These off topic comments were moved from the Amoeba thread to here – Jo
Jo you say cheaters have been around for a long time im science yet It is apparent that you are fairly monolithic when it comes to the scientific [snip] issues* you dare touch. I understand your approach here – as you once explained the CAGW [snip] is big enough and damging enough to warrant your undiluted attention, and there are many other names awaiting people who discuss the other scientific [snip].
Yet there is one other scientific [snip] issue* that is extremely important to discuss if one is to fully appreciate the extent of the [snip] problem*.
We live in a stationary (not revolving) concave spherical earth. We live on the inside. I.e the earth is concave rather than convex. Light does not travel straight, it bends upwards. The sun, moon and planets are all contained within the earth and are all much much smaller than we think. We do not revolve around sun, nor does the sun revolve around us. There
Is a glass layer or multiple glass domes within the earth. The one closest too is is about 100km above our heads and ws broken through by both the [snip]** and The USA in order to provide an opening for space (inner earth) exploration. As crazy as all this sounds it is actually a credible alterntice theory to our current cosmological models and in many cases provides better exploration for hitherto mysterious phenomena. There is more but as always education is a process of self discovery so i will leave a series of search terms which may help people on this journey.
Concave earth
Cellular cosmology
Cyrus Teed
Tianamin mines experiment
Rectilineator experiment
Happy learning
[* I substituted a suitable word for what I snipped.
** Please don’t go there. It’s off topic and enters a touchy subject we don’t have time or space to deal with.
If you avoid the terms I snipped you wont’ get caught in moderation.] AZ
It is The Wizard of Christchurch’s (Ian Brackenberry-Channel) geoperipheral earth model. He postulated it in the 1970s. It was quite often discussed when I was at university in Christchurch in the early 1980s.
He demonstrated that only one assumption – in this case that light always travels in straight lines – needs to to be incorrect for a whole new paradigm to emerge.
No it’s not my theory and it’s not a metaphor or allegory or a joke. After researching conventional heliocentric copernican cosmology and celular cosmomolgy (aka concave earth), i am convinced that the latter provides a better scientific model or theory for what we actually observe. In respect for Jo’s wishes I will not discuss “concave earth” theory any more. Please feel free to research it and, as always, come to your own conclusions. Either way it is a very fascinating theory!
I have researched Cyrus Teed’s Cosmology and it’s junk – and not science. Teed himself is a fine example of a, “dime a dozen”, quack psychopath, “Cheater”, bamboozling the gullible to feather his own nest at their expense.
It is in no way a competitor with the current paradigm.
It is a far more complex description of the universe than the current paradigm.
Check Occams Razor for an explanation of why simpler explanatory hypotheses are preferred over more complex ones.
The amount of known, well understood and applied science that would have to be wrong (Nuclear Fusion as a first cab of the rank) for Teed to be correct is mind boggling.
I don’t think Cyrus Teed had every aspect of his model correct. Perhaps you can show me the basic science which proves that the earth is a convex ball and is spinning and is orbiting the sun.
Convex Ball from observation and mathematics was understood 23 centuries ago.
Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth without leaving Egypt. Eratosthenes knew that at local noon on the summer solstice in the Ancient Egyptian city of Swenet (known in ancient Greek as Syene, and now as Aswan) on the Tropic of Cancer, the Sun would appear at the zenith, directly overhead. He knew this because he had been told that the shadow of someone looking down a deep well in Syene would block the reflection of the Sun at noon off the water at the bottom of the well. Using a gnomon, he measured the Sun’s angle of elevation at noon on the solstice in Alexandria, and found it to be 1/50th of a circle (7°12′) south of the zenith. He may have used a compass to measure the angle of the shadow cast by the Sun.[16] Assuming that the Earth was spherical (360°), and that Alexandria was due north of Syene, he concluded that the meridian arc distance from Alexandria to Syene must therefore be 1/50th of a circle’s circumference, or 7°12’/360°.
Further evidence is unnecessary. Your Convex Earth hypothesis was effectively refuted 300 years before the birth of Christ.
There are many experiments proving light does not travel in straight lines. Current science explains this as atmospheric refraction which is invoked to explain why we see objects farther away than what is calculated based on the geometry of the earth.
So i dont need to prove that light bends in the atmosphere. It is common knowledge [This is off topic.] Fly
Hypothetically, the sky might actually be pink with purple polka dots, and the moon a ball of yarn.
It’s just that “they” have a photographic filter that makes us think things look the way they do.
Then on the other hand, once the halucenogenic effect of the weed disappears, it all looks pretty darned normal.
You lifted that straight from the Wizard of Christchurch.
However the original is far more entertaining and beautifully expressed.
Wish I still had a copy.
It’s good that Jo permits crackpot voices such as yours to be heard here. It means all voices can be heard, and visitors can tell that ideas are not being suppressed in the name of ‘consensus’ or ‘orthodoxy’- or ‘heresy’ for that matter.
Still; that does create an obligation upon the rest of us to speak up. To denounce nonsense when it appears, so that it is also clear to the casual visitor that we are not accepting nor acquiescing in nonsense.
In this case, there are many disproofs of your ‘concave Earth theory. The first that springs to mind is just this: We have set satellites to the Sun, and its volume is vastly larger than the interior of a sphere bounded by the circumference of the equator.
The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) is a spacecraft built by a European industrial consortium led by Matra Marconi Space (now Astrium) that was launched on a Lockheed Martin Atlas II AS launch vehicle on December 2, 1995 to study the Sun, and has discovered over 2700 comets.[1] It began normal operations in May 1996. It is a joint project of international cooperation between the European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA. Originally planned as a two-year mission, SOHO continues to operate after over 19 years in space. In June 2013, a mission extension lasting until December 2016 was approved.[2]
In addition to its scientific mission, it is the main source of near-real-time solar data for space weather prediction.
Other Solar Missions:
Explorer
FAST
Geotail
Hinode (Solar-b)
Ionospheric Connection Explorer (ICON)
IMAGE
IRIS: Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph
Magnetospheric MultiScale (MMS)
Polar
RHESSI
SDO
SOHO
Solar Anomalous and Magnetospherice Particle Explorer (SAMPEX)
Solar Orbiter Collaboration
Solar Probe Plus
Sounding Rockets
STEREO
THEMIS
TIMED
TRACE
Ulysses
Van Allen Probes (Radiation Belt Storm Probes)
WIND
You can view detailed information on each of them from the NASA website.
Who verified the calculations? I don’t know; you can write to them and ask if you think it important. But every high school physics student can perform the calculation- if they hope to pass the subject.
Those are very other words indeed.
So other, that it’s the exact opposite of what I was saying.
Also known as a reading comprehension fail.
Diameter of the sun is twice the measured distance to the sun multiplied by tan(half the angle subtended by the sun).
Radius of the sun is half the diameter.
Volume of the sun is 4/3*the cube of the radius.
Interior volume of a sphere with a circumference equal to Earth’s equator: Radius = equator/2*pi. Volume = 4/3*pi*(radius cubed).
You can take my word for the formulas, or look them up yourself.
Now you can insert the measured values, and YOU’LL be the one who verified the calculation.
If you don’t come up with figures showing the sun as larger than the interior of the Earth, come back and lay out your calculations and we’ll all look at them.
John, very good you have given a fenwral description of how to calculate the volume of a spherical mass. Now how can i confirm this with a ground based telescope.
According to earth based observations the Sun is a small disc in the sky and looks about the same size as the moon.
So how did we work out it was so mich bigger again?
Do you have a problem with observations made from the moon by NASA Astronauts that show clearly, the Earth is a sphere, and the Moon is a large object?
1. If light bends upwards due to interaction with the earths electromagnetic field then it is a predicted result that at a more central point in the concave earth, the earth will look like a convex ball. There is a terminator line at any altitude which is what we think of as the horizon. the horizon is not due to the land curving down beneath us but is an artifaxt of bent light.
2. I do not trust any government department that produces science that cannot be verified by independent scientists.
I notice that you have not been able to tell me how the suns mass can be independently verified by ground based technology.
Therefore i should just take NASA’s word for it?
Perhaps they could start by showing me a real video of the earth spinning… Believe it or not, these do not exist. [This is off topic.] Fly
@ Sonny,
Neither Google nor I know what the word fenwral means.
As the mod points out, we have gone seriously off topic.
I see that you’ve undertaken not to discuss “concave Earth” on Jo’s blog. Do you have a blog of your own?
the perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit
the deflection of light by the Sun
the gravitational redshift of light
In the letter to the London Times on November 28, 1919, he described the theory of relativity and thanked his English colleagues for their understanding and testing of his work. He also mentioned three classical tests with comments:[2]
“The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible.”
What are the clear predictions of empirical phenomena such that if they were not to occur, would prove Teed’s cosmological model false.
Einstein had the intellectual courage to propose destructive tests of his idea – what of Teed. What were his destructive tests?
Einstein proposed 3 destructive, empirically measurable tests,
[1] the perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit
[2] the deflection of light by the Sun
[3] the gravitational redshift of light
[2] and [3] were novel (new) observations, which is a critical feature of ground breaking science.
I note that you have refused to answer my request for falsification criteria.
Please *** The name of the game is Falsification *** if your hypothesis can’t be refuted – it’s not science, it’s non-science, unreasoning, junk.
If you continue to refuse to play the game, it will be clearly demonstrated that you are an unreasoning human being who has attached to his own mind a hypothesis that “explains everything” – and hence explains nothing.
I could just as easily assert that we are all living in the “Matrix” and then ask you to prove that we are not. Which is an impossible task as I could say that all observable phenomena are simply supplied by “The Machines”. But the Matrix Hypothesis explains nothing and adds no value – just like your Convex Earth Hypothesis
General Relativity is part of the current paradigm of physics.
What you are proposing with your Convex Earth hypothesis, is a replacement paradigm for the highly successful current paradigm of physics.
I think that you are at best dreaming, at worst, hopelessly lost in a delusional world where there is no possibility that your belief in a Convex Earth could be wrong.
What are the falsification criteria for the following alleged scientific facts.
1. The earth is a convex ball and we live on the exterior.
2. The earth is spinning
3. The earth orbits the sun.
4. Light travles in a straight path between celestial objects and the observer on earth.
I see that you are still unable to play the falsification game with your beloved idea of a concave Earth.
So I will help you out with a single and sufficient destructive test.
If I go straight up, and move in a straight line – sooner or later I will hit the other side of the Concave earth.
The test is this – launch a rocket, and/or robotic probe that travels “up” and track it’s travel to a sufficient distance such that it must hit the other side of the concave Earth. If my rocket does not come back to Earth and continues to travel both up and away, then the idea of a concave earth is dis-proven and shown to be false.
Given that the Concave Earth is a matter of 1000s of kilometers across – the rocket does not have to fly very far to disprove your idea,.
Now – if this piece of evidence is “inadmissible” for you as it is “Government” – then you have just greatly multiplied the complexity of your hypothesis – as you now have a conspiracy to explain as well.
Don’t you see that the more you have to explain – the less explanatory power your idea has.
Ref the link to Occams Razor above.
And now that I have illustrated the activity of proposing a destructive test for an idea – please feel free to exercise your mind and propose some for the idea of a Concave Earth.
Felix Baumgartner took a camera with him to a very great height and then jumped back down to the surface of the Earth – do you notice the distinct curvature of the Earth.
I strongly suspect that Cyrus Teed was a full blown psychopath and the twaddle that you believe in was invented purely to advance his own selfish needs.
Why the conspiracy against the Concave Earth – IF the universe really was constructed as you propose – why would the authorities hide it?
What would be the possible motive?
It seems to me that a Concave Earth would lend itself to supporting Authoritarian control rather than harming it – i.e. There is only this small and tiny reality – you must obey us, etc, etc.
Also – have you noticed how tiny your Concave Earth universe is?
With that video you are completely shot down. Your theory doesn’t agree with experiment It doesn’t agree with observation It does not agree with anything except itself, which counts for nothing.
The scientific method proves you wrong. In your position I’d silently fade into the woodwork for a while and hope no one would remember my past when next I comment about something.
ExWarmist has busted your theory wide open — busted all this climate change theory wide open too.
Ex Warmist, i will discuss my falsification criteria when i learn what the falsification criteria is for the currently accepted model. I will ask again, what is the falsification criteria for the following theories.
1. That the earth rotates around it’s own axis
2. That the earth orbits the sun.
3. That the earth is a convex solid sphere and we live on the outside.
Now, i hate to bust your bubble regarding all the video / camera footage shot from high up in the troposphere, but you have made a cardinal error and revealed your lack of understanding of optics. A wide angled lens (of the type used by GoPro and NASA, will cause an illusion of a curved horizon.
If you study videos released by NASA of the solid booster disconnecting from the shuttle you will see this optical illusion as working both ways! I.e as the camera tumbles and rotates you can see the horizon line fluctuating from convex to concave to convex.
Also i do not accept the Occam’s Razor argument in this instance. Firstly nobody has yet argued that concave earth theory is any more or less complicated than any other theory, in fact since it is the inversion of the accepted theory you can harldy argue that it is that materially different in complexity.
Y = X
Y = 1/X
equation 2 is hardly more complicated than equation 1.
As for my needing to explain a conspiracy thoery (why we are not told the truth), i suspect you need to visit the idea that “knowledge is power”.
I wonder if it is within human nature to lie? Cheat? Hold secrets? Form
Cults? Religions?
Next time you learn somebody is a Free Mason, ask them what they do…
Then come back and deny that their are groups that operate with secret knowledge.
In one chapter of his book On the Wild Side (1992), Martin Gardner discusses the hollow Earth model articulated by Abdelkader. According to Gardner, this hypothesis posits that light rays travel in circular paths, and slow as they approach the center of the spherical star-filled cavern. No energy can reach the center of the cavern, which corresponds to no point a finite distance away from Earth in the widely accepted scientific cosmology. A drill, Gardner says, would lengthen as it traveled away from the cavern and eventually pass through the “point at infinity” corresponding to the center of the Earth in the widely accepted scientific cosmology. Supposedly no experiment can distinguish between the two cosmologies.
