JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
Have you seen, the hottest Jan-April since records started being being adjusted ?
https://twitter.com/amazonwatch/status/598963522085789698
201
C.J.,
Sorry I missed that one, what with the blizzards in the US and the early winter here in Australia, it didn’t cross my mind that it may have been warmer than last year, certainly didn’t feel like it so we lit up about 6 weeks earlier than usual.
271
That reminds me of Slanders and Swann:
“Summer? I missed it, I was in the bathroom!”
90
Flanders …darned predictive text…
60
Greeting from Friendly Manitoba. It is 2C with 50-80Km winds. We had 30-80mm of rain last night, and it will be 10-15cm snow today. Please send some warming. We will lose all our apple trees, berries and probably the early leaves off the trees with -6C tomorrow. Nothing unprecedented for the Canadian prairies, but it has been a bit since it last happened. We sit at the northern end of the massive system hammering the central USA.
60
R2Dtoo,
My condolences on the bad weather.
We here in southern California sit on the south end of the worst drought in recent memory — in all of natural history if you believe the words out of Sacramento. Maybe you could arrange to exchange some of your precipitation for some of our drought to our mutual advantage. 😉
40
Fight on, Manitoba!
10
The very dark red region of Russia is Taymyr. The years from 1980 to 2000 were cooler than the 40s.
The only long history of temperature measurements is Noril’sk which is similar to the Taymyr plot. The period from 1951-1980 is 1.5°C less than the 1940s. A station shift in 2005 is not displayed. The 10 year moving average is constant from 1980 to 2005 at 1°C lower than the last 10 years.
Berkeley Earth has the uncertainties for monthly anomalies for the region at ±2°C.
Its the warmest Jan-April because of a single station shift extrapolated to a large percentage of the Earth’s surface.
101
Here in the western US we had the warmest winter on record according to the newspapers. It was certainly the warmest in my memory. Of course the warmists are attempting to play this up, but most of the press coverage is always on the east coast, so it has not gotten the traction they would hope. But is is difficult right now to explain to the casual observer in the western US that this is a weather pattern and not climate change. Nonetheless, it is difficult for the Average Joe to distinguish weather events from climate, something the activists dishonestly use to their advantage. I guess just be grateful that it has been the coldest winter in memory back east that gets all the attention. Things even out.
40
This sums it up nicely. Climate in action
140
Ava Plaint
I sincerely hope that he achieves this goal.
60
😉
A weekend can’t be unthreaded
when ISIL wants us beheaded,
Labor disowns their debts,
Johny Depp smuggles pets,
and Ginger Spice has got wedded.
342
I’ll give a plus up for being cute.
70
You chaps should come over and catch some of our Bass(Percalates Novemaculeata)I suspect they may pull a it harder.They don’t jump though!
40
This list could easily be matched to any other year of news, mid 1980’s..
– PLO wants to blow us up.
– Labor disowns their debts.
– Richard Gere smuggles….
– A celebrity marries a sports identity.
It’s all pretty sad really….
120
You’re preaching to the choir on that one, Yoni.
40
Johny Depps’ dogs have an enormous carbon footprint!!!!!
I am surprised that the Green’s did not want them exterminated.
150
The last line would scan better by including the word ‘herself”….has got herself wedded.
Very good otherwise! 🙂
30
A question, and probably a stupid one.
There is a 4m hight difference between the oceans on the Atlantic side and Pacific sides of the Panama canal. What would happen to the levels if the canal was permanently left open?
110
A trick question. 🙂
The Panama Canal has locks to raise ships up. The highest level is Gatun Lake 85 feet (26m) above sea level. So opening all the locks would just drain the canal.
Alternative question. Bjorn Lomborg claims there are seven Nobel Laureates connected to the Copenhagen Consensus Center, but the website only has six with Nobel on the short profile in the experts list. These are:-
Douglass North
Finn Kydland
Vernon Smith
Robert Mundell
Thomas Schelling
Edward C. Prescott
The seventh is also on the list, but has not got “Nobel” against his name. I spotted him straight away, but can anyone else?
70
I give up, who?
40
Well that puts a plug in my idea of white water rafting between oceans.
70
You may still be in with a chance. Nicaragua was sounding keen, pretty recently, on opening up an alternative canal, using the Rio San Juan from the Caribbean side, largely along the border with Costa Rica, then through Lake Nicaragua (and getting other people to pay for it, natch). The strip of land between the lake and the Pacific is the only part without an existing waterway, of sorts. Having said that, the Rio San Juan is so shallow in places that even very shallow-draught boats (and I do mean boats) can run aground.
The other small objection to making Lake Nicaragua a strategic waterway is the presence of the island of Ometepe, dominated by the cone of la Concepcion, a live volcano.
All the same, I’m sure you could have a hoot on the Rio San Juan, at least.
40
Russia set for support role in China-led Nicaragua canal project
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140911000022&cid=1101
Russia and Nicaragua have been discussing Russia’s role in the construction of a canal building project that would connect the Pacific and Atlantic via Nicaragua, reports Hong Kong-based newspaper Ta Kung Pao.
The project is backed by funds from China, which has no diplomatic ties with Nicaragua. Managua recognizes the Republic of China on Taiwan.
10
Anthony:
please stop baiting the trolls. Look at the times…there was over an hour gap before you got an answer. That’s long enough for them to communicate the fact by twitter etc. and become (more) hysterical. They will decide there is only one possible explanation since water is level.
We will be facing a Campaign against Man Made Global Tilting very shortly.
121
There is “more” hysterical?
I thought they would be in enough of a tizzy already, now they have created the hot spot, accelerated sea levels, increased ice melt and lowered past temperatures.
If they get anymore excited, they’re all going to start popping at a rate of 4 Hiroshima bombs per second.
101
I don’t mind them popping off, the sooner the better.
The trouble is that they leave a real mess behind, and we will be expected to pay for it.
70
If all the locks were open the Atlantic might become less salty and ice ages would probably come to an end.
60
Gee whizz! You mean that sea level is a local phenomenon? How can that be? 😉
30
Fellow Sceptics,
I think it is time we went on the counter attack.
Our opponents get away with smearing us as Deniers, backing up their case with wild, unsubstantiated claims, but since they all repeat the same message the undecided feel that “there might be something in it”. Since the ‘true believers’ a.k.a. the dark side comprise around 5% of the population, at best, but by making a lot of noise they make the 50-60% in the middle think “there might be something in their garbage”.
My suggestion is that we unite and refer to them as either gullibles or hysterics (or les gullibles etc.). No one likes to be thought gullible so the mass of the undecided, so the masses in the centre will switch (if indeed they haven’t already done so). Apart from the Greens who are self selected Hysterics, the sight of the majority not believing in the SCAM will cause all politicians to abandon the CAUSE.
Should any of them refer to the 97% of believing scientists, the best approach might be “you mean the 75 Elders of the IPCC?” Or even “was that from Greenpeace?”
The other common lies are:
Rising sea levels: Not according to the sea level mark of 1840 in Tasmania.
Rising temperatures: Get real! Trenberth (IPCC) asked “where is the missing heat?”
Melting arctic ice: Get real! That was 7 years ago. Anyway see Archimedes.
Melting antarctic: Nonsense. Sea ice is at a record area.
Climate change: Proof please! Contrary evidence in the peer reviewed literature.
Climate disruption: Proof please! Hurricanes at a record low level USA.
Acid oceans: Proof please! Corals survived in the Cretaceous 1600 ppm time
Re the last:
You may not be aware that the 30% claim is based on a computer model (surprise!)
They assumed CO2 causes acidification, so extrapolated back to the assumed CO2 level in the mid eighteenth century, to get what the ASSUMED pH level then. So their claim depends on 150 years with NO pH measurements at all (nor in fact many that support their case until after 2003).
Further, ASSUMING that CO2 causes rain to be more acid, then more rock will dissolve causing more precipitation in the oceans, thus restoring the pH to more alkaline. Further ASSUMING that CO2 causes warming of the oceans, this will reduce the solubility of the CO2 anyway so problem solved.
And ASSUMING that the IPCC is right (despite their record of incompetence) and the feedback causes more water vapour (the missing troposphere Hot Spot) then a bit more warmth and more plant fertilizer will cause more growth, so the CO2 problem is self correcting.
So, when you strike these green gabbling gullibles call them that. If they continue trolling then they’re hysterical. You won’t change their mind, if they have one, but you could save undecided others falling into the same state.
304
Denier.
There’s no denying this label packs a political punch (eenews)
Marshall and co-author Mark Lynas published the first reference to “climate denier” in the English-language press in a 2003 op-ed they wrote for the left-leaning magazine The New Statesman.
They wanted those words to sting.
“In the end, if you win the frame war, your opponents back off and they start using your language,” he said. “And then you’ve won.”
The battle over what to call combatants in the climate wars began when global warming researchers began marching to Capitol Hill.
It started on a sweltering June day in 1988 when NASA physicist James Hansen famously told a Senate committee that global warming was underway and could produce catastrophic results; he was branded an “alarmist” by those who disagreed with him.
120
There may be a touch of change in this Obama statement. Do I detect the whisper of mollification or has he just throttled back on the juice?
Obama concludes statement about fossil fuels and climate change…
50
That’s just so he can keep flying around the country to play golf. Doesn’t mean he’s called off the EPA or the IRS from enforcing the cuts he needs in the works before Paris. “the truth is not in him” is the best approach with Obama.
20
I insisted on calling a pair of warmists on Facebook the “Gullible Brothers”. They unfriended me.
190
Why not just call them “gulls”. No capital, they’re not worth one. Short for “gullibles” as suggested by others. And as a complete word, suitable as scavengers who swoop in, take what they can get and crap over everyone around.
Cheers,
Dave B
PS However I do think there are several categories of the breed:
* active members of the cabal at the top;
* active supporters of the cabal;
* believers;
* hesitant supporters; and
* doubters.
41
You may be right..GULLS has a nice ring to it.
As to your classifications, well maybe, but the top 2 at least qualify for hystericals. Call the last 2 categories GULLS and they may decide to look into why they got called that, and switch.
We have a number of silent readers, hesitant to comment or ask for advice, but wondering why both sides are so adamant in their claims. The fact is that the IPCC was a political set up to find proof that a short recent warm spell was man made. They have completely failed to do so, but disguise their failure with weasel words like “95% sure” etc. Those who feel the idea suits their beliefs join in claiming that “the science is settled” or “97% of scientists agree”.
The first is based on a weird idea of what science is, and the second a sort of re-run of 1960’s toothpaste advertisements on TV. Neither is credible. Nor is it surprising that the majority of commenters are older and wiser, having seen a number of these scares fade away into oblivion. More so, many of them have ‘hard science’ backgrounds and can see that the so-called science makes quicksand look like concrete.
Pause and think; these people have been claiming since 1970 that we only have 5 or 10 years to “save the world”. Despite their hysterical screams the world hasn’t ended, more people live better lives than ever before, the oil hasn’t run out, the sky hasn’t burst into flames, polar bears have multiplied and ice shelves have got bigger.
And if you still think ‘there might be something in what the IPCC says’, try finding any prediction made in the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s about coming global warming which has come true.
HINT don’t waste time on anything from Gore, Suzuki, Ehrlich or Flannery unless you want a wry laugh. If you are familiar with statistics then anything from Lewandowsky or Cook will have you rolling on the floor (or possibly looking for a blunt instrument).
41
You can always point out that a denier is a unit of fineness. Ergo, if somebody is not a high denier, they must, by definition, be course, an probably rough.
20
My opinion too. Give them a good thrashing with a good fact based argument against what they claim is going on. Hit them hard but with facts.
If they fail to get the point, hit them with some sarcasm.
Never surrender!
10
Watch General Motors’ Hilarious 1956 Movie on Smart Roads
That it all happens to crowds of similarly choreographed cars threading through cloverleaf interchanges in the middle of a desert, complete with rocky
prominences straight of a Roadrunner cartoon, is icing on the cake.
. . .
60
Well I’ll Bee!
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/scientific-canadian/settled-science/
and the link!
70
It would appear that the astronomers should be teaching science to the climate scientists based on what they are saying about the paper related to these quasars
I quote.
Because the discovery comes with one-in-ten-million odds, perhaps cosmologists need to rethink their models of quasar evolution and the formation of the most massive cosmic structures.
Piecing all of these anomalies together, the researchers tried to understand what appears to be their incredible stroke of luck. “If you discover something which, according to current scientific wisdom should be extremely improbable, you can come to one of two conclusions: either you just got very lucky, or you need to modify your theory,” Hennawi said.
“Extremely rare events have the power to overturn long-standing theories” Hennawi said.
As such, the discovery of the first quadruple quasar may force cosmologists to rethink their models of quasar evolution and the formation of the most massive structures in the universe.
30
Dr R V Jones and the Greenhouse Effect Theory
I am reading a book about the Second World War called Most Secret War by R V Jones. He chronicles his contribution to the British war effort through science. He is remembered in Winston Churchill’s book, Their Finest Hour, from which I quote,(the issue before the War Council was that the Germans might be directing their bombers by some sort of radio beams);
P340: “….Such was the gist of Dr Jones tale. For twenty minutes he spoke in quiet tones, unrolling his chain of circumstantial evidence, the like of which for its convincing fascination was never surpassed by the tales of Sherlock Holmes or Monsieur Le Coq. As I listened the Ingoldsby Legends jingled in my mind.
But now one Mr Jones
Comes forth and depones
That, fifteen years since, he had heard certain groans
On his way to Stone Henge (to examine the stones
Described in the work of the late Sir John Soane’s)
That he’d followed the moans
And led by their tones
Found a Raven a picking a Drummer- boys’s bones!
When Dr Jones had finished there was a general air of incredulity. ….”
Notwithstanding the general air of incredulity and Churchill’s apparent lack of attention, Jones had correctly deduced and described the functioning of the radio direction finding system known as knickebein (crooked leg).
An interesting anecdote, but what about the Greenhouse Theory?
Just before the war Jones had been involved in research on infrared radiation, including designing and making his own infrared detectors. The idea arose that infrared might be used for aircraft detection at night, either by detecting the hot engines or the engine exhaust. Consequently (quoting now from Most Secret War p46);
“On 4th November (1935) I set the equipment up on the roof of the Instrument Building at Farnborough to examine aircraft suitably staked down on the ground as their engines were raised to full revolutions. ….It quickly became evident that although there was ample infra-red radiation being emitted by a hot engine, this could be easily screened, and by interposing a moveable aircraft spare wing in front of the engine I showed that there was little infra-red getting out from the hot gases in the exhaust…
…there must be a factor ..(that had been)… overlooked: this turned out to be the fact that the gases had indeed radiated infrared….., but they radiated it in the very bands of wavelengths that are strongly absorbed by the carbon dioxide and water vapour in the Earth’s atmosphere, and so became almost undetectable at more than very short ranges.”
