expensive they may be.
because it concerns CAGW, UK Independent is concerned that the CIA is concerned!!! what a joke, called out by the only reader who bothers to comment:
15 Feb: UK Independent: Steve Connor: CIA: Foreign powers may develop ability to manipulate the global climate undetected
Officials are worried foreign countries may develop geoengineering – the deliberate manipulation of the global climate
Consultants working for the Central Intelligence Agency have asked Professor Alan Robock of Rutgers University in New Jersey whether it would be possible for another nation to meddle with the climate without being discovered, he said.
“I got a phone call from two men who said we work as consultants for the CIA and we’d like to know if some other country was controlling our climate would we know about it,” Professor Robock said…
Professor Robock is an expert in geoengineering – the deliberate manipulation of the global climate – and specialises in how large volcanic eruptions cause global cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space, increasing the Earth’s reflectivity, or albedo.
Geoengineering has been the focus of two major studies, one by the Royal Society in Britain and one by the US National Academy of Sciences, which was part-funded by the American intelligence agencies. Both reports concluded that albedo modification poses considerable risks but that geoengineering warrants more research…
“I work on the area of stratospheric aerosols to emulate a volcanic eruption and I’ve identified five potential benefits of that and 26 potential risks,” Professor Robock told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose. “We know the answer to global warming is adaptation and mitigation. We’d rather not have to work on this.”
Nevertheless, Professor Robock and other scientists support research into geoengineering, such as a plan to monitor the aerosol clouds produced by the next large volcanic eruption, using aircraft, high-altitude balloons and satellites…
Stephen Gardiner, a philosopher at the University of Washington in Seattle, warned that modifying the climate through geoengineering risks making the situation worse, especially for future generations…
“This kind of incentive is called the tyranny of the contemporary, and that’s why it’s a considerable intergenerational problem.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/cia-foreign-powers-may-develop-ability-to-manipulate-the-global-climate-undetected-10047669.html#
one comment, from what seems to be a typical Independent reader, MICAH C:
“I’m much more concerned about the CIA manipulating weather than I am any ‘foreign powers.’ As far as I can tell, the CIA is the only group that currently has that capability, and I also happen to believe they’re guilty of putting it to use.”
20
‘Amid this surfeit of opportunism, Australia is left with a vision shortage. This includes a very specific conundrum: we have the world’s most advanced level of superannuation savings, per capita, with about $1.8 trillion in assets, yet almost none of this enormous investment pool is being recycled into infrastructure bonds to fund national development.’
Paul Sheehan / SMH
20
I rather suspect AstroSamantha my be about to hold her sign up to the window of her space capsule to encourage the Climate to change, as she watches from her lofty perch.
Change Cimate Change
like Burn Baby Burn !
20
This week the number of comments on Roy Spencer’s February data thread passed the 1,000 mark. This has probably been the most comprehensive discussion of the physics of the atmosphere that has ever been all brought together in a single climate blog thread.
There is a summary on a new thread starting here and I recommend all should read all the author’s comments in that newer thread.
Thanks for this tip. – Jo
01
weird that the link starts at that point in the conversation. Better to start at the top I think where there are some credible opinions.
10
Gee Aye,
and skip every thing else after you get to the comment that link is pointing to which begins with the words: “The 21st Century Paradigm in climate science is now proven beyond doubt.” This is the point where Silent reader claims that there is a summary. This is false. There is no summary there.
Silent reader also tells us that we should read all the author’s comments in that new thread. The author is Roy Spencer and Roy does not make any comments whatsoever on that thread so this too is false.
Thank you Silent reader for wasting an hour of my life with your deception.
Abe
00
Doug,
how many blogs are left that entertain your fantacist monotopic spam? BTW I loved your debating technique stated several times to the effect that, “I understand the science so there is no point debating”.
Just a yes no answer to this please. Have you read this? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
01
Doug Cotton, will you not go away peacefully?
00
A QUESTION FOR ALL ISOTHERMALISTS (yes that’s you)
How does a fixed location on the equator of Venus acquire the necessary extra thermal energy to rise in temperature from about 732K to 737K over the course of the four-month-long sunlit period? The only transfers of thermal energy by radiation between the surface and atmosphere are always outwards from the hotter surface to the less hot troposphere, day and night. The Sun’s radiation getting through to the surface is less than 10% of what Earth’s surface receives, and that would not “heat” even a blackbody to any temperature above about -130°C, not even in a billion years. That location does cool again by about 5 degrees during the Venus night. So, if the Sun’s radiation were switched off somehow, the whole planet would easily cool by hundreds of degrees in just a century or so. But it will not even cool by 10 degrees in the next billion years if the Sun’s energy keeps on radiating at current levels, warming it back up each day after it cooled by night, just as happens on Earth and all planets and moons. But the Sun’s radiation can only raise the temperature of regions that are less than about 400K, according to Stefan Boltzmann calculations, and so how does that absorbed energy high up in the atmosphere then get to the surface?
11