Gardner notes that “most mathematicians believe that an inside-out universe, with properly adjusted physical laws, is empirically irrefutable”. Gardner rejects the concave hollow Earth hypothesis on the basis of Occam’s Razor.[45]
Purportedly verifiable hypotheses of a “concave hollow Earth” need to be distinguished from a thought experiment which defines a coordinate transformation such that the interior of the Earth becomes “exterior” and the exterior becomes “interior”. (For example, in spherical coordinates, let radius r go to R²/r where R is the Earth’s radius.) The transformation entails corresponding changes to the forms of physical laws. This is not a hypothesis but an illustration of the fact that any description of the physical world can be equivalently expressed in more than one way.[46]
Note that your idea is materially more complex for having to also explain a conspiracy of silence. Ref the above reference to Occams Razor.
Besides which – you have,
[1] Entirely avoided any step to propose destructive, falsification tests for a Concave Earth. Presumably because you lack the intellectual courage to test you own idea.
[2] I have provided you with an two example tests, one using rockets and the other using a weather balloon which you have idly dismissed, without thinking – why on Earth (no pun intended) did Felix Baumgartner and every other astronaut not testify to the existence of a Concave Earth from first hand experience.
[3] Instead of testing your own idea you attempt to simply direct me to “prove” my position first, without doing any work of your own.
I have provided you with every opportunity to play the “Game of Reason” and you have refused to play.
You are simply a dogmatist, or a troll with nothing better to do then waste people’s time. I have no more time to waste on you.
So you just ignored my answer regarding the wide angle lens…?
It is surely far more important that falsification criteria exists for the model we “all” regard as being true, than the concave earth theory which is so underground you had never even considered it before i brought it to your attention.
Does it worry you that you cannot find such a falsification criteria?
Ok here is my falsification criteria for the solid rotating earth.
Nasa or other space agencies to provide a single verifiable video of the earth rotating a full 24 hr cycle. Really not so hard is it?
Really? The only way we know the earth spins is by the 24 hour cyclical deviation in a pendulems swing? You mean to say that the only way this could happen is if the earth rotated? As opposed to say, the celestial sphere rotating? That is laughable.
Also do you have any comment about The experiment known as “Airy’s Failure”, that showed conclusively that it is the stars moving not the earth.
So you just ignored my answer regarding the wide angle lens…?
Felix Baumgartner has eyes.
So does every other astronaut in the history of space flight.
Why has there not been an eye witness account of the Concave Earth from the Space Programs of the world?
Your idea of the impact of lenses is spurious. If there was a mismatch with what the astronauts were seeing with their own eyes, it would have been reported by now.
IDEA 2
Really? The only way we know the earth spins is by the 24 hour cyclical deviation in a pendulems swing?
and
Nasa or other space agencies to provide a single verifiable video of the earth rotating a full 24 hr cycle. Really not so hard is it?
How about first hand eye witness accounts from the International Space Station
Now that took 30 seconds to find on the web – your not looking.
IDEA 3
I work as an engineer for a company that builds satellites and space technology. The company that I work for could not do what it does if the Concave Earth was a true idea – and since we do – do what we do – The idea of the Concave Earth is false.
I see that my key example destructive test for a Concave Earth – i.e. Fire a rocket straight up and it must hit the other side of the Earth – or the Concave Earth is a false idea – you have ignored.
Like other dogmatists, you have the misconception that science proves things to be true. That is wrong – Science proves things false.
The great power of science is to identify and weed out false ideas. See Feynman above.
As I said right at the start – it’s your methodology at fault. You will never be able to determine what is false unless you are willing to destructively test your most dearly held ideas.
IDEA 4
The “Rocket” test is definitive for falsifying a Concave Earth. In practice – it has already been done (Voyager, and many others) – therefore, the idea of a Concave Earth is a false idea.
It is sufficient to have a single definitive, repeatable, test to show that an idea is false.
IDEA 5
WRT Optics. (goes to lenses) If light behaved as has been suggested for a Concave Earth – modern electronics which have been developed and built using the current accepted paradigm of physics where light travels at a constant speed would not be possible.
Go find an electronics engineer and tell them that light has a variable speed – they will laugh at you because what they do on a daily basis disproves that.
IDEA 6
The bottom line is that no amount of reason or empirical evidence will sway your mind. The problem you have is that any refuting evidence or test (such as the rocket test) you will not admit as evidence.
This inability to admit the possibility and the actuality of refutation of the Concave Earth is the same issue that every dogmatist has.
If you believed that the world was created 6000 years ago based on a literal interpretation of the Bible – you would be in the same boat that you are now.
You might as well believe that we are all plugged into the Matrix and are being fed our lives through a pipe into the back of our skull, or believe that the world was created 10 minutes ago, and all our memories are faked.
Once you admit no possibility of refutation – you can believe anything. Anything at all.
IDEA 7
Another destructive test. Redo Tamarack Mines experiment to discover that the centre of gravity is below us, not above us as was found previously.
Repeatability is a feature of well practiced science.
Why hasn’t the Tamarack Mines results been repeated in shafts all over the world, both before the 1901/02 reports and since. Pendulum behavior has been around “forever” – if these results were repeatable, they would have been repeated, and mining engineers would be all over this like a rash – because it would be their job to know.
But what do we find, Mining Engineers do not subscribe to the Concave Earth hypothesis – do they?
EW my question is for sonny for him/her to explain how the bended light creates the illusion and the requirement that it bends wrt the observer not wrt the source.
The Cellular Cosmogony was Teed’s magnum opus. Teed propounded that the surface of the earth is concave, not convex, and that the entire universe is contained within the 25,000 mile circumference of the inside-out earth. The Sun is in the exact center of the ‘cosmic egg,’ 4,000 miles away, and is actually a helix. However we never see this directly, only some kind of reflection of it. The Sun is dark on one side, which produces day and night. The moon is a reflection of the Earth, and Teed believed he could see outlines of the Earth’s continents and seas on it! Other astronomical phenomena are essentially optical illusions. Besides geology, he also denounces the scientific method, the Copernican theory, the atomic theory, modern chemistry, conventional surveying techniques, and last but not least, optics. Truly, ‘everything you know is wrong.’
Teed and his followers devoted much time and energy to practical experiments to prove the concavity of the earth. Whether there was some deception involved, or self-deception, it is difficult to tell at this late date. Their surveying methodology and the device they used to take the measurements with (the ‘rectilineator’) have both been called into question.
The obvious problems with his cosmology are either not covered at all or brushed aside with a flurry of invented (and often semantically null) polysyllabic words. Why does the sun rise and set each day? What is the horizon and why is it about five miles away at sea level? How come we can’t see locations hundreds of miles away just by looking up a bit? And what the heck is outside???
–John Bruno Hare, June 7, 2005.
Hi Sonny,
Might I suggest that you need to deeply examine your own methods for determining what is factual, what is fictional, and what is unknown – and expect to have to throw away what you firmly believe to be true.
The issue you have in your thinking is primarily methodological in nature – and that is where the resolution of your issue will be.
There Is a glass layer or multiple glass domes within the earth.
Any physical, empirical evidence for the existence of these glass layer/domes?
The one closest too is is about 100km above our heads and ws broken through by both the [snip]** and The USA in order to provide an opening for space (inner earth) exploration. As crazy as all this sounds it is actually a credible alterntice theory to our current cosmological models and in many cases provides better exploration for hitherto mysterious phenomena.
What’s your take on the Apollo missions, and all other subsequent satellite and robotic missions to other planets – did they all have to pass through the “break”?
Given that the engineers that make the probes have to navigate the “inner earth” how are they able to do that without knowledge of the “Convex Earth”?
No Dyson spheres sound bery different. Also please note that in the concave earth hypothesis stars are not massive burning balls of Hydrogen, they are relatively tiny sonoluminescent bubbles excited by sound, this is why they twinkle.
He sun is not a star and the stars are not suns. [This is off topic.] Fly
It is not controversial that scient scientificific methodges direction across media boundaries and when reflected. That is standard optics. I really think you have gone off the deep end of whackyland.
This is not a reflection on you as a person, only on your cosmological ideas.
I will not respond further as this conversation is very much off topic. But a word of advice.
You need to go understand the empirical scientific method.
ExWarmist
I had no idea that this world includes people as patient and understanding as you.
You ought to consider a career as a carer for the hopelessly deluded.
(Or maybe that IS your calling).
Here’s the first few paragraphs (bolding added by me):
It is touted as the flagship of Britain’s energy future: the world’s biggest green power plant burning wood pellets to generate renewable biomass electricity that will safeguard the planet for our children.
But today The Mail on Sunday can expose the hypocrisy that underpins the Drax power station in North Yorkshire – which far from curbing greenhouse emissions, is actually increasing them, while adding huge sums to the nation’s power bills.
Drax was once Britain’s biggest coal-fired power station. It now burns millions of tons of wood pellets each year, and is reputed to be the UK’s biggest single contributor towards meeting stringent EU green energy targets.
And note the side story about former Energy Secretary Chris Huhne. But we’re used to hearing such things, aren’t we! Many leftists – the really stupid ones – think it is all about the environment. Thanks for the tip Barry. Posted. Jo
They have realized that wind and solar can never provide base load power. Hydro has been ruled out as it affects Gaia’s circulatory system. The only thing left is too run coal fired plant on biomass, something which is hugely expensive and inefficient. Drax’s owners are pragmatic capitalists and as long as their jobs are safe it does not matter who pays for the inefficiency. The government subsidises the plant for being green and the public pay both in increased taxes and increased charges. It’s a win-win for those who want to ruin the country’s economy and the green dupes are happy.
What is especially interesting is the article suggests that the EU has two sets of regulations. The first forces its members to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, while the second forces its members to meet certain ‘renewable’ (that is, non-fossil-fuel) energy targets, irrespective of how much carbon dioxide is produced.
But we already know that the green Left hate fossil fuels more than they hate carbon dioxide.
Barry, I think the fact that they are willing to ignore excess CO2 when it suits them indicates that the move is political. After all isn’t CO2 the evil gas that is frying the planet? They overlook it just as they overlook the myriads of birds killed by wind generators and CSP! They want to keep fossil fuels in the ground because these fuels are the best way of obtaining cheap and efficient electrical power.
One of the strange things about leftists is that they want commodities to be scarce and expensive. In particular energy. They think of cheap, reliable, and abundant energy, which can be accessed by even the poorest among us as an evil thing. Very strange.
As long as the ‘biomass’ comes from a mystery (anywhere but here!) place the EU/UK greenies are very happy. After all, for them, it’s just a domestic and not a global problem.
Why are boneheaded greenies, in these other far off countries, allowing this ‘crime against nature’ to carry on? When will other countries, on other continents, realize that the EU/UK is systematically deforesting them, and that down the line the UN-IPCC may well penalize them (not the EU/UK) for doing it. Will that be the day the chickens come home to roost?
Maybe, till then the ‘greenie’ chickens gaze up at the mythically falling sky, chucking “What can be done? What can be done?”
=> They bring evil with their “good intentions”. In fact, they seem to enjoy paving a path to hell with such intentions. Notice how it seems to never affect them personally, while it hurts everyone else.
If you think that’s evil; You’ll often find the Australian version go around to towns that are likely to have a new mine open. What they do is pretend they are one of the locals and during the community feedback process, they submit their “feedback” to local councils. The objective is to stop the mine from starting. Then they leave once they succeed. Back to the city.
aka: Drive-By Activist.
They don’t care that they have denied a few hundred people jobs as long as the mine is never started. The town eventually becomes abandoned as people leave for better economic opportunities.
…This is what these “well-intended” people want. Hold and hamper progress. Because they see human beings are the disease and these self-righteous, self-appointed, moral crusaders are the cure.
It isn’t just Australian mining towns. They repeat this basic strategy in Alaska. They imposed their will on some native Alaskan town that has their annual tribal whaling practices. (They only catch what they need and store any surplus for later consumption…Its not like they catch whales for “research purposes”). As a result of activists, the locals become extremely suspicious of new people who enter their towns and refuse to talk. Some are outright rude to any newcomers. (A reaction that is notable when a documentary team tried to interview locals. The doco team didn’t know why the locals were hostile until a family decided to talk and explained what such Drive-By Activists did. Eventually, the doco team filmed the family’s life instead of the town.)
Look at the way Russia handles activists.
(They treat Western Leftist values with hostility as they view it as foreign invasion to their cultural values.)
Example 1: Russian Security Forces vs Greenpeace
=> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkzjqip7QUw
Example 2: Russian Paramilitary vs Pussy Riot
=> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFrZfluKDrc
…When push comes to shove, activists will always back down in the face of REAL violence and harm. It could explain why Western Feminists are completely silent when it comes to ISIS doing unspeakable things, compared to attacking “Conservative White Men” by throwing “misogynist!” around like a political tool. They know the latter won’t commit violence towards them, no matter how they behave.
It is not just Drax burning wood pellets. The Ironbridge station is also using wood pellets in one of its two 500MW facilities. This power station is less than a kilometer from where in 1709 Abraham Darby I built the world’s first blast furnace fueled by coke. Before then the English forests were being desecrated by the need for wood supplies. Without Darby the industrial revolution would have literally been starved of fuel. In 1779 Darby’s grandson, Abraham Darby III, built the World’s first bridge of cast iron, which lead to the renaming of the location to Ironbridge. The great green revolution is returning Britain to pre-industrial times.
Most are neither. The hardest thing for any person to concede is that who they are and what they espouse is the work of others with an agenda and goal. Will the pawns finally see the game and their unwitting part in it before it’s checkmate? Many wont.
Reports are still sketchy, but I cannot imagine the plant to be still delivering power, or for it to be delivering power any time in the short term.
Luckily, the wind is blowing and those wind plants in SA are delivering power, but if it drops off, South Australia might be in a spot of bother.
I’m trying to chase up the data on which plants have come on line since the fire began, but you can be certain every available plant will be brought on line and the Victoria/SA Interchange will be delivering at maximum.
Well oil well fires were extinguished using jet aircraft engines, maybe SA could rent the F-111 fighter-bombers now in storage to provide wind for the wind turbines?
Australia’s F-111s are either have been dismantled/buried OR in museums. Its part of the agreement with the USA.
=> http://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/news_events/acquisitions.htm
USA’s stock of F-111s were located at Davis-Monthan airbase in Tucson, Arizona. aka: The Boneyard…Last I checked, they were assigned “Type 4000 storage”. Which means they were minimally preserved and awaiting destruction/scrapping. Kind of sad when you see them strip all the valuable parts out and use a giant guillotine to chop the airframes up. (The aircraft aluminum typically gets melted down and recycled.)
Just one question to the ‘greenies’ of the world —
From — “The aircraft aluminum typically gets melted down and recycled.”