It is no great surprise that engine exhaust gases should radiate in the wavebands absorbed by CO2 and H2O, since these gases are principal components of engine exhaust.
So what?
There are two views about what happens to characteristic gaseous infra-red emissions in an atmosphere;
1. The radiation is absorbed by the radiative gases and the energy is dissipated to other air molecules by collisions,
2. The radiation energy is absorbed by a molecule and immediately re radiated at the same frequency.
The Greenhouse Theory relies on the second explanation. However Jones’ research supports the first explanation. If the radiation was immediately re-radiated I would expect that it would spread out from its source, diminishing by the inverse square law, as happened with the radiation from the hot metal surfaces of the engine. However the infra-red did not “get out” from the hot gas and hence it was dissipated to all the other air molecules.
Just one more piece of objective empirical evidence against the Greenhouse Theory!
222
The time of molecular collision at sea level is about 1/1000th. of the time of radiation of the CO2 molecule. Not sure of the rate for water vapour but it would contribute even more to warming O2, N2 and Ar. Thus air near the ground could be warmed by radiation as well as conduction.
Is this the original book, or the up-date? Up-date gives name of the writer of the Oslo report. By the end of the war, Churchill was a strong supporter of Jones. Even out of office he waxed enthusiastic and led to Jones being appointed Professor of Physics.
80
1st edition. Published 1978.
40
I’m thinking about E=hf here and a required threshold to achieve re-radiation. And surely there is some loss of energy merely raising electrons from their unexcited orbital levels before their return to pre-excited level or ground state with re-radiation? The loss of energy, leads to a decline in re-radiative frequency and the emission of radiation with a longer wavelength. Should we be looking a little further down the EM spectrum below IR?
Planck used a black body as does the Stefan–Boltzmann law. I am uncertain of the implication of treating the Earth as a ‘black body’ when it is clearly not.
60
Agree Manfred,
If you treat the Earth as a block body and it is not then your conclusions are invalid.
60
The whole troposphere is at a temperature higher than that required for radiative equilibrium. Any molecule that can radiate to space is already doing so at a rate higher than it is absorbing radiation from below!!
There is no delay and no absorption causing energy transfer to other non-radiating molecules. It is WV latent heat upon conversion to condensate (aerosol). that supplies the power needed for EMR flux to space at that temperature! 🙂
51
One of you gentlemen please correct me if I am wrong (I’m sure you will :-).
My understanding is that most solids and liquids behave reasonably close to a blackbody that they may be modelled as such to a first-order approximation. But that gases do not behave even remotely similar to blackbodies. Hence Jones’ findings that the hot gases from the engines’ exhaust were radiating at different wavelengths.
I guess the question is, do we really know what the (non-blackbody) emission curves are for water vapor and CO2? Is there some reason why they should be the same as their absorption spectra?
10
Thanks James,
For gas molecule, the absorbtion and emission are related to the energy levels of the electron orbitals. It takes a certain quantum of energy to raise an electron to a higher energy orbital and the same quantum of energy is released as EMR if the electron drops back down to the lower level. The energy quantum appears as a photon of a discrete frequency, given by the relation E=hn (where h is Plank’s constant and n is the frequency.
The explanation arises from the observations of spectral lines in the emission of hot gases, and also absorbtion lines, when a broad spectrum beam of radiation passes through a cold gas.
Solid surfaces by comparison emit a continuous spectrum of radiation, but it does not necessarily follow a black body spectrum.
The continuous heat spectrum of the hot engine was detected by Jones’ infra-red detector because a lot of it could pass through atmospheric windows (regions of low absorbtion). The gas however emits and absorbs at the same frequencies. Hence the exhaust emissions were absorbed by nearby molecules, then converted to sensible heat by collisions with nearby air molecules.
21
“I guess the question is, do we really know what the (non-blackbody) emission curves are for water vapor and CO2?”
Yes
20
“I guess the question is, do we really know what the (non-blackbody) emission curves are for water vapor and CO2? Is there some reason why they should be the same as their absorption spectra?”
Yes they have all been carefully measured and vary with pressure. Yes there is a reason! Absorptivity and emissivity at each frequency and in each direction is the property of the material and structure called “antenna gain” and is the same for sending and receiving.
However emission and absorption flux transfered are opposites and never the same! For thermal radiative flux, again for each frequency and in each direction,
1)if the opposing radiance is less there must be emission proportional to the difference in radiances,
2)if the opposing radiance is greater there must be absorption proportional to the difference in radiances,
3)if the opposing radiance is the same there must be no radiative flux in either direction.
This was all carefully explained by James Clerk Maxwell FRS FRSE (13 June 1831 – 5 November 1879) in his three papers on EMR. None of his work has ever been falsified! 🙂
20
The assumption of some artificial black body at some elevation in the atmosphere is where the rot begins. It is taking averages to a meaningless result.
40
Nice discussion started by Peter C.
For those of you looking for more in depth discussion on the subject of CO2 and radiation I recommend this site:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=displacement+law
10
Your reference is good:
But it tends to confuse the issue of absorption. In the wavelength intervals that atmospheric flux can be emitted or absorbed the radiant potential or radiance of that gas at its own temperature severely limits the radiation emitted from the surface. the actual exit flux from the surface is less than 32 W/m^2 (measured). The difference in not emitted, and emitted then absorbed, indicates the level of incompetence on the part of climate researchers
If (emitted then absorbed) the temperature at altitude must increase creating the non existent tropical atmospheric hotspot. WRONG! If (not emitted) from the surface how does the planet ever cool? Easy!
The atmosphere emits EMR flux “only” to space from its own radiating gases including all latent heat of evaporation. This whole process is somewhat complex but thoroughly explained. This can be explained only to those that refuse to accept the brainwashing that EMR flux depends only on the temperature of the emitter and goes in every direction. The brainwashing includes questions like “How does the photon know the temperature at the other end”? 🙂
30
Will, sorry this reply is so late. More info here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/
00
That is about a good as you can get on a quantum level for sensible heat.
EMR is never heat!! The radiative flux may be transmitted, reflected, or absorbed, with the three percentages summing to 100% at each frequency, and in each direction.
The part absorbed to the nearest Planck constant sum is converted to some other form of energy. Electricity, chemistry (latent heat and photosynthesis), changing a particle state (photo-emission photo-conduction), and sensible heat!
That sensible heat has the lowest work function, so low that it is currently immeasurable.
Anyhow the question is under what conditions is thermal flux ever generated. My answer is in the reply to James McCown above! 🙂
10
Good reference.
I liked the conclusion:
“There is one and only one explanation for the entire ~33C greenhouse effect that satisfies all physical laws and is in accordance with millions of weather balloon and satellite observations, the atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse theory.”
Not sure if it is the only possible explanation but the gravity pressure theory is supported by objective evidence, it does explain surface temperatures and it does accord with observations.
The Greenhouse theory by comparison fails every test.
Without the Greenhouse theory Anthropogenic global warming has no foundation.
10
There is not enough energy in infrared radiation to excite electrons to higher energy levels. For that it takes ultraviolet. It’s the vibrational levels that are involved in infrared.
10
The work function of vibrating or bending is so low that any increase in temperature is not measurable! EMR need not excite any electrons at any frequency.
00
It is observed and accepted by all that there is a ~33K difference between the temperature at the surface and at the effective radiating level (the tropopause, where convection stops). Warmists attribute that increase in temperature to the IR activity of CO2.
Others, including me, contend that it is the mass of the atmosphere, mostly O2 and N2 delaying the loss of heat from the surface until IR active gases are able to cool the planet effectively without obstruction. That retention of heat in the atmosphere is measurable in the lapse rate. And 90% of the IR activity is due to H2O, especially in the lower troposphere.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/on-climate-theories-response-to-david-a/
153
I agree. The surface tempertaure of all atmospheric planets in the solar system that we have sufficient data for (and planets at 1 bar without surfaces) are *all* correctly predicted with a straightforward application of the Ideal Gaw law. With data from NASA’s Fact Sheets, Earth’s temperature comes out at about 290K and Venus’ at 727K (only 10K lower than what NASA claims it actually is). You could Google my blog-post ‘Is Venus hot because of CO2 back-radiation’ and check the results independently yourself.
31
“I agree. The surface temperature of all atmospheric planets in the solar system that we have sufficient data for (and planets at 1 bar without surfaces) are *all* correctly predicted with a straightforward application of the Ideal Gas law.”
I disagree (-g/Cp) is the replacement for positional potential in a gravitational field. This involves both pressure and temperature gradients for any gas mass within such gravitational field. At pressures below 10 kPa gas molecules are not so constrained and tend to orbit the gravitational center of mass.
10
You lost me there. It all sounds very technical for my pea-sized brain. All I know is that the Ideal Gaw law correctly predicts the temperature of all planets with atmospheres, even tenuous atmospheres such as with Mars. Throw the mean molecular mass, density and pressure of the planet’s atmosphere into the equation, and volia, you get the temperature of the planet, as if by magic, and suddenly there is no need for back-radiation anymore.
10
Indeed there is never any back-radiation!
Sorry, you never get the absolute temperature. You only get a linear temperature gradient composed of both logarithmic density gradient and logarithmic pressure gradient. If the planet moves closer to the Sun all temperatures increase. The temperature gradient with altitude remains (-g/Cp) for that planetary mass(g) and that gas mass composition(Cp).
10
The 33°C difference due to any “effect” is impossible, because a warmer surface would radiate away more energy than it gets from the Sun, which is equivalent to energy production out of nothing. Such a difference requires a more powerful source of heat which is not there. And yes, I am familiar with that bogus calculation. Forget it and just look at the absurd result, it should be enough.
41
Greg,
The temperature difference, or any actual temperature on or about any planet,or any massive luminous object in the Solar system or nearby galaxy cannot be calculated! This is all a swinely attempt to keep serfs in serfdom, no matter how clever.
Please describe some system that can work “better” than what is?
It is the non existent “better” that precludes all history!
Oh whoa are we!
10
The failure of the Greenhouse Global Warming conjecture is down to simple logic.
We know that everything emits electromagnetic radiation in proportion to its temperature. At any given location the body with the greatest temperature emits radiation that increases the temperature of all of the surrounding cooler bodies. This, in turn, raise their temperature resulting in them radiating at a greater intensity and frequency. Part of this is back-radiated to the original source body which has been cooling due to its emission of radiation. The source body does not increase in temperature as a result of the back-radiation. If it did so then not only would hotter bodies be raising the temperature of colder bodies but colder bodies would be raising the temperature of nearby hotter bodies. That is, everything in the Universe would be causing an increase in the temperature of everything else.
As there is no indication of whole of the Universe heating up over the past 14 billion years or so, it would seem logical to conclude that the Greenhouse Global Warming conjecture is false.
103
Agreed Bevan, poor logic and poor thinking. The warmists don’t seem to understand that EVERY CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is a unique entity. It cannot share the energy absorbed from any photon. The energy is distributed through the electron shells of the molecule which changes its vibrational level. This increase in vibration helps transfer energy to other air molecules during kinetic collisions. Nothing is free in this universe and as that CO2 molecule is adjusting its electron shells other electrons can and do EMIT lower energy photons so the overall energy in the molecule has already reduced and the ability to emit a photon of the same high energy level it just absorbed is effectively impossible though I have read arguments that a collision with a very high kinetic energy could cause the CO2 molecule to emit another high energy photon. But so what? If energy out equals energy in there is no change in the energy level of that unique CO2 molecule!!! Therefore that particular high energy photon, which could only have come from the sun, has been diverted and possibly never reached the surface. That is a cooling effect.
All CO2 molecules in the atmosphere will be constantly radiating over the 13 to 17 micron bands. This energy band constitutes some 18% of the total energy at a temperature of 288K (15C) and it is claimed that at least half that energy reaches the surface. This is correct. But so what? That level of energy will only be absorbed by objects colder than -30C !!!!
I could go on but people get bored so one last claim. Effective ‘back radiation’ is from cloud. Water! Very good IR characteristics! This can help prevent the surface losing energy at night. I’m sure you have all noticed that, where ever you are in this world, a cloudy night is always slightly warmer than a cold clear night when you can see the stars overhead. Simple logic can explain that
92
Thanks Richard III,
I think that you have said something important there.
Clouds are very important. Clouds are not Gas!
Clouds can radiate IR and likely can approximate black bodies.
It is disturbing in some ways that we should still be debating this on a skeptical blog site.
31
Radiative flux in a direction of higher spectral radiance has never been observed, detected, or measured. This is the nature of this SCAM!
53
“We know that everything emits electromagnetic radiation in proportion to its temperature. At any given location the body with the greatest temperature emits radiation that increases the temperature of all of the surrounding cooler bodies. This, in turn, raise their temperature resulting in them radiating at a greater intensity and frequency.”
Such has never been demonstrated and is completely false (a fantasy)!! Any mass can at maximum emit in each direction and at each frequency flux proportional to its spectral radiance less any opposing radiance. The word flux demands a unidirectional transfer perpendicular to some cross sectional area! Any radiative flux absorbed by airborne water consensate never increases its temperature the only increase is in latent heat!! 🙂
52
An alternative view on atoms from Pier Luigi Ighina (La Scoperta Dell’Atomo Magnetico – 1954)
Pier Luigi Ighina (1908 – 2004) worked closely with Guiglielmo Marconi. He studied atoms and found that most scientists end up studying an already excited atom (excited by light or faster moving atoms). He devised a method of slowing down atoms so he could study them in a non-excited state. He constructed a microscope strong enough to see the atoms.
He found that after a certain period of time the atoms under observation disappeared from view, since excited atoms become light, the atoms first move as light and therefore we only see the light.
From this simple observation he defined four fundamental laws, namely:
1. Transfer of movement – When light atoms excite atoms under observation they transfer part of their movement.
2. Absorption – The atoms under observation absorb part of the movement of the light atoms to increase their own movement.
3. Attraction – In order to excite an atom it needs to come into contact with another atom of greater movement.
4. Brightness – The more an atom moves, the more luminous it becomes and vice versa
He then found that when an atom of a higher vibration comes into contact with an atom of lower vibration the resulting net vibration is not the mid-point frequency between the vibrations because different atoms have a different maximum (frequency) that they can vibrate at. The lower vibration atom can only vibrate up to its maximum vibration.