How can you perform ‘from arms to plowshares’ with this aluminum when there is no source of concentrated energy, e.g. fossil fuels, to allow this recycling? Windfarms and solar cell can not supply enough energy, if taken from hydro-electric that would mean the grid misses a chunk of the baseload maintaining supply.
Foundries and industrial furnaces (metals, cement, glass, etc) are very energy intensive and can not be run on ‘renewable’ supplies.
Makes me wonder how the greenies think we should live.
“With green power the future’s dull…
…the technology is Medieval”
Like most coal-fired power stations, there is more than one unit. Norther Power station has two 260MW units. This should only lead to blackouts at peak times if there is no backup facilities. In the UK we have a system of backup diesel generators, along with cables from France and Holland. Surely in Australia there will be similar contingency plans?
India G77+ still standing firm. i say to them: boycott Paris:
6 June: InternationalBusinessStandard: Nitin Sethi: Bonn climate talks: EU says no more climate action before 2020
India, China want EU and other rich countries to revise their targets
The European Union (EU) has said it is unlikely to enhance before 2020 its commitment to reducing emissions linked to climate change. The statement at the ongoing climate change negotiations in Bonn, Germany, has led to a war of words between the EU and the developing countries under the G77+ China grouping. India and China are taking the lead…
The talks, however, were a little strained on Thursday as the EU suggested that countries move focus away from what was termed the ‘pre-2020’ action, and look only at the post-2020 scenario to be covered by the Paris agreement.
Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar has often said that the developed countries’ enhanced commitment to reducing their emissions, as required by science, in the pre-2020 stage, is important to reaching a successful conclusion at Paris in December…
In the pre-2020 stage, only developed countries are required to take action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. After the year 2020, all countries, especially emerging economies like China and India, will be expected to do so. If the gap between the required reductions and developed countries’ commitments are not met in the pre-2020 phase, an additional burden will get shifted to the emerging economies…
The EU has said it is “concerned” with repeated questions on the revisit mechanism. “If there are issues that are beyond what is possible to reach consensus on, for instance the revisit mechanism, that will not happen,” the EU representative said…
The Indian negotiator is learnt to have warned: “Everyone wants to know what will happen in the pre-2020 period before committing to the post-2020 scenario. We need a clear decision text on workstream-2 (the leg of negotiations where decisions regarding the pre-2020 period are to be firmed up).”…
The Indian delegation has said while there is time to decide the modalities for the post-2020 period, there is “no time for pre-2020”. It has emphasised that “pre-2020 action will build trust”, and a revisit mechanism is a must…
India has demanded that there be an evaluation mechanism of quantified emission reduction targets (of developed countries for the pre-2020 period). The country has said that along with a gap in mitigation, gaps in rich countries’ commitments on adaptation, finance, technology and capacity building also exist… http://www.business-standard.com/article/international/bonn-climate-talks-eu-says-no-more-climate-action-before-2020-115060600468_1.html
Fiona & Angelique further muddy the waters on the promised funding with every mention of it in this article. however Fabius is getting nervous:
6 June: Guardian: West must pay up to secure deal at Paris climate change summit, warns Fabius
French minister says COP21 climate conference’s success in curbing emissions requires rich nations to fulfil earlier funding pledges to finance poor countries
Fiona Harvey and Angelique Chrisafis in Paris
Rich countries must keep their financial promises to the poor on global warming, or key international climate change negotiations this year risk falling apart, the French foreign minister will warn his counterparts in other developed nations this weekend…
“The question of financing is, in fact, decisive for reaching an agreement in Paris,” he said.
“The promise of Copenhagen must be kept, absolutely – it is the basis of trust, and for many countries it is the condition of reaching agreement. Therefore, it is a priority as president [of the negotiations].”…
***Fabius also called for much more investment into the development of renewable energy in the developing world, and in sub-Saharan Africa in particular.
***He said this could enable the continent to bypass the need for fossil fuels. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/06/paris-climate-summit-deal-west-finance-fabius
Does anyone have any idea how many people will be
attending this knees-up and the total cost in dollars
and carbon footprint ( which THEY should be worried about )
this will be costing?
I’m sure the entourages will be quite huge and there will be
nothing but the best transport, accommodation and meals
for the whole time they are there.
And, maybe a little holiday at the end of the shin-dig.
Marvellous what people will do with other-peoples-money, eh.
I saw the cost of Copenhagen where PM Rudd had an entourage of approx. 150 including some of the local staff in the embassy; from memory it was about $13 million or close to a $100,000 per attendee. Not cheap these conferences, and Paris is expensive.
Yes, the chance of success was small, but the stakes were large. Money well invested if your intent is to put the entire planet under your Socialist yoke.
As long as all utilities are renewable/recycled type, all transport is ‘low carbon’,all excess requirements which are not directly business related are not billed to the public purse, then I see nothing wrong with their shindig.
If however it is the usual high energy, luxury consumption hypocritical affair for these self-styled elites with subsequent huge public cost and disruption, then mass protests should be the order of the day.
Or am I inciting people to …
Good question J T. I’ve seen one estimate of 30,000! Could that be even approximately true? But I’d also like to see the composition of the Australian delegation. Does anyone have a list or a pointer to one?
Cheers,
Dave B
Last month was colder than normal in Greenland and Denmark experienced its wettest May since 1874. Iceland is also feeling the brunt of unusual snow storms for this time of year.
Thanks Barry, its a war of words between opposing forces which will only come to an end when we can prove global cooling has begun.
As the planet gradually cools there should be enhanced thermal contrast between the poles and equator, in the westerly zones, producing cyclonic storms and increased flooding.
New Zealand received a battering a few weeks ago, but the occasional one off is only weather, increasing North Sea storms would be the clincher.
The debate has moved on long ago from global warming. It is now climate disruption. In the not distant past it was called weather. It does not matter which way the temperature moves it is climate disruption caused by man made CO2. Even if the weather did not actually change the data can be made to suggest otherwise.
a giant dose of reality…if only the pathetic little anti-coal activists could do maths:
2 pages: 7 June: CapitalFM: AFP: Coal in the crosshairs in Europe but fuelling emerging markets
However it will be difficult to counter the fact that emerging market nations, particularly China, rely heaving on coal for meeting their growing need for electricity.
Coal accounted for 73 percent of the electricity production in China at the end of the last year.
The International Energy Agency estimated in December that coal demand will continue to grow by an average of 2.1 percent through 2019, even if this is slower than the 3.3 percent average recorded in 2010-2013.
“We have heard many pledges and policies aimed at mitigating climate change, but over the next five years they will mostly fail to arrest the growth in coal demand,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said at the time…
Even if Chinese authorities want to reduce coal use to improve air quality, the IEA estimated that China would account for three-fifths of the increase in coal demand through 2019.
“The country has announced 500 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations in the years to come,” said Nathalie Desbrosses, head of energy market research at Enerdata.
That is the equivalent of more than 500 nuclear reactors…
India, which is investing massively to expand its electricity output, saw coal use jump by 11 percent last year after rising by nearly seven percent in 2013.
Last year it passed the United States in coal consumption by volume to account for 74 percent of electricity generation.
Increasing reluctance by Western banks to fund coal mining projects has failed to curb India’s coal drive.
Earlier this year India’s Adani Group brushed aside a decision by a dozen European and US banks not to fund huge coal industry projects in Australia’s Galilee Basin near the Great Barrier Reef, saying it had “no bearing” on the company.
In addition to Asian emerging markets, demand for coal is expected to increase in Japan and South Korea due to new power plants coming on line…
***“Although the contribution that coal makes to energy security and access to energy is undeniable, I must emphasise once again that coal use in its current form is simply unsustainable,” said van der Hoeven…
Price continues to play in coal’s favour as mining companies have cut production costs… http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/business/2015/06/coal-in-the-crosshairs-in-europe-but-fuelling-emerging-markets/
Maria van der Hoeven – shut down your own country, The Netherlands, in that case, but don’t tell emerging markets to forgo development.
Was I dreaming, or was it the case that at least 1 bank was cajoled into saying they were not lending money for the Galilee basin project, despite the fact that they were never approached by the Adani Group or their subsidiaries? The headline being, of course, ‘bank will not fund coal project’, which is technically correct, I suppose…
I, too, am refusing to fund Australian coal-based power plants. My subsidiary lending institution, West Bank of Schmidt Creek, will not advance them a dime, assuming we had one.
It is good news that the injuries were not severe.
Why was it a news item?
It is in fact a freak of nature. Leigh Creek coal does not normally burn very well at all. However, when it does burn, it produces a lot of SEEOHTOO – aaaahhhhhggggg.
I am not going to comment on the specifics of these legal proceedings at all, except for 1 aspect – who paid for the legal representation? – SHY, The Greens, or the taxpayer?
Had this involved anyone except a Greens or Labor person, there would have been at least 1 sentence saying who was funding the case, but in classic ABC style, there’s no need to mention that sort of detail if it’s a Greens person, eh?
“Australia has become a climate change “free-rider”, dropping off the list of nations taking “credible” action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, according to a panel led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.”
What has happened to Global Warming? Since the IPCC and Pacauri personally admitted ‘the pause’ for ‘a decade’, the usual suspects have gone very quiet. The Barrier Reef is not under threat, according to the UN group UNESCO, although the Greens and the Guardian are crying bribery and corruption. The horror stories of species extinction and lost caribou and vanishing ice have vanished from the press. Volcanoes are actually getting news coverage and Australia’s angry summer was again not very angry at all. Down south, quite cool.
So are we in the eye of a media storm where everything just appears calm? Or have real world problems in Ukraine, Syria, Libya actually drowned out the fake ones?
Even Flannery, that wind vane of populist scaremongering has not jumped up to claim the storms in NSW were Climate Change? Why not? The last we saw of him smiling was his accouncement that his council received millions in donations. Why?
Perhaps the Big Wind, Big Carbon lobby simply wants to calm things down as claiming everything is due to CO2 is losing credibility and the world is clearly not warming at all. Perhaps the word is out that they need to consolidate their gains, now that so many people think Climate Change itself is established science and carbon is pollution and renewables seem like a good idea anyway and the money is flowing very nicely indeed. Then if the world actually cools, that is proof of Climate Change! Who needs science?
A primary claim for the cause of global warming has always been that the Earth suffers a “greenhouse effect”, being 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is calculated from the difference between the estimated global surface temperature of 15 deg.C and the estimated temperature of the Earth without greenhouse gases. How many of the public are aware of the method used to calculate the latter?
The calculated temperature is derived from the surface temperature of the Sun, the radius of the Sun, the distance of the Earth’s orbit from the centre of the Sun and the radius of the Earth using the Stefan Boltzmann equation with an albedo of 0.3 to give an effective blackbody temperature of -18 deg.C.
Behind this seemingly innocuous calculation is hidden rarely stated assumptions. For example the Stefan Boltzmann equation applies to radiation from a cavity in thermal equilibrium emitting directly into a vacuum. That means that the model Earth is a perfectly smooth sphere with a uniform surface, no oceans, forests, deserts, mountains, ice sheets and, amazingly, no atmosphere, with the same surface temperature everywhere, that is, no day or night. Furthermore the model assumes that the Sun’s insolation is spread uniformly across the whole Earth surface so no equator and no ice-covered poles, just a uniform solid surface with a uniform albedo of 0.3 everywhere receiving a uniform insolation of one quarter of the Sun’s known insolation, everywhere across the spherical surface of the Earth. Does anyone think that this is a reasonable model of the Earth from which to estimate the “greenhouse effect”, that is, the temperature difference between an Earth with and without “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere when the model does not even include an atmosphere?
How is it that this fictitious figure has continued to be used over the past 30 years by the IPCC? I suspect that it is now taught to school children and even university students. Have we no physicists, mathematicians, astronomers or competent scientists left in Australia? Our Australian Academy of Science promulgates this fiction on their Web site as does the Federal Government Department of Environment and the CSIRO 2011 publication “Climate Change”.
Now we are likely to handicap our economy with Renewable Energy Targets at the behest of the rest of the world. Not only do we lack scientists with integrity but apparently we lack back- bone as a nation.
Rick Will, the IPCC FAR 1990, Working Group 1, Introduction, page xxxvii shows a table comparing the Surface Pressure (relative to Earth), the Main Greenhouse Gases, the Surface temperature in absence of Greenhouse effect, Observed Surface Temperature and Warming due to Greenhouse Effect for Venus, Earth and Mars. In spite of the obvious correspondence between the surface pressure and temperature for the three planets, the IPCC report stated that “…their surface temperatures are in good agreement with those calculated on the basis of greenhouse effect theory.” The Earth’s surface temperature in the absence of the greenhouse effect is stated as -18 deg C.
In “Climate Change”, CSIRO, 2011, Introduction, at page x, it states “The surface of the planet would be more than 30 deg C cooler than it is now without this natural greenhouse effect, …”. Later at Chapter 2, page 16 it states “… maintain the planet at about 32 deg C warmer than it would otherwise be.” I do not know whether or not the fictitious -18 deg C figure is quoted. Perhaps the CSIRO was too embarrassed to quote a result from such a ridiculous model.
Bevan, Thank you for the links. I have seen the black body temperature theory where global albedo is averaged but only in school level explanations.
The actual atmospheric models that forecast rising temperatures due to additional CO2 are not as primitive as taking global average albedo and taking an arbitrary surface in the atmosphere as the blackbody equivalent. The models divide the atmosphere into cells above a surface and then set parameters for absorption, reflectance and transmittance of incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation amongst other parameters such as the sensitivity of the various parameters to CO2 for each cell as well as the surface .
To my knowledge all models use a single variable for the sun, solar insolation, that varies over a small range based on geometry of earth relative to sun. There is also a parameter for the feedback of CO2 and it is always assumed positive. The models are run historically to tune the various parameters to get something like the historic trend. Obviously the early models were based on records during the 20th Century, generally biased to more accurately reflect the period of heating from 1970 to 1990. The earlier data has been adjusted to fit the models.
The models are little more than extrapolations of historic records dressed up in a good deal of computation and complex parameterisation. In terms of climate factors or even weather factors they are primitive. More recent coupled models now consider the oceans but sun still taken as a single variable with minute range.
Nor is the planet a constant temperature monochrome smooth billiard ball in space.