He then drew up a scale of absorption for the different materials. His further studies identified “the magnetic atom” which he believes provides the movement for all other atoms. When he tried to slow the magnetic atom down with a similar method to other atoms he found that the magnetic atom actually vibrated faster and became stronger.
His studies identified different types of atoms, which he called reproductive atoms, stable atoms, non-reproductive atoms, semi-reproductive atoms.
He noted that organic matter is made up of reproductive non-permanent atoms whilst atoms in minerals are stable and are not able to reproduce unless excited by other atoms of greater power.
Main-stream science has continued down the path of studying already excited atoms. The Hadron Collider on the Swiss border, whilst a marvel of engineering is probably not too clever. I do not believe the scientists understand the consequences of what they are doing.
Do electrons even exist or are they really negatively charged magnetic atoms?
Pier Luigi Ighina said that he was probably 20 years ahead of main stream scientists shortly before his death in 2004. Is he right or just some mad scientist?
Anyway – some food for thought!
10
argument by authority.
From wiki (a might authority) “He claimed to be assistant of Guglielmo Marconi for a number of scientific findings. However, no official proof of these collaborations are known.”
Amazingly this
Is the least silly thing written. I’m not sure that much eating happens in Per’s restaurant.
00
“Pier’s”
00
Gee Aye,
Do the different types of atoms proposed by Ighina exist including magnetic atoms? How would the transfer of vibration from light atoms effect the vibration of CO2 molecules surrounded by 2,500 O2 an N atoms (by volume) in regard to the so called GHE and back radiation? Or is the science of atoms settled? If so have scientists found the God particle yet?
I do not know the answer but am not prepared to dismiss his theories out of hand.
Whether he worked with Marconi or not is not important. Delete the reference to Marconi. You are correct argument from authority. I included it more as a frame of reference.
I found his book and experiments with atoms and study on vibrations very interesting. If what he says is correct then he might well be 20 years ahead of main stream science.
I have translated his book into english if you are interested, unless you think Wiki is a better reference?
All the best
Tanner
00
keep fighting the good fight!
00
Its those fearfilled Green we need to change…
¯
The bottom line is that alarmists and the Greens do not see that we humans are part of nature. That humans are natural. To them we are just destructive animals, a huge, almost alien, population that plagues the Earth. This is not a healthy way to think.
¯
What humans do, and this is similar to just about all of natural life, is change our environment to best suit ourselves. The Greens are blind to fact that other animals and plants benefit from us doing this.
That we are more self-aware than most other animals means that humans can see the damage they do, assess its impact on the biosphere through science and, if required (and wish to), repair such damage. To be sure we are far from perfect in this task but we are getting better as our technological and scientific prowess improves — we can do so much more now using less resources than we have ever done before. If the greens activist have their way this progress will stop, or even reverse, which will have deleterious impacts on the rest of our ecosystem, our lives, and the rest of nature.
¯
The Green activists (IMO) hide their ignorance of, and innate fears of, the accelerating speed of technological and scientific advancement, by voicing their wish that we all return to a mythical green Utopian past. A past were in reality life for the majority of mankind was nasty, brutal, and short.
131
Gather ’round, folks …
Introducing Angela Merkel’s Man Made Global Warming Elixir
Available for a limited time only, you can get your very own bottle of patented Angela Merkel’s Man Made Global Warming Elixir.
Approved by 97% of scientists and guaranteed to stop floods, droughts, wildfires, storms, disease, melting glaciers, hurricanes, asthma, heat waves, and even mental anguish from that worrisome global warming.
Blends perfectly with Kool Aid and is the official drink of the Global Warming Tax and Alarmist Society.
Please drink irresponsibly and send your money quickly.
Germany’s Merkel calls for global emissions trading system (news.yahoo)
81
Handjive
Like this?
“THE SUPERSALESMAN
Slicker’n deer guts on a doorstep!
Smooth as a filly’s nose!
Here in this jug’s a miracle drug
So new that nobody knows!
Feed it inject it or plant it
Stick it under an ear.
Pick any breed, results guaranteed,
The data’s perfectly clear.
It’s good for foot rot in gophers,
Chafing on buffalo thighs,
Horses with corns, Angus with horns
And girls with fire in their eyes!
Goats with a bad disposition,
Lovers losing their spark,
Turpentined cats, blindfolded bats
And dogs that forgot how to bark!
Friends. Are you troubled with aphids?
Kids all down with the flu?
Cattle won’t gain? Needing more rain?
I’ll tellya what this’ll do;
Kill all the weeds in your garden,
Patch up your innertube,
Leaven your bread, stiffen your thread
And work out your Rubik’s cube!
Give you more miles per gallon,
Relieve your gastric distress,
If that ain’t enough, this wonderful stuff
Eats barbecue stains off your dress!
I see you don’t quite believe me!
The best I saved for last
Pay me the cash then quick as a flash!
See? Oh, I went too fast
Okay, let’s do it again.
Watch and you’ll understand.
Safe and improved, it gently removes
A five dollar bill from your hand!”
Baxter Black, “Coyote Cowboy Poetry”
111
Since the oceans have been warming, and a warmer ocean holds less CO2 and a cool ocean.
Can anybody calculate how much CO2 is being released from the oceans as an annual estimate.
And how that compares to human production of CO2 as an annual estimate.
I’d love to see the numbers, but it’s beyond me to do so. Thanks Joe for my favorite blog.
50
Greg, it is not necessary for the warmer oceans to RELEASE CO2, they simply don’t absorb as much as they did and UP GOES the CO2. 🙂
10
Right Richard,
To answer Greg’s question
10
Murray Salby puts natural sources, at 96% compared to anthropogenic 4%.
His latest presentation here – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/13/new-video-dr-murry-salby-control-of-atmospheric-co2/
20
This was the conclusion of Professor Suess after which the Suess effect was named.
A pioneer in Radio Carbon dating, he pointed out that even before the atom bombs in the mid 1960s, the C14 amount was within 2% of what it had always been. This is very odd when you consider that WW1 and WW2 had been and the growth in CO2 was already substantial.
So his conclusion was obvious, that the oceans quickly absorbed any excess C14 free CO2 above that dictated by the equilibrium between aerial CO2 and the 98% of CO2 which is in the oceans. It was a point I made in writing to Prof Selby too.
Then after the 1960s when C14 was doubled by the bombs, the C14 vanished with a half life of 14 years.
As C14 is only one atom in a trillion, it was the perfect experiment which demonstrated absolutely that man made CO2 vanished in 14 years, replaced by old CO2 from the oceans, 98% of which has the ancient levels of C14.
The other evidence is that the decay curve is a single straight line on a log curve, so there is no vanishing into other reservoirs as suggested by the Bern diagram. This means the deep oceans are in full play, not just the surface as has been argued by warmists.
Selby is right. He always has been. That’s why he had to be fired and silenced, possibly by the direct intervention of Tim Flannery, although that has been denied, of course.
61
I left out one crucial point. Fossil fuels have no C14. So if the 50% increase in CO2 was man made, C14 should be only 2/3, an unmissable 33% effect. the effect was 2% in the 1950s and may be as much as 4% by now. There never was a problem. If there is no man made CO2 in the air, what is the problem again?
21
I think I sort of understand what your saying. Conceptualy anyway.
I would love to see a more thorough description of this idea with numbers as a full post. If anyone is up to the task.
00
I’m of the understanding that the oceans will be in equilibrium with CO2 content, and warmer water holds less CO2. So it makes sense to me at least (using what logical ability I have) that as the oceans warm, they release CO2 that can no longer remain in equilibrium. IE: The arctic oceans take up CO2, and release it in the tropics.
I specifically would be interested in the oceans because that seems to be the only thing changing. All other natural producers of CO2 are pretty stable. Termites, cows, bacteria ect.
So it isn’t the whole of nature that is increasing (all life, volcanoes and frozen tundra, are moderately stable). Of the two things that are increasing, human activity and ocean warming, I’d simply like to compare those two in isolation. Obviously if the ocean production of CO2 is 100 times that of human production, then the whole idea of reducing the human contribution to save the planet is insane.
20
Questions.
Has anyone read even an attempt to link between CO2 and Climate Change without Global Warming? How commentators talk about man made Climate Change when there is no detectable man made warming?
Was the 1990s 0.5C increase in temperature real? After all, that was the old thermometer error bar. No one can be certain of warming until the world is more than that amount away from the old thermometer data. In Australia if the Federation drought readings were finally considered, it is possible the country has cooled.
As just discussed, there is no ‘hot spot’, the essential agreed confirmation of amplification of CO2 heating by water vapour. Without this amplification there is not enough greenhouse gas effect to cause a problem. Is this agreed or is there some other way this tiny effect changes world temperatures?
How does CO2 as a greenhouse gas exclusively warm the oceans? What logic does a non physical scientist Flannery use to insinuate that the huge oceans have stolen his heat. Or will any old heat do? He promised heat and found it?
How does anyone claim the oceans are acidifying when the fact is they are alkali?
The process of (very slightly) reducing alkalinity is called neutralization, not acidification.
How can everyone ignore the fact that 98% of the worlds CO2 is already in the ocean at 5ml/litre, 0.5% not 0.04% as in the air.
Why would anyone ignore the fact that if you heat water full of CO2 like lemonade, you get an increase in aerial CO2? Doesn’t that explain the increase?
Given that the oceans are full of gas (as fish know), all of the CO2 (bar 2%), cover 2/3 of the planet and have 400x the mass of the air, why is the land the dominant determiner of climate? Surely the oceans control the climate, the monsoons, the storms, not the land. Or is it that it is just easier to put a Stevenson box outside your door?
How can everyone ignore the proven fact that the half life of CO2 in the air is 14 years, not 80 years as claimed by the IPCC. Our CO2 vanishes into the oceans, not to return for 10,000 years.
The whole man made Global Warming narrative is so full of holes, it is a wonder anyone believes a word of it. So do they? Or is it all about money and power, as usual.
Is it time the world discussed what to do to about 220,000 giant windmills containing 66,000 tons of neodymium? This is massive warmist made pollution. Neodymium has an acute toxic rating.
183
Sorry, don’t agree. Neodymium has a low to medium toxicity rating, but like all rare earths this is based on limited results.
Did you mean the waste products from rare earth processing, which have acute toxicity ratings?
62
No idea really. 66,000 tons of a rare earth. What toxicity means is debatable, but heavy metals in high concentrations generally are a problem for humans and each windmill has about 300kg. Solar cells have a similar problem with Cadmium and other dangerous elements.
20
I never had any mercury in my house until the greens came along.
Now my house is full of it. Those useless light bulbs that never really give full light and if you break one you are supposed to vacate the room!
As kids some 70 years ago we used make ‘wriggly worms’ with a blob of mercury inside a tiny tin foil tube. If you got it right it could jump around on the palm of you hand. Maybe that’s why I’m so daft now. Can’t believe in global warming.
63
Our science teacher put a blob of something in a glass pan sitting on a projector. He asked the class what the definition of life was. We all answered, movement, division, multiply, ect. Then he put some powder into the glass pan and the blob went crazy, moving all over the place, splitting and gobbling up whatever he put in. He said this is mercury, does it have life? We all said NO. He competed with us that it displayed all of the “life” things that we had defined.
I also remember when margarine first came out, he went into detail just what it was made of. He didn’t like it one bit 🙂
30
We are not even half way through the year, but…
2015 Is the Hottest Year On Record!
And then this…
In 1977 National Geographic blamed identical weather as today on Global Cooling.
Link includes scans from the original article.
70
Couple of good catches there warcroft.
I was particularly amused by the comment that climate is changing and there is a liberal conspiracy to lie about it.
30
2015 warmest already ? Sure it is. NASA will see to it.
41
This year can only be less hot than next year!
The future is fixed! The past often needs adjusting.
42
In April Jo and others on this blog made submissions to the government in regard to setting emission levels beyond 2020 for the upcoming Paris carbonfest. Can these submissions be viewed yet? The link they sent me for viewing my submission does not work.
40
Hey, I’m a little confused here. (and do I really need to add the /sarc?)
All of a sudden they’ve found the missing hot spot in the upper something or other sphere.
For a while now they’ve been telling us that this so called missing hot spot has been very cleverly hiding in the deep oceans of the World.
Listen! Just where the hell is it? In the oceans or back in the upper you know what.
Make up your bl00dy minds will you!
Incidentally, why is the missing, umm ….. hot spot supposed to be hiding in all the really really cold places?
I REALLY should add the /sarc right about now.
Tony.
121
Saying that the heat is hiding somewhere else is not acceptable. The models predicted a rise in average temperature which did not happen therefore they have failed. Before they start theorising about where the “missing” heat is there needs to be a frank admission that the original hypothesis (and models) failed.
31
With the RET set at 33,000 Gwh. what is the equivalence with coal or nuclear power stations on 24/7?
20
Two of them!
Tony.
30
Tony, You knew the Hotspot is not about missing heat energy but about a heat trapping effect that the GCMs predict in that particular area of the atmosphere due to increased humidity arising from a slight warming.
No Hotspot at that location, means no evidence of cloud feedbacks actually amplifying any small direct effects of CO2 at all.
Trenbreth’s missing heat is more about the perceived imbalance of solar energy arriving vs. heat escaping back to space. I guess if it can sneak into the deep oceans undetected then mightn’t it just as well be able to sneak out again ?
40
” Incidentally, why is the missing, umm ….. hot spot supposed to be hiding in all the really really cold places? ”
It would hardly be a hotspot if it didn’t hang around in cool places.
20
I’m missing a million dollars. I mean, after all my hard work I should have an extra million somewhere, I just cant find it.
I checked under the bed, the basement… Nothing.
Maybe its in the attic.
Regardless, it has to be somewhere.
00
I’m missing a million dollars. I mean, after all my hard work I should have an extra million somewhere, I just cant find it.
I checked under the bed, the basement… Nothing.
Maybe its in the attic.
Regardless, it has to be somewhere
00
That makes two million.
Very careless.
00
The widespread apathy for man-made global warming is caused by the absence of observable measurements to prove the hypothesis that it is caused by CO2.
1) Greenhouse warming predicted to show up in the Troposphere over the Equator has failed to occur.
2) Sea level rise is occurring at the same rate as it has for thousands of years. No acceleration.
3) Antartica land & sea-ice are at record highs having increased over the last decade.
4) Arctic sea-ice has not disappeared as predicted, it’s extent varying within historical measurements.
5) There has now been no global warming for 18 years & 5 months.
6) There is no sign of the “missing heat” being in the oceans as measured to 700 meters in depth.
7) Computer generated predictions of increasing global temperatures have failed by a very wide margin to track reality, being now off by 200% (on average) from today’s temperature.8) Extreme weather events have decreased in both occurrence & intensity over the last decade, not increased as claimed.
People are reluctent to consider alarming predictions of climate disaster when there is no measurable evidence to believe.
Donald G Eagling, Retired Director of Facilities & Senior Staff ScientistLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryDanville CA
> The one & only comment 3days ago @theconversation: Will the presidential candidates have a substantive debate on climate change?
. . .
That it still exists is a wonder.
71
handjive, watch out for Number 7). As the world cools the equator/polar temperature differential increases. This will cause an increase in global wind movement which will result in more extreme climate events. Of course the warmists will blame this on global warming. THEY ARE WAITING FOR IT!
23
handjive, u beat me to it.
i’d saved that E&E Publishing/Jean Chemnick psyop DENIER piece – “There’s no denying this label packs a political punch” – for “Unthreaded”. it also includes:
– But in 2013, “denier” pulled ahead of “skeptic” in news references, and it is still on the ascendant.
In 2000, “denier” was referenced 10 times in the English-language press.
In 2014, it appeared 3,183 times.
“Ultimately, this is all about having an upper hand in the war of words,”
said Kert Davies of Greenpeace U.S. “And it’s proven out now that it actually does hurt to be called a denier.” –
E&E obviously wanted people to read the DENIER piece, cos they charge BIG BUCKS to subscribe to the stuff they churn out:
2014: NiemanLab: Caroline O’Donovan: E&E Publishing is spending a lot of money on reporting most people won’t ever see
Seventy-five journalists and subscription prices that can stretch past $100,000: The energy and environment publisher has built a big content engine for a small community of subscribers
There’s a private company based in Washington that employs around 75 journalists. It has reporters in ten cities worldwide, including Houston, Dallas, L.A., San Francisco, Denver, St. Louis, Minneapolis, New York City, and Atlanta. It was founded in 1998 and has been growing steadily ever
since. Annual subscriptions cost between $2,000 and $150,000, and subscribers include both Greenpeace and the Heritage Foundation. Somewhere around 70 new stories are published by this organization everyday. It has an
in-house television studio, where new digital video content is filmed daily, and it recently expanded its staff…
“Our client base is the usual suspects for people who are dealing with these kind of policy issues,” says Braun. “Law firms, federal agencies, state agencies, governors, Congress, the World Bank, major corporations,
particularly energy companies, industrial manufacturers, environmental groups. We have a very large university audience, a very large think tank and foundation audience.”…
To produce content at the volume its clients need, E&E has to maintain a robust staff. I asked Braun how, in an age when reporters are encouraged to grow personal brands, he manages to hire journalists whose work will most
likely never see a mass audience.
“Some of them are tired of being in newspaper newsrooms that are under constant financial pressure and downsizing and they find it depressing,” he says…
“It’s not like we’re reaching five million people — that’s not our intent,” says Braun. “There are only so many people that really care about energy and environmental policy.”
http://www.niemanlab.org/2014/03/ee-publishing-is-spending-a-lot-of-money-on-reporting-most-people-wont-ever-see/
2012: Yale Uni Climate Connections: Michael Svoboda: E&E: Covering Climate
Change in the Age of Digital Media
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/01/ee-covering-climate-change-in-the-age-of-digital-media/
21
Here is a quotation which to me not only sums up warmist climate activists but points to their origins and true beliefs:
“But dedicated ******** activists have never been much interested in engaging in argument, only in hurling accusations of wickedness. To indulge in debate would simply be consorting with the devil. So there can be no dialogue between themselves and the evil outside world that so exasperatingly refuses to expunge itself. This is not just pig-headed obstinacy: it is part of the dogma. When I was a fledgling Trot, I was solemnly taught this doctrine like a catechism: objective truth is a bourgeois construct. No number of collisions with inconvenient facts should ever result in Doubt. The only reality worth considering is the one we are striving for through Marxist theory. The attitudes of working people now are simply a product of false consciousness: they will come to understand their true destiny through class struggle.”
The missing phrase is ‘left-wing’and the full article can be found here at the Telegraph online:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11610515/The-Left-is-as-noisy-as-ever-how-about-listening-for-once.html
52
I think you’ll find that many of us are quite happy to debate 🙂
26
Yeah…only en masse.
53
I’m not ‘en masse’. Right here I’m one vs many. Something most here wouldn’t dare do at Sks.
211
” and that that energy is accumulating ”
Any evidence for this?
KK
20
A) It would be impossible for energy to not accumulate, given physics.
B) There are plenty of papers that discuss the ToA imbalance.
110
TnA imbalance, what do physical imperfections have to do with…..oh ToA oops disregard that.
20
or 0.50±0.51 Wm−2 at 95% confidence level.
00
RB, I take it that means you’d agree witht hat paper’s conclusions were it 0.50±0.49 Wm−2 at 95% confidence level?
03
Tristan,
I can’t help but question why this particular ‘imbalance’ is due to ‘man made’ CO2 and how this is different from all the historical imbalances due to ‘natural’ CO2?
61
I didn’t ask for a platitude, I said: ” Any evidence for this? ”
Reason being is that that is how science works; you discuss the observations.
Last I heard was that the Earth is pretty much as it was 100 years ago give or take a small amount of natural variability.
KK
61
Radiation doesn’t care where the CO2 came from. You’ll get radiative imbalance whenever CO2 changes quantity. At the moment, the quantity is changing, because with the addition of our 30Gt/annum, sources are outpacing sinks.
18
At least you got part of it right: yes it’s the RADIATION not the CO2.
The more radiation the more heat trapped ( at least until sundown)
More CO2 has BA effect UNLESS, you guessed it; The Sun gets Hotter!
The Sun did it!
At constant Solar output more CO2 becomes progressively less and less effective; remember the log effect from your Physics 1 lectures Tristan; oops, you did economics?
Well maybe you can ask a Scientist to explain it.
KK
61
Umm, no Tristan… Climate science makes an implicit assumption that the earth must lose energy by radiation ONLY. This is WRONG. There are forces billions of times stronger than the tiny radiative forces bathing the planet, and there are plenty of ways for energy to be absorbed permanently by the earth, or shovelled out in a different energy form.
Consider for example, the jet streams and the tides are created from the tidal forces of the moon (mainly) and the effect of this is to create drag on the earth’s rotation such that every so often we have to have a leap second. That energy is lost through a change in the kinetic energy (specifically momentum) of the earth.
For example, where in the climate models is warming through friction created by the jet stream? Conversely when water evaporates and rises 10 km to the tropopause it gains potential energy, converting the heat to PE. When it condenses and rains out, the energy is converted to kinetic energy and as the raindrops hit the earth, Newton says there will be a transfer of kinetic energy that alters the earth’s orbit, or rotational momentum slightly in an elastic collision, via gravity this change acts on the sun, planets and even the rest of the universe altering their relative positions according to the energy expended. When thermal differences create a wind, the energy of the wind, that was once heat energy is also dissipated into the planets gravitational system.
Heat can be radiated back to space, but it can also change form, to kinetic, potential, chemical, electrical or even sound to be dissipated without radiating one photon! It is absolutely unsurprising that there is a gap between isolation and emission simply because the earth has many more than one way to cool down
52
bobl: Where are the published measurements of the heat generated by the friction from jet streams, showing that that friction has changed over the past 40 years and hence contributes to a warming atmosphere.
Where are the published measurements demonstrating the kinetic energy of rai altering the Earth’s orbit?
15
wake up Tristan
0.5±0.5 Wm−2 or FIK is the correct way to report that result.
20
Exactly Tristan, where are the published figures on jet stream friction, where are the published figures on kinetic energy of global rainfall…. though you can calculate that one, it’s about 0.05 Watts per square meter, comprising about 10% of the imbalance energy.
Photosynthesis is about 3Watts per square meter, and completely swamps global warming, why just the increase in photosynthesis since 1990 is absorbing sufficient shortwave energy to cool the earth by 0.6Watts per square meter.
The fact is Tristan, these losses exist but are are NOT taken into account they completely account for the imbalance between insolation and emission, radiation is NOT the only energy sink for global heat energy, nor is solar insolation the only energy SOURCE. Without accounting for all sources and sinks you can’t compute an energy balance. Hansens diagram is major league WRONG. There is no perfect machine, output NEVER equals input, there are ALWAYS losses in energy conversions.
31
Bobl, are you claiming that the energy imbalance is because the energy gets stored, or destroyed?
02
Tristan,
“Radiation doesn’t care where the CO2 came from. You’ll get radiative imbalance whenever CO2 changes quantity. At the moment, the quantity is changing, because with the addition of our 30Gt/annum, sources are outpacing sinks”
I’m just calling Bull$hit on that one.
It does matter.
Thousands of historical climate cycles and thousands of historical atmospheric CO2 cycles were natural, but if ‘man made CO2’ as you claim “Radiation doesn’t care where the CO2 came from.” is just the same as natural CO2 then why all the scare mongering?
CO2 readily absorbs IR but is a poor transmitter. We’re over the CO2 hump, Tristan, take your foot off the accelerator and enjoy the ride.It’s just another CO2 event right. If CO2’s all the same. What’s the big deal. The planet’s been here before, again, and again, and again.
Congratulations to those who survive Tristan’s continued Climate Induced Hysterical Outbursts (CIHO).
A couple of personal notes:
Well done all for carefully managing another hysterical little troll.
and
I miss The Griss.
Tristan:
Never forget the words of your Political Officer:
Be Seen, Seem Green.
and
Never let the truth get in the way of Climate Science.
31
Energy is never created or destroyed it is only ever converted to another form, except when it is converted to/from mass.
The energy imbalance leaves the system by hook or by crook, some way other than radiation, but we do not know enough to say how at this point in time, likely it is a combination of energy conversions.
Lets say you connect up your solar panel to your electric car and drive around all day in it. Some of that energy, never becomes heat again, it is retained as kinetic or potential energy. That portion of the energy you extracted from the sun is never able to cause heating of the atmosphere, it is GONE.
00
The Earth’s core is conservatively estimated to be 4,000 deg C and possibly up to 7,000 deg C.
The Earth is close neighbour to an unlimited HEAT SINK in the form of interplanetary space.
The surrounding temperature of our Earthly environment is therefore about 1.6 C deg above absolute zero or 1.6 deg K or MINUS 271.5 deg C.
It would seem likely from my understanding of thermodynamics ( and not discounting the daily intervention of our Sun) the
heat or energy or photons or whatever the warmers may use to describe it, IS LEAKING DOWN THE TEMPERATURE GRADIENT TO
DISAPPEAR INTO SPACE and in the process dangerously cooling our home; Planet Earth.
Our problem on Earth is to retain as much energy as we can not get all worked up about non existent heat accumulation!.
That is the reverse of the IPCCC claim!
KK
92
Tristan, you’ll find a good many people here are band from SkS. So no debate possible despite what you might believe. So is us not debating, or SkS banning us from said debate? you decide.
92
If you actually debate, that is: No accusations of impropriety, no sloganeering, no excessive repetition and no dodging the question, you don’t get banned. But many people enjoy doing those things, and don’t understand why they get banned for it.
213
Tristan,
If aligned philosophical beliefs had not shut down the debate with ‘the science is settled’ and ‘97% consensus’ followed by censorship and aggressive moderation on all pro-global warming sites, as well as actively redirecting multi billions in resources to ensure the debate remained shut down in main stream media, the education systems, governments, and science then I’m sure your patronising response – “If you actually debate, that is: No accusations of impropriety, no sloganeering, no excessive repetition and no dodging the question, you don’t get banned. But many people enjoy doing those things, and don’t understand why they get banned for it.” – would still mean nothing.
112
97% of my comments to SkS have been Banned.
KK
70
That’s an exciting claim.
16
KinkyKeith, at least that means 3% of your comments are worthwhile!
210
Notice how the subject has suddenly moved to discussing the policies and practices at SkS, and not discussing the actual science, of climate dynamics.
It is the science that interests most of the folks here, not what goes on at other sites. And before you claim to only be answering the comments of others, it was you, on this sub-thread, who introduced the concept of SkS. In my copy of “Propaganda for Dummies”, it is called conversation seeding.
110
Note that Tristan’s comments at 18.1.1.1.3 and 18.1.1.1.4, are totally content free? That is because he is looking and waiting for a way to hijack the conversation, but to do that, requires him to keep on stimulating responses from the rest of us. That technique is also discussed in “Propaganda for Dummies”.
103
Tristan,
I’m willing to look at any examples you can give that will refute my claim.
I’ll help, just to make it easier for you – we will not reference University of Western Australia and Lomborg or the University and John Cook.
50
Rereke Whakaaro:
I’m not going to respond to the ‘There is no GHE’ nonsense. Lindzen, Curry, Spencer, Jo, Watts etc acknowledge that, and that’s good enough for me. But if you want to throw me a substantive question of your own, I’m happy to answer, to the best of my ability.
Note that by commenting on my commenting, you are engaging in the same ‘content free’ posting. Also remember to pick up the other participants on their non-substantive posts, lest you be accused of bias. :p
28
James: Did you miss Maurice’s commentary in the Australian?
Given he’s chairperson of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council and writing in an MSM publication, I hardly think your point-of-view isn’t getting out there. :p
27
I got banned from a pro warming site for stating that I am geologist that works as a sequence stratigrapher, a geological method that allows reconstruction of sea levels. This is something that we geologist do and did way before you discovered your climatology.
52
Proof?
28
Tristan,
@19.1.1.1.9
“James: Did you miss Maurice’s commentary in the Australian?
Given he’s chairperson of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council and writing in an MSM publication, I hardly think your point-of-view isn’t getting out there. :p”
One example over the last 30 years, one only, that’s the best you can do and it’s not even qualified, I didn’t see it – send the link or it never happened (I learned that one from you, on this very post).
When you do that see if you can link to a few more examples from different fields, just to verify that ‘deniers’ are indeed getting equal time.
I’ll make it even easier, just one example from the following 3 professions:
A link from a recognised education carricular.
A link from a recognised government policy.
A link to a peer reviewed science article.
11
You mean like calling people “denier” or accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a tobacco salesman, or just flat out calling people crazy. Like that type of behavior? How about argument by authority is that still OK?
21
Tristan,
See this: Tristan on: The Scandal Of Sea-Level Rise.
And this: Tristan on: Facebook Study (exchange begins here).
People here have attempted to have a rational debate with you. You squandered that opportunity. Any ridicule you receive hence-forth is completely of your own device.