What is missing from every calculation is that the earth itself is very hot. The mantle is the thickness of the skin of a rubber balloon. It has a very hot core. The temperature increases an amazing 25C every km down reaching 7,000C in the inner core. Just as the only path for energy off the planet is radiation, the energy in the planet will keep it warm for billions of years.
In these primitive assumptions you do not read of the energy output of the planet. It is not a frozen lump of rock. Under the 4km of water is a very hot planet.
In the US, everything is kept in cold states at 12 foot down, where the water never freezes. Every new house starts with a house sized hole. Under every house is a basement for access, utilities and a refuge from the cold and weather. It is warm in the ground, across the planet.
The planet is also not a disc with a constant face to the sun. How the energy passes from the planet to the massive oceans to the surface and into the sky is very dependent on currents and the passing of energy during the daily cycle of sun and dark sky. Radiation output must change across the planet dramatically. Then the amount of water vapour changes the albedo continually and it is all connected with the winds, water, poles, storms and currents. Coming up with a predicted average temperature accurate to a degree must be guesswork.
Some of the coupled climate models take into account the heat from the core. It is very small though. It is believed that in the condition of snowball earth the deeper parts of the ocean did not freeze due to the heat from the core. The thick ice is a good insulator similar to the crust of the earth.
That condition would be a stable state today until CO2 built to a significant level where it forms clouds that can alter the albedo. Volcanoes may also play a role to darken the ice to increase solar absorption and begin a melt. There would be very little water in the atmosphere so no snow. The only water is in the deep oceans gradually getting hotter from the geothermal input.
you will see that there is a temperature gradient across the Earth from maximum cooling at Dome C in the Antarctic to maximum warming at Baffin Bay in the Arctic, derived from the rates of temperature increase across the globe for the first 36 years of satellite lower tropospheric temperatures as recorded by University of Alabama, Huntsville. This has nothing whatsoever to do with changes in CO2 concentration as these have been much the same everywhere.
In spite of evidence like this, we still have the world leaders flocking to the IPCC church to beg forgiveness and pay out whatever is necessary of our money to please the Climate Change god. Worst of all, it looks as though, under the leadership of the Federal Department of Environment, Australia will be joining the congregation.
There are probably several hundred readers of this blog, (possibly many more). most of them skeptical of CAGW. But most of them would probably agree that more CO2 means higher global temperatures, even though the amount of warming (climate sensitivity), may be in dispute. Anthony Watts recently had a long conversation with one of his critics, Bill McKibben and that was one of the points apon which they could agree!
The Greenhouse theory just will not go away, despite it’s obvious flaws. I am not sure exactly why. The 33C discrepancy between observed surface temperatures and a calculated value should focus attention on the calculation. Instead a fudge factor (the greenhouse effect) is introduced to make up the difference.
The Greenhouse theory Is probably good and sufficient while it cannot be tested accurately. Even the introduction of an alternative and better theory, the Gravitational thermal theory, has not even dented the greenhouse theory.
Given the importance of all this to the way in which we are supposed to spend our money, you would think that there would be some enthusiasm among scientists to set up,experiments which could test the predictions of the Greenhouse theory. But no, who needs to do that, since the Greenhouse theory is correct.
In fact the Greenhouse theory has failed all the tests which have so far been applied. It also fails the observational test when CO2 and surface temperatures do not correlate.
My suggestion is that most true scientists already understand that outgoing long wave radiation absorption by CO2 constitues such a minuscule heat event in the overall heat balance of the atmosphere that it is not relevant. My son is a chemical engineer and lost interest in the climate debate long ago as it lacked numeric evidence.
Peter C, as I have pointed out in earlier entries, there are 369 locations in the database of the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases. Statistical comparison between CO2 concentrations and either land (where available) or satellite lower tropospheric temperature for a selection of locations shows a strong correlation between the temperature level and the rate of change of CO2 concentration, that is, the temperature controls the production of CO2 most likely ( in my opinion ) due to microbial life forms. There is no such correlation between the rates of change of both CO2 concentration and temperature on an annual basis. On a monthly basis there is a strong negative correlation between these two variables because of the season life and death process that provides our food and our oxygen supply.
However it would appear that there is no interest in analysing empirical data when the UN/IPCC can manufacture and promote their fiction. Or is it that there is no money to be had from such studies so we may as well sell our souls to the highest bidder?
I notice that the Nowra site is out of town.
It’s time to heat Nowra a bit.
Bring the site into town and put it next to the oven exhaust at the Pizza Hut.
jo, do u need a Tips & Notes?
your website is perfect. no reason to tamper with it, as it would just mean more work for you.
some of us (incl me) do go o/t occasionally (often), but otherwise it’s all working well.
if only we could say the same for our Govts:
7 June: UK Telegraph: Christopher Booker: Insane, crazy – the riddle of the sands in Swansea
The Government’s determination to push through the Swansea Lagoon scheme as fast as possible is sheer lunacy
Last week’s Prime Minister’s Question Time produced yet another twist to what is one of the strangest political riddles in Britain today. A Tory MP was put up to ask David Cameron what he thought about the £1 billion Swansea Tidal Lagoon project, in which it had just been announced that a giant Chinese firm, the China Harbour Engineering Company, is to take a £300 million stake. Mr Cameron’s response was that, although Swansea still has to be given planning permission, in general he couldn’t be more enthusiastic about the Chinese involvement in the future of generating electricity from the tides round Britain’s coasts…
Yet, as I reported on April 18, under the headline “Will Welsh eels scupper the craziest ‘green’ project ever?”, in practical terms this scheme should be a non-starter. On the developer’s figures, the 16 tidal-powered giant turbines, built into a six-mile long breakwater round Swansea Bay, will intermittently generate only a pitiful amount of the most expensive and heavily subsidised electricity in the world. They will require constant back-up from fossil-fuel power stations for all the many hours when they are producing little or no power. In return for the developers receiving a mind-boggling £168 per megawatt hour for electricity, including a subsidy of 240 per cent, even more than that for offshore wind, we shall on average get just a derisory 57 megawatts. Yet the £1 billion gas-fired power station recently built down the coast at Pembroke can produce 35 times as much electricity, whenever needed, without a penny of subsidy…
There are now reports that, with the Chinese involvement, many of the added amenities used to sell the lagoon to the local community, such as a yachting marina, may now be dropped from the scheme. Engineers have expressed doubts over the viability of the 16 giant turbines. A distinguished expert on tidal silting wrote in March that neither he nor any of his “international colleagues” can imagine that the project will not be plagued by its build-up of a million tons of silt a year, to be dumped at a site as yet unspecified.
In every respect, say many experts, this project should be laughed out of court…
Yet the project is tipped to be given the go-ahead by our new Energy and Climate Secretary, Amber Rudd, possibly as early as Wednesday. The real mystery crying out for an explanation is why the Tory establishment should seem so recklessly hell-bent on pushing through a project the experts seem to think is ludicrously impractical, absurdly costly, environmentally damaging and utterly insane. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11657474/Insane-crazy-the-riddle-of-the-sands-in-Swansea.html
don’t know how much longer I can stand it folks
climate disruption in all it’s glory today
80F, blue skies, gentle breeze
here on the front lines of climate change, enduring the ravages
climate reeking havoc daily now
will…hold…on
As I have always said, the main purpose of The Kyoto Protocol is for those Developed Countries to set up an ETS to fund the non Developed Countries, that article set in stone in the Protocol.
Okay then, pretend for the tiniest fraction of a second that wind and solar can actually work. Pretend for the tiniest fraction of a second that Developed Countries would willingly cut their own throats by sending their Country back to the Dark Ages.
Now, pretend for the tiniest fraction of a second that all those Developed Countries then sent a message to the UN saying:
Okay, we agree with every word you say, and we will be immediately turning off all our CO2 emitting power plants,
the largest source of those CO2 emissions.
Hmm, all the money for the UN dries up in toto.
This is the classic Scylla and Charybdis situation for the UN. They know, and they are using it for all its worth.
Say, surely it’s not really just about the money. (/sarc)
and it is time for the traditional Weekend BBQ with steaks the size of Hawaii and lots of “spicy” chicken wings.. 😀
There is nothing like the smell of hickory or other “aromatic” style wood chips that turn the ordinary BBQ into a great smokin’ occasion.
A quick check on Google “play store” reveals nothing from our side(as far as I can see).
but SkepticalScience has an App (10,000 downloads) and there a about half dozen “Green” apps ( 1 – 100 downloads only).
….
A visit to the SkepticalScience website .. they are going all out to be slick and sexy..
the floating magnifying glass over the graphs .. to emphasize the data 😮
and The “Hiroshima bombs of heat” counter 😮
…amusing but on closer inspection (using inspect element) it seems to be a random number generator…
The CAGWers are turning this debate into a circus freak show .. 🙁
Yes, what do you wan’t kitten sneezes, or maybe I can put my 1/2 watt christmas lights over the earth and turn then on or off based on the fraction of predicted warming we get EG just a blank picture at the moment! Exactly how do you say – nothing to see here in an app.
My favourite – a graph of how unstable the climate is being by graphing in degrees kelvin the global temperature.
Jo – I am looking at resources for this, and will check with some of my American “software engineer” colleagues..
I wonder if anyone else here has knowledge of using APIs for Android and Apple, who also might be interested.
It certainly would be a fun project to work on.
” perhaps i need a tips and ideas thread ” , Jo perhaps its time to take another look at the voluntary subscriptions idea,your the hostess with the mostess and with Paris on the horizon we need you fighting the good fight more than ever.My youngest daughter visits a site on her smartphone that has a virtual common room where she has her own avatar and gets together with other kids her age to talk about boys and music etc, perhaps you could have a virtual coffee bar or pub where subscribers can have a avatar and get together and chew the fat over a virtual coffee or beer.would be like having a open thread you can visit every day rather than just on weekends and help keep main articles on topic.Just a random thought sorry if im waisting your time .
Jo i wouldnt know how they work either but there are lots of very smart computer savvey folk that visit your site that might.perhaps you could run a virtual pub as a seperate blog open to subscribers willing to pay a few dollars per month or year{like a magazine subscription}then just post a link to it in the sidebar on your currant blog to keep them separate,so as to protect the status of your main blog.Who knows you may raise some much deserved cash without having to call it chocolate
Also , i would think a virtual bar would be largely self moderating,it only sells virtual beer so there wouldnt be any drink fueled rants and i doubt if any trolls would pop in to derail the conversation knowing they would have to pay to get in lol
A tips and notes thread is a good idea, similar to the open thread and moderated along normal lines.
I see this blog as a fairly large international daily, with a sharp editor at the helm and a regular number of reporters. A T&N thread would help to eliminate O/T on designated threads.
Also, the ‘recent comments’ might be upgraded slightly so that anyone coming here could see at a glance where the conversation is happening.
I see Chiefio https://chiefio.wordpress.com/t/ has a series of rolling posts for people flagging news items. Interesting tactic. Easy to get it to work in wordpress.
First time commenter, aware of you and your site via WUWT.
I’ve only one suggestion at this point for what seems to be an excellent site; and maybe I missed it, but do you have an Amazon link? I (and many others) do tons of shopping on Amazon, and if you get one of their affiliate links, then you get a piece of everything I buy. Not a bad way to get some support.
Jim, I used too advertise Amazon books here but you are suggesting something a little different — like a direct channel link to the whole of Amazon? Something like a widget? I’m curious. I’ve seen other bloggers use referrals.
Lewis, a small note went out on saturday (in the Australian saying that the BOM “independent” report was complete and some MP’s would be advised before it was released. Obviously it must be too dangerous to give it out publicly (in case the skeptics advise the MPs first. Hm?)
At the bottom of the Australian article about the Karl paper and the pause is this:
Meanwhile, an independent review of Australia’s temperature records is complete after widespread complaints about the Bureau of Meteorology’s treatment of historic records. Coalition MPs will be briefed by the bureau and review panel chairman Ron Sandland before the results are released.
The bureau was accused of adjusting temperature records to enhance a warming trend. Scientists have defended the bureau, saying the complaints were raised by “amateurs”. The bureau has said adjustments accounted for changing instruments, sites and other factors.
‘This new paper is especially interesting in context of the Karl et al paper, that ‘disappears’ the hiatus. I suspect that the main take home message for the public (those paying attention, anyways) is that the data is really really uncertain and there is plenty of opportunity for scientists to ‘cherry pick’ methods to get desired results.’
These off topic comments were moved from the Amoeba thread to here – Jo
Jo you say cheaters have been around for a long time im science yet It is apparent that you are fairly monolithic when it comes to the scientific [snip] issues* you dare touch. I understand your approach here – as you once explained the CAGW [snip] is big enough and damging enough to warrant your undiluted attention, and there are many other names awaiting people who discuss the other scientific [snip].
Yet there is one other scientific [snip] issue* that is extremely important to discuss if one is to fully appreciate the extent of the [snip] problem*.
We live in a stationary (not revolving) concave spherical earth. We live on the inside. I.e the earth is concave rather than convex. Light does not travel straight, it bends upwards. The sun, moon and planets are all contained within the earth and are all much much smaller than we think. We do not revolve around sun, nor does the sun revolve around us. There
Is a glass layer or multiple glass domes within the earth. The one closest too is is about 100km above our heads and ws broken through by both the [snip]** and The USA in order to provide an opening for space (inner earth) exploration. As crazy as all this sounds it is actually a credible alterntice theory to our current cosmological models and in many cases provides better exploration for hitherto mysterious phenomena. There is more but as always education is a process of self discovery so i will leave a series of search terms which may help people on this journey.
Concave earth
Cellular cosmology
Cyrus Teed
Tianamin mines experiment
Rectilineator experiment
Happy learning
[* I substituted a suitable word for what I snipped.
** Please don’t go there. It’s off topic and enters a touchy subject we don’t have time or space to deal with.
If you avoid the terms I snipped you wont’ get caught in moderation.] AZ
58
It sounds fascinating Sonny,
However I am confused! Is this your theory or some sort of allegory?
30
Peter C,
This reads like it may have been “lifted” from a Sci-Fi novel.
31
It is The Wizard of Christchurch’s (Ian Brackenberry-Channel) geoperipheral earth model. He postulated it in the 1970s. It was quite often discussed when I was at university in Christchurch in the early 1980s.
He demonstrated that only one assumption – in this case that light always travels in straight lines – needs to to be incorrect for a whole new paradigm to emerge.
00
For goodness’ sake don’t tell Shatzie. Her Earth project entourage will be onto it like flies on a horse bun.