Abe
01
@James: You’re right. That example I gave you was the only example of coverage of your viewpoint in the MSM in the past 30 years.
@Tel: I explicitly stated that I don’t like to call people ‘denier’. I was however, responding to Jo’s challenge that she’d never heard a reasonable definition for one, so I attempted to provide it.
11
Tristan,
Fair enough.
00
Tristan,
Okay now you’ve had time to digest that.
Why do you think pro-global warming has shut down debate and marginalised, and ostracised sceptics?
00
‘Something most here wouldn’t dare do at Sks.’
You do realise that we are not permitted to comment at SS?
110
Yes you are when it comes down to debate.
30
Tristan,
“One versus many… ” that’s your choice.
This is an open and transparent forum and obviously only one of the very few where you can mix it with deniers.
Starved for attention.
Poor you.
50
Rubbish, have done so at SS, shaping tommorows world (administered by cook) and realclimate, asking a simple question as to how the climate can have a loop gain pf 0.95 and not be completely unstable, swinfing wildly between ice age and thermageddon every few days.
In all three places my posts were either banned, deleted or in the case of realclimate quarantined so ordinary people wouldn’t see my arguments.
Now Tristan, in contrast, your (wildly wrong) arguments are being presented to this forum and addressed by us. Vast difference that, the reason you don’t see us on those forums is that we are not welcome to comment there as you are here.
91
Pics or it didn’t happen.
Else, you can always provide me a fully worded question, I will post it there, and you will get your response.
19
Huh, Pics??
Ok then, lets try this one.
In 1850 the temperature was about 0.75 deg C lower than now, the CO2 was supposed to have been about 270PPM. Now it’s 400 PPM.
We know from Arhennius that deltaT = k ln(CO2-2/CO2-1)
So, therefore 0.75 = k ln(400/270) and therefore k=0.75/ln(400/270)
k = 1.91
So lets then calculate the warming for a doubling
DeltaT = 1.91 × ln 2 = 1.34 degrees per doubling between 1850 and 2014
Now the IPCC says that 50% of warming is probably coming from humans and 50 % is natural variation so if we assume that 50% of all the warming from 1850 to now is CO2 induced (which it is not, the bit from 1850 to 1950 is unlikely to be CO2 related) at best we causing just 0.77 degrees of warming due to mans gasses, and the other 0.77 degrees must be something else which won’t necessarily accumulate.
0.77 degrees per doubling implies feedback was negative over the period from 1850 to 2014.
Given CO2 warming over the last 130 PPM was at best 0.37 to 0.75 degrees and the implied climate sensitivity from that is therefore 0.77 to 1.35 degrees per doubling, therefore the magic 2 degree figure (noting that the IPCC says up to 2 degrees of warming will be positive for the human race) is likely 500 – 1000 years away from happening, why are we even worried about it?
50
Now the IPCC says that 50% of warming is probably coming from humans and 50 % is natural
Quote please.
07
Or Tristan post this one
Did you know that an estimated 25000 winter deaths in the UK in 2012 was exacerbated by green energy policies making energy unaffordable for pensioners, many pensioners died because they had to choose between heating and eating.
Did you know that the best renewable fuel for electricity production after pulverised coal is pulverised flour, similar calorific value and injection technology, do you think we should burn food for energy or feed it to people?
On a related issue, do you think it is wise to turn corn into ethanol or should we save it to feed the poor?
How many poor people could be fed for the money wasted on green schemes? A. All of them.
How many people drinking unclean water could be provided with clean water to drink with the money poured into green schemes. A. All of them.
How many children could be immunised against measles, diptheria, whooping cough, and polio for that money… A. All of them
Which problem is more urgent, the million or so people dying of cancer each and every year – right now, or prevent the world from reaching 15.5 degrees.
Did you know Engineers have tools for handling sea level rise just 2 bricks high, they are called sea walls, and “piles of dirt”
To replace just 1 GW of coal capacity with solar power requires a land area of 15 (fifteen) SQUARE KILOMETERS tiled with solar panels assuming some sort of energy storage is available.
Is it right that indigenous people in Africa were murdered or forced off their lands to make way for carbon offset forests to feed the European ETS.
Which of the following will save more lives being lost through cyclones in the Philippines
A. Building windmills in Tasmania
B. Building cyclone shelters in the Philippines
The protected life and longevity of the west was provided by the availability of universal reliable energy, how moral is it to arbitrarilly decide that the third world should not have access to reliable universally available power which at this point can only be provided by fossil fuels or nuclear power.
How sensible is responding to climate change by making the one commodity that mankind uses to prevent death from climate risks ( energy) expensive or unavailable?
What does this say about the morality of those that would hold back fossil fuel development?
The last time humanity was in 270 PPM CO2 the world’s population was barely 1.2 Billion and the cold had just wiped out half of Europe’s population through the little ice age. Since then CO2 has risen 130 PPM and the temperature about 0.75 deg C which has caused a productivity increase of at least 60 % in most crops and the world’s population increased to over 7 BILLION. Assuming we are successful in returning the planet to 270PPM (or even 350 PPM as 350.org wants) what impact does the associated decrease in crop yields of 30 – 60 % and potentially concurrent colder temperatures and shorter growing seasons have on a 7 Billion strong humanity? Is it morally defensible to even attempt to return the atmosphere to a composition that would likely kill half the human population of the earth?
What does SkS think about this? enquiring minds want to know.
141
Well, inquiring minds can read by using the site’s search function.
I’m still waiting for a source for your IPCC quote.
27
AR4 as I recall,
“It is very likely that most of the warming since (can’t remember exactly) is anthropogenic”
Since MOST is unquantified, we must assume >50% since I am a conservative scientist, I must assume the boundary condition of 50% is the best the IPCC can quantify as of this point in time.
Also favouring the warmer position I have applied this fraction to the warming from 1850 to 1950 too which clearly I should not, otherwise of course warming attributed would be much less than 0.37, more like about 0.25deg C leading to a climate sensitivity below 0.5 per doubling.
21
Really Tristan, so you lied about posting there for us then?
Bugger the enquiring minds then, what do YOU say to each of the points of my posting 18.1.1.1.3, how moral do YOU think the “action on climate change” facilitating this misery is?
Ante up Tristan, take a stand, are you for humanity or against it.
51
As a scientist, I’m sure you’re keen to use the most recent publications, and would much rather a more specific declaration than ‘most’. So let’s check AR5.
The degree of warming from 1950-2010 which they attribute to anthropogenic influences is >100%
That means, without human influences, they estimate that temps would have gone down from 1950 to 2010.
Would you like to change any of your assertions in light of that?
17
No Bob, I assumed I wouldn’t be able to answer your questions myself, or that those questions aren’t already dealt with on the website. I’m happy to copy/paste from the site, should you find it difficult to find the answers yourself. But for now we’re still talking about anthropogenic attribution.
15
The charities suggest the gov’t provide insulation for their homes. I’ll go with that.
I don’t think ethanol as fuel is a good idea.
Q. How many poor people could be fed for the money wasted on hawkish foreign policy?
A. All of them.
Both problems are urgent, and the problems use resources from different sectors of the economy, so let’s address both.
Take your bricks to the Ganges Delta then, or Nauru, and see how far you get.
Really?
Nope. Was the conflict in the Niger delta between foreign oil corporations and the Ogoni and the Ijaw peoples just?
B. But do both.
17
what, with a solar maximum….
Oh well have it your way then, 1.35 deg C per doubling isn’t worrying me in the slightest, and taking the human contribution as 30% of the warming since the LIA, (that is the warming since 1950) that implies realistically that we caused – wait for it 0.25 degrees for the total rise of 130PPM.
Tristran, I am being conservative, any way you look at it contribution from CO2 in the last 150 years of warming since 1850 is miniscule.
Let’s test the hypothesis a different way. And see how estimates agree.
If we were to increase the CO2 so the whole atmosphere was CO2 (ie but have the same 1 atm surface pressure) how much warming would happen?
Now at 360 PPM CO2 bands were 85 percent opaque meaning 85% of outgoing energy was being absorbed (let’s assume converted to heat)
The total greenhouse warming for the atmosphere including water and other feedback is supposed to be about 10 degrees out of 33 degrees total with the rest being due to the gravity well, ozone, stratospheric warming from UV etc.
So 10/85 gives approximately 0.11 degrees per percent opacity, now let’s assume for simplicity sake that a 1 atm CO2 atmosphere is 100% opaque (it’s not, if I recall its about 99.5% opaque, but let’s mot split hairs about that). Extrapolating then the additional 15% opacity adds 15 x 0.11 or 1.65 degrees to the 10 degrees of greenhouse warming acting in the atmosphere right now.
Now the IPCC estimate of about 3.3 per doubling implies that after 13 doublings the temperature would rise 13 x 3.3 = 42.9 degrees. (I might add – in spite of a temperature tempering ocean)
So, at 85% energy conversion (opacity) the greenhouse rise is 10 degrees, and at 100% I estimate it’s 15 percent higher at 11.6 degrees, while the IPCC thinks the warming will quintuple to 52.9 degrees implying that the rate of warming from 85% opaque to 100% will be 42.9/15 2.86 degrees per percent opacity, 26 TIMES the rate of warming per percent opacity that occured between 0 and 85% opaque. Doesn’t that strike you as just a little Implausible especially so since a body actually radiates according to the cube of its temperature? As the temperature goes up the radiative losses are much greater.
The earth’s surface 42.9 degrees warmer will radiate 330.9/288 ^3 times as much energy ie 1.51 x the energy it is radiating now!
The IPCC is wrong, this is totally implausible.
21
How’d you arrive at that figure?
01
Re your 19.1.1.1.9
Aside from the strawman you drew about foreign policy, all your answers imply a bottomless pit of money, clearly showing you don’t understand economics. The government doesn’t just print money, it’s created on demand by the economy, and the government then takes a proportion of this amount created by us as tax. If you stop activity, IE you spend all the money on welfare as your belief clearly entails, then you run out of money and you starve your economy of productivity … just like Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard did. You can’t tax your way to prosperity, it just doesn’t work like that.
Some governments like Argentina did at points resort to printing money, but that ended in tears with hyperinflation causing vast amounts to become worthless. You must understand there is necessarily a limited pot, and if you spend trillions on climate change then there IS less in the pot for other things, so, cancer, kids immunisations, feeding people, reliable energy in china and africa, clean water, cyclone shelters MUST come BEFORE grand green schemes!
In order to fund their green schemes Gillard cut funding for PALLIATIVE CARE OF TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS! Green schemes under Gillard DID take away funding from cancer patients, how ugly is that!
71
Bob, your calculations appear to assume that the warming from CO2 rise has already been fully realised.
13
No accusing someone of impropriety there are you?
00
bobl, while I appreciate your concerns for feeding the hungry, I cant’ imagine that if the developed world were not spending their taxes on green schemes that they would be so benevolent to be spending it on welfare of poorer nations. Are you not saying above that we should not be spending all our money on welfare? Any wealthy nation that is going to be providing food, water or medicine to poor nations is going to be wanting something in return. Does man as a species seek to maximise his numbers on this planet or maximise individual prosperity? I think it is a classic case of ‘the prisoner’s dilemma’ in mathematics? We could just as easily ask whether the money we spend on iPods, football games, justin beaver and all our other trappings would not be better spent on saving the poor. And that is money that the individuals choose to keep for themselves and not something the govs have wrenched out of their pockets. Are govs any worse than the individuals? Clearly they are the same thing.
00
@Tel
Sorry, it’s a popular light-hearted phrase for demonstrating incredulity.
00
You mean a popular lighthearted phrase a bit like “… belongs in the State Penn” ?
Around some places (less forgiving than here) you could find yourself in trouble getting all lighthearted with someone else’s dearly held beliefs. So I’m told, there are folks who get surprisingly cranky when their integrity is questioned.
00
bobl,
Wow, now Tristan is going to ensure your original posts to SkS that were censored and moderated all to hell will now be published under duress just to prove a point.
Tristan,
Why should bobl supply the fully worded question again?
Just run along and post the original questions out of the SkS
dossiersarchives to prove you don’t actively and aggressively moderate and censor ‘deniers’ over at SkS.21
Thanks James, I do believe Tristan has no intention of doing anything of the sort – much less post back the answers, because, oddly my math is pretty much indisputable. I expect if he did I’d not get one refutation, they’ll either pick an irrelevancy like Tristan did, or for example want to pick a higher figure for the warming from 1850 (0.8 as of 1998 is the usual one) but that just results in the sensitivity going from 1.35 per doubling to 1.4 per doubling. Still, puts the warmists in deep dodo when it comes to wasting the odd trillion on green trinkets
I have plenty of others also, you can show quite easilly that the IPCCs position is that they accept the proposition that there is a forward loop gain of 0.95 or greater in the climate system, which comes pretty close to the requirements for an oscillator. Also the models are scalar (akin to a DC analysis of an amplifier circuit) but feedbacks occur, both negatively and positively with vastly different time lags. This is the equivalent of the AC coupled circuit yet the climate specialists would have us believe that against all odds the result of this tangled web of feedbacks is a simple scalar gain! I call Bullsh1t.
Then of course there are the costs of climate action by tax which by the demonstrated results of the Gillard energy tax are about 6 times global GDP per degree of mitigation.
Then there are all the overreaches on energy – climate science is full of perpetual motion machines. 0.6 Watts of CO2 warming of antarctica which produces 15 Watts per square meter worth of melting or the 3.7 watts of warming that produces 92.5 Watts worth of extra evaporation, or the IPCC 0.6 Watts per square meter of warming causing 6.2 Watts per square metre of extra evaporation.
Noone ever checks energy balance, climate science is littered with impossible effects.
32
bobl, feel free to view the responses here. There are quite a few.
There is also discussion of your banning.
11
I’ve read it and it does nothing but demonstrate why the alarmists over at SkS have no credibility:
1. Michael Sweet gets 3.2C° (observed) per doubling and an ECS of 5C° per doubling on his first go.
Then he realizes he’s used the wrong data and has another go to get 2.4C° (observed) and an ECS of 4.3C° per doubling
2. M A Rodger gets an ECS of 2.8C° but conditions it to a point of meaninglessness.
3. Tom Curtis then has a crack at it and gets and ECS of 2.8°C; but clearly he’s not a scientist because he doesn’t know the difference between a point on a temperature scale and an interval of temperature. He then tries to demonstrate how impressive he is and eventually comes up with a TCR around 2 C per doubling of CO2.
So that’s SkS for you. All over the shop. They can’t even agree amongst themselves what the figures look like let alone how to do the calculations.
00
@Sceptical Sam
Yes, I noticed… each one dodged the key question, given the rise of 3/4 of a degree since the mid 1800s, and the rise of 130 PPM in CO2 imply the rate of change for a doubling of CO2 is?
The answer is about 1.5 degrees by using a simple simultaneous equation solution solving for k.
This can be used to test the analytical solutions that give a higher TCS – clearly the atmosphere IS not behaving as the modellers would have us believe. TCS is demonstrably NOT about 3 so there is SOME OTHER FACTOR acting.
I am also highly sceptical of the sign of the inertia (pipeline). The way I see it, because CO2 is on a rising trajectory and the biosphere is running behind playing catchup, CO2 can accumulate by virtue of the gap between source and sink, due to the delta increases in CO2. If we were to stop increasing CO2 (keep emissions constant) I hypothesise that this excess would be absorbed by the increased photosythesis, and come to equilibrium at a level BELOW current levels. This is a classic overshoot characteristic seen in all feedback systems.
Also, this magical pipeline is presumed to exist now but not in 1850, just when did the atmosphere change from not having a pipeline to having one.?
The pause tends to destroy this idea too, in spite of 8 % rise in CO2 and this so-called pipeline held over from 1950 – 1995 there has been no change in temperature (retained energy) for 20 years, where is this mythical energy anyway, that somehow waits 100 years through years colder than when it was received and then somehow jumps out to bite.
Finally my scepticism is aroused simply because the IPCC is forecasting anything up to 2 degrees for the next 130 PPM when the previous 130PPM only resulted in less than a degree, the warming for the next 130 PPM has to be less than the last because of the log law relationship. Can’t be right, it simply doesn’t pass a sniff test.
00
Bobl
Thats perhaps the most important question of all. It exposes their inability to figure out what the atmosphere is able or not able to do in glaring high definition color, Tristan notwithstanding.
00
It proposes that the laws of physics — or nature if anyone prefers — are conditional, that they can change depending on circumstances.
Dumb argument.
00
It doesn’t imply anything on its own, because it’s not the only driver. Your homebrew science makes some funny assumptions. To find the rate of change, you need a time-series for each of the following things.
GHGs, surface temps, volcanism, anthro sulphate aerosols, TSI, Stratospheric Ozone, ENSO (I’m probably forgetting some things), and work out how much each contributed.
I think the current best estimate of already-realised GHG warming is about 1.2C
Absorb? Do you mean sequester? Need a hell of a lot of extra plants to sequester a bit under a trillion tonnes of CO2.
Says who.
00
No you don’t Tristan, you can merely make the assumption that the next period will be broadly similar to the last period which is highly likely. I don’t need to consider vulcanism if the next periods vulcanism is likley to be broadly similar to the last 160 years.
Using this “Unrealised warming argument” which must by definition exist at all parts of the warming cycle is just trying to pull future period warming into the current period. It allows to inflate the numbers for a given period, if there is inertia it’s going to be invariate, so from the total pipeline warming one must SUBTRACT the pipeline warming from the beginning of the period. In the end it’s fictictuous, the PIPELINE warming is a guess based on a overly pessimistic assessment of CO2 residence. Since pipeline warming is an ESTIMATE I suggest you come back to me when someone has real measurements!
This is simple stuff, given the demonstrated warming of the last 130 PPM what makes you think that the next 130PPM could possibly result in a greater warming than that, given there is a ln law relationship between CO2 and temperature. This quick sanity check calls the whole modelling excersize into question.
BTW Tristan, this isn’t actually totally my argument, it is derived from some work done by Professor Bob Carter who simply said that given the warming for the last X PPM is Y then the log law says that the next X PPM warming must be LESS THAN Y. All I do is quantify it.
… now to your post
Absorb, breathe, Fix, Photosynthesize, Sequester all the same to me. When writing, some variety helps prevent the punters from falling asleep.
It has been noted that HALF the Antropogenic emissions are absorbed in the FIRST YEAR by the biosphere, whether than be oceanic uptake or photosynthesis, so yes a trillion tonnes – you might note that since carbon is only 12/44th the weight of CO2 that represents only 272 Million tonnes of Carbon (about 550 Million Tonnes of extra biomass) or put another way given the surface of the earth is about 5.1 E14 square meters and the extra Biomass to absorb that Trillion Tonnes is 550 Trillion Kg if my math is correct then then the extra biomass that needs to be grown ( or CO2 absorbed into the ocean) works out at 0.001 Kg per square metre for a Trillion Tonnes of CO2
Somehow 1 gram per square metre of extra biomass in a year doesn’t seem awfully unreasonable.
Even so there is a delay between the increase in CO2 and the biosphere response, and while the CO2 level is rising the uptake must lag the emission, hence CO2 is accumulating. Once emission growth stops and uptake is allowed to catch up, the equilibrium level will be below the transitory level. I think Professor Salby also made this point.
In fact if you consider the history of the earth, biosphere feedback is heavilly negative, that is for a constant emission scenario CO2 so strongly fertilises vegetation that for a constant emission scenario the equilibrium will undershoot, as the CO2 fertilised plants begin to compete for CO2, the eventual die off takes time to happen (there will be a considerable lag between peak CO2 and the eventual lower equilibrium which could be considerably closer to 270PPM than I would like). At a guess the equilibrium level if we kept emissions constant at 3% more than preindustrial would be about 3% more than preindustrial (because thats our fraction of the emissions) – that’s about 280 PPM. The earth is NOT a static system, it’s dynamic, the biosphere grows in response to CO2 and to keep CO2 rising we need to grow CO2 emission, Keeping a constant 3% over preindustrial wouldn’t be enough. Allowing CO2 to fall very far from 400PPM however is likely to precipitate a famine.
PS. 1 Gram per square metre does seem to make your attempt to ridicule me by throwing big numbers around fall a little flat, wouldn’t you say?
00
This falls under the category of ‘things you need a citation for’.
But there are a lot of things you say that fall under that category, and you manage to assume that it’s because either:
A) Scientists don’t have your insight so they haven’t been studied.
or
B) They’re impossible to study (because you say so).
00
In any case, it was fun, but I’m off. I’ll read more about Bob Carter vs the world though, so thanks for that name.
Ciao for now.
00
Oh and just so you’re aware:
You meant 272 billion.
00
Tristan,
Sorry, awkward, if you did that it would prove that you do actively and aggressively censor and moderate ‘deniers’.
Jeez, talk about a Catch 22, damned if you do and damned if you don’t ay, Nugget.
40
James, what would prove what exactly?
26
You have offered to help to post the question. The question has been given to you and yet you behave like sensor already.
“As a scientist”
By the way what science do you practise? I come across an army of 3rd rate scientists all the time. The way you conduct yourself is no different.
21
Censor, no. As I said, if I can answer it, I will. If I need to post it so someone more technically gifted can, I will. For now though, I’m helping him get his formula in tip-top shape, so those at Sks can’t just dismiss it.
Bobl called himself a scientist. I did not call myself a scientist.
25
Your post at #19.1.1.7 reads as though your calling yourself a scientist.
Upon a second reading, I can see that your not. Just badly worded.
20
Not a scientist, poor wording skills, teaching a scientist to put his thoughts together and you are not censor. That explains.
11
What do you call yourself, Tristan? Are you a student, an engineer, exactly what are you?
I’m tempted to call you the Artful Dodger after the character in Oliver Twist, a pickpocket of considerable skill. You don’t pick pockets but you are certainly the best I can remember at dodging any and all questions or challenges to what you say. You’ve been as slippery as an eel going back to our first exchange over your very first comments.
You probably will ignore this question too. But now it’s out in public that I asked it. What say, Tristan? What are your qualifications?
00
The day a warmist debates facts rather than spouting propaganda and doctored ‘facts’will be an exciting day indeed.
53
Due to Henry’s Law, the total CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere has a ratio between the atmosphere and hydrosphere that is dependent on temperature (roughly 15 degrees of warming is required to double this ratio at current ocean temperatures) and that this ratio is 1.9% atmosphere to 98.1% oceans, so 98.1% of all extra CO2 emitted will eventually reside in the oceans. In light of this, how can human emissions of CO2 affect long term temperature significantly?
10
E&E’s DENIER writer, Jean Chemnick, on a House of Reps website:
May 2014: House of Representatives Sustainable Energy & Environment
Coalition: Hill briefing on warming highlights military, health impacts
by Jean Chemnick E&E reporter
Armstrong (Thomas Armstrong, executive director of the science and technology policy office at U.S. Global Change Research Program) expressed frustration about the pace of action on the issue and spoke of the need to better communicate its urgency. He said he suggested that President Obama offer one-on-one interviews to television meteorologists as a way of drawing attention to the NCA’s findings — a communications strategy that was praised by public relations experts for earning the report additional media coverage…
Sharon Burke, a former assistant secretary of Defense responsible for energy issues, said that the military has long been preparing for the changes to its operations and workload that would be wrought by climate change…
The Defense Department’s 2010 Quadrennial Review named climate change as an accelerant to conflict around the world, as more people move into urban areas in search of resources that have become scarce elsewhere, or to flee
climate-driven disasters…
The panel spoke before a private screening of an episode of Showtime’s “Years of Living Dangerously,” which showed actor Matt Damon exploring the health effects of more frequent and severe health waves in the United States.
“I would argue that climate change is the most critical public health effect of this century,” said Sabrina McCormick, an associate professor at the ***(Michael)Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University who produced the series’ health-related storylines…
Anne Kelly of the business action group Ceres said that businesses are already looking at the way climate change will affect their investments…
http://seec-israel.house.gov/press-release/hill-briefing-warming-highlights-military-health-impacts
***Wikipedia: Michael Milken
Michael Milken was indicted for racketeering and securities fraud in 1989 in an insider trading investigation. As the result of a plea bargain, he pled guilty to securities and reporting violations but not to racketeering or insider trading. Milken was sentenced to ten years in prison, fined $600 million, and permanently barred from the securities industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission. His sentence was later reduced to two years (he served 22 months) for cooperating with testimony against his
former colleagues and for good behavior.
His critics cited him as the epitome of Wall Street greed during the 1980s, and nicknamed him the “Junk Bond King”…
***Since his release from prison, Milken has funded medical research…
In February 2013, the SEC announced that they were investigating whether or not Milken violated his lifetime ban from the securities industry. The investigation was based around Milken allegedly providing investment advice
through Guggenheim Partners. Since 2011, the SEC have been investigating Guggenheim’s relationship with client Milken…
***On March 11, 2014, President Steven Knapp of the The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. announced the university would rename its public health school after Milken as a result of a total of $80 million in gifts, $50 million from the Milken Institute and the Milken Family Foundation and $30 million gift from Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone. These gifts are designated to research and scholarship on public health issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Milken
Milken did his time (or some of it), but his Institute, (& the GWU Health program) seems more concerned with spruiking CAGW than with health.
to be continued.
11
Junk bond swami Michael Milken jumped out of prison a few years ago and into for-profit education. Ken Saltman submits Milken’s latest venture to the light of day.
http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/technocapitalism/rehab
00
Despite scary Greenpeace imaging showing solar rainbows and ‘dirty smokestacks’, Tennessee is about to start up it’s first new nuclear reactor, decades after building started. It will provide enough power for 650,000 homes. In other energy news, protesters at Seattle attempt to prevent a Shell rig from going drilling in the Arctic off Alaska.
70
Thanks Tom.
That 650,000 homes supplied is only for the existing Watts Bar 1 unit. The second unit is expected to be on line by Christmas.
Once both units are up and running to their full work, they will be supplying their power at around the same Capacity Factor for ALL U.S. nuclear power plants, which is between 92 and 95%.
At the lower CF of 92%, this, umm, ONE plant will be supplying the same generated power which would be supplied by 2800 Wind Towers, (7000MW Nameplate) or 14 Huge scale wind
farmsplants of 500MW and there’s only around a dozen of that size in the whole U.S.Watts Bar will deliver its power 24/7/365, and the wind will deliver its full power at an average of a little over 7 hours a day.
Watts Bar has a projected life span of 50 years. If the wind plants make it out to 20 to 25 years, they will have exceeded expectations.
Incidentally, this ONE Watts Bar Plant WILL deliver more power to the grid than EVERY solar plant in the WHOLE of the U.S.
Watts Bar was eeeeeenormously, hugely, humungously expensive at $4.5 Billion, just to get this second unit completed.
The equivalent power delivery from Wind Power would cost around $25 to $28 BILLION.
Green dreamers have no concept of money, let alone power delivery.
Tony.
140
Tony,
Don’t be harsh, you forget the Green Dreamers gave Australia four desal’ plants for around same cost of four nuclear reactors, so they certainly do know the value of money:
If $100,000 of taxpayer money is rorted on your recommendations it’s your problem.
If $100,000,000,000 of taxpayer money is rorted on your recommendation it’s their problem.
81
Tony, a lot of those larger generating facilities you are championing, like this nuclear facility and the Chinese large scale hydro are all ‘clean green’ ‘low carbon’ ‘credit scoring’ solutions and still very expensive compared to a modern large scale coal fired plant.
00
Joe,
I can champion those Nukes for as long as I like, but the real truth of the matter is that they will not be here in Australia for at least another 20 years, if at all. That will be ten years to even bring it up in the first place, have a rational debate, implement strategies, and then legislation, and after all that, then ten years to get one of them actually up and running.
I actually don’t think I will ever see a nuclear power plant here in Oz.
However, the technology is what we should be looking at here.
Our coal fired plants here have what was once state of the art, and that was late 70’s/early 80’s when a big unit could comfortably run a single generator of around 660MW.
Those big Nukes in the US were comfortably running a single generator of up to 1100MW.
What has happened now is that the technology to run those huge generators has transferred across to large scale coal fired plants.
They have to work backwards from the power generated, so higher power, then a bigger stator with more and better windings, hence a bigger and a better rotor complex. (bigger permanent magnets, better magnetic material, lower magnetic hysteresis losses, an even tighter magnetic hysteresis curve, windings for the electromagnet component, bigger poles, more poles) Hence a greater weight for this rotor complex, and that is what needs to be rotated at 3000/3600RPM, or 50 to 60 rotations per second.
Back from there, to turn that over, we now need a bigger and better multi stage turbine. Back from that, more steam, at a higher temperature and greater pressure, so a better boiler and pressuriser. Back from that a better furnace. Back from that, better and more efficient burning of coal and less losses, better feed, better pulversiation. (crushing the coal to talcum powder consistency) Better air injection at a higher pressure.