30
No it’s not my theory and it’s not a metaphor or allegory or a joke. After researching conventional heliocentric copernican cosmology and celular cosmomolgy (aka concave earth), i am convinced that the latter provides a better scientific model or theory for what we actually observe. In respect for Jo’s wishes I will not discuss “concave earth” theory any more. Please feel free to research it and, as always, come to your own conclusions. Either way it is a very fascinating theory!
30
Hi Sonny,
I have researched Cyrus Teed’s Cosmology and it’s junk – and not science. Teed himself is a fine example of a, “dime a dozen”, quack psychopath, “Cheater”, bamboozling the gullible to feather his own nest at their expense.
It is in no way a competitor with the current paradigm.
It is a far more complex description of the universe than the current paradigm.
Check Occams Razor for an explanation of why simpler explanatory hypotheses are preferred over more complex ones.
The amount of known, well understood and applied science that would have to be wrong (Nuclear Fusion as a first cab of the rank) for Teed to be correct is mind boggling.
Yours Sincerely – ExWarmist
00
I don’t think Cyrus Teed had every aspect of his model correct. Perhaps you can show me the basic science which proves that the earth is a convex ball and is spinning and is orbiting the sun.
Thanks.
00
Convex Ball from observation and mathematics was understood 23 centuries ago.
Further evidence is unnecessary. Your Convex Earth hypothesis was effectively refuted 300 years before the birth of Christ.
00
These calculations assume light travels in a straight parh between the sun and the earth. This is false.
[This is off topic.] Fly
00
There are many experiments proving light does not travel in straight lines. Current science explains this as atmospheric refraction which is invoked to explain why we see objects farther away than what is calculated based on the geometry of the earth.
So i dont need to prove that light bends in the atmosphere. It is common knowledge
[This is off topic.] Fly
00
Hypothetically, the sky might actually be pink with purple polka dots, and the moon a ball of yarn.
It’s just that “they” have a photographic filter that makes us think things look the way they do.
Then on the other hand, once the halucenogenic effect of the weed disappears, it all looks pretty darned normal.
00
You lifted that straight from the Wizard of Christchurch.
However the original is far more entertaining and beautifully expressed.
Wish I still had a copy.
50
It’s good that Jo permits crackpot voices such as yours to be heard here. It means all voices can be heard, and visitors can tell that ideas are not being suppressed in the name of ‘consensus’ or ‘orthodoxy’- or ‘heresy’ for that matter.
Still; that does create an obligation upon the rest of us to speak up. To denounce nonsense when it appears, so that it is also clear to the casual visitor that we are not accepting nor acquiescing in nonsense.
In this case, there are many disproofs of your ‘concave Earth theory. The first that springs to mind is just this: We have set satellites to the Sun, and its volume is vastly larger than the interior of a sphere bounded by the circumference of the equator.
32
Who “set sattelites to the sun”? And how was the volume calculated? Who verified the method and calculation?
00
Who?
The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) is a spacecraft built by a European industrial consortium led by Matra Marconi Space (now Astrium) that was launched on a Lockheed Martin Atlas II AS launch vehicle on December 2, 1995 to study the Sun, and has discovered over 2700 comets.[1] It began normal operations in May 1996. It is a joint project of international cooperation between the European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA. Originally planned as a two-year mission, SOHO continues to operate after over 19 years in space. In June 2013, a mission extension lasting until December 2016 was approved.[2]
In addition to its scientific mission, it is the main source of near-real-time solar data for space weather prediction.
Other Solar Missions:
Explorer
FAST
Geotail
Hinode (Solar-b)
Ionospheric Connection Explorer (ICON)
IMAGE
IRIS: Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph
Magnetospheric MultiScale (MMS)
Polar
RHESSI
SDO
SOHO
Solar Anomalous and Magnetospherice Particle Explorer (SAMPEX)
Solar Orbiter Collaboration
Solar Probe Plus
Sounding Rockets
STEREO
THEMIS
TIMED
TRACE
Ulysses
Van Allen Probes (Radiation Belt Storm Probes)
WIND
You can view detailed information on each of them from the NASA website.
Who verified the calculations? I don’t know; you can write to them and ask if you think it important. But every high school physics student can perform the calculation- if they hope to pass the subject.
20
So in other words you dont know how it was calculated?
02
Those are very other words indeed.
So other, that it’s the exact opposite of what I was saying.
Also known as a reading comprehension fail.
Diameter of the sun is twice the measured distance to the sun multiplied by tan(half the angle subtended by the sun).
Radius of the sun is half the diameter.
Volume of the sun is 4/3*the cube of the radius.
Interior volume of a sphere with a circumference equal to Earth’s equator: Radius = equator/2*pi. Volume = 4/3*pi*(radius cubed).
You can take my word for the formulas, or look them up yourself.
Now you can insert the measured values, and YOU’LL be the one who verified the calculation.
If you don’t come up with figures showing the sun as larger than the interior of the Earth, come back and lay out your calculations and we’ll all look at them.
10
John, very good you have given a fenwral description of how to calculate the volume of a spherical mass. Now how can i confirm this with a ground based telescope.
According to earth based observations the Sun is a small disc in the sky and looks about the same size as the moon.
So how did we work out it was so mich bigger again?
00
Sonny,
Do you have a problem with observations made from the moon by NASA Astronauts that show clearly, the Earth is a sphere, and the Moon is a large object?
00
2 responses to this.
1. If light bends upwards due to interaction with the earths electromagnetic field then it is a predicted result that at a more central point in the concave earth, the earth will look like a convex ball. There is a terminator line at any altitude which is what we think of as the horizon. the horizon is not due to the land curving down beneath us but is an artifaxt of bent light.
2. I do not trust any government department that produces science that cannot be verified by independent scientists.
I notice that you have not been able to tell me how the suns mass can be independently verified by ground based technology.
Therefore i should just take NASA’s word for it?
Perhaps they could start by showing me a real video of the earth spinning… Believe it or not, these do not exist.
[This is off topic.] Fly
00
@ Sonny,
Neither Google nor I know what the word fenwral means.
As the mod points out, we have gone seriously off topic.
I see that you’ve undertaken not to discuss “concave Earth” on Jo’s blog. Do you have a blog of your own?
00
Hi Sonny,
What are the specific, measurable, falsifiable tests for Teed’s cosmology?
For example, with General Relativity we have,
What are the clear predictions of empirical phenomena such that if they were not to occur, would prove Teed’s cosmological model false.
Einstein had the intellectual courage to propose destructive tests of his idea – what of Teed. What were his destructive tests?
00
Ex Warmist,
An easier question to answer would be to ask what are the falsification criteria for the current model. Thanks.
00
As above,
Einstein proposed 3 destructive, empirically measurable tests,
[1] the perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit
[2] the deflection of light by the Sun
[3] the gravitational redshift of light
[2] and [3] were novel (new) observations, which is a critical feature of ground breaking science.
I note that you have refused to answer my request for falsification criteria.
Please *** The name of the game is Falsification *** if your hypothesis can’t be refuted – it’s not science, it’s non-science, unreasoning, junk.
If you continue to refuse to play the game, it will be clearly demonstrated that you are an unreasoning human being who has attached to his own mind a hypothesis that “explains everything” – and hence explains nothing.
I could just as easily assert that we are all living in the “Matrix” and then ask you to prove that we are not. Which is an impossible task as I could say that all observable phenomena are simply supplied by “The Machines”. But the Matrix Hypothesis explains nothing and adds no value – just like your Convex Earth Hypothesis
00
Further.
As an exercise, refute “The Matrix” hypothesis using ideas from your Convex Earth hypothesis.
You will soon realize that both ideas are structurally the same and equally useless.
00
BTW.
General Relativity is part of the current paradigm of physics.
What you are proposing with your Convex Earth hypothesis, is a replacement paradigm for the highly successful current paradigm of physics.
I think that you are at best dreaming, at worst, hopelessly lost in a delusional world where there is no possibility that your belief in a Convex Earth could be wrong.
And that is the trap that you are in.
00
What are the falsification criteria for the following alleged scientific facts.
1. The earth is a convex ball and we live on the exterior.
2. The earth is spinning
3. The earth orbits the sun.
4. Light travles in a straight path between celestial objects and the observer on earth.
Good luck.
[This is off topic.] Fly
00
Hi Sonny,
I see that you are still unable to play the falsification game with your beloved idea of a concave Earth.
So I will help you out with a single and sufficient destructive test.
If I go straight up, and move in a straight line – sooner or later I will hit the other side of the Concave earth.
The test is this – launch a rocket, and/or robotic probe that travels “up” and track it’s travel to a sufficient distance such that it must hit the other side of the concave Earth. If my rocket does not come back to Earth and continues to travel both up and away, then the idea of a concave earth is dis-proven and shown to be false.
Given that the Concave Earth is a matter of 1000s of kilometers across – the rocket does not have to fly very far to disprove your idea,.
Exhibit A Voyager Program
Now – if this piece of evidence is “inadmissible” for you as it is “Government” – then you have just greatly multiplied the complexity of your hypothesis – as you now have a conspiracy to explain as well.
Don’t you see that the more you have to explain – the less explanatory power your idea has.
Ref the link to Occams Razor above.
And now that I have illustrated the activity of proposing a destructive test for an idea – please feel free to exercise your mind and propose some for the idea of a Concave Earth.
00
Hi Sonny,
Felix Baumgartner took a camera with him to a very great height and then jumped back down to the surface of the Earth – do you notice the distinct curvature of the Earth.
00
Hi Sonny,
You could also stick a GoPro camera in a weather balloon as these guys did, and you could see the curvature of the convex Earth.
00
Hi Sonny,
Here is Richard Feynman on the scientific method.
00
Hi Sonny,
Here are a couple of videos on psychopathology.
I strongly suspect that Cyrus Teed was a full blown psychopath and the twaddle that you believe in was invented purely to advance his own selfish needs.
Ref Fishhead 1 and Fishhead 2
BTW: Do you think that the creator of a Concave Earth is inherently deceitful.
00
Hi Sonny,
One last thing.
Why the conspiracy against the Concave Earth – IF the universe really was constructed as you propose – why would the authorities hide it?
What would be the possible motive?
It seems to me that a Concave Earth would lend itself to supporting Authoritarian control rather than harming it – i.e. There is only this small and tiny reality – you must obey us, etc, etc.
Also – have you noticed how tiny your Concave Earth universe is?
00
Sonny,
I hate to be your critic. But…
With that video you are completely shot down. Your theory doesn’t agree with experiment It doesn’t agree with observation It does not agree with anything except itself, which counts for nothing.
The scientific method proves you wrong. In your position I’d silently fade into the woodwork for a while and hope no one would remember my past when next I comment about something.
ExWarmist has busted your theory wide open — busted all this climate change theory wide open too.
10
Thanks Roy,
Your kind words mean a lot.
Like a lot of people on this forum, I have a genuine love of real, robust, science.
The rest follows from that love.
00
Ex Warmist, i will discuss my falsification criteria when i learn what the falsification criteria is for the currently accepted model. I will ask again, what is the falsification criteria for the following theories.
1. That the earth rotates around it’s own axis
2. That the earth orbits the sun.
3. That the earth is a convex solid sphere and we live on the outside.
Now, i hate to bust your bubble regarding all the video / camera footage shot from high up in the troposphere, but you have made a cardinal error and revealed your lack of understanding of optics. A wide angled lens (of the type used by GoPro and NASA, will cause an illusion of a curved horizon.
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-the-perspective-distortion-of-an-extremely-wide-angle-lens-is-evident-9719923.html
If you study videos released by NASA of the solid booster disconnecting from the shuttle you will see this optical illusion as working both ways! I.e as the camera tumbles and rotates you can see the horizon line fluctuating from convex to concave to convex.
Oops….
00
Also i do not accept the Occam’s Razor argument in this instance. Firstly nobody has yet argued that concave earth theory is any more or less complicated than any other theory, in fact since it is the inversion of the accepted theory you can harldy argue that it is that materially different in complexity.
Y = X
Y = 1/X
equation 2 is hardly more complicated than equation 1.
As for my needing to explain a conspiracy thoery (why we are not told the truth), i suspect you need to visit the idea that “knowledge is power”.
I wonder if it is within human nature to lie? Cheat? Hold secrets? Form
Cults? Religions?
Next time you learn somebody is a Free Mason, ask them what they do…
Then come back and deny that their are groups that operate with secret knowledge.
00
Destructive tests as follows. Based on readily available empirical evidence.
Focault pendulum
Multiple arguments including the “view from Mars Pathfinder Mission”
That the Earth is not Flat
Proving the Earth is round
Ref also
Note that your idea is materially more complex for having to also explain a conspiracy of silence. Ref the above reference to Occams Razor.
Besides which – you have,
[1] Entirely avoided any step to propose destructive, falsification tests for a Concave Earth. Presumably because you lack the intellectual courage to test you own idea.
[2] I have provided you with an two example tests, one using rockets and the other using a weather balloon which you have idly dismissed, without thinking – why on Earth (no pun intended) did Felix Baumgartner and every other astronaut not testify to the existence of a Concave Earth from first hand experience.
[3] Instead of testing your own idea you attempt to simply direct me to “prove” my position first, without doing any work of your own.
I have provided you with every opportunity to play the “Game of Reason” and you have refused to play.
You are simply a dogmatist, or a troll with nothing better to do then waste people’s time. I have no more time to waste on you.
This is my last post on this thread.
Good bye.
Yours sincerely (in reason) ExWarmist
00
So you just ignored my answer regarding the wide angle lens…?
It is surely far more important that falsification criteria exists for the model we “all” regard as being true, than the concave earth theory which is so underground you had never even considered it before i brought it to your attention.
Does it worry you that you cannot find such a falsification criteria?
Ok here is my falsification criteria for the solid rotating earth.
Nasa or other space agencies to provide a single verifiable video of the earth rotating a full 24 hr cycle. Really not so hard is it?
00
Ex warmist,
Another destructive test. Redo Tamarack Mines experiment to discover that the centre of gravity is below us, not above us as was found previously.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm
Really? The only way we know the earth spins is by the 24 hour cyclical deviation in a pendulems swing? You mean to say that the only way this could happen is if the earth rotated? As opposed to say, the celestial sphere rotating? That is laughable.
Also do you have any comment about The experiment known as “Airy’s Failure”, that showed conclusively that it is the stars moving not the earth.
Try harder please.
00
IDEA 1
Felix Baumgartner has eyes.
So does every other astronaut in the history of space flight.
Why has there not been an eye witness account of the Concave Earth from the Space Programs of the world?
Your idea of the impact of lenses is spurious. If there was a mismatch with what the astronauts were seeing with their own eyes, it would have been reported by now.
IDEA 2
and
How about first hand eye witness accounts from the International Space Station
Live ISS Streaming and Live Streaming too
Now that took 30 seconds to find on the web – your not looking.
IDEA 3
I work as an engineer for a company that builds satellites and space technology. The company that I work for could not do what it does if the Concave Earth was a true idea – and since we do – do what we do – The idea of the Concave Earth is false.
I see that my key example destructive test for a Concave Earth – i.e. Fire a rocket straight up and it must hit the other side of the Earth – or the Concave Earth is a false idea – you have ignored.
Like other dogmatists, you have the misconception that science proves things to be true. That is wrong – Science proves things false.
The great power of science is to identify and weed out false ideas. See Feynman above.
As I said right at the start – it’s your methodology at fault. You will never be able to determine what is false unless you are willing to destructively test your most dearly held ideas.
IDEA 4
The “Rocket” test is definitive for falsifying a Concave Earth. In practice – it has already been done (Voyager, and many others) – therefore, the idea of a Concave Earth is a false idea.
It is sufficient to have a single definitive, repeatable, test to show that an idea is false.
IDEA 5
WRT Optics. (goes to lenses) If light behaved as has been suggested for a Concave Earth – modern electronics which have been developed and built using the current accepted paradigm of physics where light travels at a constant speed would not be possible.
Go find an electronics engineer and tell them that light has a variable speed – they will laugh at you because what they do on a daily basis disproves that.
IDEA 6
The bottom line is that no amount of reason or empirical evidence will sway your mind. The problem you have is that any refuting evidence or test (such as the rocket test) you will not admit as evidence.
This inability to admit the possibility and the actuality of refutation of the Concave Earth is the same issue that every dogmatist has.
If you believed that the world was created 6000 years ago based on a literal interpretation of the Bible – you would be in the same boat that you are now.
You might as well believe that we are all plugged into the Matrix and are being fed our lives through a pipe into the back of our skull, or believe that the world was created 10 minutes ago, and all our memories are faked.
Once you admit no possibility of refutation – you can believe anything. Anything at all.
IDEA 7
Repeatability is a feature of well practiced science.
Why hasn’t the Tamarack Mines results been repeated in shafts all over the world, both before the 1901/02 reports and since. Pendulum behavior has been around “forever” – if these results were repeatable, they would have been repeated, and mining engineers would be all over this like a rash – because it would be their job to know.
But what do we find, Mining Engineers do not subscribe to the Concave Earth hypothesis – do they?
Yours sincerely, ExWarmist
00
If light does not travel in a straight path, which way does it bend?
10
If light speed is not constant than E = MC2 has a very different meaning.
Radioactivity, nuclear physics all break down and our success in building nuclear reactors and weapons become unexplained.
Occams razor – you have to account for what your Concave Earth hypothesis unexplaines.
00
EW my question is for sonny for him/her to explain how the bended light creates the illusion and the requirement that it bends wrt the observer not wrt the source.
10
An excellent question Gee Aye
00
WRT Cyrus Teed.
Hi Sonny,
Might I suggest that you need to deeply examine your own methods for determining what is factual, what is fictional, and what is unknown – and expect to have to throw away what you firmly believe to be true.
The issue you have in your thinking is primarily methodological in nature – and that is where the resolution of your issue will be.
00
Sonny says…
Any physical, empirical evidence for the existence of these glass layer/domes?
What’s your take on the Apollo missions, and all other subsequent satellite and robotic missions to other planets – did they all have to pass through the “break”?
Given that the engineers that make the probes have to navigate the “inner earth” how are they able to do that without knowledge of the “Convex Earth”?
Or do they know – and just keep it secret?
Or do they fake the missions?
Hmmm.
00
Yes, i assume some people know of the earth’s true form. They keep ot secret.
00
Hi Sonny,
Do you consider famous 20th century physicist, Freeman Dyson and his idea of a Dyson Sphere a plagiarist of Cyrus Teed’s Convex Earth hypothesis?
00
Concave earth, not convex earth. Have a look at some diagrams of lenses and you will understand.
[This is off topic.] Fly
00
No Dyson spheres sound bery different. Also please note that in the concave earth hypothesis stars are not massive burning balls of Hydrogen, they are relatively tiny sonoluminescent bubbles excited by sound, this is why they twinkle.
He sun is not a star and the stars are not suns.
[This is off topic.] Fly
00
Hi Sonny.
It is not controversial that scient scientificific methodges direction across media boundaries and when reflected. That is standard optics. I really think you have gone off the deep end of whackyland.
This is not a reflection on you as a person, only on your cosmological ideas.
I will not respond further as this conversation is very much off topic. But a word of advice.
You need to go understand the empirical scientific method.
00
That light changes direction. ..
phone…
00
ExWarmist
I had no idea that this world includes people as patient and understanding as you.
You ought to consider a career as a carer for the hopelessly deluded.
(Or maybe that IS your calling).
20
Good idea Jo.
00
The Left: are they evil, or just plain stupid? You decide:
How world’s biggest green power plant is actually INCREASING greenhouse gas emissions and Britain’s energy bill
Here’s the first few paragraphs (bolding added by me):
And note the side story about former Energy Secretary Chris Huhne. But we’re used to hearing such things, aren’t we! Many leftists – the really stupid ones – think it is all about the environment.
Thanks for the tip Barry. Posted. Jo
210
They have realized that wind and solar can never provide base load power. Hydro has been ruled out as it affects Gaia’s circulatory system. The only thing left is too run coal fired plant on biomass, something which is hugely expensive and inefficient. Drax’s owners are pragmatic capitalists and as long as their jobs are safe it does not matter who pays for the inefficiency. The government subsidises the plant for being green and the public pay both in increased taxes and increased charges. It’s a win-win for those who want to ruin the country’s economy and the green dupes are happy.
110
What is especially interesting is the article suggests that the EU has two sets of regulations. The first forces its members to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, while the second forces its members to meet certain ‘renewable’ (that is, non-fossil-fuel) energy targets, irrespective of how much carbon dioxide is produced.
But we already know that the green Left hate fossil fuels more than they hate carbon dioxide.
90
Barry, I think the fact that they are willing to ignore excess CO2 when it suits them indicates that the move is political. After all isn’t CO2 the evil gas that is frying the planet? They overlook it just as they overlook the myriads of birds killed by wind generators and CSP! They want to keep fossil fuels in the ground because these fuels are the best way of obtaining cheap and efficient electrical power.
70
One of the strange things about leftists is that they want commodities to be scarce and expensive. In particular energy. They think of cheap, reliable, and abundant energy, which can be accessed by even the poorest among us as an evil thing. Very strange.
30
As long as the ‘biomass’ comes from a mystery (anywhere but here!) place the EU/UK greenies are very happy. After all, for them, it’s just a domestic and not a global problem.
Why are boneheaded greenies, in these other far off countries, allowing this ‘crime against nature’ to carry on? When will other countries, on other continents, realize that the EU/UK is systematically deforesting them, and that down the line the UN-IPCC may well penalize them (not the EU/UK) for doing it. Will that be the day the chickens come home to roost?
Maybe, till then the ‘greenie’ chickens gaze up at the mythically falling sky, chucking “What can be done? What can be done?”
101
=> They bring evil with their “good intentions”. In fact, they seem to enjoy paving a path to hell with such intentions. Notice how it seems to never affect them personally, while it hurts everyone else.
If you think that’s evil; You’ll often find the Australian version go around to towns that are likely to have a new mine open. What they do is pretend they are one of the locals and during the community feedback process, they submit their “feedback” to local councils. The objective is to stop the mine from starting. Then they leave once they succeed. Back to the city.
aka: Drive-By Activist.
They don’t care that they have denied a few hundred people jobs as long as the mine is never started. The town eventually becomes abandoned as people leave for better economic opportunities.
…This is what these “well-intended” people want. Hold and hamper progress. Because they see human beings are the disease and these self-righteous, self-appointed, moral crusaders are the cure.
It isn’t just Australian mining towns. They repeat this basic strategy in Alaska. They imposed their will on some native Alaskan town that has their annual tribal whaling practices. (They only catch what they need and store any surplus for later consumption…Its not like they catch whales for “research purposes”). As a result of activists, the locals become extremely suspicious of new people who enter their towns and refuse to talk. Some are outright rude to any newcomers. (A reaction that is notable when a documentary team tried to interview locals. The doco team didn’t know why the locals were hostile until a family decided to talk and explained what such Drive-By Activists did. Eventually, the doco team filmed the family’s life instead of the town.)
Look at the way Russia handles activists.
(They treat Western Leftist values with hostility as they view it as foreign invasion to their cultural values.)
Example 1: Russian Security Forces vs Greenpeace
=> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkzjqip7QUw
Example 2: Russian Paramilitary vs Pussy Riot
=> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFrZfluKDrc
…When push comes to shove, activists will always back down in the face of REAL violence and harm. It could explain why Western Feminists are completely silent when it comes to ISIS doing unspeakable things, compared to attacking “Conservative White Men” by throwing “misogynist!” around like a political tool. They know the latter won’t commit violence towards them, no matter how they behave.
111
It is not just Drax burning wood pellets. The Ironbridge station is also using wood pellets in one of its two 500MW facilities. This power station is less than a kilometer from where in 1709 Abraham Darby I built the world’s first blast furnace fueled by coke. Before then the English forests were being desecrated by the need for wood supplies. Without Darby the industrial revolution would have literally been starved of fuel. In 1779 Darby’s grandson, Abraham Darby III, built the World’s first bridge of cast iron, which lead to the renaming of the location to Ironbridge. The great green revolution is returning Britain to pre-industrial times.
50
“The Left: are they evil, or just plain stupid?”
Most are neither. The hardest thing for any person to concede is that who they are and what they espouse is the work of others with an agenda and goal. Will the pawns finally see the game and their unwitting part in it before it’s checkmate? Many wont.
00
Let’s hope the wind keeps blowing like it is now in South Australia.
There’s been an explosion and fire at the Northern Power Station, South Australia’s only remaining coal fired power plant.
Reports are still sketchy, but I cannot imagine the plant to be still delivering power, or for it to be delivering power any time in the short term.
Luckily, the wind is blowing and those wind plants in SA are delivering power, but if it drops off, South Australia might be in a spot of bother.
I’m trying to chase up the data on which plants have come on line since the fire began, but you can be certain every available plant will be brought on line and the Victoria/SA Interchange will be delivering at maximum.
Tony.
130
Well oil well fires were extinguished using jet aircraft engines, maybe SA could rent the F-111 fighter-bombers now in storage to provide wind for the wind turbines?
[wink]
40
Most of them are now buried!
Tony.
40
Australia’s F-111s are either have been dismantled/buried OR in museums. Its part of the agreement with the USA.
=> http://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/news_events/acquisitions.htm
USA’s stock of F-111s were located at Davis-Monthan airbase in Tucson, Arizona. aka: The Boneyard…Last I checked, they were assigned “Type 4000 storage”. Which means they were minimally preserved and awaiting destruction/scrapping. Kind of sad when you see them strip all the valuable parts out and use a giant guillotine to chop the airframes up. (The aircraft aluminum typically gets melted down and recycled.)
30
aussieguy
Just one question to the ‘greenies’ of the world —
From —
“The aircraft aluminum typically gets melted down and recycled.”
How can you perform ‘from arms to plowshares’ with this aluminum when there is no source of concentrated energy, e.g. fossil fuels, to allow this recycling? Windfarms and solar cell can not supply enough energy, if taken from hydro-electric that would mean the grid misses a chunk of the baseload maintaining supply.
Foundries and industrial furnaces (metals, cement, glass, etc) are very energy intensive and can not be run on ‘renewable’ supplies.
Makes me wonder how the greenies think we should live.
50
Tomomason,
The greenies don’t expect US to live.
ONLY THEM.
40
Wind power dropping as we speak.
Down 250MW in the last hour.
Unit One at Northern was delivering its power right up until between 1215 and 1200, and then went offline.
Tony.
80
Like most coal-fired power stations, there is more than one unit. Norther Power station has two 260MW units. This should only lead to blackouts at peak times if there is no backup facilities. In the UK we have a system of backup diesel generators, along with cables from France and Holland. Surely in Australia there will be similar contingency plans?
30
Our eastern seaboard, including South Australia, has an interconnected grid.
Power, at a much higher price, will be imported to keep the windmills turning.
30
the first two comments have been noted.
India G77+ still standing firm. i say to them: boycott Paris:
6 June: InternationalBusinessStandard: Nitin Sethi: Bonn climate talks: EU says no more climate action before 2020
India, China want EU and other rich countries to revise their targets
The European Union (EU) has said it is unlikely to enhance before 2020 its commitment to reducing emissions linked to climate change. The statement at the ongoing climate change negotiations in Bonn, Germany, has led to a war of words between the EU and the developing countries under the G77+ China grouping. India and China are taking the lead…
The talks, however, were a little strained on Thursday as the EU suggested that countries move focus away from what was termed the ‘pre-2020’ action, and look only at the post-2020 scenario to be covered by the Paris agreement.
Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar has often said that the developed countries’ enhanced commitment to reducing their emissions, as required by science, in the pre-2020 stage, is important to reaching a successful conclusion at Paris in December…
In the pre-2020 stage, only developed countries are required to take action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. After the year 2020, all countries, especially emerging economies like China and India, will be expected to do so. If the gap between the required reductions and developed countries’ commitments are not met in the pre-2020 phase, an additional burden will get shifted to the emerging economies…
The EU has said it is “concerned” with repeated questions on the revisit mechanism. “If there are issues that are beyond what is possible to reach consensus on, for instance the revisit mechanism, that will not happen,” the EU representative said…
The Indian negotiator is learnt to have warned: “Everyone wants to know what will happen in the pre-2020 period before committing to the post-2020 scenario. We need a clear decision text on workstream-2 (the leg of negotiations where decisions regarding the pre-2020 period are to be firmed up).”…
The Indian delegation has said while there is time to decide the modalities for the post-2020 period, there is “no time for pre-2020”. It has emphasised that “pre-2020 action will build trust”, and a revisit mechanism is a must…
India has demanded that there be an evaluation mechanism of quantified emission reduction targets (of developed countries for the pre-2020 period). The country has said that along with a gap in mitigation, gaps in rich countries’ commitments on adaptation, finance, technology and capacity building also exist…
http://www.business-standard.com/article/international/bonn-climate-talks-eu-says-no-more-climate-action-before-2020-115060600468_1.html
63
Fiona & Angelique further muddy the waters on the promised funding with every mention of it in this article. however Fabius is getting nervous:
6 June: Guardian: West must pay up to secure deal at Paris climate change summit, warns Fabius
French minister says COP21 climate conference’s success in curbing emissions requires rich nations to fulfil earlier funding pledges to finance poor countries
Fiona Harvey and Angelique Chrisafis in Paris
Rich countries must keep their financial promises to the poor on global warming, or key international climate change negotiations this year risk falling apart, the French foreign minister will warn his counterparts in other developed nations this weekend…
“The question of financing is, in fact, decisive for reaching an agreement in Paris,” he said.