See how it all comes backward.
The Nuke tech has enhanced this coal fired technology advance. The generator as a whole and the turbine, so everybody is working together here.
Now, the Chinese are routinely operating 1100/1200MW single generator units with some 1300MW generators in operation, and 1500MW generators coming on stream soon.
So, effectively a two unit coal fired plant could soon be generating 3000MW, and burning less coal than the old equivalent four unit plants operating 660MW units.
There is NO renewable of choice which can compete with this. An equivalent Nameplate Wind plant would have to have 1200 towers, effectively really 6 large scale wind plants. And still that wind plant would only generate one third of the power for delivery to the grid, and only last half as long at the absolute best case for wind of 25 years.
Solar power, well forget it completely. They would be making them for decades just to equal the power from this one plant.
CSP (Solar Thermal) has no chance at all of competing. The best they can manage is a 125MW unit and they are having major problems trying to run even that. The average is currently 50MW, and if you want to have heat diversion for the hoped dream of 24/7/365 from CSP, (still only a dream) then the generator size drops to even less than 50MW.
So, while I say Nukes are great, they are great only because they are driving technology in coal fired power.
Renewables will NEVER be able to even compete with coal fired power, let alone ever replace them.
NEVER.
Tony.
20
Something that disturbs me is the widespread use of the word “climate” to mean global mean surface air temperature. Tell me if I am naive and don’t understand the gist of this discussion regarding “climate change”.
Warmist and sceptic alike, including our gracious host, make statements such as “The climate has always changed”.
Yet when people declare to me “Climate change is real”, I generally respond with “to which climate do you refer?” If the answer is “the global climate, of course”, I point out that there is no such thing.
The definition of the term is as follows (from the Macquarie dictionary):
noun 1. the composite or generalisation of weather conditions of a region, as temperature, pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
2. an area of a particular kind of climate.
3. the general attitude and prevailing opinions of a group of people.
[Middle English climat, from Late Latin clima, from Greek klima clime, zone, literally, slope (of the earth from equator to pole)]
–climatic /klaɪˈmætɪk/ (say kluy’matik), adjective
–climatically /klaɪˈmætɪkli/ (say kluy’matiklee), adverb
Note that the only parameter among the many listed that could even remotely be ‘global’ is temperature, (even though global mean temperature is thermodynamically and mathematically impossible). How ridiculous would it be to discuss the annual global mean atmospheric pressure? Or the global mean precipitation, humidity, sunshine hours, cloudiness or winds.
Clearly, when people voice such an opinion about “climate change”, they are referencing their notions about temperature. In order to establish whether or not something has changed, it is a prerequisite to be able to measure it. Therefore, the phrase “climate change” is complete nonsense. If there is no way to define it, and no way to measure it, how on Earth would one know whether or not it has changed?
“Climate” does have a metric, in accordance with the Koppen Geiger classifications. But this is useful for comparing the climate of one region with another, or for that matter to determine whether or not a given regional climate classification has expanded or contracted.
Discussing “climate change” as though it were some sort of universal metric for the entire world, is a ridiculous as discussing the global currency exchange rate. What are we going to do about the problem of currency changes? What problem??????
100
Climate scientists don’t think climate means GMST.
Climate scientists acknowledge that climate everywhere is influenced by the amount of energy in the earth system, and that that energy is accumulating. Hence it impacts climates all around the world. It doesn’t even impact all of them in the same way.
111
Please elaborate on “and that that energy is accumulating”. Do we stick the Earth in a Bomb every so often?
Heat content of oceans comes from very sparse sampling of very unevenly warming oceans (if they are) of one tenth of a degree average for the whole globe in the past 10 years.
Then there is energy in the latent heat of water vapour, expansion, melting ice etc.
Global lower troposphere anomalies from satellites are the only thing that we have that comes close to being a reliable indicator of the Earth’s energy budget increasing, and it has stopped for 18 years!
72
Tristan gets his belief system from the SS bible, so it might be easier to discuss Cook et al.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Earth-continues-to-build-up-heat.html
62
Tristan:
from your comments I gain only 2 things.
1. You are not a scientist.
2. You are completely ignorant about thermodynamics.
I have self snipped the rest of my comments, but the gist was that you are very far from being as clever as you think. Very far.
30
lease elaborate on “and that that energy is accumulating”
Okay.
16
Did you you not do not do science at school, Tristan?
Thanks, el gordo. I thought that might be Tristan’s link for a sec. The link to the actual paper didn’t work but that looked very suspicious like the second comment pointed out. The rebuttal that it was the whole ocean and not the first 700m didn’t wash. There really is not enough data for the first 700 m to be certain of that plot and very little for lower than 700m before Argo. There is about 2.5×10^23 J increase for 1.4 x 10^21 kg of water, enough to raise the temperature 0.05°C since 1970, based on less than a few measurements per day for the whole ocean? Recalculation of thermometer records added almost 5 times that to the surface trend.
Willis E from WUWT.
The error from GISS for a years average anomaly is 0.1°C. What does half of that for a few orders of magnitude less measurements over a depth 5000 m + instead of 2m actually mean?
12
I see you’re speaking on behalf of scientists everywhere and generalizing at the same time.
It will be very easy for us to poke holes in that sort of reasoning.
What you’ve got to do is come up with unequivocal evidence of this accumulation of energy in the earth system. Where is it, How much has it risen, what is the cause of the rise.
So far it’s all hearsay and “trust us, we’re scientists”.
50
Tristan and his ilk are working on the principle, that if you are going to tell a lie, make it a really big lie, and then claim that it would be ridiculous to think that all of the people whose livelihood depend upon the lie, would actually be lying to maintain their livelihood, because they wouldn’t do that. Maslow’s hierarchy of need shows that they would, indeed do that.
91
The great lesson of history is that no one ever learns from history.
10
A comment from one of the relatively uneducated who have trouble following descriptions of energy transfer described in preceding posts. This post (#22) introduces the dictionary definition that climate is derived from weather. If this is correct, how can the climate influence the weather when weather defines climate? While this may question may merely point out my ignorance, could one of the many experts contributing to this thread explain how an overall picture influence the minute inputs which define the overall?
00
Does this “accumulation of energy” have any evidence? Is that why the Great Lakes are still thawing out?
How do climate scientists think (an oxymoron if there ever was one……”climate scientists think”) that climate changes? (Even “climate science” is an oxymoron)
Is there some metric for this energy accumulation? What sort of energy is it? Is it hiding in the deep oceans, in the troposphere, or under the bed?
41
Ok weekend unthreaded, I’m going to see the new Mad Max movie later but with some trepidation as I’m a massive fan (read tragic) of the first 2 original ones, I’m hoping this latest one will have it’s own character/style and doesn’t attempt to copy the originals completely as there’s only one Mel Gibson and one era in time that can never be recaptured.
Since I heard Tom Hardy was the new Max Rockatansky of choice I made an effort to look at his films and acting style, I’ve been impressed so far and recommend the Movie ‘Locke'(2013)for something different and unexpected.
I’ll give a follow up opinion later if anyone’s interested, oh also this is not too random even for an unthreaded as I believe in the post apocalyptic future, oil and it’s refined products are still in high demand but will keep a watch for any eco-cult ideals, it is the film industry after all.
30
Be careful, I hear there’s a strong female character.
110
Tristan, as one who always thought that the Mad Max series was a documentary in the same milieu as “An Inconvenient Truth” I think the inspiration for this character is Naomi Oreskes as a complimentary gesture since Mad Max obviously the source of much of “A view From the Future”.
But can I ask you to apply your incisive mind to another issue?
Who said “Climate change..is the greatest global challenge of the 21st century”? The answer is, apart from the few ageing anoracks infesting this site, the entire politically cogent world. This includes the leaders of China and India who have included this credo in the first paragraph of their joint position statement ahead of the Paris “debate” in December.
Note that they, the biggest emitters of CO2 on the planet, aim to meet this challenge by digging up and burning as much coal, in the briefest time, that they can.
My question is – have you not noticed this small incongruity between words and action? Do you think it implies that there is something else behind this issue beyond the TOA imbalance and the temperature of the deep oceans? Does the COP never discuss science because it is “settled” or is it “settled” because they don’t want to discuss it?
I genuinely want your opinion as then a debate with you might actually be possible.
80
Is there any wind or solar powered marauding in this new Mad Max movie ?
https://twitter.com/junkscience/status/599235271633334272
30
Have you not noticed this small incongruity between words and action?
Yep.
Do you think it implies that there is something else behind this issue beyond the TOA imbalance and the temperature of the deep oceans?
If the question is: “Why aren’t we acting?” The answer I’d give is: “Significant action is politically inconvenient”.
Does the COP never discuss science because it is “settled” or is it “settled” because they don’t want to discuss it?
I have no commentary on the COP, and the COP has no bearing on whether or not the science is ‘settled’.
19
Tristan: “significant action is politically inconvenient”
It is politics which determines what is significant not science.
“the COP has no bearing on whether or not the science is settled”
Apart from that being the COP’s core requirement.
Ah, but thank you for the insight that climate science is independent of politics, that’s where we sceptics have gone wrong. Mea culpa.
10
Be careful of what exactly?, the 3rd Mad Max movie (beyond thunderdome) had a strong female lead in Tina Turner, history shows us many powerful female leaders, Joan of Arc, Boadicea not to mention all the Queens of nations and empires, I think I’m mentally stable enough to accept the fact women can lead and hold power without resorting to neo-feminist conspiracies, I’ll leave that particular type of paranoid insanity for CAGW cultists that cannot accept reality.
81
Tristan,
“Be careful, I hear there’s a strong female character.”
That’s a rather misogynistic comment.
50
Only if you have trouble gauging my intent.
18
Tristan,
Sorry, this is Australia, our previous Labor/Green government ensured that intent to offend or insult is not considered as a defence against discrimination only the perception of the complainant is considered in determining motivation.
In the words of ex PM Gillard:
“I will not be lectured on misogyny by this man, I will not!”
00
But they used that transsexual actor Charles Theron.
10
Is maggie thatcher included in your definition of strong female characters or you ride into your thunderdome every time her name is mentioned?
10
Well your warning to “Be careful” was pretty dumb. You’re either insinuating something about us, expecting us to be alarmed that there is a strong female character, or just being an ass.
00
Or I was just responding with the most recent thing I’d heard about the movie, which was that MRA’s were in a tizz about a woman giving Max orders, which I found hilarious.
00
I’m not sure if many of you know this little snippet from the original first Mad Max movie.
It was released here in Oz in 1979, and then went to the U.S. in 1980, when word got out about it.
When it arrived in the U.S. the whole dialogue for the movie was overdubbed by American actors, as they thought that the Australian accent and slang terms would not be understood by Americans.
They got away with it because this was Mel Gibson’s first big movie and his voice was not that well known in the U.S.
In 2000 they re-released it in the U.S. with the original Australian dialogue.
I only found out about all this when my friend in Stockton California told me he watched it on late night TV a couple of years back, and he was surprised that it sounded different from the version he originally saw. He told me, quote “It sounds better in Australian!”
I still think it’s the best of the franchise. Edgy.
Tony.
50
By the way, the music for the original Mad Max movie was done by Brian May.
He had an orchestra (The Brian May ABC Show Band) and did some stuff for Oz TV, and one early one was the original series on the gold rush, and titled Rush, not to be confused with the much later TV series of the same name.
Here’s the link to the opening credits for the second series, (the first in colour as the year before the first series was in black and white.) It’s only a 25 second video clip, and note the young guy with the half beard on horseback at the start. That’s a 25 year old just getting his start in Oz TV, umm, John Waters.
I’m sure that some of you recognise the song, as it was released as a Single and almost made it into the National Top Ten in 1974, (charting even higher on some local charts) and here’s the link to the full song.
Great music, and incidentally, great Oz TV at the time.
Tony.
20
Hey Tony the original was also called ‘The Road Warrior’ in the USA and other countries, a mate has an original VCR tape of the USA version complete with American overdubbing, with no offense to or US friends It’s crap and gives the film a comical feel that reeks of overdubbed early Martial Art films.
Just saw the latest ‘Fury Road’ film and I’m seriously still trying to gather my thoughts, this one is incredible action and imagination George Miller is to be congratulated in rebooting a global cult franchise after so long giving it it’s own direction while capturing elements of the original’s, and not a single attempt at activism I could perceive, very gritty.
10
The first couple of Mad Max movies were filmed near Silverton (close to Broken Hill in NSW).
They had hoped to film the most recent Mad Max movie also at Silverton. They waited several months, but alas, the countryside was too green from rainfall. Mother nature buggered things completely. This greening of the area in far western NSW is a direct result of the warming of the planet due to carbon dioxide emissions, you know.
The same warming that is producing all that additional sea ice in the Antarctic and giving the wonderfully warm winters in North America and Europe, you know.
50
Yoni,
Uncharacteristically for me, I also enjoyed the first Mad Max. I still don’t know why. It’s completely outside my usual preference for entertainment. But there was something compelling about that character or about Gibson’s portrayal of him, maybe his determination in the face of his problems, which is something I always admire in a story.
I never saw the sequel. They tend to fall flat compared to the original, with too much reliance on everything but another strong story line and good characters.
And so much for another useless weekend comment. 😉
20
Yeah I remember when the drought broke and it was too green to portray a post apocalyptic wasteland, the Silverton Pub owner is an ex-pat Pommie (Englishman) who being a massive Mad Max tragic moved his family there to run the Pub, he has a replica of the original black Interceptor out the front with a movie theme running through the entire place, it’s pretty impressive.
The 1st film was shot in Victoria with many locations not far from my hometown, I know most of them and when you go for a visit to take photos etc you’ll often come across other fans doing the same thing, at the Clunes railway station I met some that came from Canada and they were rapt when I told them where the other locations were, funny times.
20
Arrgh double post please delete Mods, still half asleep stupid Yonnie!
00
Amazing collection of digi books from 1890 to 1920 world temp records inc Australia.
https://archive.org/details/worldweatherreco033416mbp
https://archive.org/details/worldweatherreco031950mbp
40
Fred.
The links do not work for me. Any more clues?
00
Ah tried in a different browser and they do work. Sorry.
10
Brilliant,
00
The Smithsonian temps linked by Fred average 20.9C and Climate Data Online raw 1879-1924 averages 20.8C, so the same when conversion and rounding errors are taken into account. Rainfall also agrees with CDO.
CSIR estimated 1879-1931 also at 20.9C. (see http://www.waclimate.net/year-book-csir.html)
Year Book 1911-40 estimated 20.6C.