“The promise of Copenhagen must be kept, absolutely – it is the basis of trust, and for many countries it is the condition of reaching agreement. Therefore, it is a priority as president [of the negotiations].”…
***Fabius also called for much more investment into the development of renewable energy in the developing world, and in sub-Saharan Africa in particular.
***He said this could enable the continent to bypass the need for fossil fuels.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/06/paris-climate-summit-deal-west-finance-fabius
shameful.
43
Pat,
Talking about Paris.
Does anyone have any idea how many people will be
attending this knees-up and the total cost in dollars
and carbon footprint ( which THEY should be worried about )
this will be costing?
I’m sure the entourages will be quite huge and there will be
nothing but the best transport, accommodation and meals
for the whole time they are there.
And, maybe a little holiday at the end of the shin-dig.
Marvellous what people will do with other-peoples-money, eh.
40
I saw the cost of Copenhagen where PM Rudd had an entourage of approx. 150 including some of the local staff in the embassy; from memory it was about $13 million or close to a $100,000 per attendee. Not cheap these conferences, and Paris is expensive.
30
Yes, the chance of success was small, but the stakes were large. Money well invested if your intent is to put the entire planet under your Socialist yoke.
10
Pat,
On the subject of Paris —
As long as all utilities are renewable/recycled type, all transport is ‘low carbon’,all excess requirements which are not directly business related are not billed to the public purse, then I see nothing wrong with their shindig.
If however it is the usual high energy, luxury consumption hypocritical affair for these self-styled elites with subsequent huge public cost and disruption, then mass protests should be the order of the day.
Or am I inciting people to …
… think?
20
Good question J T. I’ve seen one estimate of 30,000! Could that be even approximately true? But I’d also like to see the composition of the Australian delegation. Does anyone have a list or a pointer to one?
Cheers,
Dave B
10
Last month was colder than normal in Greenland and Denmark experienced its wettest May since 1874. Iceland is also feeling the brunt of unusual snow storms for this time of year.
90
Yes, but now that 95% of reputable scientists have re-jigged their propositions on CAGW, we know only too well that cooling means warming.
And here’s a well-written 2013 New American article on the scare (the story links to lots of interesting reading):
Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling
61
Thanks Barry, its a war of words between opposing forces which will only come to an end when we can prove global cooling has begun.
As the planet gradually cools there should be enhanced thermal contrast between the poles and equator, in the westerly zones, producing cyclonic storms and increased flooding.
New Zealand received a battering a few weeks ago, but the occasional one off is only weather, increasing North Sea storms would be the clincher.
43
The debate has moved on long ago from global warming. It is now climate disruption. In the not distant past it was called weather. It does not matter which way the temperature moves it is climate disruption caused by man made CO2. Even if the weather did not actually change the data can be made to suggest otherwise.
113
The Klimatariat want to maintain global warming through obfuscation, splitting hairs and adjusting data to suite their meme.
I prefer to concentrate on global cooling signals.
72
a giant dose of reality…if only the pathetic little anti-coal activists could do maths:
2 pages: 7 June: CapitalFM: AFP: Coal in the crosshairs in Europe but fuelling emerging markets
However it will be difficult to counter the fact that emerging market nations, particularly China, rely heaving on coal for meeting their growing need for electricity.
Coal accounted for 73 percent of the electricity production in China at the end of the last year.
The International Energy Agency estimated in December that coal demand will continue to grow by an average of 2.1 percent through 2019, even if this is slower than the 3.3 percent average recorded in 2010-2013.
“We have heard many pledges and policies aimed at mitigating climate change, but over the next five years they will mostly fail to arrest the growth in coal demand,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said at the time…
Even if Chinese authorities want to reduce coal use to improve air quality, the IEA estimated that China would account for three-fifths of the increase in coal demand through 2019.
“The country has announced 500 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations in the years to come,” said Nathalie Desbrosses, head of energy market research at Enerdata.
That is the equivalent of more than 500 nuclear reactors…
India, which is investing massively to expand its electricity output, saw coal use jump by 11 percent last year after rising by nearly seven percent in 2013.
Last year it passed the United States in coal consumption by volume to account for 74 percent of electricity generation.
Increasing reluctance by Western banks to fund coal mining projects has failed to curb India’s coal drive.
Earlier this year India’s Adani Group brushed aside a decision by a dozen European and US banks not to fund huge coal industry projects in Australia’s Galilee Basin near the Great Barrier Reef, saying it had “no bearing” on the company.
In addition to Asian emerging markets, demand for coal is expected to increase in Japan and South Korea due to new power plants coming on line…
***“Although the contribution that coal makes to energy security and access to energy is undeniable, I must emphasise once again that coal use in its current form is simply unsustainable,” said van der Hoeven…
Price continues to play in coal’s favour as mining companies have cut production costs…
http://www.capitalfm.co.ke/business/2015/06/coal-in-the-crosshairs-in-europe-but-fuelling-emerging-markets/
Maria van der Hoeven – shut down your own country, The Netherlands, in that case, but don’t tell emerging markets to forgo development.
31
Was I dreaming, or was it the case that at least 1 bank was cajoled into saying they were not lending money for the Galilee basin project, despite the fact that they were never approached by the Adani Group or their subsidiaries? The headline being, of course, ‘bank will not fund coal project’, which is technically correct, I suppose…
30
I, too, am refusing to fund Australian coal-based power plants. My subsidiary lending institution, West Bank of Schmidt Creek, will not advance them a dime, assuming we had one.
30
TonyfromOz – hope the injuries are not serious.
7 June 5.03pm: ABC: Four people including firefighters injured after explosion at power station outside Port Augusta
***The fire is not expected to cause disruptions to power supply.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-07/four-people-injured-after-explosion-at-sa-power-station/6528114
40
I wonder how long it will become a story about “power station damaged, but power not affected due to renewables” or something similar…?
40
It is good news that the injuries were not severe.
Why was it a news item?
It is in fact a freak of nature. Leigh Creek coal does not normally burn very well at all. However, when it does burn, it produces a lot of SEEOHTOO – aaaahhhhhggggg.
00
In the run up to Paris a conspiracy is afoot to brainwash the masses anew. The Guardian leads the charge.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2015/06/hey-lets-share-climate-change-propaganda-prior-to-paris/
40
I am not going to comment on the specifics of these legal proceedings at all, except for 1 aspect – who paid for the legal representation? – SHY, The Greens, or the taxpayer?
Had this involved anyone except a Greens or Labor person, there would have been at least 1 sentence saying who was funding the case, but in classic ABC style, there’s no need to mention that sort of detail if it’s a Greens person, eh?
30
The guilt trip to Paris is building substance:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-singled-out-as-a-climate-change-freerider-by-international-panel-20150604-ghgbde.html
And this is how Macro business and its audience views it:
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2015/06/un-australia-climate-free-rider/
It appears there is still a vocal majority not yet wised up to the scam.
Are you feeling the GUILT!
52
What has happened to Global Warming? Since the IPCC and Pacauri personally admitted ‘the pause’ for ‘a decade’, the usual suspects have gone very quiet. The Barrier Reef is not under threat, according to the UN group UNESCO, although the Greens and the Guardian are crying bribery and corruption. The horror stories of species extinction and lost caribou and vanishing ice have vanished from the press. Volcanoes are actually getting news coverage and Australia’s angry summer was again not very angry at all. Down south, quite cool.
So are we in the eye of a media storm where everything just appears calm? Or have real world problems in Ukraine, Syria, Libya actually drowned out the fake ones?
Even Flannery, that wind vane of populist scaremongering has not jumped up to claim the storms in NSW were Climate Change? Why not? The last we saw of him smiling was his accouncement that his council received millions in donations. Why?
Perhaps the Big Wind, Big Carbon lobby simply wants to calm things down as claiming everything is due to CO2 is losing credibility and the world is clearly not warming at all. Perhaps the word is out that they need to consolidate their gains, now that so many people think Climate Change itself is established science and carbon is pollution and renewables seem like a good idea anyway and the money is flowing very nicely indeed. Then if the world actually cools, that is proof of Climate Change! Who needs science?
53
A primary claim for the cause of global warming has always been that the Earth suffers a “greenhouse effect”, being 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is calculated from the difference between the estimated global surface temperature of 15 deg.C and the estimated temperature of the Earth without greenhouse gases. How many of the public are aware of the method used to calculate the latter?
The calculated temperature is derived from the surface temperature of the Sun, the radius of the Sun, the distance of the Earth’s orbit from the centre of the Sun and the radius of the Earth using the Stefan Boltzmann equation with an albedo of 0.3 to give an effective blackbody temperature of -18 deg.C.
Behind this seemingly innocuous calculation is hidden rarely stated assumptions. For example the Stefan Boltzmann equation applies to radiation from a cavity in thermal equilibrium emitting directly into a vacuum. That means that the model Earth is a perfectly smooth sphere with a uniform surface, no oceans, forests, deserts, mountains, ice sheets and, amazingly, no atmosphere, with the same surface temperature everywhere, that is, no day or night. Furthermore the model assumes that the Sun’s insolation is spread uniformly across the whole Earth surface so no equator and no ice-covered poles, just a uniform solid surface with a uniform albedo of 0.3 everywhere receiving a uniform insolation of one quarter of the Sun’s known insolation, everywhere across the spherical surface of the Earth. Does anyone think that this is a reasonable model of the Earth from which to estimate the “greenhouse effect”, that is, the temperature difference between an Earth with and without “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere when the model does not even include an atmosphere?
How is it that this fictitious figure has continued to be used over the past 30 years by the IPCC? I suspect that it is now taught to school children and even university students. Have we no physicists, mathematicians, astronomers or competent scientists left in Australia? Our Australian Academy of Science promulgates this fiction on their Web site as does the Federal Government Department of Environment and the CSIRO 2011 publication “Climate Change”.
Now we are likely to handicap our economy with Renewable Energy Targets at the behest of the rest of the world. Not only do we lack scientists with integrity but apparently we lack back- bone as a nation.
153
Can you provide links to the specific references for CSIRO and IPCC regarding the effective black body temperature of -18C.
20
Rick Will, the IPCC FAR 1990, Working Group 1, Introduction, page xxxvii shows a table comparing the Surface Pressure (relative to Earth), the Main Greenhouse Gases, the Surface temperature in absence of Greenhouse effect, Observed Surface Temperature and Warming due to Greenhouse Effect for Venus, Earth and Mars. In spite of the obvious correspondence between the surface pressure and temperature for the three planets, the IPCC report stated that “…their surface temperatures are in good agreement with those calculated on the basis of greenhouse effect theory.” The Earth’s surface temperature in the absence of the greenhouse effect is stated as -18 deg C.
In “Climate Change”, CSIRO, 2011, Introduction, at page x, it states “The surface of the planet would be more than 30 deg C cooler than it is now without this natural greenhouse effect, …”. Later at Chapter 2, page 16 it states “… maintain the planet at about 32 deg C warmer than it would otherwise be.” I do not know whether or not the fictitious -18 deg C figure is quoted. Perhaps the CSIRO was too embarrassed to quote a result from such a ridiculous model.
01
Bevan, Thank you for the links. I have seen the black body temperature theory where global albedo is averaged but only in school level explanations.
The actual atmospheric models that forecast rising temperatures due to additional CO2 are not as primitive as taking global average albedo and taking an arbitrary surface in the atmosphere as the blackbody equivalent. The models divide the atmosphere into cells above a surface and then set parameters for absorption, reflectance and transmittance of incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation amongst other parameters such as the sensitivity of the various parameters to CO2 for each cell as well as the surface .
To my knowledge all models use a single variable for the sun, solar insolation, that varies over a small range based on geometry of earth relative to sun. There is also a parameter for the feedback of CO2 and it is always assumed positive. The models are run historically to tune the various parameters to get something like the historic trend. Obviously the early models were based on records during the 20th Century, generally biased to more accurately reflect the period of heating from 1970 to 1990. The earlier data has been adjusted to fit the models.
The models are little more than extrapolations of historic records dressed up in a good deal of computation and complex parameterisation. In terms of climate factors or even weather factors they are primitive. More recent coupled models now consider the oceans but sun still taken as a single variable with minute range.
00
Nor is the planet a constant temperature monochrome smooth billiard ball in space.
What is missing from every calculation is that the earth itself is very hot. The mantle is the thickness of the skin of a rubber balloon. It has a very hot core. The temperature increases an amazing 25C every km down reaching 7,000C in the inner core. Just as the only path for energy off the planet is radiation, the energy in the planet will keep it warm for billions of years.
In these primitive assumptions you do not read of the energy output of the planet. It is not a frozen lump of rock. Under the 4km of water is a very hot planet.
In the US, everything is kept in cold states at 12 foot down, where the water never freezes. Every new house starts with a house sized hole. Under every house is a basement for access, utilities and a refuge from the cold and weather. It is warm in the ground, across the planet.
The planet is also not a disc with a constant face to the sun. How the energy passes from the planet to the massive oceans to the surface and into the sky is very dependent on currents and the passing of energy during the daily cycle of sun and dark sky. Radiation output must change across the planet dramatically. Then the amount of water vapour changes the albedo continually and it is all connected with the winds, water, poles, storms and currents. Coming up with a predicted average temperature accurate to a degree must be guesswork.
94
Some of the coupled climate models take into account the heat from the core. It is very small though. It is believed that in the condition of snowball earth the deeper parts of the ocean did not freeze due to the heat from the core. The thick ice is a good insulator similar to the crust of the earth.
The linked article discusses the snowball condition:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/28/study-suggests-snowball-earth-was-real-and-was-reversed-by-an-ultra-high-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere/
That condition would be a stable state today until CO2 built to a significant level where it forms clouds that can alter the albedo. Volcanoes may also play a role to darken the ice to increase solar absorption and begin a melt. There would be very little water in the atmosphere so no snow. The only water is in the deep oceans gradually getting hotter from the geothermal input.
00
TdeF, if you look at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/03/global-temperature-report-november-2014/
you will see that there is a temperature gradient across the Earth from maximum cooling at Dome C in the Antarctic to maximum warming at Baffin Bay in the Arctic, derived from the rates of temperature increase across the globe for the first 36 years of satellite lower tropospheric temperatures as recorded by University of Alabama, Huntsville. This has nothing whatsoever to do with changes in CO2 concentration as these have been much the same everywhere.
In spite of evidence like this, we still have the world leaders flocking to the IPCC church to beg forgiveness and pay out whatever is necessary of our money to please the Climate Change god. Worst of all, it looks as though, under the leadership of the Federal Department of Environment, Australia will be joining the congregation.
00
Your points are well made Bevan,
Nonetheless you have only 15 ticks!
There are probably several hundred readers of this blog, (possibly many more). most of them skeptical of CAGW. But most of them would probably agree that more CO2 means higher global temperatures, even though the amount of warming (climate sensitivity), may be in dispute. Anthony Watts recently had a long conversation with one of his critics, Bill McKibben and that was one of the points apon which they could agree!
The Greenhouse theory just will not go away, despite it’s obvious flaws. I am not sure exactly why. The 33C discrepancy between observed surface temperatures and a calculated value should focus attention on the calculation. Instead a fudge factor (the greenhouse effect) is introduced to make up the difference.
The Greenhouse theory Is probably good and sufficient while it cannot be tested accurately. Even the introduction of an alternative and better theory, the Gravitational thermal theory, has not even dented the greenhouse theory.
Given the importance of all this to the way in which we are supposed to spend our money, you would think that there would be some enthusiasm among scientists to set up,experiments which could test the predictions of the Greenhouse theory. But no, who needs to do that, since the Greenhouse theory is correct.
In fact the Greenhouse theory has failed all the tests which have so far been applied. It also fails the observational test when CO2 and surface temperatures do not correlate.
01
My suggestion is that most true scientists already understand that outgoing long wave radiation absorption by CO2 constitues such a minuscule heat event in the overall heat balance of the atmosphere that it is not relevant. My son is a chemical engineer and lost interest in the climate debate long ago as it lacked numeric evidence.
00
Peter C, as I have pointed out in earlier entries, there are 369 locations in the database of the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases. Statistical comparison between CO2 concentrations and either land (where available) or satellite lower tropospheric temperature for a selection of locations shows a strong correlation between the temperature level and the rate of change of CO2 concentration, that is, the temperature controls the production of CO2 most likely ( in my opinion ) due to microbial life forms. There is no such correlation between the rates of change of both CO2 concentration and temperature on an annual basis. On a monthly basis there is a strong negative correlation between these two variables because of the season life and death process that provides our food and our oxygen supply.
However it would appear that there is no interest in analysing empirical data when the UN/IPCC can manufacture and promote their fiction. Or is it that there is no money to be had from such studies so we may as well sell our souls to the highest bidder?
00
I agree absolutely Bevan,
The frustrating thing is that the Greenhouse theory lives on, despite your cogent and persuasive arguments.
01
Canberra’s cool run similar to the 1970s.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=3768
20
I notice that the Nowra site is out of town.
It’s time to heat Nowra a bit.
Bring the site into town and put it next to the oven exhaust at the Pizza Hut.
20
“” chuckle “”
00
Asked
I like to see some dials on the side like http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
or Graphs like http://energy.anero.id.au/wind-energy
It may be easier for some posters to reference than continually link to them?
Also the Arctic Sea Ice Concentration levels
Plus would keep the CAGW a bit more honest
I’m a visual person – so would make it easier
41
jo, do u need a Tips & Notes?
your website is perfect. no reason to tamper with it, as it would just mean more work for you.
some of us (incl me) do go o/t occasionally (often), but otherwise it’s all working well.
if only we could say the same for our Govts:
7 June: UK Telegraph: Christopher Booker: Insane, crazy – the riddle of the sands in Swansea
The Government’s determination to push through the Swansea Lagoon scheme as fast as possible is sheer lunacy
Last week’s Prime Minister’s Question Time produced yet another twist to what is one of the strangest political riddles in Britain today. A Tory MP was put up to ask David Cameron what he thought about the £1 billion Swansea Tidal Lagoon project, in which it had just been announced that a giant Chinese firm, the China Harbour Engineering Company, is to take a £300 million stake. Mr Cameron’s response was that, although Swansea still has to be given planning permission, in general he couldn’t be more enthusiastic about the Chinese involvement in the future of generating electricity from the tides round Britain’s coasts…
Yet, as I reported on April 18, under the headline “Will Welsh eels scupper the craziest ‘green’ project ever?”, in practical terms this scheme should be a non-starter. On the developer’s figures, the 16 tidal-powered giant turbines, built into a six-mile long breakwater round Swansea Bay, will intermittently generate only a pitiful amount of the most expensive and heavily subsidised electricity in the world. They will require constant back-up from fossil-fuel power stations for all the many hours when they are producing little or no power. In return for the developers receiving a mind-boggling £168 per megawatt hour for electricity, including a subsidy of 240 per cent, even more than that for offshore wind, we shall on average get just a derisory 57 megawatts. Yet the £1 billion gas-fired power station recently built down the coast at Pembroke can produce 35 times as much electricity, whenever needed, without a penny of subsidy…
There are now reports that, with the Chinese involvement, many of the added amenities used to sell the lagoon to the local community, such as a yachting marina, may now be dropped from the scheme. Engineers have expressed doubts over the viability of the 16 giant turbines. A distinguished expert on tidal silting wrote in March that neither he nor any of his “international colleagues” can imagine that the project will not be plagued by its build-up of a million tons of silt a year, to be dumped at a site as yet unspecified.
In every respect, say many experts, this project should be laughed out of court…
Yet the project is tipped to be given the go-ahead by our new Energy and Climate Secretary, Amber Rudd, possibly as early as Wednesday. The real mystery crying out for an explanation is why the Tory establishment should seem so recklessly hell-bent on pushing through a project the experts seem to think is ludicrously impractical, absurdly costly, environmentally damaging and utterly insane.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11657474/Insane-crazy-the-riddle-of-the-sands-in-Swansea.html
51
Norway Ski resort closed due to unprecedented snowfall in summer.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=no&tl=en&u=http://www.ba.no/du-vil-aldri-oppleve-sa-mye-nysno-en-sommermaned-igjen/s/5-8-89471&usg=ALkJrhiQp-WvtESvREezQ59UWVe10mgp0Q
50
Plus the excellent start to the Aussie ski season. Too much warming of the planet is definitely causing all this.
30
don’t know how much longer I can stand it folks
climate disruption in all it’s glory today
80F, blue skies, gentle breeze
here on the front lines of climate change, enduring the ravages
climate reeking havoc daily now
will…hold…on
51
O, the humanity…!
30
Taxpayer-subsidized biomass energy increases taxpayers power bills and increases emissions. A triple whammy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3113908/How-world-s-biggest-green-power-plant-actually-INCREASING-greenhouse-gas-emissions-Britain-s-energy-bill.html
20
As I have always said, the main purpose of The Kyoto Protocol is for those Developed Countries to set up an ETS to fund the non Developed Countries, that article set in stone in the Protocol.
Okay then, pretend for the tiniest fraction of a second that wind and solar can actually work. Pretend for the tiniest fraction of a second that Developed Countries would willingly cut their own throats by sending their Country back to the Dark Ages.
Now, pretend for the tiniest fraction of a second that all those Developed Countries then sent a message to the UN saying:
the largest source of those CO2 emissions.
Hmm, all the money for the UN dries up in toto.
This is the classic Scylla and Charybdis situation for the UN. They know, and they are using it for all its worth.
Say, surely it’s not really just about the money. (/sarc)
Tony.
40
BBQ weekend – “jus’ chillin’ with friends”
Summer is almost on top of us .. 😮
and it is time for the traditional Weekend BBQ with steaks the size of Hawaii and lots of “spicy” chicken wings.. 😀
There is nothing like the smell of hickory or other “aromatic” style wood chips that turn the ordinary BBQ into a great smokin’ occasion.
“BBQ Sunday” … one of life’s wonders
40
Jo,
…or perhaps a Phone App would be nice 😀
A quick check on Google “play store” reveals nothing from our side(as far as I can see).
but SkepticalScience has an App (10,000 downloads) and there a about half dozen “Green” apps ( 1 – 100 downloads only).
….
A visit to the SkepticalScience website .. they are going all out to be slick and sexy..
the floating magnifying glass over the graphs .. to emphasize the data 😮
and The “Hiroshima bombs of heat” counter 😮
…amusing but on closer inspection (using inspect element) it seems to be a random number generator…
The CAGWers are turning this debate into a circus freak show .. 🙁
50
Know anyone who can create a phone app?
Jo
00
Yes, what do you wan’t kitten sneezes, or maybe I can put my 1/2 watt christmas lights over the earth and turn then on or off based on the fraction of predicted warming we get EG just a blank picture at the moment! Exactly how do you say – nothing to see here in an app.
My favourite – a graph of how unstable the climate is being by graphing in degrees kelvin the global temperature.
00
Jo – I am looking at resources for this, and will check with some of my American “software engineer” colleagues..
I wonder if anyone else here has knowledge of using APIs for Android and Apple, who also might be interested.
It certainly would be a fun project to work on.
00
The bottom of this page says this site is “Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa”.
I know nothing of Atahualpa but WordPress has apps here, here and here and a few other places.
This page lists plugins for site builders.
10
” perhaps i need a tips and ideas thread ” , Jo perhaps its time to take another look at the voluntary subscriptions idea,your the hostess with the mostess and with Paris on the horizon we need you fighting the good fight more than ever.My youngest daughter visits a site on her smartphone that has a virtual common room where she has her own avatar and gets together with other kids her age to talk about boys and music etc, perhaps you could have a virtual coffee bar or pub where subscribers can have a avatar and get together and chew the fat over a virtual coffee or beer.would be like having a open thread you can visit every day rather than just on weekends and help keep main articles on topic.Just a random thought sorry if im waisting your time .
20
Not a bad idea Dave, I just don’t know how those work, or how they can be moderated easily. Info welcome.
30
Jo i wouldnt know how they work either but there are lots of very smart computer savvey folk that visit your site that might.perhaps you could run a virtual pub as a seperate blog open to subscribers willing to pay a few dollars per month or year{like a magazine subscription}then just post a link to it in the sidebar on your currant blog to keep them separate,so as to protect the status of your main blog.Who knows you may raise some much deserved cash without having to call it chocolate
20
Also , i would think a virtual bar would be largely self moderating,it only sells virtual beer so there wouldnt be any drink fueled rants and i doubt if any trolls would pop in to derail the conversation knowing they would have to pay to get in lol
20
A tips and notes thread is a good idea, similar to the open thread and moderated along normal lines.
I see this blog as a fairly large international daily, with a sharp editor at the helm and a regular number of reporters. A T&N thread would help to eliminate O/T on designated threads.
Also, the ‘recent comments’ might be upgraded slightly so that anyone coming here could see at a glance where the conversation is happening.
00
The Paris COP-21 official T-Shirts are now available.
http://www.zumiez.com/obey-womens-worldwide-propaganda-burgundy-baseball-tee.html
10
Jo
“Perhaps I need a “Tips and Ideas” thread?”
I’d be in favour – fewer emails to read.
Chiefio has had some issues with WordPress and his tips input, some of this detailed on site as I recall.
20
I see Chiefio https://chiefio.wordpress.com/t/ has a series of rolling posts for people flagging news items. Interesting tactic. Easy to get it to work in wordpress.
00
Man plays Beatles song on guitar while undergoing brain surgery
Man Beheaded for Better Rains
Rain: The Beatles
. . .
Three links are linked, but only on a unthreaded weekend.
20
First time commenter, aware of you and your site via WUWT.
I’ve only one suggestion at this point for what seems to be an excellent site; and maybe I missed it, but do you have an Amazon link? I (and many others) do tons of shopping on Amazon, and if you get one of their affiliate links, then you get a piece of everything I buy. Not a bad way to get some support.
Jim
10
Jim, I used too advertise Amazon books here but you are suggesting something a little different — like a direct channel link to the whole of Amazon? Something like a widget? I’m curious. I’ve seen other bloggers use referrals.
I could add this to the sidebar:
10
New book on the market to help non-scientists understand real climate change. Thirteen facts debunking AGW.
http://www.13facts.com/
10
Has the report on the BOM’s metadata/homogenisation of records been released?
10
Lewis, a small note went out on saturday (in the Australian saying that the BOM “independent” report was complete and some MP’s would be advised before it was released. Obviously it must be too dangerous to give it out publicly (in case the skeptics advise the MPs first. Hm?)
At the bottom of the Australian article about the Karl paper and the pause is this:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-scientists-warm-to-new-brawl/story-e6frg6xf-1227385456622?from=public_rss&utm_source=The%20Australian&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial
Meanwhile, an independent review of Australia’s temperature records is complete after widespread complaints about the Bureau of Meteorology’s treatment of historic records. Coalition MPs will be briefed by the bureau and review panel chairman Ron Sandland before the results are released.
The bureau was accused of adjusting temperature records to enhance a warming trend. Scientists have defended the bureau, saying the complaints were raised by “amateurs”. The bureau has said adjustments accounted for changing instruments, sites and other factors.
30
Geez, Jo, do you know EVERYTHING…
10
Greenlanders feel a chill in the air.
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/06/june-temperatures-in-greenland-have-plummeted-to-record-low-levels/
10
‘This new paper is especially interesting in context of the Karl et al paper, that ‘disappears’ the hiatus. I suspect that the main take home message for the public (those paying attention, anyways) is that the data is really really uncertain and there is plenty of opportunity for scientists to ‘cherry pick’ methods to get desired results.’
Judith Curry
10
Cold kills! Who knew?
https://theconversation.com/cold-weather-is-a-bigger-killer-than-extreme-heat-heres-why-42252
10