ACORN for both 1910-31 and 1911-40 estimated 20.1C.
Raw 2000-14 at 21.3C.
ACORN 2000-14 at 21.4C.
So a raw increase of 0.4C since pre 1931.
Or a raw increase of 0.7C since 1911-40.
Or an increase of 1.3C with ACORN adjustments.
20
Warning! Warning!
Super El Nino forecast and its bigger than anything one could conceivably imagine.
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/figure-1.gif
40
Cool !
This means we get to take pictures of hurricanes …
we are beginning to forget what one looks like 🙁
00
my last comment #19 is still in moderation.
16 May: UK Telegraph: Christopher Booker: Three issues on which we need more sense from Tories
First, David Cameron is finally being brought up against the reality of that pledge of an in-out EU referendum he made in 2013, to buy off Ukip and Eurosceptic backbenchers. He would negotiate “a new relationship for Britain with Europe”, and then, in 2017, campaign for Britain to stay in on the terms he had secured…
At the moment, the prospect of us holding any proper debate on all this seems vanishingly small, because so few people are willing intelligently to discuss the possibility that we could only get all that most people say they want, not by staying in the EU, but by leaving it. Unless we start to get serious about all this, Mr Cameron’s little charade will merely consign us to remain locked into the EU until it falls apart: grizzling like mad but powerless to do anything more about it…
***Green Amber is set to turn out our lights
Those who hoped that putting a Conservative minister in charge of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) would trigger a rethink of an energy policy that can only lead to our lights going out were in for a rude shock.
The new Energy Secretary, Amber Rudd, is just as lost in the bubble of Green make-believe as her predecessor, Ed Davey. The most important challenge facing us, she says, is to limit “global warming to under 2 degrees C”; and she adds that there isn’t a cigarette paper “between me and Labour on our commitment to getting a deal in Paris” (she means the global climate treaty that isn’t going to happen next December).
Ms Rudd also gave the game away by claiming to be a “Thatcherite”, because of Margaret Thatcher’s conversion to a belief in the global warming scare in 1988. She seems unaware of Baroness Thatcher’s recantation of her earlier views (see my 2010 article “Was Margaret Thatcher the first climate sceptic?”)…
We must close fossil-fuel power stations; end all use of gas for cooking and heating; and we must double our reliance on electricity, by going flat-out for grotesquely subsidised solar, offshore wind and nuclear. These will only keep the lights on when the wind is blowing, the sun is shining and we can find some foreigners to build us even one nuclear power station that works.
Eventually the penny will drop that we are stuck with an energy policy so insanely unworkable that it can only lead to the breakdown of Britain’s economy…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11610577/Three-issues-on-which-we-need-more-sense-from-Tories.html
31
pat:
see the UK Telegraph interview with Lynton Crosbie: he lets slip that the 2020 election will take place OUTSIDE an EU environment.
Also see the latest action by “green Amber” to ban all on-shore wind farms without approval by the local authorities. Whoops! Noses, out of troughs boys.
20
https://archive.org/details/universallibrary?and%5B%5D=subject%3A%22Earth%20sciences.%20Geology%2C%20meteorology%2Cetc%22
Universal library free books earth sciences meteorology.
This page has all the digi books to do with meteorology there are a few other interesting old books in here as well.
00
Early glaciation research showing the dates of growth and regression actually done with science and observation not models.
https://archive.org/details/glaciervariation032833mbp
00
.
Nearly an admission of environmental damage
By The Guardian article
A better question is why they shut down a viable fishing industry for nearly 3 years?
To erect 35 of these useless windmills, plus cable laying, erection of piles for the towers has destroyed the sea bed totally.
The boat repair industry, painting, netting, lobster pot building, marine supplier businesses have all fallen by the way side. How long will it take to rebuild these generation old village businesses?
Now they can’t lay they lobster pot long lines without danger of snagging the Wind Mill tower bases?
It’s all about seeming to be GREEN!
Not about looking after the environment or people in local areas.
Boarding on CRIMINAL almost
81
CTS how can the link be suspicious its the same link as the one’s above to the same site but a different book ???
00
“Electricity Prices Soaring In Top Wind Power States”
More at
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/10/17/electricity-prices-soaring-in-top-10-wind-power-states/
Via
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2015/05/we-dont-need-no-520.html#comments
10
‘Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has come under fire after he advised two of the ABC’s most prominent journalists to adopt a “less aggressive” style of interviewing while defending them against accusations they are biased.’
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/less-aggressive-malcolm-turnbulls-advice-for-abc-journalists-leigh-sales-and-emma-alberici-20150517-gh3f7f.html#ixzz3aRDaQYfT
20
followup to comment #20. –
Milken Institute has a Global Conference each year. Videos are available at some:
Milken Institute: Global Conference 2015 Sponsors
Underwriter: Guggenheim
Sponsors…(NOTE THEM ALL, INCLUDES 21ST CENTURY FOX, GOLDMAN SACHS, DEUTSCHE BANK, NIELSEN, PAYPAL,CHEVRON, CITI, BLOOMBERG, ETC ETC)
http://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/conferences/global-conference/global-conference-2015/sponsors/
VIDEO: 27 April: Milken Institute: Global Conference 2015: Dealing With
China: A Conversation With Henry Paulson
During his career in government and banking, Paulson made more than 100 trips to China, developing close relationships with the country’s top political and business leaders…
His conclusions include a firm belief that better relations between the U.S. and China will hasten solutions to pressing challenges such as ***global warming and slowing economic growth…
http://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/conferences/global-conference/global-conference-2015/panel-detail/5484
links easily found at website:
Milken Institute: Global Conference 2007: The Politics of Global Warming:
Climate Change in Washington
Moderator: David Sandalow, Energy and Environment Scholar, Foreign Policy Studies, Brookings Institution
Introduction by: John Kerry, U.S. Senator (D-MA)
Speakers:
Jon Anda, President, Environmental Markets Network
Daniel Braun, Director of Global Environmental Finance, Stark Investments
Richard Saines, Partner, Baker & McKenzie LLP
Martin Whittaker, Director, MissionPoint Capital Partners
Sen. John Kerry kicked off the first major session of Global Conference with an introduction to the issue of climate change. “This moment on Earth represents a number of critical tipping points,” he said. First, if current
practices do not soon change, global warming will pose an ***existential threat to life. Second, enough people in Washington now share this opinion so that wide-reaching legislation is expected to emerge within several years.
***Kerry laid out the scientific case for climate change and presented the challenge now facing the United States; then he and his fellow panelists offered their views on how the federal government and business community can effectively meet the challenge of global warming. He noted that ***928
peer-reviewed scientific studies have supported the claim that human-induced CO2 and other gas emissions have increased the greenhouse effect on the Earth’s atmosphere. ***Not a single study, he said, has refuted this claim.
“Anybody who approaches this from a logical or common-sense basis has to come to the judgment of ‘Hey, that makes sense,'” he said…
Dan Braun of Stark Investments discussed the need for adequate price signaling for the alternative technology sector. Richard Saines of Baker & McKenzie stressed the importance of enacting the bill quickly and designing
it to serve as a platform for linking up with the rest of the world. Martin Whittaker of MissionPoint Capital Partners said that the bill must heed the lessons from Europe’s experience, link with international markets, offer
credit for early acting firms and gain industry and regulatory buy-in…
Milken Institute: Global Conference 2006: A Discussion with Nobel Laureates in Medicine and Science
At the final lunchtime session of the 2006 Global Conference, chairman
Michael Milken joined Nobel Prize winners F. Sherwood (Sherry) Rowland, Alan MacDiarmid and Steven Chu for a discussion of pressing scientific issues, including global warming and the global supply of energy and water. While
the scientists did not refute Gary Becker’s assertion from earlier in the week that “scientists are not very good at predicting the future,” they showed the crowd that they have put considerable thought and research into solving the world’s most pressing issues.
All three distinguished scientists agreed that global warming was a real phenomenon. The year 2005 was the warmest of the last 150 years, and there has been a considerable increase in global surface temperatures, particularly in the Arctic region..etc
Global Conference 2011: Slowing Climate Change: Plan B
Speakers included Bjorn Lomborg
VIDEO: Milken Institute: Global Conference 2011: Natural Gas and America’s Energy Future
Moving toward natural gas seems to be a no-brainer, since coal plants contribute to global warming…
Milken Institute: Who attends
Now in its 18th year, the Global Conference annually attracts 3,000 leaders in business, finance, government, public policy, academia, philanthropy, law, science, news media and more. These individuals represent some of the
world’s top firms, organizations, universities and governments.
10
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97
40
summing up from earlier comments:
Wikipedia told us: Since his release from prison, Milken has funded medical research…
and Jean Chemnick (E&E) wrote:
“I would argue that climate change is the most critical public health effect of this century,” said ***Sabrina McCormick, an associate professor at the (Michael)Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University (GWU) who produced the series’ health-related storylines…
GWU Milken Institute: ***(Sabrina)McCormick was a producer on “Years of Living Dangerously,” the first documentary series devoted to climate change broadcast on a major network or premium cable. It received a top Emmy award this month Showtime’s “Years of Living Dangerously” documentary series, which EOH (Dept of Environmental and Occupational Health) Associate Professor Sabrina McCormick helped to produce, won two important awards this month. The series received the top Creative Arts Emmy award, Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Series, from the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences. It also was nominated for the Outstanding Writing for Nonfiction Programming Emmy…
Earlier this month, “Years” received an Environmental Media Award, which recognizes people and organizations that heighten awareness of environmental concerns.
The landmark series generated dozens of major news stories, including blogs by Dr. McCormick. In her most recent blog, she wrote about how an experience in a Bangladesh brothel changed how she thought about climate change.
***The series’ influence will continue to expand this fall after the National Wildlife Federation releases lesson plans based on the documentary for use in middle schools, high schools and colleges around the country.
the GWU School:
Wikipedia: George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services
Established in July 1997, and renamed in March 2014, the Milken Institute School of Public Health brought together three longstanding university
programs in the schools of medicine, business, and education that have since ***expanded substantially.
GWU School search results for “climate change” – 5 pages of multiple links:
George Washington Uni: Milken Institute School of Public Health
http://publichealth.gwu.edu/archives/field_topics/research-27?search_api_views_fulltext=climate%20change
includes:
Geo Washington Uni: Dean Lynn Goldman and EOH Chair Melissa Perry Participate in White House Roundtable on Climate Change
On April 9, 2015 the White House held a roundtable working session on education and climate change, which was attended by Dean Lynn Goldman and Melissa Perry, chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at Milken Institute School of Public Health (Milken Institute SPH) at the George Washington University, as well as deans and leaders from 30 medical, public health and nursing schools from across the country. The roundtable is part of a long list of actions unveiled by the White House aimed at highlighting the health impacts of climate change and encouraging data sharing …
The roundtable meeting was chaired by White House Advisor Brian Deese and the assembled deans and public health leaders included those from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Emory University and others.
Check out the White House Fact Sheet on Climate Change, which includes the roundtable working session and other actions the Administration and others are taking to address this growing problem.Watch a video of President Obama talking about how climate change threatens public health.
To highlight some of the public health impacts of climate change, the Milken Institute SPH will be hosting a town hall meeting on Friday April 24, 2015 featuring the authors of a newly released draft report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, “Impacts of Climate Change on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment.” …
EOH Students and the Third National Climate Assessment
Three EOH students had the opportunity to raise awareness about the health issues posed by our changing climate by working for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) over the past two years. Their experience was rendered all the more memorable by the timing of the release of the program’s Congressionally-mandated Third National Climate Assessment (NCA3)-it was during GW’s finals week…
The NCA3 is a comprehensive report that assesses the impacts of climate change on every region of the country and key sectors of the U.S. economy and society, including human health. When the assessment was published on the morning of May 6, 2014, an announcement was distributed to health organizations across the nation. It stressed one of the report’s key messages: “Climate change threatens human health and well being in many ways, including impacts from increased extreme weather events, wildfires, decreased air quality, threats to mental health, and illnesses transmitted by food, water, and disease carriers such as mosquitoes and ticks.”…
A key moment was when the Federal Advisory Committee for the report handed it off to the White House, Shimamoto says.
***”Within two hours of the release,” it was being covered in the national news…
http://publichealth.gwu.edu/content/eoh-students-and-third-national-climate-assessment
the creators of CAGW memes. add Yale.
00
pat, this reads like there is a well developed path leading to ‘global governance’. 🙁
00
Just a suggestion, an invitation from this blog to Cook et al to send over his 15,000 hardened warriors to test their metal.
10
Oh God; Joe would need an army of moderators. And we’d need Griss back.
20
Are you suggesting the warmists would behave badly? Highly unlikely and the mods can handle whatever comes their way.
Tris and Silly are fun, but Cook’s blogosphere students present a more interesting prospect. To turn a chat room into a debating society we need at least five permanent warmists. How hard could it be.
10
15,000 is a large number. Imagine if each one posted once in a thread.
Briggs tried to engage, even though he was convinced we were wrong. I think we had an impact on him.
Sillyfilly never engaged, she just made sly comments and rarely followed up.
Tris was like Silly. No engagement.
My worry is someone like And Then There’s Physics shows up and fights tooth and nail. His arguments are above my pay grade and he never budges one iota. He’s also extremely rude.
WC was also rude, but he was fun.
No, overall; the chances that 15,000 students of Cook could be civil is extremely low. Considering that they took Cook’s class, and Cook is a condescending ignoramus. I can’t see a classroom coming out of from him being anything but more stupid coming out than going in.
20
Okay, thanks.
10
aTTP, aka Rice Bubbles, never argues detailed science, or details on anything, actually. He’s just an obnoxious [snip]
His guaranteed party trick, on each thread he lands on, is to make some generalised, but rude, inaccurate first comment and then state that this is all a waste of his time and he’s not returning … he always does, of course
00
Someone said on this blog recently that most of the students who attended University had become stupid! (wish I could remember who it was). Cook’s course could be a classic example. 🙂
10
They have no “metal”! They only have atmospheric CO2, never a metal! 🙂
11
LIA conditions experienced in New Hampshire over first quarter of 2015.
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34979
According to Silly Filly this kind of thing is only weather.
00
Cold kills more people. Who knew?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm
00
Jeb Bush comes in out of the cold.
“Look, first of all, the climate is changing,” he said. “I don’t think the science is clear what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. It’s convoluted. And for the people to say the science is decided on, this is just really arrogant, to be honest with you.
“It’s this intellectual arrogance that now you can’t even have a conversation about it. The climate is changing, and we need to adapt to that reality.”
Guardian
00